Atlas (Walthers) log car - BN suggestions for Atlas

[nkalanaga]

I recently received my new Atlas log car, the old Walthers tooling. As was thoroughly discussed when these were first announced, they are a MILW prototype, so don't actually match any BN cars.  It is a nice looking model, though, and looks "right" for a BN car, in color and lettering.  However, there are a few things that could be improved for the next run, at little or no cost to Atlas.

First, my picture of the new car:

Not a great picture, but good enough for this post.  Now, a link to a picture of the prototype BN 632478:
BN 632478, the prototype for my new Atlas log car:

Not much resemblence, is there?  The most obvious differences are
1:  Straight vs fishbelly sidesills
2:  Log bunk styles
3:  Capacity.  The prototype is a 40 ton (80,000 lb) car, the model is lettered for 50 tons (110,000 lb).

Now, how about this car:
BN 633250-633399, ex-GN 32000-32999 (according to Friends of the BN Railway: http://fobnr.org/)

EDITED:  Original photo was of a 50 foot car!
Still not a true match, but a lot closer, no?  Fishbelly sides sills, modern log bunks, 50 ton capacity, lettering is laid out about the same. 

So, my first suggestion for Atlas is that, when/if they rerun the BN cars, they change the number series to match these.  They'll almost certainly change the road numbers anyway, as they do on most reruns, so it wouldn't be any harder to change all four digits than just one or two.

The other major discrepency is the trucks, which should be solid bearing, not roller bearing.  I doubt that any of the BN's "40 foot" log cars had roller bearing trucks, unless the trucks had to be changed for some reason.  Most had the same trucks that were under the obsolete box or flat cars they were built from.  It would be nice to have these changed, but I don't know if Atlas has an extended coupler, solid bearing, Accumate-equipped truck.  Tooling a new one just for this car would be ridiculously expensive.  If one wants to body mount their couplers, as I do, it is easy to change the trucks then.  The existing trucks look, and roll, very nicely, and, unlike the old Walthers, are in gauge.  I imagine most people who don't mind truck-mounted couplers won't mind the roller bearings either.

For BN modelers, one might want to add wood decking to the ends.  The MILW cars had steel plate, but the BN prefers wood, and it would also hide the screw if one body mounts the couplers.  I have six of the old Walthers cars for my lumber company, and the wood does change the appearance.  Mine is unpainted, but judging by the few deck shots of BN flatcars, they often painted theirs, at least on the green cars.  The log car pictures look like weathered black board ends.

[Missaberoad]

Great reference!

@Atlas Paul

[wazzou]

I believe the GN car is 50'.
As it is the cars are too long for the Milwaukee prototype so I trimmed 1' off each end of mine.

[nkalanaga]

Bryan:  You're right, those are.  I was looking at the wrong line in the FOBNR list.  The GN cars I was thinking of are BN 633250-633399, which are actually listed as formerly being GN boxcars.  They may have been rebuilt by the BN.

Naturally, RR Picture Archives doesn't have a picture of this series, but I found one on an obscure, and apparently no longer updated, site. 

THANK YOU! for catching that, before I renumbered my car wrong.

[nkalanaga]

Now that that's been corrected, on to my reason for being here tonight.  I body-mounted my couplers this evening, and made a few observations.  Those of you familiar with the Walthers version will recognize the changes.

1:  Atlas didn't glue the truck pins.  Wonderful, the trucks came right off, and they're now in my spare parts supply.  Most of my Walthers cars had to have new trucks, not because they were wrong, but because either the pins or the frames broke trying to get them off, to change the couplers.

2:  The bunks and brakewheel still fall off at the slightest provocation.  They glue back on easily, so not a big problems, and it does make painting easier, if you're repainting the car.  One of mine was off when it arrived, and I took the other bunks off before drilling the new coupler screw holes.

3:  Atlas has added a starter hole for the coupler screw, perfectly placed for 1015 or 1025 couplers, AND the right size for the drill bit.  You can put the bit in the hole, before starting to drill, and it won't wander.  Much easier than trying to measure, mark, and center-punch the Walthers cars!

4:  On a less pleasant note, the Atlas cars now sit about 1/32 inch higher than the Walthers.  I don't know why, but they made the body bolsters taller.  Maybe the Accumate coupler boxes needed more clearance than the Walthers Rapido boxes?  In any case, I filed mine down, so the new 1025s are at the right height.  One could also use BLMA or ESM trucks, and save the filing, or shim the couplers down and live with the taller car.  If you already have the Walthers car, you'll want to lower these, because they look odd sitting at different heights.

All in all, a nice resurrection of an unusual prototype.  The minor issues are easily fixed, even the ride height.

[wazzou]

Not having taken a picture of this car specifically, here is one with probably enough to discern the reduced length, new stirrups and shortened bunks which replicate earlier cars when log diameters were a little larger.

[nkalanaga]

Yes, the shortened ends are obvious, and the bunks are also shorter.  I've read that the MILW raised the bunk posts after the first cars were built.

In my case, the extra length isn't a problem, as my Walthers cars are all lettered for my own company.  Thus, they are "correct", regardless of any flaws...  For the BN, they're wrong any way one looks at them, so it also doesn't matter. 

Did you body-mount your couplers, or use MT replacement trucks with couplers?  If you have body mounts, you did a good job of hiding the screw!

I like your bridge too.

[wazzou]

The Milwaukee and NP both retrofitted older cars and built newer cars with taller bunks as log diameters shrunk.
Same with the log trucks of the period.
Smaller logs meant larger, taller loads in order to haul the same weight.
I model the mid-late 60's when the logs were still larger.