Model Railroading > MTH HO scale ERIE Triplex announced

I just received an e-mail from the ELHS.org list about the new Triplexes being announced from MTH, and I would be interested in any comments about these models on this board, particularly the DCC Proto-Sound and other details. I wonder if the sound will or can be programmed to authentically reproduce the syncopated beat for all 6 cylinders? (at 4 chuffs per cycle?)

http://www.mthhotrains.com/news.asp

MTH is also offering the Virgina #700 Triplex although that engine was a 2-8-8-8-4, and does not have the larger boiler and 56" drivers, as well as the correct tender and 4 wheel trailing truck.

Forgive me Erie Fans but this is really an oddball of a loco even for the Erie isn't it?

Were they gone by the late steam era?

Will it sell based on novelty? I hope it runs better than the prototype.

They just came out with those in G scale from MTH.

As I recall, they were gone not long after being built. They left the yard OK, but the boiler wasn't able to keep up with steam demands at road speed and they eventually became too pooped to pull. "Too many legs and not enough steam". The 3rd engine under the tender also lost tractive effort as the water and fuel were used up and ended up being very slippery. Ah well, it looked good on the drawing board....

I think some were rebuilt into more conventional mallets.

- Norm

wabash2800 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Forgive me Erie Fans but this is really an oddball
> of a loco even for the Erie isn't it?
>


I'm sure the Erie fans will rejoice. . or will they? Gad, the world needs a good, high quality Harriman consolidation, and instead we get Big Boys, Challengers, Cab Forwards and. . . Erie Triplexes!

I agree. How many different Big Boy models have been produced over the years? NYC Hudsons? PRR K4s? Nearly every importer has taken a shot at them. I just can't believe there has been a market for so many models of the same thing.
I realize the importers have to consider engines that there is a market for, otherwise we would probably be drowning in Frisco and Wabash models. (And the down side of that would be..........?)

Yeah Frisco, drowning in Wabash and Frisco models would be terrible. <G> We're biased aren't we? LOL

But I'm thankful Hallmark make Wabash J-1, M-1, O-1 and P-1 though they need a lot of tweaking.

The Erie triplexes (there were eventually three) operated between 1914 and 1927, mostly as pushers on the Gulf Summit gade east of Susquehanna, Pa. They were complex engines prone to breakdowns and were generally considered maintenance nightmares. The Erie had to send them to the Lehigh Valley's Sayre, Pa., shops for repair because the Erie's own shop facilities at Susquehanna, Pa., were too small to handle them. Unless you model the Erie in the period 1914-1927 in the area that includes the Starrucca Viaduct (and I'll bet that modeling fraternity is slim to none), you would have no need for an Erie Triplex. It's an interesting engine, granted, but it seems a very odd choice for a model, considering its brief, checkered, and ancient career. There are so many other steam locomotives that need to be modeled (Erie and otherwise) that had large numbers and long careers, that I can't imagine why the Triplex would be selected for model production. Maybe just for the peculiarity of it.

Art House

Hey I want one of them just because they were oddballs and I model NP, GN, UP, and Milw. as well as lots of narrow gauge stuff. All compressed onto a 4 by 10 ft layout.

aehouse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> that I can't iamgine why the Triplex
> would be selected for model production. Maybe just
> for the peculiarity of it.


MTH makes larger sale "toys" don't they?

wabash2800 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> aehouse Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > that I can't iamgine why the Triplex
> > would be selected for model production. Maybe
> just
> > for the peculiarity of it.
>
>
> MTH makes larger sale "toys" don't they?

BINGO

I might pick one up and rig it so the tender pulls a train around the layout ... call it an Erie Simplex ... ;-)

* JB *

I have no need for the ERIE triplex or the Virginian one either. Why do we need exotic articulated? Why not produce something we we can use? How about a nice SP/UP/WP/ 2-8-0, or a decent 2-8-2? We do not need big limited production (i.e. prototype) steam engines that are too big on the layout.

Yours,

John

The Erie and Virginian triplexes were compounds - that is to say that the steam was used
twice before being exhausted. Steam from the boiler was first fed into the center pair of
cylinders. One of the center cylinders exhausted into the front pair of cylinders where the
steam was used a 2nd time before being sent up the exhaust nozzle in the smokebox and up the
stack. The other center cylinder exhausted into the rear pair of cylinders. From the rear pair
of cylinders the steam passed through a feedwater heater and was exhausted through a smokestack
on the back side of the tender. So I think that means that there will be 8 "chugs" per
revolution - the exhaust from the center pair of cylinders would not be heard since the
steam passes to the front and rear cylinders.

One of the flaws in the design was that only half the steam was sent up the exhaust nozzle.
On a steam locomotive the exhaust steam is used to create a vacuum that draw the heat through
the boiler and air into the firebox. With only half of the exhaust going up the stack the
draft must have been poor and contributed to a lack of steam. The feedwater heater in the
tender might of made up for this a bit but apparently it wasn't enough. I wonder why they try
rebuilding the engine so the rear cylinders exhausted through the front smokestack?

Didn`t someone have an 0-10-10-0 (Viginian?), and how did they run?
John W.

You might find this interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-10-10-2