Where Does KMT/U.S. Hobbies Engines Fit In Today?

Absolutely horrible models.  Not worth taking them out of the box.  Send them to me.  I will pay postage.  That way you won't have to worry about them.

I know of a KTM Big Boy for sale for $1000. I didn't know if it was worth it and even if it is I don't have room for it to turn around. It may not be perfect compared to others in detail but I love it.

The KTM, USHobbies models are in my opinion still some of the best made brass we have seen for Layout use.   They are not as detailed as OMI and some of the new Sunset, but they are much sturdier.   Mechanically, (again my opinion) they are still the best around.   I base this on having a a number of USH, MG, Sunset and some oddballs.     The drivetrains on them consistently perform well.   I have converted my USH locos to o DCC using the existing motors and they run very well.    The assembly and disassembly is straight forward and consistent.    Also, Precision Scale has many repair parts.   Also all the USH locos have articulated side rods (the rods connecting the drivers) which allow them to track much better than those locos with solid side rods.

Given a decent paint job, I think they stand up well against anything you can but today.  

I find the OMI locos too fragile and the mechanisms too flimsy for day to day use on a layout.   They are gorgeous super detailed models, but in my opinion are best left for displays only.  

I think Brass fabrication does a better job than Diecast in capturing the details.   The thicknesses of any component where visible are much better.   Think window/windshield frames, running boards, tender side boards etc.

Jeez Jim - here you go letting all the secrets out, and I thought I would get some models for cheap.

By the way, a friend was looking for a Big Boy, and I mentioned Fred's deal.  I would jump on it, but I already have a Big Boy.

I won't let the high end brass steam in the door- I am risk-averse.  Parts just seem to fall off as I carry the thing to the test loop.  If you want quality close to USH, consider Sunset/3rd Rail.

I've been outbid on a few Max Gray Berks and a couple of KTM's on da Bay. I'll let you in on a little secret -- I was going to make hybrids out of them so I could run them on three-rail and two-rail (cue the outrage.) Maybe the other bidders were aware of my evil intent and bid just to keep them out of my evil clutches.

Don't tell anyone but the older US Hobbies, Westside/KTM, and Max Gray brass models made a few years ago are absolutely the best buy on the market today. If you're looking to purchase a 2-rail engine the older brass engines made in the 1970's and 1980's are truly a 'best' buy. With a little bit of work (re-detailing) and a new paint job (cosmetic) these models are certainly the equal of some of the newer imports. US Hobbies engines have always been considered 'tanks' meaning they're tough (well made) and will easily outlast most peoples ownership. Many of the older open-frame motors work just fine or can be replaced with newer can motors or electronics if desired.

As far as prices are concerned these brass models are commanding higher prices today than at any previous time. Older brass models are more reliable and considerably less fragile than many of the newer Overland, PSC, Key Imports, or Oriental products. I honestly think these models are a terrific buy especially for operators.

And yes, I personally own several US Hobbies and Westside/KTM engines, and yes, I'm very pleased with them!

Please tell us why you have jumped on this and made your claim?

william

William,

Bob was making a joke.

Jay

I think Bob likes them for 3 reasons:

1. The price is right compared with many newer brass models.

2. Great models for re-detailing plus adding new motors and electronics, etc.

3. Worth more after he's finished redoing them for client resale.

Very smart thinking!

KTM, Westside, Sunset/3rd rail  for operators.  Most everything else, shelf queens.

Including diecast, MTH steamers usually run 24/7 flawlessly.  All IMO.

Two of my nicest USH engines:

The cab forward rebuilding was described in a three parts article in O Scale Trains.

Yves

I have a USRA mountain and 0-80 switcher.  Added can motors years ago.  I have been wedding out some of my non B&O engines as I add new pieces but cannot bear to let these two go simply because they run so smooth.  The mountain runs smoother than either of my Sunset T3's, not that there is anything wrong with the T3s, it is just that the USRA KTM will start up at a slower speed and glides along as perfect as anything I have seen.  With the small drivers on the 0-8-0, that also has a great low end. They are rugged and not rpone to haveing pieces fall off. 

 I have a L&N Berk also.  Smooth runner also and will negociate 48" radius.  Heavy and will pull anything I can couple to it.  I do recall that the Berk has solid marker light castings and not hollow that will take a buld or LED like the ones on westside or Sunset.  I have decided to let the Berk go simply because I can only own so many of these things.  

All my US Hobbies, KTM have full width NMRA tires and not the narro ones found on some Westside models.

I wish we could combine the rolling characteristics of the KTM/USH and the details of the Sunset engines. That would create the ultimate O scale engine: resilient, unbreakable, affordable and super detailed.

It is too bad that Katsumi was not resurrected in Japan.

Yves

Actually, I like them for only one reason - they are about the best models in O Scale.  My collection includes only scratchbuilt, pre- war, and USH/MG.  I have one Westside, and it is simply a USH with too much detail.

I do not super detail my USH, although I have changed drivers, gears, and motors on two of my three MG models.  I have no clients - only one customer, who gets a model about once every three years.  He is hard to resist, because he is so nice to me.  I never buy for resale - ever.  This is my hobby.

I do have an MTH Hudson, which took extensive work to bring to scale standards, and a K-Line Berk, which really ought to leave via eBay sometime soon.

Is this thread about Bob Turner or about KTM and USH models? For a few seconds, I was confused.... Bob, are we having an ego crisis?

Yves

I have quite a few Sunset models and a KTM DD-40AX. Sunset is as close as you will get to an affordable, detailed, well built and smooth running "KTM" engine. You can have your cake and eat it too!

I've owned and operated almost all PRR steam offerings from Sunset 3rd Rail, KTM – USH, / Westside/ and several MG’s.  As an SPF I was thrilled to own and operate KTM PRR power in the 70’s, 80’s.  However I’ve since found most Sunsets out of the box to be equal or better runners due to the toothed belt drive and can motors. In head to head comparison of like models to prototype drawings and photos the Sunsets are hands down more accurate. With a few exceptions KTM PRR steamers have highly visible dimensional issues related to boiler/ smokebox diameters (they are 8% oversized on the KTM C1, E6s, G5s, K4s, L1s).   All KTM long distance tenders (Q2, M1a, J1) are two scale feet too short, while the Sunsets PRR long distance tenders are the correct length. Standing alone the KTM power looks ok, but when side by side next to a more correct model the errors jump out  - K4’s and L1’s didn’t have I1 sized boilers!.

My approach is to upgrade to era specific details the model that comes closest to the prototype I'm looking to operate - regardless of brand as long as the mechanism is a good runner.  With brass locomotives I can add/change details, but there isn't much one can do if the basic dimensions are way off.   As side note I’ve have a pair of highly detailed good running Overland M1b models – my old USH M1a didn’t come close..

Ed Rappe

Ed, it is interesting that you mentioned errors in older models. I have 2 Williams AC-12 cab-forwards and with added detail to the smokebox, under the running boards and from the sand domes, these models look like different engines, far more accurate. They run well and I am quite pleased with them. These are close to KTMs in accuracy, but not quite as nice as the Lionel AC-12.

Ed, you mentioned what I am concerned about, comparing the two models against each other. I have the 3rd Rail Santa Fe 2900, but unfortunately both the KTM models are in deep storage and I won't be able to access them for some time. When I do, I am planning to put the KTM 2900 next to the 3rd Rail 2900 and carefully compare. My real problem is that I missed the boat for getting a 2 rail Daylight AFT from 3rd Rail and was wondering if my KTM will fit the bill when the time comes to build it. Modeling the Daylight engines in 2 rail is really the only area of the hobby where I allow myself to go crazy on "rivet counting"

I want to thank everybody for their input, it sounds very promising that my KTM will fit in nicely. Has anybody here done a comparison between the KTM and 3rd Rail GS-4s?

Tim

Can't help you with the accuracy of SP models as I've appreciated other road's steam [power, but not made a study of them.  I believe the KTM PRR modelling issues can be blamed on limited data available to builders back when the models were made.   As an example the wrong length tender coalboards on the USH  and Williams L1s trace back to an industrial artists drawing in Kalmbachs Steam Locomotive Cyclopedia.  For the upcoming Sunset 3rd Rail L1s we had the benifit of PRR 90F75 tender drawings in the PRRT&HS's archieve.  Hopefully we will have a reasonably dimensioned O scale L1s  next spring.. 

Regarding the GS-4 - back in 1976 my son and were parked in a Ford Pinto along the Southern tracks near Culpepper VA.  The plan was to pace/video it along Rt 29. After seeing approaching smoke, I barely got the car moving as it passed us at 80 MPH.  All we saw from that point on was distant smoke!  The next day the AFT GS-4 was parked pilot to pilot with the AFT Reading T1 on the spur alongside the Pentagon's South Parking lot.  The T1 was nice, but the GS-4 stole the show...

Ed Rappe

that's funny

Robert,

I am pleasantly surprised you think the recent Lionel AC-12 is a reasonably good representation of the real thing. I currently own both a Lionel AC-12 and the PSC AC-6, and while the Lionel is obviously a diecast 3-rail engine and the PSC 2-rail brass, the Lionel AC-12 cab forward looks pretty good all things considered. In my case the Lionel is a shelf queen, as I don't operate 3-rail trains but couldn't resist owning one. And as Ed rightly pointed out dimensional errors happen all the time for various reasons, but my experience is the earlier Westside/KTM and US Hobbies engines run amazingly when you consider when they were built.

However the previously mentioned PSC AC-6 is both problematic and a pain-in-the-*** in that every time I pick it up something seems fall off or get broken! I've had to re-work this engine over and over again just to get it to run decently and the only reason I keep it is because it's very well detailed and unique.

Yves - I was sort of answering a post.  But yes, I am having an ego crisis.  Glad you noticed.

To nyccollector: I would get a Sunset AC-6 and get rid of the PSC one. The Sunset has a thicker guage brass-.032, while the PSC is .020. It may not be as well detailed, but it runs well.  I have a Sunset AC-5 and AC-7.  These run well.  Since I also collect 3-rail, I have a Lionel and 2 Williams.  You can get a Williams off of ebay for around $600, add detail to it and you will have a nice engine.

You need to make a determination on an engine by engine basis instead of relying on generalizations. Some of the KTM models seemed sparse to me and the treads on the drivers seemed very wide. I think your concerns are valid with regard to stock details. I own a model from Max Gray and a few from MTH that I've put back in their boxes because they really were not up to the level of others on the layout.

I have some later PSC and Overland models that I have run often over the past 8 years up and down 3% grades with heavy trains, and I've had no trouble with them  but I have one PSC engine from 1988 that runs like a coffee grinder. I also own models that I run from Sunset, Kohs, and MTH that I enjoy. No shelf Queens here. Also consider that some people have real problems handling brass. I'm not saying that is the case with anyone here.

So Chris, I'm ham fisted?

Yes - me too.

The Max Gray models bear some scrutiny.  The AC-12 Cab Forwrd had the wrong size drivers.  The UP Consolidation and SP 4-8-0 were made from very thin brass, but Sunset copied the brass thickness for its smaller models.  And I think, but am not sure, that the MG Allegheny was not as nice as the USH.

On the other hand, the MG PRR K4 looked to me to be far more accurate.

All had .172 wheel treads, which was the standard in mid- century.  They look fat compared to today's wheels, but I prefer them.

As far as I know, USH Drive wheels set the standard.  Some Max whels were as good, but others suffered.  I replaced my "GS-5" drivers with Overland. MG drivers had 1/4" axles.

For those who prefer the high end models, the above is simply opinion, and not meant to denigrate anybody else's choices.

Bob2, the MG Allegheny was a heavy brass model, but it had sand castings.  If you could replace the pumps with good lost wax castings, add break shoes and some small piping you would be ok. The tender length was incorrect with the wrong number of rivets.  The trailing truck had a booster.  It was still a good model for its day (1958) and with a little work it can be a great running model.

Ham fisted - NOT!