MT depressed center flat cars

[Cajonpassfan]

A question for you SPF's and others: do we know what prototype the MT depressed center flat car is? (MT 109010)

I recently picked one up at a swap meet in Pennsy scheme and lettering and other than its ride height, I really like it. It needs to be lowered, and I have a great load for it, but I don't want to put too much effort into an attention getter that's too much of a foobie...
Thanks, Otto K.

[JMaurer1]

This is something that I've been trying to put together for a long time now (a list of the prototypes for MT and other manufacturers N scale rolling stock). Fortunately, I do have the info that you are looking for.

The Micro Trains depressed center flat car (original number 109010) was released in Feb. 2001. The first road released was the Pennsy 470016. The prototype for the car is a Commonwealth Steel Casting Co. (CSC) depressed center flat. The actual car the MT car used is GM&O 79000, except it is not a duplicate of that car. The GM&O car did not use the buckeye trucks that MT used on their car.

CSC and similar frames were owned by a number of roads, including PRR (Class F43 not F35 as lettered on the MT release), EL, NYC, GM&O, LV, etc. There were differences between the cars that each of these railroads owned, however, given the fact that the decking was customized by the railroads.

Hope that helps...

[spookshow]

I thought MT did use Commonwealth (as opposed to Buckeye) trucks on these cars? Or at least that's what MT calls them.

MT Commonwealth -



MT Buckeye -



MT flat -



Cheers,
-Mark

[bbussey]

MTL tooled both styles of six-wheel trucks to reflect the various configurations.

The model needs to be lowered (which you can do by removing all bolster relief on the bottom of the casting since the trucks feature a humped bolster beam) and the truck centers moved outward.  You can do this by body-mounting #2004 couplers directly to the casting.  Technically, you also should drill out all of the deck holes, but that takes time and you must keep the drill bits well lubricated while drilling or they will lock.

The model appearance is much better once the trolley-car look is eliminated.

[wcfn100]

The model needs to be lowered (which you can do by removing all bolster relief on the bottom of the casting since the trucks feature a humped bolster beam) and the truck centers moved outward. 

Unless you have the original drawing, I don't know that moving the truck centers is a 'need to do'.  These cars varied a lot.  There aren't many drawings of six axle depressed center flats in the Cyclopedias, but there is one with dimensions.  The MTL car has 41' truck centers and is 58' 8" over the end sills.  The drawing has 40' truck centers and is 57' 9" over the end sills.  On some cars it also seams clear the the trucks are tucked as far towards the center as can be (which makes sense for something carrying heavy loads).

With that said, I agree that reducing the end shelf or eave (for lack of a better term(s)) past the trucks does make a more aesthetically pleasing car.   But it's not necessarily more prototypical.  As usual, check the prototype but don't concentrate only on the deck length past the trucks, but also the relation of the trucks to the center depression.

If anyone can track down a picture of a Missouri Pacific or GM&O car, I think those had examples of longer eaves like the MTL car just as a comparison.


Jason

[bbussey]

The wheelbase differential is possible, as I based my two models on NYC and NH prototypes.  But if you leave the bolsters where they are, I don't think the trucks will clear the depressed slopes if the model is lowered to a more proper ride height.

[wcfn100]

But if you leave the bolsters where they are, I don't think the trucks will clear the depressed slopes if the model is lowered to a more proper ride height.

No, you do have to grind them out.  Another thing at play could be the axle spacing of the trucks.  The drawing shows a spacing of 5' for the axles while the MTL truck measures under 4' 6" so there's a extra foot of open space that could be creating problem visually when comparing to the prototype.  In which case, moving them forward a bit is a good compromise.

Jason

[wcfn100]

Here's an Erie shop diagram that appears to be close to the MTL car as far as measurements go.



For those that don't look at a lot of drawings, shop diagrams can only be trusted for their numbers, don't make any judgments based on the actual drawing.

Jason

[Cajonpassfan]

This is something that I've been trying to put together for a long time now (a list of the prototypes for MT and other manufacturers N scale rolling stock). Fortunately, I do have the info that you are looking for.

CSC and similar frames were owned by a number of roads, including PRR (Class F43 not F35 as lettered on the MT release), EL, NYC, GM&O, LV, etc. There were differences between the cars that each of these railroads owned, however, given the fact that the decking was customized by the railroads.

Hope that helps...

Very much!
First of all, thanks Jim and to everyone who responded; very helpful.
There aren't too many F43 photos readily available on the Internet that I could find,  but I did find $400 HO brass model of an F43 that looks much like the MT car, long overhanging porches and all. Unlike the F35 car which has no overhang, the overhang on this car allows standard stirrups beyond the truck swing. The proto F43's were numbered 470271-276, six cars in all. Any decent pics or links anyone?
Thanks again, Otto

[Cajonpassfan]

Jason, thanks!
The key dimensions (overall length, bolster placement, wheelbase of trucks, and truck spacing) of the MT car are right on. Of course I think the Erie car had different trucks ....
Otto

[JMaurer1]

When the car was originally released in 2001, it only came with the Buckeye trucks. Later MT did add the Commonwealth trucks and I didn't update my info. Sorry 'bout that.

[spookshow]

When the car was originally released in 2001, it only came with the Buckeye trucks. Later MT did add the Commonwealth trucks and I didn't update my info. Sorry 'bout that.

Welcome to my world! These pesky manufacturers keep making new stuff all the time 

Cheers,
-Mark

[dougnelson]

Otto:

The answer to your question is it is close, very close, to a PRR F35 (as the MTL car is lettered), the road number is correct, as are the Buckeye trucks.  But there are minor detail differences, such as the lack of stake pockets, so I suspect that this car is some other prototype. Your call, but very few people could tell the difference.

[bbussey]

I don't know, Doug, it looks very different to me.  Aside from the stake pockets and ride height, the end decks look shorter and the overall car length appears to be shorter.

[wcfn100]

As Otto said, it's much closer to an F43.



There's one on the Conrail HS site but it's not a great shot.

http://thecrhs.org/image/view/9064/_original


Jason