[tup] Stick it to em’ Andre!! [C):-)]
Dave
Another “I hate MTH rant”… What a shocker… [zzz]
Andre does make a good point, however I would like to take it even a step further and say that I could care less what HO scale locomotive MTH produces next, I just want the PS3 electronics to install in my existing fleet… 
Hopefully MTH will see that the real market is in the aftermarket installations, and not the ready to roll locomotives in one scale.
I can just picture it now, my entire On30 fleet equipped with wireless tethers (I hate wires between the locomotive and tender), proper synced chuff sounds and mechanical speed control, and fan driven smoke units. Ahhhhhh, I can’t wait!
Jeff
While I am a Pennsy modeller, even I don’t welcome yet another K4 (especially as it’s a sub-par model), and I can understand the requests for more variety.
That said, there are only a couple of current RTR models that are appropriate for the PRR in the pre war era (that I can think of) - the BLI (and Bachmann) K4s and the BLI M1a. All the other locos are too late… the PCM I1sa will be a welcome addition, and I hope some manufacturers build more “day to day” PRR locos, like an H10 or similar.
About the wires between the loco and tender - maybe you can disguise them as water and air pipes? A complete lack of anything but a drawbar is just as unrealistic (if not more so) than the wires.
I kinda think BLI/PCM will come out with an L-1 sometime in the relatively near future as the USRA 2-8-2 chassis could be mated with the K-4 superstructure and cylinder saddle to create an L-1. That is, if the engineering types have designed the things for cross-compatibility.
There are a number of 4-6-2’s that could be produced using the BLI K-4 chassis as a starting point (cosmetic things like driver type would have to be altered). All these locomotives have drivers in the 77 to 80" range.
- Erie K-5a (as built through final version)
- B&O P-7 (all variants from as built through the streamlined versions)
- NYC K-3 or K-5.
- ATSF 3400 original and rebuilt. Original version would use M-1a spoked 72" drivers.
- B&M P-4a/b. These are some of the prettiest Pacifics ever produced.
- Harriman light/heavy Pacifics (77" drivers).
- C&NW E-2a. These had spoked 75" drivers (could use 72" M-1a drivers) as built, 79" discs late.
- Any CNJ Pacific of classes G-1 through G-4.
- Any Reading Pacific.
- New Haven I-3 and I-4.
- Almost forgot - Pennsy K-2/K-3 and N&W E-3 (ex-Pennsy K-3 IIRC). And of course, the K-5.
MTH is using the same advertising techniques they used in 1995 when they went head to head with Lionel. MTH had a big hedge over Lionel because Lionel was making a limited variety of engines from old postwar tooling using American UAW labor. With overseas labor and new tooling, MTH had it made. They were credited for breathing life into the O gauge hobby.
These tactics won’t work with HO because MTH’s HO competitors are already state of the art with smooth running, finely detailed affordable engines. Going head to head with Broadway Limited? That’s like a cat thinking he can tackle a racoon because he killed a rat. The ads are laughable really. Especially when MTH puts rubber bands on the drivers causing the engine to crawl up the rail under load. We only got rubber band wheels with our throw away Tyco sets. Requiring 24 VDC for highballing is another joke.
Trying to patent everything under the sun in HO is another joke. Either you join in on and share the standards or you become an orphan that only a small minority will take interest in.
I doubt they’d use the USRA chassis with the K4 superstructure, simply because the wheelbase is different (not by much, but if they are going for accuracy, the L1 has uneven axle spacing of 68.5" on the outer axles and 67.5" on the inner axles - the USRA Heavy Mike has 67" spacing on all axles). Also the lead and trailing trucks are of a different length (admittedly that’s not a difficult change to make). Not huge differences, but given that they totally retooled to make a C&O T-1 after they did the PRR J1, I think it’s likely they’d do the same in this case. I’d hope so for a $450 loco!
I do agree that they could easily reuse a lot of the K4 components though, and it will be interesting to see what they do! And I do hope you get some Western locos too
Visually, it doesn’t really matter. 1" in HO scale is less than 1/3 of a millimeter. Three tenths of a millimeter is not much. There’s always some fudging in a model.
Andre
I know nothing about the quality of MTH products but their marketing practices give me the impression that they are a very arrogant company and not one that I would want to do business with. BLI has given me great value for my money and they will continue to get my business.
I do have a question about the Broadway Limited name. Since this was the name of the Pennsylvania Railroad’s flagship passenger train that rivaled NYC’s 20th Century Limited for first class travel on the New York-Chicago corridor, I’m sure this was a trademark name whose rights would have passed to Pennsy successors, Penn Central, Conrail, and now CSX. Did the current BLI company have to buy the rights to this name.
If the name Broadway Limited was trademarked by the Pennsy – you cannot copyright a name or title – it would have been as a trademark for a long distance passenger train, and would not apply to a toy company.
A perfect example of non-copyrighting names and titles would be the Ford Explorer SUV, and an aftermarket company that makes Ford Explorer, Chevy Explorer and GMC Explorer conversion vans. Or the multiple movies named “Monkey Business.” One stars the Marx Brothers, the other Cary Grant and Ginger Rogers.
However, if you open a hamburger joint and name it “McDonneld’s” you can bet the real McDonald’s will sue you – for damages under “confusing similarity,” among other things.
They shot themselves in the foot in my book long ago. I will have nothing to do with MTH and could care less where or what they advertise- now if all modelers would do the same, they would just dry up and blow away.
Bob K.
Hey now, slow down there Andre…We can’t say that until someone has produced a nice, affordable, plastic model of the PRR S2 steam turbine in N scale for our good friend Scott here.[swg] And when that happens, only then can we say, “Okay, maybe slow up on the Pennsy engines now…” [8D] But I’ll put in my vote for too many K4s. [xx(]
In HO scale…I’ll second that one.[tup]
Well, technically, it’s not the Broadway Limited, but who cares? You see more egregious stuff on TV every commercial break.
At least the word “feminine” doesn’t appear anywhere in the ad…
And there are no known side effects like oily discharge (Propecia, if memory serves), flatulence or (how can I put this delicately???) a stiffness that persists for 4 or more hours.
Andre
3rdRailGuy,
Great job in expressing the scenario realistically. As has been stated so many times we can continue to create these MTH threads but in the end the verdict will be determined by the amount of modelers digging into their wallets and spending hard earned dollars.
… and judging by the reaction on this thread, and to their less than subtle advert in MR that won’t be very many.
They’ve picked the wrong prototype to start their HO campaign - the market is already flooded with K4s. Moreover they have completly understimated the mood of the HO modeller following their patent applications and lawsuits. No even if they produced the most desirable engine possible (which for me would probably be a MEC class O-3 ten wheeler - and like their going to make that huh?) I still wouldn’t buy it.
This topics gona get locked. I guarantee it.