What do you think is the #1 missing product on the HO market today?

I don't think I'd consider a such and such variation of an SD-45, nor the NKP's H-6e 2-8-2s to fit the bill. On the other hand, the NYC's H-5 mikados were used by a number of roads, and so they could be it.

My entry is a 57" drivered 2-8-0. You may say that there are already several 2-8-0s on the market...and I do agree...but they are oddballs. The Spectrum 2-8-0 has 63" drivers...which were massive for 2-8-0s. Similarly, MDC's has 51" drivers...a bit too small. 51" drivers were primarily used in mountainous regions and by short lines (e.g. Colorado Springs & Cripple Creek, Colorado Midland, Nevada Northern). The vast majority of 2-8-0s were in between...typically 54"-58" drivers. My beloved Nickel Plate had none with 51" drivers and only a handful with 63" drivers, yet it had dozens (or perhaps hundreds since I'd don't have the roster in front of me) of 57" drivered 2-8-0s. Most of the NKP's 0-6-0s and 0-8-0s also had 57" drivers. From studying 2-8-0s from various railroads, I think that most roads were like the NKP in this regard: 56"-57" drivers were the rule...and since 2-8-0s were the most common of all steam locomotives...they are the #1 missing product on the market.

What do you think is missing?

I would be happy if detail parts and kits were readily available again

I we are to go the steam locomotive route - there isn't a 4-4-2 on the market. And there isn't much available (of anything) for pre-1910.

Heh. Well, from my current situation both model railroad wise and financially, the only product I'm likely to buy not available right now would be any NYC electrics. I had based my NYC operations on being able to switch to electric power from either steam or diesel, and when I bought various brass NYC electric units, the ones that run well have no tractive effort, the ones that will pull a ton are very fussy trackwise, will not run on my 26" radius "Harmon" trackage. This being a hidden loop added to the track plan after the fact. While on a self imposed boycott of purchasing any new equipment, any release of these would force me to change my mind. However, I'm sure I'll be iceskating in hell before that happens!

nachoman Wrote:I would be happy if detail parts and kits were readily available again

I we are to go the steam locomotive route - there isn't a 4-4-2 on the market. And there isn't much available (of anything) for pre-1910.

It wasn't that long ago that there were multiple 4-4-2s. I have one of MDC's AT&SF ones which was upgraded with additional details. I'd prefer an SP 4-4-2 and some Harriman cars, but the Santa Fe one was free to me. I considered getting a Mantua 4-4-2 back in junior high. Maybe Model Power will re-release it. IHC's Harriman mogul is a pretty nice pre-1910 locomotive...and the only locomotive in their catalog that I like (I love it)...but I have no idea if they were used to pull fast freight or what...nor do I know if anyone other than the SP had them (I'd guess the IC and UP did as well).

I wouldn't mind building one of the NKP/Clover Leaf 4-4-2s which pulled the Commercial Traveler...a crack passenger train that once connected Toledo to St. Louis. Those two atlantics had 73" drivers and met the torch during John Bernet's power purge early in the Great Depression. I wouldn't mind having one of the Illinois Central's freight atlantics either

Whenever I get around to it, my Roundhouse 2-8-0 will be morphed into a 1900 2-8-0...it basically will keep its current chassis and everything else will be new. The 57" drivered 2-8-0 would fit the bill for pre-1910, as the 63" drivered engines became more common in the teens. I'm glad B-man got around to doing their 4-4-0 and 4-6-0 to give some pre-USRA power...I just haven't bought one as my money is being hoarded for On3 stuff.

I can't think of any candidates for the #1 missing product, but your nomination is a worthy one, Michael. My favourite prototype, the TH&B, used 55"-drivered Consolidations as their main "big" power until the delivery of the road's two Berkshires in 1928. I have a Tyco loco that I hope to one day have time to convert to a decent representation of one of them.
The CNR rostered 366 Consolidations with drivers sized between 50" and 57", but they also owned 486 that were equipped with 63" drivers. Not exactly an "odd-ball" size for them, at least.

Wayne

I think the "#1 missing product" is entirely dependent on your modeling interest. I model Santa Fe in the mid 1950's. I run a little bit of steam for fun, but by 1955 steam was gone. I'm not sure there is a "missing model" for my era and interest. It used to be the Alco "alligators", but that those have now been manufactured. For someone modeling any steam era, there are probably more "holes" than models available. The nature of the beast is that it seemed every railroad had to have their own style of motive power. There seemed to be no such thing as off the shelf production models until the advent of the diesel.

doctorwayne Wrote:The CNR rostered 366 Consolidations with drivers sized between 50" and 57", but they also owned 486 that were equipped with 63" drivers. Not exactly an "odd-ball" size for them, at least.

Wayne

Interesting. I'm glad that the NKP was the NYC's white elephant...as the NYC did have a number of G-5 and G-16 2-8-0s which the NKP inherited to make use of the Spectrum 2-8-0.

Were the TH&B's berks sisters to the A-1? I'm personally baffled by MTH offering the fourth plastic/diecast Van Swearigan berk...and it is an S-1 (not the popular S-2s) just like the Rivarossi, P2K, and Bachmann versions...why not an A-1?

Russ, there were a number of standard designs. In the narrow gauge realm, there were three basic sets of 2-8-0 running gear. In the standard gauge realm, there were also a number of standard designs. Typically, aside from 4-8-4s, the manufacturers have focused in on some of these. The Harriman lines had common designs...and there were the USRA designs...and then there were the WW2 restrictions. The NKP, C&O, PM, RF&P, VGN, and W&LE all operated Van Swearigan berks. Additionally, the L&N 2-8-4s were quite close to the Van Swearigan berks. I'm under the impression that most of the other 2-8-4s (the Erie being the noteworthy exception) were fairly close to, or direct copies of, the prototype A-1 (B&A, B&M, & IC being direct copies). At present, it would probably be easiest to build the pre-1934 (& DT&I) berks using a USRA 2-8-2 chassis.

Another example of common power was the C&O T-1 copies on the PRR that outlasted the PRR's famed duplexes. The KCS's 2-10-4s were also quite similar, and a C&O 2-10-4 could be redetailed to KCS...the biggest changes being boxpok drivers, reversing the domes, and a closed cab. I believe that most of the other 2-10-4s, aside from the ATSF, were pretty similar to the T&P's original stretched A-1.

Steam locomotive designs didn't vary as much as people think...as many of the variations were in the cylinder size, boiler pressure, and such. I've heard so many times that "such & such model isn't close to anything blankety-blank had"...when in fact it is spot on for 1920, but needs extensive detailing for 1950. Generally, there were only a few basic variations...such as 60"-63" drivers or 69"-70" on modern freight power, and 73" or 80" drivers on modern passenger power. Of course, those of us willing to re-detail are a tiny portion of the market Excellent HO mechanisms exist for most modern locomotives.

# 1 missing product has to be cheap kits.

jbaakko Wrote:# 1 missing product has to be cheap kits.

I remember back in the day when I would go to the hobby shop just to browse, and come home with 2-3 "shake the box" freight car kits - not because I needed them, but because they were cheap and fun to put together and weather. Now that I need more freight cars, they are all RTR at my LHS and, cost 3 times as much.

nkp_174 Wrote:Were the TH&B's berks sisters to the A-1? I'm personally baffled by MTH offering the fourth plastic/diecast Van Swearigan berk...and it is an S-1 (not the popular S-2s) just like the Rivarossi, P2K, and Bachmann versions...why not an A-1?

The TH&B tested an A-1, fresh from Lima (and a NYC H-10b, too), but their Class A locos were built by Montreal Locomotive Works, using drawings from Alco. They have many similarities with C&NW Berks, as well as those from International-Great Northern and Mopac, and were not all that different from the A-1s, too.
Because of their short mainline run, an eight-wheel tender was used, but they were, in my opinion, very handsome-looking locos, with lots of piping, pilot-mounted air pumps, and a distinct hint of NYC styling, with a raised shrouding over the turret and associated piping. Most of the major dimensions are "close enough" to Bachmann's version that I'm going to attempt to build one using the Bachmann loco as a starting point. Major changes include re-working the front end, including substituting a regular pilot for the footboards of the model, replacing and relocating the sand and steam domes, and shortening the tender. A less-obvious, but necessary, change is to convert the Laird crosshead to an alligator type.

Wayne

Wayne,
I look forward to seeing your model! Here's a link to an N-scaler, Paul Downs, whom turned a P2K AMC berk into an L&N berk...
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://web.mac.com/pauljdowns/L%26N_in_N_Scale/locomotives.html#0">http://web.mac.com/pauljdowns/L%26N_in_ ... ves.html#0</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://web.mac.com/pauljdowns/L%26N_in_N_Scale/M1_Project.html">http://web.mac.com/pauljdowns/L%26N_in_ ... oject.html</a><!-- m -->

When I get around to build an H-5 mike, I'll use a Spectrum 2-8-0 as a starting point. Just like the first NYC H-5s, the Spectrum 2-8-0 is a better starting point than a USRA 2-8-2 due to the baker valve gear. Anyway it happens, I'll be playing musical trailing trucks in building NKP H-6 mikes and NKP K-1 4-6-2s, so the lack of a trailing truck won't matter. If I was a DT&I modeler, I'd use the Spectrum 2-8-0 to build one of their gorgeous baby berks.

Currently, one of my hudsons is bothering me right now as the motor which I intend to install fits, but doesn't like the shell to be removed. I'll come up with a solution, and then I'll use the Scalecoat paint I ordered to turn her into my primary passenger power. After that, I'll take care of my 2-8-0 and I can begin looking at my next NKP project. I'm thinking about ordering some of Bowser's 56" drivers for building NKP #382. My father has her whistle and she regularly was used on the NKP's branch near my parent's house. She met her end in a cornfield meet during WW2. I don't want to order the wheels now as she is 5 years away on my waiting list, yet Bowser might not have those parts in five years (perhaps I ought to just gamble and get Romford wheels if Bowser sells all of theirs).

--------------------------------------------------
Josh & Kevin, you are both skilled modelers. What is your threshold for details? I find that my On3 cars, plus a few of the super detailed HO kits, have caused me to question whether my Athearn blue box cars have a place on my roster. I suspect that I'm going to have to give them the Doctor Wayne treatment. Perhaps it is rivet counting, but they just don't look right to me anymore. My "old time", or as I prefer: pre-WW1, MDC cars still hold up well for my eyes...but the rest of the shake-the-box cars bother me. On3 car prices ($50-$80 to get them into service) have desensitized me towards many of the HO cars I once considered to be rip-offs...but I still have disdain for $30 RTR...and $18 for an Athearn car is just insane. My LHS still has a decent number of shake the box rolling stock kits. Maybe I'll have to try my hand had building HO brake rigging and such. Maybe I'll just join a club where I'll I have to do is bring my motive power, cabooses, and passenger cars...and use other peoples freight cars.

EDIT: I just found a couple pictures of the TH&B berks...
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.divisionpoint.com/TH+B_284s.html">http://www.divisionpoint.com/TH+B_284s.html</a><!-- m -->
CN Nutbar ought to get out his checkbook! Those are handsome locomotives. They look incredibly modern for 1928. I didn't think that there were any locomotives with cast 4-wheel trailing trucks until 1930...but I now realize that my beloved NKP hudsons had that same feature in 1927. The valve gear on those 2-8-4s looks odd too. I can see the NYC family resemblance...but why on earth didn't the NYC have some of those as well? They were so much prettier than the modern NYC freight power (P&LE berks, L-4s).

nkp_174 Wrote:Josh & Kevin, you are both skilled modelers. What is your threshold for details?

See my post <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.the-gauge.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1727">viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1727</a><!-- l -->

My point is that to be truly protoype faithful - one can take details even farther than the "rivet counters" already do. If I strive to have my rolling stock perfect, it would then bug me that my scenery is not right or the cultural aspects of my scenes disagree with historical record. My goal is to create a reasonable representation. If I am scratch building a car, I will make sure to have seperate grab irons and stirrup steps. Brake rigging - well I will glue a brake cylinder underneath if it will be visible. And truss rod turnbuckles? maybe if I have some lying around or feel like making them. I may add seperate grabs to shake the box kits if I get around to it. The stirrup steps I will replace if I break them off, or replace when I get around to it. For locomotives or cars that I am already modifying or painting to a home road - I will usually go ahead and add a few extra details. I have a Mantua Atlantic that needs to be letterd for my home road - and I will go ahead and add piping details and a new air pump while I have it apart.

That was quite a nice job on the "Big Emma", and he had some other nice ones, as well.

We both looked at those TH&B Berks from Division Point, but they weren't used on the line to Port Maitland (my modelled interchange point with the TH&B). That let me off the $1800.00 price hook, and then I suggested that it wouldn't be too hard to convert the Bachmann loco, if Mister Nutbar really wanted one. I guess have to make myself less credible, as he immediately went out and bought one. It's now sitting, untouched, in my shop: the work doesn't appear to be all that difficult, although it will be time-consuming (as are most of my "projects"). My problem lies in getting started - I currently have ten loco rebuilds lying about: the Berk, a fairly minor conversion of a USRA Mike to a CNR loco, three major re-builds of Bachmann Consolidations into CNR locos, two Bachmann 10-Wheelers to be modernised (new boilers and cabs), an old John English Pacific to be brought up to current standards, a Bachmann 2-6-6-2 to be altered for one of my free-lance roads, and the TH&B Consolidation. The last one has been done by many using the Bachmann loco, but I have a chassis (unpowered and not geared) that has the properly-sized drivers, and I hope to build a loco (and tender) around it. These locos were similar to some of NYC's G-class, I believe. I just have no interest or ambition to work on any of them right now.

As for your problem with the motor in the Hudson, I had a similar problem with the loco pictured below. A PFM model of the B&M B-15 Mogul, it had a very tiny open-frame motor and would barely run. I bought the biggest can motor that would fit within its boiler, then realised that the firebox was too narrow to permit it to pass over the motor.
[album]1315[/album]

My solution was to mount the motor in the boiler, then use universal joints (maybe from Hobbytown) to connect it to the drivers. To separate the superstructure from the chassis, remove 3 screws and lift it off. Replacement requires tweezers to align the male and female parts of the driveshaft, but performance, especially low-speed, is great and pulling power has been increased as well.

Anyone wanting to add brake gear to their freight (or passenger) cars first needs to decide how far they want to go with the detail. I have done cars with the full piping, connecting rods, etc., etc., but most of it isn't visible when the cars are on the layout. I've pretty much settled on modelling only the air pipe from the control valve to the brake cylinder on most house cars. Most of the rest of the piping is visible only if you regularly stage massive derailments, wherein many cars roll down trackside embankments, unashamedly displaying their underbodies.
The other "visible" brake parts beneath a car are the rods connecting the brake wheel to the brake cylinder, and those connecting the brake cylinder actuating piston to the trucks. The only really "fiddly" part, for me at least, is adding that short length of chain between the brake cylinder's clevis and the rod to the brakewheel.
None of my hoppers, covered hoppers, flatcars, or gondolas have any brake detail beyond that which came with the car originally.
Here are some views of freight cars with brake rigging.
This is a modified Accurail car - not much to see with that fishbelly underframe:
[album]1316[/album]

...and as seen from below - note that the air line from the AB valve to the brake cylinder actually originates from the floorboards, not the valve . Also, no trainline or connection to it, no pipes between the reservoir and the AB valve, no dirt collector and no release rod, either:
[album]1317[/album]

A Tichy reefer, with "K" brakes:
[album]1318[/album]

...not much to it, although I did add the trainline (crossing through the underframe at right, with a connection to the brake cylinder):
[album]1319[/album]

A Bowser X-31 boxcar - the brake rodding is noticeable here, with the light background, but not so much under normal viewing conditions:
[album]1320[/album]

...the piping from the reservoir to the AB valve was included only because the reservoir is so close to the sidesill:
[album]1321[/album]

An upgraded Train Miniature ARA boxcar - not too much visible from this angle:
[album]1322[/album]

...however, from below there's too much visible, as I didn't bother to removed the original cast-on brake gear from the underfloor - the pipes from the reservoir to the AB valve are the original moulded-on ones, as replacement wire ones would have gone in a similar location and been just as invisible from trackside:
[album]1323[/album]

Another Tichy car with "K" brakes - because this car has a straight underframe rather than the slight fishbelly style of the PFE reefer, the brake gear is more visible from the side - keep in mind, though, that layout lighting usually won't reveal so much:
[album]1324[/album]

...here's the underside - note that the trainline has been modelled, but is "interrupted" where it passes through the centresill:
[album]1325[/album]

Finally, another Tichy car, this time with the more modern AB brakes. With the brighter lighting and a straight centresill, there's a fair amount of brake stuff visible:
[album]1326[/album]

...this one got more piping than I usually bother with, including those between the reservoir and the AB valve, but you'll note that they aren't visible in the side view. The real ones have even more, equally unnoticeable from trackside:
[album]1327[/album]

Hmmm. Sorry, but in answering your comments, Michael, it appears that I've strayed a bit off-topic. :oops: Still no missing products spring to mind for me, though.

Wayne

And so you are a "model railroader" rather than a "model railroad car builder" or such. Your focus is on the weakest link. Still, different people see different things...and so they'll focus in on some details more than others. I am definitely more interested in the rolling stock than anything else, while the majority of modelers seem to be more interested in the structures. I've noticed that many modelers are fanatical about locomotives and freight cars, yet fail to see the gross deficiencies in passenger cars...while I'm inclined to go all-out on the passenger side and sweat the details on the freight service.

Edit:
Great story on those 2-8-4s....$1800
Thanks for the ideas on the hudson. I have a similar problem with my On3 2-8-0 that's under construction...so the solution works for both of them.

The worst thing about project ques is that I don't always attack them when I have the time. I'm not allowing myself to touch my OF 2-8-0 (On3 from a B-man On30 2-8-0) nor my Roundhouse 2-8-0 until I have all the commercial parts and, in the case of the On3 engine, the new tender built.

I love the look of brake rigging...especially if it is supposed to be there. In O scale, I make all of my own parts aside from clevises...and I've yet to add rivets/bolts to the hardware. The biggest thing for me with my HO cars are the door claws and grab irons...which I'll probably replace. The brake parts come next, as much for fun as for visibility. I suppose the HO cars would principally need levers and rods...with a little bit of piping.

Here are a couple out of date photos of a pair of cars with my low-detail, low cost brake rigging...since then, I've learned to chemically blacken BEFORE attaching...

Looks good, Michael. I'd think that O scale cars would "cry out" for a little extra effort on the detail front, but you're right: for HO, a little bit of piping, and some of the visible rods usually does the trick. Of course, there's always that sense of satisfaction if you do a more complete job of such details, but it's not always practical - especially if you have a fairly large roster of freight or passenger cars.
Most of my passenger cars get a little more in the way of brake details, as there's a little more room to fill, plus, the UC brake gear that I use on most of my passenger equipment has more components, including, in many cases, slack adjusters - a nuisance to model, but an interesting detail.
[album]1328[/album]

[album]1330[/album]

If you need clevises for brake gear, a decent stand-in is to use a turnbuckle of suitable size, with one end cut off. You'll need to add a short length of wire to represent the brake cylinder's piston. I'd like to take credit for the idea, but it's from Ted Culotta, a very accomplished modeller, especially of freight cars. Now he does brake gear!!

Wayne