Fixing MTL 40' Boxcars

[mark.hinds]

(text removed)
Now, if Atlas, or MT, would tool a new, correctly proportioned, AAR boxcar, I would try to replace some of mine.  IM's cars are fine, but very hard to find, especially the undecs.
(text removed)

Depends on what your definition of "fine" is.  If you want scale height, you need to do some modification.  See this thread:  https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=40058.0

MH

[amato1969]

Replacing the IM trucks is really the only tweak needed.  These cars are a great basis for modeling 1960s/1970s rebuilds:

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=34545

  Frank

[mark.hinds]

Replacing the IM trucks is really the only tweak needed.  These cars are a great basis for modeling 1960s/1970s rebuilds:

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=34545

  Frank

Hey Frank,

If this is in response to my previous post, then you should note that the IM AAR car in my link is mounted on MT trucks (as received from George Hollwedel), and not IM trucks (I didn't know they still sold those).  With these MT trucks it is 1 foot too high.  Merely substituting some other brand of truck (whatever that might be) doesn't completely solve the problem, as mentioned in the linked thread. 

I'm not saying that these minor dimensional issues need to concern the OP, but I was just throwing this out there for informational purposes. 

MH

[bbussey]

Not really, as I agree that the newer cars look better, and don't require the extra work.  I'd love to be able to replace all of my MTs.  However, I can't afford that many new cars.  Also, there's no point replacing an incorrect car that SHOULDN'T be a PS-1 with another PS-1, as it would still be incorrect!  Now, if Atlas, or MT, would tool a new, correctly proportioned, AAR boxcar, I would try to replace some of mine.  IM's cars are fine, but very hard to find, especially the
undecs.

Not for me. With the number of models representing different proyotypes available, I just don’t buy the total foob cars. In the 1980s I did, but not now.

And yes, it’s far easier to get the IM cars at a scale ride height if you body-mount the couplers. It’s difficult if not impossible to get any N scale model to sit at a scale ride height if it has truck-mounted couplers.

[coosvalley]

It's a bummer. And looking back, these aren't the only cars that are symptoms of this problem. I'd have bought a bunch of the recent 50' boxcars, both weathered and non-weathered, if the cars were properly proportioned. As they are, I just can't.

C'mon MTL guys. Fix this!!! Help me spend my money on your stuff!!!

This.

[nkalanaga]

" I just don’t buy the total foob cars"

It's been years since I bought a MT PS-1, and I have few of the Atlas ones.  They weren't common on the BN or its predecessors, and I have plenty of other roads, bought in the 70s and 80s. 

On the other hand, they're the ONLY option for 50s and 60s combination-door boxcars, at least that I know of, and those were very common on the NP and GN.

[DKS]

Depends on what your definition of "fine" is.

I have to laugh. While some modelers quibble over a few inches in ride height difference, I'm stuck staring at the grossly-oversize roof walks, ladders and grabs on the "correctly proportioned" IM and Atlas cars. Not to disparage them, but to my eye the cast-on ladders and grabs of the too-tall MTL box are less offensive.

I suppose we all focus on different things; I just find it amusing what one is willing to accept as a trade-off for something else.

[bbussey]

The roofwalks of Atlas and InterMountain cars (and every other manufacturer) are much thinner than their MTL counterparts.

Grab irons would be near-invisible if tooled to scale. Rivets certainly would be invisible.  N scale details are exaggerated regardless of manufacturer.

And it’s not the ride height of the MTL boxcars that’s the issue, it’s the stretched body-height coupled with the correct door height that has the door tracks in blatantly incorrect positions on the body. It makes them as impossible to correct as it does to correct the squashed body height of the MTL FMC cars. Fine details don’t hold much relevance when the body proportions are grossly incorrect.

[DKS]

What happened to the rolley-eyed "whatever" emoticon?

[coosvalley]

I'm stuck staring at the grossly-oversize roof walks,

I'm confused by this , are you saying the etched roofwalks on the Atlas/IM cars are grossly-oversized, but the thick cast plastic ones on MT cars are acceptable?... ..Or are the MT roofwalks grossly-oversized as well?.

It is interesting what each of us finds "acceptable" for out model worlds..

[Kentuckian]

It is interesting what each of us finds "acceptable" for out model worlds..

I wonder what the manufacturers think of this thread. I can’t imagine trying to please this market, but I’m glad they do.

[DKS]

I'm confused by this , are you saying the etched roofwalks on the Atlas/IM cars are grossly-oversized, but the thick cast plastic ones on MT cars are acceptable?... ..Or are the MT roofwalks grossly-oversized as well?.

It is interesting what each of us finds "acceptable" for out model worlds..

I misspoke... or mis-typed. I should not have mentioned roofwalks (I had the old first-gen ones stuck in mind). But ladders and grabs, definitely. The separately-applied ones are simply too clunky-looking to my eye; I find MTL's cast-on ones much more acceptable, because when I look at a model, oversize details stand out much, much more than errors in proportion.

To illustrate, here are three four substantially similar boxcars: prototype, MTL, InterMountain and Atlas (I added Atlas subsequently to be more thorough).









MTL's cast-on ladders and grabs have a much more satisfying visual effect. I'd also point out that "Grab irons would be near-invisible if tooled to scale" is a bit of an exaggeration, since these images are all quite close in size, and the proto ladders and grabs have not become "near-invisible." While it is true that all such details are oversize out of necessity, I maintain that it's possible to get close enough to look pretty darned good.

But, to each his own. If having correctly-proportioned bodies is more important than better-looking details, then so be it. Obviously having both is possible, but we're stuck with the choices that the manufacturers make. I guess "separately-applied details" sounds sexier than it looks.

 

[coosvalley]

I misspoke... or mis-typed. I should not have mentioned roofwalks (I had the old first-gen ones stuck in mind). But ladders and grabs, definitely. The separately-applied ones are simply too clunky-looking to my eye; I find MTL's cast-on ones much more acceptable, because when I look at a model, oversize details stand out much, much more than errors in proportion.

MTL's cast-on ladders and grabs have a much more satisfying visual effect. I'd also point out that "Grab irons would be near-invisible if tooled to scale" is a bit of an exaggeration, since these images are all quite close in size, and the proto ladders and grabs have not become "near-invisible." While it is true that all such details are oversize out of necessity, I maintain that it's possible to get close enough to look pretty darned good.

But, to each his own. If having correctly-proportioned bodies is more important than better-looking details, then so be it. Obviously having both is possible, but we're stuck with the choices that the manufacturers make. I guess "separately-applied details" sounds sexier than it looks.

 

I understand your point here. I have a personal taste for something more 3D, if available, but I am not offended by MTs cast on ladders either. Show me a (factory)50 ribside with separate side grabs (some do have separate ends grabs)

I will say I find the Atlas PS-1 ladders to be finer than IMs, especially if you start with an undec.

I am put off by the proportional errors, and I suspect it it were fixed, that would be considered a good thing, right?

[wcfn100]

But, to each his own. If having correctly-proportioned bodies is more important than better-looking details, then so be it. Obviously having both is possible, but we're stuck with the choices that the manufacturers make. I guess "separately-applied details" sounds sexier than it looks.

I can put better details on the IM body.  The MTL car is beyond fixing.

FWIW, the IM 50' double door has finer grabs and ladders than their 40' counterparts.  I've asked on a couple occasions if, when they retool, they would make finer parts for the 40 footers.

Jason

[DKS]

I can put better details on the IM body.

Sure you can. But how many others are able--or bother?

We each must choose which eyesores with which we can live.