TheRailwire
General Discussion => N and Z Scales => Topic started by: tom mann on October 26, 2007, 08:35:55 AM
-
http://www.ztrains.com/pages/guest/damato/damato.html
Good coverage of Joe and Micro-Trains.
-
Yeah, too bad he doesn't participate here. Wonder if we're too negative about his company's products?
-
I'd love it if Joe came around.
I do feel that sometimes our MTL discussions are rather, umm, one sided?
-
I wish Joe would have responded to my fact filled criticism of the new N&W runner pack on the trainboard ...
-
It seems Z-scale is treated differently than N-scale. They planing or putting out nicely designed Z locomotives but after the FT in N-scale there was not even a talk of a second engine. I don't know when the last time MT even added and additonal paint scheme to the FT line. It just seems that N-scale production is focused on collectors and Die Hard MT fans that will buy anything with the MT sticker.
The painted fantasy models now have shifted from the LL GP20 to LL SW9 although it would have been nice if MT would have looked at the possiblity of producing actually a nice yard switcher. How about something unique like the Green Goat which should be a smaller challange to MT than other manufacturers since they deal with tiny models like the Z scale GP35.
-
quote - "I do feel that sometimes our MTL discussions are rather, umm, one sided?"
I dont believe I have ever witnessed an example of such extreme understatement on an internet board. One sided? ROTFLMAO
Let he/she who has modeled/kit-bashed/scratch-built/scenicked(etc...) without compromise (of any kind - ie, PERFECT 1/160 prototypical models) cast the first constructive complaint. And then it must be constructive, because I do believe that improving is something even MT wants to do or they wouldnt manufacture such a well-constructed product - whether it is a good model representation or not.
Ed, as you know, unabashed MT bashing (pun intended) was one reason I considered leaving the Railwire behind. I didnt because I felt hypocritical if I disappeared and didnt participate when I felt there was so much inspiring talent here. I decided participating might teach me more of the perspectives I didnt understand, much the way I want those who bash MT to see the value MT brings to N scale even if their business model tries to encompass a MUCH, MUCH larger group (good for business and good for the hobby) than just the modelers who grace this forum.
I was always dumbfounded by the myopic, selfish views that seemed to form the basis for the hypercritical, even mean, comments posted about MT on this board. If Joe's thread on Trainboard is any indication, MT is making efforts to seriously consider outside input on a variety of levels.... And Joe sounds eminently reasonable and respectful....
Like I said, I decided to stay here and try to contribute what I can and learn more of the perspectives of the others who post here as well....
my two cents....
B
-
I think it's cool that Joe has been participating on Trainboard.
I have a love/hate relationship with M-T. The love is that they (Kadee then) were the ones that made N scale viable for me as a youngerster circa 1970 (rapido couplers? forget it!). They have an unparalleled catalog of bodystyles available in N (some with flaws).
The hate (not really hate but frustration) for me comes on several fronts:
* The Slinky Effect in the couplers - I wish they'd come up with a more tangible solution for this than "drag springs"
* They continue to repeat mistakes from the past, even after I sent them an in depth analysis of the errors on a particular car ...
* They mysteriously allow crucial tooling to lay dormant (89' flats anyone?)
The fantasy stuff annoys me but I don't care if it means continued good stuff.
I own a bunch of their stuff (I've been buying their rolling stock since the beginning, but not much lately). Some of the body styles are crucial for me personally - for example the arched end twin hopper.
M-T, can't live with them, can't live without them! ;)
Seriously, it sounds like M-T has some good stuff in the oven, at least I'm hoping ... ;D
-
...The Slinky Effect in the couplers - I wish they'd come up with a more tangible solution for this than "drag springs"...
Pretty much the only other option is Accumates, and they stick out WAY too far from their coupler boxes. I saw where McHenry is coming out with an N scale coupler. If it's anything like their HO couplers, I'd pass.
-
* The Slinky Effect in the couplers - I wish they'd come up with a more tangible solution for this than "drag springs"
This effect can become quite pronounced in long trains moving at low speeds, esp. downgrade.
I don't use drag springs because it reduces the train length that I can run. I'm experimenting with Z-scale body mount couplers and replacing the spring with a small strip of soft foam. This seems to change the resonance/harmonic point enough to significantly reduce the overall slinky effect.
I would love to see MT come up with a coupler that didn't use a spring, even if it were a dummy coupler. However I'm not sure if they have enough market demand to justify the development cost.
-
Ed, the Z Marklin conversion don't slink, but you need to make a coupler box.
Bob in IDaho
-
I wish Joe would have responded to my fact filled criticism of the new N&W runner pack on the trainboard ...
Did they spell "Auto-Veyor" correctly on the ATSF autorack? Don't think the press release "Auto-Veyer" was correct.
-
I actually saw two pig flats at the Timonium show, and both were reasonably priced. One was the FEC flat, and the other a Pepsi ::)
I left them both there, because I'm looking for brown TTX flats, and yellow. Maybe, some day.
Lee
-
Isn't MT releasing a runner pack of 89' flats?
Oh, that's right, only in DODX... I'd love to hear the story there.
-
Damn! I just need the undecs. Microscale has the 1960s-70s brown and yellow schemes covered. Hardest part is putting the road numbers together...
-
The Perfect second locomotive that MT should produce (they would sell a Gazillion of em) would be the oft requested and very much wanted GE 45 tonner. Na, then they would have to think up how to decorate them in Cinderella Fantsy schemes that would actually fit on those little short hoods and cabs. Seriously though we do over look the large contribution that Kadee later Micro Trains has made to the N scale hobby,or Kadee in HO for that matter. If the McHenry couplers are the same design as the Test Samples I was fortunate to recieve, install and test in operation (they retrofitted into Atlas Accumate Truck mount coupler boxes) I would say forget them. Us testers were allowed to keep them and most are still installed on cars that are always on my layout and used for op sessions. At the last session on Sunday a GN Covered hopper car kept un coupling from MT cars in a train, the Glad Hands,which many modelers remove anyway appeared to be twisted and causing problems untill closer examination revieled the car had the test couplers,which use two small springs one on each side ofthe knuclel and the whole thing was skew Wampus. Car has been removed from service untill reverse conversion back to MT. An almost brand new MT New Haven Ugly Orange box car from N Scale Collectors kept uncoupling. Determined again it was the Test Couplers on the Covered Gon next to this car that was really the cause. These test couplers what ever they will be named are also not scaled down in size any that I can tell. Best couplers size wize are either MT Z or N n 3 or the old dummy Scale Size couplers J & J trains sold that were copied from Key Imports F3/7 Endo Microcast diesels from the early 1970's. Nate Goodman (Nato).
-
...The Slinky Effect in the couplers - I wish they'd come up with a more tangible solution for this than "drag springs"...
Pretty much the only other option is Accumates, and they stick out WAY too far from their coupler boxes.
Err, MT 1015's don't slink (sic) at all, as they have solved the problem by reversing the spring. When the couplers are under tension the spring isn't loaded. Well, ok, they slinky a little bit if you're *reversing* long trains of lightweight cars, I suppose :-)) But not when you're towing. That's why I replace everything no matter what it is with 1015s, before cars or engines go anywhere near the layout... end of coupler problems...
I don't really understand MT bashing at all. I have some great MT cars. I happen not to like the fantasy cars but they're very nice chaps because they give me the option not to buy those. I'm sure they make a few bum products, but I've yet to see a company that doesn't...
Charles
-
Isn't MT releasing a runner pack of 89' flats?
Oh, that's right, only in DODX... I'd love to hear the story there.
DODX uses those quite a bit now .. old TTX flats .. stenciled for DODX ... moves a lot of stuff like Humvees .. tanks are probably too heavy ... they would use the dodx 6 axle
the second us army runner pack is probably good thru the early 70s, max .. although I did see several older flats built in the 50s up at Aberdeen several years ago .. suspect they were captive service
-
Err, MT 1015's don't slink (sic) at all, as they have solved the problem by reversing the spring. When the couplers are under tension the spring isn't loaded. Well, ok, they slinky a little bit if you're *reversing* long trains of lightweight cars, I suppose :-)) But not when you're towing. That's why I replace everything no matter what it is with 1015s, before cars or engines go anywhere near the layout... end of coupler problems...
Uh, do you body mount all your cars? Just curious, as mine are the truck mounted variety and they slink transitioning from upgrade to downgrade, etc.
-
Reading Nato's post, it does remind me of the TRUE reason I get so agitated when thinking about MTL.
They DID so much for the scale. They were, far and away, one of the major factors in making N scale a viable scale for people who wanted more than lionel style layouts. Hell, they were the only manufacturer making cars that we don't consider junk for a long time.
They WERE the leader, hands down. They deserve a LOT of credit for that.
But...
Recently, as has been mentioned, they are definitely becoming the Tyco of N scale. No longer are they driving the scale forward, no longer are they breaking new ground in the hobby, no longer are they making it EASIER to be an N scaler.
No.
It seems that for a long time, MTL was working (consciously or not) to get N scale taken seriously. Now they seem to be hell bent on going the other way.
At least, that's how I see it anyway.
To sum it up, it's not that they suck, it's that they used to be so great, and now they suck.
-
Err, MT 1015's don't slink (sic) at all, as they have solved the problem by reversing the spring. When the couplers are under tension the spring isn't loaded. Well, ok, they slinky a little bit if you're *reversing* long trains of lightweight cars, I suppose :-)) But not when you're towing. That's why I replace everything no matter what it is with 1015s, before cars or engines go anywhere near the layout... end of coupler problems...
I don't really understand MT bashing at all. I have some great MT cars. I happen not to like the fantasy cars but they're very nice chaps because they give me the option not to buy those. I'm sure they make a few bum products, but I've yet to see a company that doesn't...
Charles, even with the 1015's, won't they slink just like the others in a long train moving down grade? The couplers will still be in compression in that case, it won't really matter which end of the spring has the pivot post. The truck vs. body mount issue is orthogonal to the slinky issue.
FWIW, I can understand the bashing to a degree - it's frustrating because MT does some of the best tooling & graphics, but it seems like such a waste when combined with extensive toylike paint schemes and other issues like the high-rider cars, slinky couplers, and of course pizza-cutters. Considering the limitations of model railroad production capacities in general, it only seems more frustrating for those who perceive that limited capacity as being "wasted", or perpetuating issues that by all rights really should have become solved problems by now.
Ed
-
Ed and Ed,
I share your frustration with MT. That's why I posted the "MT November" comment last night and referred to them as the Tyco of N Scale. I don't know what their business model is; but it seems they are catering to the short term hobbyist and not those of us who are/have been in it for the long run.
Mark
-
Charles, even with the 1015's, won't they slink just like the others in a long train moving down grade? The couplers will still be in compression in that case, it won't really matter which end of the spring has the pivot post. The truck vs. body mount issue is orthogonal to the slinky issue.
They don't seem to, to any significant degree in my experience. They do a little when you're reversing trucks into the yard, but I think if you watch them you'll see that the truck-mounted couplers (or indeed the old-fashioned larger body-mounts that don't have reversed springs) go from no load to high load until the spring eventually makes the car move forward, instantly unloading the spring and loading the next one in the line. With 1015's going downhill, the springs are under light load and get unloaded from there as the train pulls away. They never get fully loaded (unless the grade was extreme, I suppose). The slink is probably there but it's so small you don't notice it. Uphill, level, or on a very slight downgrade there's no slink at all.
I suppose with a very steep downgrade and a large number of cars you could MU a helper on the back with a slightly lower speed curve to hold the train back. Or make a nice DCC caboose that you could bung the brakes on with? :-))
NandW, yes I put 1015's on everything, even locos that aren't supposed to take them (they can always be put on somewhere). I do a lot of hands-off coupling and uncoupling and get really cross unless it works perfectly just about every single time. In my experience this is the only way to make it work. Whenever there's a problem I find that it's an old coupler, or a truck mounted one, or an Accumate that's slipped past causing the issue.
Charles
-
I think that any bashing that MT get is justly deserved....the tote themselves as a top notch company and then they cater to the collecting crowd. While that is fine because thats were the money may be, make it a separate division that isn't encroaching onto your "normal" monthly releases.
Also, they have historically printed wrong paint schemes and yada yada on wrong cars and really make no attempt to correct it on future runs.
Too bad that article does not focus on their inane marketing and design practices lately..They are becoming the Kato of N scale. ::)
Why no TTX of the 89'ers on the first runner packs? Come on! Thats like Kato refusing to release the RDC's in B&M!!!
-
Why did Life-Like do such a great job compartimentalizing the company while Micro-Trains does it so poorly? MTL needs to have two distinct product lines. Micro-Trains would be the Innovators of prototypical accuracy and detail level. They would create new tooling using the latest technology such as die cast, injection molding, etched, resin and lost wax castings. These cars would feature full underframes, and lo-profile wheels (with pizza cutters included). Cabooses and passenger cars would feature DCC lighting kits. !00T trucks would feature 36" wheels.
Micro-Lines would be the fantacy stuff. Leave off some of the detail parts, simpler underframes, no interior lighting kits. These would appeal to the coolector who seem to be holding MTL back (lo-pro issues anyone?). This would blend in with Micro-Seasons and other lines. This would eliminate the annoyance runners have with limmited product availability at the benifit of collector only cars.
-
Aww shucks DL, now you're making sense, and we CAN'T have that!
-
Micro-Trains would be the Innovators of prototypical accuracy and detail level.
It'd be an improvement if they could just learn to cast their wheelsets in a nice flat burnt umber colored plastic instead of the shiny black & brown that they use.
-
Micro-Lines -- I like it! Daniel gets an "A" in marketing this semester.
-
Micro-Trains would be the Innovators of prototypical accuracy and detail level.
It'd be an improvement if they could just learn to cast their wheelsets in a nice flat burnt umber colored plastic instead of the shiny black & brown that they use.
But the tread portion is not black, brown or burnt umber color but rather is a shiny metallic color. Better yet is to cast them in a silver colored plastic so I could paint the wheels except for the tread portion.
-
Micro-Trains would be the Innovators of prototypical accuracy and detail level.
It'd be an improvement if they could just learn to cast their wheelsets in a nice flat burnt umber colored plastic instead of the shiny black & brown that they use.
But the tread portion is not black, brown or burnt umber color but rather is a shiny metallic color. Better yet is to cast them in a silver colored plastic so I could paint the wheels except for the tread portion.
While I can see your point, silver would be the best color for those who'd want to take the time to do just what you say, paint the rest of the wheels and weather those bits, I think the brownish color Atlas uses is the best compromise.
That lets folks who just want to take the car out of the box and put it on the layout to run have wheels that look somewhat like they'd look in real life and for those who want to do more work and weathering its a decent base color.
Trouble is, that chocolate brown looks like plastic bigtime color that MT uses just doesn't cut it with me. I went to Atlas plastic wheels for everything I could before I then started switching over to the FVM metal wheels.
Now those metal wheels are the best. Easy to weather yet still have a metal looking tread portion, great tracking, inexpensive (they only cost about thrice what the Atlas replacement wheelsets cost).
But it would be nice if MT has a nice dark brown, not shiny, more like the Atlas color, for the couplers.