Model Railroading > Review of the new HO CSX MTH AC GEVO

So MTH has finally started shipping their new HO AC GEVO's. The first container had only a few roads and even limited quantities. The CSX ones only had 2 of the 3 numbers available and only in limited quantities. As far as I understand it, the balance is due next week but not sure of all paint schemes will be available. All info gleamed from MTH's facebook page.

So I have been waiting for these for quite some time. I was looking for an alternative to Intermountain's nice model. The IM model is quite nice but unfortunately has a gutless motor which does me no good on my layout which runs long and heavy trains. On a side note, Atlas and Bowser also use that gutless motor but on both their facebook pages this week, they both commented that all new engines that come in the future will use a newer improved motor. IM has yet to do so as far as I know.

So one concern I had for the CSX unit was they were using pictures for their ads and catalog for the CSX models that were completely wrong. The colors were way off and that was concerning. No production shots were shown until after they shipped. Fortunately, MTH's paint was excellent so I was able to breath a sign of relief.

So what do I think?  I am impressed. I think they did a good job on them. So I ordered one sound and one DCC ready unit. The sound unit has already been returned. The sound on the that unit was unlike any engine I have ever heard in my life LOL. If they had done a quality 
GEVO sound, I would of kept it but my thoughts were that I would just end up with the DCC ready ones and add either Soundtraxx or Loksound sound decoders. That is the direction I am taking. I did install a Soundtraxx 12 cylinder GEVO sound decoder in the DCC ready unit and it fit fine including 2 28MM round speakers in the fuel tank. The installation is quite easy and it sounds great. I have to give kudos to MTH for the very open and clean decoder area to install decoders. Smooth, open and large, not cluttered. Very well thought out and made things super enjoyable. The only thing I will warn you on is getting the shell off. Take your time. You have to remove several handrail points and carefully remove the shell while pushing on the tabs. Lots of room for error to cause damage.Don't do it if your in a hurry!

So here is what I liked:

• Engine is a monster when it comes to pulling!  I measured it's pulling using a Micromark pulling meter and got 4.4-5.1 OZ readings. Phenomenal! Now were talking. IM tests in the 2.2-2.8 OZ range.
• Lighting - Very warm white LED's and nice and bright. Even brighter then the IM units
• Handrails - Straight and strong. some of the stanchions were crooked but I straightened them out as they are attached to the metal rails so you can straighten them easily. A very nice system.
• DCC ready area - Large and uncluttered. 
• Drive - These units run like a Kato. Very smooth. Maybe the best running engines I have seen and strong to boot.
• Paint - Well done. Missing the FRA frame stripe over the gold. Lots of decals. Paint applied well and glassy smooth
• Tinted windows with folks in the cab. nice. The windows are very well detailed.
• Has LSL light on side which IM does not.
• Grabirons are very well done.

Overall, I am impressed with this unit.

What I did not like:

• I found the pilot detail was abit on the chunky side..

I'll let the pictures tell the rest of the story.

Thanks and Have a good Memorial day. Let us remember our fallen.

Bruce
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/15 13:04 by brfriedm.

---

---

---

3 more shots. I straightened the handrails after the shots. This is out of the box.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/15 12:05 by brfriedm.

---

---

---

3 more.

---

---

---

A couple of shots of the Soundtraxx Tsunami installed. Lots of room.

---

---

MTH on the left  3024
IM on the right  3029

You can see that the MTH lighting is quite nice. As usual, camera makes the lighting brighter then it is.

Colors between MTH unit and IM unit is practically identical.  Both paint jobs are excellent.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/15 12:14 by brfriedm.

---

---

---

Last shots between them.  Back unit is IM unit, foreground unit is the MTH.  The first 2 shots were taken on an angle and zoomed so it does make the details looked distorted abit FYI.

Last shot shows the tinted windows in the MTH unit and the lack of that on the IM unit. Front handrails on the MTH unit were pushed in abit out of the box. I have since fixed that with a dab of CA.

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/15 12:20 by brfriedm.

---

---

---

Finally the test.

I ran the units so they would be either pulling away from each other in oppposite directions(first part of video) or pushing against each other.  2nd half of video. I MU'ed them on my Digitrax throttle so they would react at the same time.

MTH unit is 3024 and Intermountain is 3029. They both have Tsunami's including the IM. I bought a DCC ready IM AC GEVO also and installed Soundtraxx.

The MTH unit pushed or pulls the Intermountain unit around like it's a dummy engine.  New motors please from Intermountain. It will give your beautiful GEVO unit some heart...

Thanks for looking. Bruce 

You must be a registered subscriber to watch videos. Join Today!

One more thing. If you were wondering what brand new CSX AC GEVO's look like, here is a set I shot about 5 hours ago. CSX went back to the other style of trucks.  

Bruce

---

Great review, Bruce - thanks for sharing. I keep toying with the idea of buying one GEVO (despite modeling the '90s) since I see them whenever I'm out railfanning, so it's nice to see the comparison of the two models.

It's also interesting to see that, as is often the case, two models of the same prototype have slight detail differences, in this case the grab irons on the top of the nose and the size of the fan grill forward of the radiators. I'm guessing that although the two models are representing the same batch of CSX units, the models themselves may be based on different GE production batches.

Dave

Thanks for the review, I'll stick with IM.

Interesting Bruce, thanks.  I've always viewed models in terms of whether they have "good bones" so to speak.  In otherwards, even if they're not necessarily up to the level of detail I'd like, can they be modified?  And these look like they have good bones ;-)  Some interesting detail differences, notably the apparent size of the exhaust, and the grill area around the aftercoolr fans.  I'm by no means up to speed on the newest GEs, so I'm wondering if one is more correct than the other?  It also appears that MTH did a better job with the fuel tank, the IMRC version looks a tad too slab-sided.

I'm sorry to see CSX has gone to using the "roller blade" trucks on their ACs, I always thought the steerable trucks looked great.  But then, I didn't have to pay for maintenence!

Elizabeth

The angles and proportions on the cabs seem quite different, which is more like the prototype?

The MTH stanchions leave a lot to be desired.

Thanks, Bobby

Thanks for the great review Bruce.  Any idea if these run well with (use same decoder and motor) as the MTH SD70Aces???

Thanks again.

After seeing your review Bruce, I'm convinced that I'll pick up 2 of the MTH KCS ES44s when they get here. I was kind of iffy on em due to the Aces they did, but after this I'll get a few

looks like IM`s boxcar logo on the nose is closer to the prototype

tom

electromac Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WOW.......3024 CSX ES 44AC MTH....looks bad with
> the front ditch lights and front
> railings.....twisted...
> Thank you for taking the time to do a excellent
> review. I'm just disappointed in the front
> railings and ditch lights.

Looks like the same set up they used on the SD70Aces.  The ditchlight enclosures/lenses are part of the front handrails.  I had two engines that I had to glue the ditchlights onto the front platform as it wouldn't stay down.

I like my flashing like christmas lights demo model.  Good job MTH.

Maybe it's just me but it appears MTH got the front windows and contour of the top of the nose better the IM.

Posted from Android

Without the benefit of having both in front of me this is what I have noticed.

First I would like to see the Dynamic Brake grids behind the cab on the conductors side of the unit, this is where 60% of the differences in ES44
models can be found, the other area is the lower rear grilles under the radiators.

Now on to my observations.

Intermountain Positives:
1: Grab irons on angled portion of the nose including the tapping block.
2: Cab door hinges and handle (The real ones are quite big and robust and the MTH may be closer to scale, but sometimes scale does not translate well.)
3: Ditch lights (Sorry I just can't get used to the huge MTH one's no matter how user freindly the are.)
4: Air horn to me looks much better
5: Walkways (not sure if the MTH has raised details but those plates at both ends I assume for ditch light wiring access are just awful)
6: Air to Air aftercooler grille and fans (ahead of top side radiator grilles)  The IM ones look much more to scale and better detail
7: Exhaust (Not a big difference but it appears the IM one is more to scale)
8: Cab sill area (Where the "F" is it's 2 pieces with a noticable break on the MTH whereas the IM is a solid piece)
9: Fuel tank filler, gauges and E-Shutoff (not the contour, more on that below)
10: Air tanks look better to me, but it can be tricky judging something painted gloss black
11: Frame rails, once again see above about paint

Intermountain Negative
1: The motor, the motor, the motor!
2: Did I say the motor!
3: The fuel tank seems more flat sided than the prototype (I think Elizabeth also mentioned this)
4: I think the IM cab fron windshield area dimensions (particularly center pillar) may be too large (This may just be photo angle playing tricks on my eyes.)
5: Cab window gaskets on front door and windshields

MTH Positives
1: Nose grab irons on the upper flat portion seem much more in proportion and on the correct angle to the prototype
2: Windshield pillar seems to be correct to scale
3: Windshield and door window gaskets
4: Fuel tank contours
5: The drive train (Oh god did I just say that?)
6: Metal handrail stanchions

MTH Negatives
1: The too large ditch lights
2: Walkways
3: The apperance of thick paint on the handrail stanchions

From the on-line info about these it seems both can do at leas for variants of the ES44 so that's a good thing.  Overall
nothing would keep me from picking up either version.  The both have their good points and negatives, if IM ever upgrades
the motor I think I would give them the winner of this battle but until then I think it's a tie.

I own both MTH and IM stuff so I have experience with them both and like I said they both have their advatages and dissadvatages.

Kris