Announcement: All-New Rivet Counter N Scale Multi-Max

[kscessandriver]

Does anyone have access to the current ORER (or even a copy a few years old)? Should be able to pull at least some of the car heights from there. Latest one I have is a Jan '96 so not exactly helpful.

Not sure how helpful this will be, because there isn't anything for a multi-max car on there, but BNSF has a couple different autorack dimensional PDF's here. https://www.bnsf.com/ship-with-bnsf/ways-of-shipping/individual-railcar.html#subtabs-3

[turbowhiz]

Nice.  Do you have a photo of the surgery?

It almost seems like this might be lowered a bit too much, though it might be the photo angle.  My impression of these cars is that they sit a few inches proud of the older racks:

Well shucks... That's a real can-o-worms you opened there Gary!

Now I've gone into a black hole of prototype rack height comparisons based on my own photo collection, which is pretty prolific in these pandemic days... Comparing the multimaxes in trains with their adjacently coupled, non multimax racks. Which, to rivet counting accuracy is bogus but in broad terms match either the MTL or RC/FVM/IM racks. They're built by different builders, and well yeah, they differ a lot in details but broadly match (and are thus are painted in schemes by FVM/MTL) prototypes spanning decades. If we're looking for geek out good models of racks, that are properly prototypically accurate, then really the scaletrains multimaxes are the best game in town by far, ride height notwithstanding. Basically anything really contemporary in either the MTL or FVM/IM rack form are a sorta foobies. Generally they're pretty good, since they're all very generally similar, but in detail not so much.

And my conclusion?  It depends. It appears that in broad terms, newer racks match the multimaxes, And older racks appear lower. I didn't spend hours comparing rack ride heights between the various "non multimax" racks, but logically they must vary a little. Its just the the multimax design sticks out relative to the others.

These sure look the same height to me:



But these sure aren't:



I guess we're gonna have to get into setting rack ride heights by prototype and road number...

I'll get some photos together of the surgery process.. I took a couple but they're pretty rough.

[wazzou]

Loaded verses unloaded?

[GaryHinshaw]

Oh dear, I wasn't really trying to open a can of worms... To be honest, it's not that important to me.   I only really started paying attention to it when the ST model showed up and it clearly needed to be lowered.  The obvious question being: by how much?  The Edison webcam* I grabbed the photo from is a good place to check because the camera is mounted a bit above roof height for these racks and vehicle trains are pretty common on the line, so it was easy to pick out a dozen or so Multi-Max's and get a decent statistical sample.  My conclusion from that sample was that they would look best at about the same roof height as the RC racks or a few inches higher.   That was pretty much the extent of my research.

I do like what you've done, and with a printed bolster, you can obviously tune the height as finely you wish.   Surgery photos are not essential, I was just curious because I can't really picture the details based on your description.  I suspect ST went with the height they did to avoid having to push the coupler up into the end doors.  It's a bit of a rock and a hard place situation.

* Edison cam: 

You can skim back through 12 hours and usually find a train with a lot of racks in that time frame.

[pmpexpress]

Well shucks... That's a real can-o-worms you opened there Gary!

Now I've gone into a black hole of prototype rack height comparisons based on my own photo collection, which is pretty prolific in these pandemic days... Comparing the multimaxes in trains with their adjacently coupled, non multimax racks. Which, to rivet counting accuracy is bogus but in broad terms match either the MTL or RC/FVM/IM racks. They're built by different builders, and well yeah, they differ a lot in details but broadly match (and are thus are painted in schemes by FVM/MTL) prototypes spanning decades. If we're looking for geek out good models of racks, that are properly prototypically accurate, then really the scaletrains multimaxes are the best game in town by far, ride height notwithstanding. Basically anything really contemporary in either the MTL or FVM/IM rack form are a sorta foobies. Generally they're pretty good, since they're all very generally similar, but in detail not so much.

And my conclusion?  It depends. It appears that in broad terms, newer racks match the multimaxes, And older racks appear lower. I didn't spend hours comparing rack ride heights between the various "non multimax" racks, but logically they must vary a little. Its just the the multimax design sticks out relative to the others.

These sure look the same height to me:



But these sure aren't:



I guess we're gonna have to get into setting rack ride heights by prototype and road number...

I'll get some photos together of the surgery process.. I took a couple but they're pretty rough.

In my opinion, the Multi-Max cars appear to be a slight bit taller than the other older autoracks that are seen in the following four YouTube videos:

While being fully loaded as opposed to being empty might account for some of the subtle height differences, wheel wear might also play a part in the minor discrepancies.

Re: "... in either the MTL or FVM/IM rack form are a sorta foobies."

Although they have been marketed as being tri-level cars (i.e., TTX ETTX or CTTX)) for years, some of the MTL models actually bear bi-level TTX TTGX markings

At the risk of further opening the lid of the Pandora's box, given that many of the prototype completely enclosed autoracks ride on 28-inch wheels, shouldn't the fact that the Intermountain/Fox Valley, Micro-Trains, and Red Caboose models are riding on 33-inch wheels also be a considered?

[GaryHinshaw]

In my opinion, the Multi-Max cars appear to be a slight bit taller than the other older autoracks that are seen in the following four YouTube videos:

Here's another nice example (still photo):  https://www.railpictures.net/photo/721194/.

At the risk of further opening the lid of the Pandora's box, given that many of the prototype completely enclosed autoracks ride on 28-inch wheels, shouldn't the fact that the Intermountain/Fox Valley, Micro-Trains, and Red Caboose models are riding on 33-inch wheels also be a considered?

I was under the impression that most bi-level racks (e.g. TTGX, like the RC model) actually have 33" wheels.

[sundowner]

The RC should all ride on 33” wheels while the MT depending on road number should ride on either 28 or 33, the more modern chances are they ride on 28.
For me if the prototype of MT rack was build or shop in the 2000 i would do 28” after verifying by looking a pictures of the model.
So far most of MT modern release gets them.

Now that huge roof-door gap of the RC racks catches my eyes more than the ride height of the ST racks.

[pmpexpress]

Now that huge roof-door gap of the RC racks catches my eyes more than the ride height of the ST racks.

+1

[pmpexpress]

Here's another nice example (still photo):  https://www.railpictures.net/photo/721194/.

In this still image, the lone Multi-Max appears to only be a tad bit taller (i.e., a few inches?) than the rest of the cars in the consist.

With no visible ties and what appears to be widely spaced rail fasteners, that's some mighty strange looking track that the autorack train is running on.

The trackage seems to have a euro look to it.

[ljudice]

Its obvious that the prototype MultiMax cars are too high!

[turbowhiz]

I'm absolutely by no means an expert in racks, but I do spend too much time trackside these days.... This is by no means a rant or judgement guys, it just my thoughts and observations....

Right off the get go, both the multimax and the others are all stenciled for an exterior height of 19', so probably no more answers will be gleaned from the ORER I don't think.

And as I previously mentioned, the RC rack is more then 19' scale feet high right off the bat.

Re: "... in either the MTL or FVM/IM rack form are a sorta foobies."

Although they have been marketed as being tri-level cars (i.e., TTX ETTX or CTTX)) for years, some of the MTL models actually bear bi-level TTX TTGX markings

At the risk of further opening the lid of the Pandora's box, given that many of the prototype completely enclosed autoracks ride on 28-inch wheels, shouldn't the fact that the Intermountain/Fox Valley, Micro-Trains, and Red Caboose models are riding on 33-inch wheels also be a considered?

(prying open the box a little more...)

Pretty much just that.... You can't lump prototype enclosed racks into two groups of either "Tri level = MTL " or "Bi level = RC/FVM/IM", call it a day and have accurate models. The MTL practice of labeling Tri levels as Bi levels isn't different then the current FVM/IM release representing more modern cars, that even with TTGX reporting marks ride on 28" wheels and have different end doors anyhow, nerveless the subtle differences elsewhere. I'd argue that a MTL rack representing an older TTGX car with 33" wheels (lowered) is a more accurate model in whole then the recent FVM/IM TTGX cars decorated to be representing a trinity built rack of the last decade(?) or so (e.g. the Ferromex cars).

Boiling down my observations on bi level racks: Older thrall built bi levels on 33" wheels are still very common. Newer Trinity built bi level racks (TTGX reporting marks) ride on 28" wheels. They differ in detail a fair bit from the RC/FVM/IM racks, which are as best as I can tell based on the older thrall built racks, as is the MTL rack. The NSC built bi levels are different yet again, although people might casually assume they are the same as the trinity/thrall racks. They also ride on 28" wheels. Detail changes over years, exactly what the Thrall->Trinity changes year on year, I have no idea. There are lots more differences too, and more variants then the ones I just described. Just high level here.. Enclosed racks have been built for years, and they differ a great deal in detail.

So its inaccurate to say TTGX = 33" wheels, at least in 2021. There are loads of TTGX racks rolling around with 28" wheels, not including the Gunderson built cars.

I'm also suggesting that the wheelbase of the 28" wheel trucks found under the modern racks is shorter then the 33" wheel trucks. So dropping 28" wheels into 70 ton trucks doesn't look right. The scaletrains trucks look correct to my eye, and yes, they have a shorter wheelbase then the MTL 70 ton truck.  I'm pretty sure those trucks are newly tooled for these racks, so to my knowledge they are the only accurate truck we have for racks with 28" wheels. That might not be be totally correct, I've not spent hours pouring over trucks on 28" wheel equipped cars, but that's my impression... The modern trinity bi levels seem to have trucks that look the same as the Gunderson cars, at least casually.

Am I going to bother for my models with these details? No way! I just want the general ride height to be right ballpark, and no question that the ST (and MTL) racks are way too high stock. My (lowered) MTL racks are, correctly or not, riding on 33" wheels...The whole model needs to come together for the right look to me, so arbitrarily swapping in 28" wheels, or even say the ST trucks, will be detrimental without dealing with a whole lot more that's probably not feasible. The good news is that because people like trucks and SUV's, it seems the majority of racks these days are bi-level, so it kind of holds together... I could fuss that its a tri level painted rack as a bi-level, or that it should be on 28" wheels, but crap there are so many other detail problems (including those end doors themselves that you'd say determines the bi/tri question in the first place) that its so way beyond that in most cases anyhow.

I wonder if a 3d printed "gap filling door shield" for the RC/FVM/IM racks would be the ticket to cleaning up the gap problem. The prototypes (generically, not all cars blah blah...) appear to have something of this type of configuration, where there is a sheet metal shield over the top of the doors. Technically if you really look the roof panel immediately adjacent the door is just a little lower to accommodate this.

Again, just my observations, not trying to start any wars here...

[pmpexpress]

(prying open the box a little more...)

...the RC/FVM/IM racks, which are as best as I can tell based on the older thrall built racks, as is the MTL rack.

From information garnered on the web, it appears that the RC/FVM/IM racks were based upon a Bethlehem Steel model that was produced from the mid-1970s until (presumably) 1991, when Bethlehem's Johnston plant was purchased from the Bethlehem Steel Freight Car Division through a management buyout, and Johnston America Industries was established.

Presently, the prototype Bethlehem autoracks would be reaching the end of their useful lives (i.e., approximately forty years) with TTX.

[turbowhiz]

From information garnered on the web, it appears that the RC/FVM/IM racks were based upon a Bethlehem Steel model that was produced from the mid-1970s until (presumably) 1991, when Bethlehem's Johnston plant was purchased from the Bethlehem Steel Freight Car Division through a management buyout, and Johnston America Industries was established.

Presently, the prototype Bethlehem autoracks would be reaching the end of their useful lives (i.e., approximately forty years) with TTX.

I'm not going to agree there Neville...

I wonder if that's in relation to the flatcar itself, rather then the rack? The business of how these guys are built, possibly in the past, possibly today, and who builds what parts and how the whole rack ownership/TTX flatcar deal works I honestly don't understand. It sure seems that at least today, the same builder is putting together a complete car. But maybe I'm wrong...


I present TTGX 964916. Taken Dec 29, 2021. This guy sure looks in detail the RC rack( and flat...). The "THRALL" logo is clearly evident; I can nitpick the panel retainers, and probably some other people will point out other variances, but its a really good match I'd suggest.



And the end of TTGX 964916, cropped from the picture I took of the next car in the train, is a proper match too, at least in terms of the top grabs and the deck slots.



So I'm confident in stating that the RC rack at least matches in detail a Thrall rack prototype.

Now this is really interesting, I honestly accidently stumbled on pawing through things just now:

Here is TTGX 98204?(6 I think looking at the trucks), taken Dec 24, 2021. Its looking really new and fresh, no graff (!?) even... The flat isn't an absolute perfect match for the RC car (the jacking posts are a little different), but it's sure close... 33" wheels I'd say... (note the adjacent rack's doors are NOT a match... Nor is the flat. Its also a Thrall built rack as evidenced by the "Thrall Car" tag, a later style then the one seen on TTGX 964916)



And the other end of 98204? ... Now looking closely, no rack builder identified.. But the doors are a RC dead ringer... And sure enough, this guy is showing a rebuild date of 7/21. Looking at the 3 panel the flat at least has a '79 build date. So presumably, this guy should be rolling around for minimum of another 8 years, with the 50 year rule, and probably longer, with this 65 year rule business.





I'm going to conclude that there will be exact matches for the RC rack rolling around for a good while yet by the looks of it. And that no, they don't change wheelset sizes even when they rebuild cars. Oh, and I spend WAY too much time taking pictures of railway cars. And then looking at them for minutia later. That too....

[sundowner]

Racks and flat can be different manufactures and that how it used to be until the Johnston all aluminum AVC built for Amtrak, CP and CN show up.
Kato makes the AVC, also the ABL, AUtoMax and Multimax are now built integrated with the rack.
TTX would provide the flat and the participating railroad would provide the rack.

I recommend a copy of the Book “The TTX Story” volume 2 by the Pennsylvania Railroad Technical & Historical Society.
This book has everything you wanted to know about autoracks as well as the rest of the TTX fleet

[turbowhiz]

Just a quick few pics of the surgery:

Detach the handbrake chain between the carbody and underframe somehow/someplace. Drilling out the end of the linkage was by 2nd attempt method, success. All I can say is that thing is glued in REAL good. 1st attempt, no so pretty....




Its easy from this point...
I used toothpicks to assist is the disassembly... 3 on each of the latches, and a 4th to lever the underframe out. Work on the side opposite the handbrake!!! (there are overhangs on the handbrake side)



Note the clear appearance of a separately molded bolster part...



I drill out the whole bolster, using a 13/64th (~5.1mm) drill bit, using the original screw hold as a pilot. Comes out nice and clean.....



Now I have a big hole instead of a bolster.. Now the hole should be ever so slightly larger then the diameter of the replacement bolster, as even using the truck screw hole as a pilot, both holes I drilled weren't absolutely perfectly centered. No biggie at all.. The 3d printer bolster will index to the top, and be properly centered.



Somewhat dubiously 3d printed "bolster adapters", in various heights...



3d printed "bolster adapter" tack glued in place... (since I'm experimenting with heights, I need it to be easily removed)



Bolster side... The rub marks are from a "how low can you go" limbo sorta exercise I did, exasperated by the fact the one end of the car had a much higher bolster installed at the same time... These things can ride at RC height or even a smidge lower without any rubbing.



Now the only thing left is to drop into a huge black hole online about various auto rack designs and prototype ride heights!