Micro trains requested inputs will there be changes??

Hi Joe, It's refreshing to find a manufacturers rep. actually out talking with the customers. Thank you.
I've only been modeling in N scale for a short time so the wheel issue is a non-issue for me :>) I use code 55 track and low profile metal wheels so unless you can equip your cars with fox valley equivalents I don't car what you put on them!!
I'd like to say that your models are very fine, the paint and lettering is exquisite, the details are great for something so small and the flexible engineering plastic is very sturdy, I think they are right at the top of the N scale quality chart.
As Rob noted it would be very worthwhile to lower them to scale height and to produce them in multiple road numbers. Our purchases are limited to the numbers available so more road numbers made=more cars sold.
For future planning purposes I'd also like to put in a plug for a Genset loco and more modern freight cars of all types. Regards, Dave Branum

 

Thanks, Joe.

I feel bad that I brought up this dead horse for another round of thrashing. My job as admin is to control this type of thrashing. I didn't do my job very well this time. So I extend my apology beyond Joe and MT to all Trainboard members. I'm human. I don't bat 1.00. I whiffed on this one.

 

NMRA compliant as Leo stated should be old hat to all manufacturers by now . Sombreros should have been gone many siestas ago .

 

It takes a big man to make a public apology and you stand mighty tall in my book Pete!
I understand the venting and frustrations about products that don't work the way they should. But I think we are lucky to have a manufacturer's rep who is willing to talk to us on this forum. I only wish that we could get other manufacturers' reps on this forum to discuss other issues also.

 

I'd like to chime in here. We'd all like to see MTL grow & prosper. That means we'd like MTL to get better. New wheels or re-tooled old wheels may be one rout to that. change can be difficult, it's hard to see what's wrong with the old wheels. Having a better & finer scale standard wheel can be one part in the equation.

Bringing the cars down lower is another big step. The era may be over for Nscalers to shoehorn cars thru 7in or smaller curves. This could also be a part of a market shift from shorty Lionel toy like cars to more prototypical ones. The big move of loco makers from truck mounted couplers to body mounts is a part of this.

At some point, it may be possible to body mount all Nscale couplers? or come up with a flexible coupler pocket that has enough play for those tight curves??

 

A couple of thoughts.

Some believe the Low Profile wheels do not track as well. I think there is partial truth to this worry. Since we use truck mounted couplers there is a lot more side to side force when backing up than if the couplers were body mounted. The flanges have to keep the trucks straight. Backing up Low Profiles, with truck mount couplers, through switches, causes more derailments than High Profile, with truck mount, through switches. So I think there is an argument to be made to use the highest profile that meets the spec.

I am an NTrak person. One of the interesting aspects of track work for NTrak is I can't control what will be run over my module. Someone may bring MT, or Atlas, or ConCor, or even homemade equipment. I can't make a decision to tell them to all install low profile wheels, for instance.

Solely because of MT Pizza Cutters NTrak has had to outlaw Atlas Code 55 track. Ergo there are those of us who see shipping pizza cutters as holding back NTrak. Granted, even if you stopped it would likely be 10-20 years before we could use Atlas track, but it would be a start. In essence NTrak has had to adopt a 0.027 flange height requirement solely because of Micro Trains.

Why not sell Low Profiles only? Back to the tracking issues. The newest people to the hobby probably have the worst track work. If you make fine scale the default they will be disappointed early on. That's not a good way to grow the hobby, or your business.

Aside from this issue, I still think MT is a leader. Couplers are the standard, wheels and trucks are some of the best (other than flange size). Cars, when not a fantasy job, are quite accurate, great printing, etc.

I think Atlas did something interesting with the Trainman line and the premium line. I'd like to see MT do the same, but have the premium line push N Scale further ahead. What does that mean? Well..

• Body mount couplers, standard.
• Lowered bolsters to closer to prototype size, which probably means...
• Medium profile wheels, or maybe low profiles on some cars if needed for the lower bolsters. With body mounts the low profile might not be an issue.
• When appropriate (e.g. things run in unit trains and the like) multiple road numbers in the same release.
• Closer coupling, maybe not prototypical distance, but closer.
• Reduce/remove the slinky effect.
• More etched metal (roofwalks, end platforms, etc).
• A working electromagnetic uncoupler for N Scale track that works and is easy to hide in bench work.

One of my largest frustrations, as I've been trying to collect ~100 MT 33' C&O Twin Bay Hoppers is you seem to run one car/road number every 5-10 years of them. For those of us running long trains on NTrak that's forever. I know it's hard problem to solve, but look at Intermountain and such with things like Trinity Hoppers coming in 24 packs. Won't work for a standard box, but hoppers, well cars, autoracks....yeah.

I applaud you for being here and discussing this with the group. I know you get some flack, but we do like your product, and want it to be better so we buy more.

 

Since no one has come out and said it...

[but LEO said it while I was typing!]

It's not the price that is the issue. As I understand this, and I am in HO, not N, so I don't have practice with this, but the LPW is simply TOO good - it has Extrememly high precision and requires a very precise railroad to operate corectly - and most of us have far from perfect trackwork.

Those who have used LPWs and move to other manufacturers have found the MTL wheels simply derail more often because the flanges simply find mroe track flaws then the others.

The HPW, however, is on the other end of the spectrum - it was great while we couldn't tell, but that Has been one small thing I never liked about N scale - those flanges would only look ok in HO, and even then they are a bit grotesque.


What a contingency of people appear to want is a simple solution: the end of the HPW with a MPW replacing it.

And it would appear that this would also be a good time to introduce a complete new line of tooling - if that was an option - of freight cars for the 21st century. The current line is a great line - for the 20th century.

The 21st century is lowered[height], solid[no slinky], and moderate[MPW] that raise the bar while meeting the needs of the average modeler.

But whatever you do, don't ever stop with things like tweety cars!! It keeps the people NOT trainlike wanting trains!!!

 

LOCK. Jesus.

 

Leo,Maybe I am different then most but,I want to be able to switch cars without the tiny flanges giving me hassles as you pointed out when you said:"Since we use truck mounted couplers there is a lot more side to side force when backing up than if the couplers were body mounted. The flanges have to keep the trucks straight. Backing up Low Profiles, with truck mount couplers, through switches, causes more derailments than High Profile, with truck mount, through switches.."

As you may recall the early "pizza cutters" from the 80s they where almost derailment free even while backing with Rapido couplers.It is my though that a wheel between a LP and a Pizza Cutter should work and look decent for those of us that won't be using C55 and smaller size rail.I believe this will give both camps a choice of wheel size as well.

Also the N Scale club I am a member is modular and use C80 track..Of course just as you noted track work..Remember a lot of experience modelers can have sloppy track work.

Now the IMPROVEMENTS I would like to see is:

Body mounted couplers.This should of already taken place years ago.

Kill the Slinky..Why hasn't this been fixed after all these years?

A mid size wheel..Again a happy medium for those of us that uses C80.

and
close coupling except for cars requiring a extended cushion pocket for the 70 era.

 

If you continue to accept mediocrity in track, and mediocrity in wheels, NScale will forever be 2nd rate in model railroading.

 

Sizemore, Dude,calm down. I'm involved in 5 different model railroad sites and a moderator of one. I personally don't even model N scale, but have read every word of every post. Sure, it is sometimes repetitive, but educational for all. Except you I guess. Here is a simple solution. Don't read any post on this thread. Voila! You're happy and so are we. Cheers, Jim

 

Not by me. I think this thread is exploring new ideas about track, and MT's response to customer input. I admit that I drove it off track a long while back, so let's rerail it: What has the Trainboard thread given to MT? What are the results?

I'm slowly, slowly twisting in the wind here (a 1974 reference to Watergate). Can we get back to MT customer input and response?

(And here I hand it back to Joe!)

 

John, Excellent idea at home in fact I strive for good track work for smooth and derailment free operation...But,a modular club sitting isn't as easy and there lays the rub.

No..A MSW is sorely needed.

 

I think you're not that unusual, which is why I advocate "medium profile" (0.022, NMRA maximum). Virtually all Atlas, Fox Valley and other wheels are right at the spec, and no one complains about them derailing all the time. It's MT low profiles, which actually meet the fine scale spec (0.017) that causes the issue. So for the average modeler MT has two wrong choices, a too big and a too small. A just right would have no track issues, but also would handle backing as well as everything else on the market.

While we're on backing, there's a two fold reason we have an issue. First, truck mounted couplers. If they were body mount there would be no issue, as there's no force trying to rotate the truck. But this is made worse by the second issue, when you back up with all existing coupler types the couplers slam over to the side, creating a level effect to magnify the twisting force.

If you don't want to use sharp curves (< ~15in or so) then body mount couplers completely solve it. If you want tight curves what would help is a coupler designed with an inner cam so in reverse it wants to self center. That might magnify the slinky effect though.

Note too that Rapidos don't swing to the side when backing, which actually makes them superior in this respect.

Operationally, body mounts are the answer to a lot of problems (close coupling, better backing, lower bolsters), but they will limit the tight radius performance. Will they go around a 12" curve, probably. Will they couple on less than a 36" curve, no way. I'll readily admit my NTrak bias, long straight runs, 24" minimum curves, I'm ready for body mounts. Is the hobby as a whole though? I just don't know.

Some manufacturer will eventually try, and will either be greatly rewarded or punished....

 

Leo - Very nicely said. Yes, I agree it would be great to have a affordable fine scale cars available for those who can appriciate them. My questions are: How much would it cost and how big is the market?

Note:
I am only here on trainboard so have a skewed view of the market and I run any make on Kato track so wheels have never seemed to be an issue. That said I do have some Intermountain grain cars that seem to pick the points on one particular #6 turnout. No other cars of any make and model do at any speed. Probably not relevent but maybe they have low profiles?

 

• Wheel profile is an issue.
• People like the parts that are available.
• More runner packs.
• Bay window caboose.
• Great response to service e-mail.
• Responsible for Global Warming.
• Bulk packs need to be expanded to include other combos (specifically lopro wheels, but probably also brown, etc). Ed note: I'd like back trucks with brown wheels. Am I the only one?
• Lower the cars.
• Electric uncouplers.
• Close coupling (F-Units and cars).
• Need more passenger cars.
• More etched metal details.
• Kill the slinky.

I bet by the time they have all that done we'll have something new to complain about. :tb-biggrin:

Which reminds me of a minor thing. If my memory is right the largest pack of assembled 1015's you can get is like 10 or 12 or something. If I'm going to body mount a large group of cars it would be a nice to have a 100 pack, just like wheels. Perhaps of a couple of the popular sizes for body mount on freight cars...

I have no luck assembling them, so I'll just bite the bullet on pre-assembled.

 

Might I also add to the list:

Coupler conversions for all those steamers without working front couplers, eg;Bachmann 2-8-0, 4-8-2, like those that used to be available for locos up until the first run Kato Mikado with a replacement pilot w/coupler. I held off converting my first 2-8-0 for months thinking MTL might do a conversion kit.

A greater range of 'Z scale' couplers for those that prefer closer to scale size couplers as well as wheels.

As for the wheel debate, I throw out ALL the MTL wheels, high and low, and use FVM metal wheels, which I run with no problems on the club's Ntrak modules, if they derail anywhere we look at fixing the track, not the wheels.
How about selling cars without wheels or couplers?:tb-biggrin:

Another thought at the risk of fueling further debate, maybe it's time Ntrak upped its standards from the 1970's. Perhaps as a start allow code 55 track and scale wheels as an option on the branchline.

 

Hello again Joe,

You asked about whats the point in retooling both sets of wheels. Well for one the large flange wheel isn't NMRA conformance, the fine scale one with the 017 flange size will operate on code 40 rail where as a 022 flange might not. Since everyone manufacturering wheels meets NMRA conformance protocalls, the only difference with Microtrains change, is that you would have an extra set of wheels for the fine scale modeler. Currently the only company that makes wheels that will run on code 40 is North West short line and they are going out of business. Your wheels are less expensive than theirs, (but NWSL's wheels are metal) so the comparison is lopsided.
Some things mentioned by others is the need to body mount couplers with fine scale wheels for good backing operations, this is very true. However wheels with a 022 flange will not exhibit the same problems.

Rob

Rob

 

FVM wheels run on Micro Engineering code 40, I have some on a couple of sidings.

 

I don't have an issue with the wheels as I use Fox Valley wheelsets exclusively on my rolling stock. What I do have an issue with is:

Car height - Lower them to a more believable distance above the trucks.
Couplers - I think a redesign is in order. Smaller & more to scale. McHenry have the look but the size is an issue.

My $0.02 worth.

I have to be truthful here and admit that I haven't purchased any MT rolling stock in a while. I like the paint and detail, but the car height really gives me the you know whats.