Intermountain forgets N scale in February

[lock4244]

God I hope not...

Com'on Ed, the SD40-2W turned out to be a pretty decent locomotive (shell is still not where Kato or Atlas are) and quite road specific. There is always going to be some trade-off, but if you look at what Atlas is charging for a generally road generic locomotive, the IM -2W is a fair deal. It is a good evolutionary step from where we were to where we want to be... i.e. road specific down to the a$$-groove on the hogger's seat.

[wcfn100]

Com'on Ed, the SD40-2W turned out to be a pretty decent locomotive (shell is still not where Kato or Atlas are) and quite road specific. There is always going to be some trade-off, but if you look at what Atlas is charging for a generally road generic locomotive, the IM -2W is a fair deal. It is a good evolutionary step from where we were to where we want to be... i.e. road specific down to the a$$-groove on the hogger's seat.

Even if IM made a top-notch locomotive, their artwork is an embarrassment.

Although it would be nice to watch them screw up a paint scheme like CR that actually has a voice.  When they botch CGW, M&StL, Soo, etc, etc... no one is there to listen or care.

Jason

[Mark5]

Hopefully its not IM, Bachmann, Kato, Model Power, Mehano, or Concor.

[sirenwerks]

... down to the a$$-groove on the hogger's seat.

That's one detail I think I'll pass on. 'They' would probably get it wrong anyway.

And Jason, that just means more real modeling to do and less people to complain when you decide not to. Of course, CGW has turned out to be less forgiving than I thought with just the two of you. But don't worry, I'm picking up the knowledge and will get both of you back in time. (It's too bad I don't feel safe around you guys, I could use some help)

[Mark5]

BTW, here's the IM Feb N scale releases:

http://www.intermountain-railway.com/newn.html

[wcfn100]

And Jason, that just means more real modeling to do and less people to complain when you decide not to.

Actually, my critism of the IM (or any manufacturer's) artwork has little to do with model trains.  As a former graphic design instructor, I would expect my 6 month certificate students to do a better job.  The resources are out there to do it correctly.  The mistakes made are so simple and so obvious, there is no excuse.

They are taking advantage of N scalers, and that's why I can't let it go.  At today's prices, everyone deserves a company's best effort.  If this is it, then maybe someone else should step in.


Jason

[Robbman]

Com'on Ed, the SD40-2W turned out to be a pretty decent locomotive (shell is still not where Kato or Atlas are) and quite road specific. There is always going to be some trade-off, but if you look at what Atlas is charging for a generally road generic locomotive, the IM -2W is a fair deal. It is a good evolutionary step from where we were to where we want to be... i.e. road specific down to the a$$-groove on the hogger's seat.

I realize I shouldn't be dissing other manufacturers and all... but it's poor quality, period.  I realize that manufacturers can slap Canadian schemes on products and somehow that makes them super-awesome and golden... but when you compare the tooling quality of the SD40-2W (or any IM SD for that matter) to any Atlas (even the GP15-1) or Kato GP or SD (look at the common EMD components... subbases, radiator grills, class lights, radiator access knockouts, etc), the cost-cutting measures in the tooling becomes more and more evident.  That their model doesn't even match any SD40-2W built, thanks to the omission of ANY low-profile roof components, and IM's refusal to look at any SDxx-2 ever built and notice their DB hatch is whack, is even poorer...

But, the market buys them, and happily pays for quality they think is there but isn't... until that changes, why should IM care or bother to do anything above and beyond the minimum?

[lock4244]

Well Robb, I think you could say the same about just about any N scale locomotive manufactured today. Atlas are the same people that brought us the C630 in Canadian paint schemes complete with Tri-mount trucks amongst a host of other inaccuracies - they didn't even try. Slapping a CDN scheme on something doesn't make them golden in any way, not by a long shot. Hard to say which is better (or worse), a rough attempt at a road specific model or a sharply molded generic model that matches no specific prototype? Either way, you wind up with something that is less than perfect.

I will gladly toss my SD40-2W's in the trash bin the second someone else releases an SD40-2W that is 100% accurate, but the odds of anyone even attempting them was non-existant even without IM doing one. I think if we held all mfg's to your standards, we'd have few willing to venture capital and that would be bad for the scale. You think lining up to buy the SD40-2W in it's current form sends the wrong message to the industry? Not buying them sends an even worse message.

[sirenwerks]

I think it's funny how when we compare manufacturers it's only by locos. What about the rest of the train? The majority of the train? Despite its blunders, IM offers a pretty good selection of boxcar varieties that keep many steam and 1st gen to 2nd gen diesel modelers happy as they assemble a consist. Granted, they could give us more (40' PS-1s!) but they keep the other molds busy.

[Mark5]

I have a lot of the NW 4750s. The latest run even has ACI labels! Yeah, the boxcars are sweet and so are the 60' flats and ... yeah ;D

Rolling stock is IM's strongest area in my view.

Mark

[bbussey]

... Granted, [InterMountain] could give us more (40' PS-1s!) but they keep the other molds busy.

I don't see anyone offering PS-1 boxcars with the Micro-Trains line in existence, for numerous reasons.  The only reason Athearn has the three 50' versions is because they acquired them from MDC, and the sliding door versions are different variations from the MTL versions.  MTL has a plethora of PS-1 variations.  I think there is a greater possibility of success in lobbying MTL to upgrade the boxcars to current expectations.

And yes, IMRC not only makes a good number of prototype-specific freight equipment, but also makes available all of the parts used to build those models - a huge plus for kitbashers and scratchbuilders.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Yes, I know their freight cars are much better than their SDs. In fact, their Fs seem to be too. But that said, with their track record when it comes to locomotives, I'd much rather see someone like BLMA do something as ubiquitous as the SD40-2.

One only needs to look at the gaffes with the CGW artwork, the significant build quality and tooling issues with the SDs and their poor marketing and presentation of the recent SD40-2Ws to see why.

[wcfn100]

I don't know Ed, a CR unit might look good with set of yellow handrails (I assume they just arbitrarily assign handrail colors without looking at photos).



 

And if I hadn't called, these locos wouldn't have had the U of M lettering.  They had no idea what I was talking about.  And again, something any single photo would have shown them.

 

Jason

[sirenwerks]

I don't see anyone offering PS-1 boxcars with the Micro-Trains line in existence, for numerous reasons.  The only reason Athearn has the three 50' versions is because they acquired them from MDC, and the sliding door versions are different variations from the MTL versions.  MTL has a plethora of PS-1 variations.  I think there is a greater possibility of success in lobbying MTL to upgrade the boxcars to current expectations.

Bryan,

I'd have to challenge you there. MT and the one other 40' PS-1 manufacturer I can think of both have sore deficiencies IM could capitalize on. MT's is its glacial rate of release. 40' PS1s were popular on some roads and anyone trying to model that road's fleet would appreciate IM's multi-number and repeat release policy. Atlas's car, well IM tops its quality and that door, whatever it's called, is a rarity on most roads that I've found. Even Atlas is slow to release. Look how many releases they could be doing with the twin-bay offset car, but they choose to release only a few roadnames a year.

And to add onto your 2nd point, what if the PS1 end and new doors became part of the parts mix? More fodder for kitbashers and scratchbuilders in N is always good news!

As far as I'm concerned, a new PS1 market entry is needed soon, just like a new SD40-2 manufacturer is for many others. As a CGW modeler, I would welcome IM doing its HO car in N.

[bbussey]

Unfortunately MTL's business model just isn't geared to pump out multiple 40' PS-1 boxcars in one release, primarily because they are victims of their own 40-year success in that they have over 100 models that they want to keep in the rotation.  When you look at the annual numbers, MTL probably releases the most specific models/decos (not counting road number variations).  While the freight equipment doesn't appear as frequently as modelers like, MTL has been addressing those concerns regarding the passenger equipment with consecutive monthly releases followed with runner packs.

I don't think we should even count the Atlas Trainman boxcar with it's 40-year-old origins.  It wasn't designed at a time when fidelity to prototype was an important factor.

InterMountain uses MTL trucks/couplers on their freight releases as do a lot of manufacturers, which is a primary reason I don't see IM - or anyone - tooling up a model to directly compete against MTL's signature model.

Yes, it's always great when IM releases a new model and the parts that go with it.  But the MTL and Athearn cars can be cut up for parts as well.  Definitely not as ideal as having ready-made IM parts, but it's better than nothing at all.