MTL losing their edge?

I am wondering if others are as disappointed with the latest offerings from MTL?

The container flat with CAST containers was a joke. The containers have no reporting marks. I have some 20 year old Concor CAST containers that have reporting marks. That is pathetic. MTL used to set the standard and now they aren't even keeping up.

And the RPO is 40 year old state of the art. The mail hooks are modeled on. And the roof is made from clear plastic, which slides into the body to provide the window glass, like a 1968 Rivarossi HW. And thus the window glass is horribly set back from the sides (and the prism glass effect is really poor). It took them two-three years to come with this? The troop sleeper is infinitely better made. I am no longer looking forward to their other HW cars.

The new trucks are well detailed, but the off-center truck pin makes them look stupid and you can't use them on any other cars. They were obviously done this way to avoid removing the center wheel set to install the truck pin. (Again, cheapness first)

If they want to get into the HW passenger car market, they should have bought a Kato Broadway Limited set to see how it is done. The Kato HW RPO is $25 and the MTL GN RPO is $19.15 and the NYNH&H is $20.15. Since the Kato car is not intended to be mass produced with lots of road names applied, the price difference is not that much, yet the Kato car is so much better made.

 

Fortunately, for All-American firms like Micro-Trains Line, it is customer loyalty and sales, not personal opinions that matter!!!

It is a really sad state of affairs when so many Americans (including model railroaders it appears) continually bash the rapidly dwindling supply of products that are still manufactured in this wonderful country of ours.

 

Glad to see this post because I know there are Micro-Trains insiders that monitor here. I have been an MTL fan from way back, but I have consistently been frustrated by MTL releases that are short on production numbers, keeping costs high I think to appeal to the collectors. I'll find a boxcar or tank car that is simply beautiful, but availability (and cost) make it almost impossible to own all but a couple token examples, when 10 or 20 cars would be so desirable.

MTL won't know what we think if they don't hear from us occasionally! And I think they do care about what we think...

 

"They were obviously done this way to avoid removing the center wheel set to install the truck pin."


It's for swing clearance of the trucks and steps.


Jason

 

I like my new GN RPO.

 

They are charging a dollar for the extra letters in 'New York, New Haven & Hartford", MTL are still getting maximum profit out of every drop of ink they use.

I'm a bit disappointed that they are still using some techniques that were around in the sixties, but at least they are doing heavyweights. The question is, how long will you have to wait to get a full train in your favorite roadname. I was hoping undec or unlettered cars would be available, all they have to do is pull them off the production line before the paint goes on, I guess they have to use up that expensive ink.

 

I kind of look at them as just a coupler and truck manufacturer. If they release something that I like I'll pick it up but with the few announcements each month I'm rarely tempted (and that's not a knock on them or their production choices, it's just a numbers game). And that's okay, again they are the company I use for trucks and couplers for the cars I do like. My only complaint would be that they have the n scale monopoly on RTR 89' TOFCs.

 

I like some of their freight cars and their trucks and couplers.

As far as the passenger cars..IMHO that's a personal choice since some will love 'em while others will loath 'em..

As for me,when I decide to build a passenger consist for club use I will use Kato passenger cars.

 

Kato passenger cars are the passenger cars of choice for me. A second choice are Wheels Of Time Harriman Cars which are very well done.

 

I notice that the Wheels of Time cars are about $45. They're very nice, but more than I'm willing to pay for a single piece of rolling stock.
I was suprised that the MT heavyweights are as inexpensive as they are. I think they're a good deal. I can live with molded on details and off center truck pins. I can also live with the CAST containers as they are. I wonder how much more they would have been if all the reporting marks were printed on?

 

I think there detail is on Par not leading anymore but "On Par" with the remainder of the mainstream industry leaders. My concern is there their recent pricing has gone really out there in my opinion. For example the recent release of the Bay WIndow Caboose $31 & that Tank Car Red/Blue is $33 in many places best is $28. Gees kinda steep I think, and definitely directed toward the collector.
Which is a small sector of the modeling community I may add.

Just my two bits, and I agree good to give feedback to manufacturers. How else do they know what were thinking

 

Wow. A little harsh I think. I believe one of the goals was to produce a detailed model that didn't cost a fortune, since pricey models is one of the primary complaints against MTL. They did that with the design of the Evans covered hopper, and they've continued that here. Yes, the glass and roof are one component, but the computer-designed relief on that component and the remainder of the model is far far better than the hand-tooled RivaRossi models of the 1960s. The roof vents are detailed enough to appear to be separate parts. Stand-alone mail hooks would have been preferred, but it helped keep the cost down and there have been indications this may be revisited with future tooling variations should the series be successful. The brakewheels and diaphragms are separate components, which is not so on the RivaRossi model. The underbody detail is more defined. The car has body-mounted couplers which, unlike the RivaRossi cars, allows it to sit at the proper height over the rails. And, the truck detail is outstanding - while the new 36" wheels are exquisite with a better flange profile that works on Atlas code 55 and tighter side-to-side tolerance that prevents point-picking on any brand of turnout, and they roll forever.

The offset truck pin was NOT to make it accessable with the center axle in place and make the model "cheaper." It was to allow for truck swing on 9-3/4" radius track AND keep the stirrups in place. If you are running your passenger consists on 11" radius and greater, the off-center truck swing is not noticeable.

The Kato BM70M has an advantage with the flush glass, stand-alone mail hooks (albeit translucent plastic) and the interior lighting. The MTL car has an advantage with the body-mounted couplers. The tooling relief, paint quality and print quality on both are comparable. The MTL model also lends itself to kitbash more easily than the Kato model AND it is greatly more accessible. The Kato BM70M parts, which could be kitbashed into other Pennsy prototypes, still are not available and there is no indication they will be any time soon. Coming out with the RPO first also allows MTL to make adjustments on the following cars based upon the consumer assessments provided on the RPO.

Disappointed? Hardly. Not only will the MTL collectors like the RPO, but the true modelers will as well since it is a blank canvas to create many possibilities.

 

I just picked up my GN RPO today and I like it. I wish the hook was not cast on, but at 3 ft, you cannot really tell. I will be buying another to use the frame and steps on my WOT resin RPO. It will take some filing to get it to fit inside the WOT body, but the results will be better than the underbody of the WOT car and the steps will not continually break off. I will buy more MT passenger cars if they are willing to build some sleepers and diners that are accurate to prototype.

 

Yup, me too. I'm hoping this is just the beginning of a heavyweight line. Baggage car would be great.

 

Didn't realize they had body mount couplers and improved wheelsets, this is a good step. Pity they still have to make compromises for tight radius curves though.

 

yea ... imagine the complaints that would be posted if they hadn't made the compromise to make it work on 99% of people's layouts

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westfalen
Didn't realize they had body mount couplers and improved wheelsets, this is a good step. Pity they still have to make compromises for tight radius curves though.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

yea ... imagine the complaints that would be posted if they hadn't made the compromise to make it work on 99% of people's layouts

G<W
-------------------------------------------------------------------

If I may and as a personal opinion with no harm or foul intended.

IMHO I fully believe N Scale manufacturers need to take the next step and body mount the couplers and judging by Athearn's new caboose we may see that as a new standard.

Now if 99% of N Scalers are still using 9 3/4" curves perhaps they need to rethink their layout design philosophies.

 

I think this rethinking might lead to give up model railroading at all. :thumbs_down:
When I started with N-scale I had the choice between a very small layout with sharp curves and none at all. So I chose the sharp curves and only bought small engines and cars (German prototype). Naturally I soon had some bigger locomotives because I could not resist, and then came US prototype models.
So I think we should accept that some people (might be the majority) have severe space restrictions and still prefer to run a continuous loop instead of a pure switching layout.

Just my 2ct :tb-cute:

 

Somewhere on some forum, someone who was in the industry pointed out that yes, the vast majority of N scalers are in that scale because of very limited space, so the tight radius compromises might be with us a while.

That said, MT used to advertise itself as the Cadillac of N scale, and now they are somewhere more like a Buick or less. Lets just hope their business model isn't one of the GM brands that bit the dust!

Seriously, while every other mfg seems to have upped the ante detail wise, or offered old level quality in the Trainman or similar lines, MT offers old level quality at more modern prices, in many cases. Even their new cars with good tooling (Auto Racks, but even there, more folks seem to like the RC) ride high, and the Athearn caboose seems much better than the MT one.

Sorry for the rant. But there is a question in there somewhere, namely, does the collector market change? I mean, was part of the MT collector market ever based on the relative quality of their cars compared to 1990 offerings by others? Now that others make better cars, will average quality tooling cars still sell as collector items because of paint schemes and/or the momentum of the market?

 

At least the compromises MTL have made with the RPO don't look as bad as others we've had to live with, it sits low on the trucks and has body mounted couplers. I hope they work out a way to put steps on the longer coaches and sleepers.