BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CBQ] Digest Number 2128

To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Digest Number 2128
From: clipperw@EarthLink.net
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 09:11:17 -0500
Delivered-to: archives@nauer.org
Delivered-to: mailing list CBQ@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <1091271579.208.48814.m12@yahoogroups.com>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Mailing-list: list CBQ@yahoogroups.com; contact CBQ-owner@yahoogroups.com
Reply-to: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Ron,

Interestingly, the same is true in the real world. That is one of the 
reasons neither of the major locomotive manufacturers produce lower 
horsepower locomotives any more. A four axle lower horsepower 
locomotive, such as a GP38, can weigh as much as a high horsepower 
locomotive such as a GP60. The design time for one is almost identical 
to the design time required for the other. However, from the RR's 
prospective, they can get a far greater return from the high horsepower 
unit. Depending on how many lower horsepower locomotives are required 
in the future on the mega RRs of today, this could be a problem. The 
remaining low HP locomotives from the last generation are getting tired 
and the only manufacturer remotely offering low HP is Boise Locomotive. 
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that they, too, will find that the  the price 
the customers are willing to pay don't cover the cost of manufacture 
including necessary profit. And, like the small model, there isn't a 
significant demand. Of course, it may be easier to justify a need for a 
particular model than it is for the real thing.

It always amazes me how model RRing and real RRing parallel each other.

Bill Barber

PS - I often wonder how model manufacturers decide what to build. Some 
choices are obvious like Santa Fe or the current four (or six if we 
include our Canadian friends) mega RRs. But, it seems to me that as 
manufacturers come and go, they select models that have already been 
done, and in some cases, done well. I think Broadway is doing a good 
job of producing some out of the mainstream models and hope they can 
continue to do so. Of course, I would like to see more Q other than the 
big three (hudson, northern and Colorado). The O-4 offering was a nice 
addition even though it was a USRA model. However, I think the run 
should have been larger. It is my opinion that many manufacturers 
produce what appeals to them and hope there is a market for it. I am 
certainly not aware of many surveys that are aimed at determining 
customer demand.

On Saturday, July 31, 2004, at 05:59 AM, CBQ@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>   Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:00:46 -0500
>    From: "Ron Burkhard" <ronburk@dotnet.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Burlington Van Truck and BWL 05
>
> Regards the wish list,
>
>   I would like to see the intermediate O-5's, 5608-5620, with a 
> removable
> oil bunker, (5614 & 5620 have not been done by any manufacturer to 
> date).
> Yes also to mike's in the 0-2 & 0-3 classes, and S-3 Pacific's.
>   Unfortunately, smaller locos cost just as much to produce, and 
> typically
> have a smaller market demand.
> Ron Burkhard
> General Manager
> Dinosaur Valley & Western



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/8ZCslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [CBQ] Digest Number 2128, clipperw <=