Micro-trains boxcar improvements

[thomasjmdavis]

I just received the recently released MTL SP boxcar-hopper https://www.micro-trains.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=63_64&product_id=3791 and noticed 2 major improvements.

The car is a "standard" (more or less PS-1) boxcar model that includes 3-D printed parts to produce a reasonable approximation of SP 90600, a boxcar modified into a covered hopper for sugar service.

But what caught my eye first were (a) the car has been lowered by several scale inches by modifying the truck mounting, and (b) body mounted couplers! (1016s, I think). 

The MTL description does not mention these improvements, but they were noted in George Irwin's review (for his newsletter- http://www.irwinsjournal.com/umtrr/ ).

I am really glad to see these changes coming to the venerable MTL boxcar.  In my own history, these cars were what convinced me that I could move from HO to N scale, back in the mid 1970s.  I bought the first cars I saw and really haven't looked back.  While in the intervening 45 years, companies have produced more accurate models, to this day, these cars are the "standard" boxcar of N scale.

[nickelplate759]

I'm sure someone will note that the body shell is still not perfect, but I'm all for improvements.  I don't have any of these improved cars - can you compare it side-by-side with an older (non-lowered) one?  In particular I'm wondering if there's an opportunity to upgrade older cars with new underframe components, or if there are changes to the body as well.

[Mark5]

But what caught my eye first were (a) the car has been lowered by several scale inches by modifying the truck mounting, and (b) body mounted couplers! (1016s, I think). 

Old news. These improvements were announced in 2017 (for 50' box).

Mark

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I just received the recently released MTL SP boxcar-hopper https://www.micro-trains.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=63_64&product_id=3791 and noticed 2 major improvements.

The car is a "standard" (more or less PS-1) boxcar model that includes 3-D printed parts to produce a reasonable approximation of SP 90600, a boxcar modified into a covered hopper for sugar service.

But what caught my eye first were (a) the car has been lowered by several scale inches by modifying the truck mounting, and (b) body mounted couplers! (1016s, I think). 

The MTL description does not mention these improvements, but they were noted in George Irwin's review (for his newsletter- http://www.irwinsjournal.com/umtrr/ ).

I am really glad to see these changes coming to the venerable MTL boxcar.  In my own history, these cars were what convinced me that I could move from HO to N scale, back in the mid 1970s.  I bought the first cars I saw and really haven't looked back.  While in the intervening 45 years, companies have produced more accurate models, to this day, these cars are the "standard" boxcar of N scale.

I've got a bunch of recent MTL 50'ers. Ever since the changes I've been a big fan.

In fact I've got a pickup to do at MBK with those recent ACL cars.

It's awesome to see tooling that is as good as the printing being put on it.

[thomasjmdavis]

Edit: fixed my formatting goof with the quotes below.....

Old news. These improvements were announced in 2017 (for 50' box).

Mark

I knew it was "old news" in terms of MTL plans, and the 50' cars.  I need to double check my most recent MTL 50' cars, which would have been purchased about that time.  But this is the first time I have seen it on an MTL 40' boxcar.  Granted, I don't buy a lot of them anymore (having quite a few already), but I could not recall seeing postings on 40' cars being re-done.

I'm sure someone will note that the body shell is still not perfect, but I'm all for improvements.  I don't have any of these improved cars - can you compare it side-by-side with an older (non-lowered) one?  In particular I'm wondering if there's an opportunity to upgrade older cars with new underframe components, or if there are changes to the body as well.

I will try to get a photo later if/when I get done with the hopper mods. I did take out my caliper to check some things while working on the car and pulled out an older car with pizza wheels for comparison. The basic change that was visible to me when I looked is that the old truck mounting has a cast in ring (acts like a washer) that extends about .020 that has been removed.  Also, on one old car I looked at, the truck bolster also has a ring that (just a guess here) adds about another .005".  I imagine that the original purpose for these is to raise the car up enough to allow a truck mounted couple to swivel and clear the pizza cutter flanges.  I was surprised when I checked last night that both the current production MTL wheel and the old pizza cutter wheel both measured about 33 scale inches (.210 and .209 respectively) over the tread- so flange may have been as much of an issue as coupler clearance.

[Mark5]

, but I could not recall seeing postings on 40' cars being re-done.

Busted! 

Looking forward to the photo.

[thomasjmdavis]

Well, did not have as much modeling time tonight as I thought I would.  So, the hatches are not installed yet, but the hopper chutes are installed (still need a bit of touch up paint).




MTL car center with new factory specs for ride height and body mounted couplers.  Car on left is an older MTL that rides a few scale inches higher. Car on right is an IM Modified 1937 from the run delivered in summer 2020.

[Missaberoad]

Are the trucks on backwards? They seem rather inset.

[wazzou]

It looks like the trucks are inset more than I recall and I wonder if this was a compromise to get lower and body mount?

Posted about the same time as Ryan.
I think that may be right.

[peteski]

Yes, those trucks look funny.

[OldEastRR]

Trucks definitely set farther back from the stirrups than the "old" MTL car.

The problem with the old MTLs isn't so much the ride height but the body sides are 6" taller than they should be. You can grind down the bolsters, put "low rider" trucks on to lower the roofline, but the car side is still oversize. This new "fix" isn't viable because with it not only is the roof riding higher than a PS-1 does, but the car sill (and floor height) ride lower.  Put this car up next to a loading dock and you see the floor now sits below the dock entrance.

Furthermore, the lower door sill is still a hugely thick feature, way bulkier than a prototypical lower door track. The only way to correct the problem so it looks prototypical is to cut away six inches of height from the car sides. Luckily this can be done with minimal fuss and no repainting by any reasonably experienced modeler. It also reduces that huge lower door track to prototypical size, which also improves the looks.



Unmodified MTL on left (w/o roofwalk), modified in center, Atlas PS-1 on right (tho this car used an earlier  way too complicated and messy conversion technique)

However there's no easy fix for the "stretched" spacings of the end corrugations -- they have to remain as is.  The brake wheel and end ladder also are untouched.

[thomasjmdavis]

My bad.  The MTL truck (without couplers) have a small offset on the bolster and I got them on backwards.  Did not notice in my hurry to get the photo late last night.  The older car in the photo also has flanges that are .030 larger in outside diameter, which adds several inches to the visual overall wheelbase and fills more space under the frame.

Apologies to MTL for any "controversy"... Here is a quick "morning after" phone shot with the trucks on the right way.

EDIT- I removed this photo because here I messed it up by not getting the body properly attached to the floor- so it was wonky on one end.  But the trucks were the right way around....  See next couple posts.

[thomasjmdavis]

Are the trucks on backwards? They seem rather inset.

Yep.  Sorry, I missed your comment before posting the above- you spotted the problem right away.

[peteski]

Well, I'm glad that this was an  "operator error". Now the truck spacing and location look better!     But you're not having much luck with them. In the latest photo, the left side looks much higher than even the original model.

[thomasjmdavis]

Well, I'm glad that this was an  "operator error". Now the truck spacing and location look better!     But you're not having much luck with them. In the latest photo, the left side looks much higher than even the original model.

I think I am just going to give up and forget this whole phone photography thing....  As you might note, apparently the floor wasn't properly attached....
I guess one more try....well, if for nothing else than to continue to entertain everyone with my various tribulations.  Wonder what will go wrong this time....Oh well, a little out of focus. I think the body is now properly attached and the trucks properly aligned and I think the brakewheel is even on the correct end of the car.  Which is to say the right end.