Lowering MTL Passenger Cars

[thomasjmdavis]

Here I had been figuring they were brake lines or (perhaps) something to do with generator brackets (although I would only expect that on one end of the truck), but can't find the loops in photos.  Does anyone have a way of paging Jason from MT?  Easy enough to clip them off, but given that, as a rule, manufacturers tend to eliminate any detail on a truck that might impede small radius performance or otherwise hinder the movement of the truck, it seems unlikely they would add something like this on a whim.

Tom D

[sd45elect2000]

I'm not sure what they are either but I've been putting styrene strips from side to side through them to represent brake beams.

Randy

[Loren Perry]

I've also been mystified about those loops on the ends of the truck frames. I've never seen them before MTL released their models. I've reviewed all my relevant books on Pullman, Lucius Beebe's passenger train photos, and so on, but they aren't visible anywhere. Did MTL simply mis-read a drawing or photo at some point?

[chessie system fan]

I've seen them once in a book on the B&O's Cincinnatian.  Going from memory, they were metal straps of some sort.  I think they were a little more towards the center in the picture, and consequently not as obvious as on the model.

[peteski]

I'm surprised that Shipsure did not explain these first time when the question was asked. Maybe he will this time around.

[Sokramiketes]

I always assumed it was a slight misinterpretation of the drawings, combining the brake beam bracket with an early loop for truck chains. 

[jimmo]

Well, after looking at several hundred pics of heavyweight passenger cars I have yet to see anything resembling those loops, so I'm clipping' 'em!

[NYC1956]

I looked through John Fiscella's passenger truck clinic which contains many photos. I have to conclude that the loops are poor representations of chains. The chains run between the truck sideframes and the car underbody. I guess they are safety chains to keep the trucks attached to the car in case of a derailment.

[Loren Perry]

By now, I would think Joe (Shipsure) at Micro Trains would have chimed in about this mystery and set us straight. Maybe he will in time. But if he doesn't, maybe (just maybe) this is a case of a mistake being made at the factory and there is an understandable reluctance to confirm it in print (or online.)

So to Joe or anyone else at Micro-Trains who might be reading this: if this was a simple error by the designers and toolmakers, then as far as I'm concerned, you're all forgiven! Your heavyweights are still outstanding and we're grateful to you for producing them! An occasional goof is only human. But if the loops are indeed an error, could you let us know so we can clip them off with a clear conscience? At least such a correction is extremely easy to do.

[davefoxx]

They don't need to be lowered.  You just have to extend the centersill to fill in the whitespace over the trucks and behind the coupler box.  Once you do that, the appearance improves greatly and they no longer appear to be riding high.  I used Evergreen strip styrene, .250" wide and whatever thickness was closest to the bolster thickness.

Bryan,

Are you 100% certain that these heavyweight cars are riding at the correct height?  When coupled to a Walthers 10-6 sleeper, not only is the top of the car much higher (probably not unusual considering the clerestory roof), but if memory serves me correctly (I'm not at home) it seems as if the floor height between the two cars is also not the same, i.e., a passenger would need to step up to enter the heavyweight and step down to enter the sleeper.  That leads me to believe that the MTL car should be lowered.

DFF

[jimmo]

It's also easy to move the couplers back a fraction of an inch to close the gap between cars. I drill a new hole at the back of the little mounting pad and secure the coupler with an appropriate Microtrains screw. Big improvement for those with big enough curve radii.

I'm also curious about the 'loops' on truck side frames...

Geoff

I decided to check out your idea of repositioning the couplers for a better appearance. I discovered a couple of things I didn't know about these cars. The couplers are not screwed on but pinned on with a plastic flathead pin. When I tried to pull them out I only succeeded in breaking them off which wasn't a big deal since I was going to try setting them back. I happened to have a couple of Z-scale couplers nearby and got this sinister idea of trying them first. Turns out that they fit perfectly in the existing holes and set the coupling back to a more desirable position. I tested the fit with another MTL Pullman and the results are a huge improvement. It appears that the gap is around three scale feet between the unaltered cars, the Z-scale couplers bring it down to about a scale foot. Track testing showed no problems. I'm not sure what the minimum radius is for this conversion because mine is 22". One thing for sure though, with those mystery loops cut off the trucks and closer-to-scale couplers installed, the cars look great.

[PGE_Modeller]

Bryan,

Are you 100% certain that these heavyweight cars are riding at the correct height?  When coupled to a Walthers 10-6 sleeper, not only is the top of the car much higher (probably not unusual considering the clerestory roof), but if memory serves me correctly (I'm not at home) it seems as if the floor height between the two cars is also not the same, i.e., a passenger would need to step up to enter the heavyweight and step down to enter the sleeper.  That leads me to believe that the MTL car should be lowered.

DFF

According to the 1928 edition of the Car Builders' Cyclopedia, the top of the roof of a standard Pullman car is 14' - 0 11/16" above the top of the rail.  My measurement of the Micro-Trains observation car is 1.010" or 13' - 5 5/8".  The lower edge of the M-T car side is 0.266" or  3' - 6 9/16" above the rail head compared to a prototype dimension of 3' - 7 5/8".  These dimensions make the M-T car about 1" low as far as floor height is concerned and about 6" low in terms of overall height.  The discrepancy in total height appears to be mainly in the height of the roof as the M-T car side measures 0.577" or 7' - 8 5/16" high compared to a prototype height of 7' - 6 7/8".

Cheers,

[Chris333]

So MTL added passengers to the ride height. 

[u18b]

Our local museum had some old L&N/CSX cars that had some pretty old trucks on the.

The trucks had big old chains on them.  These chains were attached to the frame.

So there was a bolster pin/king pin, and the trucks were chained the frame.

I assumed the MT loop was the first loop in what would be a chain to the frame.

[u18b]

OK.  I was wrong.

I dug up the photo.  It's a little large, so here is the link.
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/data/2535/truckLnNrev.png

This is on an old L&N diner at the Milton Depot museum in Milton Fl.

This looks the same as the MT truck.

But there are no loops on the ends.

And the chains I was thinking about connect to the bearing holder area.