Atlas acquires Microtrains

[skeeter1024]

Another Atlas miss step I would consider to be the USRA 2-8-8-2.  Looked good but really poor QC and couldn't even pass over any turnout without trimming of the Atlas logo on the underside.

Mark

[bbussey]

Your point is moot.  There is nothing that I know of in the RS-3 that Kato was not already offering to their domestic market.  Atlas best offerings up to that point were models produced by Roco in Austria.

The point is not moot but I’m done after this. Atlas had input in the mechanism development of the RS-3. I was a frequent visitor of Atlas at the time and knew of the project before it came to market. But you believe what you believe.

[bbussey]

The SP Caboose note reminded me of another topic for this thread... what continues and what gets retired. 

Back when MTL was asking like $3mil for the company, we had some discussions around what is still useful tooling and what has served its purpose.

I'm guessing we've seen the last of the ubiquitous 20 00 000 series 40' PS-1 boxcar, right?  MTL never retooled to fix the dimensional issues, and Atlas has since tooled a better version.  They'll be on the secondary market long past my life.

The 50' gondolas, all versions, are a bit long in the tooth now that we have proper length cars available.

The more modern boxcars with dimensional height issues, do those continue?  There's a middle collection of freight cars here that are OK but generally mediocre stuff until...

The last 5-6 cars tooled are very nice.  Including the new gon, 60' flat car, etc.  Those have legs and I'm hopeful for many runs and roadnames from Atlas. 

Heavyweights passenger cars have legs, especially if a new RPO side gets tooled finally!

So setting aside the coupler line, does 50% of the MTL rolling stock line actually continue?  Higher or lower percentage?

I agree, a good amount of the older tooling has been superseded by better more accurate models by other manufacturers - half of them by Atlas. As the MTL models are too intricate for the Trainman line, it makes little sense to continue with them. Among the older freight car tooling from the last century - all of the reefers, the cupola cabooses, the covered hoppers, the three-bay hopper, the stock car, the wagon top boxcar, the 50’ automobile car, the X-29 variants and the transition era tankcars are still viable I think. Probably some others I’m forgetting.

[bbussey]

I dont know, I would consider the lastest GP60 release a major goof to me. Every single road name Atlas chose had deck mounted ditch lights per proto and even showed artwork to have deck mounted ditch lights. What did we get on everything? Pilot mounted versions and no snowplow.

I've taken a sit back and see approach to the whole acquisition. I don't think there would have been another manufacturer that could integrate MTL into their system, so I think Atlas will be fine.

I only consider tooling anomalies to be errors. If the model is prototypically correct physically, it may be necessary to run slightly non-prototypical schemes to amortize the tooling. Every manufacturer has done that since the beginning.

[bbussey]

Well, I don't have the legs for a kilt anymore... but one car I would buy more of is the 078 body style double door "auto" box with end doors.  When I bought it (undec), I assumed it was just their standard 50' PS-1 car, with an end door added.  But, it is different tooling altogether.  Different panel spacing, wider doors, and a non-Pullman roof.  It was rarely run- or I rarely noticed it being run, anyway.

The only one I own was purchased undecorated, and painted/decaled as an ATSF Fe-29 express car.  Luckily dark green, so the flaws in my paint job don't show too much. 

The automobile boxcar is an excellent model with correct proportions and accurate ride height. MTL did run a number of schemes on it, including reissues on at least PRR-sk. There are a couple of schemes I wish they had done, such as PC and CR. But they did run a number of roads on the model.

[bbussey]

.
No, the prototype RS11 had a longer frame than the RS3 and the prototype RSD12 was longer still and had a extra carbody door over the RS11.  The RS11 / RSD12 were released 86 - 87.

The Atlas RS-3 and RS-11 did not share the same components other than the trucks and LED headlight boards. I’ll give you that the RSD-4/5 had a longer wheelbase than the RS-3, and the RSD-12 had a longer wheelbase than the RS-11. Not enough to quibble about, and no one did 40 years ago.

[bbussey]

If they can't fix the ride height, I hope never to see the MT modern 56 foot tank cars again. The ride height totally ruins the appearance of those cars,  no matter how beautifully weathered and decorated.

That’s actually easily fixed by modifying the model for the 100-ton trucks with 36” wheels that were introduced with the Greenville 60’ boxcar.

[basementcalling]

I only consider tooling anomalies to be errors. If the model is prototypically correct physically, it may be necessary to run slightly non-prototypical schemes to amortize the tooling. Every manufacturer has done that since the beginning.

Nah, they goofed this one. All the real engines offered in the model had deck mounted ditch lights, but they models are below deck on the front.

That’s actually easily fixed by modifying the model for the 100-ton trucks with 36” wheels that were introduced with the Greenville 60’ boxcar.

Nice to know, now that ordering the trucks is probably a thing of the past, or at least on hold as things transition. Maybe Atlas will modify the mold by then.

[bbussey]

Nah, they goofed this one. All the real engines offered in the model had deck mounted ditch lights, but they models are below deck on the front.

Sounds like it wasn’t possible technology-wise at the time to put the ditch lights on top of the deck and keep it affordable. Not a goof, a compromise.

[EspeeGoldenState]

Sounds like it wasn’t possible technology-wise at the time to put the ditch lights on top of the deck and keep it affordable. Not a goof, a compromise.

You call showing the art work touting deck mounted ditch lights a compromise? No, that was a big goof. Zero communication about the change, if they had been upfront about it, sure compromise. Nothing until they were shipped, big goof.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree here.

[up1950s]

Gee all this self defeating gonad kicking of Atlas who now owns any and all chances of MTL/Atlas putting any of it in production . Do they even sell underware hammocks that fit prickly pears for Paul & Co ?

[nkalanaga]

Yes, Atlas makes better PS-1s than MTL - if one wants a 40 foot, single sliding door car.  My prototypes owned quite a few combination-door 40 ft cars.  The only model readily available in N scale is the MTL car.  They also had double-door 40 ft cars, mostly for lumber loading.  The only one other than MTL is the Atlas Trainman car, which is at least as old as the MTL tooling, and doesn't look as good.

[OldEastRR]

Yes, Atlas makes better PS-1s than MTL - if one wants a 40 foot, single sliding door car.  My prototypes owned quite a few combination-door 40 ft cars.  The only model readily available in N scale is the MTL car.  They also had double-door 40 ft cars, mostly for lumber loading.  The only one other than MTL is the Atlas Trainman car, which is at least as old as the MTL tooling, and doesn't look as good.

There is a way to shave off 6" from the MTL PS-1 heights either 40' or 50' w/o having to trim bolsters, use lower riding truck, etc. The car roof and sill heights then ride at the same height as true scale PS-1s like Atlas. Markings, paint job, road paint scheme all untouched. The only thing is there's no way to shrink the MTL car ends to reduce the space between the ribs, but since nobody really notices the end ribs -- but they do a car 6" higher than the same type car next to it -- that's a minor point.

[John]

I hope the DODX and other flat cars stay in the mix for production .. there are still a lot of good models in the line that will fit nicely on 99% of layouts ... IMHO Model railroading has always been a compromise, although some less acceptable, such as ride height, couplers, wheels .. even that said, I would guess the majority of MRs can live with it - especially in the smaller scales.

More importantly, I hope our friends such as @JoeD and other former employees land on their feet with a new job that they can grow in.

[Lenny53]

The Atlas RS-3 and RS-11 did not share the same components other than the trucks and LED headlight boards. I’ll give you that the RSD-4/5 had a longer wheelbase than the RS-3, and the RSD-12 had a longer wheelbase than the RS-11. Not enough to quibble about, and no one did 40 years ago.

RSD12 had a different car body than the RS11