Confirmed: MT1015 works on new Atlas PS-1 Boxcars

[bbussey]

The photos don't really capture it, but I think the MT ends up sticking out a hair more than the Accumate.  After I converted the B&M car, I left the others with the Accumates, even though I'm not generally a big fan of the Accumate.

I converted my four cars today.  The coupler does extend a tad more, but the front of the MTL knuckle is fatter thicker so the coupling distance is the same.

[bbussey]

Eh, i'd never notice, plus i don't have a dremel, meaning quicker work. Plus it means reliability, and more length for my trains. Plus i can always file down the talgo box. I have some files that take very well to the delrin (and everything else for that matter) and makes quick work of it.

Body-mounts are far more reliable that truck-mounts, you can run longer trains with body-mounted equipment, and the new Atlas trucks/wheels are better than MTL trucks/wheels.  These are outstanding models.  Obviously if you prefer truck-mounts to body-mounts for your layout, it's your choice.  But don't propagate the false premise that truck-mounts are superior to body-mounts.

[jcox3751]

All,

The body mount on the new Atlas coil car is set up the same. Body mount with the box ready for a MT coupler. It is also a fantastic car.

Wish Bluford Shops would do the same. I have not checked one since the first 86 foot boxcars came out. Nice coupler design but I also like MT better.

Joe Cox
Austin, TX

[jdcolombo]

Plus it means reliability, and more length for my trains.

-Cody F.

To each his own, but I converted all my rolling stock back in the 1990's to body mounts because I found the body mount far more reliable in operations than the truck mounts.  With a body-mounted coupler, you are not putting vector pressure on the truck as a result of the coupler angle.  The truck is free to move as it needs to in order to get through curves, frogs, etc.  If you do a lot of switching, yard work, and so forth, the body mount is a far superior choice, as long as your curves are wide enough to accommodate the length of your cars (e.g., an 89' TOFC won't work on a 9" curve).

As for long trains, the only issue with body mounts is making sure they are all at the right height; it is certainly easier to guarantee correct height with truck-mounted couplers, but if you are obsessive about getting the height right, then the body mount will actually out-perform the truck mount on long trains (again, because you're not putting pressure on the truck via the coupler angle).   I for one give kudos to Atlas, BLMA, and others moving to body-mounts.  After all, HO scale has been there for at least a couple of decades.

Now my only wish is for a SCALE SIZE coupler.   I've got to believe that with modern materials and manufacturing techniques, MT or someone can make a reliable coupler more to scale.  Something on the order of the MT Z-scale 905, only set up to produce the correct coupler height in N, and able to withstand the pulling forces of at least 50-car trains.

John C.

[Ike the BN Freak]

...the body mount will actually out-perform the truck mount on long trains (again, because you're not putting pressure on the truck via the coupler angle).

I've run long trains with all truck mounts, however my long train was 120+ Atlas 90/100T hoppers all with MTs.  But think this is mostly all the same type of car with the same type of trucks and couplers.

I for one give kudos to Atlas, BLMA, and others moving to body-mounts.  After all, HO scale has been there for at least a couple of decades.

And prototype for even longer 

[nscaleSPF2]

Just received 6 of the PS-1's.  They are indeed very nice, highly detailed cars.  The overall height even looks correct, to me.  Only problem is the coupled distance between cars.  Too much distance.  (Deep sigh.)  Break out the Dremel again, Verne.  We've got some more Atlas boxcar couplers to replace.

Jim

Warning, reading this post may conflict with your own experience.  Your results may vary.

[bbussey]

All,

The body mount on the new Atlas coil car is set up the same. Body mount with the box ready for a MT coupler. It is also a fantastic car.

Wish Bluford Shops would do the same. I have not checked one since the first 86 foot boxcars came out. Nice coupler design but I also like MT better.

Joe, the Bluford coal hoppers are designed the same way.  You have to remove the bolster as well as the coupler box lid in order to change the coupler, but they also have the MTL pocket.

[Scott Lupia]

To each his own, but I converted all my rolling stock back in the 1990's to body mounts because I found the body mount far more reliable in operations than the truck mounts.  With a body-mounted coupler, you are not putting vector pressure on the truck as a result of the coupler angle.  The truck is free to move as it needs to in order to get through curves, frogs, etc.  If you do a lot of switching, yard work, and so forth, the body mount is a far superior choice, as long as your curves are wide enough to accommodate the length of your cars (e.g., an 89' TOFC won't work on a 9" curve).

As for long trains, the only issue with body mounts is making sure they are all at the right height; it is certainly easier to guarantee correct height with truck-mounted couplers, but if you are obsessive about getting the height right, then the body mount will actually out-perform the truck mount on long trains (again, because you're not putting pressure on the truck via the coupler angle).   I for one give kudos to Atlas, BLMA, and others moving to body-mounts.  After all, HO scale has been there for at least a couple of decades.

Now my only wish is for a SCALE SIZE coupler.   I've got to believe that with modern materials and manufacturing techniques, MT or someone can make a reliable coupler more to scale.  Something on the order of the MT Z-scale 905, only set up to produce the correct coupler height in N, and able to withstand the pulling forces of at least 50-car trains.

John C.

[peteski]

Since we now discuss coupler mounting,    I will say that either body mounted or truck-mounted work quite well.  What makes either ones unreliable is when you start mixing body and truck mounted couplers in the same train.

[bbussey]

Here is the coupling distance between two Atlas PS-1 boxcars equipped with MTL couplers:



Yes, it would be ideal (as with all N scale equipment) if the coupling distance was less.  But it is nearly if not exactly the same gap as with the cars equipped with Accu-Mate couplers.

Here is a Bluford hopper with MTL couplers and FVM wheelsets installed into the stock Atlas truck frames:

[Chris333]

Here is the coupling distance between two Atlas PS-1 boxcars equipped with MTL couplers:

I bought the same 2 cars.

[bbussey]

I bought these two plus one Rutland car and one of the PNS silver WP cars.  I'll be buying a dozen of the NH this coming spring and renumbering ten of them and switching the trucks to BLMA's ASF A-3 friction bearing trucks (for no reason other than as per the prototype).

[MichaelWinicki]

Any idea who's metal wheelsets Atlas is using in these new cars?

[Sokramiketes]

Any idea who's metal wheelsets Atlas is using in these new cars?

"Atlas" metal wheelsets.  *cough* FVM *cough*

[skm]

"Atlas" metal wheelsets.  *cough* FVM *cough*

I'm glad you said it! I thought they looked like FVM but it didn't make sense 
Nice to see the new Barber trucks too! (I hope they offer these as separate parts, they still don't have the National C-3 trucks under the Hart cars available separately  )