Possible kitbash for MTL PS-1?

[bbussey]

Still 38" wheels.

[wcfn100]

  However, the law of diminishing returns is still applicable where I'd rather spend my time and $ on something else...

That's an interesting statement in this situation.  In regards to the NP car that started this.  If you start with the MTL car, not only do you have to do the 10' door conversion, you have the extra work of modifying the car as-per the Model160 article to get it to look more like a PS-1. And when you're done, you still don't have a car that's as good as the Atlas one.  So what have you gained?  $12 by not selling the MTL car and buying an Atlas?

I guess that's my impasse on the subject.

With that said, any modeling is good modeling so if a surplus MTL box car gives you the motivation to do the kit bash, then go for it.  You're just not going to be able to sell the fact that because it's surplus, it's somehow lends itself better to the project.

Jason

[cjm413]

Still 38" wheels.

I'm at a loss to think of anyone that makes them 

[cjm413]

That's an interesting statement in this situation.  In regards to the NP car that started this.  If you start with the MTL car, not only do you have to do the 10' door conversion, you have the extra work of modifying the car as-per the Model160 article to get it to look more like a PS-1. And when you're done, you still don't have a car that's as good as the Atlas one.  So what have you gained?  $12 by not selling the MTL car and buying an Atlas?

I guess that's my impasse on the subject.

With that said, any modeling is good modeling so if a surplus MTL box car gives you the motivation to do the kit bash, then go for it.  You're just not going to be able to sell the fact that because it's surplus, it's somehow lends itself better to the project.

Jason

If I remove the existing sill from a MTL car to reduce the overall height of the MTL PS-1 per Model160, it should follow that I have the option of reshaping what has effectively become the new sill to match the reinforced sill per the rebuilt NP cars vs to match a stock PS-1 per Model160.

Given the sill on the Atlas model would also need to be modified, this is one less benefit that could be derived from buying an Atlas model vs recycling a MTL model.

Of course, this admittedly doesn't solve the other dimensional errors and the jacked-up bolsters that wouldn't be problems on the Atlas car.

[bbussey]

If I remove the existing sill from a MTL car to reduce the overall height of the MTL PS-1 per Model160, it should follow that I have the option of reshaping what has effectively become the new sill to match the reinforced sill per the rebuilt NP cars vs to match a stock PS-1 per Model160. ....

Given that the ENDS of the car ALSO are stretched, it doesn't matter what you do to the sides.

[mark.hinds]

Only the MTL model is too tall in the IH. The other models can be lowered to the proper ride height very easily. Of course, that would require the models be equipped with body-mounted couplers, of which you are opposed to. So for unprototypical truck-mounted couplers, yes intensive modifications would be required.

Not sure what you mean by "IH" (interior height?).  I measure a box car model's height from railhead to top of roofwalk (using my car height jig), as this is what one sees from normal viewing distance.  Lowering a too-high car is only easy if it can be done by cutting down the bolster (in my case, using another jig).  Unfortunately, the MTL PS-1 is about 1 foot too high (the Atlas is just about exactly at the correct 15-foot height), so in addition to the bolster, you have to thin the roofwalk and mess with the bottom edge of the car body (using a third jig).  I am still trying to simplify the last part of this process. 

That leaves the other N-scale 1950s 40-foot box cars I have so far acquired, including Intermountain (1937 and 1944 AAR), and Deluxe Innovations (1944 AAR), These are all way too high, especially the former.  I have less hands-on experience with these, but it appears that bolster mods may be insufficient.  If so, I disagree with your "easy" comment, above.  I get my "to roofwalk" height info for these cars from this site:  http://www.nprha.org/Lists/Rolling%20Stock%20Roster/Standard%20View.aspx .  Click on "diag no". 

BTW, the visual elements which matter to me are the heights of the roof walk and the bottom skirts (forget the correct term) of the car body above the railhead, and the gap between these skirts and the truck side frame.  From a side-view perspective, none of these have anything to do with couplers, which I see as a completely separate issue.  Of course, truck mounted requires a bit more cut-away of the end for clearance, but this is not noticeable unless you view enlarged images of the end of the car. 

Mark H. 

[cjm413]

Given that the ENDS of the car ALSO are stretched, it doesn't matter what you do to the sides.

From the perspective of an individual car that would be displayed on a table at an RPM meet with a picture of the prototype and a tag with my name in front of it, I agree that this would be unacceptable.   This flaw is also one of the reasons why I had ruled out the possibility of recycling the MTL car by cutting it down to a 10' IH car...and committing what some would consider to be "blasphemy" by painting it as a 1970's era CNW car....

From my perspective of building a "runner" version of a 10'6" IH car, I personally consider this particular flaw to be one that could hide in plain sight.

For the 50' cars that have the same problem, one possible fix is to find a car that was rebuilt with new ends.   Off the top of my head, I recall GM&O had some rebuilt 50' PS-1's that received new non-terminating ends that would need to be scratchbuilt on any given model....assuming that suitable GM&O decals actually exist after Dan Kohlberg lost the capacity to offer them in N in addition to HO 

I haven't yet compared the ends on the 40' cars with the lowered hand brakes and ladders that are admittedly to tall for a 10'6" IH car to more modern (and in many cases, taller) examples of PS ends to see the extent they may be useful for  Evans Blue Island reefers that had PS components (and slightly different door tracks vs the stock Atlas model), KCS/CNW 50' plug door cars (which would al, so need to be modernized with new gussets, ladders, etc from either the MDC or MTL model), etc.

One last car that I almost forgot about is MTL's 50' gondola with the straight sides.  Both CGW and MKT did have 50' rather than 52'6" gons built by PS, but I don't remember if the MTL model is available with the fixed PS ends needed to accurately represent them (at least before CNW beat the living $#!+ out of the ex-CGW gons and had to rebuild them with new ends, etc)

[cjm413]

Not sure what you mean by "IH" (interior height?).  I measure a box car model's height from railhead to top of roofwalk (using my car height jig), as this is what one sees from normal viewing distance.  Lowering a too-high car is only easy if it can be done by cutting down the bolster (in my case, using another jig).  Unfortunately, the MTL PS-1 is about 1 foot too high (the Atlas is just about exactly at the correct 15-foot height), so in addition to the bolster, you have to thin the roofwalk and mess with the bottom edge of the car body (using a third jig).  I am still trying to simplify the last part of this process. 

That leaves the other N-scale 1950s 40-foot box cars I have so far acquired, including Intermountain (1937 and 1944 AAR), and Deluxe Innovations (1944 AAR), These are all way too high, especially the former.  I have less hands-on experience with these, but it appears that bolster mods may be insufficient.  If so, I disagree with your "easy" comment, above.  I get my "to roofwalk" height info for these cars from this site:  http://www.nprha.org/Lists/Rolling%20Stock%20Roster/Standard%20View.aspx .  Click on "diag no". 

BTW, the visual elements which matter to me are the heights of the roof walk and the bottom skirts (forget the correct term) of the car body above the railhead, and the gap between these skirts and the truck side frame.  From a side-view perspective, none of these have anything to do with couplers, which I see as a completely separate issue.  Of course, truck mounted requires a bit more cut-away of the end for clearance, but this is not noticeable unless you view enlarged images of the end of the car. 

Mark H.

IH = interior height.

At face value, inside height is a dimension that technically may not translate well from the prototype to a model.  Practically speaking, this dimension is frequently used (and easily verified) to differentiate prototype cars where it is useful from the standpoint of measuring the height of the body.   

Conversely, the overall height of the car can be misleading when measuring a car with jacked up bolsters.   For example, the body of the MTL PS-1 is still too tall if you were lower the jacked-up bolsters, but the body of the MTL FMC 5077 was designed to overcompensate for the bolsters where it ends up being top short after the bolsters have been lowered.

Another screwup with the MTL cars is the "half bowtie" on any cars that MTL sells with the MTL roofwalk.  If you replace the MTL roofwalk with a Plano roofwalk, solving one problem comes at the expense of creating a new (and arguably bigger) problem.

[mark.hinds]

OK, here is where I am on lowering MTL N-scale PS-1s, so far.  Note the MTL PS-1 on the right is still about 6 inches too high, after lowering the bolsters and trimming the lower edge of the carbody on my jigs.  This image is not Photoshopped:



And here is where I want to go.  This image is Photoshopped by lowering the car body slightly and thinning the roofwalk; both of which are do-able on the real model, but not yet done.  Now you will note that the lower edge of the MTL car body is slightly lower than that on the Atlas PS-1, but I have images of real PS-1s (in the Mainline Modeler article) where the lower edge is closer to the truck side frames in this manner, so I am OK with it.  Note also that although I have taken liberties with the structure on the lower edge, of the carbody, that could probably be cleaned up a bit more, if it bothered me. 



In both cases the Atlas car (with the correct 15-foot roofwalk height) is at the left.  Note its roof is painted a silver color, so it doesn't show up as well as that on the MTL car in this image. 

Mark H.

[bbussey]

Yes, INNER HEIGHT because the bodies of the non-MTL cars have correct inner heights. And yes, you reduce the ride height by either shaving the bolsters or swapping in trucks with lower bolster arms. And yes, that IS easy if you aren't using truck-mounted couplers.

Also, in lowering your MTL boxcar to match the Atlas boxcar, your floor and stirrups are way too low. 

Regarding the half-bowtie on the end panels, that's a relatively new tooling change as a result of the roofwalks being thickened the last time they were retooled. All the more reason to use the better model for kitbashing and unloading the MTL relics onto collectors who'd want them.

[mark.hinds]

Yes, INNER HEIGHT because the bodies of the non-MTL cars have correct inner heights. And yes, you reduce the ride height by either shaving the bolsters or swapping in trucks with lower bolster arms. And yes, that IS easy if you aren't using truck-mounted couplers.

Also, in lowering your MTL boxcar to match the Atlas boxcar, your floor and stirrups are way too low. 

Regarding the half-bowtie on the end panels, that's a relatively new tooling change as a result of the roofwalks being thickened the last time they were retooled. All the more reason to use the better model for kitbashing and unloading the MTL relics onto collectors who'd want them.

Hmmm... 

I humbly suggest that IH is a bad dimension to use when modeling the exterior of a box car.  Did you see the NP site I posted with the dimensioned exterior plans? 

WRT the floor on the lowered MTL PS-1, it can't be seen unless you open the door.  WRT the stirrups, here's a prototype photo; I think the Atlas stirrups are too high.  Also, note the over-scale detail on the Atlas car, such as the grab irons and weld seams.  That being said, I still agree with you that the Atlas model is better, *if* the decision is whether to buy one or the other new. 



Mark H.

[cjm413]

And yes, you reduce the ride height by either shaving the bolsters or swapping in trucks with lower bolster arms. And yes, that IS easy if you aren't using truck-mounted couplers.

It would be nice if there was a more uniform standard for N scale freight car trucks, as it is possible for a single prototype truck to have up to 4 corresponding variations:

1) High bolster arm with offset kingpin (like most MTL trucks)

2) High bolster arm with centered kingpin (like most Atlas trucks after the Accumate coupler boxes have been removed)

3) Low bolster arm with offset kingpin (like FVM trucks for cars with MTL 1015 clones)

4) Low bolster arm with centered kingpin (like BLMA)

[bbussey]

You can tell the height of the floor on a closed-door car by the height of the rivet line or weld line at the bottom of the car.

It's better not to have a standard on the truck bolsters actually.

FVM's offset bolster ASF trucks (roller and friction) have the same bolster height as the MTL trucks.  The purpose was to remove the need for the MTL trucks that the older models were designed for.  Same thing applies to the ESM XIH boxcar, which now uses the FVM/Trainworx MTL-style offset-bolster ASF A-3 trucks.

The only "low-bolster" trucks are the Atlas ex-BLMA ASF trucks, the Atlas Andrews trucks on the USRA boxcars, the Atlas Barber S-2A 50t trucks on the PS-1s, the AFFA BLMA clones used on various models (such as the IMRC and WOT 53' flatcars and the FVM Wagontop), the Barber S-2A 70t trucks on the Prarie Shadows ECC gondolas, and (I think) the Barber S-1 trucks on the Rapido meat reefers.

And ironically, the current tooling iterations of the MTL models do not have an offset bolster hole, so the trucks do not align with the bolster detail on the sides of the models.  The offset bolster underframes disappeared when they were retooled with the separate detailed plastic sills and break detail.  Some models never had offset bolster holes to begin with.  So unless you are going to re-drill bolster holes, the MTL trucks should be replaced even on MTL rolling stock — unless you replace them with trucks with the medium-extended coupler, as those are the only MTL trucks with a centered bolster hole.  The truck would then align with the bolster detail on the models (and have the proper wheelbase), but you then would have to remove the truck couplers and body-mount.  I have done that when I've needed a truck style that only MTL makes — ordered the truck frames direct from MTL and removed the medium-extended coupler tongue.

And for those who wish to have proper friction-bearing caboose trucks on their wood MTL cabooses or subsequent kitbashes, the FVM Wagontop caboose trucks are the correct bolster height and offset for the 50000/51000 series models.

[wcfn100]

Note the MTL PS-1 on the right is still about 6 inches too high, after lowering the bolsters and trimming the lower edge of the carbody on my jigs.

At this point it's not so much that the model is too high because the sill is the right height off the rails.  The models remains 6" too tall however.

I think the Atlas stirrups are too high.

But they aren't in reality.  Proto PS-1 stirrups are 23" from the rail which is what the Atlas model measures.

Jason

[mark.hinds]

You can tell the height of the floor on a closed-door car by the height of the rivet line or weld line at the bottom of the car.
(text removed)
And ironically, the current tooling iterations of the MTL models do not have an offset bolster hole, so the trucks do not align with the bolster detail on the sides of the models. 
(text removed)

First Bryan comment:  True, but I don't find that to be noticeable compared with the improvement from the height correction.  If it were to bother me later, I could perhaps scribe a new weld line to represent the side sill.  At least there is no need for rivet detail. 

Second Bryan comment:  The bolster on the MTL PS-1 frame is aligned with the truck on my models.  What is slightly off is the trapezoidal-shaped thing on the side sill (my terminology may be off here).  That could be corrected when the lower edge of the plastic shell is cut back.  The image I posted is of a hack-job prototype. 

At this point it's not so much that the model is too high because the sill is the right height off the rails.  The models remains 6" too tall however.

But they aren't in reality.  Proto PS-1 stirrups are 23" from the rail which is what the Atlas model measures.

Jason

First Jason comment:  True; we are in agreement on this WRT the first picture.  Then, as the next step, we lower the shell by 3 inches and thin the roofwalk by 3 inches, and get the second picture, where the height is 15 scale feet, as with Atlas.  This doesn't change the height of the center sill. 

Second Jason comment:  Can't comment on the 23" statistic, but what about the AT&SF image?  Note how the stirrup overlaps the journal box.  I admit the MTL stirrup may be a touch low, but to my eye, the Atlas is a touch high.  If this bothered anyone, I suppose the stirrups could be replaced by brass wire. 

Again, I admit that the Atlas PS-1 would be a better buy if purchased new, because even though the detail is slightly more crude, the overall dimensions are better.  This latter is what I see from normal operating distance, and correlates with the type of proportional "consistency of presentation" I hope for on my layout.  However, I think that if one already has MTL PS-1s, and likes the paint jobs, that a decent mod can be produced, as illustrated in my second image above (the Photoshopped one). 

MH