August MTL Releases Posted

[learmoia]

Forget what has been said about the airliner. It does not look line the 737 that has been previously made. It looks like engines on the rear of the fuselage. That might make is a DC 9.
Tom

Definitely not a DC-9; there’s not enough room between the rear door and the end of the APU. Also, check out the blanked out window at the leading edge of the wing root. That’s an AC duct typical of a 737, and not present on a DC-9. I think that’s a 737 classic body, and those ports in the back are the pivot point and jack screw slot for the horizontal stabilizer.

Looks like a slightly better artist rendition of the same thing as they did before.

OR to Quote Micro-Trains: "Renderings shown for representation only."

~Ian

[tom mann]

TBOXes are looking sharp! 

Nicely done MTL and @Shipsure

Yeah, thanks @Shipsure . They are great looking cars (ride height and proportions appear to be correct) and will make a nice canvas for future graffiti releases.

[pmpexpress]

Definitely not a DC-9; there’s not enough room between the rear door and the end of the APU. Also, check out the blanked out window at the leading edge of the wing root. That’s an AC duct typical of a 737, and not present on a DC-9. I think that’s a 737 classic body, and those ports in the back are the pivot point and jack screw slot for the horizontal stabilizer.

Given that the rendering depicts what appears to be a new fuselage sitting on a 1970's era Trailer Train Company JTTX flatcar, I am thinking the aircraft is a first generation 737-200 series model.

The second generation 737-300, 737-400, and 737-500 series were launched in 1979. are larger, and appear to have more windows.



Part of a drawing depicting the Boeing 737 family tree that was created by Julien Scavini and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.

[ryan_wilkerson]

Neville, thanks for the research and photos.

[ednadolski]

Yeah, thanks @Shipsure . They are great looking cars (ride height and proportions appear to be correct) and will make a nice canvas for future graffiti releases.

Likewise, thank you @Shipsure, I have my reservation in

Ed

[learmoia]

Based on length in relation to the flat car and window arrangement, I'd say they are trying to replicate a cross between a 600 and 700, but if you added a window ahead of the wing, you'd have a 300

Length seems like it's in the 110' range.. not the 100' range (remember nose is missing on the MT model compared to diagram lengths.)

And, agreed on the TBOX.. They look great.. too new for me, but gives me great hope for what is in store for the future..

~Ian

[pmpexpress]

Based on length in relation to the flat car and window arrangement, I'd say they are trying to replicate a cross between a 600 and 700, but if you added a window ahead of the wing, you'd have a 300

Length seems like it's in the 110' range.. not the 100' range (remember nose is missing on the MT model compared to diagram lengths.)

And, agreed on the TBOX.. They look great.. too new for me, but gives me great hope for what is in store for the future..

~Ian

Ian,

As the third generation "NG" series 737-600 and 737-700 were launched in late 1993, should your observations indeed be correct, shouldn't the fuselage seen in the rendering be perched upon a flatcar bearing TTX markings.

While I am uncertain as to when the JTTX series flatcars were repainted to reflect the new company name, the former Trailer Train officially became TTX on July 1, 1991.

Locating prototype photos of JTTX 254356 and JTTX 254371 on the web proved to be an exercise in futility.

Not a single image of a Trailer Train flatcar loaded with a Boeing fuselage turned up in my numerous online searches.

[pmpexpress]

Neville, thanks for the research and photos.

Ryan,

As I enjoy researching historical topics and providing any useful information that might turn up, you're welcome.

[learmoia]

In true TRW fashion we are putting way to much thought into this considering the other major announcement was a Solar System locomotive.

Based on the following assumptions:
I assume Micro-Trains didn't produce a 2nd fuselage mold for an earlier generic (Boeing ish) airplane body to go on an flat car with an earlier paint scheme.  (and I assume the model isn't a true Boeing design for licensing reasons.)

The artist rendition is accurate enough to represent the window arrangement of the paint scheme. (while we are lucky if the other renditions have the correct trucks under the railcars let alone in the correct scale and position of those trucks.)

So that brings in scale of the plane on the flat in the drawing.. so I reverted back to product photos of previous releases. 

Depending on how far forward the plane is on the flat, the rear hangs over  the 2nd flat roughly 1/8 to 1/4 of the way.. including long coupler distance between the cars.  So I estimate the plane is at least 110' long (So that makes it a 300 or a 700.. maybe a 400).
It's likely 'NOT' a 100' plane because without the nose, it would barely extend past the first 90' flat, so that rules out 100, 200, 500, and 600...

Excess length (and 4 exit doors over the wing) rules out 800, and 900...
4 exit doors rules out 400 (but it could be done)

The window and door arrangement most closely matches the 500 and 600 but those planes are likely too short..

So that leaves 300 or 700..
If they removed 1 window next to the entry door, they would match the 700
If they added a window in front of the wing, they would match a 300


FWIW
Here is the MTTX in brown.


So Brown TTX Flat doesn't mean 1960s/1970s

But I agree I can't find any yellow flats either.

Nor can I find any photos of 'painted' plane bodies moving on rail.

~Ian

 

[James Costello]

So Brown TTX Flat doesn't mean 1960s/1970s

But I agree I can't find any yellow flats either.

~Ian

Ian, that's not an original "brown" TT flat, or at least, an original paint job. Conspicuity stripes at least puts that photo in the modern era.

The "TT" logo at least puts the flat pre-91. The JTTX is a bit of a stretch, but not impossible. JTTX was a general purpose mark on re-purposed flats, but mostly used for oversized structural steel, pipe loads, wrecks etc (Junk service as Jim Panza from TTX used to joke) before PTTX marks came into use.

In the 80s and 90s these flats were doing what they were built for - autoracks and pig flats.

[pmpexpress]

In true TRW fashion we are putting way to much thought into this considering the other major announcement was a Solar System locomotive.

Based on the following assumptions:
I assume Micro-Trains didn't produce a 2nd fuselage mold for an earlier generic (Boeing ish) airplane body to go on an flat car with an earlier paint scheme.  (and I assume the model isn't a true Boeing design for licensing reasons.)

The artist rendition is accurate enough to represent the window arrangement of the paint scheme. (while we are lucky if the other renditions have the correct trucks under the railcars let alone in the correct scale and position of those trucks.)

So that brings in scale of the plane on the flat in the drawing.. so I reverted back to product photos of previous releases. 

Depending on how far forward the plane is on the flat, the rear hangs over  the 2nd flat roughly 1/8 to 1/4 of the way.. including long coupler distance between the cars.  So I estimate the plane is at least 110' long (So that makes it a 300 or a 700.. maybe a 400).
It's likely 'NOT' a 100' plane because without the nose, it would barely extend past the first 90' flat, so that rules out 100, 200, 500, and 600...

Excess length (and 4 exit doors over the wing) rules out 800, and 900...
4 exit doors rules out 400 (but it could be done)

The window and door arrangement most closely matches the 500 and 600 but those planes are likely too short..

So that leaves 300 or 700..
If they removed 1 window next to the entry door, they would match the 700
If they added a window in front of the wing, they would match a 300


FWIW
Here is the MTTX in brown.


So Brown TTX Flat doesn't mean 1960s/1970s

But I agree I can't find any yellow flats either.

Nor can I find any photos of 'painted' plane bodies moving on rail.

~Ian

Ian,

Re: "In true TRW fashion we are putting way to much thought into this considering the other major announcement was a Solar System locomotive."

Au contraire.

We are engaged in a lively discussion concerning the modeling of a prototype railcar and the load it's carrying, which is one of the positive attributes of this forum.

James Costello's input on the subject provides further evidence of the value of this dialogue.

It is not so much a deliberation on the model's faults as it is an analysis on how it might be improved to better depict a known prototype.

While I tend to agree with you that the fuselage is likely a rendition of a Boeing 737-300 or -700, the flatcar's retired yellow Trailer Train paint scheme appears to be from a different era.

Without any supporting photos of the actual car that has been depicted in the preliminary artist renderings, though they might depict a prototype that we have not yet seen, the JTTX markings are somewhat dubious, as James has suggested.

There was a similar discussion about 737 fuselage windows and fuselage lengths on pages thirteen and fourteen of the Detailing the Micro-Trains BNSF Fuselage Set thread.

Around October 4, 2018,  Joe D'Amato posted the following information on another forum board:

The fuselage in all of the production runs (which is using the same tooling as the first two runs) closely depicts a 737-700, or the military 737-700C fuselage, at 110 feet in length (measured after nose cone and tail cones are added during Boeing assembly). It is not a 737-500, 600 or any other variant. Additionally, the window placement/configuration has not changed from earlier runs (the initial rendering shown above was for representation only and does not accurately depict the final production shape or configuration of decals). No artwork has been compressed or stretched to make it fit. The window configuration depicted is an average of several prototype photos of 737-700 assemblies, and if a particular configuration is desired, that is up to the modeler. In this latest pre-order, additional decals added include more yellow tape striping for customization, black protective covers for tail mount components, nose gear door cover, two blacked out cockpit windows, fuselage sub assembly numbers, and clearance device/icebreaker markings. It should also be noted that all of the released pre-order renderings are for representation only, and final artwork may differ, especially on the decal sheet.

As you stated, the fuselage is most likely the same one that was used for previous Micro-Trains fuselage train car runs, which means, according to Joe's previous statement, depicts a 737-700.

Beginning in 2008, the USAF acquired four ex Air China and two ex China Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-66N (737-600) aircraft, which are currently being used by Janet Airlines.

Janet's former fleet included six Boeing 737-253 airliners, which were retired between November 16, 2008 and August 10, 2009.

Given the red and white paint scheme, my assumption that depicted fuselage was a 737-200 was based upon the knowledge that Janet formerly rostered a fleet of -253s, which despite the present lack of supporting evidence, could have been transported on yellow Trailer Train flatcars with "TT" markings.

[wcfn100]

https://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=64633

Yellow flat with used fuselage.

Jason

[pmpexpress]

https://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=64633

Yellow flat with used fuselage.

Jason

Jason,

The following error message appears when the link is clicked:

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access this resource.

Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Can you upload a copy of the photo.

[Philip H]

Jason,

The following error message appears when the link is clicked:

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access this resource.

Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Can you upload a copy of the photo.

I got through to the thumbnail just fine.

[samusi01]

I got to the thumbnail as well, and that is a DC-9. Lots of differences between it and the 737 fuselage MTL sells.

In the brief searches I did, I could find no examples of a new fuselage being shipped painted... for Boeings, all painting takes place at the end of the assembly process in Washington so the chances of a new fuselage having a red stripe on it are very low. I am curious as to where MTL got the idea for a painted fuselage.

 The images I did find of painted fuselages are similar to the link above, i.e., scrap.