In pursuit of the perfect ATSF Ce-3 caboose

[randgust]

Well, I went through and got a Life-Like shell to see if I wanted to stop the second project and move to that as a basis for the next ATSF caboose project.

At first, I was convinced the LL shell was really superior to the Trix, now I'm not so sure.  Remember I'm tossing frames, roofwalks, trucks, and rails so the only things of interest is the body shell itself.   Both have the radial roofs.

I'll grant that the rivets are noticeably smaller on the Life-Like under magnification.  But the big surprise was that the windows muntins, frames, etc. are much, much fatter on the LL than on the Trix.  Much thicker.  As far as I can measure (can't get the micrometer tips in there) looks like .025 on the window centers on the Trix vs. .040 on the LL, same with the frames.  Panes much smaller on the LL.

Overall dimensions are very close, with the grabs cut off the LL is .010 shorter at the frame in length, .005 narrower at the frame at width; side height to roofline identical between the two.

For some inexplicable reason the end door windows are two different sizes on the LL.   Cupola dimensions and detail are identical, just slightly more pronounced on the Trix.

So if rivits bother you and you don't mind filing out 10 windows without screwing them up, the LL is the choice, if you're OK with the rivits and want better windows stay with the Trix.

I considered stopping work on the Trix and taking my etched parts and putting them on that body, have now decided to continue.   I'd certainly use an LL, and if I was going through all the work to make Ce-1's by plugging the windows I think that would be the first choice, but the IM's have that all beat hollow now.

[bbussey]

OK, so....

1)  It's a bumblebee, it's not supposed to fly, but it does, the 1023's are working just fine. That's why I'd put 2004's on to begin with (read the thread).  I was skeptical, but 'road trials' proved it wrong.  Nothing messes up theory like test results.  I was astounded when even the electromagnet couldn't yank a 2004 coupled to 1001 apart, just sat there under slack.  Head is too fat on the new 2004's.  1023's are already modified on the heads for RDA.  I may shim up the back of the box so that the heads don't droop, but as long as it's working.....it's at the risk of beating up the paint and detail one more time.

I have been reading the thread.  I suggested #2004 knuckles in a #1015 box, rather than a conventional #2004.  You also can apply graphite on the coupler parts to make them behave properly when standing over a magnet.  The low #1023 couplers will be an issue at some point, plus the spring is behind the post so the caboose will oscillate as the consist moves forward unless your light circuit pickups are creating enough drag.

Since you're etching add-on parts, it's just as easy to etch finer window frames for the Life-Like body.

[randgust]

I have no idea where you think I'm etching my own parts, I'm adding etched parts.  Mostly the see-thru running boards from GMM, brake wheels, ladders.

If you'd like micro-mark etching set, I certainly have one I'll sell you !  I have made my own etched parts, and I'll never, ever, ever do that again.  Nothing I ever want to do in N scale can justify the resulting mess, hazards, and time involved on that one. 

The new 2004's I got are .020 higher in the head than the 2004's I got about 10 years ago (.110 on the head, no kidding), way big, ugly, and they don't work right either.  The vintage 1023's are working just fine (still marked "Kadee"!), shimmed the back of the box down .020 to bring the lead edge up from the slight 'droop', and the vintage 1023's salvaged from my 70's era Trix cabooses still measure .090, same as a current Z coupler head.  I've got another thread going on that one regarding the inflated dimensions of MT couplers over 20+ years.

Drag spring is now on one axle, no oscillating either. The Kato trucks don't have pickups, all end axle pickups, roll like an eel in oil, effectively too well.  But overall, this car is working great, very happy with it.

I'm moving on to the next one, which will be probably doing a 1650-class or something similar, an unrebuilt car for work train/non-mainline service, something different than the growing fleet of IM Ce-1's.  There were a surprising number left that hadn't been rebuilt in '72.