TheRailwire
General Discussion => N and Z Scales => Topic started by: nkalanaga on May 05, 2012, 12:08:19 AM
-
With the increasing interest in lowering the MT PS-1 boxcars, I would like to suggest a solution to MT. This would involve minimal effort and cost, and can be done at any time in the future.
Sooner or later the dies for the 40 and 50 ft PS-1 underframes will need to be repaired or replaced. At that time, I would like to suggest lowering the bolsters so that a 1025 coupler, mounted with the existing screw hole, would be at the proper height. This will eliminate much of the excess height without modifying the trucks or body. On the 50 ft cars it may be necessary to remove some material for flange clearance under the inner axles.
To retain the truck mounted couplers, if that is desired from a marketing standpoint, the washer included with replacement trucks could be used. As this is on the same casting with the truck pin, no new tooling would be required. Modelers satisfied with the current height, or with sharp curves, and collectors, wouldn't see any difference. Those who wish to lower the car could remove the washer, body mount the couplers, and be finished.
To make the conversion easier, a bulk pack of 1025 boxes, lids, and screws would allow the reuse of the existing coupler parts, leaving only the truck mounted box as waste.
A second request from me would be to move the screw hole a little closer to the bolster so that a 1025 coupler doesn't stick out quite so far. However, that is an entirely separate matter, and has no bearing on lowering the car.
Thank you,
N Kalanaga
-
First off, the #1015 coupler is a better choice than the #1023/1025 coupler because the spring is in front of the pivot post, which limits the oscillation to pushing rather than pulling activities.
Second, MTL has had numerous opportunities to lower the ride height on older tooling and decided up to this point that the money is better spent on the newer tooling. Also, with the Atlas/Athearn 40/50-foot PS-1 cars providing better ride height and incorporating newer design practices, there is little upside in pursuing that avenue at this time. The better option is to introduce newly tooled models designed to the current standards, which is the course the company is pursuing.
The only purpose of retaining truck-mounted couplers at this point is for equipment to run on 9¾ inch radius. That is becoming less of a concern if at all, particularly on the higher-end models, since the customer base that is buying those types of models is for the most part not using the toy-like 9¾ inch radius on their layouts. Few if any motive power models over the past two decades have truck-mounted couplers, and most new rolling stock models are equipped with body-mounted couplers as well.
-
Maybe MT could sell a aftermarket frame that lowers the ride height and for body mounting the #1015.
MT should address this problem and go head to head with their competitors instead of shying away since body mounted couplers will become the norm.
I don't see why 9 3/4 curves should be a concern for 40 and 50 foot cars with body mounted couplers since there is side to side play in the coupler.. :?
-
Actually, this might be a good area to investigate with some of the RP tools, like shapeways...
Perfect finish is not likely an issue - just dimensional accuracy - and weight could be added to the floor (or as loads in gons).
- Lou
-
I would like to see MT spend i's tooling dollars on a closer to scale coupler, or adapting the Z coupler to a box that fits the standard body mount pad on modern tooling. Something that I could swap out fairly easy.
-
Actually, this might be a good area to investigate with some of the RP tools, like shapeways...
Perfect finish is not likely an issue - just dimensional accuracy - and weight could be added to the floor (or as loads in gons).
- Lou
That's a good idea and could save a lot of work.
I would be highly interested in buying these underframes.
I agree the bottom detail could be minimal since its not seen..
-
I'm with Bryan and Wardie on this one. Let's keep those R&D dollars focused on a solution to the oversized coupler issue, and to brand new, proto-correct body styles; rather than an outdated molding that's bound to be replaced in the market by newer, better products from other manufacturers.
-
... or adapting the Z coupler to a box that fits the standard body mount pad on modern tooling. Something that I could swap out fairly easy.
Be sure to check out Gary's awesome etched brass coupler pocket, designed to hold the Full Throttle Z-scale coupler:
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=21980.msg250919#msg250919
This is still developmental, but very promising IMHO.
Ed
-
FYI, it is extremely easy to lower the bolsters yourselves, using a simple jig.
I make mine by stacking several pieces of scrap sheet plastic, bound by Scotch tape, to achieve the correct height; call these "shims". I then tape one of these shims to each end of a clean, sharp metal file. The metal casting at the bottom of the MT cars is removed, and placed on a hard flat surface. The file, with the 2 shims holding it at the correct distance above the flat surface, is then used to file down the bolsters. Be careful not to press too hard on the center of the metal file when doing this, or it will bend, and remove more material than desired.
MH
-
FYI, it is extremely easy to lower the bolsters yourselves, using a simple jig.
I make mine by stacking several pieces of scrap sheet plastic, bound by Scotch tape, to achieve the correct height; call these "shims". I then tape one of these shims to each end of a clean, sharp metal file. The metal casting at the bottom of the MT cars is removed, and placed on a hard flat surface. The file, with the 2 shims holding it at the correct distance above the flat surface, is then used to file down the bolsters. Be careful not to press too hard on the center of the metal file when doing this, or it will bend, and remove more material than desired.
MH
Mark,That sounds like a good solution..
However..
Take me as a example I have one good hand and limited use of my one dominate right hand that limits any "real" modeling I can do so for guys like me a aftermarket MT frame or a PUD frame would be the better solution.
I would rather see MT release a after market frame for their older cars.
-
FYI, it is extremely easy to lower the bolsters yourselves, using a simple jig.
I make mine by stacking several pieces of scrap sheet plastic, bound by Scotch tape, to achieve the correct height; call these "shims". I then tape one of these shims to each end of a clean, sharp metal file. The metal casting at the bottom of the MT cars is removed, and placed on a hard flat surface. The file, with the 2 shims holding it at the correct distance above the flat surface, is then used to file down the bolsters. Be careful not to press too hard on the center of the metal file when doing this, or it will bend, and remove more material than desired.
MH
I've got to try that - great idea....
- Lou
-
The extra ride height on MT cars is intentional, so you can hang christmas lights under the car.
The slinky effect is intentional as well. If you put "cat toy" bells on your cars you will get a nice" jingle jingle jingle" as the cars go around the tree.....
:D :D :D
Sorry folks, I couldnt help myself, now back to the topic
With Atlas coming out with a much nicer PS-1, why worry about the MT car? Unless you already have a bunch........
-
With Atlas coming out with a much nicer PS-1, why worry about the MT car? Unless you already have a bunch........
--------------------------
Maybe some of us old goats likes MT cars and besides that MT offers a lot of road names that Atlas may never do or it may be years between runs of the Atlas PS1..
-
I see your point, but if your going to lower a car, and then body mount, why not just paint /decal a more detailed and correct car? I bet the cost would be similar, and I understand not everyone can paint/decal, but a 40' car is a great place to learn these things........just sayin....
An updated frame still will not put this car in the same league as the Atlas car, and the MT car wont get cheaper......
However I am biased, as I don't buy most MT cars anyway.........two words....ride height....
-
I can paint and decal cars and that sounds like fun and it is fun seeing I done for years in HO.
I been thinking hard about changing eras to 1958 so I can have steam.
-
Maybe MT could sell a aftermarket frame that lowers the ride height and for body mounting the #1015...
The ideal product is a new floor/underframe with lowered bolsters and integrated coupler pocket. I agree that this is an option that would be favorable for MTL to pursue, but they feel the resources are better spent on new product moving forward. And I don't know if it's viable for another manufacturer to consider it. Most of the MTL consumer base is content with the cars as-is, or have them as collectibles rather than operational models, so I can understand how it wouldn't be fruitful for them to pursue.
-
The ideal product is a new floor/underframe with lowered bolsters and integrated coupler pocket. I agree that this is an option that would be favorable for MTL to pursue, but they feel the resources are better spent on new product moving forward. And I don't know if it's viable for another manufacturer to consider it. Most of the MTL consumer base is content with the cars as-is, or have them as collectibles rather than operational models, so I can understand how it wouldn't be fruitful for them to pursue.
Bryan,I can understand and appreciate their views but,I know another well known company that sit back on their derrières till they(their words) lost 80% of their sales and finally went to RTR and they been trying to catch up every since and still has on going QC problems.
I can understand collectors being collectors but,what would that have to do with releases with improved ride height and mounted couplers?
What would that have to do with a aftermarket frame? A collector needn't buy those frames.
-
Because a huge portion if not the majority of their sales goes to the collector base. The reason they are able to offer the prototypical models is because of all the collector fantasy stuff they do.
To be fair, the new MTL models are designed with prototypical ride height and body-mounted couplers. So moving forward, they are addressing those issues.
-
The reason they are able to offer the prototypical models is because of all the collector fantasy stuff they do.
I disagree with this statement. If it were 100% true, then wouldn't Athearn/Atlas/Exactrail/ESM ;), etc. all have to offer some sort of fantasy/collector cars on a regular basis?
I do realize that the collector/fantasy market is a big portion of their buisness, but it doesn't have to be to be successful....it's just the path that they have chosen...
-
I disagree with this statement. If it were 100% true, then wouldn't Athearn/Atlas/Exactrail/ESM ;), etc. all have to offer some sort of fantasy/collector cars on a regular basis?
I do realize that the collector/fantasy market is a big portion of their buisness, but it doesn't have to be to be successful....it's just the path that they have chosen...
I didn't say it was true for all manufacturers. The statement was made as it applied to MTL. And yeah, the fantasy market is by necessity a big portion of their business at this point. It's a big cog in their solution to complete and still keep production in the States.
-
All of you have good points, and I agree with many of them, but the idea was to suggest a cheap, easy solution using as much existing tooling as possible. As dies do need replacement periodically, the actual cost would be near zero.
As for couplers, the 1015 may be a better choice, but I've been using the 1025 since that was the only option. Also, the truck mounted couplers are 1025s, and it would be a lot cheaper to reuse as much of them as possible.
Finally, even a 1025 will work on 50 ft cars on 9 inch radius curves, so either coupler would work fine for everyone.
I've already lowered all of mine, using a needle file, and admit that it isn't that hard. It would be nice not to have to do it, though, and MT cars have the advantage that the undecs are available most of the time. Imported models can be harder to find.
-
To be fair, the new MTL models are designed with prototypical ride height and body-mounted couplers. So moving forward, they are addressing those issues.
----------------------------
Cool!
Still wish they would release a after market frame for their older cars.
-
Thanks for clearing that up, Bryan.
Back to the thread, it seems easy to make your own new underframe out of styrene, and you can control ride height and coupler height as well using appropriate thicknesses of the styrene.(if I were doing large numbers, I'd make templates).....underbody detail could be included or omitted.....you could even use Evergreen car siding for the floor, so you can see that if you open the door.....
-
Thanks for clearing that up, Bryan.
Back to the thread, it seems easy to make your own new underframe out of styrene, and you can control ride height and coupler height as well using appropriate thicknesses of the styrene.(if I were doing large numbers, I'd make templates).....underbody detail could be included or omitted.....you could even use Evergreen car siding for the floor, so you can see that if you open the door.....
This idea sounds like something that would be a nice aftermarket piece. Maybe a cast resin frame?
Jon
-
Maybe a shapeways part would work......
-
Maybe a shapeways part would work......
Let's get to work on it! I'm thinking the MTL gon is the place to start - I think there are four bodyshell variations that use the same part.
Could this be the first crowdsourced model railroad product????
BTW, what I don't get is - supposedly the MTL 53' gon is 50' to use the boxcar underframe - but it never did - there are two different gon underframes and they are not the same as for the boxcars.
- Lou
-
The car weight (or lack thereof) comes into play with a Shapeways-rendered underframe, especially with gondolas and flatcars.
R&D to develop new underframes for old models costs money, juxtaposed with simply cutting replacement tooling based on existing specs. How the old models are selling with each release also factors into the equation. When margins are tight, better to put the effort into new models designed to the current standards. The heavyweights and the PS-2 covered hopper have body-mounted couplers and stand at the proper height, and the Greenville boxcar will as well.
I'll point out also that there have been a handful of threads over recent months questioning how the model railroad manufacturers are running their businesses. Well, from a business standpoint, it makes little sense to tool a new underframe for 40-year-old models that aren't detailed to current standards. The same principle applies to using the 40-year-old #1025 couplers instead of the #1015 which is the defacto current standard for body-mounted couplers.
-
No, tooling a new underframe just to correct the ride height wouldn't be practical. But, as I said, dies do wear, and sooner or later they will have to repair or replace the current one, or quit selling cars that use that underframe. Changing the bolster height wouldn't require more than a few minutes of R&D, and could be done long before the actual tooling.
IF they decide to lower the car and install body mount couplers at the same time, the 1015 would seem to be the better choice.
As for a third-party underframe, Shapeways would be a very expensive option, considering the number that could be sold. It might be better to make a few masters that way then cast the production version in resin. The cost would almost certainly be lower.
Weight wouldn't be a problem. Stick-on weights fit nicely in the ends, and if painted black, are barely visible even with the doors open.
Building ones own isn't hard, and I've done it, a couple times on MT cars, and numerous times on scratchbuilding projects. Building enough for a large roster would be very time consuming!
-
You are presenting your argument with the supposition that MTL has not already considered the option, which is an error. There are other areas of the PS-1 models that also would require attention. The decision to move forward instead and focus precious resources on new models designed to current standards is a logical one. And with Atlas announcing a state-of-the-art 40-foot PS-1 with multiple variations, and Athearn already utilizing the more accurate former MDC models of the 50-foot cars, the decision to move forward is justified.
Personally, what I would do is tool another 40-footer accurately and to current standards when the PS-1 tooling wears out next - an ACF prototype for example - and just move forward on that and let the PS-1 fade into history as they did with the pizza-cutters. That type of "reboot" allows the re-use of all the ACF schemes previously used on the PS-1 over the years, and the sales boost is there due to it being a new model.
Regarding any body-mounted scenario: it is better from a labor, production and inventory standpoint to integrate the coupler pocket into the underframe. Far less costly in the long run. Which is why the overwhelming majority of the models with body-mounted couplers have an integrated pocket.
As I said earlier - with a resin underframe, weight is a problem with gondolas and flatcars.
And it actually doesn't take much time to lower the bolsters on the diecast MTL boxcar underframes. The easiest way to mount #1015 couplers on a lowered underframe is to cut a notch in the ends of the frame for the coupler box to slide into, then cement a styrene plate on top of the floor to screw the coupler box to.
-
That's a good point Bryan - even if you lower the gons - they are still too short.
The PS-1's were already covered, the RBOX type cars are the odd "shell itself is too short", the bulkhead flats have sills that are too short, so I guess my question is - which car would even make sense to do this for.
I'm looking over my fleet, and can't really think of one - although a simpler way of lowering FVM boxcars is something I might pursue.
- Lou
-
Bryan,It would be good business sense to release a aftermarket correct ride height and coupler height.Think of this..Every old car that is bought by serious modelers would require the purchase of a updated frame and #1015 couplers.
It never fails to surprise me the way manufacturers think especially with a changing market toward body mounted couplers and correct ride height.
As far as those 40 year old cars "being not up today's standards" by whose standards? Certainly not mine.I'm sure they are thousands that will agree with me.
I would be the first in line for a MT aftermarket frame with correct coupler and ride height to use on those 40 year old cars.
-
Think of this..Every old car that is bought by serious modelers would require the purchase of a updated frame and #1015 couplers.
I wonder if there is a way to make a kit(s) that can fit/adapt to several car bodies. I'm not a PS1 era guy, so personally I would prefer something for centerbeams, autoracks, and such.
I wouldn't want any MT coupler in the kit, because of the slinky/pogo spring.
Ed
-
Brakie: That was part of my idea. They sell parts, so if they could change the underframe relatively cheaply, they'd sell LOTS of replacements. As for the defects in the cars themselves, I can live with them. None of the other N scale models are perfect, so why buy several hundred new boxcars, just to exchange one set of problems for another?
On the other hand, integrating the draft gear into the underframe is a good idea, and I've wondered why it isn't done more often. If they do an entire new underframe that would seem to be the way to go.
But again, my suggestion was for a simple, inexpensive, quick solution to one problem. It seems to be an unpopular or unacceptable solution, so I will withdraw it.
-
I still think a shapeways floor for a 40" boxcar is you best solution....and I think you could use a cheaper material than FUD....who is going to see the underside of the car anyway?
-
Bryan,It would be good business sense to release a aftermarket correct ride height and coupler height.Think of this..Every old car that is bought by serious modelers would require the purchase of a updated frame and #1015 couplers.
It's horrible business sense. If they thought they could recoup the $20k+ investment within a reasonable ROI time faster than recouping the investment in a new model, they would have done it by now. The monthly circulation of MTL cars isn't as high as you think, and a good chunk if not most of them go to the collector/accumulator base. It's always available for another entrepreneur to explore, if the investors can be lined up.
In a sense of deja-vu ... decades ago, Kadee/MTL introduced the 50-foot diecast underframe with attached #1023 couplers to retrofit all the non-Kadee boxcar models with body-mounted Magne-Matic couplers and a lower center of gravity. How many people took advantage of that?
... They sell parts, so if they could change the underframe relatively cheaply, they'd sell LOTS of replacements. As for the defects in the cars themselves, I can live with them. None of the other N scale models are perfect, so why buy several hundred new boxcars, just to exchange one set of problems for another?
"If" being the operative word. And for every modeler who can "live" with the defects, there are others who prefer more accurate models. No model is perfect, because concessions must be made in deference to the smaller scale. But most modelers (as opposed to collectors or accumulators) given the choice would prefer more accuracy, which is why you see sales shift to the more-accurate updated model when it hits the market.
On the other hand, integrating the draft gear into the underframe is a good idea, and I've wondered why it isn't done more often. If they do an entire new underframe that would seem to be the way to go...
Because it's a relatively new design concept in N scale. There are a handful of models that incorporate it now, and it most likely will be recognized as standard practice within due time.
I still think a shapeways floor for a 40" boxcar is you best solution....and I think you could use a cheaper material than FUD....who is going to see the underside of the car anyway?
Because you won't get the serious modeler to buy in. It would be an option for a small limited run for a targeted group such as Railwire. But it wouldn't work for mass market. The solution is, as stated up top, a new diecast part with an integrated coupler pocket. That would generate the most interest. But I don't think enough people would be willing to pay $10 a pop for an underframe that they still would have to buy couplers for to retrofit their existing fleet. It's cheaper to manually modify the existing underframes.
Another less expensive solution is to install BLMA ASF trucks and #2004 couplers. The plastic MTL wheels can always be installed in the BLMA trucks for those who prefer the larger flanges and tire width, as the axle length is the same.
-
Because you won't get the serious modeler to buy in. It would be an option for a small limited run for a targeted group such as Railwire. But it wouldn't work for mass market. The solution is, as stated up top, a new diecast part with an integrated coupler pocket. That would generate the most interest. But I don't think enough people would be willing to pay $10 a pop for an underframe that they still would have to buy couplers for to retrofit their existing fleet. It's cheaper to manually modify the existing underframes.
It was meant it as a solution to fix the ride height, not the detailing......if that matters, then the MT car should be forgotten.....
Another less expensive solution is to install BLMA ASF trucks and #2004 couplers. The plastic MTL wheels can always be installed in the BLMA trucks for those who prefer the larger flanges and tire width, as the axle length is the same.
Another solution.......it seems there are many ways to skin this cat, I guess those who want to do this just have to pick which they like best....
Bouncing ideas off each other is what makes these forums great, but sometimes people can get so negative about a subject.........I don't really like MT stuff, but at least I understand that others may want to better their MT cars, so lets help them instead of shooting down EVERY idea that comes up.......just my 2 cents....
-
Brian:It's horrible business sense. If they thought they could recoup the $20k+ investment within a reasonable ROI time faster than recouping the investment in a new model, they would have done it by now.
------------------------------------------------
I don't know about that seeing to took 50 years for the manufactures to realize freight cars with body mounted couplers would sell to the masses-it took a new company to set the new standard.Yes,Atlas body mounted couplers on their cabooses and stopped there.Look how fast ER decided to retool for body mounted couplers.
Again its makes good business sense to offer products that would improve their current and older models and they would sell a lot of 1015s in the process.
-
If you have a lot of MT 40' boxcars, modify one underframe, buy a resin casting kit and copy it. I have not made any ride height modifications or body mounted anything yet because I am hopeful that we are on the verge of a closer to scale coupler. On so many of my cars I want closer coupling. Look at the video Pompy made of his Housatonic RR a week or two ago, every car looks like it has a cushioned underframe. I am not ready to cut and file, or notch anything until I have that better coupler to make it worth my time. Especially on a lot of my frameless tank cars.
-
Bouncing ideas off each other is what makes these forums great, but sometimes people can get so negative about a subject.........I don't really like MT stuff, but at least I understand that others may want to better their MT cars, so lets help them instead of shooting down EVERY idea that comes up.......just my 2 cents....
It's not negative to show people the perspective of issues from the manufacturer's viewpoint. No one is discouraging anyone from pursuing the solution on their own. But it is impractical to presume that MTL would do it, for various reasons, and it is more helpful than not for people to realize that. And the sooner people do realize that, the sooner that a solution actually might surface from an alternate source.
-
It's not negative to show people the perspective of issues from the manufacturer's viewpoint. No one is discouraging anyone from pursuing the solution on their own. But it is impractical to presume that MTL would do it, for various reasons, and it is more helpful than not for people to realize that. And the sooner people do realize that, the sooner that a solution actually might surface from an alternate source.
Actually manufacturers do listen and many read various forums to get input and then the decided which is better as is or improve.
Look at FVM as a example.The next release of their Gevo lettered for NS will have the correct high mounted headlights.I was told by whoever on another forum that the tooling would be to costly to correct the headlights for the NS Gevo and in a gentle way told me and a few others we should shut up and buy it as is..As you can see the complaints from NS modelers on and off line didn't go unheeded
Look at the move toward body mounted couplers,C55 track,LP wheels etc all came from customers requests..
Maybe, just maybe, MT will listen and consider the possibilities.
It would be nice if MT would join in the discussion.
-
I, too, think the aftermarket is where this product would come from...
Customer support also makes good buisness sense.....
And I avoid most MT stuff because of the issues being discussed here...no fix=no sales, to me at least! I know I'm not alone on this.......... I wonder how this fits into their "plan"? ......
However, I like MT stuff for the nice detail/moldwork, and that it's US made, so I'm not anti-MT. I will just spend my $ with other companies for now .....
-
... Maybe, just maybe, MT will listen and consider the possibilities ...
Why would you think they don't listen? Just because they don't enact the change you want on your specific timeline doesn't mean they don't listen. You want prototypical ride height and body-mounted couplers, but against the grain prefer fantasy schemes rather than prototype-only schemes. There are a ton of consumers that never wanted the pizza-cutters retired and don't want body-mounted couplers. There are a lot of disparate requests that manufacturers have to sort through to determine what would appeal to the largest segment of the audience.
MTL is in Denver this weekend for the Z scale convention. Joe may comment when he returns this coming week.
-
Why would you think they don't listen? Just because they don't enact the change you want on your specific time line doesn't mean they don't listen. You want prototypical ride height and body-mounted couplers, but against the grain prefer fantasy schemes rather than prototype-only schemes. There are a ton of consumers that never wanted the pizza-cutters retired and don't want body-mounted couplers. There are a lot of disparate requests that manufacturers have to sort through to determine what would appeal to the largest segment of the audience.
MTL is in Denver this weekend for the Z scale convention. Joe may comment when he returns this coming week.
First I do not have a time line but,it would be nice if MT would consider a improved aftermarket frame.I also fully believe they listen or we not be seeing MT cars with body mounted couplers..
I think they are thousands that still enjoy MT cars and would buy the improved frames with correct ride height..
I think those that didn't want body mounted couplers,LP wheels, C55 track and other improvements we seen may become the minority or join in as the hobby improves.There is also the silent majority outside of forums that votes with their wallets as we have seen time and again.
-
When MTL was still part of Kadee, they used to make a replacement underframe with bodymounted couplers, albeit with the same bolster height. Those can still be found in new packaging at swap meets, so I wouldn't expect them from MTL.
It could be a win-win if they offered a 'Gold Line' or somesuch, with a lowered bolster and bodymounts; it would be better for those who want those features, plus it would give the collectors another car to buy...
-
It could be a win-win if they offered a 'Gold Line' or somesuch, with a lowered bolster and bodymounts; it would be better for those who want those features, plus it would give the collectors another car to buy...
That would work and they could also offer the frame separately for those of us that would upgrade our older MT cars which would also help pay for the tooling.
Like 'em,hate 'em or pitch 'em in the trash those older MT cars are still nice looking cars and far better then the older Atlas cars being sold under the Trainman name.
-
Except that (due to no fault of MTL) the MSRP is the same as newly-tooled models, and everyone has caught up to MTL regarding decoration precision. So if a modeler has a choice between a recently-tooled more-intricate model and one tooled 40 years ago and they are at the same price-point, which way are most people going to lean?
-
Except that (due to no fault of MTL) the MSRP is the same as newly-tooled models, and everyone has caught up to MTL regarding decoration precision. So if a modeler has a choice between a recently-tooled more-intricate model and one tooled 40 years ago and they are at the same price-point, which way are most people going to lean?
We don't know the answer to that question since we don't know the mindset of the silent majority that doesn't speak on forums..
We do know those old 40 year old cars still sell or MT would have discontinued their line of cars if they wasn't-just like Athearn dropped the blue box kits due to the lack of sales.
-
Yeah we do know actually, just by examining outside evidence. MTL chose not to upgrade its venerable PS-1 line, concentrating resources on new tooling instead. So yeah, the models sell well enough to keep them in the line. But the current sales and the long-standing threat of a competitor introducing updated enhanced versions were not enough to persuade TPTB to upgrade the models.
The Trainman line is not an equal comparison, since the price point and level of detail are much lower. Yet they sell well enough that Atlas has invested in tooling upgrades and continues to introduce "lower end" models in this line - including models which marginally could be considered to be in the "higher end" category.
So it's clear, based on how the models are sold and maintained, how the "silent majority" has spoken. And apparently the majority isn't asking for retrofit underframes, otherwise MTL would have tooled them. The majority did ask for heavyweights, and now MTL is popping out new models and schemes like multiplying rabbits.
You can't have it both ways - arguing one minute that the company should tool an item they've already researched and decided against, and then arguing the next minute that the overall market should determine whether or not the said item should be tooled. The market already has spoken, MTL is acting accordingly, and that's that.
-
Actually MT has said nothing or anything for or against.
I fail to understand why you are against any upgraded frame?
As a N Scaler you should support such improvements-unless you own or employed by a competing company.. ;)
Then I could fully understand why you are so negative with this and other like topics.
-
Amazing. I provide you with as much insight as I'm allowed since I have access to more information than you, and you interpret it as an attack. Always.
Never have I said I was against an upgraded frame. What I said was that it wasn't feasible from a mass-market standpoint for MTL to release such a product. You clearly have no idea how much I advocate and have advocated behind the scenes across the industry to get some of these innovations into the mainstream. The progress in N scale design at large over the last few years has been astounding, which you would see if you would step back and take a look. Stop misrepresenting my positions, as it's beyond annoyance at this point.
-
Amazing. I provide you with as much insight as I'm allowed since I have access to more information than you, and you interpret it as an attack. Always.
------------------------------
No,I never once said it was a attack-in this or any topic so,I don't know where you got that idea.
I just can't understand your negative posts-always negative.
You may be shocked at the numbers of e-mails I send to the better manufacturers suggesting ideas and improvements and never once have I been meet with a negative answer.
Manufacturers do listen.
-
I had to stop participating in this thread because I felt it would result in my eventual expulsion
-
Bryan,
I for one appreciate the insight you have provided into the world of producing N scale models. I don't see your posts as negative but rather as providing an educated alternative viewpoint. The design improvements that those of us in the buying public have been treated to by those of you in the manufacturing world are very much appreciated. Personally, I will not lose sleep over a new underframe for MTL PS-1s as my investment in those cars is limited. I am looking forward to the state of the art Atlas cars, as well as the new products offered by ESM, FVM, BLMA, etc.
Best wishes, Dave
-
Dave,
That's all I'm trying to do. By showing things from the manufacturing perspective along with revealing a little bit of inside information here and there, it helps people see what is and isn't feasible. We all have our personal wishlists of items we'd like to see come to market. But sometimes, it behooves us to tap into the "modeling" aspect of "model railroading" rather than wait for a mass-market RTR item.