Micro Trains 60' TBOX Boxcar | CCMR Railcar Reviews
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 січ 2025
- Here, we take a look at Micro Trains' extra-detailed 60' boxcar. Is its enhanced detail and features worth the $50+ MSRP? Plus, enjoy a running session with all of CCMR's industries and buildings mixed into new locations as work on the layout moves forward.
Nice job on the review. I love detail, my problem is I find some of it on the floor after a while. I have a large rolling stock fleet. I have a $10.00 rule. I try not to spend more than $10.00 per unit. I buy used and project cars on eBay. At $50.00+ per car, a 20 car train is 1k. Add in a loco and your at 1.25k. 😊😊😊
It's an apt observation Paul. I have to handle my Scaletrains coil cars with kid gloves for that reason. I'm really not in love with the price point of this model, and your math shows why (it also makes me shudder to think of how much money is sitting inside the rightmost cabinet under my layout). I'm not particularly tuned into the overall trajectory of the hobby, but if folks are starting to gravitate toward smaller switching-style layouts maybe having a smaller fleet of a few really good cars starts to make sense. I have hundreds, but for someone even like Boomer, I've really only seen a couple dozen ever show up on his layout. I've likewise started to consider selling off some of my older models just to clear out some room.
I'm not usually into "unboxing" or "review" style videos since, for me at least, I'm going to break every single one of those little details off at some point lol. As long as the car looks like how it should it's good enough for me. Brake piping and the like will 100% get broken by my clumsy fingers. That said, I have really been enjoying these review videos and have been finding them helpful as far as technical information goes, like weight and coupler info. Would be interested if you reviewed some open load cars like gondolas, flats or bulkheads. Stock that has a different weight loaded vs. unloaded. Also just want to mention your scenery work in the end cinematics is so damn good. That cracked, overgrown parking lot is so well done.
Thanks! Likewise I try to be a bit detailed and add comparisons with other models to provide a bit more context than the usual 'oh look a new train car/loco' video. Appreciate the suggestions - when I was back in Chicago not long ago I was looking for one of the bulkhead flats from ScaleTrains to review, will keep an eye out if there are any detailed gon models, etc. I'd previously reviewed a few of the different coil car models - some of those were seriously underweight without a load in them, others had a detachable weight. My fave flatcars have been the intermountain 60' flats, I've had a lot of fun adding real wooden decking, etc. BTW the parking lot where all of those large factories are is also kids' play foam, scored, painted and scenic'd to look like concrete while providing a nice base for the buildings :)
Nice review of always improving details in N scale. We´re really far from the 70´ and 80´ when choices were really more limited. Not to mention details.
I suppose that both cars can be opened for adding or removing (?) weight.
Air hoses pro and con. It´s really modeler choice. When the car is uncoupled, they look awesome. But ridicously hanging while train is in motion. The Kadee style look not fantastic when uncoupled, right under coupler. For those not using magnetic uncoupling, it can be cut shorter and more bent to create sort of illusion of being coupled to an other car or locomotive. Some cut them completely. No easy perfect solution. Same with locomotives MU hoses. Illusion and pretending that...
On our layouts we all do so much "pretending" , that one more or less is really modeler choice.
Thanks Éric and enjoy all.😊
I've had to cut or reposition a lot of my Atlas 'air hoses' because they are often situated too low and will jam into the frog of a switch. They can be a pain. There really is no obvious solution, and another frustration is the bounciness of the MT style couplers, others call it the 'slinky' effect but it makes slow speed switching look a bit jarring in N scale.
@@ChicagoCrossingRR
Thanks to mention that it´s not your loco, or track electrical contact, but those couplers. When your train passed at slow speed to show the car, that back and forth ghost movment is creepy😊😊
@ another issue due to a lighter weight car!
Very nice boxcar. I usually don’t mind the accessory packs, so that wasn’t an issue for me. The paint detail is superb. I don’t own any rolling stock from Aurora, but I would be annoyed by the proprietary couplers. I have an inventory of microtrains couplers and trucks just for that reason. Kato is the same way, and I shy away from them unless the consist will be permanently assigned, such as passenger coaches. Thanks for the in depth review. ☺️
Those couplers on the Aurora will probably be a pain. Once they're connected the car performs just fine, but it is somewhat inconvenient to uncouple this car from others. I would love some standardization - other viewers chimed in about the same thing. I have been seeing MT couplers on more cars from other manufacturers, which is good. If only ScaleTrains would ditch the bulky brown things on their cars I'd be happy - and I'd love to see others follow suit.
Another great review, thanks.
Thanks!
Good review. One subject I'm missing from your reviews and comparisons though is ride height. When comparing this boxcar to the older MT box during the test run the different is quite big as cars with truck mounted couplers tend to ride high.
It's not something I normally consider if couplers are at right height. In this case, the old and new MT had couplers at precisely the same height. The FVM transfer caboose was actually high.
@@ChicagoCrossingRR Different perspectives. :-) To me the ride height is far more important than the small details. The ride height you can see far away - the small details not. :-)
@@cslundsten it take all kinds in this hobby - thanks for sharing 😀
Looks like MicroTrains is trying to step up to the more 'luxury' models of ScaleTrains and Atlas Master Line. Good move since that seems to be what the hobby is asking for - and those separately applied air hoses and cut levers are a nice added detail - even if you're the one adding them. The price point is a little rough though - $50 for a boxcar seems high and i'm saying that because i just picked up a ScaleTrains hopper for $37 (i know they're different cars BUT other than door details we're not talking much variance). And why, on NONE of those examples in the video do the doors open?! I actually look for that in boxcars because i'm picky enough to want to open them and plan to detail the interiors with loads and junk debris someday. i think if those doors opened, they'd get $50 from me... probably a few times over.
Good review. However, I think the price comparison is a little off as the Micro Trains car has their couplers installed where as the Aurora model would require that $5 ish addition. I personally love this new car from them and have bought quite a few. Micro trains is still the Gold standard IMO. Keep up the great videos.
Thanks David. I don't factor potential costs of end-user retrofits in my reviews since that ends up being a subjective matter. I enjoyed this MT model, it was a good runner and nice to see some higher-end details to compete with the better stuff out there.
Have to compare the ride height of the older MT car they sit very high
Hi Dave, good observation and I think that's generally true of all cars with truck-mounted couplers -probably doesn't come as a surprise that these cars might run at a bit more prototypical 'lower' height.
Both beautiful cars,underbody detail on Aurora miniatures is better than Micro trains car,cut levers and airhoses,not hard to figure out to install
Thanks Dave, I'm not sure whether the differences in underbody detail represent differences in the prototype or just a gloss on an area few pay attention to on the MT model - thankfully I've never found myself underneath a boxcar :)