MTL Gunderson Husky Stack well car

[Philip H]

I knew it wouldn't work - just wanted to show what it looked like.  Somebody smarter than me (means about everybody) can maybe tell us why.

All I know is flickr and photobucket work and google doesn't any more.  Their loss.  A pity.  They usually do things right.

Google doesn't work because they no longer refer you to a .jpg or other image. What they are now using is - as was dumbed down for me - a hot link to the image they are hosting. It is still possible to go to your current photos through Picassa but Google is not supporting any Picassa upgrades anymore so eventually that door will close. Google explains this by claiming the majority of photos they host are posted to social media which can handle the link.

Now back to our regular product reengineering by committee.

[Denver Road Doug]

OK, added them as attachments....better?   

The problem with all your theories is....Google still works most of the time.      I use it almost exclusively, and only about every 10th time does this happen.   And it renders perfectly on my web browser so it has nothing to do with not having a JPG extension or anything of that sort...if the web browser can render a reference as an image, generally that's all there is to it.  I suspect it has more to do with the file not having the proper security set, although you are limited with what you can do from the UI in Google Photos...and I don't change how I add the photos so it is something random...bug maybe or just random changes to their code to fix something else...dunno.   Anyway, I forget that RW added the functionality of the attachment although I suspect that is limited in what I can post over time.   I may look at Flickr although I understand they have their own set of problems.   

 

[jereising]

OK, added them as attachments....better?   

Much, and thanks for the pics, very interesting.

In the FWIW category, I DO have to edit each flickr link, shortening it considerably, but that's easy enough...just keep everything between ""

[Philip H]

OK, added them as attachments....better?   

The problem with all your theories is....Google still works most of the time.      I use it almost exclusively, and only about every 10th time does this happen.   And it renders perfectly on my web browser so it has nothing to do with not having a JPG extension or anything of that sort...if the web browser can render a reference as an image, generally that's all there is to it.  I suspect it has more to do with the file not having the proper security set, although you are limited with what you can do from the UI in Google Photos...and I don't change how I add the photos so it is something random...bug maybe or just random changes to their code to fix something else...dunno.   Anyway, I forget that RW added the functionality of the attachment although I suspect that is limited in what I can post over time.   I may look at Flickr although I understand they have their own set of problems.   

 

Having worked this same issue in three fora in the last few months if you have your google account opened on the machine you are looking at the image in, and or your Google cookies are still in the caChe then the image will show up for you.mbut not for us. If the file extension you get for Google is t a .jpg or .bmp or .gif etc the forum software here will not link to it for anyone else.

[wcfn100]

Having worked this same issue in three fora in the last few months if you have your google account opened on the machine you are looking at the image in, and or your Google cookies are still in the caChe then the image will show up for you.mbut not for us. If the file extension you get for Google is t a .jpg or .bmp or .gif etc the forum software here will not link to it for anyone else.

I saw the pictures when first posted from Google, then later they were gone.

The long URL from google is basically pseudo password to protect from being able to just randomly find photos by guessing URLs. On top of that the photos don't exist in public URLs until called on, again to protect from phishing for photos.

Just use https://picasaweb.google.com for now.  It works perfectly every time.

Jason

[Denver Road Doug]

Thanks for the feedback on the images.   I will concede that Google has changed things to the point that it isn't working now whatever I do.   A few months ago I was able to make it work after ****ing around with it for awhile.   It is not ideal, for sure.

I have soooo many photos I would love to share but I've done this dance so many times and left broken links in the wake....I guess I just kept hoping something that worked and was easy to link to would eventually roll around.  I've thought about building my own server many times (which is a fairly easy option for me to do) but I would rather not, plus I need to research the best way to go about it these days via Linux.

Anyway, back on topic....I just hope MTL does METAL cars with etched details and also the AP versions and does the schemes that were actually applied to the respective cars.   I still think not doing 53's is a mistake but if they do these aforementioned things it will be a win.

[Philip H]

With the new pewter stuff from N Scale Kits (or whatever Peter's cox many is called) these will need to be high quality to get noticed.

[JoeD]

This has been interesting but not unexpected.  To the comment we don't have 48's...those will be out soon, so we offer 20', 40', 48' and 53' containers all fitting in the 48' well.  I also said, but it seemed to get lost in the noise as usual that a 53' well isn't off the table.  (insert snarky banter, accusations of incompetence, "if you just...", etc.etc.etc)    The 48' service span fits our biggest demographic when looking at sales.  Hang tough it can happen LOL


Joe

[basementcalling]

This has been interesting but not unexpected.  To the comment we don't have 48's...those will be out soon, so we offer 20', 40', 48' and 53' containers all fitting in the 48' well.  I also said, but it seemed to get lost in the noise as usual that a 53' well isn't off the table.  (insert snarky banter, accusations of incompetence, "if you just...", etc.etc.etc)    The 48' service span fits our biggest demographic when looking at sales.  Hang tough it can happen LOL


Joe

Joe are the 48 foot wells going to be good candidates for runner multi packs? Seems if people need multiples for stack train service.....

Also, I expect MT will sell a good number of these simply because the typical N scaler would rather buy off the shelf RTR cars than a kit that needs assembly. That has consistently been proven by every company that has tried to offer rolling stock in kit form. Almost all have completely done away with kit offerings, but still offer RTR rolling stock.

[JoeD]

  We are doing multipules of all these and I suspect pretty soon we will have these offered in undec and in runner packs.

Joe are the 48 foot wells going to be good candidates for runner multi packs? Seems if people need multiples for stack train service.....

Also, I expect MT will sell a good number of these simply because the typical N scaler would rather buy off the shelf RTR cars than a kit that needs assembly. That has consistently been proven by every company that has tried to offer rolling stock in kit form. Almost all have completely done away with kit offerings, but still offer RTR rolling stock.

[Missaberoad]

This has been interesting but not unexpected.
Joe

Despite that thanks for taking part in the conversation! If anything it shows there is demand for intermodal out there.
Hoping it is a big success and 53' or All purpose prototypes follow!

Unfortunately way past my primary era but I may grab a couple to put in a for fun WC freight...

[jereising]

[jagged ben]

Most of your customers won't notice a difference anyway.

Oh snap.   

[JoeD]

really? 

I wanna see the 53' can fit in a 48' well...

Ooh!  Ooh!  Ooh!  You can just print 53' on a 48' can.  Yeah, that'll work! 

Most of your customers won't notice a difference anyway.

[JoeD]

not sure what compels me to participate on this board sometimes.