# Why does Bachmann's product guy choose the locos he does?



## joe rusz (Jan 3, 2008)

Time to shoot myself in the foot again, so here goes.

I have two Bachmann Connies, which await bashing, and evertytime I look at them I wonder why Lee Riley (that's the design director) chose the prototype he did? I like the idea of an outside frame loco, but why didn't we get a C-21 or something like that instead of this odd-ball Heber Mountain or whatever loco with that unusual valve gear? It seems that every few weeks someone on MLS comes up with a bash of the Connie, in which they replace half the stuff it came with (see Rod Hayword's conversion). My feeling is if Bachmann had chose the right prototype in the first place, we wouldn't have to do all that bashing.

To give praise where praise is due, I like the Mike, which is a beauty, although too big for my railroad. It is at least a faithful reproduction of a very desireable design.

The Mallet, on the other hand, is not for me. Once again, it is kind of an oddball, not something popular like the Mallets that ran on major railroads such as the UP, SP, etc. I'm sure many of you like it, and I'm very happy for you.

Sometimes I think Riley likes to do locos that look cute or have a lot of moving parts that amuse their owners ("you are getting sleepy...". But why can't we have some straightforward locos like the 10-wheeler ( best seller) , which I'd love to see in 1:20.3?

Next topic: Pick a gauge, any gauge.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

I can't answer your question, but I agree with your point. Bachmann does the same thing in On30. Their first On30 loco was a generic Mogul, but at least based upon an American prototype. Then came the Shay - again, all well and good. But then they essentially reproduced the Fn3 Connie in On30. The 4-4-0 they brought out COULD have been a much sought-after model, but instead of a 4-4-0 as was done in Fn3, they instead chose a puny little prototype from Mexico or somewhere south of the border. Their latest offering is an outside frame 4-4-0. Now who ever heard of an outside frame 4-4-0??? Oh, I'm sure one probably existed somewhere, again south of the border, but really... how many On30 modelers model south of the border railroads? 

In fairness, they did produce the Climax and the Forneys - terrific if you're doing logging or Maine two-footers. But for the guy who wants to model an average American narrow gauge line, there isn't much there from Bachmann. I have nothing against "generic" locomotives, as On30 modelers are a bunch of freelancers for the most part anyway, but myself, I'd like to see generics based upon something that ran in the USA, or at least close to it.


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Oh, now you've gone and done it!









I'm not sure how to even address this topic without igniting a forest fire, but heregoes:

The primary issue (on paper) seems to be the difference between narrow gauge and standard gauge model railroading, in that if you're a model train manufacturer, and you build, let's say a GP-9 or a C-44-8, you can make it in a bunch of different roadnames, and people all over the place will buy lots of them, because if you're modelling "modern" diesel in HO, chances are it would make prototypical sense for your railroad to have lots of these engines .... they're everywhere. And, (for the most part) the locomotives of a particular type on one railroad will look very much like the locomotives of that type on another railroad, except for the paint.

Not so, narrow gauge. When narrow gauge was "in" railroads were a lot newer idea in the United States. The locomotives ordered by one railroad ended up looking VERY different from those of other railroads, partially due to a sense of design and style, and partially because they were either adapted to particular situations, or specially ordered to overcome specific situations. Certainly it was possible to order a "catalog" locomotive, but differences in how railroads did what they did made for "family" appearance in a lot of cases. Also, since (typically) narrow gauge railroads didn't interchange equipment with other railroads, the equipment tended to suit the purposes of the home road (see also tender height and style, modifications for extreme weather, visibility, coupler arrangements, etc.... ) where in Standard gauge, locomotives may end up being a bit more uniform simply because they need to fit intot everyone else's platforms, fuel docks, water towers, etc....

So, the result is, while there were a bunch of railroads that had Consolidations that might be a D&RG C-16 "inside" how they looked "outside" was often very different. That means that any model you release of a narrow gauge engine is not going to be as "generic" as a standard gauge locomotive model. Consider the recent K-27 ... the only place this locomotive was ever found was the Denver and Rio Grande System, and later the Rio Grande Southern. If you're an RGS modeler, that limits you to the 455 and the 461 if you're sticking to the prototype. If you're a D&RG modeler, you have your choice of 450-464 ... but even then Bachmann can't make ONE K-27 model and put fourteen numbers on it, because several have outside piston valves, and several have inside (slant) ones, the tenders are different from locomotive to locomotive, and one was wrecked and rebuilt with completely different equipment! And then, depending on WHEN someone's modelling, the locomotives had vauclain gear, then slide valves, then piston valves ... and the colors and graphics vary, but it's not random, specific colors and lettering go with specific versions .... by the time it's over, you either have to make one or two types (which means the folks who want the other ones won't buy them) or make ALL of them and watch some sit on shelves unwanted, while more "popular" versions sell out. Unlike the F-40PH which was different (at least to most) only in the number and the paint version, it's hard to make a "generic" K that lots and lots of people will buy.... and if you're a model railroad manufacturer, that's the bottom line.

So... you try to find something a little more generic. Something with "Classic" lines .... the original Shay is an excellent example of this. Go look at the www.shaylocomotives.com database ... certainly logging companies modified their locomotives, but through the forests of chains, buckets, and toolboxes, the underlying locomotive is the same basic design in many, many cases. So, you can make a Shay, slap a lumber company (real or imagined) label on it, and include some "do it yourself" details, and you can make a locomotive that will appeal to many, many people. And, while you might be able to find a photo or twelve on Ely Thomas #6, you probably WON'T find photos that document every week of its life like you would for a K-27, so as long as it's "close" it'll make sense to a lot of people.

Now, when people clamor for a rod engine, you can go and find a generic one, something that resembles the catalog entry, with NO railroad specific details, and while the folks who want K-27 #453 wtih slide valves as it appeared in the winter of 1938 will hate it, a lot of folks will do exactly what you did, and buy two to bash. The folks who just want a cool miniature train will be impressed by all of the detail and valve motion, and lots of them will sell. And... they have. It's as close to a generic, mass produced narrow gauge engine as you can get.... and you don't have to be modelling any particular railroad to use it. The reverse argument, that it doesn't fit with ANY railroad is also valid, if you're a strict-to-history modeler, but the gamble is there are more folks who don't mind generic, or will want one or two to bash than there would be folks who wanted a C-16 as it appeared on January 24, 1911 on th RGS.

When you combine all of this with rumors (and... this is a RUMOR, plain and simple) of bad blood between certain key Bachmann players and existing Colorado narrow gauge venues, you can see how quickly the search for something else might begin. Once personality and ego figure in the equation, there's often no coming back, which is why everyone was initially so elated about the K-27, which, by all accounts would previously never have been considered because of the rumored flap that had effectively disqualified anything Colorado prototype from consideration.

Finally, think of it this way: There are a lot of people who have become authorities on Colorado narrow gauge, through lots of research, reading, and studies of the equipment that's left. Particularly with the Internet being available to most, the information is certainly out there and accessible, and there are a lot of really wonderful books. Many of these folks are also really good model makers, and have an eye for very exacting detail. When presented with a model of something specific, say, C-16 #268 they're going to know immediately if something is not as it should be, and notice it. It's like asking Emeril what he thinks of the new recipe for truffle stuffed pressed goose under glass you've come up with .... whatever's going on with the recipe, you're going to hear about it, chapter and verse. Not so for the fellow who hands him his coffee and donut on the way in to the studio in the morning ... he probably doesn't even notice anything in partiular about it unless something's really (salt instead of sugar) wrong with it. So, when a D&RGW expert encounters a generic, prototoype-unspecific catalog outside frame 2-8-0, typically they're going to say, "Well, it's not Rio Grande, but yeah, it's a steam engine".... and then probably start making plans to modify it. East Broad Top experts will do the same thing, as will White Pass types... and suddenly we've sold two more of them than we would have if we'd made a railroad-specific loco and made one expert happy, and two annoyed. And the modelers galleries on this and other websites bear this out, as do the two that you bought to "bash" yourself. How many K-27's have you seen "bashed" into something else? Not many, I'd guess. 

Matthew (OV)

PS. Simply because of the sensitive nature of this discussion, I want to stress here that I'm talking about Bachmann's models as MODELS of locomotives. There is a seperate issue lurking around out there involving electrical and mechanical features and issues, and I am deliberately NOT venturing into those waters here, even though I am acutely aware that they also have a great deal to do with the popularity, and ultimate success or failure of various models released by Bachmann, and the various technical aims of that company with respect to model trains in general. For this particular discussion, I am deliberately sticking to issues related to prototype selection, and hoping that others will do the same.


----------



## up9018 (Jan 4, 2008)

I actually think Bachmann does a pretty good job at picking the locos to model. Take the Connie you mentioned,yeah a lot of people kitbash it, but if you look at those peoples models, they tend to kitbash almost everything they own. Yeah, Bachmann could have put the headlight in the 'correct' location and made the pilot shorter. But the locomotive makes a terrific platform to customize it into your own. I think the new mallet is going to be a great locomotive to customize into your own also. I plan on getting one after the second run comes out and maybe some of the bugs have been worked out of them. My new 3-truck shay is on it's way, and it won't remain stock. I guess it depends on if you want to customize your loco, or take it out of the box and just run it. 

I pretty much look at it this way, I can spend $399 on a Bachmann Connie and kitbash it to make it my own, or I can spend $3000 on a Brass Accuraft loco that I would be afraid to put outside. 

You can please some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people some of the time.


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

I agree fully with Matt's analysis. And would like to extend one small point about it.

Most of the USA ng was constructed in the late 19th century and a great deal of the equipment dated from that almost prehistoric period. But the fascination with Colorado ng focusses most often on its more recent past say 1920-1950. Other than the D&RGW and industrial lines, the only American ng with any 20th century equipment were the EBT, the Tweetsie and the WP&Y (plus we should add my favourite though it is not American ... the Newfoundland RR). That leaves us a bit short of prototypes for any generic locos unless one looks to the rest of the Americas or of course to industrial lines.

Personally, since I do not model directly Colorado ng, I have no quibble with B'mann's choices. And for all those Americans who feel that the only place for a headlight is atop the boiler ... I would suggest that the feedwater heater or the bell and numberboards belongs there a la Canadian National and the headlight properly should be centred on the smokebox front. I love my Connie and also see no need whatsoever to Coloradoize it.

Regards ... Doug


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dwight Ennis on 02/15/2009 11:05 PM
I can't answer your question, but I agree with your point. Bachmann does the same thing in On30. Their first On30 loco was a generic Mogul, but at least based upon an American prototype. Then came the Shay - again, all well and good. But then they essentially reproduced the Fn3 Connie in On30. The 4-4-0 they brought out COULD have been a much sought-after model, but instead of a 4-4-0 as was done in Fn3, they instead chose a puny little prototype from Mexico or somewhere south of the border. Their latest offering is an outside frame 4-4-0. Now who ever heard of an outside frame 4-4-0??? Oh, I'm sure one probably existed somewhere, again south of the border, but really... how many On30 modelers model south of the border railroads? 

In fairness, they did produce the Climax and the Forneys - terrific if you're doing logging or Maine two-footers. But for the guy who wants to model an average American narrow gauge line, there isn't much there from Bachmann. I have nothing against "generic" locomotives, as On30 modelers are a bunch of freelancers for the most part anyway, but myself, I'd like to see generics based upon something that ran in the USA, or at least close to it. 


It has been said many times, fact or fiction, that for the On30 they would NOT be picking 3' gauge locos for prototypes, but 30" or lower prototypes. (Watch them do a C-16 now that I said that tho.)

Granted, much of their early offerings are 3' gauge prototype/influcenced, as many were reportedly "designed/influenced" by Ed Cass' Ohio River Western drawings in the late 1990s Gazzettes.

The current outside frame Baldwin 4-4-0 is a thing of beauty, is a surprisingly large loco (same length as the On30 Connie), and yes, Oeste de Minas, in Brazil. 

The inside frame Baldwin 4-4-0 loco is from Pennsylvania, ran on the Mt. Gretna Narrow Gauge Railway, these were TINY locos used for the resort there in the 1800s, so not South American. Granted, they are obscure, reportedly the only 2' gauge 4-4-0s used in the US?

Bachmann is doing a great job of shattering xenophobia of modellers to relize there is more to narrow gauge than Colorado....

And to the original question, why does Bachmann pick what they do? Not to be smart, but it is becuase they can. And so far, they have had several good ones that have sold well.

Who would have thought 20 years ago that we would be seeing so much RTR narrow guage stuff?


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

The current outside frame Baldwin 4-4-0 is a thing of beauty
Each to his own.  
The inside frame Baldwin 4-4-0 loco is from Pennsylvania, ran on the Mt. Gretna Narrow Gauge Railway
Lee Riley said differently. Somewhere there was a photo posted of the prototype upon which he said the 4-4-0 was based, and it was from down south. 
Bachmann is doing a great job of shattering xenophobia of modellers to realize there is more to narrow gauge than Colorado
I fully agree and myself have no real interest in modeling Colorado... however, I (and I think many others based upon what I've heard/read) would prefer locos bearing resemblance to things that ran in the USA. Xenophobic? I guess one could look at it that way if they choose. I'd rather call it "preference." My heart lies in California narrow gauge like the NPC, SPC, SC&F, MB&S, NCNG, and Pacific Coast Railway. 

Like I said, each to his own.


----------



## joe rusz (Jan 3, 2008)

Once again, I am impressed with the posts and the replies to them, on MLS. You guys are eloquent! On a preference basis, I'm kinda in Dwight's camp, although I do understand and respect the choices of others. Ain't his fun?!


----------



## c nelson (Dec 18, 2008)

I'd love some Eastern (USA) Outline locos!


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I keep going back and forth about whether I "agree" with Bachmann's choices for prototypes. Every time I think "what were they thinking?", I start examining things and see things from--what I assume to be--their perspective. 

The Shay, Climax, and Heisler are all models of specific locomotives, but there were plenty of examples which were merely minor variations one way or the other from the models. Since logging seems to be popular, each of these locos has proven to be successful. Heck, I'm not a logging fan, but customized the Heisler to run on my railroad. It's my most reliable "open house" locomotive. (No front pilot truck to derail on my reverse loop switches.) 

The 2-8-0 always gets flack for not being a C-21 or C-25, but something of a more generic model of a locomotive that spent most of its time south of the border. I can't speak for others, but its lack of "Colorado" heritage was really what appealed to me when it came out. I got it specifically because it _wasn't_ "Colorado." Yes, I thought it could definitely be improved upon from an aesthetic sense (and did so to my liking), but had it been a "Colorado" locomotive, I would likely have passed on it. I don't know how many people share my sentiment, nor how many _didn't_ buy it because it wasn't "Colorado." Note how when B'mann introduced the On30 version of it, they extended the smokebox and raised the headlight--by far the most common cosmetic change made by 1:20 modelers. 

The 4-4-0 and its sister 2-6-0 may be painted for eras which few model, but those styles of locos served many narrow gauge lines (including those in Colorado), often up to their ends. They're also small enough to "play well" with 1:22 equipment--certainly a consideration, though perhaps not an absolute requirement. Those two get high marks in my book for choices. 

The K-27 is an obvious choice, and--despite what I consider to be less than optimum marketing and PR surrounding it--seems to be popular. 

The Davenport has been getting some undue negative press lately calling its scale "accuracy" into question. The claim is that since the seat is so small, and they're releasing it under the "Liliput" brand with a string of 1:22.5 cars, that it's really 1:22.5 or thereabouts. That's a thin argument at best, and one that didn't rear its head until Bachmann decide to reuse its molds for another product line. For a choice of prototype, it made perfect sense. Regardless of what scale it "really" is, it's representative of a class of locomotives that came in many sizes, so in that regard, scale is somewhat irrelevant. Industrial switchers came in a lot of different sizes. (Look at the EBT's M-4 and M-6.) Because the loco plays so well with both scales, it makes it an even more obvious choice. It most decidedly fills a niche, and if it's anything like its On30 counterpart, will be wildly popular with kitbashers wishing to customize it. 

The Mallet was an interesting choice. On one hand, it's unusual to produce a model of a locomotive that was never built. On the other hand, how many LGB articulateds have we seen kitbashed over the years? Clearly people have demonstrated a desire for that type of locomotive, even if there wasn't a "true" prototype. I can't fault them for tapping into that market. I think it's a well proportioned loco that should do quite well. One can argue that they could have produced the Uintah articulateds, but those were BEASTS! They would dwarf most everything on the market. Bachmann learned that lesson with their center cab diesel. There is such a thing as "too big" in this market. 

In truth, the center cab is really the only loco they've done that I can't rationalize. There were smaller 40-ton narrow gauge switchers that would not have had nearly the bulk of the prototype they chose. (I believe the "original" center cab diesel they proposed years before was of a smaller prototype which would have been ideal.) I'm still a bit confused as to how simply putting a new chassis under a 1:22.5 model automatically makes it "Spectrum" quality, but that's another story. 

Would Bachmann have more success if they stuck with popular prototypes? Who's to say? I'd like to see a plastic EBT mikado as much as the guy sitting next to me would like to see a plastic K-36. They haven't, and my railroad is what it is because of that. I'm just as happy, as it's opened my eyes to some other fascinating railroads that ran right along the EBT. 

Later, 

K


----------



## work4fil (Jan 4, 2008)

I am so digging ALL of this! Sure I ask myself the same questions and whine about lack of product available for my specific wants or needs. Then all of a sudden some sage will offer their advice and like my "garage moment" a light will go off in my head (my wife says it is called a stroke) and it is all apparent to me. This hobby is fueled by our tastes. It would be grand if manufacturers made items that fit all our designs. The reality is they can not effectively (or efficiently) produce items for all our wants. I get a little envious of youse guys here when I see your pictures and read your posts. I sometimes wish I was able to model 1:29/1:32 instead of the Narrow Guage I started out with. There is no reason why I can't have it all (if and only if SHE says I can of course), but my fancy currently is in the Narrow Guage. It boils down to the proverbial eye of the beholder. I see the manufacturers developing product that will attract the tastes of a larger customer base and not the entire hobby. I see "us" purchasing what we want or need, then modifying whatever product to meet those needs. That is just another beauty of this hobby and I thank all of you for providing me with the knowledge to continue with this.


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dwight Ennis on 02/16/2009 11:10 AM

The inside frame Baldwin 4-4-0 loco is from Pennsylvania, ran on the Mt. Gretna Narrow Gauge Railway
Lee Riley said differently. Somewhere there was a photo posted of the prototype upon which he said the 4-4-0 was based, and it was from down south. 
Bachmann is doing a great job of shattering xenophobia of modellers to realize there is more to narrow gauge than Colorado
I fully agree and myself have no real interest in modeling Colorado... however, I (and I think many others based upon what I've heard/read) would prefer locos bearing resemblance to things that ran in the USA. Xenophobic? I guess one could look at it that way if they choose. I'd rather call it "preference." My heart lies in California narrow gauge like the NPC, SPC, SC&F, MB&S, NCNG, and Pacific Coast Railway. 

Like I said, each to his own. " src="http://www.mylargescale.com/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/smile.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" />


Interesting, I think it was from a Bachmann source that I had heard it was Mt Gretna. NGSLG had drawings published, this would tell that fact, but then, if the S/A prototype was 30", it would make sense. Either way, it is a TINY loco and the wheel base is a bit odd looking.

CA narrow gauge is also of interest to me, and yes, there are some voids to be filled there.


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 02/16/2009 12:13 PM

The Davenport has been getting some undue negative press lately calling its scale "accuracy" into question. The claim is that since the seat is so small, and they're releasing it under the "Liliput" brand with a string of 1:22.5 cars, that it's really 1:22.5 or thereabouts. That's a thin argument at best, and one that didn't rear its head until Bachmann decide to reuse its molds for another product line. 
Later, 

K


That was an interesting move, and I am sure a "jump" to get into the "domestic" large scale market in Europe, but then, what was with the simple re-marking of US stuff other than a low cost effort? I have not done my homework to see if they are using the Bachmann sheetmetal track....

Maybe one can hope Kader can expand Liliput's efforts like Bachmann USA with the F/On30 model interchange to their Austrian H0e line, of which, I own several of their models.... And maybe make an Austrian U class with the correct cab height unlike LGB?


----------



## Ray Dunakin (Jan 6, 2008)

I too agree with Matt's take on the situation. It seems that in narrow gauge, you can either please a few of the people by producing models of specific popular prototypes, while annoying everyone else; or please most of the people by producing models drawn from obscure or "almost-was" prototypes while annoying fewer people. Or something like that.


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By SlateCreek on 02/16/2009 5:39 AM
in Standard gauge, locomotives may end up being a bit more uniform simply because they need to fit intot everyone else's platforms, fuel docks, water towers, etc....




I would love to see Bachmann release a standard gauge version of the Annie


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

Bachmann does not seem poised to enter the 1:29 or 1:32 arenas so a standard gauge Annie is pretty far out there. Those of us who model non Colorado narrow gauge always eagerly look forward to B'mann's next offerings ... they are totally unpredictable and capricious but you have to admit, give us all a chance to second guess what they are doing.

It is interesting that the Colorado crowd whose interests are just about the monopoly of Accucraft, would like to also monopolize the B'mann offerings as well. The recent speculation of AMS locos would no doubt ease some of that but I have my doubts that Accucraft can bring locos to production with a street price as low as B'mann. Some will point to the rolling stock noting that AMS cars are somewhat less expensive than the B'mann offerings but this is the issue of when the dies were made and their initial cost. 

In any case, I am one of those who owns a fleet of B'mann Fn3 locos and who has no particular quibbles with their choice of non Colorado prototypes. I do not expect to ever own a Davenport as it is too tiny but I do have a Dizzy! All of us wish that B'mann produced better mechanisms but ... the mechs are normally correctable while if the base model is just plain out of scale, nothing can be done. As Matt pointed out, mechanical deficiencies are not the subject here - this discussion centres on choice of prototype.

Regards ... Doug


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

In the UK Bachmann, being the importer/distributor of Aristo-Craft, probably feels that 1:29 is well covered by other manufacturers. They did order a 1:29 loco for Europe which was made by Aristo namely the UK Class 66 and its European sisters. As many know the 1:1 versions of this loco is built in Canada.

I can't post pics here but maybe someone else will if they feel it necessary.

Bachmann are of course the big boys in the UK as far as OO/HO is concerned. For anyone interested in their UK web site here is the link.


http://www.bachmann.co.uk/index.php


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

I too agree with Matt's take on the situation. It seems that in narrow gauge, you can either please a few of the people by producing models of specific popular prototypes, while annoying everyone else; or please most of the people by producing models drawn from obscure or "almost-was" prototypes while annoying fewer people. Or something like that.


_It's not the 'annoying' that's important - it's the total number of people who are so annoyed they don't buy one!_


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

I have to admit when I saw the outside frame American on that Japanese website and there was some question that it could be issued in 1/20, I for one was very excited, then to find it was in On30 had me ticked off, why do they always get the really cool models and all we get is reissues. 

The K may be welcomed by some but I'll never own one, way too big, too expensive. While the dinky American might have usable on my layout, the trend towards ever bigger engines like the K and the Mallet has kinda left small layout guys like me out in the cold. I'm seriously jealous of the On30 guys, they get the best stuff, several new items per year, and we get one or two items per year, for me mostly costly oversized stuff I can't use. I find myself hoping they make a large scale version of the cool On30 railbus and trailer, will they? I doubt it. Not likely to get anything new this year with the economy in the stinker. 

Best they can hope for this year is that they can sell off their existing inventory, once they have done that then decide which products already in production will be best for this economy. Gaurentee you it will not be anything new thats big like the Mallet or the K or the 3 truck Shay, i'd be very surprised if anyone comes out with any big ticket items. I expect at best to see new, maybe a reissue of the Climax and thats pretty much it, and what recurring items they do continue to produce will be at reduced production runs.


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By Great Western on 02/17/2009 10:51 AM
In the UK Bachmann, being the importer/distributor of Aristo-Craft, probably feels that 1:29 is well covered by other manufacturers. 



Then theres Bachmann brassworks, 1/32 gauge one, very reasonable for brass and quite allright (according to reviews)


----------



## Allan W. Miller (Jan 2, 2008)

"You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time." 

Sage words that should be posted in every manufacturer's CEO (and product development manager) offices.


----------



## Jeff Livingston (Jan 2, 2008)

And here I thought they built the "Connie" so I could make OR&L 2-8-0's from them. 

Jeff Livingston 
Kaneohe, Hawaii


----------



## K27_463 (Jan 2, 2008)

I do not think the choice for Bachmann is limited to Colorado vs non Colorado. he choice is really sensible vs nonsense. When the 2-8-0 was released, there were so many more sensible choices to make than the selected 30" mexican/cuban/martian locomotive that was chosen. If the plan is to sell product, choosing a reasonable American prototype that offers a great starting point should be the course. Non Colorado is fine, just make the choice 3 foot and common enough for general use. Kitbashing from far left field to get to the specific model you want is far more tedious and generally gets done less by modelers than if the model started from some figurative center point. C-16 are very generic and would not stop the modeler that does not care from buying one. The US gypsum outside frame 3 foot 2-8-0 at Griffith park in LA is not Colorado, but looks very well proportioned, has good valve gear, is the "correct" size , 3- foot etc. This is one choice among many that would have been far better then than what we got. Just like when you were in school, if you do your homework and study, the results will be good. Bachmann planners just need to do their homework. 

jonathan/EMw


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Dear Mr Slate Creek/Version - I agree with you 100%.

tac
www.ovgrs.org


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

You guys sure make me laff sometimes.....Brazil is not some run-down hick state 'south of the border' as some of you imply. It's not a tin-pot Third World state somewhere between Guadalajara and Los Glipos - it's the fifth largest country on earth, lagging just behind the USA, and takes up almost half of the South American continent.

It's rail network, standard and narrow gauge, is both extensive and pretty darn good, and although it has some run-down second and third class lines, so does the USA. 

Anyway, maybe Mr Riley is a 'closet gaucho', claiming as his ancestral home a million-acre ranch somewhere in southern Brazil.....and there are those a-plenty.

tac
www.ovgrs.org

PS - I LIKE Bachmann's choice of offerings in 1/20.3, and to prove it, I've bought all of them.


----------



## Rod Hayward (Jan 2, 2008)

Gaucho marks for that one....


----------



## bobgrosh (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By tacfoley on 02/18/2009 12:36 AM
..'snip...
tac
http://www.ovgrs.org/

PS - I LIKE Bachmann's choice of offerings in 1/20.3, and to prove it, I've bought all of them.



Doesn't prove anything. I've bought all of them too. Not a one was acceptable. Not a one do I run on my layout. Yea, they are pretty to look at on a shelf, other than that, they are pretty useless. From the first shay with it's brittle plastic, to the three truck shay that was supposed to have DCC and sound, but didn't or the final straw, the K27 which took me a month to install the plug and play decoder it was supposed to be designed for, and then only after riping out every single wire and component in the thing. Even then, on the minimum advertised curves, it won't handle my passing siding, even though they have a straight inserted in "S"s at both ends. As for their warranty, it's useless. Not once were they able to supply a part I needed to fix a new defective loco right out of the box.
The Annie, big haulers, climax, non lasted over 6 months in the sun without the windows turning brown and all the bits crumbling to dust. The rest never made it on the layout long enough to get a sunburn.

I DON'T like Bachmann's choice of offerings in 1/20.3, and to prove it, I've ONLY bought ONE of each. Usually a pre-order within days or even hours of their announcements. 

Well, they can "announce" all they care to. I will never pre order another Bachmann loco.

I like the USAT 2 axle Diesel, I bought a second one, and then a third.
I like the LGB two axle diesels, I bought four more.
I like the LGB Forney, I bought six more
I like the LGB field locos I bought twelve more.

B0B


----------



## gregcoit (Jan 2, 2008)

The issue here isn't that Bachmann made a Brazilian locomotive, it's that they made a model of a *single* locomotive (The Alder Gulch outside frame 2-8-0). And as nice looking as their K-27 is, it was a bad choice because of the huge variety of the 20 (?) prototypes (different slopes cylinders, different valve configurations). And making a model of a loco that was never constructed (the mallet) is a terrible idea. 

Bachmann did a much better job with their geared locos. Tons of prototypes existed for each of those locomotives.

I am a Colorado NG guy, but not every model has to be Colorado NG prototype. But a prototype should exist. And one that is fairly generic (only because 1:20.3 is never going to see the vast number and variety of models as HO).


Bachmann HO at least recognizes that modellers want prototypical models. Not "could have been" models. Everyone's "could have been" are different and should be bashed into existence, not mass produced.

I would have replaced the K-27 with a C-16 (there were 100's of these constructed and they ran on more than just the Colorado NG railroads) , the outside frame 2-8-0 with a more common inside frame 2-8-0 (with smaller cab), and the mallet with the ones from the Sumpter Valley and Weyerhouser (same loco's right?). Bachmann would have sold many more units, and we would have more variety (and accuracy) in affordable 1:20.3.


And yes, I recognize there was great variety in the C-16s over the years, but it's much easier to change the domes and headlight then it is the cylinders and valve gear. 


C'mon Bachmann, 1:20.3 is not the "kinda, sorta close" thing that LGB started large scale with. 


Here's hoping that AMS (Accucraft) starts producing 1:20.3 locomotives to show Bachmann how it's done (see thread in rolling stock for more info).


Greg C


----------



## c nelson (Dec 18, 2008)

two very good post above....


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

Interesting perspective Greg ... from your Colorado vantage point.

B'mann's HO offerings are standard gauge so are not directly comparable to their Fn3 offerings.

Your ng suggestions ... a C-16 is a design from the 1880s and much of the Colorado ng thinking stems from that now remote timeframe. Those of us who freelance in Fn3 generally prefer a more modern era ... and hence the popularity with us of many of the B'mann models. The K-27 does represent the single most popular Colorado loco but their other offerings are all excellent choices for the freelancer. I have absolutely no problem with the offer of a catalogue loco or a proposed loco ... I just prefer designs from the 20th century as opposed to the 19th. 

Keep in mind that the Colorado market is very well served by Accucraft. I do not like to see the small amount of manufacturing effort used to duplicate models ... just so that we can have one cheap and one more expensive version. B'mann has struck its ng roots in both On30 and in Fn3 in industrial and freelanced designs mostly from the early to middle part of the 20th century. I am very happy with that direction and hope they continue.

As an aside, my freelance modelling interests are influenced by the Tweetsie and as well the Cape Gauge 42 inch ng of the Newfoundland RR. These railroads have much more modern equipment than the Colorado roads did. The Newfoundland RR in particular which lasted well into the diesel era is very much akin to other non USA roads in the Americas in that it used some larger more modern steam power. B'mann recognizes both the industrial lines and the existence of more modern and dynamic ng railroads than those presented by Colorado prototypes. That B'mann trait is very much appreciated by freelancers.

Regards ... Doug


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By tacfoley on 02/18/2009 12:36 AM
You guys sure make me laff sometimes.....Brazil is not some run-down hick state 'south of the border' as some of you imply. It's not a tin-pot Third World state somewhere between Guadalajara and Los Glipos - it's the fifth largest country on earth, lagging just behind the USA, and takes up almost half of the South American continent.

It's rail network, standard and narrow gauge, is both extensive and pretty darn good, and although it has some run-down second and third class lines, so does the USA. 

Anyway, maybe Mr Riley is a 'closet gaucho', claiming as his ancestral home a million-acre ranch somewhere in southern Brazil.....and there are those a-plenty.

tac
http://www.ovgrs.org/

PS - I LIKE Bachmann's choice of offerings in 1/20.3, and to prove it, I've bought all of them.



I don't think anyone implied anything - at least I didn't. What I _am_ saying is that I'd prefer U.S. prototypes - and I was specifically talking about the 4-4-0 in On30. If they'd done in On30 what they did with the Fn3 4-4-0 and Mogul, I'd be a happy camper. While the rail network in Brazil may have been extensive, etc., I have no wish to model it.


----------



## K27_463 (Jan 2, 2008)

What Dwight said- Brazil may be more advanced than everybody. But the point is to sell models to Americans, since Bach Bros is in Philly. Maybe the Brazilian model railroaders are buying all these locos up , who knows? If you want to sell a lot of stuff, choose models that work. It is well known that the Bach 2-8-0 sold in numbers far less than the original projections-hence the pricing that currently exists in the market. I mean really, Baker Valve gear? Anyone want to discuss Bachmann's Vulcan plans? 

Jonathan


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Ah, but they _are_ selling, that is the crux of the matter. There are a bunch of happy On30 modellers out there, it seems that the Fn3 guys are the ones that are asking why...... 

And for obscure things from South America, maybe Mr. Porta's streamlined meter gauge Mastadon is not too far behind?


----------



## gregcoit (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dougald on 02/18/2009 11:32 AM
Interesting perspective Greg ... from your Colorado vantage point.


Your ng suggestions ... a C-16 is a design from the 1880s and much of the Colorado ng thinking stems from that now remote timeframe. Those of us who freelance in Fn3 generally prefer a more modern era ... and hence the popularity with us of many of the B'mann models. The K-27 does represent the single most popular Colorado loco but their other offerings are all excellent choices for the freelancer. I have absolutely no problem with the offer of a catalogue loco or a proposed loco ... I just prefer designs from the 20th century as opposed to the 19th. 

Keep in mind that the Colorado market is very well served by Accucraft. I do not like to see the small amount of manufacturing effort used to duplicate models ... just so that we can have one cheap and one more expensive version. B'mann has struck its ng roots in both On30 and in Fn3 in industrial and freelanced designs mostly from the early to middle part of the 20th century. I am very happy with that direction and hope they continue.




The K-27 is the single most popular Colorado loco by what standard? Modeller interest?


Tthe K-27 has been done by Accucraft too - even more recently than their C-16. You prefer the K-27 (which only ran on the RGS and D&RGW) vs. the C-16 which also ran on the NCNG and I think had many cousins in Pennsylvania (not to mention the similarity between the C-16s and the C&S NG locos)? Seems to me that a C-16 can be made to look as modern as one likes. Is it the size you dislike?


Greg C


----------



## gregcoit (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Spule 4 on 02/18/2009 9:02 PM
Ah, but they _are_ selling, that is the crux of the matter. There are a bunch of happy On30 modellers out there, it seems that the Fn3 guys are the ones that are asking why...... 




I suspect that a larger percentage of On30 modellers are freelancers compared to Fn3 modellers. I guess the crux of this discussion is can Bachmann server both freelancer *and* prototype modellers better? I think so.


Greg C


----------



## c nelson (Dec 18, 2008)

at least it's not this? 










shown here: 

http://www.45mm.jp/page178.html


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg

You asked about my comment on the C-16 vs a K-27. I own many B'mann locos but I have not yet been tempted to buy a K-27. Yes, it was done by Accucraft and yes I would have preferred a different choice by B'mann but if they have to choose a Colorado loco, the K-27 by modeler interest was the one that lit up the B'mann forum.

On the C-16 issue, it was done by Accucraft and also done in 1:22.5 close enough scale by Aristo ... surely a different prototype can be found than a rehash of an 1880s design already produced by other manufacturers. I would prefer a more modern design and one not done previously. And that of course is generally what B'mann gives us even if some of their choices are a bit whimsical.

I cannot easily comment on the proportions of freelancers in Fn3 ... I do know it is high. Maybe by virtue of where I live (2500 miles from Colorado) the Colorado influence is not very high among the garden railroad narro gaugers that I know.

Regards ... Doug


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Greg, in fairness, virtually EVERY narrow gauge locomotive is a one-off, and I'm not just referring to the minutia like "this one had one airpump, while the other had two." The only railroads that had anything that resembled "fleets" of similar locomotives were the D&RGW, EBT, WP&Y, and ET&WNC. Even there, there were differences between the locomotives to where most "classes" of locomotives were limited to two or three examples of each. Even the prototypes for Bachmann's geared locos were one-of-a-kind. Lima only built some 700 three-foot gauge Shays, and only a small percentage of those were 36-ton Shays. In fact, the closest model that Bachmann has to "mass produced" locos is the 4-4-0. Even then, variations in driver size, spacing, tenders, etc., keep this from being true to any more than just a very small handful of specific prototypes. 

To the mallet, as I stated in my earlier post, the Sumpter Valley locos were the ex-Uintah locos, which were HUGE. As in "standard gauge proportions" huge. The locos were 10' 7" wide! That's larger than a K-37. 








That's a B'mann 2-8-0 next to it. I am absolutely confident that such a large locomotive would not have sold well. As I said earlier, the center cab diesel was widely criticized for being "too big" for the trains. That was nothing compared to what a Uintah/Sumpter Valley mallet would be. (So far as I know, the Weyerhauser locos were standard gauge.) 

Later, 

K


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

The only railroads that had anything that resembled "fleets" of similar locomotives were the D&RGW, EBT, WP&Y, and ET&WNC.
That would depend upon the era in consideration and the definition of "fleets." The NPC and SPC had "fleets" of 4-4-0s. Certainly not all were identical - some were somewhat bigger than others, etc. - but all were essentially Baldwin 4-4-0s.


----------



## gregcoit (Jan 2, 2008)

Doug, I agree that the K-27 was a very popular locomotive before questions about it's gear ratio cropped up. I think you are correct that it garnered more interest than a C-16 would have. But I disagree about the Aristo C-16. I don't think 1:22.5 is close enough to 1:20.3 - the difference is noticeable (to me). 

Kevin, thanks for the correction regarding the Sumpter locos. I knew they came from somewhere - forgot it was the Uintah (and I had no idea they were so huge).


I guess it all comes down to dollars - how much we spend with each manufacturer. I have a tendency to support companies that produce accurate and to-scale models. I don't buy 1:24 or 1:22.5 for that reason. And I wouldn't buy 1:29 if I was into standard gauge for that reason.


Bachmann's goal (I assume) is to sell as many of each item as possible. I think they could do better by making different choices - they obviously disagree. The only way I can really affect their decisions is to buy products that matches my desires. For this reason, I regret buying an outside frame 2-8-0 (and am dissapointed that the K-27 seems hamstrung by the gearing issue).


Is there another manufacturer that we've spent as much digital ink than Bachmann? 


Greg C


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Dwight brings up a very valid point. My above post was written largely from the post-1910 perspective. When the narrow gauge lines were first starting up, many ordered their first few locos in small batches. The EBT's first two locos were identical, as were the following three. I suspect the NPC and SPC were similar in that regard. (Dwight, do you know how many of the early locos were built to the same drawings?) Bachmann's 4-4-0 and it's 2-6-0 sibling were very typical of locos of this era, save the exact boiler accouterments. In fact, the tender that rides behind both locos is virtually spot on for the tender that rode behind the EBT's first three 2-8-0s. 

The only fly in that ointment is that very few people model pre-1900 (in any scale). So while the 4-4-0 may be as close to a "common" locomotive as we have, the market for it is somewhat limited. The number of those locos making it into the 30s and 40s is pretty small. Some did, but they were definitely the exception--and no where near as colorful by then as depicted by Bachmann. 

Doug, just to clarify--the Aristo/Delton C-16 is 1:24. It's not "close enough" in size when you see them next to each other, but it may well be in terms of marketing. I suspect that's why we haven't seen something like a Colorado & Southern or Waynesburg & Washington mogul; too close in fit and finish to LGB's ubiquitous model. I don't think the 1:20 market in itself is sufficient to single-handedly support a production run of plastic locos. I think you've got to pick prototypes that tap into the broader large scale market, which means they've got to "play well" with the 1:22/1:24 stuff out there. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

I do agree on the scale issue ... I don't buy locos that are out of scale either. I was only pointing out that the C-16 has been modelled extensively previously. It may be inconvenient that it is a poor model out of scale and it may be inconvenient that it was done expensively in scale but it is out there. I would like a fresh new model ... not a rehash of one modelled previously especially of one to a nineteenth century design.

And as Kevin points out, not many folks model 19th century prototypes. Since most American ng was gone excpeting the big systems already named as the 20th century moved along, the choices are limited to ... specific locos from those few American ng roads in existence, the use of prototypes that appeared to be American but actually ran elsewhere (Newfoundland or Latin America for example) or industrial machinery. This thread shows that those folks who are really enamoured with Colorado railroads won't countenance the strategy of appealing to freelancers by using either of the last two strategies I listed.

Difference of opinion is what makes a marketplace work ... and I am thankful that we have such a wide choice of locos in Fn3 to choose from ... even if the Colorado modellers question the sanity at times of a manufacturer that caters to freelancers as B'mann has done.

Regards ... Doug


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

Doug a simple question: If you don't buy out of scale, what difference does it really make if there is a previous model out of scale? I would love to see a C&S mogul in 1:20.3 and the fact that LGB made one in a different scale (for which I have no interest) is about as relevant to me as the fact that Bachmann made one in On3. If a well engineered C&S mogul came out in 1:20.3 with the same attention to detail and at about the price point as the Connie would you buy one? I would buy three.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Dwight, do you know how many of the early locos were built to the same drawings?
Specifically I do not - however the Baldwin 8/14c-8/18c was pretty ubiquitous. If I understand things correctly, as was true in later eras, railroads could order a "catalog locomotive" but request certain modifications/additions/special features. According to a spreadsheet posted on the NorCal Group by Randy Hees... 

SPC No 1 was an 8/14c 
No's 2 and 3 were 8/18c 
No's 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were 8/18.5c 
No's 9 and 10 were 8/22c, as were Nos 14 and 15 

No's 11 and 12 were 8/22d 2-6-0's, and No 13 was a 10/24g 2-8-0 

No's 16 and 17 were also 4-4-0's, but the Baldwin Class is unknown. 

No's 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 were 10/26d 4-6-0's 

No's 24 and 25 were 2-6-0's, and the only non-Baldwin locos on the roster. 

So out of 25 locomotives, 14 - over half - were 4-4-0's, 4 were 2-6-0's, 6 were 4-6-0's, and one was a 2-8-0. 
23 were built by Baldwin. 
No's 1 through 10 (all 4-4-0's) were built between 1875 and 1880. 
The remaining four 4-4-0's were built in 1884-1885. 

Lots of similarity in equipment. It's my understanding (but don't quote me) that the 8/14c, the 8/18c, and the 8/18.5c were primarily distinguished by cylinder size. That may also be true of the 8/22c, but again, I'm unsure. Boiler size may have varied somewhat as cylinder size grew... I just don't know for sure. Where's Fletch when I need him? hehehe


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Oh yeah (I forgot) - many NPC 4-4-0's survived - with modernization - well into the NWP era. If memory serves (I can look it up), SPC #1 was still in service in 1906-1909 during Summit Tunnel reconstruction after the 1906 quake made it impassable. 

To bring it back to the subject at hand, (and with all due respect to Tac and Brazil), NOT ONE of these locomotives remotely resembled the On30 4-4-0s produced by Bachmann (more's the pity). They DID resemble Bachmann's Fn3 Americans and Moguls.


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

Doug a simple question: If you don't buy out of scale, what difference does it really make if there is a previous model out of scale? I would love to see a C&S mogul in 1:20.3 and the fact that LGB made one in a different scale (for which I have no interest) is about as relevant to me as the fact that Bachmann made one in On3. 

There are two answers to this question. 

First, while those of us who are scale afficiionados would not buy a 1:22.5 or 1:24 loco (unless we could bash it into something), there is still a large contingent of garden railroaders out there weaned on LGB. Introduction of a model already covered by another company is probably not the wisest course of action. You may not give a rat's ass about the LGB mogul BUT there are a lot of guys out there who already have one or more ... and they will likely not be very eager to buy a new B'mann version.

And secondly, take the B'mann Annie as a case in point. Clearly this loco is too small to be an accurate Fn3 model yet they keep selling tons of them many to guys who claim they model in Fn3. If you were B'mann would you expect an Fn3 version to sell like hotcakes - especially if its cost were, as is likely with a new model, to be about three times the cost of the old Annie? 
B'mann seems well aware of these things when they choose their prototypes. And while some of their choices are pretty off beat (a Dunkirk for example) or misjudgements (the Dizzy for example) their spurning of Colorado prototypes has likely been fairly wise overall. I have not heard that the K-27 was breaking sales records though you could argue that is due to mechanical deficiencies. On the other hand, virtually every B'mann offering, made to sell relatively cheaply, carries some mechanical deficiencies as the tradeoff for the high level of detail.

Regards ... Doug


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

I think if they would have made the "Indie" with a different cab and a slightly fatter boiler (with more weight) it would have sold MUCH better. Why? It was small enough to look OK on small layouts with R-1 curves, it had a reasonable level of detail, was OK mechanically, and it wasn't too badly priced.... Trying to re-use the old Hawaiian plantation engine parts, taking the weights out of the boiler to make room for a circuit board, and trying to pass it off as 1:20 were the major mistakes.


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Mik on 02/19/2009 4:57 PM
I think if they would have made the "Indie" with a different cab and a slightly fatter boiler (with more weight) it would have sold MUCH better. Why? It was small enough to look OK on small layouts with R-1 curves, it had a reasonable level of detail, was OK mechanically, and it wasn't too badly priced.... Trying to re-use the old Hawaiian plantation engine parts, taking the weights out of the boiler to make room for a circuit board, and trying to pass it off as 1:20 were the major mistakes.


Mik's steps would make for an easy "Glover-ization" but I doubt we will ever see a commercial Glover model as they were not "up north".....


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By Mik on 02/19/2009 4:57 PM
I think if they would have made the "Indie" with a different cab and a slightly fatter boiler (with more weight) it would have sold MUCH better. Why? It was small enough to look OK on small layouts with R-1 curves, it had a reasonable level of detail, was OK mechanically, and it wasn't too badly priced.... Trying to re-use the old Hawaiian plantation engine parts, taking the weights out of the boiler to make room for a circuit board, and trying to pass it off as 1:20 were the major mistakes.

The Indie's size is close to perfect for my needs, but I do agree alot about the weight, then again, 1/20 never did interrest me.


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

And they have not brought it back. I bought the Porter saddle tank thinking they would dry up and I could grab an inde later.....got that wrong!


----------

