Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [on3] Re: Wish Lists, etc.

Expand Messages
  • derrell poole
    Bill. Thanks for enlightening us. We re sorry that our inability to conform to your mindset will cause us to loose you. Inspite of all of that we will humbly
    Message 1 of 3 , Mar 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Bill. Thanks for enlightening us. We're sorry that our inability to conform to your mindset will cause us to loose you. Inspite of all of that we will humbly forgive you for coming out of left field from an obviously parallel but different topic - and with such passion! BTW Rhode Island was a Builder in the late 1800s. I haven't been a Narrow Gauge modeler for 45 year but somehow I managed to know that. Don't know much else tho....

      *yawn*

      Derrell


      ----- Original Message ----
      From: railwayeng <railwayeng@...>
      To: on3@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 9:31:54 PM
      Subject: [on3] Re: Wish Lists, etc.


      What?
      --- In on3@yahoogroups. com, William Barber <clipperw@.. .> wrote:
      >
      > Listers,
      >
      > Most of you folks obviously haven't been on a real RR. You start
      > using locomotive manufacturer' s model nomenclature and you will loose
      > more people than you gain. Frankly, I have never been interested in
      > learning or understanding Baldwin's rather obscure model
      > designations, or for that matter, those of almost every other
      > manufacturer, except the one that I worked for for 36 years, EMD.
      > Railfans have spent years trying to figure out how EMD arrived at
      > their model designations.
      >
      > On most RRs now days, the crew men barely know whether they are
      > operating a GE or an EMD, but they do know which units ride the best,
      > are the quietest or pull the best. In the days of steam, most
      > engineers knew their RR's locomotives by the road number group and
      > some RRs even classed their locomotives that way. They would refer
      > to the "4000s" or the "6000s" and knew them that way. Mechanical
      > Depts put their own class designation on them such as O-5 or K-28. In
      > steam or diesel few if any RRers knew the locomotive models by the
      > manufacturers' model designation or cared. Most also didn't bother
      > with the type names, such as "mikado" although some RRs used those.
      >
      > I've been a model RR for 60 of my 65 years and a narrow gauge modeler
      > for 45 years. If you insist on using Baldwin's model designation for
      > a specific locomotive type, you lost me. I probably won't even know
      > what wheel arrangement it is. My interest is in all things American
      > narrow gauge (and a few others of interest) and I know what a K-27 or
      > a 490 is, but I also know what #80 looked like on the Oahu RR, #9 on
      > the SP, some of the N-C-O and some of the SPC locomotives along with
      > most on the EBT. I also know what a 15 CA is in South Africa and an
      > S-4 is on the CB&Q (Chicago Burlington and Quincy for those that
      > don't know). However, I couldn't tell you what their Baldwin or Alco
      > designations were and I really don't care to learn at this late date.
      > As I said earlier, after they leave the factory, most RRs didn't and
      > don't know either. While we are at it, what were Rhode Island's or
      > Dunkirk's designations for similar models? When you get to later
      > standard gauge steam, Baldwin's identification gets even more
      > confusing. There aren't that many narrow gauge locomotives or RRs, so
      > please go back to individual RR identification. It is the way they
      > were known then and now. Using the builder's designation is like
      > referring to people as home sapiens which they are, but nobody out
      > side of maybe the scientific community uses the term.
      >
      > Bill Barber
      >
      > On Feb 29, 2008, at 5:40 AM, on3@yahoogroups. com wrote:
      >
      > > A list for O Scale Narrow Gauge modelers who build to the three
      > > foot gauge in 1/4 inch scale. Open to all railroads western, ea
      > > Messages In This Digest (12 Messages)
      > > 1a.
      > > Re: MMi Wish list and more import ideas From: Craig H
      > > 1b.
      > > Re: MMi Wish list and more import ideas From: Boone Morrison
      > > 1c.
      > > Re: MMi Wish list and more import ideas From: mransr
      > > 2a.
      > > Re: Ink on linen builder's drawings From: Boone Morrison
      > > 3a.
      > > Re: more import ideas From: Boone Morrison
      > > 3b.
      > > Re: more import ideas From: RANDALL HEES
      > > 3c.
      > > Re: more import ideas From: Andrew Brandon
      > > 3d.
      > > Re: more import ideas From: Allen Landis
      > > 3e.
      > > Re: more import ideas From: derrell poole
      > > 3f.
      > > Re: more import ideas - Who Models What? From: Charles Mutschler
      > > 3g.
      > > Re: imports and EBT 2-8-2's From: sgrdg179
      > > 4.
      > > e-mail add From: Allen Landis
      > > View All Topics | Create New TopicMessages
      > > 1a.
      > > Re: MMi Wish list and more import ideas
      > > Posted by: "Craig H" craig_h@... hohohoefer
      > > Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:01 pm (PST)
      > >
      > > Cliff,
      > >
      > > I'll nibble on your questions.
      > >
      > > A quick disclaimer, I've tried to keep this brief (and failed). I've
      > > made generalities that'll probably piss somebody off (to cut word
      > > count). I've had some very good experience with high volume retail
      > > management, and I was also in the prototyping/ light manufacturing
      > > business which relates directly to both the retail and manufacturing
      > > issues.
      > >
      > > Regarding your P/S first. From my high volume retail days...one needs
      > > to sit on inventory for as short a period as possible. Generally it's
      > > untill the invoice is due (30-60-90 days). That inventory needs to be
      > > sold before the bill is due from the supplier. Sitting on inventory
      > > kills a retailer quickly and prevents him/her from having money
      > > available for reinvesting in resupply, to pay overhead costs,
      > > paychecks, etc.
      > >
      > > Sitting on inventory is one of the two primary reason most hobby shops
      > > tank. We've all seen owners order too much really cool specialized
      > > stuff that'll only sell to a couple guys; or they're new to retail,
      > > and let the salesperson from the distributor order their store for
      > > them. They get all the leftover crap from the warehouse that they've
      > > been sitting on for too long. I've seen this happen to nearly all the
      > > shops in my part of the world. There's plenty of other examples. I
      > > won't touch mailorder and internet retailers and issues around that
      > > end of the business.
      > >
      > > Manufacturers are pretty much in the same boat when it comes to
      > > developing a new product. Time and money spent on R&D, time & money
      > > spent on cutting masters and molds (all invoiced somehow, payable by a
      > > certain date), contracts made out to company X in China (payable by a
      > > certain date), same goes for packaging, advertising, etc. The
      > > question is: How much reserve cash does the company have to cover
      > > costs until that product is gone and the retailers pay up.
      > >
      > > You get the picture. I've kept this to broad statements and
      > > generalities by the way.
      > >
      > > Now for your Polling Idea:
      > >
      > > The short answer: Nobody has compiled a rational, statistically usable
      > > listing to make available to the manufacturers (maybe a magazine has,
      > > but no internet SIG/Yahoo Group).
      > >
      > > Now, some incomplete thoughts as to how to set up a meaningfull
      > > document:
      > >
      > > Very few people on any of the scale specific Yahoo Groups that I
      > > belong to is talking about locomotives in a rational fashion.
      > > Sorry, hear me out, then flame away. Randy, Boone, and a couple others
      > > have outlined a good starting point earlier in this string. Here is
      > > an idea to get us comparing Fujis to Granny Smiths and not Apples to
      > > Oranges.
      > >
      > > 1) There's a book, "The History of American Narrow Gauge" by White(?).
      > > In it are some useful charts regarding locomotive production keyed to
      > > date, manufacturer, wheel arrangement, etc. That is THE good place to
      > > start a poll statistically. From it we can start a database of what
      > > was available, by who, and when.
      > >
      > > 2) Try not to refer to a loco by number alone. At least include the
      > > railroad initials for morons like me who need to Google up data on
      > > that engine. From there, we can find any surviving Builder's
      > > documents.
      > >
      > > 3) People need to start looking at locomotive by manufacturer, time
      > > period, and a few other manufacturer based criteria. The best data
      > > available are the manufacturer' s order sheets. Typically they specify
      > > exactly what parts went into the loco. We can find a LOT of common
      > > parts to different machines this way, nice benifit. Companies like
      > > PSC can now look at the models they did years ago, look at item 1
      > > above, inventory the masters, molds, etc. and maybe cut costs by
      > > reusing tooling.
      > >
      > > 4) Example: (Not trying to piss anyone off, I like both) Talking about
      > > a T-12 or a Class 42 is meaningless outside of the road that used that
      > > nomenclature. Use the Baldwin Classification or Plan number if it's a
      > > Baldwin, similar nomenclature for other manufacturers. That way the
      > > loco can be compared directly to the machines used by other roads
      > > nationwide.
      > >
      > > 5) Example: Look at the way we've been working towards the MMI 8-18c4.
      > > Yes, it's a Class 42, but more importantly, we can compare it as an
      > > 8-18c to other roads that never used anything called a Class 42. We
      > > can document and show that the loco was available in huge numbers, for
      > > nearly the entire narrow gauge timeline, by a ton of roads. That
      > > makes it hugely important as a model candidate beyond the narrow
      > > time-frame and geographic usage represented by some of our perenial
      > > favorites.
      > >
      > > I'll stop here. It's a start, hope it helps, hope it's productive and
      > > doesn't start people flaming.
      > >
      > > Craig Hoefer
      > >
      > > --- In on3@yahoogroups. com, Cliff F <cliffbpg@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > On previous bxxxxy post I imbedded a real question. Has any one
      > > compiled and sent MMI a wish list with approximate numbers of folks
      > > who will actually plan to buy these items ? The combined membership of
      > > this group and RGS group is about 1800 people . Ignoring cross
      > > membership and presuming the other 3 ft Narrow gage groups could
      > > double this number to make up 900 units between ONE inTWO to ONE in
      > > FOUR of us will have to purchase one of the many wished for Die Cast
      > > Variants.. I feel the members of these groups are the more active
      > > narrow gagersand that not many non member CASUAL purchasers would even
      > > know the WISH LIST items were released---Cliff F
      > > > P/S How long can a manufacturer or distributer (excluding those who
      > > just produce and sell items for their own pleasure)stock an item
      > > before there is no profit left.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > >
      > > Back to topReply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      > > Messages in this topic (4)
      > > 1b.
      > > Re: MMi Wish list and more import ideas
      > > Posted by: "Boone Morrison" boone@... boone96785
      > > Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:48 pm (PST)
      > >
      > > Gang:
      > >
      > > Just to put this in a bit of perspective. The work to encourage MMI
      > > to do the
      > > Baldwin 8-18C-4 (4-4-0) has been going on for more than three years -
      > > since the NG Convention in Santa Clara.
      > >
      > > Lots of discussion, research and further discussion. As some may
      > > know, PSC
      > > did this engine as a limited run brass import in the mid 70's, and
      > > most of the
      > > detail parts made their way into the PSC parts catalogue - still are
      > > available.
      > > So, that gave MMI a real start on one of the costly elements of such
      > > a project.
      > > This fact was noted by those of us proposing this, and pointed out
      > > to MMI early
      > > on. It really made a difference, we were told.
      > >
      > > And, we presented just such a listing of the total number actually
      > > sold, to whom,
      > > and in what part of the country - also, indications of their
      > > migration away from
      > > the original lines, and how long this basic design remained in
      > > service...a long
      > > time, it turned out.
      > >
      > > In emails from interested modelers we were canvassing, the response
      > > was very
      > > enthusiastic, so Mark at MMI agreed to at least entertain
      > > "reservations" to judge
      > > the market - he (and we) were surprised. Not only have a good number
      > > of folks
      > > made such reservations, but a significant percentage have reserved
      > > two, and
      > > some (me for one) three!
      > >
      > > That sort of response has got to tell a mfr that "something is up
      > > here"...which it
      > > did, resulting in the "official advertising" for this model we are
      > > now seeing...
      > > in On3, On30 and HOn3.....
      > >
      > > One key element to the success of this effort to interest MMI was the
      > > wide dispersion
      > > of this particular engine across many NG lines all over the nation-
      > > and how long they
      > > were seen in regular service. The design was produced from about
      > > 1874 and in
      > > 1930 there were still dozens of these in regular service on the
      > > smaller lines, who
      > > bought them from the big guys as they were replaced. They ran in
      > > Hawaii, Latin
      > > America, Mexico, and who knows where else.
      > >
      > > So, those of you who want "Old 99" should gather your ducks, get
      > > them to line
      > > up, and then approach a manufacturer with your "proposal".. ..
      > >
      > > Unless something goes wrong at MMI, the upcoming Baldwin 8-18C-4
      > > engines
      > > will be available in a reasonable time - this is the result of the
      > > above process.
      > >
      > > Aloha, Boone
      > >
      > > Back to topReply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      > > Messages in this topic (4)
      > > 1c.
      > > Re: MMi Wish list and more import ideas
      > > Posted by: "mransr" mransr@... mransr
      > > Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:53 pm (PST)
      > >
      > > there's been lots of interesting discussion and info on the
      > > practicalities of manufacturing and retailing and what-not...
      > >
      > > but, I beleive the original question was, "what would you LIKE TO SEE
      > > someone make?" not "what do you think might be practical for
      > > someone to
      > > make?"...
      > >
      > > so, while what I'd like may not be all that main-stream, it's still
      > > what I like. And it's what I want to see someone make a model of...so,
      > > if all anybody ever mentions on a "wish list" is the same old D&RG,
      > > RGS, etc. stuff we'll never get anything but that stuff.
      > >
      > > but that's just my opinion, no more, no less...
      > >
      > > mike
      > > San Juan Pacific Lines
      > > On31.17 California 3' narrow gauge
      > > http://webpages. charter.net/ mransr/trains
      > >
      > > Back to topReply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      > > Messages in this topic (4)
      > > 2a.
      > > Re: Ink on linen builder's drawings
      > > Posted by: "Boone Morrison" boone@... boone96785
      > > Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:02 pm (PST)
      > >
      > > Rosss:
      > >
      > > If you find some by a major loco builder that is not in a museum IT
      > > SHOULD BE and
      > > you should make every effort to help get it there.
      > >
      > > This is really important historic material and should be available
      > > for study by
      > > serious researchers, not in private hands.
      > >
      > > Aloha, Boone
      > >
      > > On Feb 28, 2008, at 11:43 AM, Ross Leavens wrote:
      > >
      > > > A little outside the usual range of topics, but has anybody seen
      > > > 1920's
      > > > era ink-on-linen builder's drawings for locomotives and rolling
      > > stock,
      > > > narrow gauge? Any suggestions on sources, possibly for purchase,
      > > that
      > > > aren't already in museums? Reply via email would be great, thanks!
      > > > Ross
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > > Back to topReply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      > > Messages in this topic (2)
      > > 3a.
      > > Re: more import ideas
      > > Posted by: "Boone Morrison" boone@... boone96785
      > > Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:13 pm (PST)
      > >
      > > Derrell, et al -
      > >
      > > Derrell, I think you are beginning to approach this from a viable
      > > point of
      > > view - that of discussing BUILDERS AND CLASS NUMBERS, instead of some
      > > short hand..
      > > "I'd love old #445 after the wreck".....that means nothing to anyone
      > > but a myopic Colorado
      > > modeler....
      > >
      > > BUT. if you go to the builder's records of mfrs like Baldwin,
      > > determine which classes of
      > > engines (THEIR CLASS NUMBERS, NOT THAT OF SOME PURCHASING RR) you can
      > > see roughly how many were sold, and to whom.
      > >
      > > Take that data and plot it on a map to see how widespread
      > > (geographically) these sales
      > > were, and you begin to see the potential "reach" of any model project
      > > - of course, where
      > > the real engines ran and the lines modelers may be focused upon may
      > > not be the same
      > > at all...but, that is one of the chances one takes.
      > >
      > > So, instead of talking of "Old 99", how about talking about a
      > > "Baldwin 8-22D"...that is the
      > > Mogul with the rear driver backset - and that to increase firebox
      > > size. The "8-18C" Baldwin
      > > is, of course, the 4-4-0....which ran in the FAR West under that
      > > classification, but ran in
      > > Colorado as their (proprietary designation, not Baldwin) "Class 42".
      > >
      > > By this approach one can really get a feeling for how common and
      > > engine was etc.
      > > As mentioned, the Baldwin C-series engines (C-16, 2-8-0) was also all
      > > over the place.
      > >
      > > Again, a great candidate.
      > >
      > > This sort of review and analysis might really clarify the drawing up
      > > of a reasonably viable
      > > list of possible projects to present to a manufacturer.
      > >
      > > And, dear sir, what is WRONG with scratch building??? :-)
      > >
      > > Aloha, Boone
      > >
      > > On Feb 28, 2008, at 10:28 AM, derrell poole wrote:
      > >
      > > > Well then I'll re-iterate once again that the smartest choice for a
      > > > Non-D&RG (and its side kick the Really Grungy Southern) is C&S 68.
      > > > Even people who are not particularly modeling the C&S will be
      > > > interested. (They've even said so here!) It can be driectly
      > > > converted to 8 other C&S engines and with a little more work to any
      > > > of the classes B-4-C to B-4-E. That's 16 additional possibilities!
      > > > Its 37" drivers are virtually the same as a C-16s (close enough for
      > > > Die Cast). Furthermore I am willing to participate as an advisor
      > > > even tho I model in 3/16 scale and I have a TON of photos and
      > > > information.
      > > >
      > > > Derrell
      > > >
      > > > ----- Original Message ----
      > > > From: Boone Morrison <boone@...>
      > > > To: on3@yahoogroups. com
      > > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:48:37 AM
      > > > Subject: Re: [on3] more import ideas
      > > >
      > > > Gang:
      > > >
      > > > To reinforce Randy's comments, particularly about quantity. In my
      > > > numerous conversations
      > > > with Mark at PSC/MMI he made it clear that the die-cast route
      > > MUST be
      > > > based on large
      > > > quantities - he said that the cost of the dies is significant and
      > > > they cannot amortize that cost
      > > > with fewer than 800+ sales....over some period of time, of course.
      > > >
      > > > He also told me that he can make out with only 30 or so brass
      > > > locomotives of the same
      > > > design, but the cost will be significantly higher.
      > > >
      > > > Based on that, Randy is entirely correct that "your favorite,
      > > obscure
      > > > locomotive" simply
      > > > will not be produced by such as MMI in die-cast . Face it,
      > > > most of the suggestions I have seen on this thread are so odd, or
      > > > obscure that it is
      > > > simply not worth it for ANY mfr to approach this sort of thing with
      > > > anything other than
      > > > a costly, hand assembled brass model.
      > > >
      > > > Aloha, Boone
      > > >
      > > > On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:07 PM, Randy Hees wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > My thoughts are that for MMI to make a die cast loco they need to
      > > > > sell something over 1000 and closer to 2000 pieces.
      > > > >
      > > > > With that in mind locos like the single EBT 2-6-2, NCNG 5 or the
      > > > > CB&Q loco used on C&S just don't cut it. Thes3 are the beasts
      > > which
      > > > > need to be done in short runs of brass locos... I understand the
      > > > > original model of NCNG 5 was very low production, maybe under 50
      > > > > pieces.
      > > > >
      > > > > The RGS ten wheelers, might work. RGS guys could buy 3 each...
      > > This
      > > > > was the beauty of a K27, people bought more than one.
      > > > >
      > > > > If anything on the EBT would work it would need to be the 2-8-2's
      > > > >
      > > > > The D&RG(W) T12 might work, We can do some research to find out
      > > who
      > > > > used similar engines... This is the concept of the 4-4-0.. It
      > > works
      > > > > as a D&RG class 42 as well as a west coast "standard" 4-4-0
      > > > >
      > > > > I think a 42 ton shay would might work...
      > > > >
      > > > > Collectivly, we need to remember that if its a weird prototype we
      > > > > are not going to see it in die cast, but might in brass...
      > > > >
      > > > > Jon, I have been trying to come up with a table of moguls, but the
      > > > > number built of each style is just not great...
      > > > >
      > > > > Randy Hees.
      > > > >
      > > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > > From: the3dworkshop@ aol.com
      > > > > To: on3@yahoogroups. com
      > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:30 PM
      > > > > Subject: [on3] more import ideas
      > > > >
      > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
      > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
      > > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://
      > > > mobile.yahoo. com/;_ylt= Ahu06i62sR8HDtDy pao8Wcj9tAcJ
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > > Back to topReply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      > > Messages in this topic (19)
      > > 3b.
      > > Re: more import ideas
      > > Posted by: "RANDALL HEES" hees@... randyhees
      > > Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:38 pm (PST)
      > >
      > > First a disclaimer, Boone, Craig and I have lots of off list
      > > discussions�
      > >
      > > I no longer model Colorado, but once did, and understand a bit of
      > > the Colorado mind set.
      > >
      > > First of all there are probably more people modeling the D&RGW
      > > narrow gauge than there are who
      > > model all the other narrow gauges in the US, especially if you add
      > > in the
      > > RGS modelers.
      > >
      > > The D&RG had numerous examples of a class or model of loco make it
      > > much easier for a model company
      > > to offer locos� and expect that any one modeler would buy multiples
      > > of each. I call this the
      > > stock car effect� no one runs a single stock car, you always run
      > > trains of 6 +, so you build up
      > > the count a manufacturer needs more quickly.
      > >
      > > For example there were 15 K-27's built, used by two railroads
      > > (D&RGW and RGS) as well as some
      > > which migrated south to Mexico�
      > >
      > > If I was still modeling the RGW I would want 4 for my railroad�. I
      > > might want more, but would
      > > settle for 4 (remembering that this will total more than sold my
      > > old pick up for�)
      > >
      > > On the other hand there are maybe 5 people modeling the North
      > > Pacific Coast, maybe 3 modeling the
      > > South Pacific Coast. Each railroad had 6 or 7 of this loco. If all
      > > of us buy 3 or 4 4-4-0's it
      > > is only 24 locos (and I only have 2 on order)� Add a few for the
      > > people who have seen Eureka, and
      > > another 50 for the collectors and maybe 50 for the free lancers,
      > > and we maybe have 150 locos� Add
      > > in the Midwest modelers, the Florida modelers (does anyone really
      > > model Florida's narrow gauge???
      > > They had 8-18c's, used D&RG class 42's and at least 3 bogies�) but
      > > because it is nearly identical
      > > to a D&RG class 42 MMI can expect to sell many more.
      > >
      > > 4-4-0 locos are marginal prototypes, but because we have pieced
      > > together a lot of possible users
      > > we may get one in die cast�
      > >
      > > On the other hand most locos don't have this distribution. The CB&Q
      > > loco 530 or something that
      > > migrated from the Black Hills to the South Park was a one off.
      > > There are South Park modelers, so
      > > they may buy a couple, but does anyone model the Black Hills narrow
      > > gauge� I would be surprised
      > > if you sold more than 300.
      > >
      > > The people who want a OR&L loco may get one if they do a K28 in die
      > > cast, since they had 4 built
      > > to that plan� on the other hand the outside frame 4-6-0 which is a
      > > pretty loco again didn't see
      > > wide use, so we get collectors and the 4-8 people who model Hawaii�.
      > >
      > > We might have a chance with a EBT mike� they had 5 (from memory?)
      > > and there is an established
      > > modeling community, so if each modeler bought 3, and the collectors
      > > and free lances came to the
      > > table you could probably get the 800 needed.
      > >
      > > Randy
      > >
      > > Back to topReply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      > > Messages in this topic (19)
      > > 3c.
      > > Re: more import ideas
      > > Posted by: "Andrew Brandon" andrew.brandon@ ... mrmustard11
      > > Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:00 pm (PST)
      > >
      > > Randy,
      > >
      > > If it helps the numbers, I model whatever I like and have models of
      > > varied pieces of narrow gauge railroading including some NPC in the
      > > future. The problem I have with these polls is simply this; I have no
      > > intrest in "K" Class locomotives unless we're talking a "Class 125" as
      > > built with slope back tender. I personally prefer to buy models that I
      > > can kitbash into accurate models of something I want. Almost NO
      > > releases in the On3/30 world have interested me in well over 5 years.
      > > I am excited for the MMI 8-18-C of course, it will allow me to build
      > > many different models from around the country. Sadly I know I am the
      > > odd man out in these discussions but I am hoping that by saying
      > > something I can bring out others like myself who aren't completely
      > > focused on a single area. Some of the suggestions made I WOULD
      > > purchase. The first narrow gauge I was exposed to was the EBT, I've
      > > done my share of research on the NCNG, I'd buy a Uintah 2-6-6-2T or
      > > even an 0-6-2T I'd even go far enough to buy a model of the early
      > > Souther built CC locomotives. I know I am not alone when I say a Bogie
      > > is long over due, but eventually MMI will run out of D&RGW , C&S and
      > > RGS locomotives to model maybe then those of us with eclectic tastes
      > > will be satisfied.
      > >
      > > -=Andrew=-
      > >
      > > Back to topReply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      > > Messages in this topic (19)
      > > 3d.
      > > Re: more import ideas
      > > Posted by: "Allen Landis" ALLENLANDIS@ ...
      > > Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:34 pm (PST)
      > >
      > > If per chance they do make a E.B.T. mike. I hope that they decide
      > > to do the # 16 . If you do a # 16 with verry fue changes you can
      > > also make # 17 , and # 18 and thus you have 3 differnt engins . and
      > > every one modeling the E.B.T. would haft to have one of each . Allen
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: RANDALL HEES
      > > To: on3@yahoogroups. com
      > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 8:38 PM
      > > Subject: Re: [on3] more import ideas
      > >
      > > First a disclaimer, Boone, Craig and I have lots of off list
      > > discussions.
      > >
      > > I no longer model Colorado, but once did, and understand a bit of
      > > the Colorado mind set.
      > >
      > > First of all there are probably more people modeling the D&RGW
      > > narrow gauge than there are who
      > > model all the other narrow gauges in the US, especially if you add
      > > in the
      > > RGS modelers.
      > >
      > > The D&RG had numerous examples of a class or model of loco make it
      > > much easier for a model company
      > > to offer locos. and expect that any one modeler would buy multiples
      > > of each. I call this the
      > > stock car effect. no one runs a single stock car, you always run
      > > trains of 6 +, so you build up
      > > the count a manufacturer needs more quickly.
      > >
      > > For example there were 15 K-27's built, used by two railroads
      > > (D&RGW and RGS) as well as some
      > > which migrated south to Mexico.
      > >
      > > If I was still modeling the RGW I would want 4 for my railroad.. I
      > > might want more, but would
      > > settle for 4 (remembering that this will total more than sold my
      > > old pick up for.)
      > >
      > > On the other hand there are maybe 5 people modeling the North
      > > Pacific Coast, maybe 3 modeling the
      > > South Pacific Coast. Each railroad had 6 or 7 of this loco. If all
      > > of us buy 3 or 4 4-4-0's it
      > > is only 24 locos (and I only have 2 on order). Add a few for the
      > > people who have seen Eureka, and
      > > another 50 for the collectors and maybe 50 for the free lancers,
      > > and we maybe have 150 locos. Add
      > > in the Midwest modelers, the Florida modelers (does anyone really
      > > model Florida's narrow gauge???
      > > They had 8-18c's, used D&RG class 42's and at least 3 bogies.) but
      > > because it is nearly identical
      > > to a D&RG class 42 MMI can expect to sell many more.
      > >
      > > 4-4-0 locos are marginal prototypes, but because we have pieced
      > > together a lot of possible users
      > > we may get one in die cast.
      > >
      > > On the other hand most locos don't have this distribution. The CB&Q
      > > loco 530 or something that
      > > migrated from the Black Hills to the South Park was a one off.
      > > There are South Park modelers, so
      > > they may buy a couple, but does anyone model the Black Hills narrow
      > > gauge. I would be surprised
      > > if you sold more than 300.
      > >
      > > The people who want a OR&L loco may get one if they do a K28 in die
      > > cast, since they had 4 built
      > > to that plan. on the other hand the outside frame 4-6-0 which is a
      > > pretty loco again didn't see
      > > wide use, so we get collectors and the 4-8 people who model Hawaii..
      > >
      > > We might have a chance with a EBT mike. they had 5 (from memory?)
      > > and there is an established
      > > modeling community, so if each modeler bought 3, and the collectors
      > > and free lances came to the
      > > table you could probably get the 800 needed.
      > >
      > > Randy
      > >
      > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
      > >
      > > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      > > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1299 - Release Date:
      > > 2/26/2008 9:08 AM
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > > Back to topReply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      > > Messages in this topic (19)
      > > 3e.
      > > Re: more import ideas
      > > Posted by: "derrell poole" onagerla@... onagerla
      > > Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:44 pm (PST)
      > >
      > > Absolutely NOthing is wrong with Scratch Building. I was being
      > > sarcastic.
      > >
      > > My bad.
      > >
      > > I see the virtue in the approach you suggest (historical
      > > investigations from the Builders side). However my schedule is full
      > > so I will gracefully defer to someone else to look up all of that
      > > data.
      > >
      > > The B-4-Ds were built in Dec. 1890 if anyone needs a starting point
      > > for that. By Baldwin of course.
      > >
      > > I think that there are some wild cards involved with this approach
      > > that should be considered. We need to know who is going to buy
      > > these engines. First let me say that while I'm willing to get
      > > involved and apparently already am I do not model in 1/4 scale so
      > > you can't count on me purchasing a fist full of these engines in
      > > On3. That being said I'll share a little of the demographics as
      > > provided by Carsten Publications last year (specifically my friend
      > > and partner, Chris Lane):
      > >
      > > The large majority of MRers have been modeling more than 20 years
      > > (73%)
      > >
      > > 50% of the hobby participants model Class 1 Mainline. Of the
      > > remaining 50% 6% model "other" which I would gather means us NGers
      > > since that catagory was not included.
      > >
      > > Primary Scale O (1/4" scale) 1.6%
      > >
      > > Primary Gauge (not broken down by scale) 3 foot -5%
      > >
      > > What Locale do you model; Rocky Mtns - 5.4%
      > >
      > > Freelance but in a prototypical manner -48%, faithfully follow a
      > > prototype 22%
      > >
      > > Are most of your Locomotives? ; Brass - 20% (hmmmm. A whole 0.8%
      > > scratch build their engines - wonder how much of that is brass...)
      > >
      > > Do you regularly buy or plan to buy any of the following this year?
      > > Brass Locomotive - 20%
      > > (Sorry no catagory for Die Cast)
      > >
      > > Age Group; 60 - 64 (35%), 40 - 49 (26%), over 65 (17%) - yep we're
      > > a buncha geezers!
      > >
      > > Occupation: Professional 37%, Engineer 38%
      > >
      > > Education: Some college/Tech school 30%, College Grad 21%
      > >
      > > Income group 50k to 80k 30%
      > >
      > > This information was gathered by their poll - I didn't participate
      > > or certain percentages would be higher.... oh Arf!
      > >
      > > Anyway. We are not a formidible market as we already know. But what
      > > I find so interesting, inspite of logic, apparent statistics and
      > > numbers is that while the D&RG "K" series of engines were not so
      > > widely distributed across the nation (not like the C-16 type - at
      > > least not to my knowledge) and yet this is the engine of choice! In
      > > fact, so far as I know, they were pretty much limited to the D&RG
      > > with perhaps something similar showing up in Hawaii. So it begs to
      > > question just how potent would a study from the production records be?
      > >
      > > The C&S was the second largest NG system in the State with the
      > > mostest ng trackage of all. Furthermore I believe that a study
      > > would find there are more books written, more photos published,
      > > more general information passed around about these two ng roads
      > > (and to include the RGS) than all the other ng roads combined - I
      > > could be wrong but that's just a hunch I have. And it seems a
      > > pretty strong given that the more information is readily available
      > > the more like interest will be highest in those areas.
      > >
      > > So I am in favor of the type of study you propose but I think the
      > > key to all of this is getting a good feel for who will buy what.
      > > 'Cause there can be a slew of something out there in history but if
      > > nobody cares about it, it wont matter.
      > >
      > > Derrell
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message ----
      > > From: Boone Morrison <boone@...>
      > > To: on3@yahoogroups. com
      > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:13:08 PM
      > > Subject: Re: [on3] more import ideas
      > >
      > > Derrell, et al -
      > >
      > > Derrell, I think you are beginning to approach this from a viable
      > > point of
      > > view - that of discussing BUILDERS AND CLASS NUMBERS, instead of some
      > > short hand..
      > > "I'd love old #445 after the wreck".....that means nothing to anyone
      > > but a myopic Colorado
      > > modeler....
      > >
      > > BUT. if you go to the builder's records of mfrs like Baldwin,
      > > determine which classes of
      > > engines (THEIR CLASS NUMBERS, NOT THAT OF SOME PURCHASING RR) you can
      > > see roughly how many were sold, and to whom.
      > >
      > > Take that data and plot it on a map to see how widespread
      > > (geographically) these sales
      > > were, and you begin to see the potential "reach" of any model project
      > > - of course, where
      > > the real engines ran and the lines modelers may be focused upon may
      > > not be the same
      > > at all...but, that is one of the chances one takes.
      > >
      > > So, instead of talking of "Old 99", how about talking about a
      > > "Baldwin 8-22D"...that is the
      > > Mogul with the rear driver backset - and that to increase firebox
      > > size. The "8-18C" Baldwin
      > > is, of course, the 4-4-0....which ran in the FAR West under that
      > > classification, but ran in
      > > Colorado as their (proprietary designation, not Baldwin) "Class 42".
      > >
      > > By this approach one can really get a feeling for how common and
      > > engine was etc.
      > > As mentioned, the Baldwin C-series engines (C-16, 2-8-0) was also all
      > > over the place.
      > >
      > > Again, a great candidate.
      > >
      > > This sort of review and analysis might really clarify the drawing up
      > > of a reasonably viable
      > > list of possible projects to present to a manufacturer.
      > >
      > > And, dear sir, what is WRONG with scratch building??? :-)
      > >
      > > Aloha, Boone
      > >
      > > On Feb 28, 2008, at 10:28 AM, derrell poole wrote:
      > >
      > > > Well then I'll re-iterate once again that the smartest choice for a
      > > > Non-D&RG (and its side kick the Really Grungy Southern) is C&S 68.
      > > > Even people who are not particularly modeling the C&S will be
      > > > interested. (They've even said so here!) It can be driectly
      > > > converted to 8 other C&S engines and with a little more work to any
      > > > of the classes B-4-C to B-4-E. That's 16 additional possibilities!
      > > > Its 37" drivers are virtually the same as a C-16s (close enough for
      > > > Die Cast). Furthermore I am willing to participate as an advisor
      > > > even tho I model in 3/16 scale and I have a TON of photos and
      > > > information.
      > > >
      > > > Derrell
      > > >
      > > > ----- Original Message ----
      > > > From: Boone Morrison <boone@aloha. net>
      > > > To: on3@yahoogroups. com
      > > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:48:37 AM
      > > > Subject: Re: [on3] more import ideas
      > > >
      > > > Gang:
      > > >
      > > > To reinforce Randy's comments, particularly about quantity. In my
      > > > numerous conversations
      > > > with Mark at PSC/MMI he made it clear that the die-cast route
      > > MUST be
      > > > based on large
      > > > quantities - he said that the cost of the dies is significant and
      > > > they cannot amortize that cost
      > > > with fewer than 800+ sales....over some period of time, of course.
      > > >
      > > > He also told me that he can make out with only 30 or so brass
      > > > locomotives of the same
      > > > design, but the cost will be significantly higher.
      > > >
      > > > Based on that, Randy is entirely correct that "your favorite,
      > > obscure
      > > > locomotive" simply
      > > > will not be produced by such as MMI in die-cast . Face it,
      > > > most of the suggestions I have seen on this thread are so odd, or
      > > > obscure that it is
      > > > simply not worth it for ANY mfr to approach this sort of thing with
      > > > anything other than
      > > > a costly, hand assembled brass model.
      > > >
      > > > Aloha, Boone
      > > >
      > > > On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:07 PM, Randy Hees wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > My thoughts are that for MMI to make a die cast loco they need to
      > > > > sell something over 1000 and closer to 2000 pieces.
      > > > >
      > > > > With that in mind locos like the single EBT 2-6-2, NCNG 5 or the
      > > > > CB&Q loco used on C&S just don't cut it. Thes3 are the beasts
      > > which
      > > > > need to be done in short runs of brass locos... I understand the
      > > > > original model of NCNG 5 was very low production, maybe under 50
      > > > > pieces.
      > > > >
      > > > > The RGS ten wheelers, might work. RGS guys could buy 3 each...
      > > This
      > > > > was the beauty of a K27, people bought more than one.
      > > > >
      > > > > If anything on the EBT would work it would need to be the 2-8-2's
      > > > >
      > > > > The D&RG(W) T12 might work, We can do some research to find out
      > > who
      > > > > used similar engines... This is the concept of the 4-4-0.. It
      > > works
      > > > > as a D&RG class 42 as well as a west coast "standard" 4-4-0
      > > > >
      > > > > I think a 42 ton shay would might work...
      > > > >
      > > > > Collectivly, we need to remember that if its a weird prototype we
      > > > > are not going to see it in die cast, but might in brass...
      > > > >
      > > > > Jon, I have been trying to come up with a table of moguls, but the
      > > > > number built of each style is just not great...
      > > > >
      > > > > Randy Hees.
      > > > >
      > > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > > From: the3dworkshop@ aol.com
      > > > > To: on3@yahoogroups. com
      > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:30 PM
      > > > > Subject: [on3] more import ideas
      > > > >
      > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
      > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
      > > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://
      > > > mobile.yahoo. com/;_ylt= Ahu06i62sR8HDtDy pao8Wcj9tAcJ
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
      > > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
      > > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools. search.yahoo. com/
      > > newsearch/category. php?category= shopping
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > > Back to topReply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      > > Messages in this topic (19)
      > > 3f.
      > > Re: more import ideas - Who Models What?
      > > Posted by: "Charles Mutschler" rgs20@... np1354
      > > Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:57 pm (PST)
      > >
      > > I really shouldn't get into this. I'm the side of the house who hasn't
      > > been heard to this point. The side that probably you don't want to
      > > hear from. The guy modeling Post-WWI Colorado's 'big 3', and primarily
      > > D&RGW and RGS. But I do have a C&S mogul (thanks Bachmann) and would
      > > consider a B-4-D. (For my period leased D&RGW C-19's are an option).
      > > Will I buy a small mogul or 4-4-0? They are not high on my list. I
      > > will have the ONE 4-4-0 (D&RG Class 42, thank you!:)) ordered just to
      > > help make the project succeed.
      > >
      > > With all due respect, and I sincerely mean this, I think it might be
      > > helpful to look at who is modeling what, at least as much as what
      > > prototypes were built in the largest numbers. Derrell shared some
      > > interesting numbers, which appear to support my comment several years
      > > ago on this subject. Specifically, many of the people modeling narrow
      > > gauge are modeling Post WW-I Colorado. Yes, there were *more* 36 inch
      > > 4-4-0s built than 36 inch gauge 2-8-2's, and they were sold all over
      > > the USA and Canada, not just in Colorado. But if you consider what
      > > products are selling, and selling in sufficient quantity to warrant
      > > producing a minimum of 800 to 1000, the prototypes that will be
      > > economically viable are likely to be the ones that sell in the largest
      > > quantity. If it was just me and three other guys buying D&RGW mikes
      > > and 2-8-0s we wouldn't see them in die cast - but these sell in
      > > quantity, so I have to believe that I'm not alone. Even among Colorado
      > > prototypes, not everything is hugely popular. The as delivered D&RG
      > > Class 125, or its as simpled version doesn't seem like a popular
      > > version. Four of the K-27's were never equipped with piston valves.
      > > Note that MMI didn't bother importing these, because there just isn't
      > > that much interest in them. If you really want a model of one, you can
      > > scratch build it or convert one of the other mudhens.
      > >
      > > So what Colorado prototypes are close enough to something else? How
      > > about the D&RGW C-18? Similar Baldwin 2-8-0s went to the Linville
      > > River and East Tennessee & Western North Carolina, the Silverton
      > > Northern, and of course the Florence & Cripple Creek locos were spread
      > > all over, not just to the D&RG(W). Big significant issue: The ET&WNC/
      > > LR and SN locos had alligator crossheads; the F&CC locomotives (later
      > > D&RGW C-18) had Laird crossheads. Would there be enough demand and
      > > willingness to see this change offered by the manufacturer? Realize
      > > this might add to the cost of the model. The Baldwin 4-6-0s that
      > > became D&RGW Class T-12 were similar to a locomotive on the Atlantic &
      > > Danville (Southern narrow gauge), and possibly others. The F&CC
      > > Schenectady 4-6-0s went to several railroads from the F&CC, including
      > > Nevada California Oregon, and Rio Grande Southern. One of the NCO's ex
      > > F&CC locos went on the the SP narrow gauge. Again, added changes might
      > > add costs - the whale back tender and SP steel cab would not be needed
      > > for the original F&CC or RGS versions that might be the anticipated
      > > best sellers. The F&CC based locos might be good logical places to
      > > begin, simply because, like E&P EUREKA, operable prototypes are or
      > > soon
      > > will be viewable. The rebuilding of D&RGW 315 was completed last
      > > summer, bringing a C-18 back into service. The Colorado Railroad
      > > Museum is having RGS 20 overhauled - the shop at the Strasburg Rail
      > > Road is doing a beautiful job. Marketing a model of an operational
      > > prototype may be easier.
      > >
      > > Will I buy a non D&RGW, or RGS or C&S loco? Maybe. But I'm not
      > > promising anything. I don't believe in offering to buy one (or more)
      > > unless I really mean it. Fair is fair in both directions - if I ask a
      > > manufacturer to tool up and produce something, I should be willing to
      > > buy the product. Frankly, I was disappointed by the comments of
      > > protest that followed the hard work of some of the people on this list
      > > when the Baldwin 4-4-0 project was getting close to becoming reality.
      > > A number of complaints about how it would cost too much, or would not
      > > be precisely the locomotive in the time period that someone wanted. I
      > > was honestly surprised, because even the C's and K's I'm buying
      > > probably wouldn't live up to the standards some people asking for
      > > 4-4-0s seemed to expect. And I like my MMI's very much, thank you!
      > >
      > > Reality check time. The die cast locos are going to probably list for
      > > $500 - $600. Maybe more. Especially for a fancy paint job like EUREKA
      > > - a lot more. Even a $500 die cast model will need some work to be an
      > > exact model of a specific locomotive on a specific day. For instance,
      > > you might have to add the emergency brake valve on the engineer's side
      > > of the tender, the cab curtains, and remove the back-up light from
      > > your
      > > MMI C-19 to be really close to No. 346 on the day G. M. Best took her
      > > picture under the cottonwoods at Cimmaron. But for the price, its a
      > > good running locomotive, with few things to change. Are you willing to
      > > do the same kind of changes to get the specific little Baldwin 4-4-0
      > > you want for your Anything But Colorado prototype? I hope you've asked
      > > your dealer order you one of the MMI Baldwin "catalog" 4-4-0's.
      > > Because if they sell well enough, MMI might be very interested in
      > > something that isn't a C-something or K-something.
      > >
      > > Thanks for reading.
      > >
      > > Charlie Mutschler
      > > -30-
      > >
      > > Back to topReply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      > > Messages in this topic (19)
      > > 3g.
      > > Re: imports and EBT 2-8-2's
      > > Posted by: "sgrdg179" SGRDG179@... sgrdg179
      > > Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:00 am (PST)
      > >
      > > --- In on3@yahoogroups. com, "Allen Landis" <ALLENLANDIS@ > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > If per chance they do make a E.B.T. mike. I hope that they decide
      > > > to do the # 16 . If you do a # 16 with verry fue changes you can
      > > > also make # 17 , and # 18 and thus you have 3 differnt engins . and
      > > > every one modeling the E.B.T. would haft to have one of each .
      > > > Allen
      > >
      > > I'm taxing my brain well after midnight, without my EBT books at
      > > hand, so you EBT experts reading this: feel free to correct me.
      > >
      > > EBT had (and still has) 6 Mikado engines, built by Baldwin. They came
      > > one at a time, starting with #12- the smallest, and got larger each
      > > time. The number 13 was skipped probably for superstition. 14 and 15
      > > are nearly identical. 16 was the first one with superheaters and
      > > piston valves. 17 and 18 are nearly identical, and also nearly to 16,
      > > except 16's tender is smaller.
      > >
      > > In tourist service since 1960 we have seen 12, 14, 15, and 17 running,
      > > although since 2005 it has been only 15, with the others needing work.
      > >
      > > I would guess that to get the most production out of one die-casting
      > > would mean one of these combinations:
      > > 14 & 15, with different numbers and paint variations: dirty, clean,
      > > and dolled up for tourist service.
      > > or 17 & 18, same variations, plus 16 with her smaller tender.
      > >
      > > I'm ready to buy a 15 and 17, to add to my 2 K-27's and a K-36 on the
      > > way.
      > >
      > > Steve Gilbert
      > >
      > > Back to topReply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      > > Messages in this topic (19)
      > > 4.
      > > e-mail add
      > > Posted by: "Allen Landis" ALLENLANDIS@ ...
      > > Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:33 pm (PST)
      > >
      > > ATT : Lee Rucker I need your E-Mail Add. Allen
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: Allen Landis
      > > To: on3@yahoogroups. com
      > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 9:34 PM
      > > Subject: Re: [on3] more import ideas
      > >
      > > If per chance they do make a E.B.T. mike. I hope that they decide
      > > to do the # 16 . If you do a # 16 with verry fue changes you can
      > > also make # 17 , and # 18 and thus you have 3 differnt engins . and
      > > every one modeling the E.B.T. would haft to have one of each . Allen
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: RANDALL HEES
      > > To: on3@yahoogroups. com
      > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 8:38 PM
      > > Subject: Re: [on3] more import ideas
      > >
      > > First a disclaimer, Boone, Craig and I have lots of off list
      > > discussions.
      > >
      > > I no longer model Colorado, but once did, and understand a bit of
      > > the Colorado mind set.
      > >
      > > First of all there are probably more people modeling the D&RGW
      > > narrow gauge than there are who
      > > model all the other narrow gauges in the US, especially if you add
      > > in the
      > > RGS modelers.
      > >
      > > The D&RG had numerous examples of a class or model of loco make it
      > > much easier for a model company
      > > to offer locos. and expect that any one modeler would buy multiples
      > > of each. I call this the
      > > stock car effect. no one runs a single stock car, you always run
      > > trains of 6 +, so you build up
      > > the count a manufacturer needs more quickly.
      > >
      > > For example there were 15 K-27's built, used by two railroads
      > > (D&RGW and RGS) as well as some
      > > which migrated south to Mexico.
      > >
      > > If I was still modeling the RGW I would want 4 for my railroad.. I
      > > might want more, but would
      > > settle for 4 (remembering that this will total more than sold my
      > > old pick up for.)
      > >
      > > On the other hand there are maybe 5 people modeling the North
      > > Pacific Coast, maybe 3 modeling the
      > > South Pacific Coast. Each railroad had 6 or 7 of this loco. If all
      > > of us buy 3 or 4 4-4-0's it
      > > is only 24 locos (and I only have 2 on order). Add a few for the
      > > people who have seen Eureka, and
      > > another 50 for the collectors and maybe 50 for the free lancers,
      > > and we maybe have 150 locos. Add
      > > in the Midwest modelers, the Florida modelers (does anyone really
      > > model Florida's narrow gauge???
      > > They had 8-18c's, used D&RG class 42's and at least 3 bogies.) but
      > > because it is nearly identical
      > > to a D&RG class 42 MMI can expect to sell many more.
      > >
      > > 4-4-0 locos are marginal prototypes, but because we have pieced
      > > together a lot of possible users
      > > we may get one in die cast.
      > >
      > > On the other hand most locos don't have this distribution. The CB&Q
      > > loco 530 or something that
      > > migrated from the Black Hills to the South Park was a one off.
      > > There are South Park modelers, so
      > > they may buy a couple, but does anyone model the Black Hills narrow
      > > gauge. I would be surprised
      > > if you sold more than 300.
      > >
      > > The people who want a OR&L loco may get one if they do a K28 in die
      > > cast, since they had 4 built
      > > to that plan. on the other hand the outside frame 4-6-0 which is a
      > > pretty loco again didn't see
      > > wide use, so we get collectors and the 4-8 people who model Hawaii..
      > >
      > > We might have a chance with a EBT mike. they had 5 (from memory?)
      > > and there is an established
      > > modeling community, so if each modeler bought 3, and the collectors
      > > and free lances came to the
      > > table you could probably get the 800 needed.
      > >
      > > Randy
      > >
      > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
      > >
      > > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      > > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1299 - Release Date:
      > > 2/26/2008 9:08 AM
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
      > >
      > > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      > > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1299 - Release Date:
      > > 2/26/2008 9:08 AM
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > > Back to topReply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      > > Messages in this topic (1)
      > > RECENT ACTIVITY
      > > 2
      > > New Members
      > > Visit Your Group
      > > Biz Resources
      > > Y! Small Business
      > > Articles, tools,
      > > forms, and more.
      > > Moderator Central
      > > Yahoo! Groups
      > > Join and receive
      > > produce updates.
      > > Move More
      > > on Yahoo! Groups
      > > This is your life
      > > not a phys-ed class.
      > > Need to Reply?
      > > Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in
      > > the Daily Digest.
      > > Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
      > > Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members |
      > > Calendar
      > > Remember, additional On3 photos and files can now be found at:
      > >
      > > http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/On3photos
      > >
      > > Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
      > > Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch
      > > format to Traditional
      > > Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >





      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      Be a better friend, newshound, and
      know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.