MTL cars

[asciibaron]

How did we go from "spoon fed me information" at the start of the thread to "I'd rather do the research"?

because that's exactly what i wrote  :

[bbussey]

Uh, no it isn't.  You wanted to know which N scale models are prototypical, specifically MTL cars, because you were "getting tired" of the Atlas 40-foot boxcar.  If you were doing your own research (of which you wouldn't have to dig that deeply, especially with Internet access), you would know which models were prototypical and which ones weren't, and you wouldn't have started this thread.

Unless you consider this to be "doing research."

[asciibaron]

Uh, no it isn't.  You wanted to know which N scale models are prototypical, specifically MTL cars, because you were "getting tired" of the Atlas 40-foot boxcar.  If you were doing your own research (of which you wouldn't have to dig that deeply, especially with Internet access), you would know which models were prototypical and which ones weren't, and you wouldn't have started this thread.

my query probably should have been stated as thus:

i know that several of the MTL cars suffer from height issues - is this a shared trait?  are there other problems with the cars beyond the ride height for the pizza cutters?  

better?

[Sokramiketes]

my query probably should have been stated as thus:

i know that several of the MTL cars suffer from height issues - is this a shared trait?  are there other problems with the cars beyond the ride ride for the pizza cutters? 

better?

MTL cars will be perfect for your intended usage and current level of prototype knowledge.  A lot of us started there too. 

The Reid Bros started in the dark ages of N scale and still made everything work out better than you or I could do with current state-of-the-art rollingstock. 

The most memorable layouts are artistic.  The memorable prototype rolling stock models are precision marvals, but stand alone.  If you're the first to combine the two, I'll eagerly await the results. 

Is there a 'famous' or not famous layout that you're trying to emulate, or that at least inspires your modeling?

[asciibaron]

MTL cars will be perfect for your intended usage and current level of prototype knowledge.

do you have any clue what you are talking about?  seriously?

what is the top of rail to bottom sill height of an X51?  how about the bolster length of an H39?  i don't need to know that stuff - but if one model manufacturer does the car using the correct measurements and another does not, the incorrect model will look bad compared to the correct one, right?  

i can't possibly know the correct measurements for all freight cars and i certainly can't measure them if they are a picture on the innerwebs.  having a starting point is helpful and that's what i was looking for - a general "yeah MTL's all ride high and not all can be fixed with a trimming of the bolster because...

[wm3798]

Mike makes a good point.  We all have our pet peeves about what is and isn't available.  The element of artistry comes into play when we take those compromises, mix in some vision and creativity, and a dash of raw talent, to create a more holistic panorama that captures the "feel" of the prototype.

Tell me, why are you losing sleep over the issues of ride height and coupling distance, when you are satisfied with taking a 7 stall engine house and building the model with only 3?  Probably because:

• A.  You have room for 3 not 7
• B.  You can still pick up the recognizable architectural features, just on a smaller package
• C.  You're not worried about the appearance as much as the function in relation to the size and scope of your layout.

You can apply the same philosophy to your fleet of rolling stock and still achieve a very believable and relatively accurate portrayal of the L&HR.

As an example, The majority of my fleet is off the rack, maybe with some additions like MT trucks/couplers, weathering, maybe an improved load or what not.


I've also got some stuff I've painted and lettered to give them a more prototype feel, even though the cars themselves aren't 100% accurate.


Others have been modified to one degree or another to capture the look of cars that are unique to the Western Maryland:




None of my cars are dead on accurate models.  Taken into the larger picture, though, there's no question about what railroad, and what specific operations I'm trying to model.

I think we'll all be happy to critique and assist with tips and techniques where we can, but until we see something specific that you're hoping to achieve, it's hard to do.

Lee

[asciibaron]

None of my cars are dead on accurate models.  Taken into the larger picture, though, there's no question about what railroad, and what specific operations I'm trying to model.

I think we'll all be happy to critique and assist with tips and techniques where we can, but until we see something specific that you're hoping to achieve, it's hard to do.

fair enough.  i'm still recalibrating from Proto:87 to N scale.  i did find some manufacturers of stuff in N i didn't know existed/where doing quality stuff.  i don't hang out at an LHS and i don't get any model train magazines - so my knowledge of the marketplace is limited to what i can find on-line or what others talk about here.

[sizemore]

Seriously we're still on this topic?

[Sokramiketes]

do you have any clue what you are talking about?  seriously?

Yes.

what is the top of rail to bottom sill height of an X51?  how about the bolster length of an H39?  i don't need to know that stuff - but if one model manufacturer does the car using the correct measurements and another does not, the incorrect model will look bad compared to the correct one, right?  

i can't possibly know the correct measurements for all freight cars and i certainly can't measure them if they are a picture on the innerwebs.  having a starting point is helpful and that's what i was looking for - a general "yeah MTL's all ride high and not all can be fixed with a trimming of the bolster because...

So wait, you have no idea and don't care about prototype dimensions, but are worried about them? 

To answer your question, all ride height issues on all rolling stock can be fixed. 

Since you ignored the question about what layouts inspire you, let me give you an example.  The Reid Bros don't lower everything on their layout, they use pizza cutters, and they even have equipment on the layout with (*gasp*) shadow keystones on it!   The prototype modelers that you seem to be paranoid about visiting your layout may gasp too.  Same thing with some of Mike Danneman's equipment, and the equipment on Lance Mindheim's deceased Monon layout.  Do I know what I'm talking about?  Well, I operate on the Reid's, have visited Danneman's in person, and even own and have some of Mindheim's old N scale on display.  N scale is not Proto-48.

I do some prototype modeling.  I've also learned that even with the "expert" crowd at prototype modeler's meets, if you don't tell someone somethings wrong, 90% of the time they won't notice.  The other 10% who do notice, have likely worked on the same car or done the research themselves and are friendly about it and you can both have a good laugh about giving up at a certain point and calling it good enough or you can learn from them information you didn't locate on your own. 

One thread on Railwire isn't going to cover everything though.  That's why we need specific examples, so if you're contemplating a purchase because you spot a 50' boxcar in a scheme you like, then we can help. 

The door can be replaced on the Atlas 40' car you're lamenting.  The doors look good on the MTL 40' PS-1, but do you really want us to get started on how the 6' door is incorrect in many cases and it should be an 8'?

[asciibaron]

So wait, you have no idea and don't care about prototype dimensions, but are worried about them?  

i don't know the dimensions for cars off the top of my head and not while i'm walking around a train show.  should i bring the calipers or ask on a forum where many claim to be proto modelers before i go to a show so i have an idea what is close and what is way out there.  sorry, i have only been into N scale for a few years and kinda only with a toe in the water for the bulk of that time.  is a 50' car i see for $9.00 a good value or just a good price?  if it's not close enough for me, it's not a good value since it would require more than double the cost to correct.  a car that is $15.00 is more expensive, but in the long run might be a better value.  why is this hard to understand?

To answer your question, all ride height issues on all rolling stock can be fixed.  

sure they can, but how much work is required varies and to be honest, i don't want to spend my time rebuilding cars that are sold as being prototypical.  truck mounted couplers bother me, but i asked about them here and was given some good advice.  i figured i'd get the same type of advice, not a fanboy cryfest or to be told i don't know jack about the prototype.  i worked for a leading manufacturer as a project manager and fought very hard to get our products more proto.  i no longer work there.

Since you ignored the question about what layouts inspire you, let me give you an example.

i didn't ignore your question,  i have no answer that is easily condensed for you.

[Sokramiketes]

i didn't ignore your question,  i have no answer that is easily condensed for you.

This should have been my first post to this topic.  I'll save it for later.   

[DKS]

My advice is to carefully review the text on this web page and associated pages linked to it:

http://www.lancemindheim.com/downtown_spur2.htm

Note in particular his order of doing things. First, he built benchwork. Then, he laid track (in many places, temporary track at that). He established an operating scheme even before beginning any scenery, later using simple cardstock stand-in structures. And finally, only after he had some of the layout well along to being finished, he went to work on the rolling stock. Seems to me this methodology produces results quickly and consistently, and avoids paralysis by over-analysis. Besides, those crappy old M-T boxcars that have you up in arms should serve rather well as stand-ins (much like the cardstock structures) for ops sessions. Perhaps fretting over ride height and body-mounting couplers might best be left for another day--say, when you actually have some finished portions of layout through which to run them?

[Philip H]

Not fo rnothing, but Steve does appear to be making progress on his framing . . . .

[asciibaron]

does every moment of my hobby need to be in a step by step direction?  seems rather heavy handed to say i can't start planning my rolling stock fleet now based on a very sound operating plan.  i should let deals pass me by because i'm still on step 6 and won't get to step 13 until November?  whatever.

how many on this list have been building up rolling stock fleets and don't have a layout, but are praised for their work.  which face should i address?

[asciibaron]

Not fo rnothing, but Steve does appear to be making progress on his framing . . . .

i can even chew gum and walk at the same time.