Micro trains requested inputs will there be changes??

How 'bout dem Mets?
:tb-biggrin::tb-biggrin::tb-biggrin:

 

I just want to add one thing, as I am italian. We use normal knives to cut pizza here, certainly not pizza cutters and definitely not MTL wheels

 

You go Denny!!! ) Being Italian I take great offense a the thought that my wheels will cut my Pizza... )

 

For me it's the O's!

 

Boy I gotta quit sleeping...wake up and there's three more pages!

First, I want to lower the cars as well, but we have coupler height issues. Lower the cars and you start loosing even more detail on the ends of the shell. Again, folks are concerned about our wheels meeting NMRA Standards, well, we have coupler height standards established as well. Now I approach this in a different way at home. I use 905 Z body mounts on all my N and I lower the bolsters some to get a lower ride. Problem is I can't mate up with anyone elses cars without some sort of transition car. Generally that's not a problem because there are only 4 of us I know of in the Rogue Valley that model in N Scale, and none of them want to form a club. I'm not sure how we could lower the cars and not start loosing 1/8 of the Dreadnaught End on a box car. No room to move on a flat car either.

Wheels...I had revolving meetings with anyone who would stand still long enough yesterday on the situation. We have two fences to scale before anything gets done. Resources and Schedule. We are currently booked up with the SD40-2 and Passenger Cars in Z and the Heavyweights and a few other new body styles in N Scale...all have tight schedules and need to be done by a a due date to meet Marketing and Sales deadlines. We have limited resources since we do it all here. I think everyone knows how important this is so I'm pushing upward to shoehorn something in. The actual time it takes to do the molds isn't that much, but the degree of precision needed is remarkable. So it's not like something you can just spit out. We also have to deal with internal production schedules (someone has to run the machine, make the blister molds, do the packaging and inventory, do the work to get it in the Micro News, inform all the dealers...not to mention all the time I have to spend testing and evaluating them) But I think it's a project we need to deal with. I'll know more next week.

Thanks again for the input...the good, the bad and ugly of it, it all has merit and value.

Cheers
Joe
MTL

 

Oh, one more thing, we could use underslung couplers to get the cars lower, but with established heights on exisiting cars, I am concerned about the backlash from customers when roofs on the same car doesn't line up. Might be a small concern, but still something that complicates the decision to do something. I think on a new body style where there's nothing to compare it to...makes sense and might be able to work. Some more food for thought.

Joe
MTL

 

Joe if you look at the freight cars in the 40's and 50's none of them lined up either! I would sweat that "issue"

Rob

 

Ok, I finally remmebered what I want. Please take a look at the way Fox Valley Models packages thier box cars. I love how I can easily:

1. Open
2. Invert - car drops into my hand
3. Close
4. Done

Replacing them is just as easy.

1. Open
2. Drop the car in
3. Close
4. Done

This is great for swapping out stock on the layout. Maybe it is just me but I find replacing cars in other vendors crystal boxes is a slower / tricker process. If naught else at least for your runner packs.

Edit: I am willing to pay more for this.

 

Respecting everyone's experience with MTL, I have to say mine has been nothing but positive during 3 decades (one exception that was probably my fault). KD/MTL folks have been nothing but responsive and helpful to me, even re some of my hair-brained ideas. I've been invited to a factory tour and asked for my ideas. I have to vote for MTL and Joe.

Scott

 

I think the underslung coupler is an idea worth exploring. You guys already have them for some locomotives and such, so it's not a new part.

At least to me the cars where it visually makes the most difference are "low" cars, well cars and flat cars in particular, and to a lesser extent gondolas (low side, not modern coal contraptions). I think with these cars there's much less of a worry of the roofs not lining up. It also may be important on high cars, auto racks and skybox type applications where clearance is an issue. More people might be able to run them if they were lower.

Another idea I had, which is more work but might turn out better....

What if the coupler pocket were cast into the underframe of the car, recessed slightly? A "long shank" (in quotes because I don't think it's actually all that long, but it helps the visual" would poke out the end of the car. That way if you do have to compromise on and of car details it's only enough to clear the shank and not an entire coupler pocket. I think this idea might work better with a McHenry type design (where the shank doesn't need to pivot much, since the coupler head opens), but it might work ok with the traditional MT style couplers as well.

Last but not least. It would not be a short term money maker but I think it's time the NMRA considered a "Proto160" formal standard. The NMRA does have some "Fine Scale" standards for N, e.g. the lower profile wheels, but the Proto series stops at HO. Maybe we just need to expand fine scale, I dunno. My point is there is no Fine Scale or Proto160 option for coupler height, for instance. There's also no specification other than height (e.g. size of coupler, or size of face, or shape, or anything). Since MT has a the "Z Scale" couplers I think MT could lead here, particularly if a lower coupler would help the design of the cars. A fine scale standard with a prototypical height and a smaller coupler head could be a long term path forward.

As I think about what I just wrote, I guess that's a real theme to my thinking. Companies need to think about where N scale will be in 5, 10, or 20 years. Some of these things may not be practical today due to cost, or the other products on the market, or the number of fine scale modelers, etc. However if companies were to lay out a road map it would help modelers make choices. Car companies make "concept cars", why not the same thing in model railroading? Show off a car at a show with lowered bolsters, z scale couplers, close coupling, etc. Make a small run, give them to the people who write magazine articles and produce web segments (Hi!) and tell them "here's what we can do, but it will increase cost by 30%, and the minimum radius would have to be 18" and ...." and let people consider the trade offs. Maybe they don't go into production for 10 years, maybe never....maybe response is so good you switch everything immediately. Talking about theory is great, having things to test is even better.

 

I suggest MTL uses McHenry couplers!



Ok, enough jokes for today.

 

Body height

Hi Joe, Since the two styles of operation are so different I'd suggest two lines of future products. One with large flanges and truck mounted couplers for the N trak and casual modeler and a second premium line with body mounted couplers and low profile metal wheels for the scale operator. The premium line could then be designed at a correct body height without making the compromises necessary for truck mounted couplers. I think experienced modelers would pay a few dollars more for these improvements since we could then save the money spent replacing the wheels and couplers?
O scale has a similar problem with 3 rail and 2 rail modelers requiring compromises in many of the cars produced while HO scale moved past this problem about 40 years ago by just dropping the toy type cars. Not sure what that means, maybe that was too simple a solution for O and N scalers ? :>) I don't know why HO'ers would be any smarter than Oer's or N er's? Maybe that's why HO is the most popular scale, better organization? I never hear complaints of incompatibility problems from the HO crowd? ....dave

 

Speculation:
I expect the issue with a “Premium Line” is that they would be competing with themselves basically dividing the “pie” as if another vendor was producing the new line. This would reduce the number of “Standard Line” models sold. To compensate they would need to either raise the cost of the Standard Line or sell the Premium Line at an even higher price.

Note: I have no idea what their business model is but so I could be 100 percent wrong.

 

Joe

Terry is closeing,will we be able to order from you guys or even buy direct from the factory????

JIM -CENTRAL POINT

 

A Virtual Verbal Garbage Dump!

This has turned into a virtual, verbal garbage dumping on Micro-Trains. I've never seen so much nit picking. What's up with you guys? I read with interest many of the posts here until my eyes begin to droop and I had to go and take a nap. This was getting flat line boring.

Why? Why...in todays world of green acres would you buy a pack of anything without at first trying one set, to see if it's what you really want? Before, I switch out wheel sets, trucks and couplers I will change out one car...ONE CAR...got it? One car... to see if this is really what I want. If you've gone and purchased a pack of anything on some blind assumption...that's clearly the buyers fault... not MT's.

Let's see I started serious model railroading at the age of 12 in HO, added N scale at the age of 40, worked in a hobby shop for three of those years and I'm now 58 looking at 59. I've watched as Bachmann produced oversized equipment with flanges bigger then a N scale large deep dish pizza. Life Like came along and improved things...slightly....at least their stuff was closer to scale. Everyone used the ugly box style Rapido's. Those ugly couplers worked...but spoiled the show every time you tried to create a prototype scene.

MicroTrains FINALLY comes along and brings to N scale their new knuckle couplers, smooth running wheel sets and train cars that are to scale. What a BREATH OF FRESH AIR. They set the standard for things to come. Everyone since, has been trying to copy them.

NMRA wasn't even interested in N scale at the get go. Heck, they couldn't agree on what they wanted for HO let alone N scale. In HO we ended up with horn hook couplers and over sized flanges. A president of NMRA once said to me, I don't know how we can set a standard when no one out there really knows what they want and for sure can't get together on anything. He was frustrated. Finally... the momma company to Micro Trains, Kadee came along with their HO knuckle coupler, smooth running wheel sets and hard to improve upon freight trucks... setting the standard for all of us.

You know nothing has changed with regard to us model railroaders and that is apparent here. I've noted that the only thing most of you can agree on is you don't like the deep flanged MT wheel sets. I ask respectfully and without any offense meant...Have you really checked to see what is available from MT TODAY? Gosh, like a bunch of storks (I should have said Ostrich} with your heads stuck in the sand (and I could have said somewhere else but that's not like me...grin!). MT is still setting the standard and appears to be the only one willing to take the leap of faith to do so.

And you guys and gals grumble like a bunch of spoiled siblings. Well, I'm not your parent and I didn't bring you into this world. But you sure set of a father's ire in me. What you want to gnaw on is your business but honest I thought most of you had already gone through the teething ring phase of growing up. Grin!

Think about it! If you get nothing else out of what I've shared. Ask yourself, where would we be if it hadn't of been for the guys and gals at Kadee and MicroTrains, taking that first leap of faith? I hate to think.

Do have fun with your layout. I need to get out to my LHS and place another order for some more MT knuckle couplers, freight trucks and passenger trucks. There should be plenty available for my use...judging from the content of this thread. Grin!

What are we thinking? Bite the hand that feeds you....and you know the rest.

My personal thanks to Joe A. and the guys and gals at Kadee and Micro Trains for making all the uniqueness of model railroading... what it is today.

 

Yes I think that will happen, especially for small parts and such.

Joe
MTL

 

Rich, Right on. Also, I think it is an ostrich that puts it head in the sand. Cheers, Jim CCRR :tb-smile:

 

Only when they not busy delivering the babies for the Storks! :tb-biggrin:

 

I can only speak for myself here....

I am thankful for what Micro-Trains has done for the hobby. I do think they took a lead many years ago and helped bring it to where we are today.

What I want is that in another 30 years we can say the same thing.

I imagine back when the world was 100% rapido and MT came out with a knuckle coupler there were a lot of people who complained. Cost to switch out all the cars. Incompatable. Etc, etc, etc. They did it though, and I think it was arguably a good thing for N Scale.

But the impression many of us have, perhaps wrongly, is that spark, that leading spirit is gone at Micro-Trains. While they continue to produce top notch stuff it's been the same for ~10 years now; while in the mean time Atlas, Intermountain, Fox Valley models and others have come up with cars that are just as good, if not better in some respects.

Companies often spend lots of money holding focus groups and testing products with people. Back to my example before, car companies make concept cars and test cars, they let focus groups pick all over them; some concerns petty some significant. New models are driven on test tracks and by employees and car reviewers to get opinions. You often don't get to see all this as it's done behind closed doors.

I don't think we want MT to spend the money on flying 20 influential modelers to their factory for a week to give feedback. It's also nice to have the discussion in public as it raises awareness.

So in short, to me:

MT in the past, 10/10.
MT right now, 8/10.
MT in the future? Who knows. I want it to be a 10/10. I will provide my opinion to them whenever they will listen. I'm not 100% right. What I want is not what everyone else wants. The one thing I do have faith in is they can sort that out.

I find it unfortunate pointing out an area for improvement is taken as "bashing". Every product can be improved. Constructive, well thought out, well written feedback is not a bad thing, but a great way to move the entire hobby forward.

 

Rick's post is right on target. Well said, my friend.

Back in the early days of personal computing we had a saying, "Standards are great... that's why there's so many of them." If I had a dime for every time I heard that the Macintosh was going to die because it wasn't "standard" I'd have a mansion and a layout the size and quality of The Great Train Story.

Joe; If you guys at MTL would just give us just two TT scale locos and half a dozen TT freight cars, I'd forget all about the N scale pizza cutter wheels and call you all perfect!

Best!