I guess I am not a true modeler. Because if they look good and run good, that is fully acceptable. I would not snit over prototype discrepancies because to really emulate the prototype would fill my layout room with diesel fumes in very short order.
I think the only things that detract from the model are the long electrical wipers extending a ways beneath the sill, the mechanism sticking out from under the shell, and the hood width (which would probably not be noticeable unless parked next to an Atlas MP15DC). I don't think it is a matter of being a true modeler per se, but rather a matter of whether these compromises are acceptable.
I thought we were through with compromises to get new models to fit old chassis with the Kato/Atlas GP7/9 debacle years ago. I wonder if MTL had new mechanisms made or found some old Life-Like ones somewhere and decided to do things on the cheap. If made new why not make totally new mechanisms to fit the new model?
Thank you. I looked at all the photos on the MTL website and Digitrax decoder installation manual before I made my original statement so wasn't making a blind accusation.
They took the existing lifelike chassis and made improvements that make it DCC ready and a couple other improvements. So it is better, just not new, state of the art.
Walthers had already changed to the brass worm. MT only changed the motor contact strips, but you can make your own strips. In all reality, there really is no improvement.
Some modelers have installed a working rear cab light in the LL SW9 by milling a groove in the cab weight for wires and modifying the rear light fixture to house an LED. Here is one example: http://www.tonystrains.com/tonystips/2007/010707.htm I imagine the same technique would work with the MT SW1500. - Jeff
My biggest issue with the MTL SW1500 was the NS paint scheme. A company world renown for their outstanding paint schemes on rolling stock with lettering so small but legible, it can be read under magnification, but can't seem to get the correct pilot stripes or side sill stripes on the locomotive? Their answer was they had to make some compromises even though another manufacture seems to be able to add the correct pilot stripes. On a positive note, they are planning future releases with body mounted hand rails and Flex-coil truck side frames. Push comes to shove, I'll probably get at least one of the body mounted hand rail units when they become available as currently none are available.
But why should we have to when Atlas, Kato and even Bachmann, for goodness sake, can make switchers with headlights at both ends. BTW isn't the 3mm LED a bit old tech, haven't they heard of the SMD's everyone else is using? MTL used to be the cutting edge of N scale, with the SW1500 they seem to be taking Model Power's place in rehashing old technology.
Hard to believe in this day and age, but it's still possible that the factory being used can't process SMD components. Not so long ago I was working on a new product that included a circuit board with mostly surface-mount parts. Initially the board was assembled at a factory in the US. As production volumes increased, a decision was made to shift production to a factory located in Mexico owned by a sister division of the company. However, the factory in Mexico could only process circuit boards with through-hole parts, so the board had to be completely redesigned. The few parts (such as a microcontroller) which weren't available in a conventional leaded package, were installed in the US factory and then the boards were sent to the plant in Mexico for completion. After this episode, I started looking for a job opportunity at a company with both feet in this century.
The light board is really a non-factor for me. Why update a design that has served well for all these years? I am more concerned with what will happen when the decoder is installed since the LED on the current light board has to be bent upwards to illuminate the headlight. Maybe there needs to be a shielded light pipe installed with the decoder board.
It is so sad and so true. I guess we have yet another reason to cry in our beer. In this day and age of 3D printing and all other levels of technology, it is just sad that many firms are still stuck in the 1960's when it comes to manufacturing technologies. That is the primary reason to offshore production. Some folks never realize that they would have been better off buy properly capitalizing their factories and keeping the the jobs and the money here. And then they cry foul when China doesn't follow through for them, and they are left hanging. This sent some companies out of business. And it was because they gave up control of production. The premium value generated costs are those of initial fabrication. After that it is all bean counter paper games. If you can't control manufacturing, then you are destined to fail with some one else controlling it in their own best interest. And yet again we can thank the Wharton School of Business and all of the other MBA factories for destroying the manufacturing infrastructure of this country as well. I really liked my former company, if you mentioned outsourcing overseas, you were shown the door. And yes they are still in business and doing quite well without any of the MBA playbook.
Every model is a compromise. That's why it's called a "model." Some people haven't gotten the memo on this.
George, if you are going to quote me please include the sentence as written. Is a sarcastic response to an objective statement really necessary? If you find an untruth in anything I have stated, please let me know.
Of course we should not have to! But wishing things were different doesn't change anything. The fact remains that if you want a rear cab headlight on the MT SW1500, it will require a do-it-yourself modification. I pointed out that there are online resources that show how to do it. - Jeff
As the owner of the LHS I patronize likes to observe, he's glad that he doesn't have to depend upon sales to the fussbudget faction of the modelling community to keep the doors open and the lights on.
It would seem to me that with the very small LEDs I have seen recently in several locos that one could be possibly fitted up next to the cab roof. Of course the issue of preventing light bleed through rears its ugly head, and then whether there is actually enough space there for an installation is another issue. However when one is just simply fitting a new shell on an existing mechanism then you pretty much have to go with what you have which is evidently what MT did.
The smallest SMD LEDs are just the ticket. I've seen one recently used for a stack light on an HO engine. The 1:1 SW1500s have a bar on the cab that holds the usual dual headlight package, so plenty of space. Mount the LEDs flush with the bezel face, coat with something clear to resemble a rounded headlight face (if you think it's needed) and no worries about show-through. Commercially, you would need some machine to solder and mount these things, and connect the board, plus set up the board for directional lighting. If I did it, we'd have maybe ten done by the end of the year plus a few thousand LEDs lost in the carpet. People will probably scream if there's no sealed beam headlight look to the cab headlights. Maybe then more machinery is needed to mount and glue little plastic faces on the headlights perfectly. Dunno if the cost can be justified by the beancounters for even multiple runs of an N scale engine -- how much extra would you pay for a little switcher? Now why do I feel like that the Z guys will get this kind of detail commercially before us (if they don't already)?
I am a rivet counter. I don't expect MT and the other manufacturers to get it right, but I expect certain details to be close (like having the right trucks- friction bearing trucks? c'mon, that was a bone head move for the NS unit). As long as it is close, I'm going to tear it apart detail it to be # specific and repaint it anyways. Just get it close, that's all I'm asking...
