Review of the MTH K4 part 2

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

A Review of the MTH HO PRR K4 Pacific

Part 2 – Running characteristics, Operations on DC, DCC, and DCS

By: Dave Hikel

First I want to express my gratitude to Don Jones and the other members of the Bellingham Society of Model Engineers (BSME) for inviting me to test my K-4 on their club layout with Digitrax DCC. You can find out more about the layout and this fine organization at WWW.BSME.ORG. I also want to thank Dave Krebiehl, MTH’s Vice President of Research and Development, for providing additional information and answers to several questions I posed via e-mail.

One correction from Part 1 of this review:

An employee of my local train store informed me that he had successfully triggered the bell and whistle of the MTH K-4 with a QSI Sidekick II control box. I was unable to duplicate his results, and he has since informed me that he was mistaken. I apologize for the error, and Part 1 has been edited to prevent confusion.

Running Characteristics

The drivetrain of this locomotive is exceptionally smooth and quiet. When operating the

2

It sounds like it’s a very good locomotive.

Only one problem (and that one is a showstopper as far as most are concerned).

It’s a Pennsy K-4!!!

Andre

P.S. Thanks for the thorough review. It was quite informative.

3

Dave

Thanks for a review that covers the details. I noticed the DC top speed was 81.5 mph on your tests. This is much different than the MR test, but I suspect their test was not a production model. The speed at 12v is 20 mph and the speed at 16v is 81.5. That last 4 volts is cranked out the speed.

The slow speed is impressive also. I hope they decide to make some model we actually need.

Thanks again

4

Excellent review…You should right them for MR. [tup][tup][swg]

It has all the features I love about ProtoSound 2.0…And it’s a scale smaller! I completely forgot about the Protocast and microphone. I always did love playing with those features. Using the Protocast in a train store…We would use a a CD player with classic railroad songs on it…Or I would pop in my CD and play “The Locomotive” or “Wreck of the Old 97” from some steamer on the layout. The kids loved it…And the adults got a kick out of it as well.

And the microphone was great to use as well…However I think there was a bit to much simulated static on it. Although, when Mike Wolf came to Purkeys and I got the chance to meet him…He was in the other room with the DCS remote…And I was talking with Tom in the main room…When I hear the locomotive behind me start talking to me. Mike was just giving me a passing “Hello Scott” from the other room.[:P] Mike was a fun guy. And he makes some great products.

Now…If he could come out with an N scale K4…Because we kind of need them…

5

Thanks for the kudos guys. I don’t think MR would have room to print all this long windedness. This took nine pages in Word.[:)]

6

Dave;

Excellent review. This sounds like a well designed locomotive.

Now all MTH has to do is produce a locomotive that I actually would want to buy (GN and NP steam).

regards,
Jerry Zeman

7

You know all this does not mean anything

Other than lawyers nobody is going to buy an MTH engine. Soon they will go where Lionel did except with lawyers suing them all the way[}:)]

8

I would buy it, but IT IS ANOTHER K-4!!! GGGRRRRRRRRRR!! WHY CAN’T THEY BE LIKE LIONEL AND MAKE STEAM ENGINS THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY BUY!!!

9

Dave;

I learned a lot more from this on the capabilities of the K4. But one question hasn’t been answered. Given what is known about DCS design etc… how did the loco perform on a reverse loop in DCC?

10

I am egar to see what their next loco is, if it is anything SP/UP/RG I will really think about buying it.

11

Dave

I lived in Illinois along the St. Louis mainline and the K4’s were faster than the eighty per out on the mainline. Their speeds were limited by the train size and were often double headed on name trains since the first class trains were normally fifteen or up to twenty cars long. The K4 was not designed for this size train and two were used on heavy trains until the T1’s came along.

Most model layouts cannot handle the higher speeds since higher speeds require long straight mains to be realistic, but some large clubs can handle the speed.

Thanks again for the review. It was much more in depth compared to the MR reveiw. Your numbers do match on speed since the MR only used 12V maximum.

CALZEPHYR

Higher speeds can be obtained by going beyond 16.0 volts (the locomotive will tolerate up to 24VDC), but 16 volts is the NMRA suggested maximum. Adhering to this standard puts the MTH K-4’s max speed at about the same top speed I believe most prototype K-4’s saw in service – 79mph. I’d welcome some comments from Pennsy historians as to what speeds the Penssy’s schedules required of K-4’s in the pre-war and post-war eras. My own knowledge is limited in this area.

12

IT WOULD SEEM MTH has desingned a ‘third world’ model trains system - leaping with a single bound what has gone on before. A 24 volt system that current MRC pak’s can’t hack, a synchronised smoking system, another Digital Command Control system system exclusive of NMRA, in an excellent mechanical engine.

DEFINITELY, TO ENJOY (no criticism) this ‘State-Of-The-Art’ performance, a 24 volt DC power pack or a ‘DCS’ powering system would be required. Makes sense to me, so Where do we find one? Therin is the rub.

PROPRIETARY SYSTEMS are the foundation of our industry. Various ‘Command Control’ systems, ‘Dynatrol’s carrier control’, GE’s ‘Astrac’, ‘Kaydee’, to name a few. So now we have MTH.

PREVIOUS ACTIONS might indicate MTH might sue anyone that built one to compete with theirs - without a licensing agreement - They wouldn’t do that, now would they?

HISTORY suggests that proprietary items languish. I guess our industry isn’t large enough for anybody to make a ‘killing’, no matter how good they are.

13

PROPRIETARY SYSTEMS are the foundation of our industry

HUH? Name one that is the foundation. COntrol systems were small potatos until DCC which is NON proprietary and open became standard and open.

14

Dave,

Thanks from me for this second part of the review as well. While I’m with everyone else on MTH’s strange decision to model a K4, I’m sure the Pennsy fans are happy there’s another choice and hopefully there will be more models coming. Although I still haven’t received the exact answers I want to certain questions, interestingly enough Barry B and several other MTH qurus have been fielding questions about the PS3 system over on the OGR forum. For anyone who wants more information especially concerning the electronics, that’s a great place to go.

Jeff

15

I did. How about ‘On board’ (digitized moving sound); or ‘Kadee’ (with their current clones)?

foundation: Something that is built upon - as opposed to ‘Cornerstone’.

16

Onboard was a small product which is not a standard or any foundation. Kadee is not proprietary.

17

"Kadee is not proprietary. "

It was until the patents expired.

Mark

18

I’ll have an update on reversing loops on or about Friday.

As for the next locomotive, I have no real inside info, but a tech at MTH I talked to about lash-ups (aka consists) did use the term “the diesel” in a passing reference on future software. If the next locoomotive is a diesel I think it will be a good move for MTH. It’s always nice to have a prototype that can be painted in several dozen roadnames.

As for the ongoing concerns about having enough power in DC, I understand the concerns, but on the test rack things ran well. As I said in the review, I ran DC tests with an MRC Tech4. This gave adaquate power to run a consist of 15 assorted freight cars at speeds around 50 smph, and I was not at full throttle. I ran this consist on my small layout, not my measured speed test track, so the 50 smph is only an estimate. Obviously, if you try to double head or pull long trains up steep grades in DC you’ll need more juice. For heavier draws like this I have a bridge rectifier wired to one throttle of my 400 watt MTH Z-4000 transformer (I also run O-gauge). I never hand to resort to using the Z-4000 for these tests.

19

Speak for yourself. I have no grudge against MTH other than the fact they made a Pennsy K-4 as their first HO effort.

If Mike Wolf does 20 Our Fathers and 20 Hail Mary’s, I’ll consider him absolved of that sin.

'Course, if he produces another Pennsy loco as his next offering, he’ll be bound for the 9th circle of aithch ee double toothpicks and no one will be able to save him. [swg]

Got that, Mike?

Acceptable locomotives:

Steam:

  1. Southern Pacific P-6 4-6-2

  2. Southern Pacific MK-5 2-8-2

  3. Southern Pacific T-28/31 4-6-0

  4. Santa Fe modernized 3400 class 4-6-2

  5. Santa Fe 1050 class 2-6-2.

6 Santa Fe 3160 or 4000 class 2-8-2

  1. SP GS-6 4-8-4 (a WP GS-64 would be nice as well since they’re the same engine)

  2. D&RGW M-64 4-8-4 (this is for you twhite)

  3. NP Q-6 4-6-2

10 NP W-3 or W-5 2-8-2

  1. NYC L-3 or L-4 Mohawk

  2. Maine Central C-3b 4-6-2 (slightly smaller than a USRA light, better for you than a Bud light)

  3. Boston & Maine P-4a/b 4-6-2

  4. Maine Central class D 4-6-4 (701 or 702 or both) (Yeah, like that’s going to happen)

15.Southern Pacific F-1 2-10-2

  1. FEC light mountains in different variations (Cotton Belt L-0, WP MT-44, AB&C, NdeM, etc, FEC naturally)

  2. Rutland L-1 4-8-2 (Rutland’s four 4-8-2’s were exceptionally attractive locomotives and would make a good loco for a free-lanced layout).

18 CofG K 4-8-4 (basically an unstreamlined SP GS-2 with a short coal tender)

There’s more, but that’ll do for now.

As for diesels, well, we’re pretty well supplied with diesels, but a Baldwin AS-16/AS-616

20

Dave,

I think you did a great job of kicking the tires on this loco…and pointing out the good things and a few warts, also.

It’s interesting to me that the power question keeps coming up. I almost wonder that just because the system will withstand 24v that folks make the leap that it requires 24v…which your testing surely argues against (not to mention that MW’s engineers would be looking for work elsewhere if they put a system that required 24v forward). The MRR review of an early, perhaps pre-production engine also seems to have muddied some folks’ water.

If you think about the ProtoSounds system, in O gauge it runs fine at 16v or so and handles up to 24v (though I never run it that high…usually 18v w/DCS). That being the case, and since ProtoSounds 3 is surely based to an extent on the PS/2 architecture, it makes sense that the system will “handle” 24v but that it’s not required by any stretch…12 - 16v appears to work just fine in this engine which also puts it square with the NMRA standard.

I think this engine is a great addition to the HO genre…it surely has me seriously thinking about expanding my fledgling attempt at HO. It’ll be interesting to see what other HO manufacturers do to compete with some of the features that it brings to the table. In the end, I think we all win by virtue of MTH pushing the envelop in HO vis-a-vis things like speed control and synchronized smoke/chuff…and I hope other manufacturers respond with innovations of their own that in the end benefit model railroading in general.

Cheers,

Mike