december MT releases

[unittrain]

I'm kinda confused by the DTI car.  I see it has the longer wheelbase.  Good.  I thought they had tooled the longer sill to go with it?   

Wow I didn't notice that! Another error! They don't check anything do they before they tool it? What is so hard about doing proper research it is puzzling why they do this they just must not be interested in accuracy.

[bbussey]

At least that can be easily fixed without cutting a new tool from scratch.

[Robbman]

At least that can be easily fixed without cutting a new tool from scratch.

So can the Youngstown doors... but they haven't done that yet...

[chessie system fan]

Well there were two wheelbases.  The Wabash car has the correct wheelbase and sill.  The DTI car has the correct wheelbase but the short sill.  I can understand (a little) making just one version of the car because of tooling costs (I'd like to think that was it and not an oversight), but going halfway and just doing the wheelbase only makes the car look weird.

And since this came up again, I noticed looking through some mag back issues that the 3D rendering had 1015/16 couplers, and the doors looked right.  I guess what we have is a "lost in translation" issue from the designer to the toolmaker?

All in all though, this won't stop me getting one when they get to the no-roofwalk cars, since it is one of my favorite cars.  I just won't be willing to pay as much for one.

[unittrain]

I will be buying several too I just picked up a DT&I it won't be too hard to fix with some styrene strip, and these are much needed cars.

[LN2800]

So can the Youngstown doors... but they haven't done that yet...

[bbussey]

... And since this came up again, I noticed looking through some mag back issues that the 3D rendering had 1015/16 couplers, and the doors looked right.  I guess what we have is a "lost in translation" issue from the designer to the toolmaker? ...

MTL cuts its own tooling, and the same digital file used for the RP or 3D rendering would have been used to create the milling program, so it's unlikely that there was a misinterpretation on the intended design.

[Robbman]

Beating a dead horse implies that there's nothing that CAN be done about the situation, so reiterating it over and over is accomplishing nothing.

The tooling in question CAN be modified to be correct... quite easily in fact. 

[sirenwerks]

To add to Robbman's defense of constructive criticism, the origins of "beating a dead horse" are not about pounding the literal expired equine, it's a horse track reference for a jockey's attempt at speeding his mount to the finish line.  For those of you stuck on that saying's dysphemistic connotation - that means a jockey "beats" (with a crop) a "dead" (slow) horse.

So maybe we are beating a dead horse; maybe MTL isn't capable of adapting to market demands and should be put out to pasture.

[LN2800]

Yep.  But there are still those of us who think it is in bad taste for a known contractor/employee of one major manufacturer to repeatedly point out publicly flaws or compromises in a competitor's product. Especially when said manufacturer makes a pig flat with a compromised side sill section...   YMMV...

[JoeD]

ah...now the plot thickens.  Amen Brother.

[unittrain]

Yep.  But there are still those of us who think it is in bad taste for a known contractor/employee of one major manufacturer to repeatedly point out publicly flaws or compromises in a competitor's product. Especially when said manufacturer makes a pig flat with a compromised side sill section...   YMMV...

oh man its on now!!

[Kisatchie]

oh man its on now!!

Hmm... it's the day after
Christmas, and the spirit
is all gone already...

[John]

Hmm... it's the day after
Christmas, and the spirit
is all gone already...

Maybe - but the lock button is still on the moderators panel 

[sirenwerks]

Yep.  But there are still those of us who think it is in bad taste for a known contractor/employee of one major manufacturer to repeatedly point out publicly flaws or compromises in a competitor's product. Especially when said manufacturer makes a pig flat with a compromised side sill section...   YMMV...

OK, but if you're gonna go high-hat I have to point out the compromise in "contractor/employee".  You're either one or the other, legally can't be both.

I for one support Robbman's curmudgeonness.  He reminds me of my father, which makes me shudder, but some of us want to hear about the flaws in any manufacturers' product.  Not so we can take sides, per se, but so we can decide if we can live with the flaws or fix them to represent what we want.  I mean, come on, MTL's notorious for releasing a body style and trying to pass it off as anything close.  Look at the reefer schemes they do.  Between MTL and IMRC the newb will think the PFE-design was the only car in existence.  But numerous manufacturers do it.  There's a line that we all call our own that we don't cross. 

I'll probably get some of the new MTL cars as the basis for a couple of kitbashes, if MTL will ever release undecs.  Sill mods?  No problem.  Wheelbase mod?  Not much of a problem.  Plug door mod?  PIMA, but I can handle it.  But I like being edumacated.