"Standard" wheels for Micro-Trains?

[Glenn Poole]

......  The ride height has been a major reason I have slowed my purchases of MT rolling stock.  If the photo in the link you provided is any indication of their commitment to improving the appearance of their products, I'll happily switch my purchasing trends.

Eric

"Ditto"

Glenn

[GaryHinshaw]

Well I just picked one of these up, and all I can say is that it looks like the ride height is about the only thing this model has going for it... 

Ed

All the more reason to weather the h*ll out of it!  The cast-on roofwalks make it a non-starter for me, given all the other hoppers available with them (but not this prototype admittedly).  Does it really come with extended couplers?

BTW, the Ortner open hoppers have really nice tooling -- but the ride height is nuts, and there is no easy fix for it.   >

-gfh

[bbussey]

Well I just picked one of these up, and all I can say is that it looks like the ride height is about the only thing this model has going for it.  Talk about a foob -- the tooling is not at all what I would expect from MT: the grabs and stirrups are quite crude, and the roofwalks and hatches are cast on.  Even the air reservoir is a cast-on half-cylinder kind of thing. Very toy-like, like something that was tooled about maybe 30 years ago, or that you would find in a train set...

Well, it's not a foob - it's an accurate representation of the prototype.  It just doesn't have many of the free-standing parts that earlier MTL covered hoppers have.  This model was a conscious effort by MTL to offset the complaints that the MSRP of their rolling stock was getting too high.  They could design a model as intricate as the current Athearn releases, but then everyone would scream about the price.

It doesn't take much effort to super-detail the Evans car if desired.  But as is, the cars sit at the correct height, look decent in operation and are of a prototype that was needed in N.

[Denver Road Doug]

It doesn't take much effort to super-detail the Evans car if desired.  But as is, the cars sit at the correct height, look decent in operation and are of a prototype that was needed in N.

I would be interested in hearing about the "low effort" method of superdetailing this car.  I bought one with that idea in mind but after filing off the first few grabs I decided actually filing off the roofwalk was just gonna be too much given the other bajillion projects I have waiting.  I have a feeling someone will bring out a good model of the Evans car at some point anyway.

MTL is always gonna have the price complaint.  They need to quit trying to compete with Atlas Trainman and get back to catching up with their competition.  Then they can charge the big price.

Anyway, back on topic, I think the mid-pro wheel might be the best idea MTL has had in at least two decades.  (but, they have so many other things they need to address) This and Atlas' new "Code 55.06" flextrack they're coming out with should eventually put an end to 70-80% of n-scale forum topics.   

[ednadolski]

it's an accurate representation of the prototype.

To me the cast-on roofwalks/hatches/tank/etc. compromise the look of the prototype pretty significantly.

This model was a conscious effort by MTL to offset the complaints that the MSRP of their rolling stock was getting too high.  They could design a model as intricate as the current Athearn releases, but then everyone would scream about the price.

OK, but the MSRP on this Evans was $19.15, while the MSRP on the Athearn 2-bay was $19.98.  Yet the Athearn has far finer ladders, rungs, hatches, piping, and other details, plus etched roofwalks & platforms, and even end grabirons made from 0.010" wire.  How is Athearn able to include all that and still sell a model at essentially the same cost?

Whatever the reasons (development, volume, labor, ...), to me that suggests that MT may be having problems with their ability to compete on cost.  With the trend toward finer products from Athearn, FVM, BLMA, etc, that's only going to become more of a concern for them, I would think.

On another note: maybe I'm missing something, but to me its seems kind of odd to try to address the ride height issue in a product targeted at a low cost market segment, where ride height probably isn't probably much of a consideration.

It doesn't take much effort to super-detail the Evans car if desired.

Shaving off a cast-on roofwalk would not be a small effort, at least for me.  (Loco grabirons are time-consuming enough.)

Ed
 

[ednadolski]

I think the mid-pro wheel might be the best idea MTL has had in at least two decades.  This ... should eventually put an end to 70-80% of n-scale forum topics.   

I can only believe that the confusion over wheels has had an overall negative impact on N scale in general.  There are many other modeling topics that are much more interesting and constructive to discuss.

Ed

[bbussey]

OK, but the MSRP on this Evans was $19.15, while the MSRP on the Athearn 2-bay was $19.98.  Yet the Athearn has far finer ladders, rungs, hatches, piping, and other details, plus etched roofwalks & platforms, and even end grabirons made from 0.010" wire.  How is Athearn able to include all that and still sell a model at essentially the same cost?

When MTL released the Evans car in 2006, Athearn wasn't releasing cars that were as super-detailed as the bay window caboose and the two-bay center flow, so the comparison is flawed.  The best-detailed model at the time probably was the RC bi-level auto-rack, which MSRP'd at considerably more than the Evans car.

Whatever the reasons (development, volume, labor, ...), to me that suggests that MT may be having problems with their ability to compete on cost.  With the trend toward finer products from Athearn, FVM, BLMA, etc, that's only going to become more of a concern for them, I would think.

It will.  My guess is that MTL will have to consider overseas production at some point, even if they continue to tool in the States.

On another note: maybe I'm missing something, but to me its seems kind of odd to try to address the ride height issue in a product targeted at a low cost market segment, where ride height probably isn't probably much of a consideration.

Why not?  Trainman-quality cars shouldn't ride at the correct height whenever possible?  A number of them already do.

Shaving off a cast-on roofwalk would not be a small effort, at least for me.  (Loco grabirons are time-consuming enough.)

I guess it's all relative.  If the basic body is correct and doesn't have to be changed, I consider any cosmetic changes to be easy.  For example - to me, kitbashing the BLMA PD4000 hopper into a trough-hatched LV model will be easy because the majority of the car is correct for the prototype and commercially-available parts are all that's needed.

[ednadolski]

OK, but the MSRP on this Evans was $19.15, while the MSRP on the Athearn 2-bay was $19.98.  Yet the Athearn has far finer ladders, rungs, hatches, piping, and other details, plus etched roofwalks & platforms, and even end grabirons made from 0.010" wire.  How is Athearn able to include all that and still sell a model at essentially the same cost?

When MTL released the Evans car in 2006, Athearn wasn't releasing cars that were as super-detailed as the bay window caboose and the two-bay center flow, so the comparison is flawed.

Well, those both are today's prices, so I'm not sure I see how the comparison is flawed.  AFAICT it means that Athearn has solved the cost issues with providing better detailed models, and MT hasn't.  From that POV, the history doesn't really matter.

Whatever the reasons (development, volume, labor, ...), to me that suggests that MT may be having problems with their ability to compete on cost.  With the trend toward finer products from Athearn, FVM, BLMA, etc, that's only going to become more of a concern for them, I would think.

It will.  My guess is that MTL will have to consider overseas production at some point, even if they continue to tool in the States.

I agree.  I've worked for several companies in recent years that have all had to face the same painful choice.

Score another one for the "global economy".

Trainman-quality cars shouldn't ride at the correct height whenever possible?  A number of them already do.

I'd love to see them all ride at the correct height.  But was MT really all that interested in height when the Evans was tooled?  Anyways, my point was just that correct ride height seems more like a feature to aim at customers who are more into accuracy and detail, rather than low cost.

I guess it's all relative.  If the basic body is correct and doesn't have to be changed, I consider any cosmetic changes to be easy.

It's even easier to buy the car that comes with the better ride height and detailing. 

I think it's also a matter of how you want to invest your efforts.  It's not hard to justify the effort to produce a unique model of a prototype that you need, esp. if one is not commercially available.   But for basic things like ride height, having to fix that on many cars doesn't take long to feel like swimming against the tide, with a brick in each hand, for me at least.  I'd prefer to put my time & effort into things that I find more rewarding, like detailing or weathering for example.

Ed

[bbussey]

Well, those both are today's prices, so I'm not sure I see how the comparison is flawed.  AFAICT it means that Athearn has solved the cost issues with providing better detailed models, and MT hasn't.  From that POV, the history doesn't really matter.

The comparison is flawed because they weren't tooled in the same "era" (and yes, four years ago would be another era given how rapidly tooling technology changes), and they weren't tooled in the same country with the same cost structure.  The fact that the MSRPs are similar is not relevant, not to mention that MTL probably is still amortizing the tooling as well.  It will be apples to apples if MTL ever moves production overseas.  Comparing the ExactRail and BLMA PD4000s would be a better analysis - similar production costs and similar price points yet detail differences between the two models.

I'd love to see them all ride at the correct height.  But was MT really all that interested in height when the Evans was tooled?  Anyways, my point was just that correct ride height seems more like a feature to aim at customers who are more into accuracy and detail, rather than low cost.

Joe would have to confirm that, but I know that MTL was conscious of ride height going back at least to that time.

It's even easier to buy the car that comes with the better ride height and detailing.  

I think it's also a matter of how you want to invest your efforts.  It's not hard to justify the effort to produce a unique model of a prototype that you need, esp. if one is not commercially available.   But for basic things like ride height, having to fix that on many cars doesn't take long to feel like swimming against the tide, with a brick in each hand, for me at least.  I'd prefer to put my time & effort into things that I find more rewarding, like detailing or weathering for example.

But until recent years (recent months actually), ride height always has been an issue in N scale in general, not just with Micro-Trains.  So for half a century, if you wanted equipment to ride at a more prototypical height, you had to modify it.  Most people just lived with it - just as they lived until the 1970s with no alternative to crude couplers; until the 1980s with sub-standard motive power; until the 1990s with pilot-less diesel power and truck-mounted couplers; until the 2000s with toy-like track; and until 2008 with freight/passenger equipment and truck-mounted couplers.

[JoeD]

Granted, doing all I want to do with these releases would drive the cost up and we would get a ton of flack for that as well. Every time I design a car I have my own version of Sophie's Choice, someone is going to get mad no matter what I do.  But, the arguement that we should just go ahead and add metal roof walks and seperate grabs and the like will kill us for good.  (and by the tone of some of the poster's on Railwire, that can't happen too soon)  Folks don't appreciate the cost difference in having China do production and production here in the states.  Also, you loose some control as well.  SDK who does a lot if not most of the work for the N scale market and others, will not just do tooling, or take your tooling and do production with it.  They will also not generally give you raw plastic so you can paint and decorate the parts yourself.  I've been down every bunny hole possible trying to figure out a way to use the best of both worlds to keep prices down and increase parts.  SOP from most of the large vendors that can handle our volume is that they take our designs and send back finished, packaged products...nothing less.  I attempted to get them to do the new bridges we are doing in Z and again, the only way I could have it done was to have them assemble, decorate and package the products.   Other vendors...sure, but you can't guarantee what you are going to get no matter how many test shots you approve. 

As for the Evans, not what I was aiming for, but sometimes the cost of production makes the choices for you.   Other issues like ride height, are top of my list, and now with new tooling that's what I beat everyone over the head with...so hopefully we can put that one to bed soon.


Cheers
Joe
MTL

[Robbman]

SDK who does a lot if not most of the work for the N scale market and others, will not just do tooling, or take your tooling and do production with it.
Cheers
Joe
MTL

Sounds like you need to get away from SDK then... it's your dollars, if they're not going to do what you want, go elsewhere.... others have.

[Sokramiketes]

SDK who does a lot if not most of the work for the N scale market and others, will not just do tooling, or take your tooling and do production with it.
Cheers
Joe
MTL

I know SDK has received tooling that was cut elsewhere and completed production with it.  That statement is incorrect.  They've also received raw plastic shot in the US and sent in for final assembly.  I don't know why you'd want them just to cut tooling and send it to you so you can run production, but I can't imagine they'd say no unless other factors were at stake.  Or if something changed in the last year since Kader bought them...

[JoeD]

How can it be incorrect when that's our experience?  Done much contracting with them?  Mold design is one thing, hard tooling transfer is a different animal.

Let me restate, SDK does amazing work and have every right to set the terms with vendors...no arguement there.

Joe

SDK who does a lot if not most of the work for the N scale market and others, will not just do tooling, or take your tooling and do production with it.
Cheers
Joe
MTL

I know SDK has received tooling that was cut elsewhere and completed production with it.  That statement is incorrect.

[bicknell]

Granted, doing all I want to do with these releases would drive the cost up and we would get a ton of flack for that as well. Every time I design a car I have my own version of Sophie's Choice, someone is going to get mad no matter what I do.

Sad, but true.  I know coming to these forums as a vendor can be tough, a seeming non-stop abuse-fest.  Still, it's the vocal minority that drives you to better products, you just can't let them get to you too much.  

Love that you guys have the "mid-pro" wheels now although I haven't seen them in person yet.  Hopefully the forums helped you with that one, although I'm sure it will turn out bad in some way.  

SDK who does a lot if not most of the work for the N scale market and others, will not just do tooling, or take your tooling and do production with it.  They will also not generally give you raw plastic so you can paint and decorate the parts yourself.  I've been down every bunny hole possible trying to figure out a way to use the best of both worlds to keep prices down and increase parts.  SOP from most of the large vendors that can handle our volume is that they take our designs and send back finished, packaged products...nothing less.  I attempted to get them to do the new bridges we are doing in Z and again, the only way I could have it done was to have them assemble, decorate and package the products.   Other vendors...sure, but you can't guarantee what you are going to get no matter how many test shots you approve. 

I've had side discussions with several vendors about the tooling issues, and your post alarms me to no end.  From the little bit I know about injection molding I feel that in many cases companies are stuck in old business models.  Working with a tooler who owns the tooling when you're done?  I wouldn't accept that for one second.  It also seems to me most of these shops want to make tool steel molds capable of runs of millions of parts, which is great, but expensive.  Modern methods is to use more CNC aluminum molds on lower pressure presses, sure they don't last as long (maybe 25,000 parts) but they can be remade on the CNC machine for pennies.  Cheaper to cut 3 sets of aluminum for a 75,000 run than one set of tool steel that only gets used 1/10th of its capability.

I'm sure N Scale has some issues with small parts that make CNC tooling more difficult, and/or makes the design of the tooling more interesting.  However there is also an explosion of folks who do this sort of work, some examples:

http://epsilonindustries.com/?gclid=CPa4np3WiKACFQli2godrkl4jA
http://www.protomold.com/?ls=PSGPM1&s=PSGPM1&gclid=CPuDhMvXiKACFclg2godQhTRJg

Under $1500 to tool and make parts from your drawing, you own the tooling.  Now, don't get me wrong, no way you could make an N scale car for that (multiple parts, probably some complexities not captured in that price), but it's a far cry from the $25,000-$100,000 that I've seen quoted before to tool a single car, not even counting then making it!

While I haven't used any of these services, I have several friends who have used them with great results.  I also think the small company for which your order is a large one would be much more hungry for the business and willing to provide better prices, services, and terms.  I think one of the other keys is to get folks on your staff who can design the simpler stuff in house, in CAD, and send it out.  It seems to me too many N scale shops take a hands off attitude, making diagrams of what they want and letting the tooler do all the work. That's a great way for them to mark up their "professional services".

I know finding a new vendor is a huge undertaking, so please don't think I'm trying to trivialize it.  I do think though finding a new company with no experience in N scale, but some experience in making small parts, and a hunger to work with you would be well worth your time and effort.  I give the same advice to all the vendors.  It seems everyone keeps going back to the same few folks because they "know the business".  Well, that's short term thinking, it makes getting the next product out easy but traps you into taking whatever terms they give you.  A little more competition in the industry would be a good thing, and to someone good at making injection molds designing an N scale car isn't really much different from designing any other moderately complex plastic part.

[Pomperaugrr]

While I mentioned ride height earlier, Joe has convinced me that it will be addressed in future releases.  I like good value for my money, but I have to say that "made in the U.S.A." has value to me too.  I'm willing to pay a bit more for that.

Eric