MTL cars

[DKS]

how many on this list have been building up rolling stock fleets and don't have a layout, but are praised for their work.  which face should i address?

And how many of them wind up generating threads like this? I think the face to address is your own; what is it about your methodology that inspires such consternation?

[Sokramiketes]

how many on this list have been building up rolling stock fleets and don't have a layout, but are praised for their work.  which face should i address?

I have no answer that is easily condensed for you.

[wm3798]

I think its time to move on.  There's been a lot of good information provided, but it's obviously not making a dent.  I'm sure when Steve has something to report, he'll let us know.

Lee

[asciibaron]

I think its time to move on.  There's been a lot of good information provided, but it's obviously not making a dent.  I'm sure when Steve has something to report, he'll let us know.

Steve is done with y'all.

[bbussey]

You said that a page ago, before you cleaned up your message.

We're going in circles because you're refusing to acknowledge what people are posting - which is, you can stop bashing MTL cars and easily research which models are prototypical.  Or, conversely, you can buy models which are 95% accurate and kitbash the remaining 5% - which might include lowering the car, body-mounting couplers, or adding additional detail.

If you really want to get serious about it - obtain an ORER from your time period, start canvasing your L&HR books for photos of rolling stock and look up the dimensional data.  Find the builder/product-line of the equipment and compare it to what's available - practically all the model railroad manufacturers are getting more specific in the product choices.  Multiple variations exist representing different prototype manufacturers and their product lines in practically every N scale freight car category.  You should be able to find prototypically-correct representations for your L&HR fleet without having to scratchbuild.

And, if you're only complaint about MTL cars is the ride height, it doesn't take much effort to lower them to where they should be.  The majority of MTL bodystyles may ride high but otherwise are proportioned correctly.  And if you're letting minor modifications deter you from considering certain models for your layout, it just makes your job harder.

[wcfn100]

Or, conversely, you can buy models which are 95% accurate and kitbash the remaining 5% - which might include lowering the car, body-mounting couplers, or adding additional detail.

But one problem is that those cars only represent 3% (maybe less) of the prototype body styles for a 60's era RR.

And as a guage, I consider a box car to have four parts: doors, roof, ends, sides.  I require all four to be correct to call the car correct.

As an example, there is only one quality model of a 40' boxcar with a diagonal panel roof.  But ACF and many home built cars like GN, CB&Q (and I'm sure many others) cars use that roof (which means pretty much every MT standard box for those two roads is incorrect).

I don't know how anyone models the SAL.  Except for the first orders of boxcars, Pretty much all had 8' doors (which, again, outs all the MT offerings). 

Jason

[JoeD]

Steve sounds like a guy that got banned from Z Scale Yahoo Group and I believe Trainboard last month.  Everything seemed so difficult and he wanted to fight about everything.  I also believe he was using an assumed name before someone did a little digging and found out who he reall was.  Maybe HO is a better scale for him, less to worry about?

Joe

[towl1996]

Hey that's my girlfriend and that better be a Lite Beer!   ;D
Joe

Prost!!!

I call dibs on the blonde up front.

This thread wasn't a total waste. At least one...er, two good things came out.
Thanks

[wm3798]

they didn't quite come out, but it's not hard to imagine... ;D

[bbussey]

Or, conversely, you can buy models which are 95% accurate and kitbash the remaining 5% - which might include lowering the car, body-mounting couplers, or adding additional detail.

But one problem is that those cars only represent 3% (maybe less) of the prototype body styles for a 60's era RR.

And as a guage, I consider a box car to have four parts: doors, roof, ends, sides.  I require all four to be correct to call the car correct.

As an example, there is only one quality model of a 40' boxcar with a diagonal panel roof.  But ACF and many home built cars like GN, CB&Q (and I'm sure many others) cars use that roof (which means pretty much every MT standard box for those two roads is incorrect).

I don't know how anyone models the SAL.  Except for the first orders of boxcars, Pretty much all had 8' doors (which, again, outs all the MT offerings).  

Yet 8-foot doors exist and the MTL cars can be modified easily to accept 8-foot doors and be an accurate representation of SAL prototypes.

InterMountain makes a quality 40-foot Stanray riveted diagonal roof as a modular part that can be incorporated into a kitbash, thus saving the need of cutting it out of an existing model.  And, InterMountain offers the GN 12-panal diagonal roof 40' model, eliminating the need to kitbash that model.  Rectangular panel roofs and Viking roofs also are available as parts.

It is extremely unreasonable to expect the manufacturers collectively to offer models of specific prototypes that would satisfy every single modeler who chooses to be prototypically accurate to various railroads of all regions and eras - it will never happen.  To further emphasize the point, this discussion is revolving around prototypical models of a smaller Class I railroad in the L&HR.  That this is even an issue is mind-boggling.

However, it is within each of modeler's reach to kitbash the desired prototypes and most of them easily.  If your hypothetical 1960s boxcar model has correct sides and ends with an incorrect roof, and another model exists with the prototypically correct roof, then you have an avenue to create the model desired.  Kitbashing rolling stock is no different or more difficult than building a layout, creating scenery and building structures.  Both N scale magazines regularly feature kitbashing articles with techniques that can be applied generally.



 

[Philip H]

Steve sounds like a guy that got banned from Z Scale Yahoo Group and I believe Trainboard last month.  Everything seemed so difficult and he wanted to fight about everything.  I also believe he was using an assumed name before someone did a little digging and found out who he reall was.  Maybe HO is a better scale for him, less to worry about?

Joe

1) Didn't Lee have him over to cut framing?  Hard to fake that.

2) going back through this, and reading his clarification, I think Steve was really asking about which MTL cars needed to be lowered, have new wheels installed, or in some otherway modified to be more prototypical.  I also think that we would have benefitted from knowing he did Proto 87 modelling - the standards for that crowd are pretty strict, and I can see how it would color his approach.

So how about we all lay off the bashing, and just answer his technical questions.  Then, if we're lucky, we can keep him in the fold, and all have the pleasure of watching his new layout unfold.

[wcfn100]

Yet 8-foot doors exist and the MTL cars can be modified easily to accept 8-foot doors and be an accurate representation of SAL prototypes.

Easily, huh.  What exactly do you think needs to be done?


Jason

[JoeD]

Sorry if it sounded like I was bashing him...didn't mean to.  It's just that this thread sounded the same as the ones we had on Z yahoo and Trainboard...started quietly and then got out of control.  Your right, if taken that way, then my bad...sorry.

Joe

Steve sounds like a guy that got banned from Z Scale Yahoo Group and I believe Trainboard last month.  Everything seemed so difficult and he wanted to fight about everything.  I also believe he was using an assumed name before someone did a little digging and found out who he reall was.  Maybe HO is a better scale for him, less to worry about?

Joe

1) Didn't Lee have him over to cut framing?  Hard to fake that.

2) going back through this, and reading his clarification, I think Steve was really asking about which MTL cars needed to be lowered, have new wheels installed, or in some otherway modified to be more prototypical.  I also think that we would have benefitted from knowing he did Proto 87 modelling - the standards for that crowd are pretty strict, and I can see how it would color his approach.

So how about we all lay off the bashing, and just answer his technical questions.  Then, if we're lucky, we can keep him in the fold, and all have the pleasure of watching his new layout unfold.

[bbussey]

Yet 8-foot doors exist and the MTL cars can be modified easily to accept 8-foot doors and be an accurate representation of SAL prototypes.

Easily, huh.  What exactly do you think needs to be done?

Without getting into specifics:

• Remove the 6-foot door
• Remove the door tracks and stops
• fashion new door tracks and stops from strip styrene
• modify the lower sill if necessary
• cut the inside arm from an 8-foot door and cement to car body

It's a one-night project.  And it's a lot easier than the following car, of which construction of the body took one night, bashed entirely (except for the Detail Associates side ladders) from MTL parts:

[VGN50]

Never have so many, used so much energy, with so little result.

I did not participate in this thread because I do not have a license to practice Psychiatry.