Ride Height

[CRR Chase]

To the guys who adjust this,
Beyond the coupler height gauge, is there a spec sheet on where to cut these bolsters as it pertains to model manufacturer? OR is it an eyeball and coupler height type deal?
 
I have not done any milling yet but plan to get a machine and also plan on milling frames.. It would be nice to adjust the ride heights on boxcars and if there is a cheat sheet (so to speak), that'd be awesome.

Thanks


Chase

[Lemosteam]

There are several factors that come into play for ride height (which is likely why there is no chart at least that I am aware of).

Wheel diameter
Truck bolster height from top of rail
Bolster dimension from coupler mounting surface
coupler mounting surface from top of rail
coupler offset (MT 2004, etc.)

Mathematically speaking of course there could be thousands of these combinations.

i.e. 5 x 5 =25 x the number of manufacturers x the body style.

Just as an example: 25 X 5 manufacturers x 30 body styles = 3750 potential variables.

Best method IMHO is to measure what you have, and remove/add material to achieve the 7.1mm body height for MT 1015.

Taking ALL of that into account may STILL not be enough to get the op of the car to prototypical height.  N Scale just has too many compromises to be exact.  Tradeoffs abound where close enough is good enough, IMHO.

I design rolling stock from the ground up using known components, fortunately since I design truck frames for them, I can use tow of those variables to my advantage and I still find I must make compromises.

[CRR Chase]

Lemosteam
This helps…
I didn’t know about the 7.2mm height!

I was thinking along the lines you presented.

7.2 answers some questions

Thanks

[Lemosteam]

Correction, 7.1mm.  MT has images for the coupler height contained in its packaging. also most listings for their N and Z scale couplers have similar images:

https://www.micro-trains.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=63_109&product_id=323

Note that the 2004 coupler uses a 5.6mm coupler mounting height:

https://www.micro-trains.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=63_109&product_id=337

[squirrelhunter]

I made a set of clearance cards out of styene that correspond to the scale max height over the rails for each plate, so I have ones for Plate B, Plate E (sincd the height of things like roof ribs may not be perfectly to scale) and Plate F.

I put a car on a flat surface the the top of the workbench when using my clarance plates so I don't have to account for the height of the track (Kato unitrak vs Atlas sectional fof example) when checking cars.

This works for getting the roof of the cars at the right ridd height, but you may still need to adjust coupler height and for some cars that are vertically compressed (like MTL FMC 50' boxcars and 60' waffle side cars) the side sills may be still too high when veiwed against other cars.

[CRR Chase]

 Ill have to take a lot into consideration. but it is fairly straight forward. The styrene card jig is a good Idea.

However, I am sure that with the couplers and boxcar floors changing, like mentioned earlier, the outcomes and likelihood for matching unlike brands would be almost infinite.

Grant, on SARail on youtube was swapping out floors to achieve ride height desired, this just seemed entirely wasteful. i think he was using FV floors with Atlas boxcars, or something to that effect.

Thanks again for the tips guys.

Chase

[bbussey]

I also worked from the eaves height, although I used data in the ORER since I pre-date the plate-clearance era. Once I had a particular manufacturer’s model calibrated, that was the standard for every release of that model. Currently, most recently-tooled models already ride at or close to the correct height, so I only check if the model visually appears to be riding too high (or low).

[CRR Chase]

Bbussey,
Having the master or standard car is a good idea.

[squirrelhunter]

Grant, on SARail on youtube was swapping out floors to achieve ride height desired, this just seemed entirely wasteful. i think he was using FV floors with Atlas boxcars, or something to that effect.

Thanks again for the tips guys.

Chase

Actually, the most time efficient way I have found to lower FVM FMC/PS Plate C boxcars is to swap in the underframe from an Atlas FMC 5077 boxcar. You get improved ride height, body mounted couplers and better trucks ajd it takes a couple of minutes and you can sell the Atlas boxcar shells and FVM frames/MTL trucks.

I'll also second bbusey's suggestion of having reference cars. His X58 is a good one to use for Plate B boxcars, I like using Wheels of Time RBL's for Plate C cars.

His suggestion on pre clearance plate cars is also good- I try to make sure all my 10'6 modified AAR cars ride at the same height, all my 10' AAR and PS-1's ride at the same height, etc.

[rail_nut]

squirrelhunter,
Did I miss something? When you set the car on the table top how to you compensate for different the flange heights?
Also the plates consider an empty car on new wheels. Not that it really makes a difference at 1/160.
Would having cars look prototypical by side sill height look better than roof height which varies with loading?

[CRR Chase]

I'll also second bbusey's suggestion of having reference cars. His X58 is a good one to use for Plate B boxcars, I like using Wheels of Time RBL's for Plate C cars.

do you know what wheels, "wheels of time" uses? I have 3-4 of their cars and really like the wheels they use. very nice models.

[nkalanaga]

Rail_nut:  Flange height was my question as well.  I use much the same method, but have a "poor man's surface plate", nothing more than three 1/16 x 3/4 inch brass bars glued to a piece of poplar 1x4, spaced for N scale standard and narrow gauge.  Put the car on those, and measure from the surface.  Cheap, probably not accurate enough for a machine shop, but certainly good enough for my model work.

Incidentally, I also have a 1/4 inch square brass tube, which fits in the Nn3 section nicely, and can be used for making sure long glue joints are square.

[MetroRedLine]

Here's the thing though: As N scale modelers, we install couplers on the bottom of the floor/chassis of our rolling stock. But on the prototype, most of the time, the coupler is built into the central spine of the car's underframe, and not a box that hangs from the bottom of the car.

[peteski]

Here's the thing though: As N scale modelers, we install couplers on the bottom of the floor/chassis of our rolling stock. But on the prototype, most of the time, the coupler is built into the central spine of the car's underframe, and not a box that hangs from the bottom of the car.

What is your solution for that?
But to be honest, the body mounted couplers appear to be connected to the car's spine molded into the floor. It is not  like they "hang" from the floor. Unfortunately the N scale coupler boxes are larger than most of the spines. A Z scale coupler box woudl be close to the spine size.

[MetroRedLine]

What is your solution for that?
But to be honest, the body mounted couplers appear to be connected to the car's spine molded into the floor. It is not  like they "hang" from the floor. Unfortunately the N scale coupler boxes are larger than most of the spines. A Z scale coupler box woudl be close to the spine size.

Yes - for boxcars, covered hoppers, tank cars, this is already the case.

Not so much for 89' flats/autoracks and passenger cars; hence their need for underslung couplers. The solution would be to redesign the space for the coupler box "sunken in" more to allow this. Fortunately ScaleTrains already had the sense to do a semblance of this for their recent N scale Multi-Max autoracks.