# Athearns Amd-103 Phase V



## AMTRAK-P42 (Oct 25, 2003)

Well as some of you may know Athearn is producing a second series to their very popular but limited Amd-103's Phase V. They were due on October 1, 2003 and I have yet to hear any news about them in the local hobbyshops or on walthers. com. I was wondering if anyone had aquired any information as to when they might be expecting them.


----------



## WICT106 (Oct 25, 2003)

I was just at the GATS that was held in St. Paul today, and there were a few vendors that were selling Athearn AMD-103s. Perhaps the hobby shops in your area just haven't recieved the shipments yet.


----------



## AMTRAK-P42 (Oct 25, 2003)

Can you recall the numbers of the units you saw for sale?


----------



## Viewliner (Oct 25, 2003)

I looked on Walthers recently and they pushed the date back to November 5.  Guess #204 will be another couple of weeks late.


----------



## AMTRAK-P42 (Oct 25, 2003)

Viewliner said:


> I looked on Walthers recently and they pushed the date back to November 5.    Guess #204 will be another couple of weeks late.


Oh no!  , I guess my consist will have to run a little light for a few more weeks.


----------



## Amfleet (Oct 26, 2003)

Though slightly off topic, I thought I would mention that Bachmann just announced plans to do the HHP-8 locomotive and redesign the Amfleet I cars in HO scale. The Amfleets will be in Phase I-IV and Acela. Unfortunately, there will be no Phase IVb, but probably has to do with the fact that Bachmann does not have the rights to use Amtrak's three sheets logo. Only Walthers holds that right and thats why, with Athearn, they were able to produce the P-42 in Phase V.


----------



## Viewliner (Oct 26, 2003)

Yeah, I've heard about that, I was hoping somebody would do a model of it soon. I think I'd order #655 as it was featured in a recent issue of Trains magazine. Hopefully Bachmann will do a good job with it. As for the Amfleets, I hope they don't look as bad as Bachmann's Phase III Job.

It would be nice to see Walthers do IVb, maybe even a Metroliner Scheme too.


----------



## P40Power (Oct 30, 2003)

Yep Bachmann's Amfleets could use an overhaul, BADLY. They need to be redesigned from the wheels up I think. I have one of their cars, it isnt that bad but when its lined up with my BEAUTIFUL Walthers Amfleet Cars, there is just no comparison. Hey if Bachmann gets their cars looking real good, I think I will pick up a few, maybe some lava lamp cars to make things intresting! 

I hope Walther's does the Phase IVb, I mean they have the rights to use the logo, they might as well do it. Hmm maybe an all purpose IV car, comes with the decals for Phase IVb, or the Ne Direct scheme, or the metroliner scheme, its up to you!


----------



## Amfleet (Oct 30, 2003)

P40Power said:


> Yep Bachmann's Amfleets could use an overhaul, BADLY. They need to be redesigned from the wheels up I think. I have one of their cars, it isnt that bad but when its lined up with my BEAUTIFUL Walthers Amfleet Cars, there is just no comparison. Hey if Bachmann gets their cars looking real good, I think I will pick up a few, maybe some lava lamp cars to make things intresting!
> I hope Walther's does the Phase IVb, I mean they have the rights to use the logo, they might as well do it. Hmm maybe an all purpose IV car, comes with the decals for Phase IVb, or the Ne Direct scheme, or the metroliner scheme, its up to you!


They certainly better be worth the money considering the cars on $29 a piece. Notice how Bachmann also isn't doing the cars in Phase I. This menas they must now only have the rights to "Acela" not the "Arrow" or "Sheet" logo. Now what strikes me is why Bachmann isn't doing a Business Class Acela Amfleet.

I do agree that Walthers should have some flexibilty in the Phase IV scheme letting the modeler choose if it should say "Amtrak", "Northeast Direct", "Metroliner", or nothing. I also think there should be the option of putting Coach, Custom Class, Club, Dinette, etc.


----------



## P40Power (Oct 31, 2003)

My Phase II cars as well as my Phase III walthers Amfleet I cars, which are all around 10 years old now, came with that option. The Phase II cars came with a full sheet of decals (the car had nothing on it but the striping) that has "Amdinette" "Amcafe" "Amclub" "Amcoach" as well as the "Amtrak" decals, car numbers, and decals which stated how many passengers the cars could hold (the prototypes had these numbers on them, in case if you didnt know, only Phase I and II Amfleet cars)

The Phase III Coach already said Amtrak on it, but again it was up to you to put the coach decals and what number you wanted on it. It seems that they changed it

I like the old method better myself, If I got a food service car I would make it intresting have one side be a dinette and the other a club!


----------



## AMTRAK-P42 (Nov 6, 2003)

AMTRAK-P42 said:


> Viewliner said:
> 
> 
> > I looked on Walthers recently and they pushed the date back to November 5.    Guess #204 will be another couple of weeks late.
> ...


.....well now the release date has been pushed back to november 15th.


----------



## AMTRAK-P42 (Nov 17, 2003)

Well once again the date has been pushed back. Although now I presume walthers has given up hope of an accurate date, so their website simply reads "Unknown" :huh: .


----------



## Viewliner (Nov 17, 2003)

AMTRAK-P42 said:


> Well once again the date has been pushed back. Although now I presume walthers has given up hope of an accurate date, so their website simple reads "Unknown" :huh: .


All that preordering for nothing.... :angry:

I think I have a better chance of seeing the 204 again before I get the model.


----------



## Amfleet (Nov 17, 2003)

While the Phase V P-42 locomotive is not out yet, you may want to pre order it at Internet Trains for about 15% off the manfacturers price.


----------



## Viewliner (Nov 18, 2003)

Amfleet said:


> While the Phase V P-42 locomotive is not out yet, you may want to pre order it at Internet Trains for about 15% off the manfacturers price.


I did like in May.  :lol:


----------



## AMTRAK-P42 (Nov 18, 2003)

Viewliner said:


> Amfleet said:
> 
> 
> > While the Phase V P-42 locomotive is not out yet, you may want to pre order it at Internet Trains for about 15% off the manfacturers price.
> ...


Me as well, except I ordered direct from walthers. :lol:


----------



## Amfleet (Nov 25, 2003)

Well, now Walthers site is showing all three units as "sold out". This means that so many pre-orderd the units that there were none left for an actual release. So unless you pre-ordered, I guess your out of luck. Your next best bet is probably E-bay.


----------



## Viewliner (Nov 27, 2003)

Amfleet said:


> Well, now Walthers site is showing all three units as "sold out". This means that so many pre-orderd the units that there were none left for an actual release. So unless you pre-ordered, I guess your out of luck. Your next best bet is probably E-bay.


Jon, your looking at different ones. 134 and 203/204 are still unknown with advanced reservations. (9669 and 9670).


----------



## Viewliner (Nov 27, 2003)

Internettrains.com is showing a November/December 2003 Delivery.


----------



## AMTRAK-P42 (Nov 27, 2003)

Viewliner said:


> Internettrains.com is showing a November/December 2003 Delivery.


I hope their right this time, Im getting impatient!


----------



## Viewliner (Nov 28, 2003)

AMTRAK-P42 said:


> Viewliner said:
> 
> 
> > Internettrains.com is showing a November/December 2003 Delivery.
> ...


So is at least one other person on the forums.  :blink: :unsure:


----------



## Viewliner (Dec 11, 2003)

Walthers Has Finally Received them. 

I guess this means Internettrains will get them soon, and then me.   :lol:


----------



## AMTRAK-P42 (Dec 11, 2003)

Viewliner said:


> Walthers Has Finally Received them.
> I guess this means Internettrains will get them soon, and then me.   :lol:


I see it, thats great news Viewliner! Thanks for keeping me informed, I had stopped checking up everyweek.


----------



## xlr (Dec 11, 2003)

I ordered this item back in May, so I really hope that they will ship soon. I preordered on internettrains, and I just sent them an email asking if they're receiving them soon. It would be nice if I could get it by Christmas, although that looks pretty doubtful.


----------



## Viewliner (Dec 11, 2003)

xlr said:


> I ordered this item back in May, so I really hope that they will ship soon. I preordered on internettrains, and I just sent them an email asking if they're receiving them soon. It would be nice if I could get it by Christmas, although that looks pretty doubtful.


Walthers Ships 'em to internet trains, they in turn ship it to you. It'd take what? ten days at the most?


----------



## AMTRAK-P42 (Dec 11, 2003)

Viewliner said:


> xlr said:
> 
> 
> > I ordered this item back in May, so I really hope that they will ship soon.  I preordered on internettrains, and I just sent them an email asking if they're receiving them soon.  It would be nice if I could get it by Christmas, although that looks pretty doubtful.
> ...


Well we can only hope  . It would be a very nice stocking stuffer..to myself.


----------



## xlr (Dec 12, 2003)

Well I just heard back from internettrains, and they are getting them in next week! At long last.


----------



## Viewliner (Dec 12, 2003)

xlr said:


> Well I just heard back from internettrains, and they are getting them in next week! At long last.


Actually they've got 'em in stock, which means we'll be gettting them in the next week! 

I'm hoping the number is 204 as they say and not 203 as Walthers Says, as I've had 204 on one of my trips.

This brings my Locomotive Fleet to 2 AEM-7's, 4 P-42's (2 Phase III, 2 Phase V) and 1 AEM-7 (NJ Transit). I want to also get HHP-8 #655 when Bachmann releases it.

I have the motive power, just gotta finish the consists, and get my new table, and convert to DCC.


----------



## Amfleet (Dec 12, 2003)

While Walthers does state the locomotive number is 203, the evidence from the photo shows that it is in fact 204. So no worries there.


----------



## Viewliner (Dec 13, 2003)

Amfleet said:


> While Walthers does state the locomotive number is 203, the evidence from the photo shows that it is in fact 204. So no worries there.


What photo?


----------



## Viewliner (Dec 13, 2003)

Viewliner said:


> Amfleet said:
> 
> 
> > While Walthers does state the locomotive number is 203, the evidence from the photo shows that it is in fact 204. So no worries there.
> ...


Never Mind.


----------



## AMTRAK-P42 (Dec 18, 2003)

I received my #134 Today!!!

I will give the first official review of this highly anticipated product.

Overall, the product is beautiful. Everything is the same from the first series except for a few minor differences, a one MAJOR difference. When you first receive the box that holds the engine, the packaging is very unique. It is in a "sandwich" type of holder.

The second, and biggest of the differences between the 2 series, is the ride height of the new locomotives. I did not notice it at first, but when I placed this engine side-by-side to my #184 from the first series, the difference in ride height is incredible. I was rather disappointed to be honest, as they do not look realistic at all running with each other. Another subtle difference is that the wheels that Walthers uses are a slightly darker shade then the first series, and sit further down from the wheel covers.

I will post a picture as soon as I get a new set of batteries for my digital camera.

The engine does run amazingly well!


----------



## Viewliner (Dec 18, 2003)

Well, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that mine will come tonight, or hopefully by this weekend.

Thanks for the Report.


----------



## AMTRAK-P42 (Dec 18, 2003)

Here is the picture illustrating the height deferential:


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 18, 2003)

Just blame it on shoddy Amtrak worksmanship. :lol:


----------



## xlr (Dec 18, 2003)

Ugh, that looks horrible. I was hoping it would be as accurate to the prototype as possible. Is it that noticeable just running on its own with some passenger cars? I've ordered the low-stripes from internettrains (still waiting for it to ship... <_< )


----------



## AMTRAK-P42 (Dec 18, 2003)

xlr said:


> Ugh, that looks horrible. I was hoping it would be as accurate to the prototype as possible. Is it that noticeable just running on its own with some passenger cars? I've ordered the low-stripes from internettrains (still waiting for it to ship... <_< )


It looks great when running with just passenger cars.

However, I have been running the Engine a lot tonight and have found one more problem/difference.

It seems as if the engine is very light, especially when compared to the prototype. The wheels seem prone to slip a lot more easily then I anticipated. The prototype I have can pull my train with relative ease, while this engine struggles quite a bit with the same train :unsure: I hope I can find out someway to fix the problem, I had an idea to maybe add some additional weight, but I’m not sure how I plan to do this yet.


----------



## Amfleet (Dec 19, 2003)

Athearn models can run inconsistant. I have 3 P-42 units (all Phase IV), each one is either slightly higher or lower than the other in height and the pulling power varies. I'm surprised though that your locomotive feels light? The only thing I can suggest is taking the tops off both units and comparing the motors to see if there are any differences. If there are report it to Athearn right away, they may suggest making some slight ajustments to the motor or send you a whole under body.


----------



## AMTRAK-P42 (Dec 20, 2003)

Amfleet said:


> Athearn models can run inconsistant. I have 3 P-42 units (all Phase IV), each one is either slightly higher or lower than the other in height and the pulling power varies. I'm surprised though that your locomotive feels light? The only thing I can suggest is taking the tops off both units and comparing the motors to see if there are any differences. If there are report it to Athearn right away, they may suggest making some slight ajustments to the motor or send you a whole under body.


Well when I took the body off both units I found why. Quite Simply, the chassis, so to speak, is made of what seems like much lighter metal. It is even the color (the grayish color) of the engine itself.


----------



## Amfleet (Dec 20, 2003)

AMTRAK-P42 said:


> Amfleet said:
> 
> 
> > Athearn models can run inconsistant. I have 3 P-42 units (all Phase IV), each one is either slightly higher or lower than the other in height and the pulling power varies. I'm surprised though that your locomotive feels light? The only thing I can suggest is taking the tops off both units and comparing the motors to see if there are any differences. If there are report it to Athearn right away, they may suggest making some slight ajustments to the motor or send you a whole under body.
> ...


Interesting, they may just be trying to improove their product. I would e-mail Athearn, expalin your case and try to get the "improoved" chassie for your older model.


----------



## Viewliner (Dec 27, 2003)

I used some holiday money to order #134. I got #204 today, but just my luck, it doesn't work. Its something with the engine, the light lights, but it doesn't move. I know this because my other Shamu, #184 fell off the table a while back and I had to get the engine realigned (something to the tune of that). Looks like I'll have to send #204 back and exchange it.  <_<


----------



## AMTRAK-P42 (Dec 28, 2003)

I had the same exact problem with my #182 and #184. I was able to fix #184 simply by carefully removing the shell and pushing the engine back into the moldings, it had dislodged itself during shipment.


----------



## xlr (Dec 28, 2003)

I just got my #204 today, as well. I didn't expect it to arrive until next week, so I was presently suprised. No higher-level issues, but I haven't had a chance to power it up yet. Sure looks nice.


----------



## Viewliner (Dec 28, 2003)

AMTRAK-P42 said:


> I had the same exact problem with my #182 and #184. I was able to fix #184 simply by carefully removing the shell and pushing the engine back into the moldings, it had dislodged itself during shipment.


I'll try that after I call up internettrains, If they run out, then a repair will be the only option. Thanks for the advice, Amtrak-P42


----------



## AMTRAK-P42 (Dec 28, 2003)

Viewliner said:


> AMTRAK-P42 said:
> 
> 
> > I had the same exact problem with my #182 and #184. I was able to fix #184 simply by carefully removing the shell and pushing the engine back into the moldings, it had dislodged itself during shipment.
> ...


Anytime  . I just hope you can get it up and running...Im still having problems with mine.


----------



## AMTRAK-P42 (Jan 10, 2004)

Viewliner said:


> AMTRAK-P42 said:
> 
> 
> > I had the same exact problem with my #182 and #184. I was able to fix #184 simply by carefully removing the shell and pushing the engine back into the moldings, it had dislodged itself during shipment.
> ...


Did you have any luck Viewliner?


----------



## Viewliner (Jan 10, 2004)

AMTRAK-P42 said:


> Viewliner said:
> 
> 
> > AMTRAK-P42 said:
> ...


Yep, got 204 at my house yesterday. It ran flawlessly. I got #134 a while ago, I had trouble with how it ran. It was struggling to move even at maximum power. So, I Picked it up and heard some thing loose in there, it turned out to be one of the driveshafts, meaning only 2 of the 4 axles had been moving the whole unit. I got the piece in place, and it ran pretty well. As it approached a curve, it fell off the table (the shell was not on it as I just put the driveshaft back in). Fortunately it still runs without problems. The cause of the derailment was shifting track that isn't nailed down. Its not nailed down because I'm getting a new table (although, that project is on hold for a certain reason).


----------



## AMTRAK-P42 (Jan 10, 2004)

Viewliner said:


> So, I Picked it up and heard some thing loose in there, it turned out to be one of the driveshafts, meaning only 2 of the 4 axles had been moving the whole unit.


That sounds like the exact problem I had as well. Glad you got it working!


----------



## AMTRAK-P42 (Mar 3, 2004)

Well, just received a bit of good news, at least for me. Athearn is going to produce a #207 (my fav. engine) in the series. It will only come in a full set with track, transformer, and 3 superliners, but with luck im hoping someone will break up the set and sell the unit.


----------



## LIRR272 (Jun 17, 2004)

For those of you who have the model, can you measure the length of the word Amtrak on the side of the loco and on the nose? I'm looking to custom paint and decal this model. Any help will be greatly be appreciate it.


----------



## mlrr (Aug 8, 2004)

I just got a new one in Friday, but I'm at school (College) and don't have many measuring resources however I measured the side logo and the word "AMTRAK" is just about 1" across.

I hope this helps a bit!


----------



## AMTRAK-P42 (Aug 8, 2004)

Funny, I just got my 204 and 207 (sweet!) in today, they work great together.


----------



## Viewliner (Aug 10, 2004)

I've had my 204 for a while and its been working very well. I'd love to get a 207 but right now its not really in my budget.


----------



## mlrr (Aug 11, 2004)

I have 6 of the 7 AMD-103s that were produced by Athearn/Walthers. They all run great. The older runs (146, 182, 184) run allot smoother with a digitrax DH123AT decoder too. Enginees 134, 204, and 207 don't need the decoder to run smoothly.

These are definately nice models!


----------

