NOV 2010 MTL announcements

[sundowner]

The CSX gons are fairly closed.


http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=677669

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1510049

[sirenwerks]

Don't get me wrong - I like the car (E-L is another road that I am partial to). But these days I like to know what I'm forking out cash for before I decide.

Elaborating on my first post though, if the MT text says no roofwalk, and if the photo supplied by MT shows a roofwalk, then somebody failed on fundamental proofing of the text. Or something  

Mark

I concur. They're not very bright. But maybe they got it out of a Morning Sun book; they're always riddled with silly mistakes that could have been avoided had someone with an understanding of the English language and trains carefully proofed the text.

[CBQ Fan]

Nothing about the Santa Fe heavyweight?

[wcfn100]

Elaborating on my first post though, if the MT text says no roofwalk, and if the photo supplied by MT shows a roofwalk, then somebody failed on fundamental proofing of the text. Or something  

No, the prototype probably didn't have a roofwalk.


Jason

[lock4244]

Don't get me wrong - I like the car (E-L is another road that I am partial to). But these days I like to know what I'm forking out cash for before I decide.


If Fallen Flags is correct the proto is road numbers 5000 -5039     (50'9")
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/rbl.html

One of the earlier cars in the series (with Roofwalks and note the herald plate):

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/el5005alb.jpg

Elaborating on my first post though, if the MT text says no roofwalk, and if the photo supplied by MT shows a roofwalk, then somebody failed on fundamental proofing of the text. Or something  

Mark

My sarcasm was directed at MT... I totally agree that putting the roofwalk on that car is weak, essp. given their statement to the contrary. If it is actually to be delivered w/o the roofwalk, I'd be more inclied to get one; EL is one of my "if I didn't model CN & CP" roads. Maybe Joe can clear this one up (will it come w/roofwalk or w/o).

[Puddington]

Nothing about the Santa Fe heavyweight?

Nope........I'm hearing the crickets..................

[POVC]

My sarcasm was directed at MT... I totally agree that putting the roofwalk on that car is weak, essp. given their statement to the contrary. If it is actually to be delivered w/o the roofwalk, I'd be more inclied to get one; EL is one of my "if I didn't model CN & CP" roads. Maybe Joe can clear this one up (will it come w/roofwalk or w/o).

I believe that MT mechanical reefers only come with roofwalks; mechanical reefer w/o roofwalk isn't one of the available MT body styles.

So you either get the reefer with a roofwalk, or you get a car with holes in the roof.   ;D

Tim

[sirenwerks]

Third option, they release a new body style.

[bobcat]

I think I will get a runner pack of the Calvin Coolige car .. never can have enough dead presidents

The only dead presidents I want are on green paper.

[CBQ Fan]

Nope........I'm hearing the crickets..................

I am just hearing silence, doesn't that mean a big predator is nearby!     If I could only hear the crickets.

[ai5629]

I don't normally comment on the MTL monthly releases, but I have got to comment on the PRR hopper.  First, the car is dead on accurate (body style and paint scheme) for a Pennsy H43 hopper.  I have two of the PRR three packs released in 11/2000, and they are perfect.  However, their blurb "After the Penn Central merger (Feb 1968), this series was renumbered to PC 473972-475463" is just plain incorrect.  That series of cars is class H43A (ex PRR 225000-226499), not H43 (180000-181999). The straight H43's were renumbered to PC 472000-473970.  I will still pick one or two up.  I want to renumber the cars to PRR prototypes that existed in the 80's.  I am also going to do a few Conrail Yellow Ball paint outs to add to my all MTL Conrail coal train.  Now that you have rerun the PRR car, how about rerunning the Conrail ones, preferably in a runner pack.  I can send you photos to make it easy Joe.  Thanks.

[JoeD]

I can check into the prototype info for you....possible they got wrong info or something.  What ever the picture is, that's the car we did...

Joe

My sarcasm was directed at MT... I totally agree that putting the roofwalk on that car is weak, essp. given their statement to the contrary. If it is actually to be delivered w/o the roofwalk, I'd be more inclied to get one; EL is one of my "if I didn't model CN & CP" roads. Maybe Joe can clear this one up (will it come w/roofwalk or w/o).

[Mark5]

I don't normally comment on the MTL monthly releases, but I have got to comment on the PRR hopper.  First, the car is dead on accurate (body style and paint scheme) for a Pennsy H43 hopper.

Indeed they are correct for H43 - the H43 class were clones of the N&W H11a design.

And I'd like to thank MTL for offering this design. ;D

If MTL ever re-runs these in N&W you guys need to correct the lettering. I can help with info there.

Some of the late H11d/e would be cool in this scheme:

http://spec.lib.vt.edu/imagebase/norfolksouthern/full/ns2132.jpeg
(photo is an H12 - don't do this number!)

As for the NW scheme, it started with class H11d about # 118888* thru 119999. The last class matching your tooling was H11e which began production in 1971. The numbers are 120000-121018 and 134000-134249 with the last ones being made in 1972.

* I kept a log back then (about 1972) of the ones I saw in the "new" schemes - 118888 was the lowest "NW" I observed.

Mark

[lock4244]

I bet if MTL did that hopper for PRR and N&W in a twelve pack, they'd wear out the mold just trying to keep up with demand  ;D

[sirenwerks]

I bet if MTL did that hopper for PRR and N&W in a twelve pack, they'd wear out the mold just trying to keep up with demand  ;D

But since they don't offer anything in a continuous available state, that would never happen.