Input wanted for new MTL products

[Gozer the Gozerian]

Hi guys

Well it's Spring here in Oregon even though we got snow the past few days in the hills around us.  The sun must be on vacation.  As with every spring I rip out a few 10's of feet on my layout and I begin to work up next years tooling requests.

Looking for some ideas and so far you guys have been very helpful.

We are ok with the Heavyweights, two in development and one in design.  Your local schedules and food service needs are being addressed and at some point we will be looking at full size baggage and combo's.  I have a few of the Observation cars cobbled together and they really look nice.

So, what's missing in N scale?  What's the next big thing?  What body styles would you like to see.  Understand I'm restricted to cars that had more than a few road names and found as far afield as possible.  Tooling is expensive and we need to be able to have a good back log of paint schemes to put on it.

Here's your chance...and thanks again for all your help in the past.  I value the information and exchanges I have here on Railwire.


Cheers

Joe
MTL

[unittrain]

1960 - 1970 era 52' gondolas with correct length and ride height would be huge !!

[Rasputen]

I would like to see two bay hoppers that have been rebuilt from having wood sides replaced with steel panels.  The composite hoppers are nice but in reality these were quickly rebuilt after WWII.

Keep up the good work!

[Ed Kapuscinski]

This is where I would've said X58 Boxcars, but luckily I don't have to do that any more!

If you're going to do a 53' Gon. I think I'd kill for some G52s:
http://thecrhs.org/node/17973
http://thecrhs.org/node/15583
http://thecrhs.org/node/9362

However, I think it'd be wise to play to your strengths: high value, less common cars.
I know it'd be stepping on Bob's toes, but I think the world would like more baywindow cabooses, starting with something like:
http://thecrhs.org/ConrailEquipment/Cabooses/N10
http://thecrhs.org/node/9400
http://thecrhs.org/ConrailEquipment/Cabooses/N21

Or transfer cabooses:
http://thecrhs.org/ConrailEquipment/Cabooses/N11
http://thecrhs.org/node/5076
http://thecrhs.org/node/5098

[Bob Bufkin]

I like Ed's caboose listing.  I could go for some well flats.  Various roads used them and they carried some interesting loads.

[Ian MacMillan]

Comet passenger cars!?!

[Bendtracker1]

So, what's missing in N scale?  What's the next big thing?  What body styles would you like to see.  Understand I'm restricted to cars that had more than a few road names and found as far afield as possible.  
MTL

How about a good rendition of an Airslide hopper, With or without operating hatches.
Lots of private schemes for GACX alone.

http://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=40200
http://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=5038
http://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=11066

Something with finer details than the old DV/Bowser cars.

Allen...

[bbussey]

Northeastern caboose.   There are more prototypical schemes available on that design than the four existing MTL N scale caboose models combined.

North American (NADX) PD3000 covered hopper.  A signature car from the 1960s forward that is sorely missed in N.

Converted troop sleepers.  Shared tooling with the existing troop sleeper and would allow for a number of mail/baggage/storage cars to be modeled.

Corrected 40' PS1 boxcar and variants.   New correct-width doors, corrected roof, lowered body height and body-mounted couplers would keep the original MTL model viable for the foreseeable future.

Riveted 53'6" flatcar.  A proper-height proper-length flatcar with standard vertical-shaft brakewheel would go a long way in filling a void.

Upgrade the existing fleet.   Etched roofwalks, scale ride height, body-mounted couplers.

[sirenwerks]

Rather utilitarian, but my suggestions (in order of desire) would be a steel URTX-style reefer with the horizontal seam down the length of the car, in both a hinged-door and plug door version (too many reefer schemes are being done on the obviously wrong car); a 41' AAR gondola to replace the aged and thick Atlas, etc. cars; and a version of your side-brake mounted flatcars w/ brake wheels mounted on the car end. Although it hasn't been long since you created a freakish tank car, I'd love to see another in the 4K range, one of the mini steam era varieties.

[Sokramiketes]

I'm curious why you think MTL needs to pick prototypes with multiple roadnames?  That isn't the MTL way, nor your niche.  MTL doesn't release lots of schemes per body per month.  The scale test car had oodles of roadnames, but was a poor seller.  The oddball RPO has been a much better seller, and it's good for what, two roadnames?  Proper roadname selection has never been MTL's M.O.  No, MTL needs to stick to the oddball choices and leave the mass market choices for companies that will get lots of paint schemes on them right away.  MTL is a company that can get away with painting stuff in any roadname, or president, or state, or holiday scheme.  Use that to your advantage and work to develop the better good in N scale.  

MTL should be doing two things in my opinion:

1) Make a coupler that looks like a coupler, doesn't act like a pogo stick, and has a small bodymount box that doesn't gets in the way.  Use that precision tooling ability that is rivaled only by Kato and play to your coupler strengths.  40 year old coupler designs are not continuous.  

2) Then revamp the current MTL offerings.  40' & 50' PS1 boxcars with proper ride height, body mount couplers, proper height doors (and multiple door widths), lack of large gap around operating door, etc.  Gondola's that arn't squished to fit a standard 50' underframe.  Modern boxcars that arn't squished in the vertical direction.  Kaizen.

[Sokramiketes]

Northeastern caboose.   There are more prototypical schemes available on that design than the four existing MTL N scale caboose models combined.

North American (NADX) PD3000 covered hopper.  A signature car from the 1960s forward that is sorely missed in N.

Converted troop sleepers.  Shared tooling with the existing troop sleeper and would allow for a number of mail/baggage/storage cars to be modeled.

Corrected 40' PS1 boxcar and variants.   New correct-width doors, corrected roof, lowered body height and body-mounted couplers would keep the original MTL model viable for the foreseeable future.

Riveted 52' flatcar.  A proper-height proper-length flatcar with standard vertical-shaft brakewheel would go a long way in filling a void.

Upgrade the existing fleet.   Etched roofwalks, scale ride height, body-mounted couplers.

You type faster (when the baby starts fussing)!   Your first two should really be handled by someone other than MTL.  Don't you want that myriad of schemes to be available before the decade is out?  Converted troop sleepers, now there a good project.  And I agree with the rest of your suggestions.

[asarge]

I would second the Airslide Hopper although that has been done before but maybe never again.

Also maybe a new 60'er, the PS-1 Autoparts car like IM did in HO. Yes it's close to some other's but different and there are quite a few colorful schemes.

You could also carry on the PS Grain Hoppers with a good 4740. A ton of schemes for those.

Might I also add that you guys should re-release some of the loads. Some have been asking for the LCVP landing craft lately and the sheet steel loads. A bunch of people have asked me about doing the boats you did in Z too.
 

[up1950s]

I'm curious why you think MTL needs to pick prototypes with multiple roadnames?  That isn't the MTL way, nor your niche.  MTL doesn't release lots of schemes per body per month.  The scale test car had oodles of roadnames, but was a poor seller.  The oddball RPO has been a much better seller, and it's good for what, two roadnames?  Proper roadname selection has never been MTL's M.O.  No, MTL needs to stick to the oddball choices and leave the mass market choices for companies that will get lots of paint schemes on them right away.  MTL is a company that can get away with painting stuff in any roadname, or president, or state, or holiday scheme.  Use that to your advantage and work to develop the better good in N scale.  

MTL should be doing two things in my opinion:

1) Make a coupler that looks like a coupler, doesn't act like a pogo stick, and has a small bodymount box that doesn't gets in the way.  Use that precision tooling ability that is rivaled only by Kato and play to your coupler strengths.  40 year old coupler designs are not continuous.  

2) Then revamp the current MTL offerings.  40' & 50' PS1 boxcars with proper ride height, body mount couplers, proper height doors (and multiple door widths), lack of large gap around operating door, etc.  Gondola's that arn't squished to fit a standard 50' underframe.  Modern boxcars that arn't squished in the vertical direction.  Kaizen.

Great suggestions Mike .

Let me add ,
 I would like to see a different window variation than the Tichy outside braced crew car .
 http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/mow/lirrnumericMOWroster_davekeller.htm

 A low side gondola would be nice .
 http://www.srha.net/public/modeling/ls_gon_history.asp

 A HD 4 truck flat like what Athearn did decades ago in HO .
 http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://southern.railfan.net/schnabel/cars/rel/d%26h_16156_200t_4-truck_flat_albany_1997.jpg&imgrefurl=http://southern.railfan.net/schnabel/cars/rel/d%26h.html&usg=__OnfyD9liaBlvnGcvNy7ZCKwcVKA=&h=548&w=1346&sz=285&hl=en&start=52&sig2=ZqQgH1rRhecJcrMlblbg-w&zoom=0&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=LjefR1J51bw3tM:&tbnh=61&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3D4%2Btruck%2BHD%2Bflat%2Bcar%26start%3D40%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26gbv%3D2%26sout%3D1%26as_st%3Dy%26ndsp%3D20%26biw%3D1241%26bih%3D783%26tbm%3Disch&ei=sjrVTf20JoPbgQf7vvmvDA

[unittrain]

I also want to say what ever new tooling you do make sure it is like your latest PS-2's. I got the Rock Island one and it is an awesome car! I had not bought much MTL in the last few years but will continue to buy more if the new tooling is as good as those 4427's, correct ride height ect.

[victor miranda]

with the arrival of a good small 1900's engine in the form of the b-mann 10 wheeler,
I'd think truss-rod cars of any type would be welcome.

I have some of the ones yall made and they are a little hard to find.

victor