Author Topic: MTL employee chews out another manufacturer over NMRA compliance  (Read 7076 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Sokramiketes

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4013
  • Proactive advocate of truthiness
  • Respect: +271
    • Modutrak
Re: MTL employee chews out another manufacturer over NMRA compliance
« Reply #30 on: December 06, 2007, 11:15:12 AM »
0
It was clear and forthright in criticism of another manufacturer not supplying NMRA compliant wheelsets.  When you start bringing up comments about poor engineering and quality control, then you are "chewing out" another manufacturer.

The point is, this "criticism" was not unprovoked.  Even though taken way out of context, you did manage to include the part about Micro-Trains "chang(ing) the rules" and that was a backhanded slam at them.  Placing blame on MT for having NMRA compliant track is misplaced blame, and I don't fault Joe for responding.

Comparing it to the MT pizza cutter vs. Atlas Code 55 is stretching this a LOOONG way.  MT has NMRA compliant wheels available.  There is no law that says they have to provide them with their freight cars.  Perhaps they will get kicked out of the NMRA...would that make you happy?  (I'm sure thousands of silver-haired HOers would be tickled)

Do I like the fact the lo-pro's aren't included anymore?  Hell no...and I vote with my wallet.  But at least M-T did try different things (pizza only, pizza & lp, lp only, now pizza only again, or something like that) and apparently their collectors and/or N-trakkers voted with their wallets too, and MT made a business decision.  I'm not an MT apologist, but pulling a post, out of context, to start a crusade (against the guy who PROBABLY is our biggest supporter) into another forum entirely....pretty weak in my opinion.



All the context is there, what is missing that is so important?  The original comment made by Rob at AZL, and the full word-for-word response from Joe at MTL, are right there in the first post.

I agree that the criticism was provoked by AZL.  The quote you posted from me was in response to David's accusation that there was no critism involved at all from Joe's end.  There was critism on both sides, and I agree completly with you. 

If there is no law that MTL has to put NMRA compliant wheelsets on their equipment, then there is no law that AZL has to use NMRA compliant wheelsets.  I posted this here because it was interesting that one manufacturer who has been at the center of a huge debate about the validity of NMRA recommended practices used the NMRA arguement against another manufacturer, WHEN BOTH MANUFACTURERS USE WHEELSETS THAT DON'T WORK ON ANOTHER MANUFACTURER'S NMRA COMPLIANT TRACK.  How is this a "LOOOONG" stretch? 

Don't assume that I'm an NMRA champion either.  I couldn't care less who gets "kicked out" of the NMRA.  You missed the whole point of this thread.

There are other conclusions to draw from Joe's comments that no one has mentioned... everyone is worried about this being a personal attack, slam, etc.

What if Joe is currently working on slightly reducing the flange depth on the "standard" pizza cutter such that it will be in compliance with the NMRA RP's?  That would explain why he, at this point and not before, felt justified that he could call out another manufacturer on NMRA compliance.  If all Joe's ducks are in a row, then he can comment on others' ducks.   
Mike

www.modutrak.com
Better modeling through peer pressure...

Denver Road Doug

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2120
  • Respect: +99
    • Mockingbird Industrial
Re: MTL employee chews out another manufacturer over NMRA compliance
« Reply #31 on: December 06, 2007, 12:13:00 PM »
0
All the context is there, what is missing that is so important?  The original comment made by Rob at AZL, and the full word-for-word response from Joe at MTL, are right there in the first post.

I agree that the criticism was provoked by AZL.  The quote you posted from me was in response to David's accusation that there was no critism involved at all from Joe's end.  There was critism on both sides, and I agree completly with you. 


The context with respect to the thread before and after your quote, which is wholly unmoving.  Your quote sensationalizes the exchange, where in fact it was a mere pillow fight.  Also, "chews out" generally implies a unilateral exchange, which this, as you point out, clearly is not.

Quote
If there is no law that MTL has to put NMRA compliant wheelsets on their equipment, then there is no law that AZL has to use NMRA compliant wheelsets.  I posted this here because it was interesting that one manufacturer who has been at the center of a huge debate about the validity of NMRA recommended practices used the NMRA arguement against another manufacturer, WHEN BOTH MANUFACTURERS USE WHEELSETS THAT DON'T WORK ON ANOTHER MANUFACTURER'S NMRA COMPLIANT TRACK.  How is this a "LOOOONG" stretch? 

Because MT has never (publicly, to my knowledge) criticized Atlas for being NMRA compliant, like AZL did to MT.  The only "controversy" is people that are amazingly hell bent on purchasing track that they KNOW doesn't work with their wheels, and then complaining about it.  I doubt MT even considers it an issue other than from the perspective that a percentage of their customers are asking for lo-pro wheels to be standard. (EDIT: According to Joe in the referenced post, 80% of their customers want "pizza") And I know Atlas doesn't care, based on their quote in Model Railroader a couple of years ago.  (although, if you are looking for a controversial "angle" I would take a close look at why Atlas is using Code 65 in their new roadbed track system.)

Quote
There are other conclusions to draw from Joe's comments that no one has mentioned... everyone is worried about this being a personal attack, slam, etc.

What if Joe is currently working on slightly reducing the flange depth on the "standard" pizza cutter such that it will be in compliance with the NMRA RP's?  That would explain why he, at this point and not before, felt justified that he could call out another manufacturer on NMRA compliance.  If all Joe's ducks are in a row, then he can comment on others' ducks. 

Yet, you mysteriously wait until page three of this thread to get altruistic on us?  Doesn't suit you, Skibbe.  But to be fair, that is a good point...but a product development that I doubt would seriously surprise too many folks.

In this case, the "other ducks" weren't really doing too well, either...yet, they quacked first.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2007, 01:59:52 PM by Denver Road Doug »
NOTE: I'm no longer active on this forum.   If you need to contact me, use the e-mail address (or visit the website link) attached to this username.  Thanks.

Sokramiketes

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4013
  • Proactive advocate of truthiness
  • Respect: +271
    • Modutrak
Re: MTL employee chews out another manufacturer over NMRA compliance
« Reply #32 on: December 06, 2007, 12:28:25 PM »
0
All the context is there, what is missing that is so important?  The original comment made by Rob at AZL, and the full word-for-word response from Joe at MTL, are right there in the first post.

I agree that the criticism was provoked by AZL.  The quote you posted from me was in response to David's accusation that there was no critism involved at all from Joe's end.  There was critism on both sides, and I agree completly with you. 


The context with respect to the thread before and after your quote, which is wholly unmoving.  Your quote sensationalizes the exchange, where in fact it was a mere pillow fight.  Also, "chews out" generally implies a unilateral exchange, which this, as you point out, clearly is not.

Ok, if you want to go broader and show the rest of the thread (where two industry guys calmed down in public as quick as things "escalated") then lets go broader yet, and include the fact that the MTL/AZL rivalry, despite how then approach each other on public forums, has been brewing for quite some time and has more animosity behind it than you are letting on here.

Did you ever wonder why AZL had to produce their own trucks/couplers in the first place?  There's more to this rivalry than meets the eye. 

As far as chews out... Rob said one comment, and got "chewed out" in a much larger response, bringing to light more of the past history.  One could argue that it really was a unilateral chew out, as insignificant as Rob's comments have been in light of the thread as a whole.
Mike

www.modutrak.com
Better modeling through peer pressure...

Ian MacMillan

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11939
  • Gender: Male
  • Learn to use the god damn search feature!
  • Respect: +69
    • Conrail's Portland Line
Re: MTL employee chews out another manufacturer over NMRA compliance
« Reply #33 on: December 06, 2007, 01:11:17 PM »
0
Its so nice to see MTL taking a stand on NMRA standards in the newest "hot" scale, while they could give a rats a$$ on the other scale that comes out of their building.

Does Joe consider Marklin and Ajin not to be "creditable" manufacturers because they are not made in the US?
I WANNA SEE THE BOAT MOVIE!

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 12559
  • Dead Man Modeling
  • Respect: +4380
    • David's Modeling Journey
Re: MTL employee chews out another manufacturer over NMRA compliance
« Reply #34 on: December 06, 2007, 01:57:38 PM »
0
Did you ever wonder why AZL had to produce their own trucks/couplers in the first place?  There's more to this rivalry than meets the eye.

If I understand it correctly, the principal reason for this was because M-T dropped OEM pricing. This is not rivalry; this is a choice of business practice.
“Everyone leaves unfinished business. That's what dying is.” —Amos, The Expanse

Sokramiketes

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4013
  • Proactive advocate of truthiness
  • Respect: +271
    • Modutrak
Re: MTL employee chews out another manufacturer over NMRA compliance
« Reply #35 on: December 06, 2007, 02:14:58 PM »
0
Did you ever wonder why AZL had to produce their own trucks/couplers in the first place?  There's more to this rivalry than meets the eye.

If I understand it correctly, the principal reason for this was because M-T dropped OEM pricing. This is not rivalry; this is a choice of business practice.

You understand what has been said in public venues.
Mike

www.modutrak.com
Better modeling through peer pressure...

Pray59

  • Guest
Re: MTL employee chews out another manufacturer over NMRA compliance
« Reply #36 on: December 07, 2007, 10:09:47 AM »
0
haha! 2 cages of rats, pick one up, shake violently, pour those rats out into the other cage. That's what I like most about this forum!  ;D

Ed Kapuscinski

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 19357
  • Has a degree in American History & Culture.
  • Respect: +3267
    • Conrail 1285
Re: MTL employee chews out another manufacturer over NMRA compliance
« Reply #37 on: December 07, 2007, 11:23:22 AM »
0
You know, I read the "80% response was to go back to HPW" line and was like "that's a bullshit figure if I ever heard one".

80% response from who? N Scale scratch builders? NTRAK members? Random people at trainshows? Dealers? Beanie baby collectors? Seriously...

There are just so many things wrong with that whole statement, I can't even begin to get into it.

I'm sure Joe's a really nice guy, but it sounds like he's had a big ol jug of the company kool aid.

RockandRail

  • Guest
Re: MTL employee chews out another manufacturer over NMRA compliance
« Reply #38 on: December 07, 2007, 12:07:53 PM »
0
You know, I read the "80% response was to go back to HPW" line and was like "that's a bullshit figure if I ever heard one".

80% response from who? N Scale scratch builders? NTRAK members? Random people at trainshows? Dealers? Beanie baby collectors? Seriously...

the "silent majority" is not a myth.  80% of N scale modelers might actually prefer the low pros, but of the 20%  left over who responded, 80% of them were for pizza cutters!  thus 80% of the response MTL received motivated them go with pizza cutters (i.e. public response).

but this is really an N scale issue, and i regret that it got put into the Z forum.   Z scalers don't have a huge argument with MTL or AZL.   maybe we are "too grateful" for whatever we can get, but we like most of what we're getting (especially since we didn't have to endure the "bachman" and "lima" phases to get good rolling stock).

perhaps one other reason MTL is supportive of Z scale is because Z scale modelers are supportive of MTL's efforts.  can't say the same for N scalers.  so if you were MTL who would you want to encourage?   that said, the lion's share of MTL product is still N scale.   it seems more is never enough.

it's this kind of bitter commentary that helped drive me away from N scale -- and i'm glad it did, because with Z i'm having fun modeling again!  community means as much to me in Z modeling as rivets do.  no, that may not be true -- it means a bit more, which is why i'm enjoying Z so much.

and for the record, Joe is willing to speak for MTL, but he doesn't have to.  we're grateful that he does!  we get a whole lot more good information with joe's participation than we'd have without it.   you'll notice that Intermountain, Atlas, Red Caboose, etc. employees don't participate in internet forums.   the reason is that it always ends up in a snot fight, and it's just not worth the effort.   and that's not my opinion, it's most company's policy.
dave f.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2007, 12:10:54 PM by RockandRail »

Ryan87

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 799
  • Gender: Male
  • Stay thirsty my friend...
  • Respect: 0
Re: MTL employee chews out another manufacturer over NMRA compliance
« Reply #39 on: December 07, 2007, 12:29:09 PM »
0
...Atlas...  ...employees don't participate in internet forums...   

Then who are Cory & Paul on the A board with? ;)
Swimming in a sea of Action Red...

John

  • Administrator
  • Crew
  • *****
  • Posts: 11251
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +815
Re: MTL employee chews out another manufacturer over NMRA compliance
« Reply #40 on: December 07, 2007, 02:16:35 PM »
0
While I don't want to stiffle anyone's ability to take pot shots at a manufacturer, this thread has run it's course ..