January Micro Train releases have been...released...?

[mcjaco]

Ah, but there is evidence. 

3) Stock sitting on shelves.  It's not just DPH, it's all Chicagoland shops and all shops I've visited around the country.  Now, maybe it's just the death of the collector market (Notice that N Scale Collector changed to N Scale Enthusiast?) that lets stock languish more.  Less people are buying one of everything just-because.  But doesn't that lead back to the fact that your product needs every edge it can get in the marketplace?

I'd put more of a bearing on it doing with the current economy than just MTL not knowing what they're doing.  Although there is that variable that should be considered.

And you didn't answer my most important question.  Can we go drink and run trains?

[bbussey]

On prototype fidelity. In some cases I am confident that it is not realistic to expect 100% of your fleet to be proto...

But the fact is that you do have prototypical options in regard to some of the N&W equipment, which generally is the case for many N scale modelers.  The key is knowing what models are prototypical, concentrating on acquiring them and minimizing the foobs.

If you take into account all of the models that are prototypically correct for other roads in addition to the home road, a very credible prototypical roster can be built.  I have concentrated over the last decade or so on that goal.  I'm fortunate, as there is a lot of N scale equipment that is prototypical for New Haven and has been offered decorated for New Haven.  There have been a lot of foobs also, but I avoid them.  Yet, in addition to the New Haven equipment, I also require equipment from other roads, and there are plenty of prototypical options.  For example -- if I need a Maine Central boxcar for the 1950 time period, the Atlas ARA 1932 boxcar fits the bill perfectly.  Signature cars such as a Pennsy G31A gondola, B&O wagontop, or BAR State of Maine heated boxcar?  Models from BLMA, FVM and ESM respectively.  There are plenty of N scale models with prototypical schemes in existence, and it's possible to build a fully prototypical fleet -- if you know what is out there and what roads are valid for what's available, and don't restrict yourself to one or two manufacturers.

[bbussey]

By the way, MTL has posted the January releases on its website.

[VonRyan]

This... 

Did MT do an RPO in PRR yet? I have my sights set on doing a working mail catch for an N-Trak module.
If American Flyer can have one, why can't N...

-Cody F.

[Dave V]

Did MT do an RPO in PRR yet? I have my sights set on doing a working mail catch for an N-Trak module.
If American Flyer can have one, why can't N...

-Cody F.

They did.  It's a complete foobie, though, as the Pennsy never owned a 60' RPO that looked like this.  Pennsy's RPOs were generally 70' long.

I bought one anyway, though... 



The Kato RPO behind it that comes with the Broadway Limited set is, in fact, a proto BM70m.  Hell Gate Models makes a resin BM70k RPO kit as well.

I bought the MTL one because, darn it, it looks pretty and helps flesh out the head end of my heavyweight passenger trains (along with a Hell Gate Models B60b, Pennsy's ubiquitous baggage car).

[VonRyan]

If i manage to find the kato one loose from the set, i'll buy it. I'll have to keep my eye out for the MT RPO at winterfest.

As an aside, i don't really care if models are 100% accurate, foobs are ok if they look like they could have possibly been. or the car itself is correct for the period that the scheme is supposed to be for.
I suppose that once I start on a serious layout then i might be more selective, but if there is really no alternative at the time, I figure buy it and when the more accurate version comes out then sell the foob.

-Cody F.

[Bremner]

An interesting example of the non-MTL process was when Con-Cor did the RGS Galloping Goose in N.  Although a few other shortlines had goose-like vehicles, the RGS was the only owner of the large body Goose with the Wayne bus cab that CC used.  It was released both in narrow and standard gauge in every foobie scheme imaginable.  If you were an Nn3 RGS modeler you were happy but others if us wondered how they decided to do something this obscure yet refused to shrink their HO PRR MP54 coaches to N, which could have been foobied convincingly into a lot more roads than a Goose.

Dr. Dave, you are mostly right with this, the Nn3 guys were not happy due to Con-Cor only made the N scale Goose in standard gauge

[Dave V]

If i manage to find the kato one loose from the set, i'll buy it. I'll have to keep my eye out for the MT RPO at winterfest.

-Cody F.

Good luck!  Apparently it was offered for a very brief time and I missed it.  I'm in for the same, as these sometimes ran in blocks with RB50s and express X29s as pure mail and express trains behind double-headed K4s.

[Dave V]

Dr. Dave, you are mostly right with this, the Nn3 guys were not happy due to Con-Cor only made the N scale Goose in standard gauge

They didn't do Nn3?  Oops, I thought they did!  So essentially no one got a proto model on that one, huh?

And yet they won't do a nice single-window MP54 coach that could be foobed into anything.

[Bremner]

They didn't do Nn3?  Oops, I thought they did!  So essentially no one got a proto model on that one, huh?

And yet they won't do a nice single-window MP54 coach that could be foobed into anything.

you got that right. RLW makes a kit that requires you to hack up a Marklin loco, there is a brass Goose out there for over a grand, and a few people did what Con Cor SHOULD have done....

[peteski]

Pete, I hope you're correct, but the pics do not look like the the meat reefer shorties, no floor cross beams showing, and the body style is 049, a 41' car. Time will tell, and if they are "meat reefer length" I'm definitely buying...otherwise, sorry MT....
Nice Hiawatha article btw!
Regards, Otto K.

Thanks Otto!
Looks like you were correct. However, in defense of MT, I can see why they did that.

I looked at all the MT's 36 and 40 foot reefer body and underframe variations and at the photos of the Decker car #2834.
Car 2834, while it is 37' long, it has ladders on the right side of the body and it does not appear to have truss-rod underframe. Another photo of similar car 2569, clearly shows that it has a fish-belly underframe.

MT 36' reefer does not have ladder on the right side. It has a series of grabirons. Also, the 36' car only has a truss-rod or plain (flat) underframe options. No fish-belly is available.  The 40' reefer has ladders on the right side of the body and it does have fish-belly underframe available.

So, I can see why MT chose the 40" model over the 36 footer for this particular paint scheme. While the length is off, it seems to be visually a better stand-in for the real car.  If the choice was up to me, I would have chosen to do the same.  But if I was kitbashing that model I would have probably used a 36" body with added photoetched ladders and I would have adopted a fish-belly to the 36' plain flat underframe.  But that would not be something that MT could do on a production model.


EDIT:  I found a photo of car 2831 and it doesn't have fishbelly underframe. I suspect 2834 would look the same. So fishbelly is out of the equation. Still, the black-painted ladder is a impotent visual component of that car and my choice would still have been to go with the 40' model, just because of the ladder.

[Sokramiketes]

Thanks Otto!
Looks like you were correct. However, in defense of MT, I can see why they did that.

I looked at all the MT's 36 and 40 foot reefer body and underframe variations and at the photos of the Decker car #2834.
Car 2834, while it is 37' long, it has ladders on the right side of the body and it does not appear to have truss-rod underframe. Another photo of similar car 2569, clearly shows that it has a fish-belly underframe.

MT 36' reefer does not have ladder on the right side. It has a series of grabirons. Also, the 36' car only has a truss-rod or plain (flat) underframe options. No fish-belly is available.  The 40' reefer has ladders on the right side of the body and it does have fish-belly underframe available.

So, I can see why MT chose the 40" model over the 36 footer for this particular paint scheme. While the length is off, it seems to be visually a better stand-in for the real car.  If the choice was up to me, I would have chosen to do the same.  But if I was kitbashing that model I would have probably used a 36" body with added photoetched ladders and I would have adopted a fish-belly to the 36' plain flat underframe.  But that would not be something that MT could do on a production model.


EDIT:  I found a photo of car 2831 and it doesn't have fishbelly underframe. I suspect 2834 would look the same. So fishbelly is out of the equation. Still, the black-painted ladder is a impotent visual component of that car and my choice would still have been to go with the 40' model, just because of the ladder.

Interesting observations.  I would have taken it the other direction... a ladder is easy to add.  The now oversize lettering (stretched to fit the larger surface area of the car side) is much harder to correct and easily as visual as the black ladder. 

It's also interesting that they chose not to paint the frame black per the photo.  Though the part under the door was probably tampo versus a paint mask for the whole sill.  ($$$)

[bbussey]

Agreed.  The 36' model is more appropriate.  The purists can always add a full ladder.

Or, it could have been skipped altogether and substituted with any of the other dozens of billboard reefers that would have been more appropriate.  Specifically for a series such as this, which is supposed to consist of prototypical replicas based on the ad copy when the series started.  The foob logic used for the "regular" releases doesn't apply here.

[peteski]

Interesting observations.  I would have taken it the other direction... a ladder is easy to add.

By who? The modeler?!  The last time I checked, these are supposed to be RTR cars.    I did mention that if I was going to custom decorate a car like that I would have used a 36 footer with added on photoetched ladder. But come on, MT shouldn't expect an average collector to spend over 20 dollars for a decorated car and then try to add a black ladder.  Imagine the glue marks! 

The now oversize lettering (stretched to fit the larger surface area of the car side) is much harder to correct and easily as visual as the black ladder. 

Does the lettering look stretched to you?  I don't see that. Actually, the R on the real car looks wider.

It's also interesting that they chose not to paint the frame black per the photo.  Though the part under the door was probably tampo versus a paint mask for the whole sill.  ($$$)

Yeah, that one I don't understand either.  But I'll be buying this car regardless...  Gotta keep MT in business! 

[DKS]

Does the lettering look stretched to you?  I don't see that.

Stretched as in enlarged in all directions. Look how close the lettering comes to the roof on the model versus the proto.