Micro-Trains has a new (but not better) method for decorating billboard reefers

[Chris333]

I guess I am missing the point of this thread.What is the logical reason for for enlarging the image of that reefer? I would be willing to bet that any N scale paint and lettering would look like crap at that magnafication.

My take on this thread is that Peteski just felt like doing a P & M about Micro Trains so he started this thread and a whole bunch of you just followed right along behind him.

You forgot to put one of these at the end -> 

[Ian MacMillan]

I guess I am missing the point of this thread.What is the logical reason for for enlarging the image of that reefer? I would be willing to bet that any N scale paint and lettering would look like crap at that magnafication.

Image 1 and 4 are closer to real size than magnification. Yes I would expect stuff magnified like in images 2 and 3 to be iffy, but seeing 1 and 4 as "naked eye" to me this car is unacceptable. But then again these cars are no where even close to my era. But if it were my era, I would just not buy it.

I would like to see if maybe this printing can be perfected, as maybe we can get some thinner layers of paint.

[up1950s]

I don't own one of these and do not plan to just because of the era it fits but am wondering if someone can post
a picture of it that is not so close. I would like to know how well it does against the three foot rule. 

Jon

From eBay

............ and it passes the 3 foot rule just fine . But that is not the exact issue here . I am the owner of one .

[Big4Man]

I suspect you need to look no further than the MT website for their reasoning.

http://www.micro-trains.com/special_edition_MeatPackers.php

This Meat Packers "Series" has always had it's rightful place alongside the Civil War "Series" and RB&BB "Series". Do you think this is a coincidence MT is using a similar printing process? The Meat Packers Series are nearly all foobs or are just close enough. I am suprised it has gotten this type of reaction.

I do not collect nor do I own any MT "Collector Series".

Just my observation...   

 

[CBQ Fan]

Poor Joe, Sometimes I just have to wonder...........

[TiVoPrince]

Insanity
to do anything to ruin the value of a collector piece, but.  Has anyone tried dullcoating to smooth out the surface?  This might just solve some of the issues, not all.  But that surface seems to be screaming out FIX ME!

If that doesn't work, may I suggest a blending option to dispose of the evidence...

[JoeD]

Not being snarky here, since you find the product does not live up to your expectations, contact me at MTL on monday...I will arrange for shipping on my dime, and will write you a refund check out of my own account and mail it to you.  These sold very well and I didn't get one for me and would like to give it a good home.  This offer only applies to UP1950's     Sorry guys.

Joe
Not representing MTL on Railwire Forum.

From eBay

............ and it passes the 3 foot rule just fine . But that is not the exact issue here . I am the owner of one .

[up1950s]

Not being snarky here, since you find the product does not live up to your expectations, contact me at MTL on monday...I will arrange for shipping on my dime, and will write you a refund check out of my own account and mail it to you.  These sold very well and I didn't get one for me and would like to give it a good home.  This offer only applies to UP1950's     Sorry guys.

Joe
Not representing MTL on Railwire Forum.

Thanks Joe , but I will keep it , and buy the last 2 in the series . But in the future , leery I am . As far as " sold very well " , betcha they were relying on the known standards on MTL printing , which this wasn't . Time will tell , but this forum fairly evaluated the results and that is crystal clear , like your pad printing . I agree that there may be some instances where part of the printed car may need this paint spitter method , but it should be not used for large fields of colors . The results don't lie , and it would be proper if there was a note saying " Some paintjet printing on this model "

[LV LOU]

From eBay

............ and it passes the 3 foot rule just fine . But that is not the exact issue here . I am the owner of one .

Richie,do you have yours in hand? How does it look? I bet the one in the pic wouldn't look so good under less perfect,real world [Model Railroad..] lighting..Anything can look good if it's lighted properly,and a little photoshoping..That pic is SO perfect,I can't tell it has wood sides.If the boards don't show up,what will??

[peteski]

I am not MT basher. Joe knows that. I actually like most of their offerings (and as I said, I have many of their models in my collection).  The model I singled out in this thread will easily pass the 3' rule. But I really expect MT models to be better than just passable at three feet. Heck, even Bachmann's models are much better than the "three foot rule" models.    I still think that Micro-Trains is the Cadillac of N scale (even if Cadillac is no longer the standard of the world).  But MT in my book is still one of the top N scale manufacturers (as far as quality goes). MT makes really nice models and their decoration is still one of the best out there in the N scale market.

But as I mentioned in my initial thread, this model just didn't seem to be up to the MT's decorating standards, and I noticed that when this car was still in its box.  I don't have any plans of returning it to MT since I want to have the complete Meat Packers series.  Joe (unofficially of course  ) states that this car sold well. Well, duh!  I'm not surprised. I'm pretty sure that a great portion of the Meat Packers reefers are purchased by people who want to have the complete series. So, regardless of the quality its decoration, I expect it to sell as well as the other models in this series.  Also, this car was sold as any previous reefer car - there was no mention anywhere that the car was decorated using a new technique. So modelers and collectors ordered it, just as if they would have ordered any other billboard reefer.  Also, not many people will be as vocal as me to actually mention their dissatisfaction with inferior quality of the decoration.  Assuming that they even notice it. 

I started this thread merely to demonstrate to others that MT is employing a new way of decorating their cars. It sure seems like a step backwards, as far as the quality goes.  IMO, that is too bad.

I also provided a very clear comparison photo of the ink jet printed with another car with pad printed decoration. Both cars were released the same month. That photo shows the superiority of the pad printed decoration.  Yes the images are magnified. That is to clearly demonstrate the difference.  But let me assure you, I see the difference with my naked eyes.

Why did I post this info on TRW?  Because I think that the  s who frequent this forum will find this info useful. I think that  the asshats here also strive for their models to be better than the 3 foot rule.   I know that I for one, was quite surprised (not in a pleasant way) to find the entire side of that car decorated by the ink jet which produced all sorts of bad artifacts.

I also have feeling that as much as Joe is representing himself here, he will most likely bring up this subject when he gets back to work next week.    Maybe that will change the way their car decorating is done in the future, maybe not. But I have done my part by pointing out the shortcomings of the new technology.

[Lemosteam]

I think that peteski s  original point is simple. one thing that made MT what it is today is the original painting method that delivered quality every time. The side-by-side pic shows all.  The expectations are very high for each MT product and even a perceived reduction in that quality will disappoint.  If he had an axe to grind, would he have purchased prior models?  Not likely.

Imagine if you traded in your perfectly painted car for a newer model and because the car company wanted to try a new painting process that was cheaper or new tech, the replacement car had orange peel everywhere because of the new process.  No one here would take delivery.

I think it would have been smart to market test the new process before selling it as a "sub par for MT" product IMHO. 

We all get that one does not have to buy the product, but to suggest that we should not discuss a quality reduction of a well respected manufacturer is ridiculous.

[wcfn100]

You can't see it when it's moving.

So quit yer bitchin'   

Jason

[learmoia]

Comment Removed.

[up1950s]

Richie,do you have yours in hand? How does it look? I bet the one in the pic wouldn't look so good under less perfect,real world [Model Railroad..] lighting..Anything can look good if it's lighted properly,and a little photoshoping..That pic is SO perfect,I can't tell it has wood sides.If the boards don't show up,what will??

I will take pictures of various angles to lighting , and distances tomorrow and post them Lou .

[peteski]

I guess I am missing the point of this thread.What is the logical reason for for enlarging the image of that reefer? I would be willing to bet that any N scale paint and lettering would look like crap at that magnafication.

My take on this thread is that Peteski just felt like doing a P & M about Micro Trains so he started this thread and a whole bunch of you just followed right along behind him.

But I posted a photo comparing another car released by MT the same month which was pad printed. Both cars were photographed under the same magnification and the superiority of the pad printed car decoration is clearly visible.

I bought this car sight unseen, relying on MT's reputation. I am also determined  on completing the Meat Packers collection, so I would have bought this car despite of its shortcomings.

I resent being accused of pissing and moaning about MT because I actually do like their offerings and I own hundreds of their models. Do I really fit a profile of a Micro-Trains pisser and moaner?  Please! Just as you implied that I was P&M, I could say that you are trolling.    But I won't.

The reason I singled out Micro-Trains was because that car really took my by surprise. I didn't expect this type of a paint job from Micro-Trains.

To be fair, here are some examples showing Kato's ink jet (or is it called "paint jet?) printed decorations.



This is comparing a baggage car (on the left) to the step-down coach on the right. Both cars were included in the same 2-pack of Amtrak cars.  It is clearly visible which car was pad printed.    Kato's printer uses a very glossy ink which goes on rather thick.



Here, all the non-white areas are printed. Again, the raster-like lines are visible and the ink is shiny and pebbly. The entire car is spray painted white with a paint that has a nice eggshell-like finish. The ink jet printed areas (even when viewed with a naked eye) have a pebbly and shiny finish which seems to sparkle.



Here, I'm going back to Micro-Trains graffiti car decoration.   As I mentioned in my initial post, the printed graffiti does not seem to look as bad as the Rath reefer car. The ink seems to be much thinner, less glossy, and the halftones seem to be finer.  I'm not sure if in this example the white areas were also printed or spray painted. But the white areas do not show any raster-like lines so I assume that they were spray painted before placing the car in the printed for the color printing.

Actually, I hope that this is something Joe can answer for me (since he is directly involved in the weathered cars):  Is the printer used for graffiti different than the one used for the Rath reefer?  Also, is the white paint in this example printed or spray painted?