Just came home from the Amherst Railway Society show at Springfield, MA. Tony’s Train Exchange had the Triplex running at their booth. It does look nice, it was running on a simple table top loop but it seemed to be a smooth runner. I thought it somewhat odd that the Triplex was at TTE but I didn’t see it at MTH’s booth. I may have missed it at MTH, the show was a bit of a mad house today. How can one see when you’re jostling with other people for any kind of view of product display?
MTH may have taken a Tim Allen/Home Improvement approach in bringing out the Triplex; if a pair of driving wheels is good, three is even better. It is interesting to watch and per TTE review the detail is very impressive. In spite of its lack of real world success I think this model could win some hearts just because of its uniqueness. Of course not being able to access all its capabilities via DCC is another point to be considered when purchase decision is being made.
Thanks for the update on the Triplex. It probably will sell very well since it is very unique and has always been very expensive as a brass only locomotive for many years. I was suprised that the Triplex model only has two powered sets of drivers, but the MTH models have been smooth runners and worth a look.
Now I am curious what they will bring in next. I hope it is the S2 PRR Turbine or a Yellowstone that everyone has been asking for so many years.
DCS or DCC whoopie, I could care less about, I’m strictly DC. However I understand that the driver lifting was caused by a simple problem–the piping above the first set of drivers hadn’t been snapped in properly. Man, you’d think Tony would have discovered that right off! I mean, they HAVE seen a steam locomotive, haven’t they?
Reports I’ve read on the Triplex from guys who’ve bought them are pretty positive. Driver lifting? Snap the pipes in properly. Whoah, no-brainer!
I have the Triplex and it runs beautifully. My layout is analog dc but I use the MRC Black Box to control the Triplex (as well as my Athearn and PCM sound engines. I use the Quantum Engineer to run my QSI sound engines). With the Black Box I can access the sounds on the triplex that are most important to me (bell, whistle, lights and coupler slack) and I can also access all the other dcc functions up to F28. I run the triplex at 10 mph, the same speed that the prototype operated at and have it pulling a 51 car train. The chuff sound is excellent and the engine looks beautiful while is is operating. It is a model of an historical machine which probably accounts for its popularity (it must have sold well in O gauge or I’m sure MTH would not have brought it out in HO). I have one nit to pick with the sound system - you cannot have the coupler slack sound operate when the engine starts moving if the bell is ringing. You have to trigger the bell as soon as the engnine starts moving. I also note that no matter how long I sound the whistle there are no different endings to be heard. My K-4 has the different endings so it may be that because the whistle is quilable perhaps the different endings can only be heard on dcs. I’d appreciate hearing if anyone else does not get different whistle endings with the Black Box or full dcc.
The bell and the coupler issue is identical to my #1 scale DCS system. You can do either one, but not both at the same time. I normally hit the coupler function and then turn on the bell while starting. It is a matter of how many inputs the amplifiers has and these two functions are on the same input.
Is the rear set of drivers under the tender powered???
Actually, yes. If the first set of drivers hangs up on an articulated, it’s usually because of mis-aligned piping. Just set the loco on a piece of glass, lever the first driver set back and forth and watch where it catches.
The drivers under the tender are not powered. It seems that because they are not powered, there is a slight drag in their rolling so that they go in and out of synch with the drivers under the locomotive. Since the sound system provides articulated chuff sometimes the set of the tender drivers matches the sound of the chuff - when in synch with the front drivers there are four beats per revolution and when out of synch there are more. This would be correct since the prototype only operated in compound fashion with one of the middle cylinders exhausting to the front cylinders and one to the rear. Thus the cylinders under the locomotive exhaust at 4 beats for each revolution of the front drivers and the cylinders under the tender exhaust at 4 beats for each revolution of the tender drivers. It’s very nice to watch.
Thanks for the reply about the rear engine under the tender. I had read that someplace but when the question came up again and I was not sure. The Triplex is a very interesting model for sure but it is not in the era that I model. It does sound like it would be great to watch and the smoke is great also when you use it.
Well, there’s never exactly been an overage of strategic thinkers in the model train business…
Why would MTH-HO, with a whole TWO products, decide it’s going to buck the entire industry. I guess for all of us that have been planning a railroad with a K4 and an Erie Triplex…
Bachmann, who seems to have been exhibiting better than average instincts, released another Nickel Plate Berkshire. I read of the new release the day UPS brought my Proto version- a generally better and more expensive model- and one for which I paid $40 less than the Bachmann’s eventual price. The Proto 2000 ver. has been around a long time… long enough that it can be found in fire sales a-plenty for cheap.
Then there’s the HOn3 K27 contest… When servicing such a tiny niche as HOn3, were I either The Precision Guy or the Blackstone Guy(-and probably the latter, as the MMI K27s were announced with The Armistace-), would it not have been, hell- pick a word… prudent? smart? just plain reasonable? -to contact the other and work something out? ‘You take the K27s, I’ll take the -28s…’, etc? Rather than chopping the market in two? They ended up both being beautiful, but so what?
Anyway… I’d love one of these 2-8-8-8-8-8-8-2s… But then what? If I re-wired it- Nah… Mike’d sue me…
I wouldn’t call it bucking the system. MTH is just putting themselves in a small niche category much like Marklin. As some have indicated, I doubt many modelers will buy into DCS just to access features in one or two locomotives. I doubt they will spend moocho bucks converting just so they can adjust things like whistle quill or smoke output from their remote. Additionally, DCS is a proprietory system which puts a lot of limitations on things when you combine products from different manufacturers. The reason for DCC’s popularity is it is open technology. The components are made in huge numbers making it affordable to just about anyone. To sum it up, manufacturers do not control the market. Manufacturers are controlled by the market. It’s “my way or the highway” so to speak.
To get the Triplex and the DCS to play with it is going to be expensive indeed.
Ok so the driving wheels under the tender is dummie. How does it pull? Everyone seems excited about the features but I wonder how many coal cars can you pull with this thing?
I have not read any review on the pulling power, but it probably will pull about the same as most BLI articulated even with the dummy rear engine.
The Baldwin book said the Prototypes were built to pull very long trains, but the most speed they could muster turned out to be boiler size and steam generation limited. At about 10 MPH, they would run of steam if they tried to go any faster with a big train and were used only in helper service after the first tests.
The steaming problem or lack of steam is the reason the Virginian prototype boiler was so much larger. The Virginian had a much larger boiler size and 63" drivers with a completely different tender supported by a four wheel tender truck at the rear. The Virginian was a 2-8-8-8-4. Now that is a Yellowstone and a half if there ever was one! It was called a Triplex also.
I was surprised when MTH decided to label this model as a Virginian in addtion to the Erie, but marketing will always try to sell anything they can. It is like building a NKP Bershire and labeling it as an L&N M1. Just not correct.
CZ, I have been testing my Triplex at the local club I belong to so I can give you a little un-scientific review on it. There are a couple of pretty steep grades on the layout but the minimum radius is a little under 60 in. and I regularly run 100 car trains with 6 Atlas diesels on the front and no helpers with no problems.
The Triplex, by itself and without traction tires, pulled 9 cars on the grades. These cars were a mixed bag of coal hoppers each weighing 4.5 oz, all with metal wheels. With the traction tire installed, it pulled 45 cars. I suspect that the tender produces the drag of an additional 2 or possibly 3 cars but that is my guess.
On straight and level track, it pulled 45 cars without the traction tires. With traction tires it pulled 95 cars (all I had!!!).
I run straight DC so I cannot say much about the sound. As far as I can tell no whistle or bell etc. on straight DC, just chuffing.
The tender sits about 18 scale inches too far from the engine. I assume this was done to allow the engine to negotiate tight curves. The design of the drawbar makes this a tricky fix, but one which I feel will improve the appearance of the engine. I am also considering powering the tender (at the expence of the electronics and sound).
Overall, I am happy with the engine. The only real complaint I have is that all of the wheels but two were out of gauge. The axle on the tender trailing truck was out nearly a 16th of an inch and would derail anytine the engine ran through a turnout. An easy fix, but on a 500 dollar engine, I really feel it is inexcusable. Especially considering how difficult it is to pull all of the drivers out and guage them. Also, the molded plastic detail parts are slightly translucent but a little weathering can fix that.
One last thing I will say is this engine runs smooth. If I turn the sound off, the only noise I hear is metal wheels rolling along the rails. The mechanisim is silent.