Howdy, Just wanted to post some shots of the new 2 bay hoppers working their way through production right now. The assembled unit is riding a little high as we are still adjusting the fit of the underframe. I didn't have the press tool when I stuck this together. The finished units will come with loads that can be removed as wanted. These should hit the market in a month or so. http://www.trainboard.com/railimage.../148628/title/new-mtl-z-2-bay-hoppers/cat/500 Joe MTL
Joe, Looks good. Is it too soon for you to share what the loads will be? I'd like to put in a vote for sugar beets: a very common load for here in Central California 50 years ago. Mark
will this model have drop doors also like N-scale version and can we body mount couplers on this car. thanks for posting the picture Joe looks nice Garth
Underneath Underneath Underneath Very good Joe, ask and ye shall receive. One of the crucial differences between these hoppers and uncle will's is underneath, turn them upside down and therein lo and behold. Uncle will's has this long unprototypical protusion thas supposed to be a bolster, not only is it ugly but it detracts from the hopper's appearance from a side and front glimpse. This to me is tooling from another bygone era that should have been corrected. And I love uncle will's hoppers, the bold beautiful paint jobs are outstanding but one factor diminishes the over all quality. MTL on the other hand has paid attention underneath and the photo shows it. Looking forward to purchasing multitudes of hoppers Joe. What will be the first road names?
Joe, you are going to change the bolster loaction, right? That doesn't look right at all. I can rather live with a longer distance between the couplers then a wrong truck location...
Looking forward to these. Be nice in sets of 6 or even a dozen. IC and Mopac would be nice. Id really like to see some 3 and 4 bay cars, that would go better with the GPs 1950s -1980s´.
I think bolster location is just as important in the detailing of the underbody. I also think you're going to regret these comments when the first side-by-side comparison photo comes out between a FT hopper and the new MTL hopper. The MTL car looks like an old Lima N scale car, or Marklin Z scale car, with the trucks sucked in so far toward center. Talk about a bygone era... but not unexpected when they modeled the passenger cars after cheap ConCor N scale tooling.
From the end of the metal bolster poking out under the side sill, it looks to be off about this much.
The problem is the coupler box. If MTL mounts the bolster in the correct position, then the box pushes out too far. If you want close coupling, then you have to pull the trucks in. In my opinion, it is time to redesign the coupler box. If the manufacturers (AZL, FT and MTL) could find a way to cut that box in half, then we may be able to achieve close coupling (within reason) while maintaining accurate truck position. I have cut away the back of coupler boxes while maintaining the functionality. I am sure the design couple be modified to create a true short shank coupler. Rob
Rob, its a good idea to cut back the size of the coupler box, but I am not willing to give automatic uncoupling. My wish is for MTL to resize the coupler box with the automatic uncoupling.
John, I agree on the uncoupling. It would be a nice advancement in Z if close coupling can be achieved while maintaining the automatic uncoupling. Rob
Like I said, I just stuck this together. The underframe is not finished, the position will be correct when it is released. I mainly wanted to show the shells. Joe MTL
WCL, if I read that drawing overlay correctly, you estimate the truck is 1/2 a wheel too far back, or 16" which is o.073" (1.8mm). Besides all that is required to retool trucks/couplers, I would trade that offset to get the cars looking closer coupled, as it appears they did. From 3 feet away, I'll see that coupler more than that o.073". Anyone compare to their PS-2 or FT's yet ??? .
