For a side by side comparison, it makes sense to wait until both are released to the market. I was disappointed to find no 44 tonners listed in the MTH 2015 volume 2 catalog. Maybe they are waiting for production of these to ramp up and get the bugs worked out before announcing any new road names. I am waiting patiently for my B&M version.
Originally Posted by Jim S:
For a side by side comparison, it makes sense to wait until both are released to the market. I was disappointed to find no 44 tonners listed in the MTH 2015 volume 2 catalog. Maybe they are waiting for production of these to ramp up and get the bugs worked out before announcing any new road names. I am waiting patiently for my B&M version.
Absolutely it makes sense to wait to compare them, but MTH has announced them and that fuels speculation - and some people always want to jump the gun.
It will be a fascinating comparison though, partly because both companies are good at HO, too, and could draw on their experience there to make this very small loco. It will be interesting to see how "HO" MTH's is in comparison to WBB's which uses pretty standard "O" design approaches, even tiny as the 44 is.
Regardless, even though I admire MTH and have said several times they are really on a roll now, turning out extraordinarily good locos and rolling stock, I will probably pass of theirs. I run only conventional, so the DCS capability will do nothing for me. The two WBB 44s I run now (one converted to a calf) look quite good and run well. They are fairly traction- and slightly power challenged but that does not matter since they are tiny switchers thatI will never use to pull a long, heavy train. Their lack of cruise isn't a liability because they are not particularly incline-sensitive as to speed (at least with the motors re-wired in series). I never use electrocouplers, but I would like smoke - which MTH does not offer. So the only "plus" the considerably price margin the MTH will bring would be, possibly, better sound. It will have to be extraorindarily good to justify the difference to me.
With 2 flywheel equiped motors, etc. Did MTH design boards, and couplers just for this 44 Tonner? Seems like a tight fit with the motors, be interesting in seeing the guts when released.
Originally Posted by josef:
With 2 flywheel equiped motors, etc. Did MTH design boards, and couplers just for this 44 Tonner? Seems like a tight fit with the motors, be interesting in seeing the guts when released.
From what I read in reports from York, they said the boards they are using are based on their HO and S gauge systems. I imagine that theirs will have a cab similar to the MTh NW-2s - the cab is mostly filled with equipment with just barely room for the fdigures on each side near the windows, and not, as with WBB's 44 tonner, completely clear side to side.
The HO boards are a lot smaller, and they may well be able to fit it into the hoods. OTOH, I don't know how they're going to power it, WBB's truck mounted motors worked out well for leaving the shell empty. If they have vertical motors, that won't leave much room.
At York, on Wed night, in response to my question, Andy indicated the motors would be vertical shaft.
That is going to make the electronics a very tight fit!
That's why Andy also said they are working on shrinking the board, which I interpret as saying they're working on an S gauge board.
I think I'll wait for the MTH model until it is actually out and I get to see it. 
I'm happy with the performance of the WBB one, just have to get my handrails done.
Is the term "vapor ware" for a product that is announced with the primary goal of damaging a competitor's product that is about to come out? I'm an MTH fan and have no horse in the MTH-WBB race, but MTH's announcement of a forthcoming 44 tonner on the heels of the WBB announcement didn't sit great with me. I'll believe (and compare) the MTH version when (and if) it appears.
I was surprised to see that MTH did not offer a scale wheel version of the new 44 tonner. If EVER there were an engine that would be at home on 2 rail pikes no matter how large or small, it would be the 44 tonner. I seriously wonder if MTH is going to abandon the Proto 3/2 concept in the future? Yes, there are scale wheel engines in the latest catalog, but not a single one of them is new tooling. So when MTH announced a newly tooled engine for the first time in years they didn't bother to included their own patented Proto 3/2 technology? Doesn't sound like a good sign for things to come for 2R and 3RS modelers.
I heard about the MTH version before I heard of a B-W version.
Iam waiting for my mth santa fe 44 tonner
I also......& waiting...........&waiting. But I have enough other lcoos to keep me active.
Nice, but I'll wait for someone to do one with side rods instead.
Gonna be a while before you see the MTH 44 ton. After much debate on which roadname to get, I finally settled and have the Long Island Rail Road 44T on order. Can't wait to get it.
