Micro Trains January 2024 Releases

[peteski]

Weren’t the unweathered versions over $40?

Actually MSRP $44.98 US.

[basementcalling]

Weren’t the unweathered versions over $40?

Weathered CP versions last month were $37-$39 most places.  UP is more expensive because of the darn UP shield. MT charges in part based on number of colors on the car.

[kiwi_bnsf]

January Weathered Releases are also up:

UPFE Reefers
https://micro-trains.com/index.php?route=product/product&search=w2401&description=true&product_id=5149

TTX TBOX (let the flood of weathered TBOX releases begin!)
https://micro-trains.com/index.php?route=product/product&search=w2401&description=true&product_id=5147

Stunning work on the UPFE @MTLJoe and the MTL team, I'm only disappointed that I probably can't fit it in my era....

Unfortunately those UPFE Reefers are spectacular foobies. The MTL 070 tooling appears to be more appropriate for a R70-12 50' car built in 1960…

http://www.railgoat.railfan.net/spcars/byclass/reefer/r070-12.htm


The UPFE paint is only appropriate for a much more modern R-70-21 57' car built after 1969. Aside from the incorrect length, the doors, outside bracing pattern, and ladders are all wrong…

https://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=1797



I know I'm in the minority here, but I think MTL should have some sort of sub-brand that indicates when things are actually prototypical (as opposed to just made up). Perhaps some really subtle "Proto" mark that makes it easier for sad people like me to find the releases that we want to buy — I don't think that would hurt sales of the other cars.

[bigdawgks]

I agree with you - all manufacturers being very clear when something is not prototypical. But then for MTL would it mean that practically all their 40' PS-1s would fall under that?

[Englewood]

I may be in the minority here but I don't think it is the responsibility of the manufacturers to announce whether a release is not 100% prototypical,  and if it is, where and when it's prototypical. If you want to model Edna, Texas on June 6, 1953, then I'm assuming that part of the fun is doing that research for yourself.

[bigdawgks]

Why put the responsibility on the individual modeller when supposedly the manufacturer has already done the research? The individual modeller may have knowledge on their one specific region and era, but that still won't encompass all the potential rolling stock that could practically visit their layout. Railroads interchanged a lot, so to have prototypical accuracy you need a wide breadth of knowledge and nobody can realistically follow up on all the research of every railroad's equipment for a particular time period.

Plus, the manufacturers should be clear when something is based on a specific prototype and when it's a stand-in or fantasy. They don't have to give you a complete package of reference material, just say what prototype it's based on so customers can pursue further research on it. All that is needed is a simple blurb saying this car is based on X prototype around Y year and what roads it is accurate to (assuming there will still always be cases of stand-ins or fantasy schemes). BLI, despite their other shortcomings, has at least been partially doing this for fantasy schemes.

[Missaberoad]

Prototypical accuracy is a deep dark rabbit hole that most modellers might not want to look into.

Most models (even from the most accurate manufacturers) out there might only have a single prototype that they are accurate for, or depending on the mix of
details chosen many models have no prototype. even some otherwise accurate cars are only correct for a certain span of years.

Its a world of body height, ends, doors, underframes, roof variations, side panel and sill tab variations.

As someone who has looked into the dark side it will ruin you. Especially for N scale where we lack the developed market of accurate cars / aftermarket parts.

As far as Micro-trains releases go, the prototypes of the body styles are very well documented for the most part. Searching the forum archives, subscribing to the UMTRR newsletter and searching out the number series produced on the various online photo sites, freight car history pages / groups, or Morning Sun Color Guides / other freight car books will put you on the right path to finding often the exact prototype road number MT chose to represent.

You may not want to look too deep, sometimes ignorance is bliss! There is a certain value to run what you enjoy even if you know better.

[mu26aeh]

I'm fine with doing the research myself.  If you're that far along of needing prototype cats, you mostly already know real vs foobie.  Besides, slapping a "PROTO" sticker on the label or case will just increase the price of the car another $5-7

[Missaberoad]

Also at what point do we declare a car unprototypical?
Take a look at the MFCL and RealSTMFC groups and you could easily put a foobie tag on almost every single N Scale freight car.

If you are worried about prototypical fidelity, the research is enjoyable and as much part of the process as the modeling. If you want RTR cars then close enough needs to be part of that philosophy.

[kiwi_bnsf]

Also at what point do we declare a car unprototypical?
Take a look at the MFCL and RealSTMFC groups and you could easily put a foobie tag on almost every single N Scale freight car.

If you are worried about prototypical fidelity, the research is enjoyable and as much part of the process as the modeling. If you want RTR cars then close enough needs to be part of that philosophy.

I guess when a car has a length difference of nearly 10 feet over couplers, I would start to draw the line — but I agree that it's a slippery slope.

I have absolutely no problem with doing my own research, but I would note that at least Atlas (Master Line), Athearn, BLI, and ScaleTrains are noting era dates and where paint schemes were "worn by a similar freight car". This is something that saves me some time, while not affecting more generalist modellers that don't mind about the fine print.

To be clear, I'm not against RTR cars that are close enough. It's just a bit more glaring when you have a release like this where the TBOX cars are 100% accurate, and the UPFE cars are not really that close at all.

I will crawl back under my prototype rock now! 

[basementcalling]

Unfortunately those UPFE Reefers are spectacular foobies. The MTL 070 tooling appears to be more appropriate for a R70-12 50' car built in 1960…

http://www.railgoat.railfan.net/spcars/byclass/reefer/r070-12.htm


The UPFE paint is only appropriate for a much more modern R-70-21 57' car built after 1969. Aside from the incorrect length, the doors, outside bracing pattern, and ladders are all wrong…

https://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=1797



I know I'm in the minority here, but I think MTL should have some sort of sub-brand that indicates when things are actually prototypical (as opposed to just made up). Perhaps some really subtle "Proto" mark that makes it easier for sad people like me to find the releases that we want to buy — I don't think that would hurt sales of the other cars.

Let's see how the Scale Trains Hypotypical experiment goes.

Why would MT do what you ask when it will only likely cost them sales as it trains the market to be pickier about how they spend their hobby dollars?

I do agree though that a scheme worn on 57 foot cars plastered on a 50 footer is a stretch. But it would be quite easy to copy the MT weathering job onto an old MDC or CC 57 foot reefer, or one of the newer Athearn offerings if the protopolice patrol your layout.

[thomasjmdavis]

What I like about Micro-trains is that they are the only manufacturer of N scale products that releases products  on a regular basis. Which is to say, monthly. I don't know what they will announce, on or about Jan 31, for February, but I know there will be an announcement. I've bought a lot of stuff from them over the past half century. Amazingly, if I need trucks or a brake wheel or other parts for the boxcars I bought in the 1970s, I can call MTL or in many cases, buy them from a hobby shop.

The trade off is that many of MTL's products are old designs, of varying accuracy (ie: are any of the 50' gondolas based on actual 50' prototypes, or are they all shortened 52-53' cars?) which they paint in almost any 20th century paint scheme. Their newer product is better in that it has identifiable prototypes and is generally more accurate, and the most recent releases are very detailed and accurate models. BUT...they may still apply paint schemes that aren't so accurate. Hopefully, we don't start seeing 1930s paint schemes on the PS-2 hoppers as we have since the beginning on the PS-1 boxcar. But, if that's what they have to do as a trade off to get more new designs manufactured, so be it.

[OldEastRR]

What are "MFCL and RealSTMFC"?

[Missaberoad]

What are "MFCL and RealSTMFC"?

https://groups.io/g/MFCL

https://realstmfc.groups.io/g/main

[reinhardtjh]

What are "MFCL and RealSTMFC"?

Links provided above by MissabeRoad.

MFCL - Modern Freight Car [Email]List -- An email list discussing modern freight cars (1960-present)

RealSTMFC - The real ( as opposed so another list that was active at one time) STeaM Freight Car (list) -- An email list discussing Steam Era (1900-1960) freight cars.