MTH WMRy H-9 2-8-0 & M-2 4-6-6-4

The WM H-9 is awesome in every way.

I don't own the M-2, so can't comment from personal perspective.

Both are great products, BUT both L and MTH have produced the WM Challenger (in scale and near scale).  On the other hand, the H-9 WM is uniquely MTH (and, IMO, as a result harder to find).  So I would go after the H-9 first.

The H-9 was real popular when it appeared several years ago and several of us have been lobbying MTH to re-release the H-9 but with a different road number.  Time will tell on that one.

BTW, if you are a WM fan, watch for Weaver to release a WM Potomac in the near future.  At that point and with what's already on the market, the only major WM steam missing will be the I-2 Decapod (no relation to the Russian, BTW).

Poppyl

I have the H-9 in NY Central livery, and it has been one of the finest locomotives I`ve run. Everything about it is tops. I regularly pull 20 plus cars with no problem

Weaver making a Potomac? WEALLY!?

I have yet to see the 4-6-6-4 And am looking forward to it. I just hope they get that fishbelly 6 axle tender correct.

Thanks for the comments!

Traditionally, I have been a Delaware & Hudosn Fan. But very little has been produced for them. (I will make exception to diesels thanks to Lionel and Atlas!   )

MTH has been great to Western Maryland fans!

And, I have most recently been bitten by the Reading bug. (the G series 4-6-2's and the T-1 4-8-4'S) .

The H-9 fits better in my plans. But, if an M-2 becomes available - I might be there! And if the I-2 2-10-0 is ever produced - OH My!!! (The only locomotive I like more than the I-2 is the C&O T-1 2-10-4).

Additionally, if the WM Potomac becomes available - I will be scraping money together for that one! The 4-8-4 wheel arrangement looked Great on any railroad, regardless of the final details specific to the road. It's just a perfectly proportioned and capable locomotive!

Thanks again!

Henry J

I have a Reading H-9 pulling 46 ore cars. It is a great locomotive.

...keep the rails polished...

I have two H-9s and the WM Challenger.  Great engines.  Highly recommend them.

Hmmm. The MTH WM 4-6-6-4 is, I believe, actually a model of that loco, but the Lionel

"version" is, I think, merely an improperly lettered UP 4-6-6-4. So, MTH 1, Lionel 0.

The H-9 WM-prototype Consolidation I can comment upon with some authority, as

within the last month I got one at auction. It is lettered "IC". I would have preferred

"NYC", as it reminds me of NYC 2-8-0's, though larger. It runs beautifully with my

Remote Commander, and conventionally. (I had to get a Factory Reset done.)

The price was not bad. I plan to remove the WM-style "road grader" pilot and give it 

a more generic, even NYC-ish, look.

The WM 2-10-0 is a loco I would love to have, though I care little about the WM, I do

like that engine. A lot.

Henry;

You would be prototypically correct to run WM and Reading together.  Both roads had run through rights on the other although you were more likely to see Reading steam power operating west of Shippensburg (usually to Cumberland but at times to Connellsville) than to see any WM steam east of Lurgan.  Power sharing between the roads became a little more flexible after diesel power took over.

Poppyl 

Lionel did not do the M-2 Western Maryland Challenger but did make a semi-scale (29 inches long in the Lionmaster line) Jabelman (Union Pacific) Challenger in Western Maryland lettering and colors.  MTH made the M-2 in its scale Premier line in road nos. 1203 and 1208.

I can only imagine the thunder and lightning around the home if that Potomac was made. (And purchased...)

The Fireball was placed on a WM Shay, I think #6 when it was sent to live at the B&O Museum prior to being moved to Cass.

Despite assurances to the contrary, I remain just a little skeptical that the Weaver Potomac will be the D,L&W Pocono in WM livery.

Poppyl 

I also have two H-9's (NYC and Reading) as well as the WM Challenger  If I come across the H9 in WM road name I'm buying

Cant go wrong with these

Poppyl,

 I believe that if Weaver does this in brass, it will be the actual Potomac. All of the brass offering I have seen in the past, have been the actual model from that specific road. I.e. the Readings G1sa and G2sa, etc., etc.

 With regards to the 'power sharing' that the WM and Reading did, I am slowly learning more about that as I read more about both railroads.

 My more recent 'affliction' with Reading steam power comes from seeing the 'clean lines' of the G3 and T-1. The 'clean lines' of the D&H's steam motive power is one of the reasons I have always liked that road so much. 'Flowing' into the Reading seems natural. The fact that more has been offered for the Reading than the D&H also makes it a little easier.   (But I will manage to find that 3rd rail J class 4-6-6-4 of the D&H one day!  

 As for the Western Maryland, I can't enough. The I-2 2-10-0 is hands down my favorite steam engine. When I found out that MTH had made the H-9 I smiled and hoped the I-2 would be next. Then I see the M-2. WOW!!! My thought is "What next? MTH must be doing well with WM stuff!" And hey, I will give in at some point for an I-1 as well.

 Wouldn't it be cool if MTH also did a Premier WM 4-6-2?

I like dreaming and hoping!

Thanks for the reponses!

Henry J

Definitely my favorite small engine..... Here's the WM coming across a bridge and then the NYC pulling Atlas O MDT reefers.... I believe the WM 2-8-0 has been released a couple times already in PS2 - we have road numbers 821 and 830, the NYC and the Reading....

MTH introduced the H-9 consolidation in 2003 in 3 rail and ran it again in 2005 in both 2 rail and 3 rail versions.  A friend has one and it is a great locomotive.  A PS3 version would be nice to see in an upcoming catalog.

So far it has been offered in WM, Erie, NYC, P&LE, Reading, IC and Santa Fe lettering.

A MTH WM 4-6-2 would be a challenge, I think the WM only had 4 going into the 50's to protect what was left of the Passenger service near Baltimore. And by law those were Oil Burners.

The Potomac and Challenger would be a welcome addition, I suppose I best start saving now for them.

The WM only rostered nine K2 Pacifics.  In 1947 four of those were converted to oil burning as mentioned by Lee.  The other five operated west of Union Bridge until they were banked in 1954.  The oil burners were decommissioned in 1953 and 1954, and replaced by high hooded RS3's which handled what remained of the intercity and commuter passenger business until early 1958.   

Of some interest were the Elkins-Durbin locals pulled by H-7a's and H-8's until also replaced with RS3's.    The Elkins-Dubin locals continued in operation until mid-1959 at which time they ceased operation, thus ending all WM passenger service.

Poppyl

Lee,

 A WM K-2 shouldn't be a challenge at all. Number 202 still exists in Hagerstown, MD. As for the Challenger, keep an eye out at York and on ebay. Once I get some money set aside, I will continue to look for the H-9 and M-2 (and the I-1..........)

 Henry J