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
In my case I would get the templates from Fast Tracks' library on their site and make my own with stock rail and either CV tie kits or use the PCB ties. In fact, because of how effective the PCB system works with the Fast Tracks turnouts, I would use a hybrid with some of those ties for continuity and the rest would be the modified CV tie kits.
-Crandell
CAZEPHYR The good thing about # 10 turnouts is almost anything can use them without any problems. Who offers # 10 for sale. I had purchased # 8's for years on end to get a sufficient amount for a layout but do not recall seeing #10's. CZ
The good thing about # 10 turnouts is almost anything can use them without any problems.
Who offers # 10 for sale. I had purchased # 8's for years on end to get a sufficient amount for a layout but do not recall seeing #10's.
CZ
I'm turning a little green, Mike.
"Just curious how wide of a radius that thing needs. It looks like all the drivers are flanged."
The third driver looks like it might be unflanged to me. For what it's worth, I have one of the last Key runs of the 4-12-2 which has an unflanged fourth driver and it works fine on 36" radius. I haven't tried it on less. I have heard that the old LMB versions were much less tolerant of curves, needing 40" or more, and some folks ground off a bit of the frame near the last driver area to add a little more clearance.
8500HPGASTURBINE selector Precisely! Brass will run you about three times as much, and no sound. Not really. I paid $550.00 for mine on Ebay. It was never taken out of the box. Some lady owned it. Here is a pic of it when I got it.
selector Precisely! Brass will run you about three times as much, and no sound.
Precisely! Brass will run you about three times as much, and no sound.
Not really. I paid $550.00 for mine on Ebay. It was never taken out of the box. Some lady owned it. Here is a pic of it when I got it.
Just curious how wide of a radius that thing needs. It looks like all the drivers are flanged.
John
Charles
Thanks for sending MTH the email and asking about the detail problems. I suspected it might be the model they are going to bring in since the date for delivery is only a short time away in manufacturing and shipping days. I was still hoping that the one they displayed was a pilot model with some changes on the final. I am confident the pumps can be relocation since they have to be castings that are attached to the smokebox. If they are attached, they can be removed and holes can be redrilled to mount them at the correct location. I am not so sure about the marker lights but I have been known to scratch build parts and this might be the time again for that action.
CAZEPHYRThe flying pumps on the smokebox are located lower than they should be and the marker lights are not located correctly. I hope this will be corrected since this model is probably a test or pilot model.
I emailed MTH because the pump & marker light location really bothered me. I got this prompt but disappointing reply from Kirstin. " I have checked with the project manager and he has verified that the engine will be produced as shown. He indicated that in order to make the classification lights lighted we had to put them in the position as shown."
Personally, I would prefer unlit but accurately placed components.
8500HPGASTURBINE Here is a pic of a "Bald Face" 4-12-2
Here is a pic of a "Bald Face" 4-12-2
Whew! Now THERE'S a face that only a mother (or an absolute UP Fanatic) could love, LOL!
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!
Really good catch. I guess you have to keep a sharp eye.
Hoople twhite When Baldwin did 3-cylinder jobs, they had to use a double valve-gear on the engineer's side of the drivers. But it looked really COOL! I've got a couple of models of Baldwin-built 3-cylinder Rio Grande 4-8-2's. They're a lot more fun to watch than the Gresley, BTW . Even if prototypically they ran a lot hotter. Tom Tom Tom, I guess you haven't heard of "The Bald Face 9's." They are simply 9000 class 4-12-2s, with the pumps moved and a double eccentric crank on the engineers side. 9014 was the first conversion... They came about because the original 9000's Gresley gear had issues, because they didn't use ball bearings. Then they used ball bearings on the later ones, so no more bald faces were needed. They were odd-lookers, though.
twhite When Baldwin did 3-cylinder jobs, they had to use a double valve-gear on the engineer's side of the drivers. But it looked really COOL! I've got a couple of models of Baldwin-built 3-cylinder Rio Grande 4-8-2's. They're a lot more fun to watch than the Gresley, BTW . Even if prototypically they ran a lot hotter. Tom Tom
When Baldwin did 3-cylinder jobs, they had to use a double valve-gear on the engineer's side of the drivers. But it looked really COOL! I've got a couple of models of Baldwin-built 3-cylinder Rio Grande 4-8-2's. They're a lot more fun to watch than the Gresley, BTW . Even if prototypically they ran a lot hotter.
Tom, I guess you haven't heard of "The Bald Face 9's." They are simply 9000 class 4-12-2s, with the pumps moved and a double eccentric crank on the engineers side. 9014 was the first conversion... They came about because the original 9000's Gresley gear had issues, because they didn't use ball bearings. Then they used ball bearings on the later ones, so no more bald faces were needed. They were odd-lookers, though.
Mark: No, I didn't realize that. Thanks for the information. I'll have to scout up some photos of the 'bald face' 9000's with the double eccentric crank. As you say, it must have been an odd-looking duck. I can go cross-eyed watching my 3-cylinder 4-8-2's when they're running VERY slow, LOL!
- Luke
Modeling the Southern Pacific in the 1960's-1980's
sounds like a winnah for me, if I dont find a brass one anyways, I dont care about the extra DCS features, its the engine you want.
blownout cylinder Now--which locomotive manufacturer made the 4-12-2's?
Now--which locomotive manufacturer made the 4-12-2's?
Barry:
Why, Baldwin, of course, it's the only locomotive manufacturer that UP ever used, LOL!
Okay, now that you're sitting down and blinking--ALCO! They were the only US manufacturer that had gotten the english Gresley 3rd cylinder patent. When Baldwin did 3-cylinder jobs, they had to use a double valve-gear on the engineer's side of the drivers. But it looked really COOL! I've got a couple of models of Baldwin-built 3-cylinder Rio Grande 4-8-2's. They're a lot more fun to watch than the Gresley, BTW . Even if prototypically they ran a lot hotter.
trainnut1250Rest easy.. Marklin has been doing this to their large fixed wheel base locomotives (2-10-0, etc) for many years with excellent running characteristics on tighter radii than those being mentioned here.. Reliable technology exists.
Yes, reliable technology exists. I saw the big german 45 class 2-10-2 of Märklin in action, running safely through 14" curves at high speed like a rocket. If Märklin would produce the 4-12-2, you could be 100% sure that the 6 driving wheels would have been split up in 2 semi-articulated sets with 3 drivers per set. And then the loco would surely run perfectly through 14" curves at 100 scale mph!
But I must admit that I never was a fan of the 4-12-2. It surely is an interesting loco, but in my eyes shes kinda ugly and unproportional. The long wheelbase just looks a bit too long (maybe it would look more beautiful if the drivers where smaller), and the tender is simply to small for such a large engine. It´s too short. There is really a disharmony in the proportions between the engine and tender. But that´s just my esthetical opinion. I like the 4-10-2 Overland types of the UP a lot more, which are more beautiful in every way than the 4-12-2 in my eyes. And they also had smaller drivers than the 4-12-2 which makes operation easier on curves.
Daniel
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/
twhite those 9000's are about the only UP steamer that ever really interested me, save for the "Bull Moose" 2-8-8-0's ...
those 9000's are about the only UP steamer that ever really interested me, save for the "Bull Moose" 2-8-8-0's ...
Tom has excellent taste. I know because the only non-SP articulated I possess is a handsome UP Bull Moose (it also helped that the SP leased some)...............I wonder how often UP had to replace the driver rims on its 4-12-2s. I'd guess 12 times a year. Fortunately, us modelers shouldn't have such a problem, but the lateral play of the drivers on the model must be tremendous. Unfortunately, this model will look rediculous going around even a 30-inch radius curves. But it sure would look good on the ready track waiting for its next assignment after its monthly shopping.
Mark
rrinker Allow me to play devil's advocate here. I recall there being a lot of talk about "oh no, not another Big Boy" since there have probably been more versions of Big Boys done then there were actual protoype Big Boys. And everyone wonders why.. well, look at the reaction to this. This is a single road only locomotive, you can;t even make some detail changes and letter it for something else, only the UP had it. Plus, like a Big Boy, in the TYPICAL home layout it won't look very good, because it's simply HUGE. Make no mistake, it's an impressive model, to be sure. If I was modeling the UP in the proper era and had a large enough layout you can be darn sure I'd want one and probably find a way to get one. But we wonder why we get some many one of a kind locos made instead of some of the more common ones that could be easily modified to fit many differnt railroads over a wide era range - well, look how ga-ga everyone goes over these! --Randy
Allow me to play devil's advocate here. I recall there being a lot of talk about "oh no, not another Big Boy" since there have probably been more versions of Big Boys done then there were actual protoype Big Boys. And everyone wonders why.. well, look at the reaction to this. This is a single road only locomotive, you can;t even make some detail changes and letter it for something else, only the UP had it. Plus, like a Big Boy, in the TYPICAL home layout it won't look very good, because it's simply HUGE.
Make no mistake, it's an impressive model, to be sure. If I was modeling the UP in the proper era and had a large enough layout you can be darn sure I'd want one and probably find a way to get one. But we wonder why we get some many one of a kind locos made instead of some of the more common ones that could be easily modified to fit many differnt railroads over a wide era range - well, look how ga-ga everyone goes over these!
--Randy
I can see your point. But, I'm seeing an aesthetic thing going on here. I see for example barrels of die cast cars of the ferrari type but not very many chev. cavelier type of cars---even in European toy shows people gravitated to Fiat 600 minivan(more for its 'cutesy' look), Porsche et al and not one toymaker even picked either a Ford Escort or even, ---yikes---a Trabant. Even IF they were more popular. I can afford to drive a Taurus but my "Dream" car is a Lamborghini Countach kind of thing---
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Hoople hinged wheelbase. I don't know how they'll do it, but it sounds like it may have issues
Rest easy.. Marklin has been doing this to their large fixed wheel base locomotives (2-10-0, etc) for many years with excellent running characteristics on tighter radii than those being mentioned here.. Reliable technology exists.
I don't need this loco but it looks pretty cool...Must resist.
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
blownout cylinder Oh I'll get one in HO anyway just so I have the dang thing here---where it belongs---so there HHAAARRRRRUUUUMMPH!!
Oh I'll get one in HO anyway just so I have the dang thing here---where it belongs---so there HHAAARRRRRUUUUMMPH!!
You go, guy! And let me know what Spring thinks of it. Should be fascinating. Actually, Remington was peering over my shoulder at the photograph. "It's got PUMPS, Daddy. Just like a Yellowstone!"
Twhite: I heard that too. I heard that it was shown at a train show in California recently, and someone posted a comment on an article about the hinged wheelbase. I don't know how they'll do it, but it sounds like it may have issues. Anyways, it is definitely the locomotive for my roster-If I can afford that price. This summer is going to have a lot of lawn mowing...
Luke, we understand as much. The photos were provided so that we can comment on what we hope will be improved over the prototype pictured.
selector 8500HPGASTURBINE You can compair these photo's to see some of the detail thats missing. GasTurbine, my apologies for my oversight in not thanking you for your efforts. I appreciate the images because they make it quite clear. Thanks, again. -Crandell
8500HPGASTURBINE You can compair these photo's to see some of the detail thats missing.
You can compair these photo's to see some of the detail thats missing.
GasTurbine, my apologies for my oversight in not thanking you for your efforts. I appreciate the images because they make it quite clear.
Thanks, again.
Luke
Mark:
This sounds intriguing. Actually, those 9000's are about the only UP steamer that ever really interested me, save for the "Bull Moose" 2-8-8-0's and the very first run of the Challengers (the ones with the headlight on the smokebox front) because of its wheel arrangement and those flying pumps on the smokebox front (I'm a sucker for smokebox mounted pumps, BTW! Makes a steamer look like it's all BUSINESS!).
Don't quote me, but I seem to remember hearing that the drivers will be all flanged, and that the long wheel-base itself will be semi-articulated (how, I have no idea) to allow it to take a 22" radius. As I said, this may only be a rumor. Frankly, I kind of hope it's the truth. Usually long wheel-based non-articulateds with blank center drivers tend to lose a lot of pulling power on curves.
I'll keep an eye on this one. Not for my own roster, understand, but it looks interesting.