Atlas 60' Passenger Cars- Body Mount Couplers- Lighting

[bbussey]

There is no reason from a business standpoint for MTL to do that, given they already have a baggage model and a baggage-mail model.

[narrowminded]

I've been thinking of purchasing some of these 60' passenger cars from Atlas as they would fit nicely into my layout theme. I appreciate the info that you guys have provided on the couplers and diaphragms. I wasn't aware that Atlas included diaphragms with the cars.

With respect to uncoupling, would it be possible to disguise an uncoupler under the rails as a small culvert. In order to uncouple, one would insert a magnet into the culvert, locate the "sweet" spot for uncoupling and voila. I know that this might be difficult for some layouts that are already completed and finding the right magnet to insert isn't going to be easy, but it might work.

Rob

For my purposes these cars are pretty nice.  My small HCD layout just looks too silly with 80' heavyweight cars on it so for me it's the shorties or nothing, foobie be damned.   They are a little light but still run reliably.  The coupler distance thing I'd like to address and am considering lighting but it's pretty early for that.  I also have an assortment of old Bachmann PRR shorties that are in good condition and I want to make interiors for them and maybe light them, too.  I will look at both brands and see if there are parts I might be able to share between the two.

I like that culvert idea but it's a little late for me and most places around the yard that I might want to install these there wouldn't be enough track elevation to have access to a culvert.  If I even do it I'm thinking of something at the topside just outside the ties.  I experimented with some magnets and a track piece last night and I think I can make that work.  I ordered a few more magnet sizes that might be suitable and in sizes that should lend themselves to
fitting and easy enough to disguise.  As part of the mounting I was even thinking of a little concrete pad with a small railing, or not, for yard worker safety and for a reference to the magnet location.  But that's just me thinking and I have no idea if that could be argued as prototypical or even believable.   I should be able to bury them and scenic them over too, marked with some weeds or something. 

Is there anything typical in the way of a little post or sign that might be right after the turnout heading down a siding track or yard track that might mark the magnet?  Maybe a track I.D?  I know a figure can be used and would be at least good for one or two spots but that would look a little silly if there was an army of them in the yard.

[pedro]

Is there anything typical in the way of a little post or sign that might be right after the turnout heading down a siding track or yard track that might mark the magnet?  Maybe a track I.D?  I know a figure can be used and would be at least good for one or two spots but that would look a little silly if there was an army of them in the yard.

You could use a “close/no clearance for man on side of car” sign. Or a “derail” sign.

[Maletrain]

You could use a “close/no clearance for man on side of car” sign. Or a “derail” sign.

You beat me to the "derail" sign suggestion.  That is the one thing that would not look out-of-place on every track in industrial areas.

For a yard, I don't expect to see derails on every classification track. But, if the rails are gapped and you can see the gaps, that could serve as the visual aid for the uncoupler sweet spot.  Or maybe some odd junk like a tie here, a barrel there, a bush elsewhere - still might look a little hokey, but not like a straight line of Bachmann brakeman figures in their blue jackets.

[davefoxx]

Add a small dab of paint to a tie or to the side of the rail, as the railroads often do, to mark different things.

DFF

[SkipGear]

I haven't done anything with lighting but have replaced couplers and trucks.

The easy answer for couplers are 1015's. I had considered going to 1016's and moving the couplers farther inboard like I have done on the Micro-trains car but since most of these cars were stand-ins for me, I didn't deem it worth the effort. With 1015's you still need to put the wider diaphragms on if you want close coupling.

The factory trucks were horrible. I replaced the 3 axle trucks with MT 003 02 185 PS 6-wheel truck, w/o coupler, 36',
Central bolster (1186) and the 2 axle trucks with MT 003 02 250 Commonwealth 4-wheel truck,
w/o coupler, 36' (1014). Now the set rolls and tracks much better. I shaved the bolster bearing off the bottom of the car, making it flush with the frame to use the trucks and the ride height came down a bit as an added bonus. With out doing this the cars were too high and the trucks had very little roll control and the cars rocked side to side.

[Rusty Spike]

A certain "look" is in question here. Some questions must be asked, layout characteristics determined and operator/equipment changes decided on first. I have "close coupled" diesel motive power models (n scale, you can't always fit what you want in one shell) before by fabbing draw bars between the units. Never passenger cars. In my case I had to, determine, given my curve radius/gradients would the units work, could I safely hand move them on and off the layout and would I rarely have to separate them for repair and maintenance. Here, with passenger cars, a similar technique could be done. But, know the same planning before execution would have to be done. And, unless layout space for this passenger consist would be available a "cartridge", or other system would be needed for off the layout moving. All coach painting, decals, detailing, etc. should be completed before final assembly. Saw such on an N Track club layout a few years ago. Looked great, a little fiddly to re-rail and I never saw it come off, it just ran.