Fixing MTL 40' Boxcars

[peteski]

I've been reading this thread with some interest and amusement.
First of all, let's get realistic about "fixing" the MTL car's proportions.  It ain't happening!  Of all the people here, Bryan (as a manufacturer of injection-molded kits) should know it.  While some errors in the molds can be repaired/modified, the type of "fix" needed here would require a completely new mold.   So if by "fix" you all mean a brand new body, then I agree.

And for the add-on separate detail items (ladders), I have to agree with DKS.  I much prefer the look of the more scale-like and delicate cast-on ladders on MTL cars (for the reason so well explained by DKS).  Even the etched brass ladders to me look too clunky, and plastic molded ones look even less realistic.  But for some reasons (could be pressure from modelers pining for this detail?) manufacturers started to design and produce models with those separately-applied details.  While similar details in H0 and larger scales might look good, and be close to scale size, in N scale they just don't work.  To me less is more and betterer. 

[thomasjmdavis]

I suppose we all focus on different things; I just find it amusing what one is willing to accept as a trade-off for something else.

This is why religion and model trains should never be discussed at the dinner table.

[Doug G.]

It doesn't bother me.



Doug

[mplsjct]

...While similar details in H0 and larger scales might look good, and be close to scale size, in N scale they just don't work.  To me less is more and betterer. 

Agreed, not to mention these details are often glued on, not engineered to snap fit, which is a big help when these details break. I wouldn’t go as far as saying they don’t work, but better in the larger scales.

Anyone else remember when the Intermountain boxcars first came out, and the talk was how great the under body detail was? Micro Trains later modified some of their cars with better under body details. My suspicion is Micro Trains realized little, if any increase in sales, this could be a factor in their reluctance to “fix” the PS1.

No inside info here, just guessing.

[nkalanaga]

Mplsjct:  I suspect you're right.  MT is obviously selling enough cars to stay profitable, and doesn't seem to be losing any business to the competition, so isn't likely to fix what isn't hurting sales.  After all, Lionel isn't, or at least wasn't, noted for scale accuracy, but they still sold a LOT of trains!

We're getting to the point that many of today's beginning model railroaders have never seen a 40 ft boxcar, and maybe have never been up close with a freight train.  Most of them wouldn't know an accurately proportioned car from a distorted one.  For the first 25+ years MT made these cars, I don't remember ever hearing anyone mention the proportions.  Ride height, yes, but that was a design consideration, from when truck-mounted couplers were considered the norm in N scale.

[bbussey]

I've been reading this thread with some interest and amusement.
First of all, let's get realistic about "fixing" the MTL car's proportions.  It ain't happening!  Of all the people here, Bryan (as a manufacturer of injection-molded kits) should know it.  While some errors in the molds can be repaired/modified, the type of "fix" needed here would require a completely new mold.   So if by "fix" you all mean a brand new body, then I agree.

I've never said the MTL disproportional cars could be fixed. Which is why I no longer buy those bodystyles.  Other MTL bodystyles, for sure.  But I abandoned the 40' PS-1 series and the 50' FMC series cars long ago.

[bbussey]

I misspoke... or mis-typed. I should not have mentioned roofwalks (I had the old first-gen ones stuck in mind). But ladders and grabs, definitely. The separately-applied ones are simply too clunky-looking to my eye; I find MTL's cast-on ones much more acceptable, because when I look at a model, oversize details stand out much, much more than errors in proportion.

To illustrate, here are three four substantially similar boxcars: prototype, MTL, InterMountain and Atlas (I added Atlas subsequently to be more thorough).

The MTL body-height, thick roofwalks and ill-positioned cast-on door tracks offset the fineness of the ladders and grabs, in my opinion.  That may garner eye-rolls by some.  But you do see the body-height disparity in a moving n scale consist above everything else.

[peteski]

I've never said the MTL disproportional cars could be fixed. Which is why I no longer buy those bodystyles.  Other MTL bodystyles, for sure.  But I abandoned the 40' PS-1 series and the 50' FMC series cars long ago.

I wasn't specifically aiming my response at you. Even the title of this thread seems to imply that those models can be fixed. If part of that fix is to modify the molds, that just ain't happening.  That's all.  And as it has been also mentioned, the out-of-proportion models designed decades ago keep on being pretty good sellers.

[bbussey]

Anyone else remember when the Intermountain boxcars first came out, and the talk was how great the under body detail was? Micro Trains later modified some of their cars with better under body details. My suspicion is Micro Trains realized little, if any increase in sales, this could be a factor in their reluctance to “fix” the PS1.

The irony is that the 40' PS-1 tools, especially the 20000-series, have been retooled multiple times over the decades due to tool wear.  And, there have been changes in the details over the years, which are clear if you compare an original Kadee 20000-series body with a current-tooling version.  So, the models could have been corrected at little additional cost.

[Maletrain]

The MTL body-height, thick roofwalks and ill-positioned cast-on door tracks offset the fineness of the ladders and grabs, in my opinion.  That may garner eye-rolls by some.  But you do see the body-height disparity in a moving n scale consist above everything else.

Frankly, it is in moving N scale consists that I least see anything related to box car body height departure from prototype.  Photos of real trains from my modeling period (early 1950s) seem to show a bewildering array of box car heights and construction types running in mixtures that make very ragged top profiles for those trains.  So, getting more ragged height profiles on my scale trains by running proper and distorted height PS-1s in the same consist doesn't really come into my consciousness at all.  Photography of a few cars on a siding against a loading platform backdrop is a different matter.  No problem, though, since there are some properly proportioned cars to use for those few photos.

I also want to comment on some of the recent laments that N scale is "becoming an RTR gauge and scratch building is being lost."  I am not sure I agree with the "becoming" part of that.  I think N scale started as an RTR scale, and those who were able to scratch build something that looked as good as a larger scale, even HO, were lauded for their skills.  N scale is more about modelling the railroad than the individual cars.  And, considering that more cars are needed as well as individual cars being harder to model in the smaller scale, it is little wonder that most people are going to populate their model railroads mostly with what they can get RTR, and save their scratch building and kit bashing time and efforts for those relatively few "signature" locos, rolling stock and trackside items that are the indicators of the prototype being modeled.

As a B&O modeler of the transition era, I am very glad to have some high quality steam engines and cab units and rolling stock that are prototypical and available for purchase RTR.  It would probably take the rest of my life to build an EM-1 2-8-8-4, a string of wagontop box cars and a wagontop caboose with anything like the quality I can get from Bachmann and Fox Valley.  And, the B&O had lots more of each of those than a single train.  But, there are still signature pieces like the T-3 4-8-2, the S1a 2-10-2, and a large number of individually recognizable passenger cars and express cars that will probably never become available commercially and thus give me a to-do list that exceeds my remaining lifetime.

So, I really do not lament the availability of good quality RTR models, and do not think that they detract from N scale in any way.  In fact, I think those RTR models actually attract people to the scale who will do the scratch building and kit bashing.  If they had only the choices to scratch build everything or run toylike trains, they would probably opt for another scale, where the RTR support was better, or maybe even one of the really large scales where all they can ever run is one train with a few cars.

[Angus Shops]

I've been reading with interest and would like to chime in: I checked my bible of CPR prototype images (Nicholas Morant's Canadian Pacific, J. F. Gordon) and I see that the roof height of a 1950's stringof a boxcars boxes varies significantly. My 40 foot boxcars are probably 50/50 MTL/IM, and some of the MTL date back to the 70's. They're all weathered and despite the fact that I'm not as cashed strapped as I was, I have no plans to replace them unless something really obviously better comes along. I do find the ladders and grabs on the IM cars a bit clunky, but I'm not worried about this, partly because I don't have better solution and the ladders and grabs on my scratchbuilt cars are just as clunky. Im also going to stick with trunk mounted couplers and plastic wheels because they work well enough for me and I have 1000 modelling projects that take precedent right now. I'm not saying the correct ride height, Gary Hinshaw style metal wheels and body mounted couplers don't look better (they do), but I don't have enough time to prioritize the the fixes needed for these issues.
Rivet counting is a two edged sword. On one hand the rivet counters have pushed N scale to quality levels I never thought I'd see, with most new models (by the better manufactures at least) achieving a level of detail and prototype fidelity that is outstanding. There are occasional unfathomable f ups, such as upside down grill details on F units, but by and large we are headed in right direction and quickly. On the other hand I find it troubling that relatively minor errors or omissions on otherwise excellent models can cause such outraged reaction in some, particularly if the issue is relatively easy to fix. Model railroading, in all scales, is a hobby; it should be an enjoyable pastime. N scale is a minority scale and we'll probably always have to work/play hard to achieve a high level of prototype fidelity if that's what the individual is interested in. It would be great if every 1950's CP locomotive, freight car, passenger car, and line side structure was perfectly rendered in N scale, but they're not and never will be, so I'm enjoying the lifelong project of doing myself. I'm on my 4th of 5th attempt to build a satisfying Canadian. I wish Rapido would get on with, and maybe they will, but in the mean time...
Many modellers on TRW are creating outstanding prototype layouts and I am inspired by their work. I certainly don't disagree with Brian Bussey's opinion regarding MTL boxcars, but I'm choosing not to be bothered by their shortcomings. bbussey's modelling skills are outstanding AND he puts his money where his mouth is with the outstanding products from ESM.
Enough for now...
Geoff

[DKS]

The irony is that the 40' PS-1 tools, especially the 20000-series, have been retooled multiple times over the decades due to tool wear.  And, there have been changes in the details over the years, which are clear if you compare an original Kadee 20000-series body with a current-tooling version.  So, the models could have been corrected at little additional cost.

This is not entirely true. I've just taken a 70s-era and a 2000s-era release of the 40-foot boxcar, and compared them under magnification. Since tooling was all done by hand back in the 70s, there are telltale imperfections that wouldn't be reproduced. While the ends and roof have indeed been retooled, the car sides are still original. There are a few signs of some very minor touch-ups, but they are otherwise identical. Since most of the errors are on the sides, it might explain why they've never been corrected.

[Doug G.]

Frankly, it is in moving N scale consists that I least see anything related to box car body height departure from prototype.  Photos of real trains from my modeling period (early 1950s) seem to show a bewildering array of box car heights and construction types running in mixtures that make very ragged top profiles for those trains.  So, getting more ragged height profiles on my scale trains by running proper and distorted height PS-1s in the same consist doesn't really come into my consciousness at all.  Photography of a few cars on a siding against a loading platform backdrop is a different matter.  No problem, though, since there are some properly proportioned cars to use for those few photos.

I also want to comment on some of the recent laments that N scale is "becoming an RTR gauge and scratch building is being lost."  I am not sure I agree with the "becoming" part of that.  I think N scale started as an RTR scale, and those who were able to scratch build something that looked as good as a larger scale, even HO, were lauded for their skills.  N scale is more about modelling the railroad than the individual cars.  And, considering that more cars are needed as well as individual cars being harder to model in the smaller scale, it is little wonder that most people are going to populate their model railroads mostly with what they can get RTR, and save their scratch building and kit bashing time and efforts for those relatively few "signature" locos, rolling stock and trackside items that are the indicators of the prototype being modeled.

As a B&O modeler of the transition era, I am very glad to have some high quality steam engines and cab units and rolling stock that are prototypical and available for purchase RTR.  It would probably take the rest of my life to build an EM-1 2-8-8-4, a string of wagontop box cars and a wagontop caboose with anything like the quality I can get from Bachmann and Fox Valley.  And, the B&O had lots more of each of those than a single train.  But, there are still signature pieces like the T-3 4-8-2, the S1a 2-10-2, and a large number of individually recognizable passenger cars and express cars that will probably never become available commercially and thus give me a to-do list that exceeds my remaining lifetime.

So, I really do not lament the availability of good quality RTR models, and do not think that they detract from N scale in any way.  In fact, I think those RTR models actually attract people to the scale who will do the scratch building and kit bashing.  If they had only the choices to scratch build everything or run toylike trains, they would probably opt for another scale, where the RTR support was better, or maybe even one of the really large scales where all they can ever run is one train with a few cars.

Excellent post.

Doug

[bbussey]

This is not entirely true. I've just taken a 70s-era and a 2000s-era release of the 40-foot boxcar, and compared them under magnification. Since tooling was all done by hand back in the 70s, there are telltale imperfections that wouldn't be reproduced. While the ends and roof have indeed been retooled, the car sides are still original. There are a few signs of some very minor touch-ups, but they are otherwise identical. Since most of the errors are on the sides, it might explain why they've never been corrected.

The ends are stretched as well. 

The MTL 20000-series and its offshoots were badly-needed and strongly propelled the scale forward when they appeared at the end of 1972. But there are better subsequent boxcar models have supplanted them.

[Maletrain]

So, you mean that we need to just buy a heap of MTL PS-1 box cars to wear out their tooling, and then we can count on Shipsure to make a new  side mold with correct prototype configuration?  I think I am already doing my part in that effort.