Exclusive first look at MTL Observation Car

[slickwillie]

Joe,

Thanks for sharing! Will you guys consider using a Z scale couple for the rear platform?

[JoeD]

I can look into it. The mounting hole is the same size so switching it out wouldn't be a problem (said without trying it yet). ;D  The only drawback right now I see is the time it takes to assemble the 905 over the 1016.  The 905 has to be heat stamped while the 1016 doesn't.  I will fit the 1015 on it and see how that looks as well. 

Take care

Joe

Joe,

Thanks for sharing! Will you guys consider using a Z scale couple for the rear platform?

[SkipGear]

I can look into it. The mounting hole is the same size so switching it out wouldn't be a problem (said without trying it yet). ;D  The only drawback right now I see is the time it takes to assemble the 905 over the 1016.  The 905 has to be heat stamped while the 1016 doesn't.  I will fit the 1015 on it and see how that looks as well.  

Take care

Joe

Joe,
 Pretty sure that is a 1015 already. That is the way the previous cars have come. I replaced them with 1016's and moved the coupler box farther inside to get a little closer coupling and allow more coupler swing to help deal with turnouts and tighter radius.



I also moved the bolster pin offset to the ends of the car to give a little better clearance and to minimize the overhang on the ends of the cars. With the pins toward the center of the car, there is too much offset from one end of the car to another when entering a curve on anything less than 15" radius and it stresses the couplers.

With the change the cars couple like this:


And handle 11" R curves like this: (Not that mine will be run on 11" but it's nice to know that they can)

[bbussey]

I can look into it. The mounting hole is the same size so switching it out wouldn't be a problem (said without trying it yet). ;D  The only drawback right now I see is the time it takes to assemble the 905 over the 1016.  The 905 has to be heat stamped while the 1016 doesn't.  I will fit the 1015 on it and see how that looks as well. 

I wouldn't.  I know that the 905 will integrate with the N scale couplers, but the product line should stay consistent.  Anyone who prefers the Z scale coupler has the option of installing it afterward.

The first cars were being assembled with 1023 couplers, but the current cars are arriving with 1015 couplers.

I'm working on modifying two cars and I also moved the coupler mounting hole back, but I stayed with the 1015 and changed the diaphragms to ALM.  Currently I'm in the process of changing the roof hardware.  Now that we know the observation A/C equipment is mechanical, I'll move to Plan B for the ice-cooled A/C equipment.

[Sokramiketes]

Joe-

The roof detail has gotten progressively worse since the RPO was tooled.  The RPO had nice vents with the four slide mold, and proper overhangs.  Since MTL moved to simple A-B molds on the Sleeper and Lounge roofs, those clearstory vents turned into blobs.  Now on the Observation I can see they are taller and an eyesore on some otherwise nice tooling. 

Can you think about just leaving them off if it's too costly/time consuming to keep cutting 4-slide tooling like the RPO?  It would save a lot of time for those of us, like Bryan, who are replacing all those vents.  You can see in his image above that he's replacing them with the vents from the RPO.

[48Fan]

Not being a Conrail expert, what # would this car be for the OCS?

[bbussey]

... Can you think about just leaving them off if it's too costly/time consuming to keep cutting 4-slide tooling like the RPO?  It would save a lot of time for those of us, like Bryan, who are replacing all those vents.  You can see in his image above that he's replacing them with the vents from the RPO.

That's an excellent suggestion.  I further submit that if the roofs must remain as two-part tooling, it would be nice if the vents and other roof hardware were molded as separate detail parts - as done on most of the other passenger cars offered by other manufacturers.  Since you offer a complicated etched fret of detail parts on the bay window caboose that must be installed by the modeler, surely an included sprue of roof detail parts can be included with the passenger cars for the modeler to add.  The roof details could be designed as a two-part tool, and the details would be common with all of the heavyweights and wouldn't have to be redone for each car.

[bbussey]

Not being a Conrail expert, what # would this car be for the OCS?

CR 3, CR 4 and CR 5 would be the closest - the model could stand-in as is but would have to be modified for a more accurate representation.  Other OCS observations (CR 10 for example) can be built using the MTL observation model as a starting point.

[lashedup]

That's an excellent suggestion.  I further submit that if the roofs must remain as two-part tooling, it would be nice if the vents and other roof hardware were molded as separate detail parts - as done on most of the other passenger cars offered by other manufacturers.  Since you offer a complicated etched fret of detail parts on the bay window caboose that must be installed by the modeler, surely an included sprue of roof detail parts can be included with the passenger cars for the modeler to add.  The roof details could be designed as a two-part tool, and the details would be common with all of the heavyweights and wouldn't have to be redone for each car.

This is an excellent suggestion that would make all parties happy I think. Put me down for this as well.

[CBQ Fan]

Joe,

Looks awesome!!  I really like them.  Any clues on what road names might be coming out.  My CB&Q RPO is sure lonely!  I am guessing we might see the usual assortment of road names as past cars.  GN, Pennsy, ATSF, UP, Pullman.......undecs.  Can you give us any clues???  I am hoping for a coach or diner on the next round!!

[Puddington]

Joe; the Ob's looks wonderful and I will happily buy them and hack the living #@$@! out of them to obtain what I need.... but please..........please..........please.........make the next release the most generic single window coach possible. I know this won't make the Pennsy/UP/NYC/SP etc....whoever crowd happy that want a specific prototype of their coach made but the vast majority of us that model other roads can bash a single window coach into a close replica of our favorite road's single window..... Riv did a paired window coach, please put the single window high on the list...........

[lashedup]

I'm also interested in hearing what other heavyweight cars you have planned Joe. I know you mentioned a coach before, but if you have some ideas of what you're thinking (I don't care when they come out, just what may be coming) I can plan around it when I'm building out a heavyweight train.

Thanks for posting those Joe.

-jamie

[JoeD]

Coaches seem the most logical at this point.  I would do both the single and double window, but in what order, not sure.  Diner is a must.  I have drawings of the SP version and am real tempted to do that one...but Bryan gave me a heads up on another version that I think has a wider appeal.  I wanted to do a baggage next, but with WOT doing theirs, no need to re-create the wheel so to speak.  Maybe a Pennsy Theater Arts Car  ;D

Seperate vents for the roof are a non starter at this point.  The cost to assemble would put these guys into into space cost wise.  I think doing a kit that has super detail items is worth considering.  Would love to do seperate seats, bulkhead parts so you could mix and match.  Problem is time and resources.  We are lean and mean these days and doing things with very limited return or additional cost to manufacture is a tough sell. 

As for roads, I suspect we will work quickly to fill up the names we have produced in the past to finish trains for folks.  I don't know if the first name has been decided yet...Management has me chained to the Laser and the Paint Booth  ;D

I will get some exploded parts shots posted this weekend.

Cheers

Joe

I'm also interested in hearing what other heavyweight cars you have planned Joe. I know you mentioned a coach before, but if you have some ideas of what you're thinking (I don't care when they come out, just what may be coming) I can plan around it when I'm building out a heavyweight train.

Thanks for posting those Joe.

-jamie

[Sokramiketes]

Coaches seem the most logical at this point.  I would do both the single and double window, but in what order, not sure.  Diner is a must.  I have drawings of the SP version and am real tempted to do that one...but Bryan gave me a heads up on another version that I think has a wider appeal.  I wanted to do a baggage next, but with WOT doing theirs, no need to re-create the wheel so to speak.  Maybe a Pennsy Theater Arts Car  ;D

Seperate vents for the roof are a non starter at this point.  The cost to assemble would put these guys into into space cost wise.  I think doing a kit that has super detail items is worth considering.  Would love to do seperate seats, bulkhead parts so you could mix and match.  Problem is time and resources.  We are lean and mean these days and doing things with very limited return or additional cost to manufacture is a tough sell. 

As for roads, I suspect we will work quickly to fill up the names we have produced in the past to finish trains for folks.  I don't know if the first name has been decided yet...Management has me chained to the Laser and the Paint Booth  ;D

I will get some exploded parts shots posted this weekend.

Cheers

Joe

Like I said, just leave them off new tooling... no additional cost to do so, and simpler on the design and tooling side so it might save some money.  Let the aftermarket handle the separate parts.  If you can't do it right, it's better to leave it off entirely. 

[bbussey]

... Seperate vents for the roof are a non starter at this point.  The cost to assemble would put these guys into into space cost wise.  I think doing a kit that has super detail items is worth considering.  Would love to do seperate seats, bulkhead parts so you could mix and match.  Problem is time and resources.  We are lean and mean these days and doing things with very limited return or additional cost to manufacture is a tough sell.  ...

Why would roof detail parts have to be assembled?  Why can't they just be included in the jewel box - the same way that roof latches are with the ice reefers, hazard placards with the tank cars, stakes with the flat cars, trailer hitches and fifth wheels with the TOFCs, etcetera.  It then would be up to the modeler to attach them.

Heavyweight roof vents would be much easier to add than the etched roof detail of the SP bay window caboose is currently.  And you would be increasing the appeal of the heavyweight product line.  If you are willing to consider separate mail catchers for the RPO (which is the greatest visible feature keeping that model from being a solid 10), then separate roof vents - which would be common to any heavyweight model that MTL introduces - should be a no-brainer.