Behind the scenes at MT; Joe D'Amato

[tom mann]

http://www.ztrains.com/pages/guest/damato/damato.html

Good coverage of Joe and Micro-Trains.

[3rdrail]

Yeah, too bad he doesn't participate here. Wonder if we're too negative about his company's products?

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I'd love it if Joe came around.

I do feel that sometimes our MTL discussions are rather, umm, one sided?

[Mark5]

I wish Joe would have responded to my fact filled criticism of the new N&W runner pack on the trainboard ...

[engineshop]

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.

[bdeuster]

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

[Mark5]

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

[Kisatchie]

...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.

[ednadolski]

* 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.

[RS-27]

Ed, the Z Marklin conversion don't slink, but you need to make a coupler box.

Bob in IDaho

[Sokramiketes]

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.

[wm3798]

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

[Ed Kapuscinski]

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.

[amato1969]

Damn!  I just need the undecs.  Microscale has the 1960s-70s brown and yellow schemes covered.  Hardest part is putting the road numbers together...

[Nato]

       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).