Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

MTH announces HO scale 9000 class 4-12-2... THAT WORKS ON 22" RADIUS!

30292 views
106 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 3,264 posts
Posted by CAZEPHYR on Saturday, February 21, 2009 2:59 PM

 

If you come across them again grab them. I have several Sunset 4-12-2's and can say they are the smoothest running brass I have. If you be patient you can get then at a good price. I have seen them go on Ebay for $500.00 and as much as $950.00. They are bargans. Painted ones a little more. It was an easy engine to airbrush.

Mike

I purchased three of them when they first came out in the mid seventies.  I believe they cost a little over $200 at that time, but over the years, I sold them off after painting several for customers and one for myself.  I purchased the lastest run Key 4-12-2 (9029) in 2004 which might be the most detailed HO model ever produced up to this day.   If the Key is not the best, it certainly is one of the best and I was actually thinking about selling it before I viewed the MTH video.  I am glad they showed the video. 

More of those Sunset 4-12-2's will show up and you are right, they do run well.   What did we expect from Samhongsa.  Too bad, they stopped producing brass model trains about five years ago.

CZ

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Carmichael, CA
  • 8,055 posts
Posted by twhite on Saturday, February 21, 2009 2:51 PM

8500HPGASTURBINE

CAZEPHYR
had skipped picking up two Sunset 9000's in the past few weeks believing I could make due with the MTH and even thought about selling my Key 9029.  No more thoughts about that move, but I will pick up some more of the Sunset models since they are fairly nice overall. 

 

If you come across them again grab them. I have several Sunset 4-12-2's and can say they are the smoothest running brass I have. If you be patient you can get then at a good price. I have seen them go on Ebay for $500.00 and as much as $950.00. They are bargans. Painted ones a little more. It was an easy engine to airbrush.

 

Mike

Mike: 

Just a question.  What is the minimum radius of those Sunset 9000's?  Reason I ask is that I've got several Sunset brass steamers--which I like very much, BTW--and they have VERY close scale tolerances.  Even my little brass Southern Pacific 2-8-0 requires at LEAST a 26" radius, though with my 34 and 36" radii it's a happy little camper. 

Just curious about those 9000's, though. 

Tom Smile

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 3,264 posts
Posted by CAZEPHYR on Saturday, February 21, 2009 1:31 PM

CZ, I find it to be a stupid move by MTH to do this. I simply can not get my ahead around why? Well, besides the sales of course. But for me atleast it's a given fact that if I want big engines to look good I need big radius, I use 36" minimum even on industry tracks and in yards. For me that is a sacrifice that I think is needed in order to run these things. But to then take that toy like creature and disturb my sense of realism like that is just absurd. God awful!

 

Magnus

 

The 9000 would have be a gift to us Union Pacific fans and I was under the impression most of the detail work that needed to be done to the model could be kit bashed and the engine would be acceptable, until I viewed the video.  Even the air pumps are too small and not mounted correctly on the smoke box.  MTH also moved the marker lights down to the front of the smoke box instead of above the front so they could light them.  

They seem to believe we will accept anything including the cab chatter, the wreck noise and animation that is common with O scale Lionel and the MTH line.  I am convinced they will sell a lot of these to modelers who have no idea of what a 9000 detail really looks like and would be happy if it ran on one half the section of their 027 track. 

I had skipped picking up two Sunset 9000's in the past few weeks believing I could make due with the MTH and even thought about selling my Key 9029.  No more thoughts about that move, but I will pick up some more of the Sunset models since they are fairly nice overall. 

On the subject of Big Boys and articles about them, the new Classic Trains for spring of 2009 has several nice pictures and the article is called : Big Boys by night"   There are day shots also, but some real nice pictures are in that article that is not in the Cheyenne book.  It is worth the look.   the UPHS still has no date for their Big Boy book.   The TTT book is out and availble in three sections to cover all of the TTT's.  I was not sure if you purchased the TTT Hybrid or brass, but it is a nice model and the 5511 is still in the roundhouse at Cheyenne.

CZ

 

 

  • Member since
    June 2006
  • From: Sweden
  • 1,808 posts
Posted by Lillen on Saturday, February 21, 2009 12:17 PM

CAZEPHYR

Magnus

I was going to purchase one also and see if the air pumps and marker lights could be modified to look like a real 9000, but cancelled my plans when I saw the articulation.  They could have produced the model with blind flange drivers on the middle four axles and it probably would have managed 24" to 26" radius.     

CZ

 

 

CZ, I find it to be a stupid move by MTH to do this. I simply can not get my ahead around why? Well, besides the sales of course. But for me atleast it's a given fact that if I want big engines to look good I need big radius, I use 36" minimum even on industry tracks and in yards. For me that is a sacrifice that I think is needed in order to run these things. But to then take that toy like creature and disturb my sense of realism like that is just absurd. God awful!

 

Magnus

Unless otherwise mentioned it's HO and about the 50's. Magnus
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 3,264 posts
Posted by CAZEPHYR on Saturday, February 21, 2009 10:39 AM

Magnus

I was going to purchase one also and see if the air pumps and marker lights could be modified to look like a real 9000, but cancelled my plans when I saw the articulation.  They could have produced the model with blind flange drivers on the middle four axles and it probably would have managed 24" to 26" radius.     

CZ

 

  • Member since
    November 2007
  • From: Southern California
  • 1,475 posts
Posted by New Haven I-5 on Saturday, February 21, 2009 10:06 AM

I wrote an email to MTH saying: MTH, I hate to tell you this, but your 9000 class loco sucks. The articulation ruins the loco. I know of several people who were going to buy one, but changed their mind.  On your next release, release a smaller engine, like a Harriman 2-6-2 or 2-8-0. I'd definetly buy one. I know of several who would too. 
                                                                   Luke

- Luke

Modeling the Southern Pacific in the 1960's-1980's

  • Member since
    June 2006
  • From: Sweden
  • 1,808 posts
Posted by Lillen on Saturday, February 21, 2009 7:46 AM

I was planning to get atleast one of these. But that was such a huge disappointment. Now I will not buy it. MTH sure isn't making it easy to get started on their stuff.

 

Magnus

Unless otherwise mentioned it's HO and about the 50's. Magnus
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 30,002 posts
Posted by rrinker on Saturday, February 21, 2009 7:11 AM

 Well, it IS a pre-production model, they even said the sounds weren't adjusted right. I'll put shiny crossheads in the category of "not finished yet" and hope they fix it. What concerned me more was not tha thte crosshead was shiny, but that it wasn't actually being guided by the guides and kind of flopped back and forth depending on what part of the stroke it was on. Not that I'd be buying one anyway.

                                             --Randy

 


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,330 posts
Posted by selector on Saturday, February 21, 2009 12:00 AM

The articulation was an eye-popper, and not in a good way.  But I also noticed the crosshead twisting as it moved, reflecting light like a shiny mirror being moved in the sunlight.  Then there were the severed blast pipes.

Did someone say "Oh!" or "Oy!" above?  

Oy, oy!!  Who does the product development over there? 

-Crandell

Moderator
  • Member since
    November 2008
  • From: London ON
  • 10,392 posts
Posted by blownout cylinder on Friday, February 20, 2009 11:39 PM

Midnight Railroader

dave hikel
a video showing their #9000 in operation. 

 

Wow, welcome to toy-train land.

Actually that would be more reason for it to be seen as a static display. I couldn't see it being used for a toy train railroad thingumahoover. I was thinking of my previous estimate of 28" -- now I'd say 30" minimum. Anything less would make the eyes burn...Whistling

And who thought the idea up to articulate the frame at the front?

Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry

I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...

http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Prescott, AZ
  • 1,736 posts
Posted by Midnight Railroader on Friday, February 20, 2009 11:10 PM

dave hikel
a video showing their #9000 in operation. 

 

Wow, welcome to toy-train land.

  • Member since
    November 2007
  • From: Southern California
  • 1,475 posts
Posted by New Haven I-5 on Friday, February 20, 2009 11:03 PM

Hoople

I was extremely happy upon the announcement of this, and was eager to buy it.

After that video, I won't ever buy it. No, that articulation is horrid. And I am a big UP steam fan... Too bad, its a great engine that has just been ruined.

I'll stick to my virtual ones in my railroad simulator, thanks.

Mark

Yeah... me too!

- Luke

Modeling the Southern Pacific in the 1960's-1980's

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Seattle WA
  • 1,233 posts
Posted by Hoople on Friday, February 20, 2009 10:57 PM

I was extremely happy upon the announcement of this, and was eager to buy it.

After that video, I won't ever buy it. No, that articulation is horrid. And I am a big UP steam fan... Too bad, its a great engine that has just been ruined.

I'll stick to my virtual ones in my railroad simulator, thanks.

Mark

Mark.
  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,330 posts
Posted by selector on Friday, February 20, 2009 9:23 PM

Tom, I've never known you to dislike a "good golly" steamer, so with your comment, I'd say it should be the kiss of death for this engine...it doesn't get Tom White's Seal of Approval.  What else is there to say? Whistling

It would be like marketing an RC F-16 with a propellar on the front.  When you inquire, the answer is, "Well, it has to fly, doesn't it?"

Disapprove

Tags: qyur
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Martinez, CA
  • 5,440 posts
Posted by markpierce on Friday, February 20, 2009 9:14 PM

As I said before, this would be a great semi-static model hanging around straight locomotive- service and ready tracks if one thinks spending several hundred dollars for such is a worthwhile use of hobby funds.  But I already have such a model in the form of a still-boxed Intermountain AC.   (I won't divert this thread and explain the loco's shortcomings.)  I'm still hoping Intermountain will have a fair trade-in deal to exchange for a mechanically-improved model they've promised to issue.

Mark

PS -- Hey gang!  We've finally found an "articulated" locomotive Tom doesn't like.

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Carmichael, CA
  • 8,055 posts
Posted by twhite on Friday, February 20, 2009 8:34 PM

selector

Considering the price they want for this orphan, it'll hurt the pocket book, too.  Quite disappointing all around.

At this late stage, it would be too much to hope that they get it stopped and fix some of the problems to make it more palatable.  I would almost rather it pivoted at the rear axles, not the front for crying out loud.  I would only be able to image the beast on tangent track....although....hmmm....that was almost what it was relegated to running on anyway.

Naaah.

-Crandell

Crandell: 

Y'know, I've been doing some serious thinking about this locomotive today, and frankly, after seeing the video, the question I've come up with is "WHY?"  We're talking about a very unusual loco relegated to one railroad and never tried by another, and one that was really limited to certain divisions of that same railroad because of its extreme non-articulated wheelbase length. 

We're already seeing model 2-10-2's designed for small radii that have HUGE overhangs and evidently some mechanical problems eventually resulting from traversing those small radii--so why a giant like this?   Articulateds can be produced to that will take a 22" radius with ease, though I really don't care for  the 'double articulation' that necessarily knocks out a lot of detail just to get the second set of cylinders to move.   But I can live with that, and I'm frankly happy that guys with less generous radii than mine can also run some articulated steam.  I mean, Heck, you know by now that I'm an articulated FREAK, LOL!.  And let's face it, historically articulation was designed to get a large loco around standard curves on the prototype, so why not the necessarily sharper curves on a model railroad?   I can live with that--heck, even my big, brass prototypically articulated Akane Yellowstones will traverse a 24" radius if pressed to it.  That is, if the overhang doesn't wipe out any adjacent scenery, LOL!  

I don't want to sound like a nay-sayer, or a snob, because I don't think I'm really either, but I really think that the Mfgrs have passed the limit with big non-articulated steam designed to 'fit' on any radius. Especially that 9000.  As I mentioned before, that locomotive just looks FREAKY!

Tom   

  • Member since
    June 2005
  • 4,366 posts
Posted by Darth Santa Fe on Friday, February 20, 2009 8:23 PM

That thing's got a bigger overhang than my Bowser Challenger!Shock And I used to think the Bowser with its realistic articulation had a massive overhang. And what's with the blue interior light, anyway?

I'm not a big critic of inaccuracies (I have an AHM C-LINER), but for $550, even I would say that's a bit unacceptable. I wonder if it would have gone around the 22" radius with four of the axles blind, and then included flanged drivers for those who had wide enough curves?

They should make the DDA40X next and articulate the middles of the trucks for operation on a 15" radius.Big Smile

_________________________________________________________________

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,330 posts
Posted by selector on Friday, February 20, 2009 7:22 PM

Considering the price they want for this orphan, it'll hurt the pocket book, too.  Quite disappointing all around.

At this late stage, it would be too much to hope that they get it stopped and fix some of the problems to make it more palatable.  I would almost rather it pivoted at the rear axles, not the front for crying out loud.  I would only be able to image the beast on tangent track....although....hmmm....that was almost what it was relegated to running on anyway.

Naaah.

-Crandell

Moderator
  • Member since
    November 2008
  • From: London ON
  • 10,392 posts
Posted by blownout cylinder on Friday, February 20, 2009 6:38 PM

As a static model, I'll take it. Running it on anything less than a 28" radius would hurt the eyes--

Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry

I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...

http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Carmichael, CA
  • 8,055 posts
Posted by twhite on Friday, February 20, 2009 6:30 PM

markpierce

twhite

Ooh--FREAKY! 

You can say that again!

twhite

Ooh--FREAKY! 

MTH has created an engineering wonder.  I'm curious why the UP didn't think to articulate their 9000s?

Mark

Mark: 

I think we just saw the reason that UP went in for 4-6-6-4's.  Seriously, I've got 34" and 36" radius on my layout, but I STILL think the way that MTH baby is built, I'd still get boiler overhang.   I expect it on my articulateds, but a long-wheel based non-articulated?  Nah!  I think I'll stick with 2-10-2's. 

Tom Smile

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 30,002 posts
Posted by rrinker on Friday, February 20, 2009 5:50 PM

 When I saw the side view at the beginning, I thought to myself "the cylinders and boiler move relative to one another" and sure enough - holy overhang, batman! It nearly hits the water tower on that demo layout.

                                         --Randy

 


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    July 2002
  • From: Jersey City
  • 1,925 posts
Posted by steemtrayn on Friday, February 20, 2009 5:42 PM

They coulda pulled a Santa Fe and just hinged the boiler...

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 3,264 posts
Posted by CAZEPHYR on Friday, February 20, 2009 4:34 PM

 

GTX765

I would like the N&W passenger cars also if they are not hinged or flexible to work on 22" curves.  I was just thinking the full length passenger cars might be hinged in the middle or flexible to work on the tigher curves.   I hope not, but maybe they will use truck mounted couplers.  Now there is an idea we all dislike big time.   Just a thought that came to me after seeing the 9000 on the curve.  

CZ

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Martinez, CA
  • 5,440 posts
Posted by markpierce on Friday, February 20, 2009 4:15 PM

twhite

Ooh--FREAKY! 

You can say that again!

twhite

Ooh--FREAKY! 

MTH has created an engineering wonder.  I'm curious why the UP didn't think to articulate their 9000s?

Mark

  • Member since
    August 2007
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 425 posts
Posted by GTX765 on Friday, February 20, 2009 3:50 PM

I understand your point on how it looks going around the track on the curves. The boiler swings way out. Though the gresley gear and the third cylinder chuff is neat. I think this local will look good on 26" or bigger radius. I have 22" at home but this is a little too much for me. Its a $100 higher than the rest of the MTH HO offerings and it does not look good on those curves. I understand more people will purchase it because of the 22" ability, but the MTH HO mikado is just fine for my layout. I will get the j type and the passenger cars by MTH in HO but 12 drive wheels is too much. I have a decapod and that was racey at best.

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,330 posts
Posted by selector on Friday, February 20, 2009 3:38 PM

I was really keen on getting this engine, despite some apparent flaws.  However, as soon as I saw the video, I stroked if off the list. Sad  MTH, what the heck were you thinking?!  HO isn't hi-rail or tinplate.  Making do in my scale means still-close-to-fooling you.  This doesn't come close.  Sorry.

-Crandell

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Fullerton, California
  • 1,364 posts
Posted by hornblower on Friday, February 20, 2009 11:47 AM

Far too large for my layout!

Hornblower

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 3,264 posts
Posted by CAZEPHYR on Friday, February 20, 2009 11:43 AM

 

Articulated 4-12-2!  I think not!  

 MTH has moved the marker lights down to the front of the smokebox so they could be lighted. They might have well made it a 4-8-2 so it would go on 22" radius.   What next?   My Key 9000 model is looking better all the time.

CZ 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Carmichael, CA
  • 8,055 posts
Posted by twhite on Friday, February 20, 2009 11:31 AM

Ooh--FREAKY!  When the loco came around the curve I thought I was looking at a Z-6 Challenger with a mis-placed headlight, LOL!    It's kinda/sorta interesting, but I don't see anyplace for it on my layout.  However, UP fans will probably be storming the hobby shops.  I know if I were a UP fan I would!  

Neat loco. 

Tom Smile

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: California & Maine
  • 3,848 posts
Posted by andrechapelon on Friday, February 20, 2009 10:26 AM

dave hikel

Hi all,

I received an e-mail newsletter from MTH with a link to a video showing their #9000 in operation.  They make it clear that the engine does not have the final sound file that will ship with the engines.  It sounds like they just loaded it with a file from a GS-4.  However, it does give a good look at how their handling 22" curves.

MTH UP #9000 video

Well, that may be an engineering solution that "works", but it looks horrible. There's another engine MTH won't be selling me. I don't have anything against MTH, but as long as they insist on making gargantuan locomotives, they can kiss my money goodbye.

Come on people, how about a Harriman Pacific? Light or Heavy. Your choice.

Andre 

 

It's really kind of hard to support your local hobby shop when the nearest hobby shop that's worth the name is a 150 mile roundtrip.

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!