Close may not be enough - which is why I mentioned getting the other
HS involved. Even if you were to do a 2-8-2 for the Q - and wanted
to branch out for the Grand Canyon RR, there would be enough changes
to some parts that it may not be worth it, though they are or were
the same locomotive. However, if the other HS or entity were
actively involved and it was a good prototype for both roads, then it
becomes more possible. The Grand Canyon model can also be used apart
from the "normal" hobbyist market. Not to an extent that it will
sell the project, but it can help. Look how many Bachmann Great
Doems have been sold to the non-hobbyist. Obviously, this is a bit
(!) more expensive, but packaged right - like say with some of the
BLI's CZ cars (and another good reason to bring some in with out
train name boards (I know, not inexpensive)) and you just MIGHT have
another audience. A small one, but it all adds up.
It's like narrow gauge as well - doing a 537 could open up all sorts
of things - but the market for a D&RGW C-21 is typically much more
viable than that of the C&S leased Q 537. However, that too was more
or less a catalog locomotive, and a little research could show
possibilities. At the same time, realize that the D&RGW C-16 (and to
a lesser extent, C-19) are also catalog engines, and virtual copies
(and re-sold locomotives) were scattered all over the West. Yet when
C-16's are done, there aren't many NCP's, NCRR's, or similar run -
for good reason. Sometimes when you really want something specific,
you have to branch out and get enough of a ground swell to be able to
say to a manufacturer that something might be a good idea.
There are some locomotives out there that were dogs to begin with and
some that were never dogs, but there just isn't any to find. The
Rutland 2-8-2 and the Soo locomotives are prime examples. They
command ridiculous prices compared to a Santa Fe or PRR
locomotive. Some of the Q locomotives fit in this pattern too, so
that could also be used by the project manager as a prod. It won't
nail the deal, but you have to provide as many positives as
possible. Do some fundamental research and polling. Prove there is
a market. Gather co-sponsors. It's not unlike the business most
people are associated with in the day to day world.
At 11:54 AM 2/2/2006, you wrote:
>In today's market "close" may or may not cut it.
>While there might be some locomotives that share driver spacing, there are
>subtle variations in most "mechanisms" that prevent much sharing of model
>components.
>
>That being said, Baldwing, Alco, etc.. certainly did not make a brand new
>design from scratchh every time they build a locomotive. They had a
>library of designs and
>patterns that could be combined to meet the customer's needs.
>
>In the case of the Q there was much standardization between locomotives.
>The Aurora shops did not want to stock a totally separate parts inventory
>for each locomotive class. There were standard domes, cylinders, springs,
>drivers, pilot wheels, etc.. etc. that were common between many classes and
>were totally interchangeable.
>In fact, there was an article in Railway Gazette showing drawings of various
>parts that were shared between 0-6-0s, 2-6-2s and I forget what other class
>of locos on
>the Q.
>
>I have oft speculated that the Q M1 and M2 2-10-2 were either basically
>stock Baldwin designs or vice-versa. They certainly shared many design
>characteristics with the
>O1, O2 and O3 locomotives (and of course they, in turn, shared details and
>boilers with the S1 and S2), so I suspect it is the former. The CB&Q was
>considered a very progressive railroad in design and engineering and may
>very well have been the pattern-setter for Baldwin designs.
>
>The Wabash had Burlington pattern 2-6-2s which differed only in boiler
>front, cab and tender details. They also had 2-10-2s which look
>suspiciously like Q engines but I haven't analyzed them or other road's
>Baldwin 2-10-2s built around the same time to see if they are duplicates in
>any way.
>
>One of the main problems with finding common prototypes is that it costs a
>lot to do separate boilers, cabs and tenders for steam and the variations
>are for non-top selling
>roadnames. For example, the MILW, CRI&P and D&H 4-8-4s were built from the
>same basic plans. But the details, tenders, driver style, and valve gear
>variations limit the common parts to the frame, drive train and not much
>more. BLI did a similar project in the PRR J and the C&O T1.... locos that
>were built from the same plan but that had totally different "looks".... and
>the C&O engine did not sell well enough to justify the cost of tooling the
>additional parts to make it.
>
>Even "Harriman" locos, while "common" designs, present a problem as they may
>have started out looking pretty much the same between UP, SP (both strong
>selling prototypes) and IC, Alton/GM&O and maybe Erie..... but being older
>machines they got heavily modified by each road by the time they got to the
>era that most of us model ....and you might not even suspect they started
>from the same set of plans.
>
>And you thought these issues should be crystal clear to manufacturers!!
>
>Charlie Vlk
>Railroad Model Resources
Bob Webber
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/
|