I am really interiested in the Triplex model, even though I live in Wisconsin. It was a unique and impressive locomotive that looked down-right pretty. The large box headlight, the marker lights, Russian Iron on the boiler, and 3 sets of cylinders; only something a mother could love, right?
I'll wait a little while before I buy mine, as I don't want to pay $499 for an engine just because it looks cool. I'll wait till I see them on clearence.
Someone on the forum mentioned GN steam. I am also going to get one of the PCM S2's, once they come out. PCM really hit the jackpot with me when they released a plastic version of "the brass sensation" as they call it.
Phil
As Lou Pinella said after the Cubs had won a couple of games earlier this year, "Let's not go and get all giggly here now". Announcing and producing and when as we know from experience are far different things.
I guess we can all get "Giggly" now. The Cubs won the Central Division last night.
tomikawaTT wrote:Taking my line of reasoning to its (il)logical conclusion, all Bayer-Garratts are tank engines...
Taking my line of reasoning to its (il)logical conclusion, all Bayer-Garratts are tank engines...
dinwitty wrote: tomikawaTT wrote: Strictly speaking, the Erie 2-8-8-8-2 was a tank engine, since it didn't have a separate tender!I see your angle there, I went, umm waitaminute, oh, OK. But it didnt hold water at the side of the boiler...
tomikawaTT wrote: Strictly speaking, the Erie 2-8-8-8-2 was a tank engine, since it didn't have a separate tender!
Strictly speaking, the Erie 2-8-8-8-2 was a tank engine, since it didn't have a separate tender!
I see your angle there, I went, umm waitaminute, oh, OK. But it didnt hold water at the side of the boiler...
selector wrote:My point, exactly! We have collectively lamented the plethora of BB's , Challengers, K4's, 0-X-0, USRA Whatever, and we even have the latest iteration (not that it's a bad one, mind you) of the H-8, but when someone comes out with a real gee-whizzer, the noses rise...
Hal M. Hare wrote:Since they seem to prefer the unusuakl, perhaps they will consider a Garratt?
selector wrote:All true enough, Mark. I was just thinking; he sure knows how to get a buzz out of us. The other major forum has some excitement building, plus the usual upturned noses , and we are no different. There's nothing in the media quite like a juicy tidbit, eh?-Crandell
All true enough, Mark.
I was just thinking; he sure knows how to get a buzz out of us. The other major forum has some excitement building, plus the usual upturned noses , and we are no different. There's nothing in the media quite like a juicy tidbit, eh?
-Crandell
selector wrote:The other forum is from the major manufacturers of flextrack.
Thanks, I'm not a member there but I read it on a daily basis.
Magnus
Side or saddle tanks don't make a tank engine, water and fuel all carried on the locomotive frame that holds the drivers make it a tank engine.
My favorite loco of all time is the 762mm gauge Kiso 0-4-2T. Baldwin built it with its tank (and an immense wood bunker) behind the cab. The little, skinny (36" diameter) boiler didn't even have running boards, so the little beast looked like a drumstick (chicken or turkey variety.)
The Southern had a couple of standard locos fitted with tender engines - kind of super-boosters. The loco-tender coupling was the usual drawbar link, not a Mallet hinge. (N&W J 604 actually had a tender booster for a while. When the boiler pressure was raised to 300#, 604 had more tractive effort than a UP Challenger!)
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I see your angle there, I went, umm waitaminute, oh, OK. But it didnt hold water at the side of the boiler. The rear set is separated from the main boiler section. When the Virginian de-tripped it, it "became" a tender. 8-D There was a 2-8-2-8-2, non articulated engine with drivers under the tender. Putting tender booster trucks wasnt unusual and I think the 2-8-4 NKP berks had trailing truck boosters, or some engines had that. Every ounce of tractive effort worked in.
The Trip was articulated just like any other Mallet. The boiler was fixed to the high pressure engine (actually only at the cylinder saddle, the firebox end could move as heat expanded the boiler,) the front low pressure engine wss hinged at the high pressure cylinders (swung in a horizontal plane but was vertically rigid.) The rear engine was hinged at the cylinders, and the entire tank-and-bunker assembly was mounted to its frame.
Other things it didn't have - a combustion chamber, decent-size grate area and good draft (only the front engine exhausted up the stack.) Once 10mph was no longer acceptable as a maximum speed (even for a pusher) the Triplex joined the various pre-superheat compounds (Vauclain, Cole, cross and tandem,) the dodo and the passenger pigeon.
In all the preceeding discussion, nobody ever mentioned PFM's most successful locomotive, the Santa Fe 2-8-0.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - running 24 drivers under 3 separate boilers)
While I'll "probably" get the Triplex just 'cause of the ooh-aah factor, I do agree about the Z-6's. I could use maybe three of these in SP&S. With the rear engine attached to the boiler, just like the real ones, please. HO, of course.
Ed
Isn't this a hoot? I was perusing the last issue of RMC and what did I see? A couple of GN/SP&S Z-series 4-6-6-4's, probably the handsomest Challengers ever built (okay, except for the Rio Grande L-105's from Baldwin) and as my heart stopped, I saw--O SCALE BY MTH. And I immediately thought, "How come O-scale, which I admire, gets THESE and all we HO'ers ever get is ANOTHER UP 3985--or whatever it is--Clone by whatever manufacturer got bit in the butt by the the Bug THIS month?"
So, instead of designing those handsome "other Alco" 4-6-6-4's in HO for us, MTH decides on a Triplex?
Hey, guys, somebody out there AIN'T LISTENING!
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
Want to go unusual? Make the never built experimental ACE loco project. Thatll put a steam loco out that fits in the modern diesel age. MR ran plans for it and someone modeled it.
BTW the Virginian Trip was rebuilt into a 2-8-8-0 with the third engine a 2-8-0 slapping a boiler on, they ran till 1953, so it was a failure as a trip, but fine when remodded.
selector wrote: All true enough, Mark. I was just thinking; he sure knows how to get a buzz out of us. The other major forum has some excitement building, plus the usual upturned noses , and we are no different. There's nothing in the media quite like a juicy tidbit, eh?-Crandell
What other forum?
I do hope they sell a lot since that would lead the way for other manufacturers to take chances and not just repeat the same old locos.
selector wrote:I'm with you on the ATSF Hudson, Jerry. I'd also like to see the Bessemer & Lake Erie monster 2-10-4. A Yellowstone would be their ticket to stardom in HO.
ha yeh, I bought my ebay brass one now, you train makers listen up.
Well, I got to give MTH credit, they went out on a limb and picked a really ODD locomotive for their second kick at the cat. It is a nice looking piece, and if this is indicative of what MTH is willing to produce, then I hope they sell a boatload of these things. Maybe then they will consider coming to their senses and producing some late model GN steam. It was pretty successful for PFM all those years ago, no reason it wouldn't work for MTH. It would be too simple to do a successful locomotive like a Great Northern O-8 mikado. How about a Northern Pacific W-3? They were the GP9s of the steam era on NP!
Sadly, last time I told this to Andy Edlemen, I got the deer in the headlight looks. Evidently, if the locomotive didn't work east of the Mississippi, they are not interested. Typical shortsighted 3 rail thinking. Hopefully the person they hire for their HO product line has a clue, and there is still hope for them.
They did a very nice looking Z-6 in O scale (2 and 3 rail) recently. Too bad that it was done two years earlier by 3rd Rail division of Sunset models.
These guys are not working very hard to get my dollars in either scale. Pity, I wouldn't mind dropping some green in their store if they actually made something I modeled, unless it was recently produced by somebody else.
At least they have come out with some really nice steam era rolling stock in O.
All they have to do is pick up a "Brown Book of Brass" and look at the models that have been run like crazy over the years. Off the top of my head, some examples would be:
And I'm sure a whole bunch of others that escape my memory at this late hour.
For the diesel guys, do a SD70ACe, it sure was a good pick for O.
regards,
Jerry Zeman
Right now the Triplex in HO is rare in brass only with a handful of home brew versions.
I found an RMC article, feb 1958 on how to build your own Erie triplex, using John English 2-8-2 (now bowser) mechanisms. That model could take 22" radius, with blind drivers, 18".
Making the boiler takes brass tubing and a bit of metalworking. Good article.
Someone made the Virginian using Mantua mechanisms, featured in the Model of the Month award in MR recently.
I wasn't interested in the K4, but more on the Triplex, but has to be Virginian detail correct.
The engine isnt going to attract the kind of interest like the Big Boy but it IS a unique engine, successful or not.
Buying a brass triplex goes over 1000 bucks. 500 bucks isnt bad for MTH's, and I bought the Rivarrossi 2-6-6-6 for around 400 bucks and the BLI 2-6-6-4 about the same so the pricing isnt far off.
As far as DCS goes, if I dont like there DCS, its presto-chango and put a true DCC in.
So far now however, its no buy for me on the Erie Trip. Thnx, no thnx MTH, have a mod for a true Virginian, I'm on, otherwise I look for the Brass one.