Z Scale: Loads of new stuff from MTL

[Atlanticflier]

WOW      

What an interesting read in that link.  Not sure what to think, but I feel a little saddened by the overall tone and implications.

Micro-trains - How can we not want them to do well - their models are made in the good 'ole USA, ....and yet the company can't quite seem to take that next step up, rather it steps sideways.........
I have always tried to find reasons to buy their N scale products, because they are made in the USA. However, I have to say that I was greatly disappointed in the Ortner hopper cars - ride height is unacceptable, and it is too bad that M-T does not see fit to correct it....
Oh well, they are only model trains.........

If I were an Z scaler - things at M-T would be looking Good !  But, I'm not..... N it is.

[tom mann]

I take the Ed K approach to viewing MT:  not worry about them.  If they build something I like, I'll buy it.  But I'll factor in fixing the ride height, living with the squished boxcars, their price, etc before I make the decision.  Before, I was a "passionate critic" of their product:  I happily bought their releases and complained about their old tooling and ride height.  Now, pfttt, whatever. ;D

[DKS]

I must say I'm rather saddened by what I have read here so far (but the cynic in me is not surprised, as I have experienced scale prejudice myself as a longtime N scaler). Many of the gripes hurled at MT and their Z scale products are the very same kinds of things that were directed at N when it was struggling to get traction many years ago. Gradually, over time, things improved, some hardy souls persisted, and eventually the naysayers were shown that N scale can be taken seriously. I would have thought that N scalers, more than any others, would show Z scalers a bit more courtesy, but it's painfully obvious that memories are short and there are still people who will bite the hands that feed them.

It's easy to sit back and take pot-shots at MT; your livelihood does not depend on it. It's another thing altogether to run a business like that. We all know how we would do things differently. But then, it's amusing to watch how a clutch of experts will haggle over the details. While everyone is haggling, nothing is being accomplished. Meanwhile, MT is still making products. They're not perfect, but consider the alternative if MT didn't exist. I think the hobby would be much worse for it.

Even sadder is the tone some remarks imply, that Z scalers are not serious modelers because they are not counting their rivets. At the very least, I should think that if a modeler is enjoying their hobby, they ought to be left alone; and those pioneers, like Robert, Chris, Tim et al, who are doing groundbreaking work in Z, ought to be shown some more respect, not chided for the scale they choose. Yes, there have been no negative remarks directed at them, but the guilt by implication is loud and clear.

[Chris333]

I'm not sure Z has to go through the beginnings that N did. Back then there was much less technology. So I see the biggest gripe being what MT does with new machinery. Sure now you can draw up something, hit a button, and it will cut itself out for you. All depends what you tell it to do. You want wide bodies? press enter now.


I also don't think the UP SP people are the problem, it's the ones who don't know a thing about UP SP, but think what they should have it.

[DKS]

I'm not sure Z has to go through the beginnings that N did. Back then there was much less technology. So I see the biggest gripe being what MT does with new machinery. Sure now you can draw up something, hit a button, and it will cut itself out for you. All depends what you tell it to do. You want wide bodies? press enter now.

Point taken; however, I suspect that Z scale will likely need to go through the same process as N had because it's more of an attitude issue than one of technology, one that we've seen with each successive new scale. If we aren't counting our rivets, we aren't serious modelers, and that attitude is rather irksome. After the lessons learned in N scale, must Z scalers endure the same spate of scale prejudice all over again? Also, all technology tends to do is shorten development time and increase the technical quality and sophistication of products. But with the miniscule margins manufacturers face in the miniscule Z scale market, how can people justify holding them in such contempt for their errors?

Having said all of this, the realistic part of me suspects that N will likely be the last scale to be accepted "seriously," because the hobby is waning, and smaller scales have diminishing audiences. Technology may make things possible in Z that were hard in N years back, but will there be very many people who want to accept all of the challenges associated with working that small? Without broader support of the scale, I don't think it will aquire the legs it needs to achieve the status of a "real" scale in the eyes of many modelers. I believe we've reached the point of diminishing returns, and Z scale will probably be dominated by a select few who enjoy that unique challenge.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Is the hobby waning?

I don't know about that.

How many people on this forum are under 40?

30?

20?

I have a theory about this.

But this thread is about MTL's Z scale products.

And about those, I can only say this: I'm kinda disappointed in the effort. Sure, they're pushing the limit, and doing stuff that other manufacturers aren't (mass produced "passenger cars"), but I don't think they're being too smart about it.

They're picking cars that are too road specific while the market is too young.

Look at the early N scale passenger cars. What did we have?

Pretty generic stuff.

Hell, look at Kato's product arc. At first they did "generic" smoothside cars, and as the market has matured, they've moved into doing much more specialized stuff (the CZ, which seems to be a great success).

But then again, all of the generic stuff has SOME prototype. Maybe it's just our own awareness of these things that have changed, and I guess they need to crawl before they can walk.

But then, on the OTHER hand, if they can do car A as a generic car, and it was used by one road, or they could do car B, which was used by two, would it not be twice as good to do car B? This is one of the things that I don't think MTL has EVER been good at doing though. Take a look at the "aluminum" C&O hoppers for instance. They did them (well, it, there was only one, and I don't think it was ever used in revenue service) instead of the plain black ones (of which there were 1000s, I think). Sure, the silver one was "cute", but they were never able to make multiples of it, plain black ones, on the other hand, would be PERFECT for their "runner packs".

[Sokramiketes]

Look at the early N scale passenger cars. What did we have?

Pretty generic stuff.

Hell, look at Kato's product arc. At first they did "generic" smoothside cars, and as the market has matured, they've moved into doing much more specialized stuff (the CZ, which seems to be a great success).

But then again, all of the generic stuff has SOME prototype. Maybe it's just our own awareness of these things that have changed, and I guess they need to crawl before they can walk.

But then, on the OTHER hand, if they can do car A as a generic car, and it was used by one road, or they could do car B, which was used by two, would it not be twice as good to do car B? This is one of the things that I don't think MTL has EVER been good at doing though. Take a look at the "aluminum" C&O hoppers for instance. They did them (well, it, there was only one, and I don't think it was ever used in revenue service) instead of the plain black ones (of which there were 1000s, I think). Sure, the silver one was "cute", but they were never able to make multiples of it, plain black ones, on the other hand, would be PERFECT for their "runner packs".

I agree with your point.  However, talking about the early stuff, like Rowa, might better prove it.  The Rowa corrugated stuff as an example used C&O P-S coach and 10-6 sleeper.  Then a dome was added that was sort of a prototype car, but was tweaked by adding corrugations so it matched the coach and sleeper. 

The first Kato smoothsides were UP prototypes (except for the generic looking obs, which was a Pullman and SP car). And 4 of the Kato prototypes are the proposed MTL releases.  So, MTL is doing what Kato did, or half so far.  I guess we can't blame them too much for following that path. I've been told that Kato chose the UP cars mostly because the drawings were available.  It wasn't a bad mix of cars, and Kato released a bunch of schemes on them, even if they weren't correct.  And, Kato still got complaints when they left the dome out of the NYC run, even though NYC never had domes... etc. 

I just don't see what these first four cars get you, without a lot of work.  An E unit, a baggage, and a couple coaches might make a nice local train.  But, the chosen coach prototype is a long haul 44 seat coach.  Think extra leg room and a window per seat.  Maybe I'm just too picky and most people see a coach and think it's fine.  But I spot a car for a cross country Cities train right away.  The dome coaches were also only used on the Cities trains.  So now that we're on the path toward a City of LA, or a City of Portland, etc, we need a bunch more cars and a long train... RPO, Diner, Lunch Counter, (Dome obs lounge, and Dome Diner later), couple more Pullmans (10-6, 11 Bedroom, etc.)  Most of those haven't made it to HO yet, let alone N, so the probability that they are ever made in Z is slim to none. 

Other coach options are out there.  Maybe a 56 seat P-S coach.  There were minor window differences that could bite you, but pick a generic plan and go with it.  Useful for short and long trains on multiple railroads.  Or, what about the C&NW "400" coach.  Couple C&NW schemes there, Burlington silver, GN green and orange, NP Loewy, C&NW in UP colors, etc.  Paint it for other railroads after you hit the prototype schemes.

Yes I'm passionate.  Does that make my observations wrong automatically? 

Maybe it does.

 

[DKS]

They're picking cars that are too road specific while the market is too young.

Hate to quibble, but (ignoring "Treble-O") N scale was born on the mass market in 1960. Z scale was born only 12 years later. So, there's not much of a difference between the respective markets, and Z scale is now about 33 years old. How old must it be before someone can introduce road-specific equipment? I'd hazard a guess that, had MT introduced more "generic" passenger equipment, there would be just as much griping. My $.02.

Yes I'm passionate.  Does that make my observations wrong automatically? 

Not at all. Your arguments are well-reasoned and stated in a professional manner. It's people who put down the scale completely as "toys" or verge on demanding a boycott of MT due to incompetence that get to me.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

They're picking cars that are too road specific while the market is too young.

Hate to quibble, but (ignoring "Treble-O") N scale was born on the mass market in 1960. Z scale was born only 12 years later. So, there's not much of a difference between the respective markets, and Z scale is now about 33 years old. How old must it be before someone can introduce road-specific equipment? I'd hazard a guess that, had MT introduced more "generic" passenger equipment, there would be just as much griping. My $.02.

A good point, I guess I was defining thing in a more functional rather than temporal sense.

Example: I am aware of people doing hardcore kitbashing / scratchbuilding of steam in N from before I was born ('82), but I've only become aware of it in Z in the last few years. While this may stem from me not having my ear to the ground, I don't think that's the case. (But I'd really like to be proven wrong).

[DKS]

They're picking cars that are too road specific while the market is too young.

Hate to quibble, but (ignoring "Treble-O") N scale was born on the mass market in 1960. Z scale was born only 12 years later. So, there's not much of a difference between the respective markets, and Z scale is now about 33 years old. How old must it be before someone can introduce road-specific equipment? I'd hazard a guess that, had MT introduced more "generic" passenger equipment, there would be just as much griping. My $.02.

A good point, I guess I was defining thing in a more functional rather than temporal sense.

Example: I am aware of people doing hardcore kitbashing / scratchbuilding of steam in N from before I was born ('82), but I've only become aware of it in Z in the last few years. While this may stem from me not having my ear to the ground, I don't think that's the case. (But I'd really like to be proven wrong).

You're not wrong from the sense that there were many more modelers bashing N in the 80s than Z, but there were still a few of us. Probably semi-proportional to the respective market sizes, which were (and still are) vastly different owing to Z's more limited appeal, not to mention its semi-obscurity. The internet has helped give Z some new exposure, which makes it appear to be much more of a recent phenomenon than it really is, although I'll wager the internet is helping it to expand measurably.

[wcfn100]

I never knew Z scalers were so sensitive.


For what it's worth, I really wanted to start in Z with the release of MT's Rock Island GP35's, but I'll never be able to overlook the hood width and the open pilot.  Maybe when Z catches up to where N is now, it'll be time to take another look.  Until then, I'll just have to keep trying to figure out how this relates to an N scale forum.


Jason