Micro trains requested inputs will there be changes??

i'll get right on it.. )

 

Barstow, that was about the most useless post I've read on this subject so far. It did nothing for helping the cause. In fact stating old virtues of a company whoms management has change, Hence its current matra is like the perverbial wizzing in the wind.

We trying to establish what is needed in N from Micro trains to help them keep competitive with the other manufacturering companies. Most of them are producing product overseas, whereas MT is using USA labor.
I think its fair to say all companies making US N scale models are pretty much fitting the current Nmra specifications for wheel shape and flange depth. What we are trying to do is get Micro trains to follow suit.
Hopefully Joe can sift through all the "fluff" in these posts and make an intelligent decision.
Now if you don't understand it I'll reiterate what I think MT should do:

Take the standard pizza cutter wheel and reduce the flange to NMRA depth standards, aka .022 inch flange depth.
Take the current version of the low pros and refine the flange for a more rounded RP 25 shape.
Look into the possibility of lowering cars and body mount couplers.
Reduce or eliminate the slinky effect.
Keep up with the runners packs, with perhaps more number choices between issues.
Make an viable electric uncoupler univeral to current track, should be invisable (under roadbed mounting)

I think that covers it.


rob

Rob

 

Actually yours have been the most useless post. It seems to me that you are just trolling around here and Atlas to batch MT. If you dont like MT wheels or products dont buy them.

 

Folks,

Stop the sniping now or my heavy admin iron glove will slap you around. The topic is MT's response to input, not what you think of each other's posts.

 

Look at the new Intermountain 60' flat cars. I had to replace a broken knuckle and found out that they use MTL 1015 couplers without box, the coupler pocket is an integral part of the underframe. Together with low profile wheels this is a low riding car with 100% available MTL parts

The only strange thing was that I was able to get the spring in place, it is one of these jobs where you need more than two hands at the same time....

 

Ah Joe,Speaking of those runner packs howz about doing 'em in Norfolk Southern? I could use four different packs.
Please and thank you!

 

Me too if one of the locos was a GP9 in black widow paint ....dave

 

Joe, how about a 'Z scale' coupler in a 1015 box that would fit the majority of N scale diesels?

 

I'm just curious to know why us N scalers can't have the same to scale rolling stock that the HO guys have?

Maybe MT can expand their z scale coupler offerings with various shank lengths etc. How about a redesign of the frames with removable spacers to bring the ride height down (if we want) and molded coupler pockets to allow for body mounting of the couplers.

Edit: I meant body mount in my last sentence.

 

Hear, hear. If the deep flange, truck mount coupler crowd have to be catered for these things would give those who want something more realistic an easier conversion and the only part to be redesigned would be the frame.

 

Shiny uncoupling pins

Joe, something else for consideration, I've just been reassembling a batch of MTL hoppers I've been repainting was reminded of another thing I was going to bring up, shiny brass coupler trip pins. I notice all my Z scale couplers and the factory installed 1015's on my IM F units have blackened pins, is there a reason standard issue MT N scale couplers have shiny pins?

Do the collectors like nice shiny things?:tb-biggrin:

 

Wow. Why didn't I think of that? So obvious!

 

Working on it actually...not an offical project, but I was thinking about how to get it into a truck mounted coupler. The 905 works just fine by it'self. I'll take some shots tomorrow of one of my conversions and post it.

Cheers

Joe
MTL

PS...still lots of good ideas

 

This is the difference between MTL and other manufacturers, someone on the staff is an actual modeler.

Look forward to seeing the shots of your conversion, I've got a few places I could use something like that myself.

 

I am not bashing MT. There is much to like about MT, and I have posted such. Still, nothing is perfect. Even those costly Eurobuggies have their quirks.

What I find beneficial is that the manufacturers will post here (and elsewhere) and respond to laments and requests. I have learned that there is work being done on de-stiltifying and that I will be able to get the parts, eventually. That is fine, I can wait.

The only things that I want absolutely yesterday are a 'modern' ten-wheeler, a nineteenth century ten-wheeler and a decenty constructed and operating USRA light pacific. I am willing to wait until to-morrow for a USRA heavy pacific. Since MT don't do no N scale Standard gauge steam, I ain't uhspecktin' none of the above from them.

I have no problems with whatever wheels MT puts on its cars. I still buy them and run them.

Since you can not say 'In Italia non c'e il divorzio' anymore, should they replace it with 'In Italia non c'e il tagliatore di pizza'? I suppose that the next line would be 'Si dovrebbe utilizzare il coltello'.


Vi ringrazio pel vostro rispetto e sostegno.

 

Like he said

 

Car body height and truck mounted couplers

Maybe MTL could do something like Weaver does to make it's O scale cars suitable for both 3 and 2 rail use. The Weaver trucks body bolsters are scale height so for 2 rail use one just screws on the trucks and body mounts the coupler . For 3 rail use the coupler shank goes between the truck and car body to provide for the increased height, the coupler has a couple of tabs that lock it onto the truck. The Weaver trucks come with either large flange wheels or scale flange wheels depending on the desired use.
If MTL had a similiar coupler adapter their cars could ride at correct height for body mounted use or increased height for truck mounted use.....dave

 

why not not complicate things and let Micro trains make their wheels NMRA compatable and
let all these spacy ideas go by the way of the dodo bird?

rob

 

What about ride height?

 

Ride height is going to dependent on the flange size, note: everyone that lowers their cars also switches to low pros because the wheels interfere with the undercarrage.

so If you want lowered cars and body mounts, your probably going to need to drop the 022 flange to accomplish this. How much I don't know.

Rob

Rob