MTL PS-1 Sill Modifications

[bbussey]

I thought the doors were 6½-feet wide, rather than 6-feet?  And the wider doors on the double-door models are off by six inches as well?

[up1950s]

I thought there was an entire length of car-side thinness on the inside of the sill that forms a ledger board for the chassis to nest into , as well as tabs on the chassis , and detents on the shell to snap into ? How much replicating of the ledger board and detents in a new location was done to the inside of the shell ? It would be a lot of work compared to the sill reduction and re-teething of the new lower edge of the shell . 

[Sokramiketes]

I thought the doors were 6½-feet wide, rather than 6-feet?  And the wider doors on the double-door models are off by six inches as well?

Hmm, I've been using them to replace doors on FVM ribsides and they inlay just fine into the FVM tooling...  If they are wide, well, the next thread will be titled "Will it blend?".

[Sokramiketes]

I thought there was an entire length of car-side thinness on the inside of the sill that forms a ledger board for the chassis to nest into , as well as tabs on the chassis , and detents on the shell to snap into ? How much replicating of the ledger board and detents in a new location was done to the inside of the shell ? It would be a lot of work compared to the sill reduction and re-teething of the new lower edge of the shell .

There is, and the ledger needs to be milled at the same time (or the floor sanded narrower) so the floor sits up in the body farter after modification. 

[sirenwerks]

Why not just make a whole new floor casting that's thinner to place the car body at the proper height and provide for body-mounted couplers?  Of course, it would help if it were cast in metal to keep the car's weight up.

[Sokramiketes]

Why not just make a whole new floor casting that's thinner to place the car body at the proper height and provide for body-mounted couplers?  Of course, it would help if it were cast in metal to keep the car's weight up.

So what you're saying is "jack up the horn and install a new locomotive"?  Yeah, lets just wait for more Atlas PS-1's. 

[sirenwerks]

So what you're saying is "jack up the horn and install a new locomotive"?  Yeah, lets just wait for more Atlas PS-1's.

Well, considering it's likely the majority of MTL paint jobs had no business being on a PS-1 or, if they did, had the right door width, I'd agree with you.  I was just throwin' an idea out there.

[bbussey]

Hmm, I've been using them to replace doors on FVM ribsides and they inlay just fine into the FVM tooling...  If they are wide, well, the next thread will be titled "Will it blend?".

That's good news, as it means the MTL doors remain viable for kitbashing projects.

[bbussey]

Well, considering it's likely the majority of MTL paint jobs had no business being on a PS-1 or, if they did, had the right door width, I'd agree with you.  I was just throwin' an idea out there.

A lot of the paint schemes did look good.  But going by recent PS-1 charts that we'd referenced leading up to the Atlas release, only a very small handful of the nearly 200 MTL models are prototypical (from a PS-1 6-foot door width point-of-view).  So I also am inclined to retire them as more accurate releases from Atlas and other manufacturers hit the market, if not sooner.  My fleet needs thinning anyway.

[bbussey]

Why not just make a whole new floor casting that's thinner to place the car body at the proper height and provide for body-mounted couplers?  Of course, it would help if it were cast in metal to keep the car's weight up.

If I were to consider this route, I would just cut a new styrene floor and add weight up top.  The bolsters would be styrene, with the underbody detail and body-mounted couplers being the standard MTL parts.  No need for opening doors on a moving train.  They are good for photographic diorama scenes, and that's about it.  And even with the doors open, the weight can be hidden over the bolsters as is done with the IMRC boxcars.

[sirenwerks]

No need for opening doors on a moving train.  They are good for photographic diorama scenes, and that's about it.  And even with the doors open, the weight can be hidden over the bolsters as is done with the IMRC boxcars.

I like the approach Atlas took with its 60' auto parts cars - a removable but not opening (sliding) door.  Photoistas can make the decision to place the door in an open position with a modicum of effort; the rivet mongers can switch doors out with ease and aplomb to appease their prototypical correctness; and the loopers and shelvers get a ch - ch in a shiny box no matter what.

[skm]

Is Atlas going to release 6' door PS1s before the 8' door versions? I certainly hope not! I'm looking forward to a few 8 footers in some of the mid to late 50s 'colorful' schemes. 

As an SPF, I would like at least one copy of the X48, an 8' door version of the PS1 with a cushioned underframe, they only purchased 20 of them, but what the heck!

IIRC someone posted a pic of the same series in N&W paint in one of the other PS1 threads.

As far as the MTL version, I have only 8 of their PS1 cars and they are now all marked as (sell) in my inventory. I'll have to dig them up and see if I lowered the ride height and added Z scale couplers, which will probably mean I will only get pennies for them, sadly

[nkalanaga]

A "6 foot" door is more than 6 feet wide on the prototype.  The door opening is 6 feet, and the door overlaps a little to keep the weather out.

[mark.hinds]

I was comparing the old special run from Prototype N Scale to the new Atlas car and got to thinking...

So if the MTL PS-1 body is too high, and the bottom door track should be lower, but the door is the correct height... (See Atlas PS-1 thread)

Then why not just chop off the sill tabs, carve new sill tabs into the old sill, and call it a day? 


Modified MTL compared to new Atlas. 

Somebody good at CNC milling could work this up to be modified in a single setup.  And the same setup could move the floor farther into the body and set it at the right height.  Aztec should take this up now that decoder frame milling is unnecessary!

(I don't know where the "The" on the Atlas car ended up.  It was on the pre-production cars.  Either I got a misprint or a new error got introduced when they corrected the word Compartmentalized.)

Good idea.  The higher roof line still bothers me however.  You might also consider lowering the bolster on the MT car to split the difference (so roof slightly higher and underframe slightly lower), as lowering bolsters is easy using a shimmed file. 

MH