That would be a brakeman or conductor riding along, and jumping out when needed to help with switching moves -- a precursor of today's diesels with multiple cab seats to accommodate a train crew that no longer has a caboose to ride in.
Anyone used the 44 t on atlas track. i wondered if it got through the turnouts ok conrail john
Engineer-Joe posted:With all these posts about 2 rail versions, I'm shocked that 2 rail MTH is not more in demand.
Perhaps if they would make something new it would be?
Remember, unless you run only in loops on DC power 2 Rail MTH products prior to Proto 3.0 are basically useless as they have a polarity issue and no DCC. Proto 3 fixes the polarity issue and adds DCC support, but that means ONLY products that are 2R and Proto 3 are actually useful for the majority of people. That is a very small set of products relatively speaking. That's why some of us are so disappointed that this newly tooled model wasn't offered in 2R.
It literally looks like they intended to do it and then ran into some issue with funding or production or something and changed their minds half way through development. This doesn't give me much confidence that they will be doing more 2R in the future. That's what bothers me. MTH always seems to almost get it right, but just manages to miss the mark. Of course that's just my opinion.
Bill Nielsen posted:Laidoffsick posted:Well at least we knew up front these would not come with the Kadee/2 rail option, unlike the most recent FTs delivered. Those were advertised as being 2 rail conversion compatible with Kadee pads BUT they are NOT. They used the old truck blocks and no Kadee pads.
It's stuff like this that has turned me off on ever doing any more pre-orders for either MTH or Lionel. Heck, I don't even want to see their new catalogs anymore, who needs the anticipation followed by the letdown? The 2015 v.1 catalog states that the 44 tonner would have Kadee mounting pads (which it doesn't), and while it didn't state they would be 3/2 rail compatible, I had hoped it might. I'm glad I wasn't lusting after an FT, I hadn't realized it was also falsely advertised as being Kadee/3-2 rail compatible (there oughta be a law). Now, seeing that the 44 tonner probably was to have been 3/2, but at the last minute that feature was crippled by MTH, makes things even worse. Add to that the fact that it only has two driven axles plus four rubber traction tires, makes me question the quality of all the rest of the engineering on this loco. Too bad, because I was really looking forward to this one.
It also appears from the photos posted here, that the two idler axles are pressed onto the truck frames with no easy way to change them, unlike the driven axles, which are held in with a retainer plate and screws. Where's the logic in that for a $450 loco?
Thanks to Dave for all his effort in posting his review.
Bill in FtL
Didn't follow the 44 Tonner as we were not going to purchase one. The issue with MTH 3/2 is not recent, fully understand they do not want to retool existing power trucks for $$.
We have some SD90's and the engines are DCC 2Rail / 3Rail capable as advertised, YET the dummies all came with solid, non insulated axles so they are NOT...
Never expected them to have a DCC decoder since the 3Rail dummies have nothing, fully expected them to have insulated wheels and axles as they were sold together. Could never figure out why they sold them that way. It has prevented us from taking and operating them on others 2Rail layouts.
john f penca jr posted:Anyone used the 44 t on atlas track. i wondered if it got through the turnouts ok conrail john
I can't say about Atlas track, we will try to test it out on a members layout. It will not go through Lionel 072 fast track turnouts unless going at least 10 mph or more.
My 4 hour trst run was on a layout of all Atlas track. Everything worked perfect.
I had trouble going through a Ross 096 switch at 3 mph,going through at 10 mph was good,I love the engine,pulled 4 18 inch passenger cars.
Mikey
jonnyspeed posted:Engineer-Joe posted:With all these posts about 2 rail versions, I'm shocked that 2 rail MTH is not more in demand.
Perhaps if they would make something new it would be?
Remember, unless you run only in loops on DC power 2 Rail MTH products prior to Proto 3.0 are basically useless as they have a polarity issue and no DCC. Proto 3 fixes the polarity issue and adds DCC support, but that means ONLY products that are 2R and Proto 3 are actually useful for the majority of people. That is a very small set of products relatively speaking. That's why some of us are so disappointed that this newly tooled model wasn't offered in 2R.
It literally looks like they intended to do it and then ran into some issue with funding or production or something and changed their minds half way through development. This doesn't give me much confidence that they will be doing more 2R in the future. That's what bothers me. MTH always seems to almost get it right, but just manages to miss the mark. Of course that's just my opinion.
Everyone can voice their opinion, obviously.
It's always dollars invested vs sales. Why convert everything they offer when some stuff will not sell to the 2 rail masses. Some three rail stuff is made for pure fun. It's not made to impress purists.
How many units would this 44 ton engine actually sell to 2 rail users? 10? 20? more ? What's the extra cost for offering this?
They have released many new products in 2 rail versions. Some got cancelled before they were delivered. I can only guess at the reasons.
I run PS2 engines everyday. They are not worthless to me. I understand they maybe to you. Throwing a polarity switch when an engine is (physically) reversed is very, very easy. I got some for a very good price.
Yes. Buying strictly newer PS3 engines, would be the choice for DCC users.
BTW, I run AC and DC. I'm not sure why the DC only comment?
mikey posted:I had trouble going through a Ross 096 switch at 3 mph,going through at 10 mph was good,I love the engine,pulled 4 18 inch passenger cars.
Mikey
We had no trouble going through 072 Gargraves & Ross turnouts at 3 mph on our club layout. The little 44 tonner easily pulled 15 scale freight cars.
Looks like there's a lot to choose from although not all models are available in 2 rail. I have converted many to 2 rail fairly easily. I think the last one I did myself, was the MTH PS3 Conrail SD80MAC. The KD coupler mounting holes are already drilled and tapped on some 3 rail diesels. That makes the job even easier. A couple shims and a wheel set swap. The hand rails I have not lengthened.
I have a MTH F40PH 2 rail on order to go with my MTH 2 rail Genesis on passenger trains.
I'd have to guess that there's a couple hundred choices that have been released in 2 rail? I did not desire the 44 ton engine so I maybe biased. I would convert one if I did.
So here's some of the recent production PS3 choices (not all 2 rail engines, search function is general by catalog), best I could do.
http://mthtrains.com/prod-sear...s%20w/PS3%20engine?f[0]=field_catalog%3A7326
http://mthtrains.com/prod-sear...s%20w/PS3%20engine?f[0]=field_catalog%3A7294
http://mthtrains.com/prod-sear...s%20w/PS3%20engine?f[0]=field_catalog%3A7128
http://mthtrains.com/prod-sear...s%20w/PS3%20engine?f[0]=field_catalog%3A7086
http://mthtrains.com/prod-sear...s%20w/PS3%20engine?f[0]=field_catalog%3A7048
http://mthtrains.com/prod-sear...s%20w/PS3%20engine?f[0]=field_catalog%3A6756
http://mthtrains.com/prod-sear...s%20w/PS3%20engine?f[0]=field_catalog%3A6749
http://mthtrains.com/prod-sear...s%20w/PS3%20engine?f[0]=field_catalog%3A4028
Algomafan, what did your friend find?
I tried opening mine up, and found all those handrails connected to both frame and body were a strong incentive not to. How did those of you who have opened it go about it>
I recommend cleaning the unpowered, non-tired wheels. I used the CRC product that doesn't harm plastic, which removed a black substance. Electrical pickup seems to be imnproved.
I have my Pa model parked along side of my Williams. I ran the Williams and it was a pretty good puller. I will probably get around to running the MTH model this weekend. But, from what I can see in the videos on the first page thirteen cars is not out of the question.
As for a smoke unit, I say no way! I would never give up the power for something a diesel switcher is never suppose to do when well maintained. In fact I'm turning off the smoke on all of my diesel engines.
I will have more to say after I run it and compare it to the Bachmann model, but I have to say the thin hood assembly has it all over the other models shown on these pages.
RJR posted:Algomafan, what did your friend find?
I tried opening mine up, and found all those handrails connected to both frame and body were a strong incentive not to. How did those of you who have opened it go about it>
Bend the handrails out of the way. They are brass. They will bend back when you put it back together.
Many engines require the careful manipulation of handrails to remove the shell.
Dave
I checked with the MTH rep at Trainfest yesterday. The next batch of 44-tonners will likely ship in April.
Dave, on taking the 44-T apart: The rails that go up to the cab appear to merely rest in a dimple. Do any actually fit into holes? My fingers & hands aren't too good at ultradelicate work, and I hate to go in blindly.
I think I will also grind away a little of the frame above the coupler to allow the trucks to flex vertically a bit more; I have some dips on my layout that hang it up if going <4smph.
I have no problems with inability to pull many cars. However, I am told that the motors are much smaller than regular O gauge, and I don't want to overload them.
I think MTH did a fine job on the tooling for the body, but I think the engineering of the mechanism falls short, as if they got halfway through the process and then gave up, taking a bunch of short cuts the rest of the way.
My small three rail layout uses two Atlas O72/O54 curved turnouts on the mainline due to space constraints, has anyone tried running one of the 44 tonners through one of these turnouts? I don't want to pony up the dough for one of these little gems and then discover I can' t run the thing on my layout without having to give it a "nudge" every time it comes to one of these turnouts.
I also notice that the Western Maryland models have the same paint scheme on both road numbers, whereas the prototype (which only had two 44 tonners) had the fireballs in two different locations on their two engines. One roadnumber had the fireball located on the cab like the MTH models, but according to all of the prototype photos I've been able to locate, the other unit had the fireball on one of the hoods. I don't know if the fireballs were both on the same end of the loco, or if the locations were both on the right hand hood when looking at either side.
Bill in FtL
Here's a pic of #76
Attachments
Images (1)
Here's a link to many WM 44-T pix. Obviously, the fireball was in several different places. Painter's choice?
RJR posted:Here's a pic of #76
Thanks for posting this picture, all of the ones of #76 that I was able to find showed it with the fireball on one end, and all of #75 had it on the cab. At least this shows that MTH's version of #76 wasn't a foo-foo slip-up.
Bill in FtL
RJR posted:Dave, on taking the 44-T apart: The rails that go up to the cab appear to merely rest in a dimple. Do any actually fit into holes? My fingers & hands aren't too good at ultradelicate work, and I hate to go in blindly.
I think I will also grind away a little of the frame above the coupler to allow the trucks to flex vertically a bit more; I have some dips on my layout that hang it up if going <4smph.
I have no problems with inability to pull many cars. However, I am told that the motors are much smaller than regular O gauge, and I don't want to overload them.
R,
The handrails go into the body.
I found more of a 'lifting' issue with the non drive wheels, causing the engine to stall on switches because there was a lack of ground. My metal traction tire install has cured this 100%.
I was also told by a source at MTH that the lack of a 2 rail option was to keep a more reliable ground through the non drive axle.
All of my customers have been very pleased with this engine. I think a few small tweaks from MTH is all it needs.
Dave
I bought one, tested it, and sent it back. Mine had what appeared to be a super-cap issue. It couldn't stand even a brief power outage in command mode, and would frequently just restart in conventional mode.
Yes, I could have fixed it most likely, but fixing a brand new engine I just paid $400 for rubs me the wrong way. Hopefully, I'll find one that actually runs properly!
David, on mine, I do not see any holes in the cab, where the angled railing goes up. I agree some tweaking is needed. There is nothing like a customer's layout to beta test (gamma test?) a new design. Just like a new car model, where the buyers find the bugs.
gunrunnerjohn posted:I bought one, tested it, and sent it back. Mine had what appeared to be a super-cap issue. It couldn't stand even a brief power outage in command mode, and would frequently just restart in conventional mode.
Yes, I could have fixed it most likely, but fixing a brand new engine I just paid $400 for rubs me the wrong way. Hopefully, I'll find one that actually runs properly!
Has this issue ever been corrected ...
dk122trains posted:Now we just need the GE demo version.
Do you have a picture of that unit? I never saw one from the web to the Diesel Demo book.
yamawho posted:gunrunnerjohn posted:I bought one, tested it, and sent it back. Mine had what appeared to be a super-cap issue. It couldn't stand even a brief power outage in command mode, and would frequently just restart in conventional mode.
Yes, I could have fixed it most likely, but fixing a brand new engine I just paid $400 for rubs me the wrong way. Hopefully, I'll find one that actually runs properly!
Has this issue ever been corrected ...
No. In separate discussions here, it became clear that because of the space restrictions inside the diecast body, MTH used S gauge boards, which unfortunately includes a smaller super-capacitor.
In conventional, it results in sounds cutting out within two seconds after the power is shut off. So the shutdown sequence can’t fully be heard.
In command, the super-cap doesn’t hold enough of a charge to bridge power breaks, thus prompting it to behave as John described in his post two years ago.
I have two more recent MTH 44-tonners, the Phase 1c Milwaukee Road unit released in 2017 and the later-phase U.S. Army version released in 2018, and I love them both, despite their super-cap limitations. My newest model seems to handle the power problem on my sole O-27 switch just fine, but I’m not sure why.
There also has been some discussion on the forum about whether those S gauge boards could handle a larger capacitor. But, as far as I know, no one here has contacted MTH with that question for a reliable answer.
I have the GN version and like it.
It’s not the Lionel postwar 44-tonner model (which is the real deal) but it’ll do.
Dave Warburton posted:I have the GN version and like it.
It’s not the Lionel postwar 44-tonner model (which is the real deal) but it’ll do.
HUH? The Lionel 44-Tonner is a model of nothing, it's not close to scale anything!
Dave Warburton posted:I have the GN version and like it.
It’s not the Lionel postwar 44-tonner model (which is the real deal) but it’ll do.
I’m not sure what you meant by the “real deal.” You are aware that the Lionel model isn’t really a 44-tonner, at all, I assume. All that Lionel did was take the basic look of GE’s diminutive prototype and stretch it onto an existing larger diesel frame, creating a unique model with no real-world prototype.
I’m not sure why Lionel even bothered to call it a 44-tonner. “Diesel switcher” would have sufficed.
I bought the Williams Bachmann ATSF tiger stripe at a super price.
I would buy an MTH one if they ever do Amtrak phase 1,2,or 3. I Know Amtrak had 43 tonner but looks essentially the same.
How about Cargill, Republic Steel, or other industrial or grain companies?
Attachments
Images (1)
I have three of these and they do navigate up to Atlas O #5
I have one of the first issue 44-tonners. Had problems with the too small capacitor. Added the equivalent supercapacity (i.e., doubled the capacity). Works fine. I do not know of MTH later on revised the capacitance. I do not now recall the capacitance of the original supercap. If you make this change, it's at your risk, not mine or MTH's.
Mine will get the treatment when I get time. 
GRJ,
Hope you will show us how you did it so we may also.
Should be pretty simple, but when I get to it, I'll try to remember to post pictures. As long as there's room for the capacitor, it's just wiring in parallel with what's there.
Here is a recent thread discussing the supercap issue ...
gunrunnerjohn posted:Mine will get the treatment when I get time.
Document the process and send it along to me for the magazine if you care to, John. Would be happy to publish it and you'll get a couple of C-notes for your trouble.
I'm a big fan of those 44-tonners. Currently have six of them in various liveries (two Army, one Amtrak, one WM, one LV, and one Strasburg). I love small motive power!
I can always use C-Notes! 
There is a switcher that comes close to Lionels 44 ton, but it's closer to 144 ton and would have needed licence. You almost have to wonder if the outcome was a compromised design to a more popular Whitcomb as only a few of these existed. Gramps had custom one's based on Lionels.
.
Attachments
Images (1)
