MTL August Announcements

[mu26aeh]

I'd like to have that Halloween-ish boxcar from the weathered NS set

[towl1996]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... There, that's done. 

[ntex]

This is a second time that MT has released the same beer car and road number as Atlas.  Surely they can find a different car from the same picture book.

[PGE-N°2]

The MILW observation is correct for the model's prototype, but the model has an incorrect car name.

I will still probably go for one of them anyway.

[Puddington]

I will still probably go for one of them anyway.

Change name, move on...........me too...........

[PGE-N°2]

Change name, move on...........me too...........

Changing the name isn't so big an issue: you'd need a magnifying glass to know from a normal viewing distance, and it's only a 1:160 ratio reproduction of railroad passenger car.

[bbussey]

It's not a reproduction if it's incorrect, particularly when the model is prototypically accurate for another class and/or scheme of the railroad.

[PGE-N°2]

Okay it's a representation of an actual railroad passenger car.

Perhaps we can offer our services as production designers to micro trains to do the next one  .

[nkalanaga]

The GN car is not accurate for the prototype.  For one thing, the GN's has a full centersill.  Picture of former GN 100041, series 100000-100049:

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2817977
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/rsPicture.aspx?id=685589
Title:             BNFT 36
Description:     On the beam towards the front it says "Former GN 100041"
Photo Date:     11/25/2011  Upload Date: 11/25/2011 4:18:49 PM
Location:     Moorhead, MN
Author:             Matt Hagfors
Categories:     RollingStock

[Dave Schneider]

Okay it's a representation of an actual railroad passenger car.

Perhaps we can offer our services as production designers to micro trains to do the next one  .

Even though I am a Milwaukee Road modeler, I don't have a dog in this fight. Not my era or interest. I think the frustration stems from previous attempts by people on TRW to provide accurate car names/numbers for a given plan or body type only to have the information go unused. People that care about these things have tried to help. I can also empathize with MTL folks (mainly Joe) who must feel that each month is a new opportunity to be told that they are doing it wrong. IMO, in some cases it is justified, in others it's not.

Best wishes, Dave

[Ike the BN Freak]

Maybe some at MT is asleep at the webpage...

http://www.micro-trains.com/nr-1308_gn.php
Great Northern
Road Nunmber: GN 100030



This wood sheathed caboose with slanted cupola is painted brown with white herald and lettering. It was built in April 1905 by OWRR&N at their shops in Albina, OR. It was previously numbered LA&SL 130167 (Los Angeles & Salt Lake) and renumbered in August 1926 to LA&SL 3485. It was retired in May 1956.

#110 00 050...$27.50

But I'll probably get the GN tank car and the BN tank car runner pack due in Jan.

Also the misspelling of number, that was MT also.

[sirenwerks]

Even though I am a Milwaukee Road modeler, I don't have a dog in this fight. Not my era or interest. I think the frustration stems from previous attempts by people on TRW to provide accurate car names/numbers for a given plan or body type only to have the information go unused. People that care about these things have tried to help. I can also empathize with MTL folks (mainly Joe) who must feel that each month is a new opportunity to be told that they are doing it wrong. IMO, in some cases it is justified, in others it's not.

Best wishes, Dave

I'm kinda perplexed by the resistance to crowdsourcing and accessing knowledge resources.  Granted, it might mean leak of a release, or worse, leak of a release that ends up not getting produced, but that happens from the manufacturers themselves all the time.  Look at Kato's recent new freight car announcement.  Besides, as much as complaints are generated by such instances, buzz is too.  And late release/delivery or the like really does not keep us from buying a model we really want no matter how much we complain prior, it's the inaccuracy that kills the purchase.  At least it is for me.  PIC, both MTL and IMRC release beautiful meat reefer schemes, but they're both on a PFE body styles that are too far off from the prototype for me to buy.  It's a shame too, because they could have brand loyalty from me if they weren't such buffoons so often.

[bbussey]

At least IMRC's wood reefer happens to be an FGE prototype, which works well for me and other eastern modelers.

What irks me is when the model is prototypically correct for the prototype of a particular railroad, and then an inaccurate or bogus scheme is done.  I would have no issue with the MILW obs if the railroad never had the prototype.  All the CP cars are foobs and I have no problem with them, because CP didn't have these prototypes yet that segment of the customer base still must be served.  But MILW did own Plan 3959 cars, and more than a few, yet the MTL model is of a prototype that is not anywhere close.

It's better not to release the model at all, rather than release an incorrect one when an accurate one was within reach.

Note that nearly the entire collection of N manufacturers doesn't do this.  They release accurate schemes before foobs, and I can't recall any other manufacturer aside from Bachmann where a model released within the last decade would have been accurate for a particular road/scheme yet a bogus scheme purposely was released.  It's already happened at least a half-dozen times on MTL releases this year.  Bachmann's next example will be the Pennsy 55-ton hopper.

[GaryHinshaw]

I understand the frustrations expressed here, and from where I stand much of it seems justified.  That said, let's refrain from calling the MTL employees "buffoons" here, please.

[Denver Road Doug]

Center sill notwithstanding, I have recommended that MTL do a BN fuel tender scheme on this car, and I think it would instantly sell out a typical run.   They've done the SP version, and I believe the BN cars were in service much longer so I think their popularity--even as a foobie--would be very great.