MTL Gunderson Husky Stack well car

[nscaler711]

I want to see it as a 48' well... Since the Athearns are way too light, and most 48' cans don't fit in them without wheels locking up on them...
53s would be nice, but I still think 48s need a better option.

[JoeD]

It's a 48' well...sorry to those who want a 53' well.  It doesn't mean we are not thinking/researching/designing/canceling one though   LOL 

53' are interesting but we need to start someplace where we have numbers and road names to support the cost of tooling.  Not saying the 53' would be a dud or anything.

Joe

[Catt]

Joe,
  is the N scale car the Z scale car on steroids? 

[jereising]

A shame.  48' means I will not be buying - 53 would have meant at least six purchased.  Ya get used to it.  And I can always build a couple more.  Kits can be fun.

[Englewood]

This intermodal junkie will buy them, even though what I really want is the 53 footers.

[James Costello]

It's a 48' well...sorry to those who want a 53' well.  It doesn't mean we are not thinking/researching/designing/canceling one though   LOL 

53' are interesting but we need to start someplace where we have numbers and road names to support the cost of tooling.  Not saying the 53' would be a dud or anything.

Joe

I hope you don't include CSX and SP in that list of supporting roadnames.....

The 48' vs 53' debate would have been an interesting product discussion to be a part of. No currently available RTR 53' standalone well of any kind versus one of the most popular intermodal cars done in N. This would have been a great car for MTL to do in 1991....now it's just duplicating the efforts of N Scale of Nevada (Wiseman), MDC (Athearn - actually a nice car!), Alan Curtis (N Scale Kits) and Fine N Scale. WE already have these cars! A 48' All Purpose Husky to replace the ConCor (you could have sold it with trailers as well as containers!) or even a state-of-the-art Thrall would have been nice to replace the Walthers model.

I'm frustrated because I understand this strategy as much as I understand the strategy to release the same prototype container that DeLuxe and Kato has done.

I'm frustrated because we don't need duplication. I want to support MTL but you give me what I've already got....and it doesn't need to be this way.   

[jagged ben]

Yeah, the numbers and roadnames argument makes no sense, whatsoever. 

First, there aren't many more prototypical roadnames for this car as compared to a 53' car.       There were only four original owners of Husky stacks and if you count repaint and patch schemes I think there might be another 4 or 5 schemes, but Athearn has done almost all of them already. Compare to the 53' car with 4 schemes (NSC) that nobody has done and you should have an equal or larger market. 

Second, and more importantly, people building stacktrains just don't care about roadnames.  We add variety to our trains with containers.  Just do multiple runs of TTX (different schemes) and you will still sell.

Lastly, if foobs like Athearns sell then it really doesn't matter.

[GaryHinshaw]

I'm picturing all the disappointed MTL customers when they try to fit their new 53' MTL containers into their new 48' MTL well cars.   

[jagged ben]

I'm picturing all the disappointed MTL customers when they try to fit their new 53' MTL containers into their new 48' MTL well cars.   

Lol
  For sure.

[Mike C]

  Not being an intermodal nut , but don't the 53' containers stack on top of the 48' ers ?  I'm pretty sure I've seen this somewhere .

[jagged ben]

  Not being an intermodal nut , but don't the 53' containers stack on top of the 48' ers ?  I'm pretty sure I've seen this somewhere .

a) You need some 48' footers to make this work.
b) MT hasn't produced a 48' container.
c) I think Gary was poking fun at people who only by MT products.   

[Denver Road Doug]

 

I fear that MTL thinks they can pass off the Husky Stack as a Maxi-III (or the 3-unit articulateds) like they're doing in Z.

Problem is, there are actually Maxi-III's available in N.   Really nice ones.

Well, and of course there are already Husky Stacks too.   And Athearn actually releases them in common schemes, and multiple releases for the really common ones.

Get ready for no BN and no TTX, and tons of 53ft schemes on a 48ft car.   And 5-packs.

These HAVE to be metal, right?   No way they'd dupe a known, good, readily available item without some competitive advantage.  Right?

I'll close with this:      ... and only because there's no headscratcher emoji.

[Smike]

It's a 48' well...sorry to those who want a 53' well.  It doesn't mean we are not thinking/researching/designing/canceling one though   LOL 

Oh well...We still love you Joe  I would buy some but 48' are more or less gone from the face of railroading today. 53' is probably  the most numerous car on the rails today.  And since the 53' container flood gates have been open demand is on.  I agree with others that the thrall or NSC 53' would be the preferred model.

[GaryHinshaw]

c) I think Gary was poking fun at people who only by MT products.   

Just to be clear, I was poking fun at the MTL decision makers, not the customers.  I've got no problem with customers who can't be bothered to study the differences between 48' and 53' cans.   But those same folks probably expect the latest intermodal releases from MTL to be compatible.  A head scratcher indeed.

[jereising]

And then there's the post (on another page) re the convention showing the ad from NSR - from an unnamed manufacturer - showing six new 53 foot cans.   The US has gone 53 feet but MT will stay at 48, thank you very much...