# Bachmann's Lee Riley to Retire



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Perhaps now some more American prototype equipment in Large Scale and On30? Time will tell. How about an On30 Baldwin 8-18c 4-4-0 instead of the funky little 4-4-0 current available... or the even funkier outside frame 4-4-0?

*Bachmann's Lee Riley to Retire*


----------



## Richard Weatherby (Jan 3, 2008)

Dwight;

Thanks for the heads-up on Lee Riley. Lee was at a Garden Railway convention and took my son under his wings. He gave him some lube for a gravity race. He gave him a Spectrum hat. At another GRC in California, he got out of the cab on a Roaring Camp shay and let my son have the cab ride up the hill. Needless to say my son, now 33, is hooked on the large scale trains. After several Bachmann shays & a K27, he now has several Accucraft live steam engines. Lee is what made Bachmann up its game. I am still looking for a pony truck for my K-27.

Hope to see him more around the area instead of always in China.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Richard - I'm not trying to say he isn't a nice guy. I never met him so I wouldn't know. But way back when, the story at the time was that it was Riley who resisted doing American prototypes and fiercely resisted doing CO prototypes, which is why the Connie was based upon a Mexican prototype. In On30, the trend is even more apparent, with the Connie (similar to the LS version), the 4-4-0, the outside frame 4-4-0, etc.

Back to LS, the story at the time was that Riley resisted doing the K-27, then when the first run was screwed up, and many waited for the second run to get the corrected version - which never came - the story was that Riley used the lack of sales to bolster his argument that there was no market for CO prototypes instead of owning up to the truth that Bachmann had produced a faulty product. Many was the modeler who was disappointed with Bachmann and Riley's decisions in those days. 

Today, Bachmann has the LS C-19, and they've had a LS 8-18c for a long time. So maybe things changed over time. In On30, things haven't improved much as, other than the original Mogul and the later Tweetsie Ten-Wheeler (the supposed basis for the original and subsequent Big Haulers), most of the rod locos are still based upon foreign or really obscure prototypes.


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

When you reference the K-27, are you referring to the counterweights or the gearing? Or the chuff circuit that is the opposite of every other model in the entire world? Or something else? I was expecting a second run with different road numbers, they could easily change very few details and produce the 452.

I've always been completely mystified as to why Bachmann produced such a bizarre mix of Large Scale products. A D&RGW caboose, but an F&CC prototype boxcar that was later sold to C&S and then RGS, but they never released those road names? I'm not sure what the prototype is for their flat, a Carter Brothers prototype, I assume, but the boxcar and the flat are sold in D&RGW livery, and neither are correct. 

They Shays and others with the imaginary road names, and the Mason Bogie, well, we all know what a disaster that is...

As you mentioned, the 30" gauge Connie, but even worse, a whimsical Mallet instead of doing the Uintah Ry mallets. Using trucks from the frameless and framed tank cars, they could do another half a dozen D&RGW prototype cars, yet they seemingly don't want to touch them. 

And the gon? I'm still can't figure out what the prototype for that is...

Even the C-19, why the bizarre idea to do the Yellow scheme, which lasted exactly one day so the locomotive could be wrecked for a movie scene.

A C-16, with it's more diminutive size would surely be well received, and a C-18 could be painted in at least a dozen paint schemes.

And even more strangely, what are we up to on the Annie? Six versions, seven, each with better running gear, yet they still haven't done the accurate Stephenson's valve gear NOR have they updated the superstructure and tender so it looks less toy-like.

Yeah, Dwight, I agree completely...

Robert


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Riley is the primary force behind 1/20.3, I wonder if Kaders Chinese overlords will continue with it once he is retired. They already have alot invested in it, but I suspect that it has been less lucrative than they wished due to it becoming another niche scale in a crowded niche gauge.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

rdamurphy said:


> When you reference the K-27, are you referring to the counterweights or the gearing? Or the chuff circuit that is the opposite of every other model in the entire world? Or something else?


All of the above, plus if memory serves, there was a real fiasco around the supplied "socket" at the time.


> I was expecting a second run with different road numbers...


So was almost everyone else, with the bugs corrected.


> I've always been completely mystified as to why Bachmann produced such a bizarre mix of Large Scale products. A D&RGW caboose, but an F&CC prototype boxcar that was later sold to C&S and then RGS, but they never released those road names? I'm not sure what the prototype is for their flat, a Carter Brothers prototype, I assume, but the boxcar and the flat are sold in D&RGW livery, and neither are correct.
> 
> They Shays and others with the imaginary road names, and the Mason Bogie, well, we all know what a disaster that is...
> 
> ...


From what I've heard for years, the responsibility can be laid at Riley's feet. He was, after all, Vice President of Product Development - and still is until 3/31.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

vsmith said:


> Riley is the primary force behind 1/20.3, I wonder if Kaders Chinese overlords will continue with it once he is retired. They already have alot invested in it, but I suspect that it has been less lucrative than they wished due to it becoming another niche scale in a crowded niche gauge.


I never heard that before, so if true, he deserves a real round of thanks from the Fn3 crowd. The first two offerings... the Shay and the Climax... were great models and very well received (despite the initial problems with the Shay trucks, which probably wasn't Bachmann's fault, and the Climax drive line. To Bachmann's credit, they issued fixes for both).

I'm not trying to crucify Riley here... merely pointing out that we may see a different direction for Bachmann in the future, for good or ill.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

I think if Bachmann made an On30 version of the 8-18c, similar to the one they did in LS, the On30 version would fly off the shelves, especially if they made it such that one could easily convert it to On3 as well. There were many who were interested in MMI's vaporware die cast On3/On30 8-18c, but seemingly not enough for MMI to justify the high tooling costs to actually produce it. But those models were $1600.00+. I'm personally convinced that a model costing between $200-$350 (depending upon DCC ready vs DCC/Sound equipped) would be a real winner for Bachmann.

But what do I know? LOL!


----------



## daveyb (Feb 28, 2009)

we were crying out for a passenger car to pull behind the 440 and 260,, something early with a duckbill roof
and maby shorter than the accucraft product

and there are still plenty of rolling stock that could have been made which would have been good for several rail roads


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

daveyb said:


> we were crying out for a passenger car to pull behind the 440 and 260,, something early with a duckbill roof
> and maby shorter than the accucraft product


I believe that's what prompted David Fletcher to design his Carter Brothers Coach and Combine kits. The plans and article are still available here btw.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Robert, the ET&WNC prototype for the 4-6-0 has Walscheart's valve gear. With the way the frame is built on the model, there's no way to do operating Stephenson's valve gear, even though there are similar prototypes to the Bachmann model which had that valve gear (RGS #20 comes to mind). They have upgraded the boiler and other details on that loco compared to the earlier versions to make it look a lot more prototypical, though not quite to the same level as their "Spectrum" models. Alas, they've never gotten around to re-tooling the tender. 

As for why the bumblebee scheme C-19? Easy--it's popular. LGB's Bumblebee mogul is widely popular, as is Bachmann's "bumblebee" 4-6-0. Neither of the prototypes for those locos ever came close to wearing that scheme, but it's bright and stands out in the garden, and historically modelers have liked that scheme. (Kinda like the Santa Fe "Warbonnet" scheme or Pennsy's 5 stripes.) While the C-19 may have only worn that scheme for an appearance in a movie, at least it actually wore it. The other schemes are equally prototypical. 

The Mallet was an interesting choice. The Uintah mallets would have been really cool. However they had two things going against them. First, LGB had already done them, albeit in what works out to about 1:24 - 1:26 depending on which dimension you measure. While dedicated 1:20 modelers would certainly not view the LGB model as being competition, others may have, where they may not view a completely different-looking articulated as such. Also, if I recall, the mallet came out after the 45-tonner, which was widely criticized for being too large. A proper 1:20.3 Uintah mallet would have made the 45-tonner look downright scrawny. The K-27 visually overpowers my railroad; I can't imagine what the Uintah mallet would have done. The smaller "might-have-been" mallet is not nearly as visually overpowering. I had one for a short while before deciding that a 2-6-6-2 just didn't fit in with my operating scheme. 

Whether we agree with Bachmann's production choices or not, there's no denying the impact Lee has had on large scale. He was the mind behind the original Big Hauler. (Lee's a HUGE ET&WNC fan, hence the Big Hauler being a model of an ET&WNC prototype.) His involvement in the hobby industry goes back a whole lot further than that as well. I'd venture a guess that he's had a hand in many aspects of the hobby we don't even realize. Congrats on a well-deserved retirement, and thanks for the products you've brought to the hobby. It doesn't matter if they were frogs or princes, they definitely had an impact. 

Later,

K


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Dwight Ennis said:


> Perhaps now some more American prototype equipment in Large Scale


Dwight, very unlikely IMHO



vsmith said:


> [...] I wonder if Kaders Chinese overlords will continue with it once he is retired.


Victor, very unlikely too...

Time to run & enjoy what we already have, I think. Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

Honestly, it seems like AMS/Accucraft has given up on new Fn3 cars, instead reissuing the old ones, Bachmann hasn't produced anything in a long time, Phil's NG has pretty much stopped making kits, as has Rio Grande UK. Hartford is gone, and although Ozark Miniatures has picked up the line, they're not producing any of the car kits any more.

I feel the future is pretty bleak when it comes to 1:20.3...

Robert


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Dwight Ennis said:


> I believe that's what prompted David Fletcher to design his Carter Brothers Coach and Combine kits. The plans and article are still available here btw.


Dwight, the kits are still available too. With the weak Euro, we recently discovered that one of the Lasergang wooden kits is only $150 !! Harald reported he had orders for 1/2 dozen late last year.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I heard he just passed away, can anyone confirm?


----------



## JerryB (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg Elmassian said:


> I heard he just passed away, can anyone confirm?


That is what's being reported on the Bachmann forum site. See;

http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/board/index.php/topic,31809.0.html

Jerry


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

I cant believe it. This is a huge loss to us all. I never knew him personally, and I didn't always agree with his choice of prototype, but his vision to bring very successful products to the market in 20.3 and On30 will be his legacy and I certainly loved what he developed. He will be greatly missed. We owe him so much.

RIP Lee.

David.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Thanks for posting the link, Jerry. I heard today while at a train show here in Denver. Very sad. 

In terms of the future of 1:20, the Bachmann rep I spoke with today said the market is soft in O and Large scale right now, so Bachmann is more focused on HO and N. The new large scale 2-6-0s are on the production schedule, and should be here in May. After that, hard to say, but I wouldn't expect anything earthshattering in the near future. 

That having been said, I'm not sure I'd describe the future of 1:20.3 as "bleak." It's going to be slim pickings in terms of _new _stuff for the foreseeable future, but there's a ton of stuff out there on the market, enough to give any modeler ample supply from which to build a railroad. 

A quick look at Accucraft's web site shows their box cars, reefers, tank cars, stock cars, flats, gons, lumber cars, hoppers, passenger cars and cabooses all listed as "in stock." Bachmann's got their box cars and tank cars as well. The box cars are similar, but the tank cars are completely different, so the two lines really compliment each other, not compete. 

In terms of locomotives, the days of $300 "Connies" are long behind us, so even if Bachmann were to announce a new locomotive every year, they're going to have 4-figure MSRPs, with street prices in the $700 - $800 range as we've seen with the C-19 and other recent offerings. At those prices, (and especially those of Accucraft's offerings) most of us will not be buying roundhouses full of locomotives every year. Saving for a locomotive in that price range will likely be a one- or two-year process (at least). If we go through a dry spell of manufacturers not releasing anything "new," that gives us time to catch up with what's on the market that we might already want. (Let's face it; $100 - $150 per freight car doesn't exactly lend itself to 50-car trains, either.)

I think the biggest limitation to the 1:20.3 market is simply the very nature of narrow gauge itself. We're not double- or triple-heading locomotives with 40 - 50 car trains the way some who model in 1:29 do. Also, narrow gauge motive power (and even rolling stock to some extent) tended to be unique to specific railroads. If you make something like an F7 diesel, you can paint it in dozens of prototypical paint schemes for dozens of railroads which ran them. If you make a K-27, your market is largely limited to modelers of the D&RGW. Narrow gauge modeling is a niche pursuit, and that niche pursuit by its very nature does not support volume sales. 

Maybe the "boom" days of the scale are past, but I'd hardly consider the future a "bust." There's still a lot of interest, a lot of good modeling going on, and enough selection in the products available to provide ample variety for various narrow gauge pursuits. I think what we're seeing now--new locomotives at the high end of the price spectrum and continued production of existing rolling stock is likely going to be the status quo for a while. I'm fine with that, really. I'm certainly not lacking available commercial products to fill out my empire (and then some). 

Later,

K


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

I read on LSC about his passing, its really sad he never got to enjoy his retirement


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Very sad news, RIP Lee and thank you for the toys we can enjoy, Zubi


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Kevin I am really surprised that it took this long to get the C19, I would have thought that a C16 would have been the natural choice because that small 2-8-0 type locomotive crops up all the time on other narrow gauge lines across the country. It would have had a far broader appeal. Aristos C was 1/24 scale and very small accordingly, a larger 1/20 version would have sold well.

Personally I think 1/20 has helped create the problem were seeing today, it became another niche scale in a niche gauge. MTH aside, 1/29 split large scale into two camps, standard gauge and narrow gauge. 1/20 then splt the narrow gauge camp asunder between the new bigger trains and the older LGB/Big Hauler crowd. It didn't help that every time Bmann came out with a new 1/20 locomotive it seemed like everyone had to completely rebuild parts of or the entire layout to accomodate the newest acquisition. That soured some folks, alot of folks simply gave up when your told you need 20' diameter or your doing it wrong. If narrow gauge had stayed true with 1/22 I think there would be a LOT more participation still today because layouts could be smaller, existing layouts could probably accomodate new models without rebuilding and the models would be compatible with existing older rolling stock. 

As is though, 1/20 remains very much a niche scale in a crowded gauge, Bmann hugely overestimated the market for 1/20 that's why we are getting small pricey production runs today and they are having a long hard time selling that short run, if Bmann decides to drop 1/20 that will only leave a tiny handful of suppliers like Accucraft, pricey suppliers at that! I cannot help but be pessimistic that the gauge is simply just too fragmented and will continue to contract. In a few years I see the only 1/20 being live steam. Sometimes I think that between MLS & LSC active participating members, that IS the actual number of active large scalers out there.


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

Really sorry to hear of his passing, so very sad...

I think the huge misunderstanding was made in the beginning with the misconception that LGB was anything but Meter gauge. Making US models to that scale was incorrect. Don't even get me started on the whole 1/29th slash 1/32nd scale things...

1/20.3 is basically a scale based on a gauge. Similar to what happened in HO and O scales. Weird, huh?

Oddly, I saw a picture in one of the Colorado Rail Annuals today doubleheaded with a K36 and a K37, pulling 64 cars, loaded and empty.

That would certainly be impressive in 1/20.3!

Robert


----------



## Fred Mills (Nov 24, 2008)

It was announced on Saturday, over on Large Scale Central, that Lee Riley has passed away. He never had the opportunity to retire... but yet his enjoyment in life, was his job, and his interest in Railroading. He will always be remembered by many, many of his friends, and people who had the pleasure of meeting him, as a kind, and passionate man, who liked his hobby of Railroading.

May he rest in peace.
Fred Mills


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Victor, I used to think along the same lines, some 20 years ago. And I am still looking forward to some more 1:22.5 US outline, which is now only possible by LGB or Train Line perhaps. On the other hand, 1:20.3 or 15mm scale as it is correctly referred to, attracted a lot of enthusiasm over the past two decades which resulted in models which we would have never seen in 1:22.5. Absolutely never, I am 100% convinced. And in particular, not in live steam. So a huge credit goes to these people who contributed to making these models possible. Among them Lee who so suddenly passed away. I think that the scale/gauge discussions should go elsewhere, and this thread should just end with RIP Lee Riley, and with thanks to his contribution to the hobby. From Tokyo, Zubi


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

Scale/gauge considerations aside, it has been an enthusiastic ride over the years. With at least one of everything Bachmann 1:20.3 in my possession I really do appreciate what Mr Lee Riley has helped to make happen, warts and all. Perhaps something we may not see again. RIP and condolences to family and friends.

Andrew


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

RIP Lee Riley, and condolences to his family and friends.

Obviously, I had no idea when I started this thread that Mr. Riley would suddenly pass away, which throws this whole discussion into an entirely different light. It was not my intention to be disrespectful, but rather to talk about the choices made at Bachmann. However, I think now that Zubi is correct.



zubi said:


> ...this thread should just end with RIP Lee Riley, and with thanks to his contribution to the hobby.


----------

