MTL's 40' PS-1 Box car roof... I found it!

[JoeD]

I suspect on a unit style train car like this, if the runners packs didn't sell, neither would a single release.  If you ever want a single car from a runner pack, let me know, it's possible I have one of my own and would be glad to give one up to make "your dreams come true"   

Sometimes I wish I could publish numbers...the runner packs are HUGE for us, HUGE.  Second only to the fantasy stuff.  It answers the most common question we get...when can I get another car with a different number.  Folks really like the concept.

Again I think the focus is too narrow.  Just because a proto has 20 paint schemes that are proto, doesn't mean that you can sell all of them.  We see our business is driven by road name...maybe it's different with Atlas or Athearn, but that's the pressure we get. 

[Mark5]

General comment: this year will mark the 40th anniversary of the introduction of the Kadee Microtrains PS 40' box cars. Great tooling given when it was done. I'm guessing an improved PS1 will likely come from someone other that MTL. Not a slam on MTL, just a question of allocation of resources I guess.

MTL makes lots of great stuff, along with some  type stuff. I can tolerate the  type releases as long as the great stuff still rolls out.

Mark

[David Leonard]

I don't have any hot views on the subject, but as a suggestion to Joe (and this is probably already a part of MTL's considerations), instead of retooling your version of the PS-1, why not tool up a different style 40' boxcar (one widely used by prototype roads)? I don't think the PS1 is so popular because it's that particular version of the PS1, but because it's a boxcar!

[Dave V]

MTL makes lots of great stuff, along with some  type stuff. I can tolerate the  type releases as long as the great stuff still rolls out.

Mark

^This.

If boxcar pipe loads and giraffe cars made possible my string of gorgeous Pennsy heavyweights and Penn Central X78, then, well...  It is what it is, as they say.  Looking over my layout tonight, the large number of Micro Trains cars relative to every other manufacturer (save for Atlas) is telling.

Keep up the good stuff, Joe.

[chessie system fan]

... You've got great models, you do good artwork; why can't you put the time into getting the latter correct for the former? ... So many times in the past I've seen that while you make body styles 1, 2, and 3; railroad XXRR had thousands of cars in Style 1, one or two oddballs in 2, and none in 3; yet MTL releases WTF paint schemes for railroad XXRR on styles 2 and 3. If I want a proper car in style 1, I have to buy either an undec model ... or a model painted for some other road, and paint/decal it myself.

I'd kinda have to agree with Hiroe here, though I'm not as passionate about it because I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that I'll have to paint most cars myself if I want an accurate fleet.  I do raise an eyebrow though at some things.  Take the recent B&O 50' car you did.  I can tell you put some effort into it.  The artwork is perfect, and you even put the class history of it in the paperwork.  The only issue is that it's the wrong car style.  If there was no alternative, I'd probably let it slide.  But there is an alternative!  On pg. 81 of the B&O Color Guide, which I know you have, there is a photo of a double door PS1 in the exact scheme as your car.  So if you had used the double door body and changed the road number it would have been perfect!  I don't know how well it sold, but I assume double doors vs. a single door would not make a difference.

Really, I think the issue here is not seeing the big picture and knowing that better alternatives exist, and I can't blame you.  Freight car fleets are huge!  The reason I knew it wasn't correct was because I do freight car research for fun in my spare time, and B&O is the road I model.  I could be wrong, but I'm guessing what the thought process for what gets made is "Hey!  Here's a picture of a car that I think will sell.  Let's consider making that."

If it's any help, I wouldn't mind reviewing future car ideas, at least for C&O/B&O/WM/Chessie and Southeastern roads.   Maybe stuff like the B&O boxcar, the white CSX/Family Lines covered hopper and the silver WM troop car can be avoided.

[JoeD]

I've added that suggestion to my fy12-13 line up.  Most folks don't realize it but we did go in and rework parts of the 20,000 series last summer.  Much of what was done was to clean up details and make alterations to the sides slides possible.  So we are moving in this direction.  I agree, it's time we take that car and remake it with side slides that give us different door widths and other details.  I'd like to add an ACF to the line up as well.

Joe
MTL

I don't have any hot views on the subject, but as a suggestion to Joe (and this is probably already a part of MTL's considerations), instead of retooling your version of the PS-1, why not tool up a different style 40' boxcar (one widely used by prototype roads)? I don't think the PS1 is so popular because it's that particular version of the PS1, but because it's a boxcar!

[JoeD]

contact me at work tomorrow...  Joe@micro-trains.com.  I have a huge research project regarding B&O and could use the help.

Thanks!

Joe
MTL

I'd kinda have to agree with Hiroe here, though I'm not as passionate about it because I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that I'll have to paint most cars myself if I want an accurate fleet.  I do raise an eyebrow though at some things.  Take the recent B&O 50' car you did.  I can tell you put some effort into it.  The artwork is perfect, and you even put the class history of it in the paperwork.  The only issue is that it's the wrong car style.  If there was no alternative, I'd probably let it slide.  But there is an alternative!  On pg. 81 of the B&O Color Guide, which I know you have, there is a photo of a double door PS1 in the exact scheme as your car.  So if you had used the double door body and changed the road number it would have been perfect!  I don't know how well it sold, but I assume double doors vs. a single door would not make a difference.

Really, I think the issue here is not seeing the big picture and knowing that better alternatives exist, and I can't blame you.  Freight car fleets are huge!  The reason I knew it wasn't correct was because I do freight car research for fun in my spare time, and B&O is the road I model.  I could be wrong, but I'm guessing what the thought process for what gets made is "Hey!  Here's a picture of a car that I think will sell.  Let's consider making that."

If it's any help, I wouldn't mind reviewing future car ideas, at least for C&O/B&O/WM/Chessie and Southeastern roads.   Maybe stuff like the B&O boxcar, the white CSX/Family Lines covered hopper and the silver WM troop car can be avoided.

[Sokramiketes]

I just picked myself up off the floor!!  Thank you Mike.   really, I mean that.   This kind of response is very productive and helps more than you may realize. 

I understand the concerns over the windows for the Z passenger cars and N Passenger Cars.  We were faced with charging a lot more for the car (increased tooling, Increased assembly, increased parts) or try and do something that was affordable.  I think everyone was grateful for the lower prices we charged for them.  Where you really get a hit is in the decorating and that generally costs more than running the parts.  I take responsiblity for that decision...would I like flush windows, yes, but I think I need to try and find a happy medium someplace.  I gotta sell to keep the doors open.  There's a reason Marcellius gave up his tooling and not knowing his reasoning, I suspect that producing a car that was superior to ours as you rightfully pointed out, didn't sell well enough to justify the costs.  I have the parts on my desk and the thought of putting these together in a production environment is intimidating.  Rapido, Exact Rail and others can do a lot of this stuff because their manufacturing costs are significantly cheeper than our.  The price we pay to keep jobs here in the states (shamless flag waving here)  Sometimes it is what it is and I do my best to balance everything.  None of this means we don't strive to keep up with standards.  The new N scale release I am working on is being looked at differently than any other same car type has.  I have a list of wants that mirror what I hear here and have to play them off the final costs and what our market will pay for that kind of release.  But I am pushing.

Actually, I wasn't even thinking about the window inserts when I mentioned the recent tooling oddities.  The fit and finish on the Z scale passenger cars, mostly the roof to carbody, and around the dome insert on the dome car, was my concern.  On the N scale heavyweights it's the visible tool marks still on the roofs, inconsistent rivet depth on the car sides, inconsistant panel depths on the roofs, etc. 

The single window coach was my first choice, but after much review with tooling and production it became clear that the manufacturing issues made the decision for us.  While it may not seem like it, the amount of material absent between the paired window config and the single window config was significant enough to insure bananna boats popping out of the injection mold machine instead of straight car sides.  It's not that we can't do it, we needed more time to work out how to.  When you get out beyond a 50' car if your material thicknesses on all quadrants of the car is off any, you get uneven shrink or expansion causing the bow.  Single window coach is coming, we just need to work out these manufacturing issues...and doing the paired window coach is helping us understand the dynamics.  These cars are new territory for us, and the usual rules don't apply as they would for a boxcar or a flat car.  Different animals.   

It's not so much the thickness as the volume of plastic in the "quadrants".  Though varying the thickness is one way to handle the issue.  Yes, tooling is part art. 

And the way around the bananna issue from the start would have been to treat the Heavyweight project as a series of snap on sides to a basic core kit endoskeleton.  With a little planning and design work up front, the core could have been stable and new car styles (depending on how much work you want to do on individualizing the roofs and underbody to match the car style) would be easy two part molds for new sides.  And the four-slide action could have been saved for the roofs which suffer from being only two part molds now. 

The original CCS assembled passenger cars were set up for a core kit but execution was poor because those core kits were never designed for mass assembly in China.  They were designed as kits.  So before anyone points that out as the reason not to do a modular style passenger car in new tooling, I'm getting out ahead of that reasoning. 

Yes, we are down a few tool makers and our load has remained, if not increased.  Sink marks, tool marks, flashing are things we do our best to pay attention to.  Mike, the pace here is frantic, which is a good and bad thing.  I'm happy we can keep everyone busy, but it would be nice to move things through here with a little more time built in.  Not happening right now.  We are at that crossroad where you have more work than you can do comfortably, but not doing so well you can staff up.  Common these days.  Regardless, I think what comes out of here is pretty damn good overall.

Obviously I can't know everything about production schedules and how much analysis has been done tracking costs through the production schedule, and heck, I don't even know if you're a union shop or not.  But a minor in manufacturing management makes me cringe when I see things like a laser cut roofwalk on a covered hopper.  So maybe that was a step to justify the purchase of a laser cutter for the production floor, and if you're not union someone can load sheets and pull parts from the laser while running other machines, but it just doesn't seem like a good bang-for-the-buck solution.  So, just understand that I have a hard time accepting all of the time crunch arguement when I perceive inefficiencies like that. 

The Z hopper has been an interesting event.  Regardless of the size of the market we have to pick products that work for our product line.   Dispite the speculation, it wasn't done to harm anyone.   No one got jacked when a new Z track system was announced.  It was met with open arms, no one said...hey what about MTL.  No one got jacked when the same company copied a miniature Z powered chassis that Lajos was producing...all I heard was how much better things were going to be because of a new entry in the market.  And they were right.    You may disagree with the decision to do the same car/s in a small market that needs more variety, but the decison was based on more than may be apparent.   We have a car that gives us a lot of flexability, paint schemes and road numbers.  I wanted to do something like the new 64' reefer...with all the numbers being produced and with a change of doors and cooling units have at least three road names.  But I doubt the Z market is big enough to justify doing that car.  Cool, yes, a money maker...not sure.  Tons of other car types need to be done and we have a long list.  This car moved to the front to support the coal and mining kit series and other projects beyond that.

I remember people getting worked up about the copy of Lajos chassis, there was a whole angry thread on Trainboard about it.  But at least the new chassis was a different quality level/price point.  On the track, it was European style track versus American track.  So to get the same treatment on the hoppers all MTL would have had to do was pick a different prototype.  I understand you have a bank of artwork for that car style from the N scale releases, but you could still use that information if you picked a different style of hopper that was the same size.  It would be no different from picking an ACF boxcar instead of a PS-1... MTL will still put paint schemes from both prototypes on their "boxcar" model.  So all you would have had to do was pick the alternate IC style riveted battens on the offset side hopper, for example, instead of the USRA version.  Same sixe car and style of sides, but a different prototype, and you could still use the same paint and lettering schemes you have on file.  I hope I understand more than you give me credit for, because I'm not suggesting a modern reefer instead of a hopper.  I'm just saying a different style of hopper would have been appropriate instead of a direct duplication of the same prototype. 

As far as prototype choices in general in Z, the relative disjointed release of product versus the era they represent is holding back development of the scale.  Smoothside passenger cars without passenger power is an issue (I acknowledge that the E8 is on the way and it's road to production has been bumpy, but the issue still exists).  The most complete era available to be modeled is modern day equipment, so good sales could be projected for modern equipment to fill in holes.  In other words, a modern reefer (not the BLMA/Exactrail UP car, but something more along the lines of the new Intermountain N scale car) would probably have more sales than a steam era wood reefer when good steam power is scarce in Z. 

To your point about tooling new sides or changing inserts for underframes...on the list, but the 15 guys that would get worked up by some of these projects doesn't justify the cost.   You are forced to be like a shark in this business and keep moving forward.  Folks want new things all the time and trying to convince management that lowering a 40' boxcar that already outsells ANYTHING we currently produce sans the log car, as is, is a tall order.  They recognize the need, we just need the space on a schedule to do it.  I know I've said this before, but we listen and I am trying to shoe horn in a lot of this stuff...but capacity and decisions made to keep the company viable, trumps what may seem obvious to the outsider.

You do need to keep moving forward, and sitting on your laurels and not pushing for continuos improvement (Kaizen!) is going to harm MTL in the long run.  Remember the golden days when MTL was hot ***** on the store shelves and discontinued items didn't sit on shelves for very long?  That was back when MTL was on top.  Now others have caught up and surpassed and people arn't clamering for every monthly release.   The PS-1 is your best seller so convincing managment to push for improvement on the best selling item should be the simplest conversation ever!  ROI will be FAST.  The car would be freshened for the next 20 years of sales.  And just for the record, I had nothing to do with the Interstate hopper suggestion.   

Thanks again for taking the time to write this post.  I appreciate it.

Joe
MTl

We're passionate about MTL because in the end, we really are fans.  Even if we rivet count.  You won't see us harping on some of the "lost cause" manufacturers who might not be paying their bills in China or have completely gone off the deep end.  You give us hope that someone at MTL is actually paying attention; hopefully you can initiate some change.

[Sokramiketes]

I don't have any hot views on the subject, but as a suggestion to Joe (and this is probably already a part of MTL's considerations), instead of retooling your version of the PS-1, why not tool up a different style 40' boxcar (one widely used by prototype roads)? I don't think the PS1 is so popular because it's that particular version of the PS1, but because it's a boxcar!

Until Joe gets things turned around over there, let's not suggest that they corner the market on another boxcar style, screw it up, and keep other manufacturers from producing proper cars in proper quantities.  PS-1 should be the most popular because of it's breadth on the prototype.  There's just some door width variations that should be included. 

[SkipGear]

contact me at work tomorrow...  Joe@micro-trains.com.  I have a huge research project regarding B&O and could use the help.

Thanks!

Joe
MTL

Joe,
 Make sure to take full advantage of MTL's contacts with Brian DeVries for the B&O project. I believe he is already involved, but if not, contact him. He is well repsected in the B&O community and understands the issues related to production demands. I wish I could offer more info myself but between Brian and a few others, they have taught me most of what I know.