As we know, MTH has not redesigned their trucks for the new GP35. This is painful, as they have been doing a terrific job with all the newly tooled releases. My concern is with all future EMD GP and F unit 3/2 releases. Will they bite the bullet and come out with a scale truck? I know a few of us who would purchase a few versions and road names of each new release of any GP and F unit with fixed pilots. However, if they use the same short truck, I believe it will not be an insignificant number of lost sales. I know I canceled my GP35s. Hate to see so many potential models not "be done right". Which, is not the way MTH does things.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Pete Kruimer,

Pete-

Wish I could say - I'd e-mail Andy with your thoughts, now that I no longer work for them (except as needed on non-paying R & D projects). I completely agree with your idea to re-tool the "Blomberg" trucks to the proper axle spacing; their E8 trucks are properly tucked under the pilot. BTW, they did retool them once with better spacing, and added more details, but, they're still too short.

Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

Take Care,

Bob

now that we are on the topic of MTH GP35s-
how about some Ann Arbor GP35s with prototypical Alco trucks

Pete

Can you tell me the wheelbase of a Blomberg truck vs. the MTH truck dimension?

On the SD35 is this an issue of Flexicoils vs. HTC or as subtle as bearing caps?

http://www.hosam.com/emd/etrucks.html

Short, is short. MTH and Atlas NP Fs side by side truck length comparison:







MTH 6 Axle SD35 trucks are not out yet.

For diesels, the MTH trucks suit me better than any other, including my own design using horizontal CLW gearboxes. The new 3-2 all axles-powered concept has to be a winner. But consider this:

Real SD wheelbase to outer axles on a truck is 13'7", or about 3 3/8" give or take. The old MTH SD truck was around 3 5/8", but the new one is right at 3 3/8". All we need is SD 9 sideframes, and all the older models can be retrofitted,

The Blomberg E unit truck is 14'1", or roughly 3 1/2" in O Scale. The old MTH truck is apparently 3 19/32", which sounds suspiciously like the same dimension as the old SD truck, and is only 1/8" away from the proper length for a PA truck (15'6", or 3 3/4" in O)

So my guess is that all of the old MTH six axle diesels except the Baldwin used the same truck block. Let's hope the new generation has wheelbases more closely adhering to the prototype, scaled down.

Hi Bob2,
I would consider trading MTH 2 axle diesel power trucks for other 2 axle trucks. Atlas, K-line, Weaver.

I personally own only one MTH diesel - an early 2 rail SD9. I have five to convert for a friend, but they are all getting Atlas trucks because of the unavailability of MTH trucks.

The Museum here runs quite a few diesels eight hours a day, including CLW, All Nation, Weaver, and Atlas, but the fleet of MTH gives us the most trouble free year in and year out operation. MTH supplies gear sets, and the Piper Cub aileron bushings are the same as the axle bearings, so I am all set. We change axle gears once every three years, worms every six, and so far one set of axle bearings at ten years! In contrast, the All Nation transmissions are worthless after about eight months - simply beyond repair. We have never had an MTH motor failure. Atlas has been good to us, but we have a failure mode that I simply do not understand. It may be related to motor bearings.

quote:

Atlas has been good to us, but we have a failure mode that I simply do not understand. It may be related to motor bearings.

I and I am sure others too would be interested in hearing more about this.

Pete

Thank you very much for the photos and link to the reference material.

So with a prototype wheel base of 9 feet a 1/48 scale Blomberg truck should be 2 1/4 inches between axle centers.

The MTH truck measures about 2 1/16 inches or about 9 scale inches short of the full dimension. Looking at an MTH SW1 and Alco FA it appears that MTH uses this wheel base for many B truck applications.

Thinking from the MTH perspective I imagine they have to weigh the lost sales potential in the scale oriented O market (2 rail or 3 rail) vs. lost sales from higher prices across market segments to recover the costs of making multiple motor blocks for B trucked locomotives. I imagine the motor blocks are some of the more expensive parts to go into a diesel. If they weren't we wouldn't likely see the persistence of low tooling cost chain drive mechanisms in 2 rail O.

Personally, love the Atlas NP 6000s but the cost has kept me from taking the plunge. The MTH NP 6500s are more in the range I feel comfortable paying for F units and they have PS2 which is a benefit for me at home and at the other layouts where I run.

Thanks again for the Atlas/MTH side by side.

What is the minimum curve on these MTH trucks? The reasen I'm asking is because I have a GP35 hi-rail (I know this is the 3RS forum) on preorder. In the printed catalog the minimum curve said 031, but it now has been changed to 042. I wondering why a short, four-wheeled truck engine would need 042. Could it be because of the trucks, fuel tank or what?

Although I rarely run my MTH Geeps, Fs or switchers on O-31, they do just fine. There is no limitation in the truck. However, the desires of the 3RS market for closer spacing to steps or pilots or as you noted full length fuel tanks. combined with hi-rail flanges may cause some tough trade offs. The GP35s likely handles O-31 without a hitch. If O-31 vs. O-42 is an issue for you just contact MTH and ask.

Hi Bob2,

I don't see why you would get more longevity from the motors in MTH locos over Atlas or other twin motored diesels. They all use the same motor. Atlas even adds a lower thrust bearing.

Thanks, Kanasket. I think it will handle 031 too, and if not I'll just have to run it on my single outer loop.

BTW guys, it doesn't look like the GP35s are shipping this month

quote:

the desires of the 3RS market for closer spacing to steps or pilots or as you noted full length fuel tanks. combined with hi-rail flanges may cause some tough trade offs.

I agree, and the MTH SD45-T-2 is probably an example. The trucks probably could not have been placed entirely correctly without striking the pilot ladders on even fairly broad curves. But at least truck placement is not as "off" as in the past. And I am increasingly surprised at how close the trucks can be to a fixed pilot without striking it.

For example, when I first test fit the full pilot on this Atlas SD 40, I thought "its not going to work...." But it does, and even three rail flanges clear the pilot.



As I unpacked them, I felt creeping doubt that these ES 44s could negotiate 072 curves without the truck frames striking the pilots, but the trucks clear:



My point is that while some compromises perhaps must be made, for too many years, supposedly "scale" three rail models made too many. In fact, a lot more scale accuracy is possible in three rail than I think we have assumed. So even when compromises must be made, they should be minimized. For example, don't have the trucks a quarter inch from the pilot if an eighth is all that's needed for clearance.

RM

I changed the title of this post and have bumped it up, as there now seems to be more interest in this. MTH really needs to correct this. I don't know how the 2 Rail guys will receive those short trucks. And since 3/2 is the future, this change really needs to be made.

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Kruimer:
I changed the title of this post and have bumped it up, as there now seems to be more interest in this. MTH really needs to correct this. I don't know how the 2 Rail guys will receive those short trucks. And since 3/2 is the future, this change really needs to be made.

As much as it pains me to write this , Pete is correct. The 3/2 concept mandates that the common elements - such as axle spacing and truck placement (both vertically and horizontally) relative to the pilot, fuel tank, frame, carbody, etc. - must be accurate. These details can't be designed to the lowest common denominator of the multiple 3/2 target customer segments, and expect to sell to all of them. In other words, the axle spacing may not be a crucial detail to most three-railers, but it is to the 3RS and two-rail groups. Make it correct, and the model will sell to all three segments, but if not, much of the 3RS and two-rail market will look elsewhere.

Sometimes I miss these things - some June posts are new to me.

I agree that the Blomberg ought to be longer. I was not troubled much by the too-long SD truck, and I ran it side by side with a PSC SD9 with no problems, visually at least. In fact, I didn't realize it was too long until I put some Atlas trucks under the SD, and found that there was more space in there.

My problems with the Atlas trucks have not yet been nailed down. However, you should know that there are several lifetimes of running in there before anything needs to be checked. The local museum just runs them eight hours a day for literally years, and then they show up here for repairs. I have done every repair imaginable to the MTH transmissions, yet have several Atlas trucks with new gears compliments of the factory (thank you Atlas) that still make horrible noises when under load. The bottom bearing is simply no help at all, and makes assembly hazardous - you have to pay attention when you screw these things back together.

Unrelated: I just tried to disassemble what looks like an Atlas freight truck - what a pain in the neck! I needed to use it for power pickup, and was going to replace the wheelsets. Cancel that idea!

Ok, I don't have any MTH AAR freight like the ones used under the U boats or Alco RS units. Are they using the same short wheel base as the EMD Blomberg trucks? If so they are really short. Weaver at least uses the proper truck base for their RS and U25B's. I've held off on MTH scale diesels just for the fact Mike won't correct them. The scale diesels I do have from MTH will get Weaver trucks, they are basically a drop in substitution.

Greg

quote:

The scale diesels I do have from MTH will get Weaver trucks, they are basically a drop in substitution.

Greg,

Are you saying you don't have to make any gear/worm changes to make MTH drives work with Weaver trucks?

Any chance you can post a photo of one of these conversions?

Thanks,

Fred

The Weaver trucks come with motors, gears, and sideframes. Not sure why one would replace MTH with Weaver, but it is mechanically possible. I put Weaver trucks on an SD35 where I stole the SD trucks for an MTH SD7 that needed all axle 2 rail power. The Weaver trucks are quite good, but need additional pickup if you run only 2 rail, and are rather abrupt at start up. Still, for the bucks, they are well worth it.

quote:

Not sure why one would replace MTH with Weaver,

Bob, the point of the entire thread is that the MTH trucks are nearly a scale foot too short, so if the Weaver trucks are indeed scale, this is maybe why someone would get rid of those MTH shorties.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Pete Kruimer,

I bought a dummy UP GP40 from MTH when they first came out. The hole in the frame was exactly like the hole in the Weaver GP38-2 frame so I ordered a set of Weaver 2 rail trucks to power the dummy unit. Now I need to either scratch build steps, pilot and kadee coupler pocket or order a set of GP35 steps from Atlas. Last time I contacted Atlas they didn't have any 2 rail pilots for the GP35's. I haven't taken any pictures yet of the conversion but will once I get my steps taken care of.

Greg

So Weaver Blombergs are scale, yet MTH purchased a portion of their diesel tooling from Weaver originally? I am really confused now.

What about the use of Atlas Trainman GP15 trucks? You can pick up a conventional one for pretty reasonable prices and the trucks are very nicely done.

Granted, the point of the thread is to ask for scale Blomberg trucks from MTH and in that regard, I fully support the effort. Outside of finding a used F40PH to paint into Rock Island to pull my Golden State Limited, which is completely out of the realm of 3RS, there are no more 4 axle MTH locos in my future plans until this gets corrected.

It really is that obvious a difference.

Well the Weaver side frames are scale. The wheel base is a scale foot too long for the EMD trucks but right on for the GE trucks under the U25B and RS3, thanks to the China drive they now use. IMHO they look enough better to live with the Weaver trucks with the correct side frames rather than the obviously short side frames from MTH. Now with the Atlas GP15 available I should give that some serious thought and look into finding a 2 rail version to use as a donor.

Greg

Greg,

I wasn't questioning you, I was more interested in how the scale trucks didn't seem to go with some of the tooling that MTH ended up with. Thanks for the heads up. I only have four Weaver diesels and three are ALCO's! The AAR type trucks look just right with those. They are all chain drives with horizontal motors. My SD40-2 of 1990 has the China drive, but the SD's have never really been in question.

Guys,

Fire off an email to MTH or Andy Edelman. It is my experience that MTH always reacts quickly to customer demands. We certainly do not want to see them fail in 2 Rail and 3RS with non scale trucks on future production. Let's help them keep the Premier line on top. Once they start doing the F series they need to get it right. There is still time.

One of the beauties of the MTH Facebook page is the relative few users who are linked to it and the direct responses you get immediately. I would suggest that interested individuals contact MTH via that means as well.

Of course we would want to do it in a polite and professional manner so that MTH keeps their page. It is a very nice resource.

I just posted a storm about the NYC version of their U25B. I didn't know they had posted their prototype to facebook. Thanks Johnathan for that.

I'll be honest, I don't care much about the truck length being a foot short, but I posted a ton of other discrepancies with their model and the real thing. The NYC U25B's didn't vary much in details between units, so the changes done would work on all 69 units that NYC had. I'd prefer that the other changes me instantiated over the trucks.

I've decided that I'm definitely a late 1960s/early70s diesel guy and I'd pick up 2 of these units for sure with the corrections. MTH, if you read this, I'll help you research if you need it for this model.

I also looked up the other 3 roads they were gonna run it in. Same glaring mistakes that are not right for any other roads (except they had the paneling under the cab right for SF). Theres a headlight and none of the prototypes had headlights! Hope thats just an issue of the mockup. Them MTH guys are good at getting things changed though. I have faith.

Another major thing seemed to be a missing grab iron on the top of the short hood. Anywho, I only put an hour into checking photos on fallenflags. I hope they do something with what I said. It should make for a better model if they do.

Guys, here is the MTH mockup. Not good. Look a those trucks! Completely destroys the look of the U25B!! Awful. MTH needs our help before these units get roasted in every mag! Get those emails going to MTH while there is still hope!

Pete,

I already sent emails to MTH, regarding this and the GP7 & GP9. I also asked them to offer GP's in scale wheels with the fixed pilots. Haven't heard anything yet.
Here is a better side photo of the U25B from railpictures.net by Gary Piper

Good job Al. Good point on the Geeps. If they don't correct this, a huge number of their future product line will no longer be scale. And a huge number of engines can no longer be advertised as having 1/48 dimensions. In short, Premier will turn into RailKing. We cannot let that happen.

Here is the MTH GP7. Look how small these trucks look as well as the other under body details compared to the prototype photo. Also the ride height is way to high. Come on MTH.





Even Lionel's trucks look right. I'd buy a NYC version and fix the pilots and do the KD's if I could find one.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: CSX Al,

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Kruimer:
Good job Al. Good point on the Geeps. If they don't correct this, a huge number of their future product line will no longer be scale. And a huge number of engines can no longer be advertised as having 1/48 dimensions. In short, Premier will turn into RailKing. We cannot let that happen.

Oh it will Pete.....no doubt about this. The management of MTH is more preoccupied (focused I should say) about lawsuits and litigations than scale accuracies.

MTH is for trains, what BOSE is for Audio: twice as many people in their legal department than in their R&D department.

Yves

Seeing the NEW tooling for the U25B from that angle is painful to look at. This has got to be fixed. Why can't they just base their trucks of Weaver ones? They are at least the right length for AAR trucks.

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Kruimer:
Guys, here is the MTH mockup. Not good. Look a those trucks! Completely destroys the look of the U25B!! Awful. MTH needs our help before these units get roasted in every mag! Get those emails going to MTH while there is still hope!

IMHO it's too late. If they have mock up trucks like that in metal. Also to my eye, the front step well and pilot are in need of change.

Greg

Wow, those trucks actually don't look that good after seeing a decent picture. Hmmmm perhaps I will rethink my purchase after all.

Those trucks do indeed look too small. Atlas and Lionel's version seem to be almost right on the money.

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Kruimer:
http://www.hosam.com/emd/etrucks.html

Short, is short. MTH and Atlas NP Fs side by side truck length comparison:







MTH 6 Axle SD35 trucks are not out yet.

I'm a little more curious about the center to center bolster distance between trucks as shown in the first and second photos. The MTH appears to be longer than the Atlas. How do the locomotives look side by side overall?

Regards,
Jerry

Not sure it will help much, but I think Weaver did a similar truck. One could buy dummy units and find used Weaver FA or RS and put the correct truck in there.

For the venerable Blomberg, the All Nation truck is as good as they get, and they were at one time available with steel wheels and big flanges. Transmissions are not as reliable, but they are smoother at low speeds.

Cannot wait for the new SD35 trucks. Should make a difference around here, except I hear they will be around $150/ truck pair, without sideframes. We are currently paying over $235, and junking perfectly good Atlas bodies to get trucks.

Jerry,

I'll take some a few more shots.

Those U25B trucks SUCK!!!

Fred

quote:

Originally posted by Fred Brenek:
Those U25B trucks SUCK!!!

Fred

Fred,

Don't suger coat it, just tell it like it is

I saw the new GP35 over the weekend and the Electroliners that everyone is talking about. As great as the Electroliner was, that how bad the GP35 was. I suspect, mostly due to old tooling. The short trucks were really bad looking, much more so than even on the F Units. However, the Electroliners were superb models, new tooling. Let's pray they kill those short trucks forever and all future U-Boat production is done right.

This is pretty simple from a business standpoint. A one time investment in updated truck blocks for 4 axle diesels could be spread out over many, many future runs that will be very well received in the future as opposed to needing a thread like this EVERYTIME a new 4 axle diesel is released.

Good news is there are a lot of hits on this thread, so it has obviously hit a nerve with many modelers. Not an insignificant number.

Food for thought here. I have read over on the 3-Rail Trains Forum, that MTH has a VERY active "Face Book" forum. Maybe all this information is actually falling on "deaf ears" at MTH, since the MTH folks are "doing something" on Face Book! Certainly worth looking into, for those of you that "do" Face Book.

Jack,

I got the U25B photo from FaceBook, where I and a few others have given them an earful on those trucks. I agree, everyone should ping them there as well.

http://www.facebook.com/profil...95245&id=85108529158

Two reasons for their business model to delay the product, invest in the new truck tooling now:

1. Will most likely cost less now to produce the trucks than later as costs usually go up over time.

2. They will inhibit their target market by excluding buyers who will not purchase this or future units with the incorrect trucks.

an optional #3. So that they can say their Premier model is actually 1:48 scale

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Kruimer:
Jack,

I got the U25B photo from FaceBook, where I and a few others have given them an earful on those trucks. I agree, everyone should ping them there as well.

http://www.facebook.com/profil...95245&id=85108529158

"Pinging" one place is enough for me. Especially when it is a GE that is involved.

Regards,
GNNPNUT