Lowering MT and Athearn/MDC cabooses and Overton cars

[brokemoto]

Is there a way to lower the ride on either of these?

It looks like the bolster on the MT undercarriage can be trimmed slightly.  The problem would be that as the couplers are body mounted, it could adversely affect the coupler height.

It does not look like there is much to be done for the Athearn/MDC wood caboose or Overton car.  This is a shame, as the caboose fits my non-historic railroad.  Further, it was easier to clean up the Father Nature drover's caboose that fits the Overton chassis, thus it looks better.  As a passenger car on a mixed train, it actually is a bit more realistic, as it appears to have a capacity of about eighteen passengers.  The other Father Nature drover caboose shell was harder to clean up, I never was one hundred per-cent happy with it.  Further, it is larger with a higher passenger capacity that would be more than this train would carry, as a rule.  Those of you familiar with Father Nature's will be aware that they are crude thus need more than a little cleaning up.  Still, they were models not available elsewhere, so his work did have a purpose and a use.


I managed to take a few of my other cabooses off of their stilts

There is a drover's caboose (I use them as the passenger car on my mixed trains) that is an Old Father Nature shell that he made from an Arnold wood combine and a B-mann steel caboose.  It fits onto an Arnold wood passenger car chassis.  I tried several things on that one.  The solution ended up being the trimming of the bolster on the undercarriage and swapping out the Arnold extreme pizza cutter wheels for B-mann tender wheelsets. 

An Arnold wood caboose was easy-swap out the extreme pizza cutter wheels and substitute RR metal passenger car wheelsets.

The Arnold boom car was not difficult, either (forty foot flat car with four wheel caboose shell implanted).  Trim the bolster on the undercarriage, swap in MT low-pro wheels on the MT archbar trucks.

[thomasjmdavis]

It does not look like there is much to be done for the Athearn/MDC wood caboose or Overton car.

I'm wondering if your MDC caboose is different from mine. Mine is technically "Athearn", but I bought it shortly after Athearn bought MDC and believe it is "original MDC" parts. I haven't done any work on mine yet.  But pulling the truck off shows a bolster that clears the underframe by .035" - and there is plenty of space between the wheel flange and the floor.  My own plan is to remove all or most of this bolster, and body mount the couplers (which are currently truck mount).

I tried a photo, but detail did not come out in a quick phone shot-  I'll need better lighting to handle the all black underframe.

[bbussey]

You can swap in FVM friction-bearing leafspring caboose trucks.  They share the same lowered bolster as the BLMA trucks and the Atlas Barber trucks on the PS-1.  They are more appropriate regarding MTL at least because MTL cabooses have been equipped with roller-bearing leafspring trucks in recent years.  The FVM trucks show as available on the store website.

[Sokramiketes]

You can swap in FVM friction-bearing leafspring caboose trucks.  They share the same lowered bolster as the BLMA trucks and the Atlas Barber trucks on the PS-1.  They are more appropriate regarding MTL at least because MTL cabooses have been equipped with roller-bearing leafspring trucks in recent years.  The FVM trucks show as available on the store website.

This will lower the ride height, but I think he's also asking what to do about coupler height afterwards.  The MTL cabooses are body mount and already utilize the underslung 2004(?) coupler, right?  So it's going to need more surgery. 

[thomasjmdavis]

On coupler height.....

Caveat 1- measurements are best I can manage with my cheap, but trusty, digital caliper.
Caveat 2- I am due for new bifocals at my next optical exam in June.

According to C&EI diagrams I have (admittedly, not the prototype for either caboose, but a good selection of wood and steel cabooses), the bottom edge of the body of a typical caboose is 37.25 inches above the rail.  Coupler centers are 34.5 inches.

The MDC car I have came by way of Bluford (in the days before they manufactured their own), and they installed trucks with low profile flanges, sits .25, or 40 scale inches, above the rail.  The extra inches, I suggest are to allow for clearance of the truck mounted couplers.  It looks to me to be about .020 clearance between the top of the truck mounted coupler box, and the body of the caboose (3.2 N scale inches).  So if lowered .020 (to a scale height of 36.8 in above the track), one should be able to body mount couplers and they would come out OK. If necessary due to the thickness of the coupler box,

The MTL wood caboose (which I assume is the one brokemoto is talking about given the context), with original equipment pizza cutter wheels, sits .23 inches above the rail - 36.8 scale inches.  Pretty darn close to the 37.25 on the diagram mentioned above.  The reason to lower it would be because of installation of low profile wheels- in which case it would be lowered by the difference in wheel diameters- but in that case, the coupler ends up in the same location relative to the rails.

For the GTW (my Bluford/Athearn/MDC car), many, maybe most, of the prototypes ran on archbar trucks (or caboose trucks that look like archbar trucks) until they retired in the 1960s (per photos).  I doubt many wood cabooses road on

[brokemoto]

Thank you for the replies. 

I am referring to the MT wood caboose.  While it does appear to be on small stilts, if its height is slightly less than the C&EI cabooses' average as cited by @thomasjmdavis it can be left alone.

 Short Creek and Nopedale has only wood cabooses. Steel cabooses just would not fit that road, even if it does have some diesels.  The drover's caboose that Father Nature made from the Arnold wood combine does have a steel roof (or appears to be).  It appears to be a concoction made from an Arnold wood combine, the roof a a B-mann ATSF caboose (the ribs on the roof are quite pronounced on that one) and a cupola from an MT wood caboose.  Mostly wood construction with some steel would be passable.

The other caboose is an Athearn.  It has an undercarriage similar to that of the MDC with the exception of a post that Athearn must have added to accommodate the phillips head screw that holds the truck to the undercarriage.  The short drover's caboose is on an MDC undercarriage, although I expect that it would fit an Athearn.  The MDC undercarriage lacks the post to accommodate a screw, as the trucks are held to the undercarriage by means of a truck pin.  It appears that the Overton passenger car chassis and the caboose chassis are similar, as the drover's caboose shell will fit on either.  The Father Nature shell appears to be a concoction made from an MDC Overton combine and an MT wood caboose.  The cupolas look similar.  The telltales on the roof are the two holes to accommodate the MT ladder.  Father Nature managed to leave those holes in his castings.

Both the Athearn and the Father Nature drover caboose shell on an MDC chassis are on "factory" archbar trucks.  The Athearn has truck mounted couplers.  I body mounted 1023s onto the drover caboose.  The MDC caboose, Overtons and Overlands will take 1023s and come out the correct height if you retain the factory trucks.   You simply cut, file or sand off the lip at the end and underside of the platforms.  You must, of course, remove the tongue on the trucks that accommodates the coupler.  I prefer body mounts on the MDCs because the MDC knuckle couplers do not stay coupled and UniMates do not fit well into the MDC coupler pockets. 

@thomasjmdavis  mentions a bolster.  I am guessing that he refers to a rectangular bolster where the truck screws or pins would go.  It does appear that this can be removed  Perhaps I should try that.  If you do cut too much, you always can build it back with MT washers.  If I did cut the bolster from the Athearn, it would remove the screw post, as well.  Thus, I would have to find another way to affix the trucks to the undercarriage.  Odds are that this would be necessary on the MDC, as well.  I suppose that drilling a hole the appropriate size for a truck pin would solve the problem.

[bbussey]

This will lower the ride height, but I think he's also asking what to do about coupler height afterwards.  The MTL cabooses are body mount and already utilize the underslung 2004(?) coupler, right?  So it's going to need more surgery.

I didn't adjust my couplers and mine are kitbashes with original-design diecast floor that uses the T-shank couplers, which means the crossbeam isn't as low as on the BLMA trucks.  The wood cabooses are one of the MTL models that are close to correct ride height.  My main concern with them is that they've never ridden on correct trucks and the FVM trucks fill that void.  I use the FVM trucks on Atlas NE5 and NE6 cabooses as well.
 

[thomasjmdavis]

@brokemoto -
You are correct, the "bolster" I was referring to is the rectangular bolster (my knowledge of underframe parts is spotty, maybe I should call this part something else?) that is part of the underframe.  As you suggest, although Bluford refers to the car as having "Athearn parts", my car is pretty clearly of MDC parts left over in the inventory at the time of the merger.  I was not aware of Athearn adding the post to the older MDC designs, but the post and screw mount are on all my newer Athearn models (reefers and covered hoppers) that have the trucks with McHenry couplers.

In the best of all worlds, what trucks would best represent the prototype/time frame you are modeling?  If the FVM trucks that Bryan recommended are correct or close enough for your purposes, those would be the easiest option, providing a more accurate truck, better wheels and lowering the car at the same time, although you might still need to modify or remove the post, or enlarge the hole in the truck frame to fit over the post. 

[Sokramiketes]

I didn't adjust my couplers and mine are kitbashes with original-design diecast floor that uses the T-shank couplers, which means the crossbeam isn't as low as on the BLMA trucks.  The wood cabooses are one of the MTL models that are close to correct ride height.  My main concern with them is that they've never ridden on correct trucks and the FVM trucks fill that void.  I use the FVM trucks on Atlas NE5 and NE6 cabooses as well.

So a stock MTL caboose is the right height, you use the FVM caboose truck with previously mentioned lowered truck bolster, and then shim it back to the correct height?

Makes sense. 

On coupler height.....

The MTL wood caboose (which I assume is the one brokemoto is talking about given the context), with original equipment pizza cutter wheels, sits .23 inches above the rail - 36.8 scale inches.  Pretty darn close to the 37.25 on the diagram mentioned above.  The reason to lower it would be because of installation of low profile wheels- in which case it would be lowered by the difference in wheel diameters- but in that case, the coupler ends up in the same location relative to the rails.

When measuring height above the rail, the size of the flange shouldn't affect the measurement. (Pizza cutters on Atlas Code 55 aside, grin)  I'm not sure what you were trying to say with "reason to lower because of installation of low profile wheels". 

[brokemoto]

Thank you for the further replies.

I am going to try the Fox Valley friction bearing trucks as suggested by @bbussey on the MT caboose.  Friction bearing trucks would be appropriate for a railroad like the SC&N in the era.

I did mention "extreme" pizza cutters that are stock on Arnold cars as both the flanges and wheels are larger than most of the wheels from the other manufacturers.  The difference when I swapped in the RR passenger car wheelsets on the wood caboose was remarkable.  The longer Father Nature shell drover caboose on the Arnold chassis took several tries to get it correct.  I had MT lo-pros in Athearn/MDC fifty foot refrigerator trucks,  MDC archbars, MT archbars with low-pros.  What finally worked best was the original trucks with B-mann tender wheels.  The trimming in this case was on the trucks, as the large bolster was there.

In answer to @thomasjmdavis ' question, the friction bearing trucks suggested by @bbussey will work for the MT caboose.  MT also sells a swing Bettendorf caboose truck which is what is currently on the MT caboose.  The factory trucks work well for the Arnold wood caboose.  I am guessing that the factory trucks that are on the Arnold wood passenger car chassis are a German truck, but as the shell is an odd hodgepodge concoction anyhow, "funny looking" trucks would fit.  I would expect that if they are German prototype trucks, they would be from the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries, which would work.

I am  using archbar trucks on the Athearn caboose (it came with them), the short drover caboose (the chassis came with the archbar trucks in a bag) , the Arnold boom tender that I am using as a caboose as well as the B-mann boom tender that I am using as a caboose.  I am going to try trimming the rectangular bolster on the Athearn.  If it works, I will apply the same to the short drover caboose.  The B-mann boom tender will require lowering, as well, but the solution on it is obvious. 

My understanding is that archbar trucks were officially banned in interchange service before the First World War, but the ban was not enforced until  the 1930s.  Enforcement of the ban had to be suspended between 1942 and 1946 due to wartime exigencies.  As cabooses are not used in interchange service, as a rule, and, railroads tried to spend as little money as possible on them, archbar trucks would fit cabooses on a short line in the mid-1950s.

The B-mann four wheel caboose is fine as it is.  I did add MT endrailings and ladders to one.  I forget what happened to it.  I might do this on the one that I currently use.

[thomasjmdavis]

When measuring height above the rail, the size of the flange shouldn't affect the measurement. (Pizza cutters on Atlas Code 55 aside, grin)  I'm not sure what you were trying to say with "reason to lower because of installation of low profile wheels".

Mike,
You are correct, and I was wrong....most of the time. I should have been more thorough in my initial "testing".

I had double checked before I posted. 
I measured some small flange wheels (MTL "low profile" and FVM on one of my FVM boxcars) and got measurements of .204 and .205 over the tread of the wheels- a reasonable approximation of 33 scale inches.

Then I took a random freight truck out of the box that I keep around with old wheels and trucks. It's wheels measure .184 over the treads.  Which would mean that, since the distance from the axle to the rail would .01 lower (half the difference between wheel diameters.  Granted, only 1.6 scale inches. 

Well, reading your post, I did some more measuring.....
And most of the time, it turns out (surprised me), that you are correct.  I measured about 10 other pizza cutter wheelsets in that box, at random, and the others I measured were .204-.205 over their treads, pizza cutter flanges notwithstanding.  I remeasured the ones I used in the first try, and they still measure .184 - but clearly outliers.  Clearly outliers based on the measurements of others in the junk box.

So, sorry for whatever confusion I may have caused.

[thomasjmdavis]

My understanding is that archbar trucks were officially banned in interchange service before the First World War, but the ban was not enforced until  the 1930s.  Enforcement of the ban had to be suspended between 1942 and 1946 due to wartime exigencies.  As cabooses are not used in interchange service, as a rule, and, railroads tried to spend as little money as possible on them, archbar trucks would fit cabooses on a short line in the mid-1950s.

Many wood cabooses on the Grand Trunk Western kept their archbar trucks until they were retired in the 1960s-early 70s. One of the books I have has a photo of a caboose in Lansing MI in 1970, still apparently in (probably limited) service, still on archbar trucks.  I am guessing these were "caboose" trucks of archbar design- hopefully for the crew they rode a little better than standard archbar trucks. 

All the best with your project.

[bbussey]

@brokemoto this is an example of the FVM trucks on the MTL caboose frame.  This MTL/nee-Kadee caboose was stretched to kitbash a New Haven NE4, but the appearance and ride height is the same.  It's a vast improvement over the era-inappropriate roller-bearing leaf-spring trucks, and the original Bettendorfs that preceded them.  The trucks really look good under Atlas cabooses, as they are closer to scale width than the Atlas trucks.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[brokemoto]

@bbussey , thank you for the photograph.  It looks like those trucks are the way to do it.

I looked on the Fox Valley website.  The only N scale caboose trucks that I see are:

CMStP&P "straight" caboose truck.
CMStP&P "drop center" caboose truck
B&O caboose truck (for the waggontops, I assume)

Is it one of those three?  I did not see any other N scale caboose trucks.  I did try the search function.  Did I miss something?


Nice job on that NYNH&H caboose.

[Maletrain]

I did not check any of my RTR models, but B&O typically ran its caboose on 33" wheels, not 28" wheels. So there is a few scale inches to play with, for better or worse.