MTL's 40' PS-1 Box car roof... I found it!

[wcfn100]

I got my copy of the '49-'51 Car Builders Cyclopedia today and there it was.

At this point I can't make any comment other than there is a drawing that would make it seem like there were cars other than the earliest PS-1's that were missing the bow-tie on the last panel.  When I get a chance, I will look closer at what all is being shown. 

Please keep in mind that none of this means any cars were ever built this way, but I have a good direction to try and chase down an answer.  The photos in the book are hard to see anything on.

FWIW, the cars shown on the adjoining pages have build dates of 2-48 through 7-48 (one's a NH car Bryan).  But I can't say for sure those cars match the drawings yet.

Of course this doesn't help with the door track.

Jason

[bbussey]

Jason,

If that NH car is 35149, that's the builder's photo that MTL used to make #20029.  Sadly though, the builder's photo is of an IH 10'0" car rather than the IH 10'6" model they tooled.  And every single NH script herald rendition they've done over the past 40 years, other than the three special run DF cars they did for BLW, has been in the incorrect number series with the incorrect dimi data.

[Hiroe]

Jason,

If that NH car is 35149, that's the builder's photo that MTL used to make #20029.  Sadly though, the builder's photo is of an IH 10'0" car rather than the IH 10'6" model they tooled.  And every single NH script herald rendition they've done over the past 40 years, other than the three special run DF cars they did for BLW, has been in the incorrect number series with the incorrect dimi data.

This has me wondering. Has anyone compiled a running list of how wrong KD/MTL has been on a per-year basis, and collectively for all their years in business?

[Dave Schneider]

 
If you do that for KD/MTL it is only fair to do that for every other manufacturer. Perhaps what you are getting at is a feeling that KD/MTL have become less accurate over time? Do the theme cars count (states, presidents, etc)? In the end the results probably won't be surprising. I think we all have a pretty good idea of their business model.

Best wishes, Dave

[Hiroe]

Do the theme cars count (states, presidents, etc)? In the end the results probably won't be surprising. I think we all have a pretty good idea of their business model.

Yes, theme cars count.

[bbussey]

The first goal is to sell product, so money can be invested to make additional product.  As long as prototypical schemes are still being produced by MTL, it shouldn't matter what fantasy schemes are being done.  The goal is to get MTL to be more accurate on plastic that they have, not coerce them into abandoning product lines that help fund new projects.

I think it is important however to point out to them prototypically-accurate schemes for specific models when they have not considered them for release, especially popular schemes.

[sirenwerks]

As long as prototypical schemes are still being produced by MTL, it shouldn't matter what fantasy schemes are being done. 

Schemes are nice, but if they are going to continue to do meat reefer schemes maybe they should cast a meat reefer body to do them on, rather than those damn PFE cars. For some, a reefer's not just a reefer.

[JoeD]

I realize this goes against the grain on this site, but how about a running list of things we have done right, the service we've offered, the number of cars we produce in a year compared to other manufacturers.  How about the time we invest in web groups  and try and provide product for a very unique customer base that doesn't meet the traditional profile of other companies.  How many other companies come on this site, support and participate and ask for input and actually produce paint schemes requested? (re the epic bomb, INTERSTATE two bay hoppers )  ) Frankly it's mind numbing hearing the drone sometimes from the one note charlies out there.  Do we screw things up...sure, who doesn't.  You want to take a car produced 20 years ago and stand it up to something being done now...not sure I can defend that.  Should we retool everything...sure, but we have limited resources and I have to make decisions on what direction to take to get the best bang for the buck.   So, if you want to waste time and bandwidth listing all our warts, go ahead.  I would rather focus on all the cool stuff being done by the memebers here and support them in what ever fashion I can as an employee of MTL.   That makes me happy.  I come here because I believe some of the best modelers in N scale contribute on Railwire and dispite the some of the agenda driven comments tossed around at times, will continue to do so.  I want to learn.  So my adivice is to put down the Xacto and go outside and play a little.  Life is too short to get all worked up about a hobby.

It's a sunny day here in Oregon and I plan on enjoying it.

Joe
MTL

This has me wondering. Has anyone compiled a running list of how wrong KD/MTL has been on a per-year basis, and collectively for all their years in business?

[Puddington]

Joe: You have to understand; there are a small cadre' of "exceptional modelers" here that are so exceptional that they demand 100% fidelity of all RTR products....so they don't have to model....LOL 

Seriously; if people can't understand that old tooling "is what it is" and that "back then" the expectations and ability to produce 100% fidelity was not where it is today....truck mounted couplers and ride height being prime examples....today; there are few excuses for that but with early 1990's tooling what can we expect....

Yes; it would be nice to see MTL re-tool some of your standard cars but I can't understand how you could justify the expense.....be nice if you could.

Thanks for taking the running commentary with a grain of salt......

[Sokramiketes]

I realize this goes against the grain on this site, but how about a running list of things we have done right, the service we've offered, the number of cars we produce in a year compared to other manufacturers.  How about the time we invest in web groups  and try and provide product for a very unique customer base that doesn't meet the traditional profile of other companies.  How many other companies come on this site, support and participate and ask for input and actually produce paint schemes requested? (re the epic bomb, INTERSTATE two bay hoppers )  ) Frankly it's mind numbing hearing the drone sometimes from the one note charlies out there.  Do we screw things up...sure, who doesn't.  You want to take a car produced 20 years ago and stand it up to something being done now...not sure I can defend that.  Should we retool everything...sure, but we have limited resources and I have to make decisions on what direction to take to get the best bang for the buck.   So, if you want to waste time and bandwidth listing all our warts, go ahead.  I would rather focus on all the cool stuff being done by the memebers here and support them in what ever fashion I can as an employee of MTL.   That makes me happy.  I come here because I believe some of the best modelers in N scale contribute on Railwire and dispite the some of the agenda driven comments tossed around at times, will continue to do so.  I want to learn.  So my adivice is to put down the Xacto and go outside and play a little.  Life is too short to get all worked up about a hobby.

It's a sunny day here in Oregon and I plan on enjoying it.

Joe
MTL

I agree with Joe, and disagree with Hiroe.  It will be a lot easier to compile a list of things MTL has done right.   

Joe-

One note charlie?  Maybe I am.  I think MTL has the equipment in place to produce the absolute finest N scale equipment around.  Unless you've lost a tool maker recently, MTL has the capability to produce the sharpest molded plastic details around with perhaps Kato being the only other manufacturer that can produce an injection molded part as clean.  MTL pad printing is second to none. 

Lately tooling is slipping (Z scale passenger cars, molding marks in tooling for N scale heavyweights, poorer fit and finish, etc.)

Pad Printing is still good in execution, but poor in planning (recent mention that the ladies in the art department make stuff up instead of consulting an ORER for dimi data, odd choices of non-prototype schemes or car numbers when actual prototypical schemes and numbers exist, etc.)

So it seems that the support staff to research, review, and produce prototypical models is missing from the company.  All that potential talent for creating the absolute finest model railroad equipment around is being wasted because no one is controlling the ship!  And it might just take a single knowledgeable railroader to handle the overall planning of production and review artwork, and provide insight into the model railroad industry.  How many employee's work at MTL?  Can they afford a single knowledgeable go-to guy?  That's all the company really needs.

You claim bang-for-the-buck trumps all.  But that's not apparent from product choices either.  Copying the prototype on an already manufactured Z scale 55 ton hopper is bang for the buck?  Picking yet another paired window coach when the N Scale Varnish list was screaming for a single window coach (with wider roadname selection) is bang for the buck?  Bang for the buck to me would mean a new set of inserts for the Troop Sleeper so you can do a bunch of new flashy passenger and express schemes on a model that only needs windows blanked out.  Tooling time is minimal and lots of new schemes from tooling that is already 95% complete is true bang for the buck.  Tooling a new 40' underframe to body mount couplers and lower the ride height would freshen up an otherwise stagnant 40' PS-1 boxcar line, even without solving the door height issue, and keep up with other company's innovations.  And that's only one simple A-B mold.  Your tooling department could probably knock out both of those projects in a week with the latter project revitalizing a line and renewing sales of old schemes.

And yes, plenty of other manufacturers step into the forums to talk. MTL is not unique in that regard. 

[Hiroe]

Frankly it's mind numbing hearing the drone sometimes from the one note charlies out there.

Don't make me start bringing my vuvuzela to the shows. I'll do it.

Honestly, I really didn't expect an inappropriately-placed offhand snark on my part to actually garner such a response. Accepted that no one is perfect, we're all human, and mistakes happen. I'm not genuinely upset (just head-smackingly confused/annoyed  ); and please don't take my own lack of graciousness and gratitude for recent changes (that I may not even be aware of, given my time hiding under rocks) as a blanket position for the rest of the community. In fact, this response is probably a little too 'hot' for some people; but it doesn't change how I feel. Also, I take pride in being the same  online that I am in person. I call my friends on their BS, don't expect any less being a complete stranger. (However, that's a two-way street, so feel free to call me on my own.)

But since we're getting into the soup+nuts about it:

Pad Printing is still good in execution, but poor in planning (recent mention that the ladies in the art department make stuff up instead of consulting an ORER for dimi data, odd choices of non-prototype schemes or car numbers when actual prototypical schemes and numbers exist, etc.)

So it seems that the support staff to research, review, and produce prototypical models is missing from the company.  All that potential talent for creating the absolute finest model railroad equipment around is being wasted because no one is controlling the ship!  And it might just take a single knowledgeable railroader to handle the overall planning of production and review artwork, and provide insight into the model railroad industry.  How many employee's work at MTL?  Can they afford a single knowledgeable go-to guy?  That's all the company really needs.

This right here. Seriously. You've got great models, you do good artwork; why can't you put the time into getting the latter correct for the former? I'm not even talking about fantasy models, foobs, or George W boxcars. This is specifically about the 'proto' stuff. So many times in the past I've seen that while you make body styles 1, 2, and 3; railroad XXRR had thousands of cars in Style 1, one or two oddballs in 2, and none in 3; yet MTL releases WTF paint schemes for railroad XXRR on styles 2 and 3. If I want a proper car in style 1, I have to buy either an undec model (molded in all sorts of funny colors, including the delrin parts that reject paint) or a model painted for some other road, and paint/decal it myself. What gives? Who makes these decisions? With how much stuff you guys release in a year on existing body styles, putting the time in to maintaining prototype fidelity would make you Kings.

To be fair, I have the same issue with a good number of companies, across multiple scales. Kato, Kadee, Walthers, MTH, etc. I really don't understand the mentality behind many of the decisions that get made; and of the obvious "You'll buy what we make and like it!" attitude that it leaves me with. It's an established pattern of corporate behavior with many of them: "Instead of producing the product *you* want, we're going to produce the product *we want you to want*. And if you don't buy ALL of them, we'll blame you. In fact, we're blaming you right now. The sales numbers on the product we wanted you to want last year weren't high enough, so we'll penalize you this year by not producing the variant you might actually be interested in wanting."

Happy customers this does not make.

Personally, I work in medical equipment service and repair. Flat out, there is no "Good Enough" when working on this stuff. Either it's right, it passes calibration/state inspections, and is good to go; or I don't get paid. Yet, it's somehow unreasonable of me to expect my hobby dollar will be treated with the same respect for things done properly? Does no one take pride in a job *done* right anymore? (Or is "Good enough" an accepted part of the corporate social paradigm now?) For that matter, can I get a job there too? I'd love to work someplace where I can just slap two things together and call it good, regardless of customer expectations. It would certainly beat 4am tech support calls on my cellphone, and navigating some button-pushing end user through firmware menus out of a dead sleep.

Furthermore, I also don't get this issue that some people have with those of us who expect that RTR means just what it implies: Ready to play straight out of the box. I don't see this in too many other markets, where the expectation that one is going to have to 'fix' a supposedly 'ready-to-play' item before it can be used. How many cell phones have you bought that required you to fix them before you could make a call? Microwaves? How about your measuring tape: do they make you attach the little clip at the end yourself? When you buy a box of screws at the hardware store, do you have to cut the slot in the top of each of them for the screwdriver? Buying a product with the expectation that I can take it out and use it directly with no modification needed is *not* unreasonable. BLMA figured it out with those ACF gondolas and X58 cars. Buying them does not make me a lesser modeler; it simply means I have more time to dedicate to that which I cannot buy RTR, such as working PRR catenary.


Anyway. Your mileage may vary. My opinions are not facts; and may not represent the opinions of others. Please keep arms and legs inside the ride at all times. Radiation dosages are equivalent, and may not be linear with previous exposures. Dates on calendar are closer than they appear.


Jason: How you making out with those 40' boxcars?

[ArtinCA]

M-T's problem could be solved by painting everything in Warbonnet, Armour Yellow and Grey and Black Widow. Works for Con-Cor.....

[JoeD]

I just picked myself up off the floor!!  Thank you Mike.   really, I mean that.   This kind of response is very productive and helps more than you may realize. 

I understand the concerns over the windows for the Z passenger cars and N Passenger Cars.  We were faced with charging a lot more for the car (increased tooling, Increased assembly, increased parts) or try and do something that was affordable.  I think everyone was grateful for the lower prices we charged for them.  Where you really get a hit is in the decorating and that generally costs more than running the parts.  I take responsiblity for that decision...would I like flush windows, yes, but I think I need to try and find a happy medium someplace.  I gotta sell to keep the doors open.  There's a reason Marcellius gave up his tooling and not knowing his reasoning, I suspect that producing a car that was superior to ours as you rightfully pointed out, didn't sell well enough to justify the costs.  I have the parts on my desk and the thought of putting these together in a production environment is intimidating.  Rapido, Exact Rail and others can do a lot of this stuff because their manufacturing costs are significantly cheeper than our.  The price we pay to keep jobs here in the states (shamless flag waving here)  Sometimes it is what it is and I do my best to balance everything.  None of this means we don't strive to keep up with standards.  The new N scale release I am working on is being looked at differently than any other same car type has.  I have a list of wants that mirror what I hear here and have to play them off the final costs and what our market will pay for that kind of release.  But I am pushing.

The single window coach was my first choice, but after much review with tooling and production it became clear that the manufacturing issues made the decision for us.  While it may not seem like it, the amount of material absent between the paired window config and the single window config was significant enough to insure bananna boats popping out of the injection mold machine instead of straight car sides.  It's not that we can't do it, we needed more time to work out how to.  When you get out beyond a 50' car if your material thicknesses on all quadrants of the car is off any, you get uneven shrink or expansion causing the bow.  Single window coach is coming, we just need to work out these manufacturing issues...and doing the paired window coach is helping us understand the dynamics.  These cars are new territory for us, and the usual rules don't apply as they would for a boxcar or a flat car.  Different animals.   

Yes, we are down a few tool makers and our load has remained, if not increased.  Sink marks, tool marks, flashing are things we do our best to pay attention to.  Mike, the pace here is frantic, which is a good and bad thing.  I'm happy we can keep everyone busy, but it would be nice to move things through here with a little more time built in.  Not happening right now.  We are at that crossroad where you have more work than you can do comfortably, but not doing so well you can staff up.  Common these days.  Regardless, I think what comes out of here is pretty damn good overall.

The Z hopper has been an interesting event.  Regardless of the size of the market we have to pick products that work for our product line.   Dispite the speculation, it wasn't done to harm anyone.   No one got jacked when a new Z track system was announced.  It was met with open arms, no one said...hey what about MTL.  No one got jacked when the same company copied a miniature Z powered chassis that Lajos was producing...all I heard was how much better things were going to be because of a new entry in the market.  And they were right.    You may disagree with the decision to do the same car/s in a small market that needs more variety, but the decison was based on more than may be apparent.   We have a car that gives us a lot of flexability, paint schemes and road numbers.  I wanted to do something like the new 64' reefer...with all the numbers being produced and with a change of doors and cooling units have at least three road names.  But I doubt the Z market is big enough to justify doing that car.  Cool, yes, a money maker...not sure.  Tons of other car types need to be done and we have a long list.  This car moved to the front to support the coal and mining kit series and other projects beyond that.

To your point about tooling new sides or changing inserts for underframes...on the list, but the 15 guys that would get worked up by some of these projects doesn't justify the cost.   You are forced to be like a shark in this business and keep moving forward.  Folks want new things all the time and trying to convince management that lowering a 40' boxcar that already outsells ANYTHING we currently produce sans the log car, as is, is a tall order.  They recognize the need, we just need the space on a schedule to do it.  I know I've said this before, but we listen and I am trying to shoe horn in a lot of this stuff...but capacity and decisions made to keep the company viable, trumps what may seem obvious to the outsider.

Thanks again for taking the time to write this post.  I appreciate it.

Joe
MTl

[JoeD]

I actually need to get some work done here, but one point about paint schemes.  Sure, tons of fudges, but a lot  of these cars were released with proto schemes...I mean we have been doing this for over 20 years.  10000 series caboose is a TNO proto and only a very few roads had the exact same car.  Am I limited to TNO everytime I want to release a caboose?  Where do you draw the line.  I do SP, I could care less about the car style, generally, just happy to have another sp to add to my collection.  The irony in this business is that it is more driven by road name than car style.  Each of us bring our own perspectives to the table.  Not to harp on the Interstate hoppers, but that was supposed to be a slam dunk...right name on the right car...everyone (or so I was told) were panting for them.  Fail.  The SP Black Overnights on a PS instead of an ACF was a home run...freakingly so...to the point we couldn't make enough runner packs to satisfy the demand.  It was insane.  We have years and years of data that tells us OUR market is road name sensitive.  And, while it may seem logical to do the exact name on the exact prototype, sometimes that just doesnt work out, even when you have 110 body styles to choose from.   Lots of folks are involved in choosing the car line up and for the most part, discuss putting a road name on a car that may not be exact. Weighing pro's and cons.. We F-it up, but we are human.  My only defense.

Joe
MTL

Don't make me start bringing my vuvuzela to the shows. I'll do it.

Honestly, I really didn't expect an inappropriately-placed offhand snark on my part to actually garner such a response. Accepted that no one is perfect, we're all human, and mistakes happen. I'm not genuinely upset (just head-smackingly confused/annoyed  ); and please don't take my own lack of graciousness and gratitude for recent changes (that I may not even be aware of, given my time hiding under rocks) as a blanket position for the rest of the community. In fact, this response is probably a little too 'hot' for some people; but it doesn't change how I feel. Also, I take pride in being the same  online that I am in person. I call my friends on their BS, don't expect any less being a complete stranger. (However, that's a two-way street, so feel free to call me on my own.)

But since we're getting into the soup+nuts about it:
 

This right here. Seriously. You've got great models, you do good artwork; why can't you put the time into getting the latter correct for the former? I'm not even talking about fantasy models, foobs, or George W boxcars. This is specifically about the 'proto' stuff. So many times in the past I've seen that while you make body styles 1, 2, and 3; railroad XXRR had thousands of cars in Style 1, one or two oddballs in 2, and none in 3; yet MTL releases WTF paint schemes for railroad XXRR on styles 2 and 3. If I want a proper car in style 1, I have to buy either an undec model (molded in all sorts of funny colors, including the delrin parts that reject paint) or a model painted for some other road, and paint/decal it myself. What gives? Who makes these decisions? With how much stuff you guys release in a year on existing body styles, putting the time in to maintaining prototype fidelity would make you Kings.

To be fair, I have the same issue with a good number of companies, across multiple scales. Kato, Kadee, Walthers, MTH, etc. I really don't understand the mentality behind many of the decisions that get made; and of the obvious "You'll buy what we make and like it!" attitude that it leaves me with. It's an established pattern of corporate behavior with many of them: "Instead of producing the product *you* want, we're going to produce the product *we want you to want*. And if you don't buy ALL of them, we'll blame you. In fact, we're blaming you right now. The sales numbers on the product we wanted you to want last year weren't high enough, so we'll penalize you this year by not producing the variant you might actually be interested in wanting."

Happy customers this does not make.

Personally, I work in medical equipment service and repair. Flat out, there is no "Good Enough" when working on this stuff. Either it's right, it passes calibration/state inspections, and is good to go; or I don't get paid. Yet, it's somehow unreasonable of me to expect my hobby dollar will be treated with the same respect for things done properly? Does no one take pride in a job *done* right anymore? (Or is "Good enough" an accepted part of the corporate social paradigm now?) For that matter, can I get a job there too? I'd love to work someplace where I can just slap two things together and call it good, regardless of customer expectations. It would certainly beat 4am tech support calls on my cellphone, and navigating some button-pushing end user through firmware menus out of a dead sleep.

Furthermore, I also don't get this issue that some people have with those of us who expect that RTR means just what it implies: Ready to play straight out of the box. I don't see this in too many other markets, where the expectation that one is going to have to 'fix' a supposedly 'ready-to-play' item before it can be used. How many cell phones have you bought that required you to fix them before you could make a call? Microwaves? How about your measuring tape: do they make you attach the little clip at the end yourself? When you buy a box of screws at the hardware store, do you have to cut the slot in the top of each of them for the screwdriver? Buying a product with the expectation that I can take it out and use it directly with no modification needed is *not* unreasonable. BLMA figured it out with those ACF gondolas and X58 cars. Buying them does not make me a lesser modeler; it simply means I have more time to dedicate to that which I cannot buy RTR, such as working PRR catenary.


Anyway. Your mileage may vary. My opinions are not facts; and may not represent the opinions of others. Please keep arms and legs inside the ride at all times. Radiation dosages are equivalent, and may not be linear with previous exposures. Dates on calendar are closer than they appear.


Jason: How you making out with those 40' boxcars?

[Chris333]

Perhaps the Interstate hoppers were a flop because MTL released them as a runner pack instead of a single car? I remember when they came out and wished I could buy ONE. Ended up being that Jason sent me a single he had laying around. This is just a guess though because I really don't understand how runner packs are attractive to some people.

Anyways about the PS-1. I think people just want a correct car more than care how you paint them.
Wrong car + correct paint = wrong
Wrong car + wrong paint = wrong