The unofficial - We want an EM-1 in N scale next year topic. PLEASE!!!!

[skipgear]

The title says it all......

There are a few tweeks that need to be addressed but I will take it anyway I can get it. I guess I need to finish my kitbash to complete the cycle and make sure that it is announced next year.

If you do bring it to N, please fix the sand filler hatches to match the majority of production. The current design shown only matches the first 7 loco's with the "wide/early" sand boxes. The example shown at the show is an imposability with "narrow/late" sandboxes. The sand filler hatches should be in-line down the length of the loco instead of side by side (left and right of the center line) Only the first 7 loco's were built with the side by side hatches and none of them were built with the "narrow" sandbox.

Pretty please......

[in_eden]

Seconded. Anything B&O. It's like N scale manufacturers don't want to admit that it existed...

[J3a-614]

I would offer the comment that the mechanism for this proposed Yellowstone type can be used for very nearly all the roads that ran the type.  All Yellowstones had either 63-inch or 64-inch drivers (which would also have the same axle spacing, about 67 inches).  All Yellowstones except one used Box-Pok (pronounced "box spoke) drivers.  These included the EM-1s, Duluth, Mesabi & Iron Range M-3s and M-4s (which were leased to the Denver & Rio Grande Western during the winter when the Mesabi Road was closed because the connecting lake boats couldn't operate through the ice), and Southern Pacific's AC-9s (the one "conventional" AC they had, which was reversed from the normal cab-forward arrangement because it was a coal burner--and these were also the only Yellowstones built by Lima). 

The one exception that may not be quite so adaptable would be the original Yellowstones of the Northern Pacific, which for years held the record of "world's largest locomotives" until the construction of the Big Boys over a decade later.  These earlier locomotives had spoked drivers, and a longer than normal axle spacing between the second and third drivers to accommodate the sliding bearing that transferred the weight of the front of the boiler to the lead engine (and of course this longer spacing is on the rear engine as well, no doubt to keep rod sets interchangeable between the two).

All of this is to help amortize the tooling costs. . .

NP:

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/yellowstone/?page=np

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/yellowstone/np5000.jpg

http://mikes.railhistory.railfan.net/imfile/01373.jpg

http://www.montana.edu/wwwmor/photoarc/nixon/nixon-loco/11210.jpg

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/tr_np5005.jpg

SP:

http://thecourier.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834ca83d669e20115722f1ea7970b-500wi

http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/data/1008/AC-9.JPG

DM&IR

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/tr_dmir224.jpg

http://www.johnweeks.com/yellowstone/index.html

http://www.johnweeks.com/yellowstone/ys_proctor.html

http://www.johnweeks.com/yellowstone/ys_duluth.html

http://www.johnweeks.com/yellowstone/ys_twoharbors.html

http://www.railarchive.net/randomsteam/dmir235.jpg

B&O:

http://www.toytrains1.com/images/trains/bo_7620.jpg

http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/5/2/3/2523.1236826335.jpg

[skipgear]

There was a poster on another forum that talked to the Bachmann rep at the show. The rep mentioned that the EM-1 mechanism was a match or close enough for 11 total roads so I think they have more plans for this chassis in the future.

[J3a-614]

Eleven roads?  Then they would have to be considering roads that had 63-inch drivered 2-8-8-2s, or possibly 2-8-8-0s.  The big 2-8-8-2s would include engines from the Western Pacific and Denver & Rio Grande Western (and these were the design base for the DM&IR locomotives); another candidate could be Great Northern's N-class 2-8-8-0s.  That short list and the Yellowstone proper list covers 7 of the 11.  Wonder what the other four are?

[dtpowell]

You can add me to the list of N scale lovers who would definately buy one.

[bnoem1]

If you make this count me in for at least three, maybe four.