triplex

[r.cprmier]

How many of youse guys are getting that Matt Shay Triplex?  Count me in for one.  It is a good incentive for giving up drinking...

I have always been fascinated by that engine, and to be able to buy one now, is great.  It will look goooood in the display case...

Rich

[Atlantic Central]

Not me, first it does not fit my scheme of operation, second, I do not collect, I only buy what the layout scheme "needs", third I would be reluctant to buy anything from MTH - especially since I don't use DCC - Mike Wolf doesn't want my business based on how his K4 runs on DC.

But remember, I'm that guy who doesn't own any of those locos that EVERYONE else apparently buys, K4's, Big Boy's, FEF's, GG1's, UP Challengers, N&W J's, Cab Forward's, etc.

Sheldon

[Virginian]

While I do model Virginian, I do not model that specific 180 day period when they actually had a Triplex on the property before they gave up and shipped it back for re-working into a 2-8-8-0 and a 2-8-2.  The MTH model is not a faithful recreation of the VGN 2-8-8-8-4 anyway, just a re-badged Erie as I understand it.

[SteamGene]

Virginian, you are correct.  In late summer/early fall 1957 the VT&P is interested only in modern steam - USRA or later.  It has enough drag locomotives in its 2-10-2s and 2-6-6-2s that it doesn't need a locomotive with more cylinder than firebox. 
Gene

[Conrail Quality]

My layout is all-electric, but if MTH made the electric equivelent, the Pennsy FF-1 experimental ("Big Liz"), I'd buy it in an instant, DCC issues or not.

[Dr EMD]

Too big for my layout (or "train set"). I prefer a ten wheeler or a pacific for my branchline operation.

Dr EMD

[Mark Damien]

When was the Triplex announced?

No matter,  MTH has sent the first batch of Erie's to MTH Dealers on the 29th, so expect them soon.

Virginia's will arrive in a few weeks.

The only thing I don't like,  the third engine is not powered.

Is the Triplex considered a Tank Engine like the Beyer Garratt?

[r.cprmier]

Is the Triplex considered a Tank Engine like the Beyer Garratt?

Mark;
that is an interesting question.  I could see arguments both ways.  I plan not to run this engine on the layout, but can if I had the urge...

Conrail;
All-electric?  With catenery system too?  That is one heck of a job!  My hat is off to you; I couldn't do it-they would be escorting  me to the laughing academy after about one evening.
You know what is interesting?  The New Haven EF-3 "Yellowjacket" had an average capacity of 4860HP.  The wheel base was a 4-C-C-4; exactly as a challenger; same horsepower, too!  I guess if one wanted to stretch a point, one caould say that the New Haven had an articulated locomotive class that would equal a Challenger!

Rich

[RAM]

I never thought of the Beyer Garratts as tank engines.  They are one unit.  I wouldn't think of them as switch engines either, but that is what they were using them (it) for.  It may be a case of using what will runin Zimbabwe, Africa. 

[SteamGene]

I think it depends on your definition of "tank engine."  Could the tender of the Triplex be removed from the boiler?  That is, and put back on again.   This goes along with the argument that most of the cab forwards were Yellowstones running backwards.
Merry Seventh Day of Christmas
Happy New Year
Gene 

[Atlantic Central]

A few thoughts,

First, I will defer all comments about the Beyer Garratts to those who know about such things, as I have never studied in detail locomotives outside North America.

In my understanding of the Whyte system, the triplex is not a tank engine because the tender is a seperate unit, easily seperable or not. Tank engines have one frame carrying both the boiler and fuel/water supplies.

The idea that a cab forward is Yellowstone running is reverse would assume that the firebox is large enough to require a four wheel truck. This is not the case with the SP cab forwards as the four wheel truck was adopted for better tracking at speed, not to support a larger firebox. A cab forward, if we must "define" it outside its own special application, is a 2-8-8-2 adapted to run firebox first, as the first ones where 2-8-8-2's. The addition of four wheel truck was to improve tracking due to different loads introduced  by turning both the boiler and the engines around. Other 2-8-8-2's did not need this extra tracking help because the pivoting engine lead the way, on a cab forward the rigid engine leads the way.

Challengers and Big Boys had four wheel leading trucks because larger driver size and expected top speed was increased over previous articulated types. Note that neither the N&W class A or the C&O H8 have four wheel leading trucks, their speeds and shorter wheelbase did not warrant it. And with the N&W Class A it did prove to be the speed limiting factor in the design. Yet both had massive fireboxes requiring 4 wheel and 6 wheel trailing trucks respectively.

Still not interested in owning a triplex or models of any other failed experiments.

Sheldon

[Mark Damien]

Happy New Year,

Is the Triplex considered a Tank Engine like the Beyer Garratt?

This occurred to me, from a another thread; either on this or the previous Bachmann Forum,  where a member suggested the Garratt was a Tank Engine, because the Tenders were fixed to the rigid frames of the two engines. 

So by that reckoning; and I'm not saying I agree with it, does the Triplex suffers the same fate???

The Triplex model on the other hand, could not be considered a tank engine, as the engine under the tender is not powered - I just can't get a grasp on these straws today.

Either way, I can't wait for my new 2-8-8-8-2 [Tank???] engine to arrive.

Cheers & all the best for the New Year.

[r.cprmier]

Boy mark; we must b the only two guys here who will actually buy one.

Happy New Year to you and all!

Rich

[Mark Damien]

G'Day Rich,

Don't jump for joy yet!

See Tony's for some possibly bad news!

www.tonystrains.com/tonystips/2007/123107.htm

[r.cprmier]

Mark;
Gee, I hope that is a fluke.  That is too beautiful an engine to start having problems right from get-go.  I am also a bit concerned about Tony's comment about the DCS system.  I am in no way familiar with DCS, so am stymied.  Oh by the way, Mark; I didn't mean to "lower-case" your name in the last post.  Mea Culpa!  really!  I am working on one of Rutland Car Shops' Rutland/NYC baggage car, and it is a real bear and a half!  I was completely engulfed in quasi-frustration (does that exist?)  But...I am resolute, and WILL persevere; so there, Rutland!  I will indeed make a silk purse from a sow's ear...

Have a great day Down Under, Mark.

Rich