New Micro Trains 60' Double Plug Door Box Car...

[MRLX1020]

After taking a quick look at this, I wonder if the use of this box (#2001/2004) in this application has something to do with the truck centers and the greater swing needed in the coupler?

A #1015 in this application wouldn't swing as much.  Thoughts? 

[bbussey]

#1015 knuckles will fit in a #2001 box if the thinner profile is necessary.  It appears the original plan was to use a #1015 coupler, thus the notch in the bottom of the end.  This final design makes absolutely no sense.  That appears to be a new stirrup design, so an "inset" could have been designed into the floor to hold a #1015 coupler box and the stirrup designed to step around or over it.

The trucks used to spin on the 10-1-2 heavyweight when it was first introduced, and bosses were added subsequently to correct that.  Most likely the same will be done with this model.

[peteski]

One step forward, two steps back!  The way MT designed this body mount coupler system is terrible!  I also don't like underslung couplers because of their greater tendency to ride up or down (and uncouple) under stress if coupled to a coupler with centered shank.  Compared to the cushion underframe body mounted couplers from other N scale manufacturers, MT version looks really crappy!  I can't imagine what they were thinking releasing this design to the market. To me this looks like an afterthought.  I usually am a staunch supported of MT, but this time I just can't defend them.

[Kisatchie]

One step forward, two steps back!  The way MT designed this body mount coupler system is terrible!... ...I usually am a staunch supported of MT, but this time I just can't defend them.

I have to agree with you. I'd really like to get some of these boxcars, but I won't because of the ridiculous coupler design.


Hmm... maybe I'd better
give back my coupler
consultation fees to
Micro-Trains...

[MichaelWinicki]

I have to agree with you. I'd really like to get some of these boxcars, but I won't because of the ridiculous coupler design.

I'm in the same boat.

I'd have one of these ordered already if the coupler wasn't such a mess.

[Philip H]

Honestly guys - I get that the coupler is . . . . interesting . . . and the doors are wrong for the one prototype released so far . . . but who else has this car?  And who among us can't take off the offending coupler and replace it with a 1015?  That's what 7 minutes of work to recsolve an issue that driven this discussion over 6 pages?  Sheesh . . . .

[Sokramiketes]

Honestly guys - I get that the coupler is . . . . interesting . . . and the doors are wrong for the one prototype released so far . . . but who else has this car?  And who among us can't take off the offending coupler and replace it with a 1015?  That's what 7 minutes of work to recsolve an issue that driven this discussion over 6 pages?  Sheesh . . . .

Does the 7 mins include some method of removing the die cast coupler mounting pad that's in the way?

[Philip H]

Yes- it's called Dremel and focus on the job.

[peteski]

Honestly guys - I get that the coupler is . . . . interesting . . . and the doors are wrong for the one prototype released so far . . . but who else has this car?  And who among us can't take off the offending coupler and replace it with a 1015?  That's what 7 minutes of work to recsolve an issue that driven this discussion over 6 pages?  Sheesh . . . .

The point is that this is a brand new design. MT had plenty of time to look at their competition and come up with (or even copy) a more realistic way to body mount a coupler (something that doesn't look like a Z-scale Marklin coupler, if you catch my drift).

I wouldn't mind spending 7 minutes to correct a problem on some unique but old model but this shouldn't need to be done an a model designed and produced this year!


As far as the door goes, I really don't see anything really wrong with it. But I haven't looked very hard either. 

[Philip H]

And we should have a new SD40-2; and Bachmann should have their own tooling; and blah blah blah. I 'm sorry but if it's a body style everyone wants then we either correct the two (!) flaws when we buy them, or we pan them and hope someone else does it in the next decade.  That second choice isn't working out so well for other stuff, so I 'm inclined to hope Joe and Co. Do better next time, fix the coupler if I buy it, and move on.

[Puddington]

And we should have a new SD40-2; and Bachmann should have their own tooling; and blah blah blah. I 'm sorry but if it's a body style everyone wants then we either correct the two (!) flaws when we buy them, or we pan them and hope someone else does it in the next decade.  That second choice isn't working out so well for other stuff, so I 'm inclined to hope Joe and Co. Do better next time, fix the coupler if I buy it, and move on.

+ 1

[Robbman]

and the doors are wrong for the one prototype released so far . . .

They're wrong for any roadname.

My biggest gripe is that to fix them would not be difficult... especially for a company that supposedly does their own tooling.  Fixing the imagineered coupler design is another story... 

[Frisco Larry]

I compared the Wabash car with the "N&W Color Guide to Freight and Passenger Equipment" book page 46, (I don't have a Wabash book), and the model looks exactly like the N&W repaint of the original Wabash car.  I don't see the slightest problem with the doors.  The body shell looks to be as faithful a reproduction, as any I have every seen.  I do agree that the coupler that MTL cobbled together is pathetic.  It looks like it was done by a dysfunctional commitee, whose members did not communicate with each other.

[Bremner]

Honestly guys - I get that the coupler is . . . . interesting . . . and the doors are wrong for the one prototype released so far . . . but who else has this car?  And who among us can't take off the offending coupler and replace it with a 1015?  That's what 7 minutes of work to recsolve an issue that driven this discussion over 6 pages?  Sheesh . . . .

Phillip, we have a body mounted Micro-Trains coupler that really needs to be replaced with a different Micro-Trains coupler.....WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO PAY FOR SOMETHING THAT THE FACTORY SHOULD?!?!?!

oh, and the door is great for 1982, not 2012, you're dead right about that

[Sokramiketes]

I compared the Wabash car with the "N&W Color Guide to Freight and Passenger Equipment" book page 46, (I don't have a Wabash book), and the model looks exactly like the N&W repaint of the original Wabash car.  I don't see the slightest problem with the doors.  The body shell looks to be as faithful a reproduction, as any I have every seen.  I do agree that the coupler that MTL cobbled together is pathetic.  It looks like it was done by a dysfunctional commitee, whose members did not communicate with each other.

I pulled out that book, looked at the photo you reference, and the horizontal stiffeners on the door are still too shallow on the MTL car.