Just received a BLI HO PRR H10 2-8-0 and think it is great product for 310.00 plus S&H. MTH is going to introduce their version soon. Think this subject was chosen to model because the PRR E6 Atlantic and the PRR G5 ten wheeler used the same boiler. So as Pennline did in the 50's, and MTH did in 2000 in third rail eventually there will be a E6 and and G5 from one or both of the importers in HO.
Not a PRR steam loco expert but thought the H9/10 and the E6 shared the same wooden cab. The G5 was built later in the 20's and had the same all steel cab as the K4 and others. Think there were some differences between the E6 and H9/10 around the cyclinders. In any case will be surprised if a E6 is not made by one or more of the importers of the H10.
And so once again those two companies are tring to beat each other brains out rather than go after untapped portions of the market?
Makes so little sense.......
But what do I know, I only worked in the hobby back when Athearn and Roundhouse purposely avoided making the same models.
Sheldon
ndbprrTotal rumor mill is a 2-8-2 might be next but that is total speculation.
The Pennsy 2-8-2 is more than a rumor. See page 24 of their 2015 catalog.
-Fritz Milhaupt, Publications Editor, Pere Marquette Historical Society, Inc.http://www.pmhistsoc.org
Let's get pennsy steam under 250.00 USD.
(My Model Railroad, My Rules)
These are the opinions of an under 35 , from the east end of, and modeling, the same section of the Wheeling and Lake Erie railway. As well as a freelanced road (Austinville and Dynamite City railroad).
NS1001 Just received a BLI HO PRR H10 2-8-0 and think it is great product for 310.00 plus S&H. MTH is going to introduce their version soon. Think this subject was chosen to model because the PRR E6 Atlantic and the PRR G5 ten wheeler used the same boiler. So as Pennline did in the 50's, and MTH did in 2000 in third rail eventually there will be a E6 and and G5 from one or both of the importers in HO.
Great. Maybe next we can get some more F7's.
Jimmy_Braum Let's get pennsy steam under 250.00 USD.
Why?
And exactly how do you propose we do that?
Milepost 266.2 NS1001 Just received a BLI HO PRR H10 2-8-0 and think it is great product for 310.00 plus S&H. MTH is going to introduce their version soon. Think this subject was chosen to model because the PRR E6 Atlantic and the PRR G5 ten wheeler used the same boiler. So as Pennline did in the 50's, and MTH did in 2000 in third rail eventually there will be a E6 and and G5 from one or both of the importers in HO. Great. Maybe next we can get some more F7's.
No, No, No. We need more Big Boys. It's long past time for Walthers to do one. Everybody should join that bandwagon, up to and including Eureka Models in Australia.
Either that, or BLI should do a NSWGR AD-60 Garratt and see if MTH follows suit.
Andre
[quote user="andrechapelon"]
The "superstructure" of an H10s could probably be used to produce an E6s 4-4-2, although a new sandbox would be needed and the cab might need to be relocated. A G5s 4-6-0 would require more modifications and an entirely new tender.
I have seen a picture of MTH's proposed H10s in the past and tried to access it this morning but wasn't successful. Probably my own fault. As I recall, the MTH artwork showed an engine that is part H9s and part H10s. The only really good thing about the MTH picture is the tender, which is different from those that BLI is offering.
If MTH is determined to offer a PRR 2-8-0, it seems more sensible to offer a definitely identifiable H9s, or better yet an H6sb. After all, BLI could offer an H9s with minimal additional tooling of the cylinder saddle/steam chest, so why not leave that market to them? An H6sb would provide a totally different PRR engine; and additional tooling could produce a B&O E-24a.
Better yet, if MTH is determined to offer a smallish PRR steam engine, wouldn't it be better to offer a B6sb 0-6-0, which would be very popular and would not directly compete with anything on the current market?
Now that the Bachmann 2-8-0 is no longer in production, wouldn't it be nice for somebody to produce a nice Harriman 2-8-0, which would be correct for SP, UP, and others? This time maybe it could be produced with correct 57" drivers. Wouldn't that make more sense than another H10s?
The comments about the crying need for yet another F7 are amusing. It reminds me that there are still other diesels that have never been produced.
Tom
I think the H9,L1 and the B6sb would be welcome by the host of PRR modelers.
Think of this with just the H9 and L1 you could model one of PRRs many secondary lines and add some N5 and N6B cabins and your good.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
I´m so tired of this competition. The PRR 2-8-0 goes in line with the SP GS-4, UP 9000, N&W J, UP Big Boy...silly. Why can´t they simply stop producing the same models? Would could have so much more variety!
By the way: is it true that all newer MTH engines can also run in DCC now, and that BLI is planning to produce mostly die cast metal steamers instead of plastic?
In fairness, BLI was producing many of those models prior to MTH. MTH is a relative newcomer to the HO market and seems to have had a severe chip on their shoulders when they joined the scale. They also walked around the field with heavy feet for a while, but not since BLI won in court in a suit launched against BLI by MTH about three or four years ago.
MTH's DCS operating system was poorly, or essentially not, compatible with DCC systems when they first came aboard. Under the circumstances, one couldn't fault the older HO market for assuming MTH were not going to be successful over the long haul, and that they should continue to produce what the market indicated it wanted in numbers. Recently, say in the past four years, MTH caved and began to alter their decoders to be more friendly for DCC users, something the HO world had carped about for nearly a decade. Until then, DCC or DC users could only use MTH locomotives with more complicated or time-consuming methods. DC users found, as noted in reports published by our host magazine, that the MTH locos took a lot of up-front voltage before they would move, more than BLI or other importers' locomotives operating in DCC/DC.
BLI only had a couple of metal/diecast locomotive shells up until recently. I know their Platinum Series Pennsy K4 was metal, as were their PCM Y6b and their Big Boy. There may have been one other.
They still make mostly plastic, and have added their largely brass Hybrid series since about 2008/9. Those models are costly, but excellent value compared to a $2000 all-brass Key or Division Point model.
In many cases, I will take a well designed plastic boiler loco with good weight over a die cast boiler.
Just take a look at the NKP 2-8-4 from MTH and compair it to the Proto or Bachmann models. Both of those have much better, more scale size detail.
The MTH piece looks like a toy with its over sized running board and other cast on metal details.
Not to mention that MTH did not make proto correct verions for the other roadnames - Bachmann and Proto did.
I buy both BLI and MTH ( newer versions ) and love both. Both can run on DC and DCC and both do it very well.
I also like the diecast metal on my steam engines, gives them the heft to track very well. The sounds and smoke are extras that I really like. It's a great time to be into HO.
Right! Or a Fairbanks Morse H20-44!
NS1001 Not a PRR steam loco expert but thought the H9/10 and the E6 shared the same wooden cab. The G5 was built later in the 20's and had the same all steel cab as the K4 and others. Think there were some differences between the E6 and H9/10 around the cyclinders. In any case will be surprised if a E6 is not made by one or more of the importers of the H10.
The H9s and the H10s never, AFAIK, had wooden cabs. Nor the H8 or the E-6. The differences between the H9 and the H10 were primarily the size of the cylinders. The H10 cylinders were an inch larger in diameter. (The H8 were an inch smaller than the H9.)
---
Gary M. Collins gmcrailgNOSPAM@gmail.com
===================================
"Common Sense, Ain't!" -- G. M. Collins
http://fhn.site90.net
I used to be a Pennsy modeler and still take a mild interest in what is available and newly released for PRR. I don't expect anybody to feel sorry for Pennsy modelers - it has been very well treated in all major scales since the 1930s -- but it is a pity to have two big firms both release H10s when there are other popular Pennsy steam engines, including some of the other 2-8-0s, that would be welcomed and which have not been over exposed.
By the way it is true that the Standard Railroad of the World did make use of the "same" boilers for more than one type of locomotive, but that is hardly the same thing as being able to plop the exact same boiler/cab/sand and steam dome/runningboard casting on different chassis, whether it be 2-8-0 and 4-4-2 or 4-6-2 and 2-8-2, as Penn Line did years ago. There were many detail differences and given modern manufacturing methods I am not sure having one Pennsy steamer in your catalog makes it all that much easier to come out with its "counterpart."
Dave Nelson
I just received a notice from one of the large on line hobbyshops offering the BLI Baldwin 2-8-0's and the URSA Light 2-8-2's. I noticed that BLI has released these engines in a number of road names. I have on order from BLI the S2 4-8-4 GN Hybride and I have a number of GN engines on my layout. I am taken back that after all this time of producing the URSA 2-8-2 in the Great Northern Green colours that BLI has yet to attach the correct tender. Yet they have a number of vanderbuilt tenders. Also, their 2-8-0 is way too large for a GN 2-8-0, even as a stand in. The 2-8-0 was a much smaller engine,
dknelson By the way it is true that the Standard Railroad of the World did make use of the "same" boilers for more than one type of locomotive, but that is hardly the same thing as being able to plop the exact same boiler/cab/sand and steam dome/runningboard casting on different chassis, whether it be 2-8-0 and 4-4-2 or 4-6-2 and 2-8-2, as Penn Line did years ago. There were many detail differences and given modern manufacturing methods I am not sure having one Pennsy steamer in your catalog makes it all that much easier to come out with its "counterpart." Dave Nelson
That pretty much sums up a recent conversation I had with Ken Silvestri, Vice President of sales for Broadway Limited during a World's Greatest Hobby show. I inquired as to the likelihood of seeing the H10 boiler molds being used to make an E6 or a G5. He said that while the boiler itself is correct for the engines, other details like domes and running boards are not and they would not be able to adapt the mold. He did however say that the E6 was one of his favorite locomotives and I walked away feeling like there may be an E6 Atlantic in the not too distant future.
Chris Ballinger
Modeling the Clementon Branch of the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines in HO scale
They need to sart making these engines in N Scale.
Modeling the Pennsylvania Railroad in N Scale.
www.prr-nscale.blogspot.com
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Just take a look at the NKP 2-8-4 from MTH and compair it to the Proto or Bachmann models. Both of those have much better, more scale size detail. The MTH piece looks like a toy with its over sized running board and other cast on metal details. Not to mention that MTH did not make proto correct verions for the other roadnames - Bachmann and Proto did.
I agree with you Sheldon. If you look at the boilers of MTH engines, they seem to sit "high" over the bogey. Its like they just used their plans from their O scale and scaled it down. And O scale is notorious for comprimises to fit around relatively tight curves. (Not to be a slam on O Scalers. It's just something you have to deal with given the size.)But, neither Bachmann nor Lifelife got the pilot right on the C&O 2-8-4. Peach creek shops offered lost wax brass castings of the correct pilot.Of all my non brass, the most accurate and best pulling have been the C&O T-1 (BLI) and C&O H-8 (RR)
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
don7 I am taken back that after all this time of producing the URSA 2-8-2 in the Great Northern Green colours that BLI has yet to attach the correct tender. Yet they have a number of vanderbuilt tenders.
I am taken back that after all this time of producing the URSA 2-8-2 in the Great Northern Green colours that BLI has yet to attach the correct tender. Yet they have a number of vanderbuilt tenders.
They don't have Vanderbilt tenders for a simple reason - because that would be wrong!
GN's "O" class mikados ran ran from O-1 to O-8. The 9 USRA heavy engines that they bought in 1920 were O-3 class. These engines never had vanderbilt tenders. They kept the eight-wheel tenders they came with, though some were modified for oil with the addition of large oil bunkers. Most if not all later classes of GN mikes did have the large vandy tenders, most notably the famous O-8 class.
The BLI engines are pretty accurate for a c.1920's O-3 (although it should have the 'full face' pre-1936 goat herald). GN modified these engines a lot later in their life, each one was a little different. They spent most of their lives working out of Duluth/Superior, either to the Mesabi Iron Range or to Mpls/St.Paul.
http://donsdepot.donrossgroup.net/dr602.htm
I agree about the H 10s. I have never been this happy with a engine before. B.L.I. did a great job. I cant say the same for the M1-A 4-8-2 It took three engines before I got one to run right. GENE
NYC and NKP modelers are waiting for an H-5 Mikado which was common as dirt on the NYC like the H 2-8-0s were common on the PRR. NKP had a few and some of the H5 class ended up on other class Is and short lines in the second hand market. The Atlantic Coast Line comes to mind. They were rostered on a number of NYC roads like the IHB, B&A, Big Four, Michigan Central also. Anyway, it is my understanding that blueprints have been shared and its very likely that we'll see them in the next few years. They were older than the USRA types and had more of a straight boiler rather than the conical shaped USRA boiler. Many had the two window Schenectady style cab. Also some were rebuilt from 2-8-0s.
Sadly, an NKP H-5 sat in a Chicago area scrap yard until sometime in the early 1970s. An NYC H-5 was the last operating steam loco on the New York Central System on the Big Four in Indiana in 1957.
Victor A. Baird
Fort Wayne, Indiana
The NYC/NKP H-5 2-8-2 is certainly a worthwhile choice. I believe there were close to 700 of them, used on NYC and all subsidiaries. NYC is well known for its Hudsons and Mohawks; but the road probably had more Mikados than any other North American road, by a wide margin. As for secondhand purchases, even the little High Point Thomasville & Denton in North Carolina had an H-5. If you model the Northeast but don't model the NYC or NKP, an H-5 is just about ideal as an engine for your NYC or NKP interchange. I'm not primarily an NYC modeler, but I have an H-5 in brass and would love to have one or two more.
For modelers in general, the H-5 is an ideal size for a modest-sized layout representing any era from the 1910's to the mid 1950's. A well engineered model should handle 18" radius with ease if necessary, and would pack enough heft and power to handle any task on a small railroad.
An enterprising manufacturer could produce an initial version, then release subsequent versions with various detail variations. The engines used at least two different valve gears, al least two different trailing trucks, some variations in running boards and appliances, and several different tenders. One basic type could enjoy multiple sales in these different forms.
The New York Central System Historical Society is surveying members for interest in an H-5 from a major manufacturer. See the latest NYSCHS "Headlight" for a great H-5 story and information on the potential model.
Mike