Best Of Which freight cars don't need to be lowered?

[mark.hinds]

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/

MH

[tehachapifan]

I would have to say my old MDC/Roundhouse boxcars are some of the lowest riding cars in my entire fleet.

[bbussey]

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.

[nkalanaga]

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.

[cjm413]

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/

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

[wcfn100]

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.



I'm doing my best to keep it around $15 in FXD and it needs add on brake detail.

Jason

[cjm413]

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.



I'm doing my best to keep it around $15 in FXD and it needs add on brake detail.

Jason

Hydro frame

[cjm413]

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....

[mplsjct]

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/

[bbussey]

The new Atlas model is superior to the MTL model in every aspect, as the reviewer on Trainboard has noted.

[mplsjct]

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.

[Missaberoad]

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...

[cjm413]

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...

[bbussey]

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.

[cjm413]

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)