How do we get these made!

I am surprised the 44 tonner has not been made given the rise in popularity of scale models vs. traditional O. It is one that can be run on the even the smallest layouts.

All three of these locos have been owned by hundred of roads and companies in the U.S. Mexico and Canada. They would be a great seller. 

In my opinion you won't see these in 3-rail until the electronics get smaller.  The market demands command control, sound and electrocouplers on anything as expensive as these newly-tooled locos will be.  There is not room for all of our large boards in them.  Yes, I know that at least one forum member has shoehorned boards into a 44-tonner with a lot of sweat and work but that is not practical for a mass-produced piece.  Too bad our electronics are so huge compared to a DCC decoder. 

Baldwin-Westinghouse steeple cabs are available from ETS. ETS will supply either two rail DC or 3 rail AC.

Its absence is curious. I would have thought to see a big name GE steeple cab long before a Jawn, and some of the other oddballs they've made. Guess they think we would cry even harder about a catenary system? 

I would buy at least two of them, assuming they are offered in one of my preferred road names, and probably even if they weren't (I could have them repainted).  A LONG overdue model in O gauge.  

Bill, I know ETS has the Westinghouse but they are kind of toy like. I'm thinking scale detail. Don

Flash, I wrote Weaver about these engines last week. Never heard anything back. I think if we would all write maybe, just maybe, they would think about it. Don

I am in for the 44 tonner...I would welcome it with open arms since I used to ride around with my Dad on one of these (a former Navy unit, I believe).

It would seem that MTH's HO electronics might fit in the Rich Yoder model.

Any one have any thoughts on that possibility??

Someone in authority at MTH, Lionel, Atlas, 3rd Rail, etc. if they do not mind, explain what it cost to design, make the molds or whatever is required, what is the minimum units that can be made and the final cost to us. Maybe when someone figures it out, they may say it is not profitable to make or it is not in the future of their product line. 

I think if the manufacturers thought these items, such as the 44-ton switcher, were really such money makers, they would have been made already.

The key issue, is what level of detail and pototypical accuracy. Bill S. commented on the small size of the prototype. Yes, but with fixed pilots it will NOT run on 027 curves, thus eliminating a large percentage of sales.

Bob Bartizek brings up the issue of electronics. In addition to protoypical accuracy, the scale audience also wants all the electronic extras. So now the small size and the increased cost of producing the loco come into play.

https://ogrforum.com/t...66#22970455015059166

Take a good look at the prototype photo versus the model Lee Willis scratchbuilt. In Lee's third post, take a good comparison look at the third photo of his model versus the real thing. If the manufacturers made this, there'd be a ton of grumbing about the open pilot on one side, and the stamped metal handrail borrowed from a Lionel GP frame. Don't get me wrong, I think Lee did a great job. But I also think the same model Lee made wouldn't pass for the scale enthusiast.

I personally would love to see a 44-ton switcher in more true scale length made, if it were somewhat toned down in detail, akin to maybe the RMT BEEP. Durable molded in detail. Conventional control, no added electronics and with moving pilots so it would negotiate 027 curves. Bear in mind the success of the Lionel Dockside and 0-8-0 starter set steamers: comprosmises had to be made to keep costs down and to increase appeal to the broadest spectrum of the market. It worked, though there are some who will not consider those locos.

Now, I've annoyed all the folks who would really love a true prototypically done model with scale accurate detail, and electronics if possible. Unfortunately, I think the version I'd like to see made, is the one that would be the real money maker. Because it would appeal to the quieter but much bigger part of the market.

I think here lies part of the reason it hasn't been made. To really make it a big seller, detail compromises would be necessary to keep the cost down and increase the sales base. Doing this though, would annoy the smaller much but much more vocal part of the market, who be sure to make there dissatisfaction known.

As Allan Miller said in the thread about realism verus toy trains:

"You couldn't pay me enough to be in the manufacturing part of toy trains--O gauge toy trains in particular.  Not worth the grief.  I commend those who are still willing to stick with it in this day and age."

"We in the hobby tend to take things far too seriously, although the level of fidelity to the real world and the prototype is certainly an individual decision that ranges from 'good enough' for some to "never good enough" for others."

I so agree Allan.

I'm with you Don....I would love to see one or all of these made and would purchase each of them!

Alan

Rich Yoder may have some 44 toners left.

http://www.richyodermodels.com...rym_loco_ge44ton.htm

I would love to have any or all of the locos from the original post in a true scale size.  I have to agree with some of Brionel's  comments though.  I don't expect nor want museum quality scale detail . . . . . and fixed pilots don't get me started.  What I want is a locomotive appropriately sized to push forty foot boxcars around a small switching layout.  We have to remember what three rail is about, its about ease of use, the ability to fit more into a smaller space, and the ability to run "toys" and "models" on the same layout.  A model of these locomotives should be in keeping with the originals in that they should be versatile enough for all owners.  In the O gauge world that means those with 4x8s to those with their own warehouse full of trains.  In terms of detail the only thing I need is something with separately applied ladders and brake wheels!  Cast on the rest but something about cast on ladders bugs me!  In terms of performance if the electronics won't fit, take out a motor.  These engines wouldn't be pulling unit coal trains in real life anyway.  Sorry if this post kind of rambles.  These are something that I really would like to see made.  I think if manufactured to appeal to a broad audience they would be very successful.  In my mind I see these as the engine that the beginners see in the catalog and say, "hey that's pretty cool I could get into scale stuff with that." and the experienced guys say,"Hey that's pretty cool I could do a lot with that!"

The Yoder above is definitely scale size.  Third Rail brought these things in as well, about 20 years ago.  The second one is available used as an IMP product - you have to figure out how to power it.  And I think Car Works imported both 2 and 3.  Perhaps they were poor sellers, and that is why they do not do re-runs.  But they have definitely been made in true 1/4"to the foot O Gauge.

Didn't know 3rd Rail did one. I have a Sunset in 2-rail. Cute little critter. Was thinking about putting a DCC decoder in it. I'd probably get another one if they came out with a command control version.

So...who can speak as to whether or not the MTH HO electronics would work in one of these? 

Couldn't "you" transplant the electronics from an MTH diesel to one of these...or is it all about amps, triacs, and internal gizmos???

Seems like there could be some collaboration between those who apparently have had these made already and those who apparently have small-sized electronics.

Won't one of Jon Z's ERR company boards fit in a Yoder model??

That's pretty much what I would be looking/hoping for, too.  The Rich Yoder models are certainly very, very nice, but were offered in a very limited number of liveries and did not have command control.  I would want CC so switching moves could be conducted with some degree of realism.

They have been made before. No reason why Lionel can't reissue.

I know MTH has stated in the past that once PS-3 came out they would be able to make a lot of smaller scale engines like the 44 Tonner. Well it's been out for a couple of years but nothing new from that quarter. Now maybe if they were also popular in  Europe??? I would definitely be in for one in Command Control.

Trainworld has 44 Tonners made by Williams an they are on sale for 74.99

This is an honest question.

What is wrong with the 44 tonner Williams makes?

On sale here

Nothing a little better detailing wouldn't fix, and its a little too big, and too long. but its a good unit Williams has there.

Command electronics should not be an issue.  If Lionel can make these with command control AND eletrocouplers AND directional lighting:

Then they should be able to do those features in a 44 tonner.  Sound, on the other hand would be a challenge (if they can shoehorn sound into HO locomotives, it may be possible with a 44 tonner, too).

Everyone should write to Lionel and MTH and make the case.  Since many railroads had them (thus the potential for many future runs to make full use of the tooling), and since they should be able to run on fairly tight curves, these have the potential to be a very popular item.

Andy

As long as I've been on this forum people have been asking for three locomotive but no one listens. The 44 ton diesel...
What do you think forum members? Don

I am all in favor of a mass-produced 44 ton loco but the one in the photo above is NOT a 44 tonner.

...and if they do reach the market, hopefully they will be accurate scale models.  The vast majority of brass imports have serious errors.

I will be in for at least two SCALE 44 tonners.  If MTH was able to cram the PS3 boards into it and provide command control and electro couplers, I would be happy.  I will take mine in Boston and Maine/Maine Central/Portland Terminal black with the red nose stripes, please.

The Williams unit is a Lionel Postwar copy, with no command control, molded in details, and way oversized for the prototype that is is supposed to represent.  It's like comparing apples and oranges, IMHO.

Car Works did several boxcabs in 2 rail; have 2 of them. Never seen any in 3 other than ones that might have been overhead power only which could then reasonably be convert to 3 rail.  They command rather good prices even as unpowered body shells, but to get re-runs would take someone willing to finance that business.  Good luck on that happening...

Don

I could not agree with you more and if I could get my hands on some three rail steeplecabs, I would redesign my layout around them with freight street running, interchange points etc. I have posted this same issue before as well. Same applies to Whitcombs with side rods..another is fireless cookers..all great for tight radius operations but the trend is to monster engines broad curves etc..that seems to be where we are being directed, rather than more compact units. Mainline Class Ones seem to be the entire ball of wax for modelling.

I thought the Rich Yoder version was in three rail, too.  I certainly looked at them

in the yellow hall a few years ago.  I don't want one, but have long thought the

Williams one was a 100 tonner, not 44.  I once thought the trend in this hobby was

away from "toy", and toward scale, but there is RMT, etc.

Problem?

They're produced by Kader.

Bachmann produced a GE 45 Tonner in 1:20.3  some years ago.  

I'm guessing that the 44 tonner by WBB is a scaled down version 45 tonner or a knockoff of  the PW Lionel 44 tonners.

. 

The 45 tonner was not a hit,  quickly blown out by dealers and not reissued.

Dave

electoliner:  Main line Class One triplexes are not what I am modeling, either.  I

think it must be a combination of possible facts that cost of design is about the same for a dockside as a triplex, but the markup/margin is much higher on the triplex.  However, for the hobby to grow, newbies in stores ain't springin' a grand plus and walkin' out with triplexes for their ten year olds.  K-Line moved up from toy

caricatures to models....that space for scale is now available at the low end of

the market, and at least two players are already in the business.

Probably the quickest way to get reasonable models of these would be to make them.  I'm not sure how soon any company is going to commit to making new tooling for small locos (which the market tends to think must be lower priced than big locos).

The  photo below shows a "44-tonner" I made to go on a BEEP chassis (it slips right on and off).  I was not going for a lot of accuracy here - just a representative look, but would be easy to adhere a bit more to the prototype as to exact placement of sairs, etc., and put it on an appropriately shortened two-truck/four axle chassis.

The steeple cab should be fairly straightforward to scratchbuild since it is almost all flat panels or simple curved bends and an appropriate four-axle two-truck chassis would not be that hard to find, I would expect.

O Scale Trains Magazine published an article on how to build a 44 tonner using styrene in Issue 43.  The issue is available as a free download from their website:

http://oscalemag.com/wordpress/covers-contents-1-59/

Maybe...but just picking up one of those IMP brass ones is probably faster and a lot easier. 

Getting a truly appropriate 4-axle 2-truck drive for a steeple cab may be a bit harder - I don't know of any that have have been produced in 3rail with the correct sideframes or wheelbases.

That looks like it would be right up RMT's alley as they make the Beeps and Geeps or whatever.   

I am building my short line Baldwin electrics using K-line powered trucks, same as RMT's. These trucks have the motors between the wheels. That leaves the cab open for electronics. I think you could get TMCC inside. Don

TMCC would not be a problem as ERR makes a commander that will fit it a Beep. These models would be popular in Australia, as we had them here. We call them a 79 class.

I am using the same K-Line trucks for the still a-building interurban freight motor...had to do some judicious trimming on them. They are great for this purpose.