Mark, the thing is, there ARE no “wrong” answers here… just some that may make more sense than others. I started this thread as a companion to the Bachmann one to allow for ideas aimed at different companies as well.
IMO, a CP Huntington would be really cool, and might actually sell pretty well… especially to the “around the Christmas tree” buyers. Lord knows just about every zoo and smaller amusement park I’ve been to has a gas/hydraulic version… It it certainly makes as much or more sense than a Mexican 2-8-0 … or a Triplex.
When I suggested the EM-1, it wasn’t because I could ever afford or run it, but because, 1. To my knowledge a Yellowstone hasn’t been done yet even though there were LOTS more of those than Big Boys (and HOW many LS versions of that has there been? MTH, Aster, Accucraft, USA…), and 2. it could be built using the existing new Aristo 2-8-0 drives, or those from a Big Boy. OTOH I don’t think it WILL be built simply because the “Bums and Outlaws” (or even the DM&I) has a far, far smaller following than “Uncle Pete”.3. Aristo’s choice of the B&O E27 was already pretty surprising, so why not another one?
The RF-16 could use a lot of their FA parts, too, but again, I think most of them ran on less popular roads, and Baldwin exited the market early - A Fairbanks-Morse Trainmaster would face similar problems… and is huge to boot.
The 2-4-4-2 and 2-4-0 could be produced fairly cheaply using existing 0-4-0 bricks and many other parts as well. AND could rather easily be made to run on those tiny R1 and R2 curves without looking totally ridiculous. Unfortunately, I’m just not sure they are ‘sexy’ enough to ever really be considered. Plus, why bother making a 2-4-0 when the Christmas tree folks and newbies will just (in theory) buy your 0-4-0T if you don’t?
OTOH, while a basic modernized 4-4-0 from B’mann would require new domes, steel cab, lights, dynamo, stack and air brakes, etc… Nearly ALL those parts could be adapted or simply re-used from their Annie, Connie or Shay or Climax… and yet even though it would be almost a ‘no brainer’, that STILL hasn’t happened… Was the original 1880s version THAT big of a flop? Or has 'anticipate; simply been replaced with ‘procrastinate’? Not running the risk making an all-new model in a crappy economy is one thing. Not updating versions of stuff you already make to try to stimulate sales is another.
Sean, a Barnhart loader is an interesting idea, too. And, as noted, could use a lot of off the shelf parts… I wonder what the price break would be on those to make it “successful” AND profitable? A lot more folks would bite at $79 than $279. But at what price could a company be convinced to bother?
The sad fact we have to face is, large scale currently doesn’t have the following for the manufacturers to make a lot of what we’d love to see. A total turkey in HO probably sells many, many times more units than a successful LS one. – and that’s WITHOUT folks not liking the looks, or poor engineering choices that cause premature failures. ie The Indie has been a ‘close, but no cigar’ since they simply slapped a Mogul driveline under the Hawaii #5 Columbia shell and called it a ‘catalog’ loco. Many simply called it a “Mongrel” or worse. Then again, how many folks haven’t had to change their Connie axle gear? Has anybody NOT had trouble using Aristo r-1 turnouts for anything besides a paperweight? etc. etc. -AND- the fact that we are currently, what? 5 scales in one? 6?
BUT, an exercise like this could possibly bring about a clearer consensus of what average folks (not just the most vociferous or best connected) WOULD like to see… And even if the current major mfgs aren’t listening, maybe a startup company somewhere might be… And if, not, well, we can still wish, anyway…
