MT CP Rail icicle breaker box car is not what it should be.

[DKS]

No.  I'm saying the MTL model is 100% useless.

Would love to see a model you consider 100% useful.

[learmoia]

I just picked it up today and shame on me, but I didn’t go to the MT website to see a picture before ordering. On the website it states that the icicle breaking parts are laser cut wood and require assembly and painting. 

If you didn't look at the photo before ordering, how is posting the photo relevant.?

The car came exactly as they described, but honestly, it’s really disappointing. The parts are as thick as popsicle sticks and even for laser cut wood they could have been done much better with just a bit of cad work.

If the model came exactly as described, how is that disappointing?  The parts ARE thick.. as shown in the picture you didn't look at.

I’m going to scratch build the parts to make it look good, but I feel like I shouldn’t have to.  I emailed MT to voice my concern but I’m just wondering if my standards are too high. The car was $38 CDN plus 13% tax. Not cheap.

If your able to scratch build  the parts to make it look good to your standard, I'm guessing you are able to paint and decal any 40' boxcar to build the car your self, and save your self $43.

No.  I'm saying the MTL model is 100% useless.

Since you don't have icicles on your layout that would need to be broken.. then Yes.. I suppose the model is 100% useless.. 

   ~Ian

[cjm413]

IIRC, the Intermountain cars are about 1 scale foot too high, so all is not well there either.  Note this thread for the 1944 AAR variant https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=40058.msg492426#msg492426, and it's the same for the other variants which I own (like 1937 AAR). 

MH

They have the correct components

[cjm413]

Would love to see a model you consider 100% useful.

It's not complicated.   When building a model, start with a model that matches the prototype.  If none is available, start with the closest match.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

It's not complicated.   When building a model, start with a model that matches the prototype.  If none is available, start with the closest match.

They did. They started with the model that they produce that's the closest match.

It might not be close enough for your tastes, but there's no need to be a jerk about it to them.

[ns737]

if you showed the car off at a show. the viewers would say wow. cool car

[thomasjmdavis]

It's not complicated.   When building a model, start with a model that matches the prototype.  If none is available, start with the closest match.

But IM has had decades (not sure exactly how long, but the 10'6 AAR variations have been on the market since the "kit" days or from Deluxe) to do the car with their "better" starting point, and has not.  So, MTL used the "closest match" in their own product line.  Any modeler who prefers accuracy over convenience can purchase an IM car, paint and decal it, and build their own icebreaker.  No doubt a few folks already have over the decades the cars have been on the market. 

The MTL car remains "useful" to those who might want to model the operation of such cars with a RTR model.

It seems your anger is displaced.  Perhaps you should be angry with IM because they haven't done these cars in all the years of having a better "starting point".

I won't be buying one either, it does not fit my era or modeled operations.  However, the sales remain useful, as they help keep MTL in business.  And with single window coaches and other passenger cars,  plus the occasional freight car, MTL is still getting plenty of my money for the cars and operations I do model.

[delamaize]

Ok, I have been biting my tonge since I saw this thread, and several like it, I have tried to let it go, I have tried to just be civil, and it's just stewed and stewed.

First: MTL posted pictures of the car, You're the one who blindly bought the car, without seeing pictures, so it's on you.

Second: IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT THEN ******** FIX IT!!! THIS IS MODEL RAILROADING, that means that if something isn't to your standard, you fix it, you build your own parts, you do some actual MODELING. For Fucks sake, when did this form become more about "Open the box and run railroading" than modeling. Their seems to be a lot of people complaining on here about how the model didn't 100% match the prototype out of the box.

Third: to cjm413, MTL did start with the closest prototype they had. In addition, the IM version you are referring to is HOT GARBAGE right out of the box. It's 1 foot too tall, It sits high on the trucks, and from what I have seen most of the details are clunky. So, Yes, The MTL model does fill a need. But that gets back to the whole "Open the box and run railroading" thing again.

Push comes to shove here: 2 more things
1: JFRTM
2: JDSFM (Just do some ******** modeling)

 

[Angus Shops]

Craig is an excellent modeller. He’s “fixed” a ton of stuff; you have to model the Ontario Northland. He admits he purchased the MT car without looking at the image of the car on their website. He accepts responsibility for his oversight in his OP. His point is that this product is not up to MT’s usually high quality (high quality despite what some others believe). No big deal.

[cjm413]

It sounds like the typical comments from members of what the LHS owner calls the railroad hysterical society.
When a new model is released in their favorite roadname, they nitpick it to death, don't buy it and then complain that nothing ever seems to get made in that roadname.

Ignorance is bliss.

[craigolio1]

Wow.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Gents. Chill.

[DeltaBravo]

I just read the entire thread, I think I need a drink.

[delamaize]

Gents. Chill.

Sorry Ed...

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Sorry Ed...

It's 2020. We all get a bit heated from time to time. No worries homes.