Lowering Micro-Trains PS-1s - suggestion for MT

[bbussey]

Maybe MT could sell a aftermarket frame that lowers the ride height and for body mounting the #1015...

The ideal product is a new floor/underframe with lowered bolsters and integrated coupler pocket.  I agree that this is an option that would be favorable for MTL to pursue, but they feel the resources are better spent on new product moving forward.  And I don't know if it's viable for another manufacturer to consider it.  Most of the MTL consumer base is content with the cars as-is, or have them as collectibles rather than operational models, so I can understand how it wouldn't be fruitful for them to pursue.

[Brakie]

The ideal product is a new floor/underframe with lowered bolsters and integrated coupler pocket.  I agree that this is an option that would be favorable for MTL to pursue, but they feel the resources are better spent on new product moving forward.  And I don't know if it's viable for another manufacturer to consider it.  Most of the MTL consumer base is content with the cars as-is, or have them as collectibles rather than operational models, so I can understand how it wouldn't be fruitful for them to pursue.

Bryan,I can understand and appreciate their views but,I know another well known company that sit back on  their derrières till they(their words) lost 80% of their sales and finally went to RTR and they been trying to catch up every since and still has on going QC problems.

I can understand collectors being collectors but,what would that have to do with releases with improved ride height and mounted couplers?

What would that have to do with a aftermarket frame? A collector needn't buy those frames.

[bbussey]

Because a huge portion if not the majority of their sales goes to the collector base.  The reason they are able to offer the prototypical models is because of all the collector fantasy stuff they do.

To be fair, the new MTL models are designed with prototypical ride height and body-mounted couplers.  So moving forward, they are addressing those issues.

[coosvalley]

  The reason they are able to offer the prototypical models is because of all the collector fantasy stuff they do.

I disagree with this statement. If it were 100% true, then wouldn't Athearn/Atlas/Exactrail/ESM , etc. all have to offer some sort of fantasy/collector cars on a regular basis?

I do realize that the collector/fantasy market is a big portion of their buisness, but it doesn't have to be to be successful....it's just the path that they have chosen...

[bbussey]

I disagree with this statement. If it were 100% true, then wouldn't Athearn/Atlas/Exactrail/ESM , etc. all have to offer some sort of fantasy/collector cars on a regular basis?

I do realize that the collector/fantasy market is a big portion of their buisness, but it doesn't have to be to be successful....it's just the path that they have chosen...

I didn't say it was true for all manufacturers.  The statement was made as it applied to MTL.  And yeah, the fantasy market is by necessity a big portion of their business at this point.  It's a big cog in their solution to complete and still keep production in the States.

[nkalanaga]

All of you have good points, and I agree with many of them, but the idea was to suggest a cheap, easy solution using as much existing tooling as possible.  As dies do need replacement periodically, the actual cost would be near zero.

As for couplers, the 1015 may be a better choice, but I've been using the 1025 since that was the only option.  Also, the truck mounted couplers are 1025s, and it would be a lot cheaper to reuse as much of them as possible.

Finally, even a 1025 will work on 50 ft cars on 9 inch radius curves, so either coupler would work fine for everyone. 

I've already lowered all of mine, using a needle file, and admit that it isn't that hard.  It would be nice not to have to do it, though, and MT cars have the advantage that the undecs are available most of the time.  Imported models can be harder to find.

[Brakie]

To be fair, the new MTL models are designed with prototypical ride height and body-mounted couplers.  So moving forward, they are addressing those issues.
----------------------------
Cool!

Still wish they would release a after market frame for their older cars.

[coosvalley]

Thanks for clearing that up, Bryan.

Back to the thread, it seems easy to make your own new underframe out of styrene, and you can control ride height and coupler height as well using appropriate thicknesses of the styrene.(if I were doing large numbers, I'd make templates).....underbody detail could be included or omitted.....you could even use Evergreen car siding for the floor, so you can see that if you open the door.....

[central.vermont]

Thanks for clearing that up, Bryan.

Back to the thread, it seems easy to make your own new underframe out of styrene, and you can control ride height and coupler height as well using appropriate thicknesses of the styrene.(if I were doing large numbers, I'd make templates).....underbody detail could be included or omitted.....you could even use Evergreen car siding for the floor, so you can see that if you open the door.....

This idea sounds like something that would be a nice aftermarket piece. Maybe a cast resin frame?

Jon

[coosvalley]

Maybe a shapeways part would work......

[ljudice]

Maybe a shapeways part would work......

Let's get to work on it! I'm thinking the MTL gon is the place to start - I think there are four bodyshell variations that use the same part.

Could this be the first crowdsourced model railroad product????

BTW, what I don't get is - supposedly the MTL 53' gon is 50' to use the boxcar underframe - but it never did - there are two different gon underframes and they are not the same as for the boxcars. 

- Lou

[bbussey]

The car weight (or lack thereof) comes into play with a Shapeways-rendered underframe, especially with gondolas and flatcars.

R&D to develop new underframes for old models costs money, juxtaposed with simply cutting replacement tooling based on existing specs.  How the old models are selling with each release also factors into the equation.  When margins are tight, better to put the effort into new models designed to the current standards.  The heavyweights and the PS-2 covered hopper have body-mounted couplers and stand at the proper height, and the Greenville boxcar will as well.

I'll point out also that there have been a handful of threads over recent months questioning how the model railroad manufacturers are running their businesses.  Well, from a business standpoint, it makes little sense to tool a new underframe for 40-year-old models that aren't detailed to current standards.  The same principle applies to using the 40-year-old #1025 couplers instead of the #1015 which is the defacto current standard for body-mounted couplers.

[nkalanaga]

No, tooling a new underframe just to correct the ride height wouldn't be practical.  But, as I said, dies do wear, and sooner or later they will have to repair or replace the current one, or quit selling cars that use that underframe.  Changing the bolster height wouldn't require more than a few minutes of R&D, and could be done long before the actual tooling.

IF they decide to lower the car and install body mount couplers at the same time, the 1015 would seem to be the better choice. 

As for a third-party underframe, Shapeways would be a very expensive option, considering the number that could be sold.  It might be better to make a few masters that way then cast the production version in resin.  The cost would almost certainly be lower.

Weight wouldn't be a problem.  Stick-on weights fit nicely in the ends, and if painted black, are barely visible even with the doors open.

Building ones own isn't hard, and I've done it, a couple times on MT cars, and numerous times on scratchbuilding projects.   Building enough for a large roster would be very time consuming!

[bbussey]

You are presenting your argument with the supposition that MTL has not already considered the option, which is an error.  There are other areas of the PS-1 models that also would require attention.  The decision to move forward instead and focus precious resources on new models designed to current standards is a logical one.  And with Atlas announcing a state-of-the-art 40-foot PS-1 with multiple variations, and Athearn already utilizing the more accurate former MDC models of the 50-foot cars, the decision to move forward is justified. 

Personally, what I would do is tool another 40-footer accurately and to current standards when the PS-1 tooling wears out next - an ACF prototype for example - and just move forward on that and let the PS-1 fade into history as they did with the pizza-cutters.  That type of "reboot" allows the re-use of all the ACF schemes previously used on the PS-1 over the years, and the sales boost is there due to it being a new model.

Regarding any body-mounted scenario: it is better from a labor, production and inventory standpoint to integrate the coupler pocket into the underframe.  Far less costly in the long run.  Which is why the overwhelming majority of the models with body-mounted couplers have an integrated pocket.

As I said earlier - with a resin underframe, weight is a problem with gondolas and flatcars.

And it actually doesn't take much time to lower the bolsters on the diecast MTL boxcar underframes.  The easiest way to mount #1015 couplers on a lowered underframe is to cut a notch in the ends of the frame for the coupler box to slide into, then cement a styrene plate on top of the floor to screw the coupler box to.

[ljudice]

That's a good point Bryan - even if you lower the gons - they are still too short. 

The PS-1's were already covered, the RBOX type cars are the odd "shell itself is too short", the bulkhead flats have sills that are too short, so I guess my question is - which car would even make sense to do this for.

I'm looking over my fleet, and can't really think of one - although a simpler way of lowering FVM boxcars is something I might pursue.

- Lou