A die-cast Erie Triplex (2-8-8-2) is coming in 2008 as well as a modern K4.
Hint - the company's HQ is in Maryland. ;D
Make that a 2-8-8-8-2. ;D
(http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/erie5014.jpg)
With three numbers to match the three Erie triplexs, plus one Virginian number for a stand in for the Virginian version, which had a different wheel arrangement.
Gene
Oh great, put me down for a dozen............NOT!
Just what the hobby needed, another model of some big giant there was only a hand full of.
MTH has not sold me a K4 and they will not get my money on this thing either.
Sheldon
Hi
And another K4, I assume it is a PRR locomotive. Nothing wrong about PRR or their fans, but there are other railroads out there too.
What the average modeler need is locomotives not bigger than a 2-8-2 or
4-6-2 (Not Pennsy, sorry but..)
I may ask for a 2-6-0 and a 4-4-2 and a smaller and older 2-8-0 than Bachmann already offer. That one is a rather large and a modern 2-8-0.
The 2-8-8-8-2 may become a collectors item. Are new models made for the collector or the modeler?
Regards, Yukonsam
I wonder who will be the first to buy one to run on a 4 by 8 layout.
Not as impressive as a G scale triplex...
Do they make G scale triplexes?
I just hope that if they're willing to make something as unusual as a triplex, they'll make the PRR's FF-1 "Big Liz" prototype in HO like they do in O. After all, its the same sort of failed super-power locomotive concept. It would be a great day for HO electric modelers if their entire O product line was made in HO. GN Z's, PRR P5a's; well, one can dream...
Hope they make a long enough rerailer :D :D :D I would imagine you would need a 8 X 32 sheet of plywood :)
Quote from: Paul M. on October 01, 2007, 07:44:24 PM
Do they make G scale triplexes?
http://www.railking1gauge.com/detail.asp?item=70-3023-1
In terms of a "collector's item"...
A company called "LMB" marketed a 2-8-8-8-2 about forty years past. Now, THIS would be a collector's item; not some overgrown fishing weight with wheels.
The LMB locomotive was a hand-made, hand-crafted precicion model of a engine that had not many in its numbers. It was of brass, and looked really good for it's day. LMB has, I believe, gone the way of the kool-aid pitcher; hence, no more shall ever be produced.
Frankly, I wouldn't be inclined to buy either one for the specific purpose of collecting. I do think it is a nice-looking model and will warm the cockels of someone's heart, who just happens to be an Erie railfan. Perhaps if I had 70'' radius curves on my pike, it might look good, but I already have enough large engines to satisfy my purpose. Like Sheldon and others, I would like to see a really well-modelled mogul or ten-wheeler produced by those giggly cutsie little Chinese girls who proudly toil for the benefit of us wierdo model railroaders...(as well as kader).
I do have one question for Sheldon, Bob, or whomever may know: Where did the term "Matt Shay" come from? It always seemed to go hand in hand with that model.
Rich
Hey, I actually know the answer to something asked here, will wonders never cease! Matt Shay was the name of an outstanding engineer on the Erie and they gave that name to loco #2603 (and lettered it on the side of the cab) The Erie only made three of these and they were never duplicated as they were not very sucessful (the Virginian made one similar 2-8-8-8-4). "The engine was a six-cylinder compound, all cylinders and drivers having the same dimensions. The firebox was locoted entirely over the drivers of the middle engine unit and in consequence was greatly restricted in depth, as was the ashpan for the same reason. But since the engines were intended only for operation on a grade 11 miles long, it was thought that enough combustion would take place to meet the requirements. Unfortunately, the grade was just a little too long for consistant and satisfactory performance....These locomotives exerted the maximum tractive effort (160,000 lb compound) over short periods ever exerted by a steam locomotive with reciprocating pistons, but they were soon retired from active service." This info is from the book "The Steam Locomotive In America" by Alfred W. Bruce, which also has a photo of it (and about 200 other locos, mostly builders photos) and is a treasure trove of information on the development of steam locomotives.
Although I like the Pennsylvania, I didn't think the K-4 was a good choice for M.T.H. as Bachmann and B.L.I already had it covered pretty well. I know that they claimed that theirs was more accurate, but considering the huge number of these locos that were made I think it's possable that they both were right. When i saw the ad in this month's M.R. showing the Erie Triplex I couldn't believe it, I just can't believe that an expensive model of such an unsucessful and obscure locomotive will ever sell enough to pay for the tooling. P.M.
When i saw the ad in this month's M.R. showing the Erie Triplex I couldn't believe it, I just can't believe that an expensive model of such an unsucessful and obscure locomotive will ever sell enough to pay for the tooling. P.M
PM: A very valid point. Money is 'most always the deciding factor in production success or failure. It is interesting, though; that Triplex spent a fair amount of time on the inside back page of MR in the 60's. Somebody must have been buying them.
Rich
Rich: Your mention of LMB (Leon M. Blum Co.) brought back memories. I belonged to a club that had two rabid Erie fans. One of them had an LMB triplex. It was a fair locomotive model but didn't compare to PFM imports detailwise. As for its running properties - well it had difficulty on the club's switches - it was great for splitting the points. It may have been that particular engine or the non rp-25 flanges.
I am not saying that the new model will have problems. The LMB model is one collector's piece that should be relegated to the display case.
Die hard Erie fans will have to budget for three of the things, to be prototypical.
By the way, doesn't it cost almost as much to tool up for a small engines as it would for a big articulated?
but even a diehard Erie fan, if he wanted to operate one of these things (or 3 of them) protypically would have to model that grade that they were used on as they were only run on that one part of the system, and his layout would have to be set in the few years that they were left in service.
Rich- I remember seeing these things in the Blum's Hobby House ads, but maybe the reason that they were advertised for so long was that they were trying to sell out the initial run.(the locomotive I'd like to get from that same time period that was often in the same ad as the Triplex, was the B.&A. Berkshire, the first Berkshire ever made, I wish someone would come out with a modern version of this very sucessful locomotive)
I wonder how many B&A berkshires Blum had made? They are definitely a rare item.
The triplex that was operated in our club was definitely one of the first run. Maybe the later runs (if there were any) had better flanges.
I am puzzled over the introduction of really large engines into the H0 market. There must be some prototypes out there that would have a wider appeal than a triplex.
I have often suggested that Bachmann do a Wabash mogul. This small little engine would like on any branchline.
I can't imagine how there could be a demand for these things, I don't think they could have come up with a worse locomotive to model if they would have said "let's see now, what locomotive will be the most not in demand locomotive in the history of model trains?" just my own opinion, maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I doubt it.
I recently inherited a very large amount of three rail O-gauge stock from my uncle. In the years he was acquiring this collection we learned a lot about the marketing practices of MTH. The owner tends to go after what he thinks collectors would want. Large status-eeking locomotives that there were few of originally. He broke into the O-scale market by offering a UP Challenger back 20 years ago.
I would be cautious about anything indicating limited run as MTH has many time exceeded the number they claim to rake additional profits. The electronics normally used is a pain as the batteries frequently go bad and the sound and control system is incompatible with DCC unless they made a change.
I'm sure the locomotives run well, almost all I have do. Detail is usually minimal or cast-on. Die-cast is not what I'm looking for. Bachmann is using a combination of materials carefully applied to produce a fine running product (Spectrum and some newer standard). Bachmann handles warranty directly, MTH usually wants you to go to a repair station.
I would avoid MTH based on my O-gauge experience. I had to spend far too much time bringing the collection up to running status. My Lionel and Bachman just need to be put on the track and have power applied.
Woody;
I have a friend who, as a kid, was given a Tenshodo Challenger. By today's standards, this engine is a f'real bow-wow! I wouldn't run it on my railroad if it were given me free. I have a couple of Challengers that have since been done, and they-far and away-eclipse the old 4-6-6-4!
There will always be an element of sentimentality in this hobby, largely per memories; in my case, it is New Haven steam and electric; in someone else's case, it is whatever.
I have learned to approach life first as a pragmatist; then as an idealistic dreamer. This would appear as a somewhat harsh approach, but in my case, it works. Ted still has his Tenshodo engine , presumably still in it's oak box, and I have a "newer" brass collection-which I do not run at present; it being all narrow-gauge.
As far as LMB's B&A Berkshire, I would opt for a newer one-an A-3, with it's "heavy-browed" look. They too, bring back memories of Pittsfield and Whistler's Railroad. Perhaps if we talk real nice to Johann...
Rich
is the A3 the last N.Y.C. Berkshire? (and the last steam locomotive Alco made) if it is then it's my second favoriate berkshire (after the B&A one) I'd like one of each
The NYC, per se, had no 2-8-4s to the best of my knowledge. Mohawks, yes, and Niagras. Lots of water, but no "mountains."
Gene
Well subsidary's P&LE and B&A had "Berkshires"
Thinking about all this I remember I had an LMB wide vision caboose in brass. I think that they specialized in eastern prototypes.
The first Berkshires that any road had were the Boston & Albany ones, hence the name Berkshire as they were used to pull trains through the Berkshire mountains, The last steam locomotive built by Alco in 1948 was a Berkshire numbered 9401, built for ...the New York Central I've got a builder's photo right in front of me as I type this, the tender is lettered New York Central System.
The book "The Steam Locomotive In America" that I mentioned in an earlier posting here says on the subject "It is of interest to note that the last to be built by both the American Locomotive company in 1948 and the Lima Locomotive Works in 1949 were 2-8-4 type engines. The former were built for the New York Central with 63-in. drivers and the latter for the Chesapeake & Ohio" This, along with the builders photo is pretty much proof that the N.Y.C. did, in fact, have Berkshires on it's rooster, although probably not for very long as they came along at the very end of steam. These, by the way, are some of the most beautiful looking, modern steam locomotives I have ever seen, I'd love to get a model of one of these, I've never seen any evidence that any brass models were ever imported. I just got a new scanner and I'll try to scan this picture and see if I can post it here.
Hey Munchie;
S-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h...(don't tell Gene)...
Rich
Quote from: RAM on October 01, 2007, 06:25:22 PM
I wonder who will be the first to buy one to run on a 4 by 8 layout.
Me :D.
I was going to put something up here about this, but, ya know, marketing and stuff. :-\
I can't wait to see what M.T.H. will do with it. There's already a video, but it freezes up my computer :P, so, I'd recommend you not watch it :-\.
Their K4 was impressive. Beautiful AND a smoking banshee, but when pulling a train (preferably weighted) uphill on a sicnificant grade, 2 words: Wheel Slip. This only happened once. I had it for about 1 week before taking it to another guy's layout and putting it to the test ;).
But this Triplex looks to be a LOT better! 3 motors, MORE detail, not to mention better pulling power (>duh<). The only real difference from M.T.H.'s locos and, say, Bachmann's locos, are the digital controls.
That's it. Controls. 3-power up/down, 2-whistle, 1-bell, 6-mute, 8-smoke on/off, and a bunch of others. I keep hear things about "DCC problems", I haven't had ANY.
Anyways, I do intend to get a (some) Triplexes. At the moment, my layout is a 4x8, with and 2ft wide river, another 4x4, and an 11ft. yard. For now ;). I'm in the process of planning a bigger layout (about 4-5 times the size now) and upgrading to a 20x22ft. layout. ;D
Woody;
I do not believe the tooling cost to be a legitimate issue here. Anyone with a bit of production experience can tell you that it certainly will be about the same costs, as material isn't going to be that different, and the amount of time to create the dies, tooling, etc is going to pretty much be par for the course when it comes to producing a smaller engine V. a larger one.
Like you, Sheldon, Bob, and others here, I will sit and ponder [the] companies' logic when it comes to marketing strategy. Maybe they are correct; after all, I am assuming that they have done their DD in the marketing sector, and at least have a working knowledge af who wants what. To do otherwise is, to my way of thinking, cutting your own throat.
Anyway, I am just an electrician, not a marketing strategist, so I will choose not to cast stones; and, instead, just watch the horizon.
RIch
Rich,
I may or may not cast a stone now and then about this issue of which products these guys choose to make. BUT, I keep voting with my pocket book.
I have not bought, from any of them, a:
Big Boy
K4
Challenger
GG1
2-10-anything
N&W "J"
any 4-8-4 w/80" drivers (UP FEF, SP GS4)
nor do I want a 2-8-8-8-2.
I have bought:
5 Bachmann 2-8-0's
5 Bachmann Heavy 4-8-2's
2 Bachmann 4-6-0's
3 Bachmann 2-6-6-2's
1 Mantua Classic 0-6-0
1 Mantua 4-4-2
2 Athearn 2-8-2's
1 Proto 0-8-0
2 Proto 2-8-8-2's
1 Riv 2-6-6-6
1 BLI 2-6-6-4
2 PCM Reading 4-8-4's
See, even my big locos are east coast, short rigid wheelbase, not all these west coast monsters they keep doing over and over.
So I hope they get it soon. I'm still hoping for some decent Pacifics, a modern 10 wheeler and some variaty in the Mike department.
I'm going to take a close look at the new IHC Pacfics and Mikes with the RP25 wheels. Could be a good base for a detailing project. Maybe the Pacific can become the Western Maryland Pacific I need.
Sheldon
My comment about tooling was meant to imply that the cost of tooling isn't an issue.
I would guess they did some market analysis - in New Jersey and Pennsylvania! If I were on the marketing team I'd look into on of the SP cab forwards. I'm sure there would be more demand.
There is obviously interest in smaller engines. I think most of the USRA types have been done but there is the whole gamut of Harriman controlled railroads.
PFM had a big seller when it imported the United Santa Fe 2-8-0. That would be really nice to see in HO. I believe they also brought in a B&O consolidation.
While I am a Pennsy fan I think another K4 is a waste of effort. An E6 atlantic (or any other prototype) would be nice. As for the TriPlex, years ago when I worked the Model RR dept. in a good sized LHS one of my custormers lusted for a Baldwin centipede diesel that some brass importer had announced. As far as I can remember only PRR, Seaboard, and NdeM had them. This customer modeled Seaboard Air Line and so I ordered it for him. For a 1970's vintage brass diesel it ran quite well (I test ran it just to "check it out"). He came in, paid for it and took it home. Did a fanstastic SAL paint and decal job on it and then put it on his layout. Turns out he had a beautifully decaled and painted mantlepiece display. Far as I know he stilll has it in a showcase on his desk down at the bank. For those few who buy the TriPlex (if its actually offered) all I can say is have a nice plexiglass display case ready for it---Rick Martin
Quote from: TrainBrain on October 05, 2007, 09:38:19 AM
...
I can't wait to see what M.T.H. will do with it. There's already a video, but it freezes up my computer :P, so, I'd recommend you not watch it :-\.
...
Never mind, it was just my computer, feel free to watch it over, and over,
and over, and over, and over, and over.
I would guess they did some market analysis - in New Jersey and Pennsylvania! If I were on the marketing team I'd look into on of the SP cab forwards. I'm sure there would be more demand.
Woody;
BLI is bringing out a brass A-3 Cab Foward. Check the price-sitting down!
This is why I will no further buy brass.
I hope to see some action on these pacifics they had touted a while back.
They have advertised a New Haven I-5, in both brass and in die-cast (white metal). They are looking for reservations. I will wait for "Trainworld" to toss their hat into the ring.
Rich
M.T.H. is supposed to make 5 other locos in HO next year (source: Model Railroader), but they weren't annouced yet.
Rich...as far as BLI is concerned, I now take all their product announcements with a grain of salt, I'm still waiting for my P.R.R. 2-10-0 (I know that it is from P.C.M., but they're the same company) that was supposed to be out over a year (or two) ago. They need to start announcing less and work on getting the models they've already announced out. They make excellent products but what good are they if they don't really exist beyond magazine ads?
Munchie;
Yep...Sad but true. This is why I said I will wait for "Trainworld" to toss their hat into the ring; then I will know it is a real thing and not just some apparitional B.S.!
Rich
True ;)
Hi guys,
I've been reading this with much interest and have been following MTH's web site on the triplex. They now have a video of her in action. Yes, the HO model in action, and if you click on one of the engine numbers, you get all the details. They state the model is all metal and will run on 22 inch radius curves. It doesn't look bad going around 22 inch radius. Really.
Now, I am not a big fan of big huge steam, not because of the locomotive per say, but because I'm not a fan of Union Pacific and that's all that is thrown up now a days. I am eagerly awaiting this unit to get one. It's so unique it's well in line with the asking price. I just wish that they offered an undecorated version. If not, I'll just have to paint over the ERIE.
Check out the video!
Manny
I stated the vid here:
Quote from: TrainBrain on October 05, 2007, 09:07:05 PM
Quote from: TrainBrain on October 05, 2007, 09:38:19 AM
...
I can't wait to see what M.T.H. will do with it. There's already a video, but it freezes up my computer :P, so, I'd recommend you not watch it :-\.
...
Never mind, it was just my computer, feel free to watch it over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.
But the radius info is new! ;D
Quote from: r.cprmier on October 03, 2007, 10:22:15 PM
Hey Munchie;
S-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h...(don't tell Gene)...
Rich
Don't tell him what? That he's right?
The NEW YORK CENTRAL did not have any 2-8-4s on their roster. The B&A and P&LE were SEPERATE RAILROADS. The odd corporate structuring of the NYC included the two railroads (along with about a dozen others) as part of the New York Central SYSTEM of RAILROADS, but they were completely seperate entities, both from an operational and from a taxable standpoint.
Orsonroy;
My intent was that of humour. Don't be such a nitpicker; you'll ruin my day.
Rich
Quote from: r.cprmier on October 09, 2007, 01:46:37 PM
Orsonroy;
My intent was that of humour. Don't be such a nitpicker; you'll ruin my day.
Rich
Sorry Rich. It's sometimes (usually?) difficult to gauge sarcasm online.
Just wanted to chime in concerning NYC 2-8-4s. I have the following book in my collection: The Steam Locomotive in America by Alfred W. Bruce, copyright 1952, Bonanza Books. I purchased this book in the mid-1960s, while I was in college. $3.00 on the bargain book table at a bookstore in downtown Lancaster, PA, if I remember correctly.
Between pages 276 and 277 are 168 photos of various steam locomotives. Photo 166 shows the last Alco steam locomotive, built in 1948. It is New York Central System number 9401. It is a 2-8-4 type, and the tender bears New York Central System along its side. Near the top of the coal bunker are smaller letters "P&LE" and perhaps "RR." They are very hard to read due to the size of the photo, and a magnifying glass is of little help. This difference in the lettering may answer why there is some confusion as to the ownership of these locomotives.
The locomotive is very modern looking with an all-weather cab, and domes and a stack that bearly rise above the top of the boiler. The stats include: BP - 230psi, cylinders 26"X32", tractive effort 67,100 lb, and an engine weight of 426,000 lb. It must have been spectacular to see in operation. Sadly, I wonder if it had a service life of even 10 years.
Hope this helps,
David Meashey
Well, I'm going out on a limb here & saying I'm getting one.
They're not that big, really. The Triplex is actually shorter than an ATFS 4-8-4 #37xx. The BLi N&W A class, Proto 2-8-8-2's, & Hornby/Riva's 2-6-6-6 dwarf the rather diminutive Triplex.
I was never really interested in Erie, but since the MTH announcement, I have had a closer look & found Bachmann make an Erie, 2-10-0, & their Consolidation is close enough to convert. Bli makes the Heavy Mikado, so there is a good variety of locos to model. So Bachmann has already profited from MTH's choice, & Bli will when they release the Erie Mikado. At least I'll be kept busy in the Engine shop until early 2008.
Like the rest of you, I would love a non-PRR pacific, Atlantic,& early 4-4-0, & that's just scraping the surface.
I know the general view of Model Railroading is to choose a Road & model it, but I just love the engineering, be it a masterpiece or wonderful disaster; & the Triplex was just that!
While researching the Erie thing, I looked into the DMIR. Bachmann makes the DMIR 2-10-2, & their Ten wheeler & Consolidation are candidates for conversion to that Road. If MTH would only make a Yellowstone to go with them :)
Cheers.
Again, the key is "per se." The New York Central and the New York Central System were, as stated, two different things. That last Berkshire was for the Pittsburg and Lake Erie, which was part of the New York Central System, but not part of the New York Central.
Gene
Quote from: r.cprmier on October 03, 2007, 04:33:07 PM
Woody;
I have a friend who, as a kid, was given a Tenshodo Challenger. By today's standards, this engine is a f'real bow-wow! I wouldn't run it on my railroad if it were given me free. I have a couple of Challengers that have since been done, and they-far and away-eclipse the old 4-6-6-4! ...
Rich
Rich;
Don't know if you are aware or not, but the wooden boxed Challenger from Tenshodo was a very early version of this model from them. Having painted aprox. 35 Tenshodo Challengers for others, (yes they mostly came painted, but not everyone wanted the engine in UP or with the number supplied), I can say from personal experience that the later production units that came in a "regular" brass engine box, (cardboard), were surperb runners. The Crown versions are superior to any other model since released by any other manufacturer, IMHO. Most of these locos could be tuned to the point where you literally could NOT here them running at all. If you did hear them, it was just motor noise and very subdued at that.
Nowadays any that I do paint that are Tenshodos, get a can motor placed in them for even quieter operations, or DCC installations.