Whooo HOOO! 3rd Rail taking Reservations for the ACE 3000!

Coal fired steam.  No mention of a smoke system on their website.  Will it have one?

Looks very good

Looks like the tender has a condenser unit like som of the SAR locomotives.  Also, air quality controls?  Little to no smoke?

So are you saying that it was designed to produce little to no smoke for air quality reasons

daylight posted:

So are you saying that it was designed to produce little to no smoke for air quality reasons

Yes.

I'd love to have one, but at $2000 bucks, it's way outside my budget.

I WANT ONE!  But I need a truck...darn.

Balshis posted:

I'd love to have one, but at $2000 bucks, it's way outside my budget.

$2000? Yikes!

Too ugly and too expensive for my tastes plus it's not a model of a engine that was   actually built. 

It was just a drawing. 

david1 posted:

 plus it's not a model of a engine that was   actually built. 

It was just a drawing. 

Since when has THAT stopped the 3-Rail train manufacturers?

Dominic Mazoch posted:

Looks like the tender has a condenser unit like som of the SAR locomotives.  Also, air quality controls?  Little to no smoke?

Yes, it was designed as a condensing steamer to conserve water and require fewer stops for water. The condenser would also (I think) act as a heat-exchanger/feedwater heater for better thermal efficiency. Condensing was never popular on railroad steamers because of the added complexity and reduced drafting. South African railways might have been the only place to have some success with condensing - it was an issue for conserving water on long desert runs.

I'm wondering what kind of sound effects would be suitable for the ACE3000, because the condensing setup would change the usual exhaust steam sounds. Development stalled about 30 years ago and there was never a working prototype.

http://locomotive.wikia.com/wi...ype_Steam_Locomotive

The Power Unit (ACE for locomotive) was also equipped with a condensing system which would first reduce it to high temperature water and then cool this in the tender ... Since the steam is now in a looped-condensing system, a turbine-driven fan was added to draft the fire, which, incidentally, would have eliminated the "chuffing" sound steam locomotives were know for.

Also mentions that the two sets of drivers were linked, which would eliminate slipping problems like the PRR duplex locos had. And it was compound operation.

... and a central crankshaft to synchronize the operation of the high and low pressure cylinders.

Image from:  http://jgallaway81.deviantart....46529707/DrawnTrains

If I had the 2K for it, I'd order one. I have a soft spot for this one even though it was never produced. Would love to get it in Demonstrator paint, though.

Hot Water posted:

david1 posted:

 plus it's not a model of a engine that was   actually built. 

It was just a drawing. 

Since when has THAT stopped the 3-Rail train manufacturers?

You do have a point,  Jack! 

BobbyD posted:

Balshis posted:

I'd love to have one, but at $2000 bucks, it's way outside my budget.

$2000? Yikes!

Which brings up a question (not that I'm interested in this, but the C&O 1309, which is $2200), is how long does one typically  have--assuming a reservation is made within a couple of weeks or so of announcement--to save for something like this?

(acknowledging these timeframes can be highly variable, but assuming no surprises on the production end)

---PCJ

RailRide posted:

BobbyD posted:

Balshis posted:

I'd love to have one, but at $2000 bucks, it's way outside my budget.

$2000? Yikes!

Which brings up a question (not that I'm interested in this, but the C&O 1309, which is $2200), is how long does one typically  have--assuming a reservation is made within a couple of weeks or so of announcement--to save for something like this?

(acknowledging these timeframes can be highly variable, but assuming no surprises on the production end)

---PCJ

Normal minimum production run of a brass steam locomotive from Sunset would be approximately 120 units.

If, after 4-6 months of initial announcement there are less than 30 - 40 reservations that indicates it's probably not worthwhile to proceed. Once a project reaches 75 or so reservations that is an indicator that it is probably going to sell out in a reasonable time frame. Definition of reasonable -? Perhaps a year or so.

Projects that receive 60 or so  reservations within several months are generally kept on the reservation list for some time but no financial investment to proceed with the project is made at that point.

A Japanese craftsman in Utah hand crafted 10 HO brass models of the ACE 3000. One sold not too long ago for $7500. Yes, the decimal point is in the correct location.

For those that think $2000 is too high for an O scale brass locomotive, you should visit the Sunset/3rd rail website and view the processes used in building a brass locomotive. It is quite different from that used on normal die cast products of the more well known O scale locomotive importers like MTH and Lionel.

"Too ugly and too expensive for my tastes plus it's not a model of a engine that was   actually built."

"Ugly" - obviously a matter of opinion; I do happen to agree with you, but there is Good ugly and Bad ugly, and this is actually Alien Planet ugly - but I like it, a lot. A Williams brass Mike chassis and one Williams too-short "scale" FP45 complete dummy, plus another FP45 body shell (and a saw) and what we would have then is a it's-almost-right project, bubba. Under $500.

"Too expensive" - well, it's actually cheaper than some things in the Lionel catalogue. Everything is "too expensive".

Not "actually built" - commented on above, but I see that as being irrelevant. Neither was Han's Millenium Falcon, but I'll bet there are a few owners of that model around here. (I am not one, though.) 

Keep in mid the 3rd rail GM train of tomorrow listed a lot less msrp than the ho counterpart AND for the Ho set YOU had to decorate and paint an E7! I reserved a demo unit although the prr would be interesting to!

prrhorseshoecurve posted:

I reserved a demo unit although the prr would be interesting to!

Except the PRR didn't exist when the design for the ACE 3000 was developed.

The body styling is very similar to various models built by GM-EMD and the General Motors Diesel Division in Canada.

The paint schemes for Canadian National and Canadian Pacific have not been offered for production. Who would want CN or CP Rail?

If you want the Milwaukee Road then you will have to cast a write-in vote.

Andrew

falconservice posted:

The body styling is very similar to various models built by GM-EMD and the General Motors Diesel Division in Canada.

The paint schemes for Canadian National and Canadian Pacific have not been offered for production. Who would want CN or CP Rail?

If you want the Milwaukee Road then you will have to cast a write-in vote.

Andrew

Just my opinion but, I believe the thinking on appropriate road names would be based on those railroads with huge coal deposits on line. Thus, neither the CN, nor the CP, nor the Milwaukee Road, which was gone by the time the ACE 3000 was proposed, come to mind.

Interesting beast for sure. But I'm in the it's U G L Y and it ain't got no alibi camp!!! . For those that want it I hope you get it made. It sure would be interesting to see operating. 

WHAT...no Polar Express version??

KIDDING

This is HUGE news.  I'm in.  Interesting list of roadnames.  Demo paint for me.  Wanted this one for a long time.

Some say expensive and ugly.  Well, some feel the same about a Big Boy and a GG1.  Every locomotive offered is not going to appeal to all.

That is wild, if I had the bucks I buy it. Ugly as sin, however I love ugly engines. I wonder what they were smoking when they designed it? 

My only $0.02 is if you really want this, I would suggest everyone go for the demo paint scheme. Kudos to Scott for offering it open for reservations. I never thought I'd see the day the N&W 2300 was offered. Glad I was wrong.

Gilly@N&W posted:

My only $0.02 is if you really want this, I would suggest everyone go for the demo paint scheme. Kudos to Scott for offering it open for reservations. I never thought I'd see the day the N&W 2300 was offered. Glad I was wrong.

Several posters on this topic have knowledge of how this offering from Sunset came about. Not sure where the potential road names came from, though. I agree with Gilly and Hot Water that the best offerings would be demonstrator, and possibly CSX, NS, and BNSF. After all, they were the roads that American Coal Enterprises was targeting as potential buyers.

Indeed, the Jawn Henry was quite unique and most of us probably never expected to see that or the C&O      M-1(?) that MTH offered.

prrhorseshoecurve posted:

Keep in mid the 3rd rail GM train of tomorrow listed a lot less msrp than the ho counterpart AND for the Ho set YOU had to decorate and paint an E7! I reserved a demo unit although the prr would be interesting to!

I was going to start a new topic but since you mention the Train of Tomorrow, why does the Red Island Rocket (RIR) lists for $2249.00 (diesel, not sure if it's brass or plastic ) with 4 cars when the ToT sold for $1550.00.  Very similar IMHO.  I understand that costs go up but this is a hefty increase.

I hope the RIR gets made.

Many more could be sold at $1550.00

Reserved this in Erie Lackawanna    Hope it gets made

Originally posted by Daylight:

I was going to start a new topic but since you mention the Train of Tomorrow, why does the Red Island Rocket (RIR) lists
for $2249.00 (diesel, not sure if it's brass or plastic ) with 4 cars when the ToT sold for $1550.00. 
Very similar IMHO.  I understand that costs go up but this is a hefty increase.

Well I can't answer for Scott but I can see that the TOT was made several years ago and you also didn't have the current shipping fiasco going on with Hanjin shipping. Also if you remember, the initial TOT price was speculated to be around $2K but then the orders came in!

Hot Water posted:

david1 posted:

 plus it's not a model of a engine that was   actually built. 

It was just a drawing. 

Since when has THAT stopped the 3-Rail train manufacturers?

Hot Water posted:

prrhorseshoecurve posted:

I reserved a demo unit although the prr would be interesting to!

Except the PRR didn't exist when the design for the ACE 3000 was developed.

Since when has THAT stopped the 3-Rail train manufacturers?  

For those that think $2000 is too high for an O scale brass locomotive, you should visit the Sunset/3rd rail website and view the processes used in building a brass locomotive. It is quite different from that used on normal die cast products of the more well known O scale locomotive importers like MTH and Lionel.

 

What does that got to do with a model deemed too expensive by hobbyists? It doesn't matter how it's made. If a manufacturer chooses a more expensive production process, that doesn't mean it's worth the price to those who are saying the price is too high.

This model isn't for everyone, and price is a factor.

But I agree that brass construction is always more likely to cost more than diecast construction. Brass models were once entirely handcrafted and are still a labor-intensive undertaking. Unfortunately, the high price has put such models well out of reach to the vast majority of O gauge hobbyists -- even those accustomed to four-figure price tags.

For those who are willing to pay the price, I hope this model gets made. It would be unique.

rheil posted:

Normal minimum production run of a brass steam locomotive from Sunset would be approximately 120 units.

A Japanese craftsman in Utah hand crafted 10 HO brass models of the ACE 3000. One sold not too long ago for $7500. Yes, the decimal point is in the correct location.

For those that think $2000 is too high for an O scale brass locomotive, you should visit the Sunset/3rd rail website and view the processes used in building a brass locomotive. It is quite different from that used on normal die cast products of the more well known O scale locomotive importers like MTH and Lionel.

Bob,

We don't doubt they are intricate and involved to construct. And while for me it's still a "No" even at a lower price point, I do hope you get enough orders to build them for those that want them to run them. After the big hoopla about the Train of Tomorrow, it seems they are all packed up in closets!

Although I have no interest in this particular model, I will be paying attention to its success. I am hoping that if it goes well, some other locomotive designs that were made but never got built would be considered, such as the PRR V1.

daylight posted:

prrhorseshoecurve posted:

Keep in mid the 3rd rail GM train of tomorrow listed a lot less msrp than the ho counterpart AND for the Ho set YOU had to decorate and paint an E7! I reserved a demo unit although the prr would be interesting to!

I was going to start a new topic but since you mention the Train of Tomorrow, why does the Red Island Rocket (RIR) lists for $2249.00 (diesel, not sure if it's brass or plastic ) with 4 cars when the ToT sold for $1550.00.  Very similar IMHO.  I understand that costs go up but this is a hefty increase.

I hope the RIR gets made.

Many more could be sold at $1550.00

Since the Rock Island TA is a one railroad locomotive (like the Pennsylvania and C&O turbines) there seems to be no way to spread the locomotive costs around like the Train Of Tomorrow did? The E7 tooling was used to produce locomotives decorated in other road names.

I have a huge interest in this model but the price range is just completely unrealistic for me.  Even if there was a "Rail-King" level version of this I would be stuck for a long time to get the funds together.  I read Wardale's book and even Chapelon's books on steam locomotive improvements, and it was a sad sad day when the world lost Porta, but I just can't justify this purchase with my family's budget.

It's a fascinating what-if machine and very inspiring from a mechanical engineering view point, but I just can't do it.  I'd have to sell my wife's car (hmmm)

It's not my cup of tea and way out of my price range but I hope it gets made for those who are looking forward to it.

-Greg

Pretty funny that Sunset is actually talking about making this imaginary loco.  The ACE folks didn't learn a lot from history, every time a cylinder head was turned around, the design didn't work (impinged on boiler, soot caused seals to go quickly). With steam generation 'elsewhere', probably would have fixed the boiler issue, maybe less soot out of this critter too, and better seals today, but I remain skeptical. (Reference PRR Q-1, B&O George Emerson for duplex examples that didn't work out).

Jim Waterman

Jim Waterman posted:

Pretty funny that Sunset is actually talking about making this imaginary loco.  The ACE folks didn't learn a lot from history, every time a cylinder head was turned around,

What does this mean? I never heard of a steam locomotive where any of the cylinder heads could be "turned around".

the design didn't work (impinged on boiler, soot caused seals to go quickly).

What "seals" are you referring to?

With steam generation 'elsewhere', probably would have fixed the boiler issue,

What "boiler issue"? The ACE 3000 was NEVER built, therefor there could not have been a "boiler issue"!

maybe less soot out of this critter too, and better seals today,

Again, what "soot" and seals" are you talking about?

but I remain skeptical. (Reference PRR Q-1, B&O George Emerson for duplex examples that didn't work out).

Actually the PRR Q-2 model duplex locomotives were pretty successful, but came too late into the diesel era. The B&O George Emerson was a water-tube boiler, I thought, so not relevant.

Jim Waterman

Hot Water posted:

Jim Waterman posted:

Pretty funny that Sunset is actually talking about making this imaginary loco.  The ACE folks didn't learn a lot from history, every time a cylinder head was turned around,

What does this mean? I never heard of a steam locomotive where any of the cylinder heads could be "turned around".

the design didn't work (impinged on boiler, soot caused seals to go quickly).

What "seals" are you referring to?

With steam generation 'elsewhere', probably would have fixed the boiler issue,

What "boiler issue"? The ACE 3000 was NEVER built, therefor there could not have been a "boiler issue"!

maybe less soot out of this critter too, and better seals today,

Again, what "soot" and seals" are you talking about?

but I remain skeptical. (Reference PRR Q-1, B&O George Emerson for duplex examples that didn't work out).

Actually the PRR Q-2 model duplex locomotives were pretty successful, but came too late into the diesel era. The B&O George Emerson was a water-tube boiler, I thought, so not relevant.

Jim Waterman

 

1.) the ACE has two sets of cylinders. One is facing forward, one backwards. Take a look at the prototype model of the ACE. The rear set of cylinders had some issues on the two locos I referenced (PRR Q1, not Q2, which moved the second set of cylinders up between the 2nd and 3rd sets of drivers. The Q1 had the back cylinders behind the drivers. It was not a successful loco and not duplicated. the Q2 turned around the second set of cylinders and moved them up so that they could design a larger firebox.  Yes, successful, but late.

2.) Because the firebox on traditional steam locos was behind the boiler, having a set of cylinders back there impinged on the space for the firebox, limiting the ability to make steam. B&O had a unique 'water tube' boiler design that was innovative but not reliable. My comment had to do with the legacy PRR and B&O engines.

3.) Regarding wear of cylinder packing (the seal between the piston rod and cylinder), because the back cylinders had the piston rod  facing forward, it caught all the dirt coming off the drivers and soot from smoke, so they would leak prematurely.

Mr. Waterman,

You point out some good points, and I now sort of understand what you were talking about, i.e. the "rear facing" sets of cylinders. However, none of the dirt problems you pointed out would have been an issue on the ACE 3000, as the ash-pan/firebox would have been "enclosed" and thus not causing problems for the read cylinders, nor the piston rod packing.

rheil posted:

(my original quote snipped)

Normal minimum production run of a brass steam locomotive from Sunset would be approximately 120 units.

If, after 4-6 months of initial announcement there are less than 30 - 40 reservations that indicates it's probably not worthwhile to proceed. Once a project reaches 75 or so reservations that is an indicator that it is probably going to sell out in a reasonable time frame. Definition of reasonable -? Perhaps a year or so.

Projects that receive 60 or so  reservations within several months are generally kept on the reservation list for some time but no financial investment to proceed with the project is made at that point.

Perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be: for projects that do come to fruition, what was the range of timeframes from announcement to delivery? Some background for me:

I currently have two brass items from 3rd Rail:

--the Electroliner, (which I bought after release, actually picking it up at your York booth),

--the Greenliner (which was a more typical reserve/pay upon production completion/ship-to-home). That one was in-line with the most expensive single item I had bought up till then (the MTH NKP #779 that was a fundraiser for the 765's overhaul)

I didn't see a separate thread for the C&O 1309, but ran across it as one of several recently announced items in a post here on the Forum. Like a number of folks above with the ACE3000, my first thought at seeing the price of the 1309 was Yikes!

On the other hand, I have a six-car Lionel Acela which I paid a total of $2200 for ($1800 main set, then a $400 add-on the following catalog). But everyone knew at the time it was announced that it was going to be two years from announcement to delivery, and I was able to save for it.

I imagine that reservations for the C&O 1309 are going to be slow since we haven't heard any news of high-profile milestones reached in the restoration of the prototype. I also imagine that interest likely will pick up once the real thing is in the home stretch to completion. I'm attracted to the idea of an East Coast articulated, moreso when it (eventually) returns to operation. The price sure looks steep, (but I could save for it over an 18-24 month timeframe.)

---PCJ