Hi all,
I saw this mentioned in a couple other threads, but I thought it would be worth a seperate topic. MTH annouced that their second HO locomoitve will be an Erie Triplex, which will also be painted for Virginian. Here's a link to their announcement: Triplex
MTH did the same locomotive in O gauge several years ago. The Erie versions were very nice and accurate models. The Virginian, however, was the Erie repainted. In real life the Virginian Triplex had a four wheel trailing truck. The website photo of the HO models shows the same error. They also announced a #1 gauge triplex some months ago.
joseph2 wrote:Thanks for the info.Wonder why MTH chose such an unusual locomotive ? And I am even an Erie fan. Joe
I agree with this? Why? There are so many more widely spread locos that have no mass produced engines. Like the Yellowstones and the EM-1 to mention some.
This is an engine that I could buy for my collection but then only one and then again, just maybe.
Magnus
Huh?
Remember when they came out with the K-4? What did everyone say? Answer: "Why did MTH come out with another K-4? Everyone does a K-4. The market is saturated with K-4's. Why doesn't MTH give us something unique?"
Now, MTH has given us something unique. And now people are saying, "Why did MTH pick such an unusual engine?"
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
MisterBeasley wrote: Now, MTH has given us something unique. And now people are saying, "Why did MTH pick such an unusual engine?"
The triplex is a conversation piece only. It was a miserable failure, so seeing it in regular use on a rail line would be an "oddity."
I think people were looking for something more common in use that was successful, yet rarely produced....like a B&O EM-1, or C&O H-7, or whatever else that is only seen in brass.
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
DigitalGriffin wrote: MisterBeasley wrote: Now, MTH has given us something unique. And now people are saying, "Why did MTH pick such an unusual engine?"The triplex is a conversation piece only. It was a miserable failure, so seeing it in regular use on a rail line would be an "oddity."I think people were looking for something more common in use that was successful, yet rarely produced....like a B&O EM-1, or C&O H-7, or whatever else that is only seen in brass.
Precisely my feelings. It is as you say an oddity. The ones you mention would make great alternatives because I can't see many people buying these.
Just another poor decision by MTH, further demonstrating no real understanding of the HO market. While this monster may appeal to the handful of diehard collectors in the hobby (i.e. those with brass-envy, etc.), as regularly operating motive power on all but the largest, Erie-based layouts, I'd say that it would have no appeal whatever. Even doing yet another Big Boy would have been a better (if absurd) choice, to say nothing of a dozen other possible "actually useful" engines, some of which others have mentioned already. Stick with tinplate, MTH, you don't understand HO! Will this be MTH's swan song in HO?
CNJ831
A TRIPLEX???
What were they thinking? WERE they thinking? Without straining my brain I could think of at least fifty more reasonable choices, everything from the various 2-8-8-4s down to and including the Wabash Mogul!
At least the K-4 was a model of a SUCCESSFUL locomotive.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - sans Triplexes)
If MTH has built these in O gauge, they probably have some idea of the market relative to other steam engines. Either they feel there's a demand, or they think their marketing can create a demand.
I like the idea of going out on a limb and making an unusual engine. Right now, anyone who buys an HO-scale MTH product is buying a conversation piece. So, it might as well be a real conversation piece. I'm going with a thumbs up on this call. (No, I'm not going to buy one. It just wouldn't fit. 18-inch curves and all that, y'know?)
MisterBeasley wrote:If MTH has built these in O gauge, they probably have some idea of the market relative to other steam engines. Either they feel there's a demand, or they think their marketing can create a demand.I like the idea of going out on a limb and making an unusual engine. Right now, anyone who buys an HO-scale MTH product is buying a conversation piece. So, it might as well be a real conversation piece. I'm going with a thumbs up on this call. (No, I'm not going to buy one. It just wouldn't fit. 18-inch curves and all that, y'know?)
The problem is, the O gauge market is a collectors market, while the HO market is predominately a modellers market. Collectors want what's cool (which the triplex certainly is) and we've all seen really nice O scale railroads where era and geographic location do not matter. HO, on the other hand, is mostly people modelling railroad operations they enjoy, and tend to stick to a certain era and location. Sure, we abuse our modellers' licenses a good bit, but an Erie Triplex is a real stretch. Maybe they're counting on freelance modellers to latch onto this, since it's not a generic USRA engine or a K4. I really don't see this selling well.
MisterBeasley wrote: (No, I'm not going to buy one. It just wouldn't fit. 18-inch curves and all that, y'know?)
(No, I'm not going to buy one. It just wouldn't fit. 18-inch curves and all that, y'know?)
And in this lies the problem. Not many will want to buy them ad they will look horrible on anything but large radius. Most manufacturers seems to concentrate on 18" as a minimum but this one will probably not make that.
And this is from someone who might buy it as a conversation piece if I could find it for say 200-250 dollars.
This is something really cool and unique, but I just don't have a reason to buy one, even if they sold them for $2.
No, I don't see these selling well, either. If they want them to sell, they should put in a standard DCC sound system, not some hybridized "DCC-compatible" DCS chip. Still, I do like the idea of bringing a unique engine into the market.
The whole idea here may still be to get DCS into the HO market. This could be a "beach-head" move, intended to provide an attractive locomotive for DC modellers who are looking at getting their first sound engine, and a control system to go with it.
TRIPLEX?
I know of ONE that will get sold.
TO our Biggest, Baddest, member, SPIKRE.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
MisterBeasley wrote: No, I don't see these selling well, either. If they want them to sell, they should put in a standard DCC sound system, not some hybridized "DCC-compatible" DCS chip. Still, I do like the idea of bringing a unique engine into the market.The whole idea here may still be to get DCS into the HO market. This could be a "beach-head" move, intended to provide an attractive locomotive for DC modellers who are looking at getting their first sound engine, and a control system to go with it.
I agree with it being not likely to sell well. Then again, it may never be produced. Both Lionel and MTH (and so did K-Line before they went bankrupt) have a nasty habit of cataloging items in 3 rail that never actually show up.
MTH will continue to struggle with the HO market because:
- selection of prototype. Oddball locomotives are not as appealing to the HO market as they are to the O. There are plenty of useful prototypes that have not been produced in non-brass.
- Prejudice against MTH. Their law suits have caused a great deal of ill will in both the O and HO markets, regardless of whether the suit was justified or not. The settlement with Union Pacific has helped to overcome some of the negativity, though.
- As pointed out, MTH is a strong proponent of proprietary systems. The HO locomotives are very likely part of a plan to expand DCS outside of O (and recoup some of the development costs). That said, the MTH K4 ran very nicely on DCC with almost all of its worthwhile functions accessible from a standard DCC controller. It didn't do so well on DC, where top speed was very limited at 12 volts.
- Insufficient offerings. If MTH really wants to have a part of the HO market with their proprietary systems, MTH is going to have to offer a much more complete lineup, and very quickly. A choice of realistic locomotives, some suitable cars to go with them, and complete DCS 3.0 train sets (track, DCS 3.0 controller, loco, cars).
FWIW, the web page lists the minimum radius of the Triplex as 27".
my thoughts, yours may vary
Fred W
While the prototype was a dismal failure (couldn't produce enough steam for all those cylinders, so operating speed was quite low), I think it premature to say this triplex locomotive model will be a sales bust. Gee, with all those SP cab-forwards and UP Big Boys sold by untold numbers of manufacturers (and I bet mostly to purchasers who do not model either railroad), I would think there would be a good market for the triplex. Imagine watching those three sets of drivers pulling a slow, heavy freight train. The model must have all the driver sets powered, however.
I just wished the manufacturers would come out with more small and medium sized steam locomotives. But BIG sells best.
Mark
markpierce wrote: While the prototype was a dismal failure (couldn't produce enough steam for all those cylinders, so operating speed was quite low), I think it premature to say this triplex locomotive model will be a sales bust. Gee, with all those SP cab-forwards and UP Big Boys sold by untold numbers of manufacturers (and I bet mostly to purchasers who do not model either railroad), I would think there would be a good market for the triplex. Imagine watching those three sets of drivers pulling a slow, heavy freight train. The model must have all the driver sets powered, however.I just wished the manufacturers would come out with more small and medium sized steam locomotives. But BIG sells best.Mark
I think their is a difference. Big boys seems to have a universal appeal. A survey on a small newly started forum(ca 300) in Sweden showed that there was some 25 BB amongst us and several people had ordered more. I don't think that hardly that many even know what this loco is among that group. So while BB sells worldwide and to all the UP fans out there this have a lot less of a following.
Then again, weirder things have happened. But I do think it's a some what "different" choice.
Retail price of $499.00, transfer price to their dealers in the order of $250? A loco of limited appeal? What do you think, they sell maybe 1000 to 1500 units total world wide, with the bulk going to the US? It may be that the economics are such that it does not have to sell a lot to make financial sense. When you figure that the development and the drawings are probably shared with the larger scale models this may actually make sense to MTH.
I have no interest in this model myself, nor did I in the K4. Just because this is not a mass market appeal model does not mean that it will be a commercial flop.
Simon Modelling CB&Q and Wabash See my slowly evolving layout on my picturetrail site http://www.picturetrail.com/simontrains and our videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrCrispybake?feature=mhum
markpierce wrote:I just wished the manufacturers would come out with more small and medium sized steam locomotives. But BIG sells best.Mark
I totally agree. Whether actual or preceived, there's a sorta "Texas mentality" in the MRR world when it comes to manufacturing locomotives: Bigger is always better.
While I agree that the larger locomotives were necessary for pulling goods and people, in all actuality it was the smaller locomotives (e.g switchers) that were the real backbone of the RR industry. Without them, nothing would have gotten hooked up to get shipped out.
Although a 4-8-8-4 Big Boy is definitely impressive to see, I'll take the smaller locomotives any day of the week over the larger ones.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Perhaps I could give a little boost to sales rates. The Triplex has been discussed about as unseriously as the BIG BOY. Whereas BIG BOY always will be considered as one of the most successful designs ever because of the huge hype in history - not only in my eyes not justified, the Triplex always will be considered as one of the "mistakes" because somebody said that it "couldn't produce enough steam for the 6 cylinders". But let's get a little more serious. ERIE ordered one engine, tested it - and ordered more of them. They operated them about a decade (!) until scrapped or whatever. They were used to push heavy trains up steep hills where speeds were slow - and they did this good enough that ERIE decided to operate them 8 or more years. Would a RR decide so when the design was a "mistake"? When speeds was not required much steam also wasn't reqired - but tractive effort - which they provided.
Big Boy has been discussed with some substance at other places, no need here.
I don't know if I will buy the Triplex, but in my eyes MTH's decision to do it is NOT that unlogically. The argument of tight radius also is senseless because both the driver diameter (and therefore wheel spacing for the driver sets) as well as boiler length were substantially smaller than on BIG BOY - so it will run AND look better on tight curves than BIG BOY.
VAPEURCHAPELON wrote: Perhaps I could give a little boost to sales rates. The Triplex has been discussed about as unseriously as the BIG BOY. Whereas BIG BOY always will be considered as one of the most successful designs ever because of the huge hype in history - not only in my eyes not justified, the Triplex always will be considered as one of the "mistakes" because somebody said that it "couldn't produce enough steam for the 6 cylinders". But let's get a little more serious. ERIE ordered one engine, tested it - and ordered more of them. They operated them about a decade (!) until scrapped or whatever. They were used to push heavy trains up steep hills where speeds were slow - and they did this good enough that ERIE decided to operate them 8 or more years. Would a RR decide so when the design was a "mistake"? When speeds was not required much steam also wasn't reqired - but tractive effort - which they provided.Big Boy has been discussed with some substance at other places, no need here.I don't know if I will buy the Triplex, but in my eyes MTH's decision to do it is NOT that unlogically. The argument of tight radius also is senseless because both the driver diameter (and therefore wheel spacing for the driver sets) as well as boiler length were substantially smaller than on BIG BOY - so it will run AND look better on tight curves than BIG BOY.
I heartily agree except that I don't consider eight-years-and-one-railroad to be a successful. If I modeled a railroad using coal for fuel, I'd be mightedly tempted to buy one of thos triplexes!
Quoting from another website:
"The Erie Class P-1 locomotives were called "triplex" locomotives because they had three sets of driving wheels. There were four such locomotives, all built by Baldwin. The Erie Railroad had three of them, the Virginian had one. Erie had a long standing custom of honoring superior engineers by painting their names on the cabs of locomotives. Triplex 5014 (originally numbered 2603) carried the name of Matt H. Shay for a number of years.
"The Erie triplexes were built in 1914 and 1915. They were an attempt of the locomotive designers to put as much tractive effort as possible into one locomotive. Initially, they were numbered 2603, 2604 and 2605. They were soon renumbered to 5014 - 5016. It was said that the first triplex was capable of pulling 640 cars. However, the tractive effort that these locomotives could generate was greater than the draft gear, couplers and frames of freight cars of that era could transmit. As a result, these locomotives were used in helper (pusher) service on the "Gulf Summit" or "Susquehanna Hill" grade near Deposit NY, and were taken out of service in 1927 when the arrival of 2-8-4s on the Erie roster made 2-10-2s available for helper service. 5014 was scrapped in October 1929. All six cylinders on these locomotives were the same size. The middle set was operated at high pressure, and exhausted to the front and rear sets, both of which operated at low pressure. There was no provision for running all cylinders at high pressure.
"The triplexes were used with some success on the Erie Railroad but were not without problems. They were too large for Erie's own shops. Major repairs were performed in the Lehigh Valley shops at Sayre, PA. Another major problem with the triplexes was that the steam supply was inadequate for speeds past 10mph on the Erie and 5 mph on the Virginian. Part of the problem was that the tender motor unit exhausted to the air, reducing the amount of draft available to the firebox. Another problem was the "variable adhesion" of the tender motor unit. As the coal and water was consumed, the weight on drivers was reduced, thus reducing the factor of adhesion on the tender unit"
Wow: max. speed of 5 to 10 m.p.h. Sure hope the model is capable of such low speeds..and that MTH got the cylinder diameters right. (The above source said the cylinders were all the same diameter, but that doesn't make sense to me. I would think the front and rear sets of cylinders [low pressure] would be larger than the middle cylinders [high pressure]. If the above was true, the designers ignored the "mallet/compound-steam principle.")
I think the tractive effort of these locomotives was around 180,000 pounds each.
I may be in the minority here, but I am excited! I fully agree that the small engine market has been neglected by just about everyone but Bachmann and Roundhouse. I hope they do make some smaller engines. But to be honest, I have an articulated fetish. I love them, all of those wheels and rods spinning are just like heaven to me. I own 21 engines, and 13 of them are articulateds. I will admit that I only have a 6X8 table with a 22 inch and 24 inch loops now, as we will be moving soon and no need to build a nice layout and then tear it down. I will either model the N&W, or C&O when I build the big daddy, but I am not ashamed to admit that when I see an engine that I like and would like to see running I buy it without regret, no matter the roadname!
I applaud MTH with the announcement of the Triplex, and want to let them know they can count on me to buy one. I say to all manufacturers, do make some small engines so we can all be happy, but don't stop making big articulateds! Maybe since they are on an oddball Erie engine kick they can make an Angus 0-8-8-0 camelback too. I would sign up for that as well!
I took one look at that photo and thought, boy that's an opening bid and a half in the let's-see-who-can-grab-a-corner-of-the-market sweepstakes. It may have been a historical flop, but it is a sweet looking big steam loco in a market that shows no diminishment in its appetite for big steam.
Personally, I have nothing against MTH, and I wish them well. I think they'll sell a hockey sock full of these things, although the MSRP will have to be undercut. And look at it this way...if it does sell, what will the rest of our manufacturing friends have to do to keep up? Bonus for us.
The Virginian was 2-8-8-8-4, and thay want to slap on the Virginian name on the Erie.
Tho the 2 have very similar designs, they were different. The Erie had all sets of cylinders the same size but the Virginian had lo/hi pressure Cylinders. Slapping the Virginian name on the Erie is the ole IHC trick. Well, you could say ...suppose the Virginian did buy it....
I am interested in the Virginian and will model it, but sorry, no Erie Triplexes are to be on it.
Just because the prototype was a failure doesnt say how we modelers make use of it.
I have a "mistake" Ho South Shore Combine...er its a coach, ohwait... the brass maker had a combine one side and a coach the other, ah well... my solution,...call it a "half-combine" and number it a fictitious road number the South Shore never had. It won't be obvious, you can only see one side anyways at any one time...noo, I wont be trying to change the sides...
It would be a fun model on club layouts, some modelers may repaint it, bash it into a better design than the prototype did or whatever...
Next up, C&O or N&W turbines...
The purchase of this loco, will be a hard sell for many, in my opinion;
1) The limited prototype appeal, along with the $500 MSRP overiding the cool factor, will limit sales. The K4, at least wondered as far west as St. Louis, giving it a broader appeal.
I wonder how large a section of the modeling population knows what a triplex even is, compaired to the before mentioned big boy.
2) The DCS electronics package, while it will function, to a degree, on DC and DCC layouts, the DCS system must be used for full range of operation, and that would be just fine if the DCS operated DCC equipment as well.
3) The spec page lists min radius at 27", which just eliminated about half to two thirds of the potential buyers from the market. Let's face it, there are far more layouts built on one or two 4x8 sheets with 18"/22-24" curves than basement lapping ones with 32" or greater curves, and unless they have access to a large club layout, they won't be able to operate it.
While I like the detail, diecast construction, the "smart" smoke unit, sound, and the overall cool factor, even without the problems, as a midwest modeler, there's just not a triplex in my future.