How many of youse guys are getting that Matt Shay Triplex? Count me in for one. It is a good incentive for giving up drinking...
I have always been fascinated by that engine, and to be able to buy one now, is great. It will look goooood in the display case...
Rich
Not me, first it does not fit my scheme of operation, second, I do not collect, I only buy what the layout scheme "needs", third I would be reluctant to buy anything from MTH - especially since I don't use DCC - Mike Wolf doesn't want my business based on how his K4 runs on DC.
But remember, I'm that guy who doesn't own any of those locos that EVERYONE else apparently buys, K4's, Big Boy's, FEF's, GG1's, UP Challengers, N&W J's, Cab Forward's, etc.
Sheldon
While I do model Virginian, I do not model that specific 180 day period when they actually had a Triplex on the property before they gave up and shipped it back for re-working into a 2-8-8-0 and a 2-8-2. The MTH model is not a faithful recreation of the VGN 2-8-8-8-4 anyway, just a re-badged Erie as I understand it.
Virginian, you are correct. In late summer/early fall 1957 the VT&P is interested only in modern steam - USRA or later. It has enough drag locomotives in its 2-10-2s and 2-6-6-2s that it doesn't need a locomotive with more cylinder than firebox.
Gene
My layout is all-electric, but if MTH made the electric equivelent, the Pennsy FF-1 experimental ("Big Liz"), I'd buy it in an instant, DCC issues or not.
Too big for my layout (or "train set"). I prefer a ten wheeler or a pacific for my branchline operation.
Dr EMD
When was the Triplex announced?
No matter, MTH has sent the first batch of Erie's to MTH Dealers on the 29th, so expect them soon.
Virginia's will arrive in a few weeks.
The only thing I don't like, the third engine is not powered.
Is the Triplex considered a Tank Engine like the Beyer Garratt?
Is the Triplex considered a Tank Engine like the Beyer Garratt?
Mark;
that is an interesting question. I could see arguments both ways. I plan not to run this engine on the layout, but can if I had the urge...
Conrail;
All-electric? With catenery system too? That is one heck of a job! My hat is off to you; I couldn't do it-they would be escorting me to the laughing academy after about one evening.
You know what is interesting? The New Haven EF-3 "Yellowjacket" had an average capacity of 4860HP. The wheel base was a 4-C-C-4; exactly as a challenger; same horsepower, too! I guess if one wanted to stretch a point, one caould say that the New Haven had an articulated locomotive class that would equal a Challenger!
Rich
I never thought of the Beyer Garratts as tank engines. They are one unit. I wouldn't think of them as switch engines either, but that is what they were using them (it) for. It may be a case of using what will runin Zimbabwe, Africa.
I think it depends on your definition of "tank engine." Could the tender of the Triplex be removed from the boiler? That is, and put back on again. This goes along with the argument that most of the cab forwards were Yellowstones running backwards. ;D
Merry Seventh Day of Christmas
Happy New Year
Gene
A few thoughts,
First, I will defer all comments about the Beyer Garratts to those who know about such things, as I have never studied in detail locomotives outside North America.
In my understanding of the Whyte system, the triplex is not a tank engine because the tender is a seperate unit, easily seperable or not. Tank engines have one frame carrying both the boiler and fuel/water supplies.
The idea that a cab forward is Yellowstone running is reverse would assume that the firebox is large enough to require a four wheel truck. This is not the case with the SP cab forwards as the four wheel truck was adopted for better tracking at speed, not to support a larger firebox. A cab forward, if we must "define" it outside its own special application, is a 2-8-8-2 adapted to run firebox first, as the first ones where 2-8-8-2's. The addition of four wheel truck was to improve tracking due to different loads introduced by turning both the boiler and the engines around. Other 2-8-8-2's did not need this extra tracking help because the pivoting engine lead the way, on a cab forward the rigid engine leads the way.
Challengers and Big Boys had four wheel leading trucks because larger driver size and expected top speed was increased over previous articulated types. Note that neither the N&W class A or the C&O H8 have four wheel leading trucks, their speeds and shorter wheelbase did not warrant it. And with the N&W Class A it did prove to be the speed limiting factor in the design. Yet both had massive fireboxes requiring 4 wheel and 6 wheel trailing trucks respectively.
Still not interested in owning a triplex or models of any other failed experiments.
Sheldon
Happy New Year,
Is the Triplex considered a Tank Engine like the Beyer Garratt?
This occurred to me, from a another thread; either on this or the previous Bachmann Forum, where a member suggested the Garratt was a Tank Engine, because the Tenders were fixed to the rigid frames of the two engines. :o
So by that reckoning; and I'm not saying I agree with it, does the Triplex suffers the same fate??? ;)
The Triplex model on the other hand, could not be considered a tank engine, as the engine under the tender is not powered - I just can't get a grasp on these straws today. ;D
Either way, I can't wait for my new 2-8-8-8-2 [Tank???] engine to arrive. :)
Cheers & all the best for the New Year.
Boy mark; we must b the only two guys here who will actually buy one.
Happy New Year to you and all!
Rich
G'Day Rich,
Don't jump for joy yet!
See Tony's for some possibly bad news!
www.tonystrains.com/tonystips/2007/123107.htm
Mark;
Gee, I hope that is a fluke. That is too beautiful an engine to start having problems right from get-go. I am also a bit concerned about Tony's comment about the DCS system. I am in no way familiar with DCS, so am stymied. Oh by the way, Mark; I didn't mean to "lower-case" your name in the last post. Mea Culpa! really! I am working on one of Rutland Car Shops' Rutland/NYC baggage car, and it is a real bear and a half! I was completely engulfed in quasi-frustration (does that exist?) But...I am resolute, and WILL persevere; so there, Rutland! I will indeed make a silk purse from a sow's ear...
Have a great day Down Under, Mark.
Rich
Rich,
DCS is a different system and is not fully DCC compatible, nor is it DC friendly. As I said in my first post, MTH does not want my business since their locos only run at half speed on 12 volts.
You should lookup the Model Railroader review of the MTH K4 and read the DCC compatiblity comments. It is more compatible than Tony's is saying, but from what I remember the function numbers do not match NMRA DCC standards.
I don't care how detailed it is , Mike Wolf is arogant in thinking we are all going to buy his control system to run his locos, this is not three rail toy trains - this is HO scale model trains with a long history of compatiblity - he is clueless.
Sheldon
Rich,
I'm prayin' all's well with the front engine. I'm always worried about sending things back to the US as all the Yo-Yo mailing costs build up. :(
That's the spirit, you whoop some sense into that RCS baggage car, ya-hear. ;)
Sheldon hit the nail on the head, & I don't see Mike doing one, DCC Ready.
Hav'in a great day Down Under,
though, my toes are gettin' tired hanging on to the ground ;D
Have a Great,
Two Thousand & Eight
Quote from: r.cprmier on December 31, 2007, 02:24:20 PM
Is the Triplex considered a Tank Engine like the Beyer Garratt?
Conrail;
All-electric? With catenery system too? That is one heck of a job! My hat is off to you; I couldn't do it-they would be escorting me to the laughing academy after about one evening.
You know what is interesting? The New Haven EF-3 "Yellowjacket" had an average capacity of 4860HP. The wheel base was a 4-C-C-4; exactly as a challenger; same horsepower, too! I guess if one wanted to stretch a point, one caould say that the New Haven had an articulated locomotive class that would equal a Challenger!
Rich
Rich,
Not quite that impressive, I'm afraid. I'm currently relegated to running my trains around the Christmas tree at the moment, so certainly no wires there! Once I get a place for a permanent layout (hopefully within a few weeks), I'll start planning the catenary. Model Memories makes kits that will hopefully make the job a bit easier (although turnouts will still be a pain). I never thought about the EF-3's that way, but you're right: New Haven Challengers it is! If only McGinnis had saved just one...
Conrail;
About three years ago, MR did a feature article on Rick Abramson's layout, which is a New Haven prototype of the west end, starting from Devon. He did a great job, but I swear on the grave of my sainted mother, that I will never do live catenary. Berkshire Junction makes this lovely lycra stuff, y'see; and it is stretchy, as in Bill Aldrich's layout. I think Rick said something once to me about he did all that work on the catenary and couldn't use it, because of the shorting problems it would incur with his brass engines (all of them, I think). Rick worked for the New Haven and the PC after the change. I have a great deal of respect for him, both as an electrician, and as a New Haven nut, for his experience and knowledge of the overhead system of the west end. The guy really has it all together!
Yeah, on the EF-3: I believe it is in the book "New Haven-The West End" , that mentioned that fact about the 4860HP. I was really amazed when I thought about it. Hey, this engine could also crank out 9,000HP for a short time! They were immense pieces of machinery! Now, that is something to be said for 1937 technology as applied to the New Haven Engineering Dept...
RIch
though, my toes are gettin' tired hanging on to the ground
Good God, mate; what is going on down there?
RIch
I hate to hear the derailing problem with MTH's HO Triplex. I was going to get one, but I guess I will hold off a while. I have one of the HO K-4 and only had one problem with it. It had low volume and was going brain dead with me. I figured it out by raising the track voltage to 16v and it cured the problem. It then would respond to all 28 functions and the volume was significantly higher. Mike came out with a article later on stating the cure for that problem and it was exactly what I done. The extra voltage is not too much on my other 18 trains, but I still keep my booster cut back to 14v unless I am running the MTH. If anyone hears anything else on the Triplex problem and cure, let me know.
I just received following reply from Kirstin Martinez at MTH Electric Trains:
Hello. Thank you for contacting MTH Electric Trains. We appreciate
your interest in the new MTH HO Triplex, and can certainly understand
your concerns regarding the issue brought about in the review. Our
production and service departments has looked into the problem that
Tony's Trains encountered with the Triplex and spoken to them about
the situation. We have found that the cause of this issue was that the a pipe in the front of the engine that was out of position lifting the rear portion of the front drive block off the track in certain situations.
Repositioning the pipe corrects the problem. The pipe is designed to
provide movement so the Triplex can go up or down grades. When the
center pipe is out of place the vertical travel of the front engine
is virtually non-existent. When the center steam pipe is properly
located in the slot the front engine has plenty of vertical travel.
The attached photos show the pipe out of place as well as in the
proper location. The photos show the Triplex with the boiler
removed; this is only to better show the situation. Should one
encounter this problem it is not necessary to remove the boiler; all
that need be done is to gently hold the boiler so that the front
engine is inline with the boiler and hanging down slightly. Then
using a small screwdriver, such as a jeweler's screwdriver, move the
vertical section of the center pipe forward until it slides into the
slot. MTH is creating an addendum to the Triplex manual to cover this issue
and the correction. Please let me know if you have any question.
Thank you,
Kirstin Martinez
MTH Electric Trains
I don't know how to upload the pictures he mentioned. I never have been able to upload pictures in this forum and wish someone would tell me how. Everytime I try to figure it out, I hit a dead end street!
I had really run out of Puff with the bad news on the Triplex.
But on hearing the good news, am quite Chuff'd.
Thanks to Chuff n Puff, I'm not Puff'd 'n all Chuff'd.
That makes a lot of sense! I have the same problem with my Broadway Limited "Cab forward." if that front pipe that goes into the firebox is out, the wheels don't quite touch the ground, which leads to greater derailment problems. I had a feeling that might be the case when reading the review, but wasn't sure if that pipe was permanently connected or loose, like my cab forward.
I'm not sure what everyone's talking about between DCC and DCS. The new Triplex will work perfectlly fine with DCC. I've got M.T.H.'s K4 and it works perfectlly. One of the most impressive models I've ever seen. The only thing about the DCC functions is that DCS has 24 features, DCC only has access to 12...the 12 DCC doesn't have, you really shouldn't worry about, cause they're not on any other DCC loco.
The only problem I have EVER had with M.T.H.'s K4 is that it takes a bunch of power to program the decoder from 3 to the cab #...that's it. There's a knob in the tender for sound, there's also a button on your DCC controller to toggle the sound. The controlls that are different are 6 is mute and 8 is smoke.
So, yeah. M.T.H.'s locos work perfectlly and I fully intend to get some of those Triplexes!
Oh NO!
NO!...NO!...NO!
The Triplex may have another problem.
"the gears stripped out on the rear driver set. All of this happened before we even hooked it up to a train". Tony's Forum.
I really hope Tony's just got the one build on friday & I hope mine's a Tuesday train.
locomotive.
Gene
Sounds like the MTH triplex is going to be about as successfull as the real thing!
Sheldon