Height Difference Between Marklin and MTL

Until the other day, all the cars in our collection have been Marklin. Then our first MTL undecorated boxcars arrived - one 40' and one 50'. I pulled out the Marklin caboose I was thinking of changing to a different road and put it with the two MTL boxcars. What a big difference in size Here's the Marklin NYC caboose and the undecorated MTL 40' boxcar:



At first I thought I'd ordered N scale boxcars, but they fit on the Z track perfectly. Then I began to wonder why I'd never read anything about the size difference between the two manufacturers. So, my questions are:

- which size is 1:220 - Marklin or MTL, or neither?
- why have I not read about the size difference before?
- why are the two manufacturers' cars so different in size?

TIA

Most of us who model NA find Marklin rather toyish. Just look at their truck placement. Its way off. I only find one their cars acceptable, their flat car. Its not that they are not capable of building realistic cars. If you model European, their trains look great. MTL cars look more like the prototype. AZL and Uncle Will also make some realistic looking cars.

Marklin's trucks are completely "freelanced". No Archbar, no Bettendorf, no Roller bearings, etc... One brand for evey car, that is completely a freelance design supposed to match american samples. Furthermore due to their coupler design, these trucks have to be displaced inwards giving the cars a weird look, anyway that doesn't look like typical US cars whose trucks are positionned close to the car's ends.

Dom

Both cars in the photo are reasonably accurate. The Marklin caboose is pretty close to a typical generic western caboose at 1:220. The MTL boxcar is quite accurate for a typical 50-foot double-door boxcar. Both cars sit a little high because of the wheels and couplers.

Many of the other Marklin freight cars, however, are badly proportioned; the only cars they have that are vaguely accurate are the caboose and tank car. By contrast, all MTL freight cars are much more faithful to the prototype, so if you want a reference to what the real thing looks like, use MTL (or AZL or Full Throttle--they are all accurate).

What isn't accurate are the trucks, Marklin or MTL. Marklin trucks are "pretend" trucks that very loosely mimic Bettendorf-style trucks, but they are grossly oversized. And as noted before, their enromous couplers force them away from the ends of the cars, making them all look absurd.

The MTL trucks are nearly as inaccurate: although their appearance is very similar to the real trucks they model, and they are positioned correctly, the trucks themselves are a foot or more too short (all of them). I believe they did this to keep from interfering with the stirrups on the boxcar and steps on the caboose.

Curretly, AZL is the only Z scale manufacturer who has accurate trucks. If you are interested in further information on trucks and couplers, here is a resource:

jamesriverbranch.net/clinic_2.htm

Here are some photo references:

In early Z there were just two companies that made 1:220. Marklin and MTL- ( Nelson Gray ).. There were two different trains of thought. Basically Marklin used it's existing tooling and adapded it for the North American market. They came out with the F-7 and a steam engine, and a few cars that kept getting repaint jobs. This was sufficient for the times. They are good runners- but the couplers are something else, and as far as being totally accurate, there have been many threads and valuminous words expounded on this subject and I will not get into the fray here. I do like the tank car and caboose and the look of Marklins running round the track.
. MTL's F-7 was more prototypical- nice couplers- but plastic wheels on rolling stock. There were only about 5 solid cast buildings for Z and early Z ers started molding thier own- Will post picture of KLUZ Originals when I find it.
As the demand for Z expanded, MTL has progressed as have new manufactures into many and varied prototypical rolling stock and motive power. Marklin continued with thier basic NA gear.
Nothing can compete with AZL's detailed BRASS engines. The new rolling stock coming down the tracks from FR, TNT, Uncle Willey, Bowser, MTL, are wonderful. Marklin has only come out with a few new NA models in the past 20++ years.
There certainly is room for both types of modeling in Z. for example, we have yet to get the "Best" couplers system, and metal wheels.. but we are close. I expect in the next 20+ years, with the advantage of new technology, and an expading Z base, " We have just begun". N went thru a stage where they actually used rubber bands for motive power. Fortunately we skipped that!
Marklin and MTL cars can be used interchangably with the adjustment of the couplers- "transition cars".
That's all I have to say ---for now
Fred

Fred, you had to bring up Kluz originals

I think those are collectors items now!

Rob

I'm still looking in the Black Hole- Saw the barn and house yesterday!!
Fred
Those were the days!

Hi Beverly, Well, you got a lot of good information. I'm not sure that you are satisfied that your original query was answered. Lets try this:

In this photo you see the Marklin caboose like you have. The cars are seemingly in better porportion to the caboose than your photo. Here is why. The box car you showed is a car made in the late 60's or in the 70's. Engines, were more powerful and cars got bigger. This is not new. In my photo from left to right you see a boxcar built around 1900, the next 1910, the caboose anywhere from 1900 to 1940 for this hybrid, and finally a boxcar built in 1930's. You can see that each newer boxcar was larger than it's predecessor. The visual between your 50' boxcar and your caboose makes it seem too large. You are new and yours is a good question. In this case all the dimensions for the sake of argument are correct. What you need to do is not use any 50' boxcars and stick to the ones I've shown in the photo. They look better with your caboose. Those 50' and larger cars look ok behind big diesel engines but not so hot behind a steamer. Another point many don't realize is when dealing with our little Z scale is that smaller everything is better. It is all in the overall perspective issue. You've noticed it yourself in your size comparison photo and question. Keep to the old cars and you won't come up with this question again. If you build a bigger layout using North American diesels these larger cars will then fill the "perspective" bill, but not until. Hope this helps. Cheers, Jim CCRR

Jim, not to pick nits, but the combination of the caboose and boxcar in Beverly's photo is perfectly acceptable, despite any visual incongruity. The caboose is a steel riveted standard cupola caboose, which would have been built in pre-war times, but long after the turn of the century; they lasted into 80s, when cabooses were no longer required by law. The boxcar has a roofwalk, which makes it pre-late-60s, and that particular type of boxcar has actually been around since the late 40s. So the resulting time window of roughly 50s to 60s is well represented by the caboose and boxcar. It would be just as likely, if not more so, than the pairing of a steel caboose and woodside boxcars.

Bottom line (as far as I am concerned) it is pointless comparing MTL to Marklin - like two bad examples don't make a good one

In a first instance you should be checking your models against original (:220)

Even if you were to compare two identical cars or locos (say, for the sake of example two F7, one from Marklin another from MTL) you still can't deduce much from this comparison unless you know how they relate to original.

And if you decide to go down this route ...
you are on your way to paranoia of trying to come as close as possible to scaled down reality

You might even end up counting rivets

I tell you you are far better off not worrying about this kind of stuff

After all ... nobody else worries about that in Z

... well maybe one or two guys do, but they are usually shouted at by 99.9% of the happy rest

Jim,

The car Beverly is showing appears to be a 40' double door box car, not a 50'. Don't think 50' cars are 'modern' in any way, shape and form. The use of 50' box cars gained in popularity in the 1950s. I am sure you can find earlier examples. As for gondolas, you can easily find 50' examples going back to the 1930s.

David is right on. The caboose Beverly is showing is dead one accurate for this type of car. If you are only going to run 40' wood side box cars, a shorty wood side caboose may be more appropriate.

I found this link on box car histories:

www.nmra.org.au/conventions/Clinics/Box_cars_101/Box%20Cars%20101v2-2.html

I tend to think of week side boxcars as in use to around 1920. After this, more steel side cars come into play. Of course, we can find examples of wood side cars running well into the 20th century, but it is just a visual thing to me.

But, the real question is not about length or style, it is about height. The examples shown should clear up the question.

Rob

David and Rob, No problem. My bad for not knowing a 50' boxcar when I don't see one! My point from a visual standpoint is whether Bev's car "looks" correct in the grand scheme of here miniature layouts. I would say, "no". Her issue is not whether the car is correct with the caboose, sure it is, but why does it look 'wrong' to her. My point was all visual perception. On her layouts smaller is definately better. Cheers, Jim CCRR:)

Just for comparison and because I want to show off my new train here are two mtl cars a boxcar and a caboose. Pardon the quality this was a cell phone shot my camera has dead batteries

Zac

Socalz44 wrote:

David and Rob, No problem. My bad for not knowing a 50' boxcar when I don't see one! My point from a visual standpoint is whether Bev's car "looks" correct in the grand scheme of here miniature layouts. I would say, "no". Her issue is not whether the car is correct with the caboose, sure it is, but why does it look 'wrong' to her. My point was all visual perception. On her layouts smaller is definately better. Cheers, Jim CCRR:)

But... Bev asked,

- which size is 1:220 - Marklin or MTL, or neither?
- why have I not read about the size difference before?
- why are the two manufacturers' cars so different in size?

and the answers are,

- both are 1:220;
- because it is a non-issue;
- because they are two entirely different types of car (apples and oranges), and nothing to do with "visual perception". One is a caboose; a caboose will be generally smaller (but not always) than freight cars. The other is a boxcar, and it will be larger (but not always) than a caboose. You may find that Marklin boxcars are relatively similar in size to MT boxcars (oranges and oranges), but not always, as there are many different types and sizes of boxcars; plus, as already noted, Marklin cars do not necessarily reflect anything from the real world.

As for "visual perception," if you want smaller overall cars, as Jim suggests, then you'll have to pretty much abandon Marklin; MT's Eastern-style caboose (with center cupola) is much smaller than Marklin's Western style (see Mr. White's photo). Also, I don't think Marklin makes 40-foot boxcars; I believe they're all sort-of 50-footers. So, if you want boxcars, go with the MTs. If you want smaller freight cars and don't care what kind in particular, then switch to MT's covered hoppers, MT's tank cars, and/or Full Throttle's two-bay hopper cars. They are all shorter than 40-foot boxcars.

Bev, I hope that clarifies the situation. If not, give us a shout so we can argue with one another some more.

David K. Smith wrote:

- which size is 1:220 - Marklin or MTL, or neither?
...

and the answers are,
- both are 1:220
...

I would beg to differ David
Depending on which particular part of the car (or loco) you are looking at (couplers, trucks, wheelsets etc, etc) they can be anything between 1:160 and up to (and around) 1:220

Instead of proportionately scaled down by a factor of 220, they are a bit like:
"...Disproportionate dwarfism is identified by one or more body parts being disproportionately large or small compared to the rest of the body, with growth abnormalities in specific areas being apparent..."

There are plenty of disproportionate parts and abnormalities in Z models (particularly those produced by Marklin )

OK modelling is always a matter of compromise, but ...

David, I'm tired. Cheers, Jim CCRR:)

In the words of a ( great ??? ) American--- "Can't we all just get along".

bambuko wrote:

David K. Smith wrote:

- which size is 1:220 - Marklin or MTL, or neither?
...

and the answers are,
- both are 1:220
...

I would beg to differ David
Depending on which particular part of the car (or loco) you are looking at (couplers, trucks, wheelsets etc, etc) they can be anything between 1:160 and up to (and around) 1:220

Instead of proportionately scaled down by a factor of 220, they are a bit like:
"...Disproportionate dwarfism is identified by one or more body parts being disproportionately large or small compared to the rest of the body, with growth abnormalities in specific areas being apparent..."

There are plenty of disproportionate parts and abnormalities in Z models (particularly those produced by Marklin )

OK modelling is always a matter of compromise, but ...

By that reasoning, if one went by, say, flange depth, then it's more like G scale. But let's just say that the intention of the maker is to nominally produce a 1:220 model, as in gross overall dimensions. Otherwise, there would be no point in modeling in a particular scale, because the concept of scale would no longer exist. Right? And as bad as the Marklin American cars are, they are nominally Z scale.

Jim, sorry, I didn't mean to wear you out; I was just trying to be helpful.

Fred, I was being facetious when I spoke of arguing. I suppose I should learn to use smilies, even though I hate them.



All better?

Fred wrote:

..."Can't we all just get along"...

We are getting along fine don't worry Fred