Oh, now you've gone and done it!
I'm not sure how to even address this topic without igniting a forest fire, but heregoes:
The primary issue (on paper) seems to be the difference between narrow gauge and standard gauge model railroading, in that if you're a model train manufacturer, and you build, let's say a GP-9 or a C-44-8, you can make it in a bunch of different roadnames, and people all over the place will buy lots of them, because if you're modelling "modern" diesel in HO, chances are it would make prototypical sense for your railroad to have lots of these engines .... they're everywhere. And, (for the most part) the locomotives of a particular type on one railroad will look very much like the locomotives of that type on another railroad, except for the paint.
Not so, narrow gauge. When narrow gauge was "in" railroads were a lot newer idea in the United States. The locomotives ordered by one railroad ended up looking VERY different from those of other railroads, partially due to a sense of design and style, and partially because they were either adapted to particular situations, or specially ordered to overcome specific situations. Certainly it was possible to order a "catalog" locomotive, but differences in how railroads did what they did made for "family" appearance in a lot of cases. Also, since (typically) narrow gauge railroads didn't interchange equipment with other railroads, the equipment tended to suit the purposes of the home road (see also tender height and style, modifications for extreme weather, visibility, coupler arrangements, etc.... ) where in Standard gauge, locomotives may end up being a bit more uniform simply because they need to fit intot everyone else's platforms, fuel docks, water towers, etc....
So, the result is, while there were a bunch of railroads that had Consolidations that might be a D&RG C-16 "inside" how they looked "outside" was often very different. That means that any model you release of a narrow gauge engine is not going to be as "generic" as a standard gauge locomotive model. Consider the recent K-27 ... the only place this locomotive was ever found was the Denver and Rio Grande System, and later the Rio Grande Southern. If you're an RGS modeler, that limits you to the 455 and the 461 if you're sticking to the prototype. If you're a D&RG modeler, you have your choice of 450-464 ... but even then Bachmann can't make ONE K-27 model and put fourteen numbers on it, because several have outside piston valves, and several have inside (slant) ones, the tenders are different from locomotive to locomotive, and one was wrecked and rebuilt with completely different equipment! And then, depending on WHEN someone's modelling, the locomotives had vauclain gear, then slide valves, then piston valves ... and the colors and graphics vary, but it's not random, specific colors and lettering go with specific versions .... by the time it's over, you either have to make one or two types (which means the folks who want the other ones won't buy them) or make ALL of them and watch some sit on shelves unwanted, while more "popular" versions sell out. Unlike the F-40PH which was different (at least to most) only in the number and the paint version, it's hard to make a "generic" K that lots and lots of people will buy.... and if you're a model railroad manufacturer, that's the bottom line.
So... you try to find something a little more generic. Something with "Classic" lines .... the original Shay is an excellent example of this. Go look at the
www.shaylocomotives.com database ... certainly logging companies modified their locomotives, but through the forests of chains, buckets, and toolboxes, the underlying locomotive is the same basic design in many, many cases. So, you can make a Shay, slap a lumber company (real or imagined) label on it, and include some "do it yourself" details, and you can make a locomotive that will appeal to many, many people. And, while you might be able to find a photo or twelve on Ely Thomas #6, you probably WON'T find photos that document every week of its life like you would for a K-27, so as long as it's "close" it'll make sense to a lot of people.
Now, when people clamor for a rod engine, you can go and find a generic one, something that resembles the catalog entry, with NO railroad specific details, and while the folks who want K-27 #453 wtih slide valves as it appeared in the winter of 1938 will hate it, a lot of folks will do exactly what you did, and buy two to bash. The folks who just want a cool miniature train will be impressed by all of the detail and valve motion, and lots of them will sell. And... they have. It's as close to a generic, mass produced narrow gauge engine as you can get.... and you don't have to be modelling any particular railroad to use it. The reverse argument, that it doesn't fit with ANY railroad is also valid, if you're a strict-to-history modeler, but the gamble is there are more folks who don't mind generic, or will want one or two to bash than there would be folks who wanted a C-16 as it appeared on January 24, 1911 on th RGS.
When you combine all of this with rumors (and... this is a RUMOR, plain and simple) of bad blood between certain key Bachmann players and existing Colorado narrow gauge venues, you can see how quickly the search for something else might begin. Once personality and ego figure in the equation, there's often no coming back, which is why everyone was initially so elated about the K-27, which, by all accounts would previously never have been considered because of the rumored flap that had effectively disqualified anything Colorado prototype from consideration.
Finally, think of it this way: There are a lot of people who have become authorities on Colorado narrow gauge, through lots of research, reading, and studies of the equipment that's left. Particularly with the Internet being available to most, the information is certainly out there and accessible, and there are a lot of really wonderful books. Many of these folks are also really good model makers, and have an eye for very exacting detail. When presented with a model of something specific, say, C-16 #268 they're going to know immediately if something is not as it should be, and notice it. It's like asking Emeril what he thinks of the new recipe for truffle stuffed pressed goose under glass you've come up with .... whatever's going on with the recipe, you're going to hear about it, chapter and verse. Not so for the fellow who hands him his coffee and donut on the way in to the studio in the morning ... he probably doesn't even notice anything in partiular about it unless something's really (salt instead of sugar) wrong with it. So, when a D&RGW expert encounters a generic, prototoype-unspecific catalog outside frame 2-8-0, typically they're going to say, "Well, it's not Rio Grande, but yeah, it's a steam engine".... and then probably start making plans to modify it. East Broad Top experts will do the same thing, as will White Pass types... and suddenly we've sold two more of them than we would have if we'd made a railroad-specific loco and made one expert happy, and two annoyed. And the modelers galleries on this and other websites bear this out, as do the two that you bought to "bash" yourself. How many K-27's have you seen "bashed" into something else? Not many, I'd guess.
Matthew (OV)
PS. Simply because of the sensitive nature of this discussion, I want to stress here that I'm talking about Bachmann's models as MODELS of locomotives. There is a seperate issue lurking around out there involving electrical and mechanical features and issues, and I am deliberately NOT venturing into those waters here, even though I am acutely aware that they also have a great deal to do with the popularity, and ultimate success or failure of various models released by Bachmann, and the various technical aims of that company with respect to model trains in general. For this particular discussion, I am deliberately sticking to issues related to prototype selection, and hoping that others will do the same.
