I just noticed MTH is releasing it's second engine (PRR K4 being it's first HO Steam Engine) believe it or not a 2-8-8-8-2 Triplex In Erie and Virginian Colours. $499 and can handle 22" curves. Comes with Steam and Sound. Question is "Why?" I'm not complaining here as a new unreleased Steam Engine is always a welcome addition, however I figured there would be others out there that would more marketable than a Triplex.
My thoughts anyway
Fergie
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=5959
If one could roll back the hands of time... They would be waiting for the next train into the future. A. H. Francey 1921-2007
IF there is any logic behind it, I'd guess they're aiming more at the Collector's market rather than modellers. Kinda odd to have this rare bird in HO, along with the 8-10 or whatever it's up to now different versions of UP Challengers and Big Boys, but still no NP or DMIR Yellowstones.
I'd like to see the model companies concentrate on restored engines running today, like MILW 261, since a model of those engines could be used by steam or transition modellers, or as fantrip engines on "today" model railroads. (261 model in HO would be great, given some of the new Walthers Hiawatha cars are models of cars owned by the Friends of 261 et al and used in fantrips.)
Fergie, a bunch of us gave this subject a thorough going-over about three pages back if you would be interested in digging it up. Some of us wonder if MTH isn't a lot cagier than we give him credit for...it is a very appealing and interesting engine, if a bit of a dud....okay, a lot of a dud...but think of the gee-whizz factor if he can produce this well enough to actually run around 26" or so curves...or even if we all put it under glass.
I'll see if I can find the post and provide you a link if you wish. I'll be right back.
-Crandell
http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1224559/ShowPost.aspx
I suppose the Erie fans will love this engine as will the Virginian Ry modelers.
However,and as a side note the Triplex was a failure and lasted a very short time.
BTW..There was a brass Triplex offered in the early 60s.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
I received the following message from MTH today:
Hello. Thank you for contacting MTH Electric Trains. The MTH HOTriplex will have only the front two drivers powered. The soundswill be correct for a six-cylinder locomotive. We hope to have avideo of the sample for this engine available on the HO website(http://www.mthhotrains.com) within the next day or two.
Mark
doc manago wrote:Why a triplex?...because MTH likes the "big" engines...
Since I will model the Virginian I want the triplex, but it has to be Virginian's Triplex, not the Erie design.
Fergmiester wrote: I just noticed MTH is releasing it's second engine (PRR K4 being it's first HO Steam Engine) believe it or not a 2-8-8-8-2 Triplex In Erie and Virginian Colours. $499 and can handle 22" curves. Comes with Steam and Sound. Question is "Why?" I'm not complaining here as a new unreleased Steam Engine is always a welcome addition, however I figured there would be others out there that would more marketable than a Triplex. My thoughts anywayFergie
They produced the Triplex in a larger scale and had the drawings so it would be somewhat easy to convert it to HO. The problem I see is they are offering the Erie version as the Virginian also, and the two engines are not alike in any of the major details including the tenders.
The Virginian was a 2-8-8-8-4 and most of the engine details were diffferent including the tender. I was surprised they would offer the same model with both roadnames, but that is the way it is handled in Toy Hi rail land. The Baldwin Story book shows both engines and they do not look alike.
Cheers
Their reply tells me that the engine will be like all HO models; only the drivers under the boiler will be driven, and those under the tender will be dummies.
This loco just lost half its appeal for me. How much did they say they wanted for one of them? I don't think so!
I guess the guys at Con-Cor did an obscure diesel (the Aerotrain) so MTH felt obliged to build an obscure steamer.
Meanwhile when I ask why no major manufacturer has made a new 1900 era car model in the last 30 years, people keep telling me that no manufacturer will spend the money on tooling to build a model with small sales potential. Go figure.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusman wrote: I guess the guys at Con-Cor did an obscure diesel (the Aerotrain) so MTH felt obliged to build an obscure steamer.Meanwhile when I ask why no major manufacturer has made a new 1900 era car model in the last 30 years, people keep telling me that no manufacturer will spend the money on tooling to build a model with small sales potential. Go figure.Dave H.
I think Con Cor may be wising up (although they commited themselves to "The Worm" already). They are going to be doing Santa Fe hi level cars next year, including the long awaited lounge in plastic, and at least one version of the baggage dormitory cars.
dinwitty wrote: doc manago wrote:Why a triplex?...because MTH likes the "big" engines...Since I will model the Virginian I want the triplex, but it has to be Virginian's Triplex, not the Erie design.
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
Well, gang, I hate to say it, but after seeing a photo of the production model in this month's issue of MR, I have to say--I'M INTRIGUED! Okay, don't send out the butterfly nets quite yet, because I certainly wish that someone--ANYONE would get off the UP binge and start making some articulateds that are NOT a Big Boy or a UP 3985 (or whatever that Challenger's # is), like a Missabe M3/4 Yellowstone or an NP/SP&S Z-series 4-6-6-4, or maybe one of either WP's or Rio Grande's HUMUNGUOUS 2-8-8-2's, but this Triplex thingy just kind of fascinates me.
Okay, where in HELL would I put it on the Yuba River Sub, which is Rio Grande and SP steam? I have no idea, guys, no idea at all. But good Lord, look at ALL those drivers--it's an articulated lover's Dream Come True (okay, the prototype didn't work, but that's BESIDE the point, IMO). Three sets. Count 'em--THREE sets of eccentric gears. WOWSER! Besides, we can always throw on an auxiliary tender to make it SEEM like it works, can't we?
I'm just trying to figure out where I'd put it in my Rio Grande loco classification system. I've already got some never-was 3900 2-8-8-4's (but that's all right, because Rio Grande borrowed a bunch of Missabe Road M-3/4's during WWII, which is the period I'm modeling anyway). But how the Heck would I explain a Rio Grande Triplex?
But you know, MTH DID sport an O-gauge Triplex a couple of years ago, and they just released some O-gauge GN/SP&S Z-series Alco Challengers, so maybe--just maybe--since they've got the specs, we might get an HO version of those incredibly handsome 4-6-6-4's in the next couple of years.
Besides, remember--not to cause any flame wars-- but Mike, who was getting very 'sue-happy' with everyone, also remembered to include Union Pacific and at least get THEIR 'licencing' fee dropped, which made a whole bunch of us UP Fallen Flag fans extremely happy.
So, Triplex or not, there might be a kind of light at the end of this tunnel. But I hate to tell you, guys, that photo of the Triplex just intrigues the Heck out of me. All those drivers---WOW! Now, if I can just find some stupid excuse----------
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!
Tom, while you were typing you may have missed some telling traffic above your post. Does the fact that the tender engine will be an idler, or dummied, make much of a difference for you?
selector wrote: Tom, while you were typing you may have missed some telling traffic above your post. Does the fact that the tender engine will be an idler, or dummied, make much of a difference for you?-Crandell
Crandall:
I kind of figured out that the tender drivers would be just along for the ride. Just as long as the two locomotive sets are driven, I'd be a happy camper, considering that it's a die-cast loco, which means plenty of weight on the drivers under the loco.
Now, I'll admit, that I wonder if the middle set of drivers is going to be fixed under the firebox, like a prototypical Articulated (which is how most of mine are fixed--but they're brass), or swing out on some kind of weird 'triple' articulation. That I'd have to see before I really get interested. So I really don't know what kind of drive MTH has planned for it. I would assume that if the middle set is 'fixed', that the first set would be driven by some kind of direct connection from the middle set, rather than the current 'tower' style of articulation popular with current plastic manufacturers. I'll just have to wait and see.
But as to the tender drivers just going along for the ride--as long as the first two sets are actually geared, it shouldn't bother me too much. I have an old brass Akane USRA 2-6-6-2 in which only the rear set of drivers is powered and the first set runs free, and it runs like a little Swiss watch, and pulls like a baby ox.
But as I said, I'll have to see one of these babies in action before I make a decision. But as I said in my original post, I'm really intrigued.
Certainly you have a point... there are other locos with broader appeal; but I for one am happy to see some attention being given to a niche market segement - even if its not exectly the one I'm in. I guess for the most part, I'm just thrilled that its not one more Big Boy, one more USRA Hopper, one more F Unit.... or one more of something we already have too much of already!
I for one, am happy to hear of the MTH HO Scale Triplex.
I wish to learn as much as I can about this model to decide if I want one or not.
I for one am in for this and any other ERIE steam that they may produce. I am especially hoping for a good running ERIE Berk.
http://www.webusers.warwick.net/~u1015590/
I'm certainly disappointed that MTH is planning on powering the first and second driver set and not the third. It would seem to make more sense to power the second and third, if one isn't powering all of them. That way, you could have the middle set firmly attached to the boiler just like the real one, and have the front set swivel just like the real one. I'm also thinking that you could have two motors and thus get out of having to design a system to distribute power from one motor the two or more trucks. The way they're talking about doing it sound like it's going to be the same old diesel style of articulation that most everyone does nowadays on their plastic articulateds. Also, that big square tender could be a whole lot of weight if it were cast metal. With MTH's apparent lack of design imagination, my interest in this loco is diminishing fast.
Ed
I am not certain where the power is yet.
Careful viewing of the availible O scale versions show middle driver set powered, front and rear powered via driveshaft.
Careful viewing of the HO scale pictures I have recieved indicate a drive shaft between Tender and Cab but maybe none for the front.
My copy of this month's MR has not yet arrived so I wonder if the issue has more information about this engine.
If they only drive any two of the three sets of drivers, it will cut down on it's ability to pull. I would think that they need to clarify this issue quickly before it's out of hand among those who dont know much yet such as myself.
"A Triplex, Of all the Engines why a Triplex?"
Maybe they couldn't find good drawings of the beautiful (and successful) Algerian State Railways 4-6-2+2-6-4 French-built Garratts.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Why not?
Prototypical articulation (real drivers fixed to boiler) is neat if you have beaucoups of space and big curves, but I will take swiveling both driver sets under the boiler every time in the interests of runability. And, I have had several brass articulateds that were proto style.
If I wanted one, I wouldn't care if the third driver set was powered, only if it ran well.
The VGN Triplex made it out of the yard without too much problem, as far as I know !! It even made it up Clarks gap, which is what it was designed to do. It just couldn't do it in one continuous run is all. I don't need the VGN's single biggest failure on my route.
Boys, I bet an 800 series 2-10-10-2 would sell !! One of those for under $500 I would jump on!
I have to give credit to MTH for producing this rather unique locomotive. I sure looks very impressive. As somebody who owns a sizeable stable of brass GN and NP articulateds, the fact that the third engine will not be powered would not be a major heartache with me as long as it ran well. I would be surprised if that is not the case based on the great drive in their first locomotive, the Pennsy K-4.
I won't be laying out any green for this locomotive, as it doesn't fit my interests (GN and NP), but if they ever do get around to doing something that I DO model (like a Z-6, which they did in O), I will be there with an open wallet and a big grin on my face.
I'll pass on DCS, though. I already have a state of the art DCC control system, and it finds my locomotive on the track circuit every time.
Regards,
Jerry Zeman
They put up a video.
http://www.mthhotrains.com/news.asp
That should be it. Apparently they have the video on a protected server that does not allow any kind of direct linking off thier webpage.
I have second thoughts about this engine. Disregarding the video camera on it's own rough track and fast panning, I think that the front engine set is not powered, the noise of the engine is generic and is drowned out by the second engine ... a K4 (imagine that) running nearby on the next track over. Who is supposed to be the star? The K4 or the Triplex?
Anyhow...
Im betting the radius is a generous 30 Inches. And they did not run over any switches so I cannot tell "how it rides"
I cannot look under the engine sets or between them very well, I suspect the angle of the camera is deliberately set so that one does not see any spinning drive shafts or anything. I was specifically looking for that.
The rest of the views are generic. The video reveals nothing new and ends with a very horrible following shot... I wonder if the camera is on poor track or is the engine running on bad track? You watch and see what I mean at the very end.
Also the constant focus on the smoke makes me wonder if the fumes has finally affected the company trying to produce something decent in the Smoke Haze.
Questions such as pulling power, radius, compatibility with DCC and other things remain.
I hate to rain on anyone's parade but it seems to be they did a damn sight better job making the thing in O scale if only so few of them.
I'll save my dollars and pass on this one... too high of a price to be not totally satisfied with all issues covered.
I have to say something good.
The rear lanterns on the tender being lit red are a GREAT touch. But not enough to make me want to drop 500+ tax on it. While they got the rear covered, they should really get the front ones too.. white for extra or green for second section following (Yea riiiiigght)
Cheers.
Have anyone noticed that a lot of people who say that they like this engine and they think that MTH is doing a great job releasing it also often ends their statements with the observation that despite this, they won't get one!
For me this is the real issue. I don't think anyone of us are lamenting the fact that is is being produced. We are just sceptical about it's financial reality.
Magnus
I hear ya.
I would LOVE to have a Triplex or a EM-1 or any number of other engines in HO scale.
But I refuse to drop that much money without thoroughly examining the item for performance, pulling power and mechanical qualities. I'll try anything once but in this specific case, I think they need to take that thing back to China and rebuild it to a second version and re-release it after the concerns are addressed.