TheRailwire
General Discussion => N and Z Scales => Topic started by: nickelplate759 on April 16, 2011, 06:48:03 PM
-
Since I got the new BLMA trucks I've been looking at the height of my freight cars more closely. To my surprise, not all of them need lowering to look correct, not even all the old ones. Has anyone compiled a list of cars whose height is OK out of the box?
Here's mine so far - subjective, since I haven't really measured, and it only includes cars I own and have checked:
ESMC PC&F 40' refrigerators.
Deluxe Innovations 2-bay covered hoppers
Atlas Trainman 50' single door box
Roco 40' PS1 car
Roco 40' DD box
Roco 40' single-sheathed box
Roco 50' refrigerator
Atlas 40' USRA single-sheathed box
Atlas 40' double-sheathed box
Atlas 40' USRA rebuilt box
Kato 2-bay covered hopper
Fox Valley 40' Milwaukee boxcars (various) [corrected per Bryan's note below]
Atlas Trainman 50' Double-Door boxcar
George
-
An additional (but not complete) group to add to your list:
ESM - All models.
BLMA - All models.
Bluford - All models.
Rapido - All models.
Wheels of Time - All models.
ExactRail - All boxcars and gondolas.
InterMountain - 40' steel ice reefer, ATSF ice reefer, 60' flatcar, Pfaudler steel milk cars, ATSF caboose, all passenger cars.
Con-Cor - All flatcars and gondolas.
Atlas - Evans gondola, Magor (C&O) caboose, International (NE6) caboose, extended-vision caboose, standard cupola caboose, FGE boxcar, twin fishbelly hopper, twin offset side hoppers, ACF 5701 centerflow hoppers, PressureAide centerflow hopper, Hart ballast car, 50' ACF Precision Design boxcars, 53' Evans DPD boxcar, ore car, PS2 cement hopper, articulated auto rack.
Athearn - 2-bay centerflow, ATSF ice reefer, Airslide, 52' mechanical reefer, 65' mill gondola, SP bay window caboose, ex-MDC modern 50' boxcars.
Micro-Trains - wood cabooses, steel cupola caboose, 40' steel ice reefers, 51' mechanical reefers, Evans covered hopper, PS2 high-side covered hopper, scale test car, all heavyweight passenger cars.
Red Caboose - auto rack, 60' beer boxcar, 40' flatcar, USRA (X29) boxcar, 52' mechanical reefer, Thrall multi-door boxcar.
Trainworx - 86' auto parts boxcars.
Kato - All passenger car models.
Bowser - All coal hoppers.
The FVM Milwaukee boxcars need to be lowered to be at a prototypical height.
-
Bryan... how are you determining if a car needs to be lowered or not? Do you have the height from TOR for all the models you listed, or are you just being subjective?
-
Wow - I thought I was beginning a project, but it looks like Bryan nearly finished it already! The overall situation seems better than I'd hoped.
A slight bit of additional detail on passenger cars. The Intermountain passenger cars with Micro-Trains trucks are at the correct height, but the early runs of the first-generation (no-interior) cars had American Limited trucks and washers to raise the car even higher and sat way too high. The fix was easy -apply Micro-trains trucks.
George
-
... A slight bit of additional detail on passenger cars. The Intermountain passenger cars with Micro-Trains trucks are at the correct height, but the early runs of the first-generation (no-interior) cars had American Limited trucks and washers to raise the car even higher and sat way too high. The fix was easy -apply Micro-trains trucks.
Or, remove the washer and body-mount the couplers.
-
Here's an addition to the list
Micro-Trains USRA 1923 steel boxcar (I think this is actually the ARA car, not USRA, but the label says USRA).
-
Here's an addition to the list
Micro-Trains USRA 1923 steel boxcar (I think this is actually the ARA car, not USRA, but the label says USRA).
Nope, that stands too high. Put it next to the Red Caboose or Fine N Scale versions and you'll see the difference.
-
Weird - I did put it next to my Red Caboose X-29, and it's actually a good match. Were there multiple runs at different heights?
-
It's possible the Red Caboose car might stand too high as well. I've had my RC cars so long, I don't remember at this point if I lowered mine or not. The Fine N Scale version stands at the correct height. To confirm if the MTL car is correct, put the car on the track and take a digital micrometer and measure the distance of the car top to the rail top. Multiply the number by 160 and check it against the EXH printed on the model.
-
To confirm if the MTL car is correct, put the car on the track and take a digital micrometer and measure the distance of the car top to the rail top. Multiply the number by 160 and check it against the EXH printed on the model.
Assuming the roofwalk (if so equipped)is the correct thickness (i.e, not plastic or wood), the body isn't shortened to compensate, and the EXH printed on the car is actually correct... that would be a close method.
-
Hmmm...
According to the PRR equipment diagram reproduced here:
http://prr.railfan.net/diagrams/PRRdiagrams.html?diag=X29-E73579.gif&sel=box&sz=sm&fr=
The PRR X29 should be 13'3" over the roofwalk, and 13' 11.25" over the vertical brakewheel.
Measuring my Red Caboose X29 cars I see the height varies a bit (they don't all have the same trucks), but tends to run a little - maybe 6" high at most, but the roofwalk is a little thick. However, cars this short (less than 13' 6" I think) don't need to have EXH listed at all (although they sometimes do). They do need to list H, but that's supposed to be the height at the widest part of the car - 12'6". That said, things seem a little inconsistent in dimension markings - My Micro-trains Maine Central 1923 "USRA" Boxcar shows EXH as 13'4", and it's just about spot on. The similar Reading car show H (no EXH) as 13'3" - again, it's very close on the model.
-
Which freight cars don't need to be lowered?
The ones owned by Bryan Bussey. ;D
Ron Bearden
-
Which freight cars don't need to be lowered?
The ones owned by Bryan Bussey. ;D
Ha! Getting there. So many cars, so little time! 8)
... The similar Reading car show H (no EXH) as 13'3" - again, it's very close on the model.
If you only see "H" instead of "EXH," use the "H" that is to the right of "EXW."
Good to know that the MTL USRA car is close enough. I still prefer the Red Caboose version, which has the truck bolsters properly placed.
-
Fox Valley 40' Milwaukee boxcars (various) [corrected per Bryan's note below]
Here is what the FVM Milwaukee boxcar looks like after being lowered and having the couplers body-mounted:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_DXJWRK5Z-_8/TJL2LkGkx9I/AAAAAAAAAUQ/YFXBEvJeNQE/s800/fvm9902a.jpg)
-
Bryan... how are you determining if a car needs to be lowered or not? Do you have the height from TOR for all the models you listed, or are you just being subjective?
A combination of the two in some instances, since as you have noted not all paint schemes used on the various models are prototypical. If the model is within a couple of inches I consider it to be at prototypical height.
-
What a great thread....sticky!
-
Great thread! I thought I was the only one picky about equipment height.
A more systematic approach to this issue would be to establish personal measured “standards” for equipment height, instead of just doing it “by eye”. For each type of equipment, the standard could either be the scale height, or some other height which the modeler feels is a more practical compromise, given personal preferences.
To facilitate checking model car height against one’s standard, one may want to create a jig. Here’s an image of a jig which I made. Its main advantage is that it allows a more precise measurement from railhead to the top center of the end of the car, independent of viewing angle. One first adjusts the height of the bar relative to the rail head at that end of the tool, using a scale ruler. Then one tightens up the clamp. The bar in the image happens to be set for 14’ (for F7s). This jig can also be used to check for car sideways lean, by putting a small machinist’s square vertically along side the car on the “shelf” and sighting from one end of the jig.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-gaS4rOxuZmM/Vk5ANt9q2BI/AAAAAAAAAUo/faslS9jxs-E/w1000-h616-no/car_height_gauge.jpg)
The following is an example of the type of height standards compromise which a particular modeler might decide on. It derives from my experience back in the 1980s, when I last did significant work on my layout (which has been in a state of suspended animation since). This issue almost certainly needs to be revisited by me, in light of currently available N-scale products and improved modeling standards.
Anyway, back then I had decided that some equipment was so off that adjustment to actual dimensions was impractical (personal decision here). For example, the steel ice reefer shells I was modifying to represent R-40-20s (above image) could only be lowered so much before they started looking worse. This was because the model car body width was excessive when compared with the width of the MT trucks I use, thus making the body overhang the trucks when viewed from above and to the side, thus making the car look too “low” when viewed from that angle. So I settled on reducing the height to 14’ instead of to the actual 13.5’.
Based on similar reasoning, here were some of my actual prototype / standard modeled heights. The models would have been adjusted to match the 2nd number. Note that in all cases the models were originally even higher, as produced by the manufacturer:
EMD F7 diesel 14’ / 14’
PS-1 box car 15’ / 15.5’
R-40-20 reefer 13.5’ / 14’
R-40-25 reefer 13.7’ / 14.2’
MH
-
If this thread is going to live on, I think some correction and clarification is needed in regards to the data printed on our cars (box cars in particular).
[attachimg=1]
There is no measurement for overall height which in the case of the car in the graphic is 15' 1".
Jason
-
Jason: That's what I thought. Most railroads aren't interested in the actual height, only if it will fit their clearances. That's what the "Plates" are for. As long as the car is within the maximum height for its plate the railroad will be satisfied.
The shipper may be interested in the maximum usable height, but for a boxcar that's the inside height, which isn't much help to modelers.
I have a gauge, looks like a portable tunnel portal, cut to fit the Plate B height of 15-1. Probably should make one for Plate C (15-6), but i was mostly interested in lowering the IM mechanical reefers.
I would also add the Con-Cor 40 ft boxcars to the list. If anything, they seem to sit too low, and certainly aren't too tall.
-
Sorry if I sound a bit confused- isn't this about making the sill to truck height look more realistic, rather than the overall height of the car? :?
-
Sorry if I sound a bit confused- isn't this about making the sill to truck height look more realistic, rather than the overall height of the car? :?
I guess if you can count on the body being uncompressed, then both.
-
Sorry if I sound a bit confused- isn't this about making the sill to truck height look more realistic, rather than the overall height of the car? :?
Exactly what I thought was more important. I've read where some of MT cars are the proper height from rail to top of car, but they are NOT the proper height above the trucks.
-
I guess if you can count on the body being uncompressed, then both.
Thanks Tom, I see how both could come into play in terms of realism.
-
Which freight cars don't need to be lowered?
The ones owned by Bryan Bussey. ;D
Ron Bearden
Also any 50' boxcars that have been retrofitted with Hydra-Cushion or Keystone underframes purchased from Bryan Bussey :D
-
Sorry if I sound a bit confused- isn't this about making the sill to truck height look more realistic, rather than the overall height of the car? :?
Both the overall height, and the height above the rail are important, IMHO. This leads to complications when one lowers a car whose body is "stretched" in the vertical dimension (e.g. Microtrains PS-1 box car). Back in the 1980s, I handled that issue by lowering the car on its trucks, but only part way, as mentioned in my post above. A better way to address that issue is with additional labor, as mentioned in this thread: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=28313.0 (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=28313.0). Some sort of jig would be helpful for the sill modifications. This is what I plan to do going forward, as I don't want to throw out all my MT PS-1s. I will probably also lower the truck bolsters, so that half of the remaining excess car body height is "below" the correct scale position of the car body. A jig for lowering bolsters can be created by using a shimmed flat file. One tapes temporary shims to each end of the file, puts the floor of the box car upside-down on a flat surface, and files it down to the shimmed level.
MH
-
Both the overall height, and the height above the rail are important, IMHO. This leads to complications when one lowers a car whose body is "stretched" in the vertical dimension (e.g. Microtrains PS-1 box car). Back in the 1980s, I handled that issue by lowering the car on its trucks, but only part way, as mentioned in my post above. A better way to address that issue is with additional labor, as mentioned in this thread: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=28313.0 (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=28313.0). Some sort of jig would be helpful for the sill modifications. This is what I plan to do going forward, as I don't want to throw out all my MT PS-1s. I will probably also lower the truck bolsters, so that half of the remaining excess car body height is "below" the correct scale position of the car body. A jig for lowering bolsters can be created by using a shimmed flat file. One tapes temporary shims to each end of the file, puts the floor of the box car upside-down on a flat surface, and files it down to the shimmed level.
"Raising" the sills on the various MTL PS-1 boxcars won't solve the problem. The door height is correct even though the car height is exaggerated, so both of the door tracks are out of position. The roof remains too high even after Mike's modification, even though the model looks much better with the lower sills re-cut. There really is no way to make the model prototypical in one area that doesn't affect another area.
-
Exactly what I thought was more important. I've read where some of MT cars are the proper height from rail to top of car, but they are NOT the proper height above the trucks.
It depends on the model. Some are height-compressed, such as the FMC series of 50' boxcars. Some ride too high but proportioned correctly, such as the flatcars and wood reefers.
-
"Raising" the sills on the various MTL PS-1 boxcars won't solve the problem. The door height is correct even though the car height is exaggerated, so both of the door tracks are out of position. The roof remains too high even after Mike's modification, even though the model looks much better with the lower sills re-cut. There really is no way to make the model prototypical in one area that doesn't affect another area.
I only own one Atlas PS-1 (with an 8-foot door), but in comparing it to my MT PS-1s it appears that the lower door track is farther from the bottom of the sill on the MT model. Thus, cutting away the bottom of the MT sill positions the door track closer to the bottom edge of the sill, as in the Atlas model and as in the plans in Mainline Modeler magazine. This also reduces the height of the car, and filing down the bolsters reduces it more, to within a few scale inches of the prototype's 15-foot roofwalk height. For me, that's good enough for now. Remember, the rest of the stuff on even the best quality layouts is often off by more than this.
I admit that the Atlas PS-1s look nice, and I was considering replacing my PS-1s with them. However, I don't like the wheelsets and the body-mounted couplers, and the Atlas design makes it difficult to switch to MT truck-mounted couplers (my layout standard).
MH
-
The ideal solution would be the N scale equivalent of Accurail's HO 40' and 50' boxcar underframes.
Whether anyone wants to cough up the $ to make them in N scale to sell at about $4 each is another story...
-
I only own one Atlas PS-1 (with an 8-foot door), but in comparing it to my MT PS-1s it appears that the lower door track is farther from the bottom of the sill on the MT model. Thus, cutting away the bottom of the MT sill positions the door track closer to the bottom edge of the sill, as in the Atlas model and as in the plans in Mainline Modeler magazine. This also reduces the height of the car, and filing down the bolsters reduces it more, to within a few scale inches of the prototype's 15-foot roofwalk height. For me, that's good enough for now. Remember, the rest of the stuff on even the best quality layouts is often off by more than this.
I admit that the Atlas PS-1s look nice, and I was considering replacing my PS-1s with them. However, I don't like the wheelsets and the body-mounted couplers, and the Atlas design makes it difficult to switch to MT truck-mounted couplers (my layout standard).
MH
If you find a way to use MT trucks w/couplers, I'd happily take those Atlas Barber trucks off your hands...
-
The ideal solution would be the N scale equivalent of Accurail's HO 40' and 50' boxcar underframes.
Whether anyone wants to cough up the $ to make them in N scale to sell at about $4 each is another story...
In looking at the MT PS-1s, the main issue isn't underframes, it's the vertical dimension of the shell being too large. Brake detail can be made more visible via Precision Scale plastic detail parts: http://www.precisionscaleco.com/ (http://www.precisionscaleco.com/)
MH
-
I would have to say my old MDC/Roundhouse boxcars are some of the lowest riding cars in my entire fleet.
-
I only own one Atlas PS-1 (with an 8-foot door), but in comparing it to my MT PS-1s it appears that the lower door track is farther from the bottom of the sill on the MT model. Thus, cutting away the bottom of the MT sill positions the door track closer to the bottom edge of the sill, as in the Atlas model and as in the plans in Mainline Modeler magazine. This also reduces the height of the car, and filing down the bolsters reduces it more, to within a few scale inches of the prototype's 15-foot roofwalk height. For me, that's good enough for now. Remember, the rest of the stuff on even the best quality layouts is often off by more than this.
I admit that the Atlas PS-1s look nice, and I was considering replacing my PS-1s with them. However, I don't like the wheelsets and the body-mounted couplers, and the Atlas design makes it difficult to switch to MT truck-mounted couplers (my layout standard).
MH
I'm the reverse — can't stand truck-mounted couplers or plastic wheels. I get far more operational reliability from body-mounted couplers and metal wheels.
The problem with "raising" the sill on the MTL car is that you lose the lower belt rail in the process. You also will have to remove more plastic from the already-compromised bottom of the ends in order to clear truck-mounted coupler swing.
I started unloading my MTL PS1s well before the Atlas model was released, once I discovered how much the model varied from the prototype. In fact, I've parted with most of the MTL models that are compromised and can't be corrected.
Regarding other models being "off" — there are a substantial number of current models that are indeed faithful to their prototypes regarding outside dimensions and ride height. MTL has some models that do as well. But the PS1 boxcars are not among them.
-
MH: It doesn't look like converting the Atlas PS-1 to truck mounted couplers would be that hard, just tedious if you have to do too many. With that metal underframe I'd do it this way:
Cut the end off the existing underframe behind the coupler. No need to take the coupler apart, just cut the frame off. Maybe someone else will want the couplers and frame pieces for their cars?
Replace the cut off sections with styrene sheet to fill the gaps and keep the floors centered. Just glue the styrene to the car, and stick the floor back in between them. Paint the pieces to match the floor.
Install your trucks and couplers. Here's where you might have a compromise. I suspect that you might need the MT washers to raise the car to clear the couplers. If so, you can use them, or do some more cutting.
If you want to keep the car at the right height, cut the entire end of the floor off, back to the bolster. Use a thin piece of styrene to fill the gap, so there's more vertical room for the coupler. You might also have to grind some of the floor behind the bolster to clear the flanges, depending on whether you use lo-pros or pizza cutters.
I did the same thing with my new MT 60 ft boxcar, to get rid of the very strange coupler mount it had. I just cut the end off the floor and used a 1025. It looks a lot better.
-
In looking at the MT PS-1s, the main issue isn't underframes, it's the vertical dimension of the shell being too large. Brake detail can be made more visible via Precision Scale plastic detail parts: http://www.precisionscaleco.com/ (http://www.precisionscaleco.com/)
MH
What I had in mind was an underframe that's:
1 - "Generic" enough to use on multiple 40' or 50' cars (vs. Hydra-Cushion, etc.)
2 - plastic (less weight than metal, but easier to modify, whether to fit a specific model or to modify details);
3 - accepts frame mounted couplers; and
4 - bolsters that don't require trucks that overcompensate for them, e.g. BLMA
-
What I had in mind was an underframe that's:
1 - "Generic" enough to use on multiple 40' or 50' cars (vs. Hydra-Cushion, etc.)
2 - plastic (less weight than metal, but easier to modify, whether to fit a specific model or to modify details);
3 - accepts frame mounted couplers; and
4 - bolsters that don't require trucks that overcompensate for them, e.g. BLMA
What are you willing to spend on a replacement under frame?
The easiest solution is 3D printing. I need to make a couple adjustments but this is for the Athearn PS-1 cars with Hydrocushion frames.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-CCR-jfu2Pho/VeKNLY1zQoI/AAAAAAAAJ1s/CsJoOfWBMfw/s800-Ic42/hydroframe.jpg)
I'm doing my best to keep it around $15 in FXD and it needs add on brake detail.
Jason
-
What are you willing to spend on a replacement under frame?
The easiest solution is 3D printing. I need to make a couple adjustments but this is for the Athearn PS-1 cars with Hydrocushion frames.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-CCR-jfu2Pho/VeKNLY1zQoI/AAAAAAAAJ1s/CsJoOfWBMfw/s800-Ic42/hydroframe.jpg)
I'm doing my best to keep it around $15 in FXD and it needs add on brake detail.
Jason
Hydro frame :D
-
Another use for a Shapeways Hydro Frame u/f would be the early PS X-post cars built for Southern, etc.
RMC has drawings for anyone that wanted to make the body with Shapeways or kitbash from an Athearn 60' auto parts car....
-
It depends on the model. Some are height-compressed, such as the FMC series of 50' boxcars.
Interesting comparison over on Trainboard concerning this car...
http://www.trainboard.com/highball/index.php?threads/atlas-fmc-5077-compaired-to-mtl-rib-side-car.95775/
-
The new Atlas model is superior to the MTL model in every aspect, as the reviewer on Trainboard has noted.
-
The new Atlas model is superior to the MTL model in every aspect, as the reviewer on Trainboard has noted.
Noted, however, I was a little surprised by the dimensions being similar.
-
Likely a happy accident since the MTL car was supposed to represent the larger plate C cars with the sides compressed to compensate for the ride height...
As already noted up thread... :)
-
Likely a happy accident since the MTL car was supposed to represent the larger plate C cars with the sides compressed to compensate for the ride height...
As already noted up thread... :)
There's also the issue of maintaining the correct distance between the truck centers when lowering these cars.
The underframe were designed for MTL trucks with offset kingpins, which means that the use of BLMA trucks with centered kingpins to lower these cars also comes with the consequence of reducing the distance between the truck centers...
-
The fact that the body is height-compressed makes it unusable in my mind. I unloaded nearly all of my 25/26/27/30000 series MTL cars years ago, and any still in my possession have been regulated permanently to the auction pile.
-
The fact that the body is height-compressed makes it unusable in my mind. I unloaded nearly all of my 25/26/27/30000 series MTL cars years ago, and any still in my possession have been regulated permanently to the auction pile.
I still have a few plug door cars as "stand-ins" for cars with 10' plug doors (vs 12' plug doors on the MDC car)
-
"Raising" the sills on the various MTL PS-1 boxcars won't solve the problem. The door height is correct even though the car height is exaggerated, so both of the door tracks are out of position. The roof remains too high even after Mike's modification, even though the model looks much better with the lower sills re-cut. There really is no way to make the model prototypical in one area that doesn't affect another area.
I think the high roof after modification is an artifact of my having only modified one side of the car in the photos and the underframe (and therefore the carbody) are skewed, tipping toward the camera.
But yes, the ends are still an issue, so it's not an ideal solution.