Possible kitbash for MTL PS-1?

[OldEastRR]

Hey, maybe MTL will do a recall like Takata or GM and replace all the too-high boxcars it sold with correct height ones?!?!?!??? 

[mark.hinds]

Hey, maybe MTL will do a recall like Takata or GM and replace all the too-high boxcars it sold with correct height ones?!?!?!??? 

Most manufacturers of 1950s box cars have made at least some of their models too high, including MTL's PS-1, Intermountain's 1937 and 1944 AAR, and Deluxe Innovation's 1944 AAR.  Locomotives are not immune either.  The thing is that most modelers don't compare their out-of-the box models with dimensioned plans.  So, no, MTL won't.   

MH

[bbussey]

The trapizoid tabs ARE the plates over the ends of the bolster. So if the trucks don't align with them, the model is incorrect. You can't go by the underframe tooling — which has been modified multiple times over the past 45 years.

You keep pushing the false equivalency of body height and ride height, and falsely implying that the other manufacturers are equally at fault. Models that are dimensionally accurate yet ride too high over the rails can be corrected EASILY. Models that are dimensionally inaccurate cannot be corrected easily. The MTL PS-1 has so many dimensional flaws that it cannot be fixed no matter what you do.

You prefer MTL models and truck-mounted couplers, that's well-established. But falsely claiming other manufacturers' models are equally inaccurate is a disservice to modelers who may not know any better.

[wcfn100]

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.

It's always hard to decipher photographs, especially ones at angles with objects at different distances like the stirrup and truck, so I wouldn't know anything concrete to say.

I can say the Atlas truck isn't tooled exactly like the prototype truck so maybe using that as a reference isn't helping the situation either.

Jason

[cjm413]

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.

If my recollection is correct, I had to file down the bolsters on the last FVM car that I retrofitted with 1015's in place of the original truck-mounted.couplers.

[bbussey]

If my recollection is correct, I had to file down the bolsters on the last FVM car that I retrofitted with 1015's in place of the original truck-mounted.couplers.

Which means ...?  If the FVM model was equipped with truck-mounted couplers, the ride height was exaggerated so that the coupler swing would clear the ends.  It makes sense that you would have needed to lower the car — to both get it at a better ride height, and to lower the floor bottom so that the mounted 1015 would sit at the same plane as the truck-mounted coupler it replaced.  You could have just swapped in BLMA ASF Ride Control trucks.  All current releases of FVM modern boxcars run on ASF Ride Control truck frames.  None of the current releases are equipped with MTL trucks or couplers.

FVM currently issues all of its boxcar models with body-mounted couplers, so your model had to be from an earlier release.

[mark.hinds]

The trapizoid tabs ARE the plates over the ends of the bolster. So if the trucks don't align with them, the model is incorrect. You can't go by the underframe tooling — which has been modified multiple times over the past 45 years.

Incorrect if unmodified, yes.  But note that my MTL PS-1s' bolsters are correctly aligned, and that in the context of the mod I am doing, the side sill “tabs” (?) are easy to fix.  To reduce the height of the shell, I cut back the lower edge of the plastic to a constant depth, using a jig-mounted Dremel tool.  The tab portions of the side sill are then manually filed to an angle.  The nature of the process is that one can shift the trapezoidal portion of the side sill slightly in either direction.  I just didn't bother in my initial test version.  So this is a non-issue in the context of my mod. 

You keep pushing the false equivalency of body height and ride height, and falsely implying that the other manufacturers are equally at fault. Models that are dimensionally accurate yet ride too high over the rails can be corrected EASILY. Models that are dimensionally inaccurate cannot be corrected easily. The MTL PS-1 has so many dimensional flaws that it cannot be fixed no matter what you do.

You prefer MTL models and truck-mounted couplers, that's well-established. But falsely claiming other manufacturers' models are equally inaccurate is a disservice to modelers who may not know any better.

Give me a break; you are over-reacting here to the point of mis-representing my position.  I am merely stating facts relevant to this thread, which are that I own specified models from the other stated manufacturers, and that they are way too high from running board (roof walk) to railhead.  Based on quite a bit of experience in lowering cars (like 30 years plus), I am not sure that correcting the height will be easy, although I hope it will be easier than for the MTL PS-1s.  Even if I am wrong about how difficult it will be, I am stating my informed opinion in good faith.  It is not some sort of vendetta or conspiracy.  BTW, the terms “body height” and “ride height” are yours, not mine.  I have modeled for nearly 50 years of my life in scales ranging from 1/6 scale down to 1/6000 scale, and most models I own in these scales as purchased were not “dimensionally accurate”.  I know this because I actually measure things and compare them with plans.  Finally, I currently intend that most of the box cars on my layout will be Intermountain, not MTL.  My EMD FTs are Intermountain, not MTL.  There is no manufacturers prejudice here.  Rant over.

To get back to a specific example on a non-MTL N-scale box car, the Intermountain 1944 AAR special run box cars I bought recently are about a foot too high, as are the 1937 AAR cars I bought kits of back in the 1980s.  Among other contributing factors, compared with plans and photographs, the underframe appears to protrude too far below the side sill.  Unfortunately, this underframe is not a separate part, as with most manufacturers, but is cast integrally with the sides.  Hence, the side cannot easily be lowered relative to the underframe.  Based on previous experience, I may not be able to get rid of 1 foot of excess height merely by filing down the bolster in this case.  Furthermore, my normal method of filing down a bolster is to remove the underframe, place it upside-down on a flat piece of steel as a reference surface, and cut it down with a shimmed file.  This guarantees an identical level cut on both bolsters.  Obviously, this won't work if the underframe is cast with the side walls of the shell, and I will have to invent a work-around. 

Mark H. 

[bbussey]

Incorrect if unmodified, yes.  But note that my MTL PS-1s' bolsters are correctly aligned, and that in the context of the mod I am doing, the side sill “tabs” (?) are easy to fix.  To reduce the height of the shell, I cut back the lower edge of the plastic to a constant depth, using a jig-mounted Dremel tool.  The tab portions of the side sill are then manually filed to an angle.  The nature of the process is that one can shift the trapezoidal portion of the side sill slightly in either direction.  I just didn't bother in my initial test version.  So this is a non-issue in the context of my mod.

Changing one of the few features on the model that is correct to match an incorrect feature does not make the model correct, or appear to be correct. 

Give me a break; you are over-reacting here to the point of mis-representing my position.  I am merely stating facts relevant to this thread, which are that I own specified models from the other stated manufacturers, and that they are way too high from running board (roof walk) to railhead.  Based on quite a bit of experience in lowering cars (like 30 years plus), I am not sure that correcting the height will be easy, although I hope it will be easier than for the MTL PS-1s.  Even if I am wrong about how difficult it will be, I am stating my informed opinion in good faith.  It is not some sort of vendetta or conspiracy.  BTW, the terms “body height” and “ride height” are yours, not mine.  I have modeled for nearly 50 years of my life in scales ranging from 1/6 scale down to 1/6000 scale, and most models I own in these scales as purchased were not “dimensionally accurate”.  I know this because I actually measure things and compare them with plans.  Finally, I currently intend that most of the box cars on my layout will be Intermountain, not MTL.  My EMD FTs are Intermountain, not MTL.  There is no manufacturers prejudice here.  Rant over.

I also have 40+ years in in N scale and a decade in HO before that, so yeah, you're misrepresenting ride-height and prototypical accuracy.  Obviously, compromises must be made due to scale, so it's assumed that "dimensionally accurate" means "dimensionally accurate as scale allows". But if you have 50 years in the hobby, you shouldn't have problems lowering the ride height of models.  And if you're checking models against scale drawings, it should be clear if the body of the model is accurate within reason and rides too high over the rails — as opposed to a model where the body is too tall, or if the height has been compressed so that the roof height is accurate even though the ride height is too high (which actually is the more common problem that afflicts most of the MTL models rather than the body itself being too tall).

Also, given that plastic N scale roofwalks are too thick, using the eaves height is a better measurement that roofwalk height.  It's measurable on the models, and the numbers are in the ORER.  A good number of the AAR1937s and AAR1944s had metal roofwalks, so replacing the IMRC plastic roofwalk with an etched metal one also lowers the perceived height.  InterMountain has been installing etched roofwlks on recent releases, so that's only an issue with the older releases.

To get back to a specific example on a non-MTL N-scale box car, the Intermountain 1944 AAR special run box cars I bought recently are about a foot too high, as are the 1937 AAR cars I bought kits of back in the 1980s.  Among other contributing factors, compared with plans and photographs, the underframe appears to protrude too far below the side sill.  Unfortunately, this underframe is not a separate part, as with most manufacturers, but is cast integrally with the sides.  Hence, the side cannot easily be lowered relative to the underframe.  Based on previous experience, I may not be able to get rid of 1 foot of excess height merely by filing down the bolster in this case.  Furthermore, my normal method of filing down a bolster is to remove the underframe, place it upside-down on a flat piece of steel as a reference surface, and cut it down with a shimmed file.  This guarantees an identical level cut on both bolsters.  Obviously, this won't work if the underframe is cast with the side walls of the shell, and I will have to invent a work-around.   

Put BLMA ASF A-3 trucks under the InterMountain cars, which is what the majority of the prototype ran on anyway, and the bolster-filing problem is solved.  Outside of that, filing the bolsters takes a lot less effort than what you're doing with the MTLs, and yes, you can remove a scale foot of excess height without issue IF YOU BODY-MOUNT THE COUPLERS.  I've done dozens of them, both stock models and kitbashed models, and it's NOT an issue.  And, as stated numerous times in previous threads, there's an issue with how the sill fits to the floor on the 1944 model, but it can be corrected fairly easily.

[OldEastRR]

Jeez, this thing about what's wrong with the MTL cars could be a separate thread.... So if I understand this, the MTL PS-1 is stretched too high, and sets on the trucks too high, compared to the prototype? And the Atlas (new model) PS-1 is about the most accurate to prototype one in N scale? And nothing can make the MTL cars right? Does this also apply to the 50ft MTL cars?

[bbussey]

... Does this also apply to the 50ft MTL cars?

Yes.  The Athearn/ex-MDC models are more accurate and have the proper inner height.

[cjm413]

Which means ...?  If the FVM model was equipped with truck-mounted couplers, the ride height was exaggerated so that the coupler swing would clear the ends.  It makes sense that you would have needed to lower the car — to both get it at a better ride height, and to lower the floor bottom so that the mounted 1015 would sit at the same plane as the truck-mounted coupler it replaced.  You could have just swapped in BLMA ASF Ride Control trucks.  All current releases of FVM modern boxcars run on ASF Ride Control truck frames.  None of the current releases are equipped with MTL trucks or couplers.

FVM currently issues all of its boxcar models with body-mounted couplers, so your model had to be from an earlier release.

If the FVM trucks have the same bolster arm height as MTL, it follows there's another variable to account for, whether between the actual 1015's that I used and what I assumed were 1015 clones on the newer FVM cars, possibly a difference between the stock underframes.

[bbussey]

The couplers are MTL 1015 clones but the coupler boxes may not be. The clearance airspace between the top of a truck-mounted coupler box and the bottom of the floor/ends would have to be accounted for.

[Wutter]

.....You would need 125-ton trucks with 38" diameter wheels.

I missed this from earlier but I figured this might help anyone that is looking for 125 ton trucks.

This should do the job right?  http://www.modeltrainstuff.com/Kato-N-Part-125-Ton-Truck-p/kat-800112.htm

These are the same trucks as the ones on the Kato MAXI I and IV's and the top articulating mechanism is a separate piece that can just be unclipped. It will require a little bit more work to get the bolster height set right. I've never actually measured the wheels to see that actually scale to 38" but they seem either about the same size or slightly bigger than my FVM 36" wheels.

[MarkJ]

Yes.  The Athearn/ex-MDC models are more accurate and have the proper inner height.

Hello group,
I’m a relative newbie here (note the low post count).

So, the MTL 50’ cars are inaccurate too? Can you go into a little more detail about that?

You refer to Inside height, but I don’t see how that is an accurate means of comparison. Wouldn’t the thickness of the model roof be so much greater than the prototype simple due being cast in plastic? I mean if you scaled down the roof of a prototype to n scale, it would likely be too thin for handling. So, given that the n scale roof needs to be thicker, it would make the inside height less than the prototype (assuming the top of the floor is at the correct position in relationship to the sill). Wouldn’t the outside height of the ends or distance of side panels from sill to roof seem be better points of comparison? You can easily get those dimensions from published drawings. Yes, I know that inside height is how the prototypes where measure, but for model to prototype comparison, I don’t see how inside height works.

On a side note: Is there any chance the GP30 shell will ever be retooled with correct fan spacing and removal of the conduit cover in front of the dynamic fan? I guess we’ll have to live with the “wide” body as I don’t see Atlas completely retooling the drive assembly as well.

Thanks, Mark

[Mark5]

For those that are curious, here's a thread comparing MTL & Atlas PS1 models:

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=28313.0

Mark