Possible kitbash for MTL PS-1?

[wcfn100]

You refer to Inside height, but I don’t see how that is an accurate means of comparison.

Inside height is just a way to differentiate from overall height or probably more specifically "ride height" which many cars have even if they are dimensionally correct.  The MTL car is about 6" too tall on the body which also creates issues with other details and dimensions.

And yes the 50; car have the same issue(s).

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?

One can only hope.  I even tried to talk Arnold into doing one last time I saw them at a show (hey, they asked).  I always hold hope whenever the Atlas catalog comes out and doesn't include GP30s that's a sign that they'll finally bring them up to current standards.

Speaking of which the current catalog doesn't list them...hmm.

Jason

[wcfn100]

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. 

I'm going to have to ask you to be more specific with these other models.  I just measured the IM 1937 car and in terms of the height of the car from sill to top of the sides and it's correct. So what about that car you saying is too high?

And this the second mention I've seen to an IM 1944 car, which one is that?

The Deluxe car is about 1.75" too tall from sill to top of sides. 

edit: changed eaves to 'top of side' because they are different things

Jason

[cjm413]

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.

At the time, I recall that I had run across an older run car that didn't yet have frame-mounted couplers where I simply grabbed the coupler gauge to confirm nothing more than the correct coupler height vs grabbing one of my newer run FVM cars (of the same type) to see how each and every variable adds up, whether to a uniform coupler height or the overall height of two otherwise identical cars. 

Based my assumption that the dimensions of both the coupler boxes and underframes were otherwise identical (at least before I lowered the bolsters), I had figured that the new FVM trucks that resembled BLMA trucks with offset kingpins also had lower bolster arms to get the correct coupler height.

[mark.hinds]

I'm going to have to ask you to be more specific with these other models.  I just measured the IM 1937 car and in terms of the height of the car from sill to eaves and it's correct. So what about that car you saying is too high?

And this the second mention I've seen to an IM 1944 car, which one is that?

The Deluxe car is about 1.75" too tall from sill to eaves. 

Jason

I'll answer this, but I'm giving up on Mr. Bussey, who has been reduced to creating straw men, presumably in order to bolster his ego. 

Jason:  IMHO, the important thing in freight car heights is the external height between the rail head and the top of the roofwalk (running boards).  I also care about the height of the underframe above the rail head, but to a lesser degree, so I do that "by eye".  I know one can measure other things, but the overall external height is what I notice when I look at these models.  If this external height is more than dimensioned plans, such as those on the NP site I referenced above, then I call the car "too high".  BTW, I measure the height of my equipment using this jig.  The horizontal bar is set based on measurement with a scale ruler. 



The N-scale MTL PS-1 is about 1 foot too high.  I had been cutting down the bolsters to reduce that by 6".  Then a couple of years ago, someone started a thread where they cut back the lower edge of the MTL PS-1, allowing the shell (in theory) to be lowered.  So my current preferred method for improving MTL's PS-1s now involves this as well.  It allows the shell to be lowered 3" relative to the frame/floor, without getting too close to the truck side frames (This is a judgement call based on photos.  Lowering the shell does involve deepening the coupler clearance notch in the ends, which may not be acceptable to some; I can live with it).  The final 3" can be removed by thinning or replacing the roofwalk.  This is shown in my second side-by-side image earlier in this thread (Atlas car with silver roof on left; MTL PS-1 modified on right).  To clarify for the purists, like Mr. Bussey, this is what some people call a "kitbash".  I am happy with it, and anyone who isn't is free to trade in their MTL cars for Atlas. 



Intermountain calls their 1944 AAR-type car "10'6" Modified AAR 40' Boxcar".  See here http://www.intermountain-railway.com/n/nboxcars.htm

If this doesn't make sense, let me know. 

Mark H. 

[cjm413]

Inside height is just a way to differentiate from overall height or probably more specifically "ride height" which many cars have even if they are dimensionally correct.  The MTL car is about 6" too tall on the body which also creates issues with other details and dimensions.

And yes the 50; car have the same issue(s).

One can only hope.  I even tried to talk Arnold into doing one last time I saw them at a show (hey, they asked).  I always hold hope whenever the Atlas catalog comes out and doesn't include GP30s that's a sign that they'll finally bring them up to current standards.

Speaking of which the current catalog doesn't list them...hmm.

Jason

The mechanism may be too wide for a new shell with a scale width hood.

[cjm413]

I'll answer this, but I'm giving up on Mr. Bussey, who has been reduced to creating straw men, presumably in order to bolster his ego. 

Jason:  IMHO, the important thing in freight car heights is the external height between the rail head and the top of the roofwalk (running boards).  I know one can measure other things, but the overall external height is what I notice when I look at these models.  If this external height is more than dimensioned plans, such as those on the NP site I referenced above, then I call the car "too high".  BTW, I measure the height of my equipment using this jig.  The horizontal bar is set based on measurement with a scale ruler. 



The N-scale MTL PS-1 is about 1 foot too high.  I had been cutting down the bolsters to reduce that by 6".  Then a couple of years ago, someone started a thread where cut back the lower edge of the MTL PS-1, allowing the shell (in theory) to be lowered.  So my current preferred method for improving MTL's PS-1s now involves this as well.  It allows an extra 3" from lowering the shell.  The final 3" can be removed by thinning or replacing the roofwalk.  This is shown in my second side-by-side image earlier in this thread. 

If this doesn't make sense, let me know. 

Mark H.

For external height, remember that the rail (bone) is connected to the wheel (bones), the wheel (bones) are connected to, etc, until you get to the roofwalk (bone)

If one measurement is substantially off, but the overall height is correct, the end result isn't much different from what an accurately-dimensioned car would look like in a fun house mirror.

Disclaimer - I have not been paid in the form of any desperately needed Hydra Cushion underframes for this message that are currently out of stock.

[mark.hinds]

For external height, remember that the rail (bone) is connected to the wheel (bones), the wheel (bones) are connected to, etc, until you get to the roofwalk (bone)

If one measurement is substantially off, but the overall height is correct, the end result isn't much different from what an accurately-dimensioned car would look like in a fun house mirror.

Disclaimer - I have not been paid in the form of any desperately needed Hydra Cushion underframes for this message that are currently out of stock.

Fine; you think my modified PS-1 looks like something in a funhouse mirror (...).  I can live with that.     I just edited my previous post to point out that people are always free to trash their MTL PS-1s and buy Atlas.  At the moment, anyway, I am happy with my current MTL PS-1 mod, which is "good enough" for my purposes, despite some minor defects.  The main problem with it is that mounting the lowered shell is complicated, and I am trying to find a simpler way to do this. 

MH

[bbussey]

I'll answer this, but I'm giving up on Mr. Bussey, who has been reduced to creating straw men, presumably in order to bolster his ego. 

No ego-boosting.  I just call out the false assessments so that people don't think all the models are inaccurate, or that minor characteristics can't be fixed easily.

[cjm413]

Fine; you think my modified PS-1 looks like something in a funhouse mirror (...).  I can live with that.     I just edited my previous post to point out that people are always free to trash their MTL PS-1s and buy Atlas.  At the moment, anyway, I am happy with my current MTL PS-1 mod, which is "good enough" for my purposes, despite some minor defects.  The main problem with it is that mounting the lowered shell is complicated, and I am trying to find a simpler way to do this. 

MH

The model I was referring to is MTL's FMC 5077 - they basically shrunk the body to overcompensate for the jacked up bolsters.  This car would pass your test despite looking like someone that insists on pulling their pants up to their armpits.

Conversely, the MTL PS-1 body is oversized despite the jacked up bolsters, and in most attempts to salvage it, is typically going to end up being too tall, but on a more proportional basis.

[mark.hinds]

The model I was referring to is MTL's FMC 5077 - they basically shrunk the body to overcompensate for the jacked up bolsters.  This car would pass your test despite looking like someone that insists on pulling their pants up to their armpits.

Conversely, the MTL PS-1 body is oversized despite the jacked up bolsters, and in most attempts to salvage it, is typically going to end up being too tall, but on a more proportional basis.

Sorry; I misunderstood you.  Note that my test is merely to determine whether something is the correct overall height.  Whether something with the correct overall height is acceptable is more complex than that, and usually involves other factors as well. 

BTW, you quoted my post with the height jig image; could you please edit your post to show the latest version of the post.  I think I was editing it (a bad habit) while you were replying.  Thanks.   

MH

[mark.hinds]

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?

Yes.  Yes.  This is a matter of opinion (see my comparison image showing the modified MTL PS-1 next to Atlas).  Yes (for MTL 50-foot PS-1). 

Furthermore, FYI, most of my N-scale 1950s box cars and reefers measure too high, roofwalk to railhead.  This includes MTL, Intermountain, Deluxe Innovations, Con-Cor (don't know who made them), etc..  Whether this is difficult to fix depends, and is partly a function of what you are trying to achieve. 

BTW, to correct a misstatement made earlier in this thread, car height doesn't have to be a function of how you mount your couplers.  That is because car height is determined by the height of the truck, and the height of the body resting on the truck.  Couplers only come into the picture if you lower the car in a manner which results in inadequate clearance for the coupler box, which is avoidable. 

MH

[wcfn100]

Intermountain calls their 1944 AAR-type car "10'6" Modified AAR 40' Boxcar".

The Modified AAR and 1944 AAR are not the same car. 

Deluxe makes the 1944.

Jason

[wcfn100]

Jason:  IMHO, the important thing in freight car heights is the external height between the rail head and the top of the roofwalk (running boards).  I also care about the height of the underframe above the rail head, but to a lesser degree, so I do that "by eye".  I know one can measure other things, but the overall external height is what I notice when I look at these models.  If this external height is more than dimensioned plans, such as those on the NP site I referenced above, then I call the car "too high".

Okay, but it's not really right to step into a thread like this where we are talking about actual incorrect dimensions of a car and tag things that are just scale related on to it.

Of course most cars with truck mounted couplers are going to ride high (I prefer that actually so the ends aren't' compromised) and over thick running boards are going to make a model look taller next to another model with etched running boards.  But in terms of the MTL car, it's a basic dimensional issue we're talking about that creates an out of proportion car.  And it's certainly not right to lump other dimensionally correct cars like the 1937 AAR cars with it.

Most scale related issues can be fixed to create a very prototypical car.  Dimensional issues usually can't be fixed very easily and have probably created other issues along the way like the door track on the MTL car.

If altering the sill makes the car look good enough to you I can only hope you find a easy way to do it because that looks like a lot of work.  Of course, all I see is the missing ladder rung. 

Jason

[mark.hinds]

The Modified AAR and 1944 AAR are not the same car. 

Deluxe makes the 1944.

Jason

The models differ true, but just out of curiosity, what aspects of the Intermountain model (which I own) preclude it being used to represent a 1944 AAR car? 

Mark H. 

[wcfn100]

The models differ true, but just out of curiosity, what aspects of the Intermountain mode (which I own) preclude it being used to represent a 1944 AAR car? 

Mark H.

Take a look at this link.

https://books.google.com/books?id=_8qQS0ZNCTIC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=improved+dreadnaught+1944&source=bl&ots=8-HkiZo7qB&sig=gEfr554wK06QMwumRTTFcdqLAjQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZrNyv2ZzPAhUM9YMKHaL5DoUQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=improved%20dreadnaught%201944&f=false

There's a quick summary in captions 1-10 and 1-11.

Jason