Will someone at Bachmann please look into making a Spectrum quality 'Prarrie' 2-6-2 for those of us in the 4x8 layout crowd?
All that's really available these days is that outdated, "Toys-R-Us" quality, "smoking & lighted" travesty on wheels in a Backmann box that calls itself a 2-6-2.
Len
As has been discussed here before, rather than a "Prarrie'" (sic) a 2-6-0 would be a much better choice.
The "Prairie" was not a popular wheel arrangement with the vast majority of railways thoughout the world. I was useful as a tank engine. The trailing truck was great for guiding the driving wheels while running in reverse, which a tank engine will be doing much of the time, and for carrying the weight of the coal bunker.
As a tender loco the 2-6-2's trailing truck took weight from the driving wheels that could more usefully be used for traction, while not really permitting any worthwhile increase in firebox size over a 2-6-0.
Railways in need of an engine larger and more powerful than a 2-6-0 would rather opt for a 4-6-0 which permitted a larger boiler, larger firebox and put more weight onto the driving axles, thus improving traction. The improvement in traction would be most noticable at start-up when a locomotive "sets back" onto its suspension and places more weight on the rear driving axles than the front. Just like your vehicle does.
If the loco has a trailing truck, like the 2-6-2 and even the 4-6-2, then some of this "set back" weight is taken up by the truck and not by the rear drivers, which explains why 4-6-0s are less prone to wheel slip than either the 2-6-2 or even the 4-6-2.
So, the vote should be for a 2-6-0 as we already have two 4-6-0s from Spectrum, even if they do need to issue a "modernised" (Suitable for the 1940s and 1950s) version of the 4-6-0.
The Prarie was very popular with shortlines and logging companies that wanted to use rod locomotives on their longer runs to the mills. Long Bell comes to mind. Almost all of these locomotives for the short lines were straight from the Baldwin or Alco catalogs. Quite a few are still in existance.
The present 2-6-2 was made from a USRA model which in itself is pretty good considering I can get one for under $50 with Walsheart's valve gear. Painted it is rather nice, no NMRA contest model but a reasonable runner. I have a pair of PFM Long Bell 2-6-2s and they are nice, small runners ideal for 18" radius and all.
2-6-2s were made in many gauges besides standard. They were really intended for light work and tight radius. The large Santa Fe Praries were the exception rather than the rule. The Southern Pacific only built two to the Harriamn standard before just going to Pacifics.
Roger,
I already have enough IHC 2-6-0's that I've 'super detailed' over the years. What I would like is some decent 2-6-2's for my layout.
Len
Len.
If you have enough 2-6-0s, then go for a 4-6-0 or two, much more useful than a 2-6-2. A 2-6-2 is no improvement, prototypically, over a 2-6-0.
As for being popular with logging roads that because many logging 2-6-2 soent half their time running in reverse where the trailing truck becomes a leading truck and helps guide the driving wheels through the very rough trackage on a logging road.
However, on mainline, class one, real railways, the 2-6-2 was not a popular wheel arrangement anywhere in the world.
In the UK, other than 2-6-2T engines which were really popular, there was only one successful 2-6-2 tender engine, the LNER's V2 class which could pull and run with the best of them. The others, like 2-6-2 tender engines the world over, were duds once the 4-6-0 and 4-6-2s came along.
How about this for an interesting 2-6-2?
(http://www.gngoat.org/gn_steam_12.jpg)
If I had the option, I'd rather see these PRR 2-6-0's
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/prr4010.jpg (http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/prr4010.jpg)
OR
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/prr267s.jpg (http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/prr267s.jpg)
Paul F.
On a 2-6-2, wouldn't the rear wheels support a larger firebox? I would think so; and if that is so, then wouldn't the weight of the firebox assembly counter the loss of traction on startup, not giving the rear wheels a chance to slip because they were supporting the weight mentioned.
I don't remember offhand who produced the present 2-6-2, but to me it is a poor excuse for a road engine, which a 2-6-2 was intended to be. It looks too much like an 0-6-0 switcher without the slopeback tender, to which some klod added the wheels. Hell, let's just put a set of buckeye trucks under the tender-ANYTHING might improve it's lot...
Now...Off to watch the PATs.
RIch
Rich,
If you look, the Bachmann Standard 2-6-0 and 2-6-2 are both the USRA 0-6-0 with extra wheels added. First clue - count the sand domes.
While I sort of have to use big steam, I really think that the vast majority of modelers would be happier and have a better layout with small steam - and small diesels. Even the Chesapeake Bay and Western, with it's 17 scale miles of mainline track, one way, and most of it is double track, is about 1/2 the length of the East Broadtop.
The fact is, that small steam lasted until the end of steam. The last revenue steamer in Virginia on the C&O was not an H-8, J-3, K-4, or T-1, but a rather ancient K-3 Mikado. Four years earlier they were sending G-9 Consolidations to Korea - one of which might have been past over me at the 2nd Infantry Division checkpoint on a cold winter day in 67-68, causing the driver to probably think that "The LT has gone nuts!"
Gene
Len.
Yes, the trailing wheels did permit a slightly larger firebox but it was not much of an improvement over a 2-6-0.
And no, the weight of the firebox would not off set the "set back" on starting as the set back weight, plus the weight of the firebox, would bear down onto the trailing truck.
The 2-6-2 enloyed a very brief period of popularity, something like less than 10 years and very few designs were successful. Sort of an "orphan" wheel arrangement.
http://photos.nerail.org/photos/2005/07/14/2005071420421924386.jpg
http://photos.nerail.org/photos/2005/07/14/200507142039574464.jpg
http://photos.nerail.org/photos/2005/07/15/200507152059395897.jpg
http://photos.nerail.org/photos/2006/01/22/200601222048202210.jpg
;D
Gene;
Small power did generally outlive larger engines. On the New Haven, the last two engines to go to the scrapper's torch were 0-8-0s. A Mikado was kept on the property at Cedar Hill and used in snow melting duty for turnouts. it also saw road assignments right up until 1959, in one form or another, the culmination being the engine in the movie "It Happened to Jayne".
I will second your opinion about small power on layouts being a little more plausible than the ground-pawing snorting steeds we call "motive power".
Rich
Gene;
Where were you in Korea? I was scheduled for a TDY assignment at Osan, but that got changed at Tachikawa AB. I went elsewhere...
RIch
Rich,
'67-68. Specifically, 14 May (Mother's Day) '67 to 1 June 68. 2nd ID along the DMZ.
Gene
r.cpmier - Had not heard of Tachikawa since the 50s when I was stationed at Haneda (Tokyo International) during the height of the Korean War when many of the casualties would come through Haneda for air evac to the States. This reply doesn't have much to do with the Prairie which I do have one - it runs fine. Les
The 2-6-2 enloyed a very brief period of popularity, something like less than 10 years and very few designs were successful. Sort of an "orphan" wheel arrangement.
Apparently, the Santa Fe didn't get the memo, rostering 238 examples of the wheel arrangement. In fact, Santa Fe converted 4 light 4-6-2's to 2-6-2's in the late 1920's. SF's Prairies were used in all kinds of assignments, including helper service (most notably assisting 2-10-4's on Oklahoma's Curtis Hill) late in the steam era.
Andre
Andre,
You are correct, however the ATSF Prairies are the exception, not the rule, for that wheel arangement. They where also unusual in their large driver sizes, 69 and 79 inches, compaired to most other Prairies and Moguls which had 63" drivers.
Sheldon
2-6-2s were made in many gauges besides standard. They were really intended for light work and tight radius. The large Santa Fe Praries were the exception rather than the rule. The Southern Pacific only built two to the Harriamn standard before just going to Pacifics
Actually, Espee's 2-6-2's were ex-EP&SW loco's. There were some 2-6-2T's built in the 1880's for Central Pacific commute service.
Andre
Andre.
Perhaps the Santa Fe didn't get the memo but it still doesn't lessen what I wrote.
I have a pair of MDC Santa Fe 2-6-2 s and they are a crude but nice running model. #1010 is on display at the California Railroad Museum.
The model took some time to get the bugs out of it an acquire a pair of rear trailing wheels that were closer to prototype and spoked. It is not an exact model of the #1010 as the boiler is shared by the MDC Sata Fe 4-4-2
The last live Santa Fe steam locomotive That I was in was a 1800 class 2-6-2 in Norman Ok. The summer of 1951.
Quote from: rogertra on November 06, 2007, 06:35:48 PM
Andre.
Perhaps the Santa Fe didn't get the memo but it still doesn't lessen what I wrote.
I'd love to discuss the issue further, but I broke a bone in my left wrist yesterday and I have to type with one hand.
However, ATSF apparently did something right with 2-6-2's as N&W did with Mallets (i.e. compounds) when everybody else had given up on them.
Andre
Uh, the C&O received ten Mallets - class H-6 - in 1948 while the N&W class A's were simple articulateds. So I'm not sure the statement "...N&W did with Mallets (i.e. compounds) when everybody else had given up on them." is very accurate.
Gene
Quote from: SteamGene on November 07, 2007, 08:37:33 AM
Uh, the C&O received ten Mallets - class H-6 - in 1948 while the N&W class A's were simple articulateds. So I'm not sure the statement "...N&W did with Mallets (i.e. compounds) when everybody else had given up on them." is very accurate.
Gene
I was talking about the Y's, not the A's. The C&O H-6's were not designed as main-line locos
Andre
Andre,
I responded to what you wrote, not what you thought, Your statement was very general and very general statements tend to be inaccurate. >:(
While I will agree that the 1948 order for H-6s was mainly for branchline, they started out their career as mainline locomotives. But your comment said nothing about branch vs mainline.
The N&W was very proud of its A class Locos and featured them in ads with the Y6 and the J. The Y6 was a modernized USRA 2-8-8-2 you must remember, while the A was an all modern locomotive.
Gene
Quote from: SteamGene on November 07, 2007, 01:38:42 PM
Andre,
I responded to what you wrote, not what you thought, Your statement was very general and very general statements tend to be inaccurate. >:(
While I will agree that the 1948 order for H-6s was mainly for branchline, they started out their career as mainline locomotives. But your comment said nothing about branch vs mainline.
The N&W was very proud of its A class Locos and featured them in ads with the Y6 and the J. The Y6 was a modernized USRA 2-8-8-2 you must remember, while the A was an all modern locomotive.
Gene
What difference does that make? "Modernized USRA" or not, the Y-6b was enough of a locomotive to stop EMD in its tracks for several years as far as N&W locomotive acquisition was concerned. That 's modern enough for me. It's also a tribute to the fundamental soundness of the original USRA design that it could be developed so far.
Andre
Andre,
Again you are correct, but the fact remains that there where only about 1700 Prairies built in North America. With the exception of the ATSF and one or two others, it was a largely obsolite wheel arrangement by 1920.
Not saying it was a bad loco, just not widely accepted and used. This hobby needs more of the common place and less of the "one of kind' models.
How about a list of roads that used them, pretty short from what I have researched.
Sheldon
Quote from: Atlantic Central on November 07, 2007, 07:06:36 PM
Andre,
Again you are correct, but the fact remains that there where only about 1700 Prairies built in North America. With the exception of the ATSF and one or two others, it was a largely obsolite wheel arrangement by 1920.
Not saying it was a bad loco, just not widely accepted and used. This hobby needs more of the common place and less of the "one of kind' models.
How about a list of roads that used them, pretty short from what I have researched.
Sheldon
There were only about 1100 4-8-4 's built. If you go solely by numbers built, the 2-6-2 was a more successful loco.
'Course 700 of the 1700 2-6-2's were built for shortline/logging applications. Not a good use for a 4-8-4.
Just off the top of my head: ATSF, GN, MILW, SP (ex EP&SW), NP, CB&Q, WAB, NYC (LS&MS), PENNSY.
Andre
Sometimes it's good to open the horse's mouth and count the teeth. According to steamlocomotive.com, U.S. railroads had 1,100 2-6-2s and American loco builders erected another 600 for export. OTOH, te 2-6-0 had 11,000 built while the 2-6-6-2 totaled 917.
One thing to consider. Sheer numbers don't necessarily mean that much. There were more Bf-109s, in all it's variants, built than any other fighter in all time. Does that mean you want to engage an F-22 with a Bf-109G?
Gene
I find this thread interesting. A lot of the feelings expressed so far seem to be more from the frame of reference of the poster. To many a decent prairie would be a waste of materials and efforts. To be fair, the type was not exactly the most popular in mainline situations. As noted, quite a few railroads did own them, but tended to use them in niche situations.
That being said, a prairie would be a boon for those of us who prefer shortline or industrial prototypes. Especially logging roads. Prairies saw use in the logging railroad industry in all corners of the North American continent. A prairie type in the 50-60 ton weight range would be ideal for so many operations. No, it won't be for everyone, but there are a lot of us who would welcome such a model.
My dream model would be a 2-8-2 mikado type, of the 80-90 ton weight range riding on 44-48 inch drivers. Baldwin and a couple other manufacturers built several hundred of these for the logging, industrial, and shortline market. Like the prairie type, they have only been done in brass.
Jeff Moore
Elko, NV
Quote from: SteamGene on November 07, 2007, 08:04:32 PM
One thing to consider. Sheer numbers don't necessarily mean that much. There were more Bf-109s, in all it's variants, built than any other fighter in all time. Does that mean you want to engage an F-22 with a Bf-109G?
Gene
Not in a Gustav Gene, no. :-)
Wow; did THis post turn a corner!! Praries to Messerschmidts!
I am not 100% sure, but I think the Prarie type engine was THE ONE type the New Haven did not roster-unless you count the SR&RL-of which the New Haven was a major stockholder, if not owner outright.
Gut Morgen, Mien Herren...
Reichardt
Andre,
I agree somewhat. But quanity does mean something in a historical context when other wheel arangements of that time period where being built in numbers like:
2-8-0 - 33,000
4-6-0 - 17,000
4-4-0 - 25,000
By the time the Northern was even developed, the railroads where in a whole different situation from a historical point of view. While developed in the 30's, most of the "famous" and best Northerns where not built until the 40's, a time when diesels where already on the horizon, not in the hey day of railroad construction and expansion.
As for the number of lines that owned Prairies, you proved my point for me. You list eight out of about 400 railroads that existed at that time. Virtually all of which had the three wheel arangements listed above.
Sheldon
Surely not in an Emil, Roger!
Gene
Gene.
Possibly a "Kurfürst", 1700 built and saw action in the west.
Ja, ich weiss. Perhaps we need to turn this to the Bf-110s of the Lokomotivstaffel? Or just ground them all! :D
Gene
Gene.
In CFS3, I'm a dab hand with the BF110 both as an escort during the BoB , Spitfires watch out! :-), and attacking American day bombers.
However, for night fighing I much prefer the Do. 217. Not a favourite among my flying buddies due to it's low speed and somewhat unstable floght performance, it's easy to get into an unrecoverable spin, but I feel right at home with it and come back with pretty good scores. 10+ kills in one night is not unusual. :-)
Let me interrupt this Luftwaffe discussion with a comment about the MDCc Santa Fe 2-6-2. A friend picked up a kit at a swap meet and rebuilt it with a can motor. Granted the boiler was a bit clunky looking but the engine was a really nice running model. A decent paint job will go a long way in disguising the spartan boiler. He later did the same to a MDC consolidation.
These MDC engines still run flawlessy after many years of operation. Engines like were all there were before the great RTR models that are being imported now and people had to build kit engines.
To get things a bit back on track (no pun intended):
Maybe the 2-6-2's were a niche loco, so were the Y6a's & Y6b's. That doesn't mean people (like myself, and others with small layouts) won't buy them if a decent one is produced.
Len
Len,
I don't disagree, but from an economic standpoint it would make more sense for the model manufacturers to invest in locos with the broadest possible appeal. That is where the 2-6-2 falls short.
Example: Bachmann 2-8-0 - while not 'spot on" for every prototype it is lettered for, it is close, and is a model of a class/wheel arangement of loco that was very common. After all these years Bachmann has no problem selling more - proof it was a good choice.
I believe that a modern, large boilered Ten Wheeler would sell just as well as the 2-8-0. It too was a common type on most roads and lasted nearly to the end of steam on many of them. Both facts give it a large appeal to the greatest number of modelers (not to mention the obvious small layout concern I have preached for years).
And, the fact remains that 2-8-0's, 2-8-2's, 4-6-0's and 4-6-2's where the working "fleet" of North American Railroads from 1900 to the end of steam. These locos are all under represented in the available models - what a shame in these days of such high quality and detail at afordable prices.
Sheldon
Sheldon is absolutely correct about the work horses of the 20th Century. He's also correct that we don't have great models for most of them. Let's not forget that the Atlantic - 4-4-2 was widely used, even to the end of steam, especially on branch lines and commuter trains.
I really find it hard to picture a 2-10-2 or a 2-6-6-6 on a 4x8 layout.
Gene'
Yes Gene,
Atlantics are one of my favorites, I left them out only because they where not as numerous as the others - and I did not want to be accused of having my own rare "favorite'.
While very usefull and long lasting on most roads, there where only about 1,900 Atlantics built.
The four types I mentioned accounted for nearly 90,000 locomotives - more than half of aproximately 165,000 steam locomotives ever built in North America!
Articulated locos of all types combined can be counted in the low thousands, but we have lots of models of those! - Not to mentions those pesky Northerns of which there was only about 1000.
Twice as many Atlantics as Northerns, shame the models available don't reflect that.
Sheldon
As for the number of lines that owned Prairies, you proved my point for me. You list eight out of about 400 railroads that existed at that time. Virtually all of which had the three wheel arangements listed above.
Sheldon
On the contrary. The railroads I listed (except for Wabash) were among the largest Class 1's (I would have also listed IC, but its single example was converted to a 4-6-2 within a short time, unlike Santa Fe which converted 4 Pacifics to Prairies in the late 20's). In the West, the ATSF, NP, MILW and GN are pretty popular prototypes, so a Prairie would not be be out of place.
In any case, a small Prairie of the type used by shortlines and logging RR's would be quite at home on a layout with sharp curves.
Andre
After thinking at length about this large locomotive issue, I think that the possibility of psychological appeal is a pretty good-sized factor to consider. The reason I say this is that the idea of controlling something with a lot of power appeals to most people. Take a look at the cars on the road, the "McMansions", etc. I am not saying that this is the sole reason for owning a Santa Fe (God firbid, I just convicted myself...), but I believe it it is a substantial reason. Think about how you feel about even controlling a 2-8-0, knowing full well what these prototypical machines were capable of doing and actually making them "perform" for you. it does smack of a bit of appeal. It is part of the human psyche and mostly harmless, as well as a good means of achieving that need.
I think the manufacturers are also aware of this, and the track record of sales is a point to ponder. You said it yourself; a disproportionate number of articulateds per the number of prototype actually produced. Would the same result be had by producing the same number of "smaller" engines? I don't know. I am no shrink, just a guy with a thought, but I think it is one to consider.
Rich
Sheldon wrote" -
"Articulated locos of all types combined can be counted in the low thousands, but we have lots of models of those! - Not to mentions those pesky Northerns of which there was only about 1000."
And many of those 1000 Northerns were in Canada. :-)
I believe the CNR rostered the largest number on any single road with 150 on the books.
The second largest in number, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific with 85 never even came close and number three, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe with 65 had less than half the number CNR rostered.
CNR subsiduary the Grand Trunk Western had 43.
The CNR with 150 and the GTW with 43 equals 193 engines of "CNR" style Northerns or just under 20% of Northern production.
So come on Bachmann, lets be having a CNR Northerm, :-)
I think the success of the PFM Santa Fe 2-8-0 years ago was the appeal it had. It was a small engine and, although it was SF prototype, could have a few easy changes (like a tender swap) to make it more generic. Same for their B&O 2-8-0. That is why the Bachmann 2-8-0 does so well. This wheel arrangement was more or less universal.
I have written here a number of times that Bachmann would do well to produce a Wabash F class mogul. These engines were small and were often double headed but they were as plain jane as they come. They also ran into the 1950s so they can be mixed with first generation diesels.
What I see with persons starting out in the hobby is the rush to get things big engines and lots of cars. All bought with no planning.
Roger,
You are so correct! But some how the N&W J, UP FEF, and SP GS series steal all the attention.
While all of these where great engineering achievements, they where few in number and short lived in use do to their late creation.
I will once again remind the manufacturers that I don't own any models of the locos mentioned above, nor do I plan to.
If we must have another Northern, a CNR version would be a great choice.
The two Northerns on my layout are Reading T-1's, much more fitting of my east coast theme than GS4's or FEF's
Sheldon
Quote from: Atlantic Central on November 10, 2007, 08:01:56 AM
Roger,
You are so correct! But some how the N&W J, UP FEF, and SP GS series steal all the attention.
While all of these where great engineering achievements, they where few in number and short lived in use do to their late creation.
I will once again remind the manufacturers that I don't own any models of the locos mentioned above, nor do I plan to.
If we must have another Northern, a CNR version would be a great choice.
The two Northerns on my layout are Reading T-1's, much more fitting of my east coast theme than GS4's or FEF's
Sheldon
Like you Sheldon, none of the locos you mention, the N&W J, UP FEF, and SP GS series, will ever show up on the GER. Neither will any articulated as they were unknown in Canada. I tend to steer clear of any locomotive class that is easiliy identfied with being associated with one railroad. The three mentioned above for example.
However, I can cheat a bit when it comes to Canadian power as my GER is supposedly jointly owned by the CNR & CPR, although I tend to prefer CPR practice. Besides, if someone like Bachmann were to produce a CNR/GTW style Northern, then I'm sure the GER would obtain a few copies, suitably modified for the GER's particlar need of course.
Part of the fascination of big power vs power that is more suitable to a home layout is the fact that there is still a J, and even operational into the early 1990s. The same with with the Daylight, and, I think, the FEF. Two of the three are streamlined, therefor "futuristic." There is also the advertizing done in the past. Why is the Big Boy so much more famous than the Allegheny, when there were far more Alleghenys?
In addition, one has to remember that in the U.S., and, to some degree, Canada, too, I think, big is better. I remember that Range Control at CFB Gagetown was very proud that artillery did not have to calculate maximum QE (range to non-artillery types) for safety because it was impossible to shoot out of safety at maximum range.
Gene
Quote from: rogertra on November 09, 2007, 08:17:56 PM
Sheldon wrote" -
"Articulated locos of all types combined can be counted in the low thousands, but we have lots of models of those! - Not to mentions those pesky Northerns of which there was only about 1000."
And many of those 1000 Northerns were in Canada. :-)
I believe the CNR rostered the largest number on any single road with 150 on the books.
The second largest in number, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific with 85 never even came close and number three, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe with 65 had less than half the number CNR rostered.
CNR subsiduary the Grand Trunk Western had 43.
The CNR with 150 and the GTW with 43 equals 193 engines of "CNR" style Northerns or just under 20% of Northern production.
So come on Bachmann, lets be having a CNR Northerm, :-)
Roger, didn't True Line Trains up there in the frozen North advertise a CNR U-2-g quite recently?
BTW, the SP was #3, not the Santa Fe. SP had 74 of its own 4-8-4's, more if you count the the second-hand Cotton Belt L-1's. If you count the 12 second hand units (GS-7's #4475-4481, GS-8's #4485-4488), SP beats the CRI&P for the #2 spot.
Andre
Andre wrote: -
"Roger, didn't True Line Trains up there in the frozen North advertise a CNR U-2-g quite recently?"
Yes, but at over $1,000.00 per model that's way outta my league.
Quote from: rogertra on November 10, 2007, 07:40:37 PM
Andre wrote: -
"Roger, didn't True Line Trains up there in the frozen North advertise a CNR U-2-g quite recently?"
Yes, but at over $1,000.00 per model that's way outta my league.
Yeah, that does put a bit of a damper on things.
Ever thought of Canadianizing a Bowser 4-8-4 kit? Overall size is about right, but that awful cab just screams "replace me, now, please!!!!"
Andre
You will have to cut the cab off the boiler.
Gene
Dear Mr. Bachmann,
I humbly ask for you to produce a good 1900-1920 era Prarie for the Spectrum line. I respect everyones debate on the vitality of the Prarie in real life, however, 2-6-2 Prarie's were utilized by many Class 1 and smaller railroads for over 50 years. A good, moderized 2-6-2 would fit the niche of industrial, branchline, mainline passenger and logging operations.
I firmly believe that balance must be kept for a product to be viably marketable. Almost every wheel arrangement available has been done by Bachmann and various manufacturers'. I think this is a great time to build a modern Spectrum 2-6-2 Prarie, with the correct tender connection for either a short/medium coal tender or the medium Vanderbilt. I am humbled that you listened to my voice and concerns surrounding the modern 4-4-0. I ask you to consider this request and explore its feasibility.
I would definitely purchase a few.
Thank you.
Frisco_Manny
Quote from: Frisco_Manny on November 11, 2007, 08:07:19 PM
Dear Mr. Bachmann,
I humbly ask for you to produce a good 1900-1920 era Prarie for the Spectrum line. I respect everyones debate on the vitality of the Prarie in real life, however, 2-6-2 Prarie's were utilized by many Class 1 and smaller railroads for over 50 years. A good, moderized 2-6-2 would fit the niche of industrial, branchline, mainline passenger and logging operations.
I firmly believe that balance must be kept for a product to be viably marketable. Almost every wheel arrangement available has been done by Bachmann and various manufacturers'. I think this is a great time to build a modern Spectrum 2-6-2 Prarie, with the correct tender connection for either a short/medium coal tender or the medium Vanderbilt. I am humbled that you listened to my voice and concerns surrounding the modern 4-4-0. I ask you to consider this request and explore its feasibility.
I would definitely purchase a few.
Thank you.
Frisco_Manny
To add my $.02, here's a good candidate: http://www.yesteryeardepot.com/SF1010.JPG
They burned both coal and oil. They were of modest size and it just so happens that there were a number of them that were preserved, the best example of which (#1010 actually) is at the California State Railroad museum where it can measured to a fair-thee-well by the design types.
Oh yeah. Don't copy that ridiculous pilot. That wasn't what was used in actual service in later years. Rather, the pilot looked more like the one on this 1800 class Prairie: http://www.yesteryeardepot.com/SF1828.JPG
One more thing. The 1000 class 2-6-2's were in service for roughly half a century. #1010 (in its 79" driver Vauclain compound as built passenger version) was one of the engines on Death Valley Scotty's special in 1905).
Andre
The first 50 locomotives had 79 inch drivers, all of the rest had 69 inch except for three. one 2447 had 44 inch and was only on the system one year. 564-565 had 63 inch. I think the 69 or 63 inch model would be better thsn the 79 inch.
Frisco & Andre,
Thanks for your support on this request. I believe a Spectrum quality 'Prarrie' is long over due.
Len
I berlieve a railroad movie called "Northern Lights" or something like that had pair of Northern Pacific Prairies trying to shove each other in a contest. Those were branch line locomotives.
Notheless, a smaller locomotive in that vein would be very nice. Pres3nt 2-8-0 is very nice and I have a pair. Even a more modern 4-6-0 like a SP T-27 would be welcome (1930's configuration).
I will say this, even though it would be very road specific, a ATSF Prairie would be the one to do since it was far and away the most common and most successfull.
Sheldon
An SP Ten Wheeler, Lee Riley could put me down for a half a dozen!
Sheldon
THe Bachmann 2-8-0 is a nice rig, but Varney's "Old Lady" had some really nice lines. English now handles that engine, and one of these days...
Rich
The Varney Old Lady was (and is) a nice model. My one objection is the cab casting. It has a cutaway roof and no front facing windows for the crew. The Varney die casting metal was tough to work with and maybe Bowser is using a different metal so a cab change is possible. I had both an original consolidation and a Casey Jones ten wheeler. They both ran quite well. One problem was that the first run had metal tenders that were heavy with trucks that didn't roll too well. I put Tru Scale andrews trucks under my engines.
The engine underwent a lot of changes when Varney started to make things cheaper, Then I believe Life Like got their hands on it and it became junk. They are numerous on Ebay - but beware, they are called "vintage" and "rare" and some sellers think they are made out of gold. Look over the Varney postings and see that the originals are not rare.
If I wanted another I'd get one from Bowser. As for the prairie, as mentioned above, MDC made an SP version for years. Also a good runner, especially if you put in a can motor.
I agree that the 2-6-2 needs to be redone with a can motor drive train. Along those lines, how about a low drivered 2-8-2? Something along the the lines of the OP&E #19 in the emperior of the north? Nice low drivers, short wheel base with inside bearing leading and trailing trucks. Would make an excellent shortline/logging rod loco for small layouts. I agree that the manufactures, all of them, have been hung up on making huge road locomotives and way to many F units! Makes those of us with small layouts stick to other brand locomotives or older locos from Varney, AHM/Rivarossi ect. Mike
On the Varney/Bowser Old Lady, I put a MDC Harriamn boiler on one and it did look decent. I did one Old Lady and a Casey jones so I could have a ten-wheeler. This was done in the early 80s and they looked good. There is some metal removal required for the return pipes for the cylinders...... mounting needs to be addressed but it can be done