Micro Trains June cars in person

[Dave V]

Here's the CR bay window cabin car for June 2009:



Remember, here's the prototype:

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/cr/cr18438akg.jpg

OK, my impressions.  Nice molding, and nice touch with the metal floor.  Lettering is crisp, and the Conrail blue is well within the acceptable range, maybe more toward the darker blue.  The end railings look very delicate, yet appear straight and well-rendered.

The not so nice bits:  It rides VERY high, even for Micro Trains.  I suspect this is because the "master" SP caboose has that big tool box that hangs down.  This cabin also has 36" pizza cutters, when the prototype clearly has 33" wheels.  Also, the metal floor and steps are "blackened" but have some marbling to them.



In terms of how it matches the prototype, we've already kinda beat that dead horse.  To recap:  The sides are 3 panels with no windows, versus the CR car which had 3.5 panels and windows welded shut with sheet metal.  I may or may not attempt to scribe these window panels.  The roof pattern is different.  The bay window angles are also different.  The smoke jack on the prototype is similar to all of CR's former PRR cabins, but the MTL smoke jack is the SP version.  The ends are also significantly different, including the location of the end railings, the brake wheel stanchions, and even the steps.  The other visual difference is that MTL's "canopener" doesn't extend nearly as far toward the end of the car as the prototype; most CR cabins had canopeners running all the way to the end of the body.

What I will probably do:  I may or may not, again, attempt to scribe in those blanked-out windows.  I'll look at lowering the body some; clearly low-pro 33" wheels will be a step in the right direction.  I also plan to paint the end railings white.  I always shoot my cars with Dullcote (after masking the windows) and then weather with acrylic washes.

The other Eastern prototype car from Micro Trains this June is a real winner, through-and-through.





That little hair or whatever just above the right side grab irons did not come with or on the car, and blew right off.  Probably came from my head (I'm going bald).

Here's the prototype in 1991:

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/pc/pc221005ads.jpg

And another of the same class:

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/pc/pc221012ssa.jpg

Overall, this is a very impressive car.  The lettering is crisp, the color is great, and the detail is very, very fine.  It matches the prototype PC class X78 exactly.  Micro Trains hit a home run with this one!

All I need to do with this is add low-profile wheels (yes, I'm converting to Atlas c55 track soon), add an ACI label, then Dullcote and weather it with washes.

I'm very thankful that Micro Trains continues to support Eastern modelers with selections like these.  The cabin is a "foobie" (stand-in) through-and-through, but I got it for under $20 (that was my break-point below which I was willing to accept compromises in accuracy).  The Penn Central boxcar, on the other hand, is an exact replica of a typical Penn Central X78.  Both look very nice and at home on my PRR/CR layout.

[Robbman]

 This cabin also has 36" pizza cutters, when the prototype clearly has 33" wheels.

Micro-Trains makes a 36" wheel?

[wcfn100]

I would have thought the thousand or so rivets on the proto vs. none on the MT car would make the 'differences' list. 

If you could match the color, maybe painting the 'sil' area would help how high it looks.



Jason

[wm3798]

It looks like the steps come pretty far down...  If you lower it significantly, will you have to do something with the steps?

The X-78 is indeed a good looking model.  Your photos appear to show it sitting pretty low... Is this an accurate assessment? 
Lee

[tom mann]

Dave,

MT doesn't make a 36" wheel.  I think that your point is that the Pizza Cutters "look" like a larger diameter wheel.

Any thoughts on how to lower it?

[John]

I would have thought the thousand or so rivets on the proto vs. none on the MT car would make the 'differences' list. 

If you could match the color, maybe painting the 'sil' area would help how high it looks.



Jason

there appear to be rivits on the MT car /

[sirenwerks]

there appear to be rivits on the MT car

Could be more of Dave's hair?

[Mark5]

Must be using Gabriel Hijackers ...

[Dave V]

Hm, I could swear the wheels on the caboose look larger in diameter than on the boxcar...  so I stand corrected.  They really do look about 3" wider in diameter.

I could probably trim about a scale 6" to 1' off the bolsters and still clear the steps, but not sure.  Let me start by changing out the wheelsets and seeing what that will do.

There are no rivets that I can see on the caboose.  It looks like it's a welded body.

Ride height on the box is decent.  Still much higher than the adjacent Atlas 50' PD boxcar on the right.  But overall, very nice.

[asarge]

I really, REALLY like the PC Boxcar.

[Dave V]

OK, the wheels are 33".  Maybe because I've been switching everything to low pros the wheel flange threw me off.  Either way, low pros seem only to make this caboose look even higher because you can now see more space between the body and the truck.  The metal bolsters won't be easy to file down without making a mess.

Also I was a little miffed to note some glue residue on one of the end posts.

[ai5629]

That Penn Central X78 looks fantastic.  I am glad MTL finally got around to producing it.  It took 10 years, but it was worth the wait. One less car to paint and decal!  Now what am I going to do with the undecorated one I bought five years ago to paint and decal into this scheme?   Maybe another Conrail X78 is in order.

[TiVoPrince]

Experts
please advise if the body height is compromised.  Based on the proto-photo this car may need to lose a full foot or more in ride height.  Want this car but if it is 'squashed' like the FMC I think that will cause me to pass on it...

[Dave V]

Those trucks are on there VERY well.  I tried some amount of brute force, but gave up before I damaged anything.

I'm trying FVM 33" metal wheels...  Won't fix the ride height but will at least look better.

EDIT:  I was able to pry off the trucks...  The bolsters are relatively unobstructed to it was easy to file off about a scale 6" or so.

[ai5629]

I do not feel the MTL 60' Greenville car is "short".  There was a thread a while ago called "Bluford vs" that gives a side by side comparison of the new Bluford 86' PS car compared to the MTL car.  The roofs line up well, however the MTL car appears to be riding high while the Bluford car is more pleasing to the eye.  This would make you think if you lowered the MTL car, it would be short compared to the Bluford car.  While I agree that the MTL car needs lowered some to have a more protypical ride height, I also feel the Bluford car should sit lower.  The Bluford car looks better since its PS side sill hangs lower that the MTL car.  This gives the appearance that the car is sitting at a more prototypical ride height.  If you look at a prototype photo of a 86' PS car, the Bluford cars should be lowered also.  The side sill on a PS car hangs down to the journal box caps (not sure of the proper name here) of its trucks.  I would offer slightly lower than the Greenville car.  This allows the Bluford car to sit higher, but appear to be riding at a prototypical height.  Am I going to lower my Bluford cars?  No.  Will I lower my MTL cars.  Yes.  Will I mix them together in a train? No.  The MTL cars will look short compared to the Bluford cars since I am not going to lower the Bluford cars.  Overall, if you compare just the boxcar bodies, they are just about identical in size.   That thread (Bluford vs) really bothered me at first, but upon doing my own investigation, I am satisfied that the MTL 60' cars are sized properly.  Thanks.