WHAT ARE THE PROS AND CONS OF THE MRC F UNITS??

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

I recently picked up 2 ABBA sets of the MRC F Units at a train show, not bad looking and got them for less than $10 per unit. A friend of mine said they were a “joke” and when I ask him why he said they weren’t correct and just gave me one of those really stupid smiles as if I should know what is wrong with them from looking at them. Well, I’ve looked at them and other than seeming to ride a bit “high in the saddle” I did see anything wrong with them. Put them on the track and they ran beautifully…

So what’s up with these engines and what am I missing, they must have discontinued them for a reason I would assume…

Mark

2

If you are happy with them, that’s all that matters.

3

For less than $10 an engine I’d be a damn fool not to be “happy” with them, but that doesn’t answer my original question either…obviously they were discontinued for a reason so my question is “why”?

Was there something wrong with the driveline or the shell?

Mark

4

They were victims of rivit counting. I have two, and they run fine and look OK to me. Congrats on the deal of $10/unit. I paid more a few years back.

5

As far as I’ve heard, their only problem was that they sit a little too high on the trucks. But if you’re happy with them, then that problem probably doesn’t matter so much.

6

Thanks for that input, while not “specific” it certainly explains a lot, there never seems to be any lack of the “rivit counters” and I find that they are something less then bashful as well.

Reminds me of my Dad and the first layout we built, fellow we both knew stopped by to take a look at it and informed us that a “real model railroader could tell us what was wrong with it”. My Dad’s reply was “well, if you run across one send him our way”. He didn’t come back again, thankfully.

Appreciate the info, Mark

7

The one I had, which was the first one MRC released, was actually a Walthers Trainline model with an MRC decoder. The decoder was totally dead but the model ran smoothly when the decoder was removed and it was converted back to straight DC operation.

8

Wellll… I dunno if I’d call it “rivet-counting {ptui}” to complain that an MRC F7 sitting next to just about any other manufacturer’s F7 doesn’t fare so well from even three feet away.

Everyone has their own ideas of what they like, and some people don’t like to have some of their F units stand out from others for shortcomings in tooling or detailing. Other people either don’t notice the differences, or decide that they don’t care. And I’ll fight to the death for their right to choose that way.

What disappointed me about the MRC F units was that they reached for a high level of detail and just plain didn’t do their homework. Little round blobs for fan centers, goofy-looking/missing panels visible behind the grilles, and another attempt at an F unit nose that was pretty far from the mark. Then there were the just plain cheap-looking paint jobs that were missing obvious stripes or used lettering styles that were just not right from quite a distance away (the Soo-painted model sticks in my memory). Historically, railroad equipment lettering was not the same as that found in print typography, but it’s not that hard to get it right. MRC’s efforts looked like they didn’t understand that. I can’t address the running qualities, since I never got past how I felt they looked.

It looked for all the world like they tried to dress up a 1970s-era Bachmann train set F-unit with add-on bits. For the premium price they were asking when they came out, which was comparable to much more accurate F7s on the market at the time, they were a poor value. These were $75+ apiece, when they came out.

I wouldn’t choose to spend my money on them. Others would. That doesn’t make me wrong, and doesn’t make them wrong. We just have different ideas of what we will each accept. There are several other manufacturers that have locomotives out there that look a lot more like a well-built model of an F7 to me,

9

OK…So then I gather that what you are saying is the problem is with the shells and that the mechanism is fine…correct?

Mark

10

Pretty much, but I’ve heard from several people that the motors that MRC used in them tend to burn up after a relatively short amount of time. Not quite as bad as the motors that Bachmann used in their early runs of GP30’s (one of them literally caught fire while running at our local club’s open house!) but still something to consider. Still, for $10/unit, you could run them until they quit and then be able to afford to put new motors in them.

11

I’m assuming that these are HO. If so, the MRC Platinum Line F7 was reviewed in the March 2001 issue of MR. The reviewer was Jeff Wilson. To quote various parts of the review:

"The model…runs quite well but suffers from inaccurate paint and lettering as well (as) some detail discrepancies.

"The moldwork is decent, but both of our samples have mold parting flash on the right side of the nose.

“The models horizontal-slit grills, squared door corners, and square window on the end door match those of Phase 1 F7s. However, the model has a large (48”-diameter) dynamic brake fan, a prominent feature that didn’t begin appearing until August 1952.

"At first glance the stainless grills look good… However, the pattern of vertical posts is incorrect.

"The separate wire grabs are nice, but they’re unpainted metal.

"The model includes steam generator details…, and although some F7s were so equipped, they were in the minority.

"The horns also reflect an uncommon detail…Most Fs received pairs of horns with two mounting posts and a slightly different trumpet style.

“Overall the shell’s dimensions match prototype drawings published…; however, the shell sits a scale 6” too high on the chassis…This would be difficult to fix because of the design of the frame.

“The plastic truck sideframes are press-fit onto the sides of the trucks with a center mounting pin and two smaller locating pins. However, when the locomotive starts or changes direction the sideframes rock back and forth on the center mounting pin (a distance of a scale 2” or 3" at the ends of the sideframes). This is quite noticeable and distracting, as well as unrealistic.

{there was a paragraph devoted to discrepancies between the prototype and model

12

Thanks very much, that is exactly the information I was looking for and explains the problems I had questions about. The fellow I bought these from has about 10 more of them for the same amount of money and I was considering whether or now to purchase them without more knowledge odf the situation.

You have answered all of my questions about these engines that I needed, I have quite a few extra Stewart " shells with no chassis under them and I have already figured out how to drop the chassis on the trucks to get the right ride height so these would make good “donor” chassis for the new shells as they appear to be very smooth runners and if they even make it for a hundred hours of running for me that will be a lifetimes worth.

Thank you,

Mark

13

Well, you’re welcome. Of course the review doesn’t address the “motors burning up” issue mentioned in one of the other posts, but whether or not that is hearsay only time will tell.

Oh, and since you are planning to use the mechanism, the review had the following to say: “The coupler boxes are frame mounted and held in place by screws. The couplers at both ends matched a Kadee coupler height gauge, but the front coupler sags a bit. A small shim of .005” or .010 plastic inside the draft-gear box would work to level the coupler."

14

I picked about 40 of these for less than 20€ each about 6 years ago. The plan was to use the mechs to replace those on my detailed Athearn F7’s and to make some into F3’s by using Stewart bodies. My railroad has shrunk since then so I’ve only ever put just over a dozen in service but I’ve had no problems any of the motors in mine. It’s possible to make the body sit at the correct hight by removing the cast lugs sticking out from bottom of the chassis that normally support it. It may also be necessary to trim or remove the cab interior. If you remove a chunk from each side of the chassis’s nose the same mod works with the Stewart bodies. They are not quite as good runners as the original Stewart locos( mine are the version with the Kato chassis) but not far off it and considerably cheaper.

15

Again, thanks for the information, using your method certainly beats my idea of dropping the chassis which would also mean adjusting the coupler height.

Again, thanks very much…Mark

16

Mark …

In this photo are my 2 MRC A units. The B unit is a Stewart dummy (painted, unlettered). To me, they look OK without modifying on the layout.

17

They look nice to me as well, I guess the only way for a person to settle that question in their “own” mind is to compare them side by side with say an Intermountain, Stewart, or Genesis engine, otherwise just looking at yours I don’t detect anything that major wrong with them.

However, they do appear to be riding a “touch” higher than the Stewart B unit, could be the camera angle of course.

Either way, nice picture and a nice looking scene, some fine work there.

Mark

18

Mark

I think your rivet counting buddy is blowing steam out of his caboose. I have the same ABBA set up you have and repainted the two A units to match the Southern black widow paint scheme I just put them next to a set of Proto 1000’s that I painted up in the same scheme and they look virtually identical. The top of the body shells are dead even so what it appears to ride a bit higher and the fan details or the horns aren’t just so and this or that. Your not talking a high end high dollar model. I purchased mine directly from MRC and I think I paid something like $15 brand new. They are a snap to convert to DCC and I have had zero problems with them for almost 4 years now. For what you paid you got a great deal as long as your happy thats all that matters.

19

Well, here’s my philosophy on “my” railroad, I strive to have as detailed equipment as possible, meaning I “prefer” to run freight cars with seperate grabs and railings. No, I don’t check to make sure the numbers are correct or all of the data on the sides of the cars are correct nor do I get out my scale ruler and start counting rivits. Basically it’s a thing of “if they look good that’s good enough”.

As for my motive power I run in roughly the same direction, I have a lot of brass engines but I also have a lot of the new plastic and or cast such as Broadway Limited, again no scale rulers are used.

So what it comes down to is if it’s nicely detailed, runs well and doesn’t give me any trouble I’m happy with it.

I can honestly say my biggest gripe about the MRC units is the “ride height” and what look like oversize handrails to me, both a relatively easy fix.

I guess having started in HO in the mid 60’s and having to be satisfied with things like those “wide body” Athearns" or the oversized windsheilds on the F units has tempered my tolorance for certain errors. I’m just thrilled to have a choice of so many fine models. When Proto started selling their line I saw the handwriting on the wall and sold off most of my brass diesels and bought Proto’s and have been satisfied ever since. Ok, the earlier engines cracked the axle gears, but, they were highly detailed, beautifully painted and ran quite well. If you disagree compare them to an Athearn Hi-F drive or the KMT diesel drives, AKA coffee grinders. So I changed the axle gears, simple fix and no griping about them either.

So when I ask about the MRC engines it was mainly because my friend had made a rather discouraging comment about them and I wanted to know what the deal was about these engines. I had heard comments

20

From what I can see, the phase details are mismatched. If you don’t care about that then its a moot point. If you model a specific railroad you probably want the F units to match some real ones. Now its true that real railroads had mismatched phase details - especially in the 1960’s which was the waning years of the F units when parts were canibilized and swapped between diesels. Also some were rebuilt from wrecks not looking like they came from EMD. Here is an example of a real diesel owned by the Rio Grande:

The above engine is an F9m which was an F3A wrecked and rebuilt using an F9A carbody but retaining the roof details of an early phase F3A but having the side details of an F9A. Very cool and Athearn made this Genesis model to match the real #5531. Now MRC’s model appears to be a result of poor research because it is anything but typical. It has a latter 1952 and later F7A phase II 48-inch axial dynamic brake fan, but the side air grills are pre-1952 early style. It also has steam generator details which were rare on standard length F7A’s. Rio Grande actually owned two, but they lost their steam generators within about 5 or 6 years. I think Northern Pacific had a few. Most F units with steam generators were FP7A’s which were longer. I think Bachmann Plus offered F7A’s with a mismash of phase details too. Maybe the same guy who designed the MRC did the Bachmanns? :stuck_out_tongue: