Author Topic: Has anyone made a non-ducted roof for the MTL Heavyweight Sleeper?  (Read 2667 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

bbussey

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 8893
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +4716
    • www.bbussey.net
Re: Has anyone made a non-ducted roof for the MTL Heavyweight Sleeper?
« Reply #15 on: October 23, 2014, 11:14:17 AM »
0
So that would only seem to leave the RPO roof to section together.  Yes?

If I didn't care about the width of the clerestory, could I just use the Parlor car roof as-is?

The RPO does not have a pedemented end, so it doesn't work for you.

The parlor roof has the A/C duct on one side only, so you could use two roofs to get the configuration you want if the clerestory width is not an issue for you. But the wider clerestory was common for parlors, diners and observations, not sleepers and coaches. I don't know why that was the case however.
Bryan Busséy
NHRHTA #2246
NSE #1117
www.bbussey.net


wcfn100

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 8841
  • Respect: +1221
    • Chicago Great Western Modeler
Re: Has anyone made a non-ducted roof for the MTL Heavyweight Sleeper?
« Reply #16 on: October 23, 2014, 11:23:17 AM »
0
Alright, thanks.  I was just looking for pictures of the parlor car and saw that one side had the ducting.  :|

I only have pictures of one side so far (hopefully that will change) so I don't know what the other side looks like for sure except for the ends which it looks like there is no ducting.  Regardless I'm pretty sure it should be the narrow clerestory so I'll keep my eyes out for other options than other MTL cars (I'm not a fan of the way they simulate the roof panels anyway).


Jason

Sokramiketes

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4974
  • Better modeling through peer pressure...
  • Respect: +1530
    • Modutrak
Re: Has anyone made a non-ducted roof for the MTL Heavyweight Sleeper?
« Reply #17 on: October 23, 2014, 01:29:30 PM »
0
The parlor and obs cars have similar roofs, neither of which are really coach-like. I don't know what purpose it serves, but the two sides are very different -

Cheers,
-Mark

Pullman cars originally were built without air conditioning, and the clerestory had vented windows.  When A/C was added, the a/c ducts were added outside of the standard roof profile.  A/C was fed into the room sides of the car, with aisle sides not needing the ducts on the roof, hence the roof appearing different on each side of the car. 

I imagine the wider clerestory was needed when aisles down the center of a car were wider.  (More head room).  Parlor seats were singles along each side of the car, and not as wide as the twin coach seats.

PGE_Modeller

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 291
  • Respect: +18
Re: Has anyone made a non-ducted roof for the MTL Heavyweight Sleeper?
« Reply #18 on: October 24, 2014, 12:16:52 AM »
0
Some dimensions of clerestory roofs from the 1928 "Car Builders' Cyclopedia" and measurements of Rivarossi and Micro-Trains cars:

Standard Pullman Sleeper:  overall width of clerestory roof = 5' - 11 3/8"; side overhang = 1 1/4" beyond deck wall  (Figures 1227 & 1228 - overhang scaled)
Canadian National Sleeper:  overall width of clerestory roof = 5' - 11 1/8"; side overhang = 2 7/8" beyond deck wall (Figure 1237)
Canadian Pacific Private Car:  overall width of clerestory roof = 5' - 10 3/4"; side overhang = 1 1/4" beyond deck wall (Figure 1253)

Rivarossi sleeper: overall width of clerestory roof = 6' - 0 7/8" (actual measurement = 0.455")
Micro-Trains observation:  overall width of clerestory = 5' - 11 3/8"  (measured at vestibule end where there is no a/c ducting - actual measurement = 0.446")
Note that the M-T observation has a pedimented end at the vestibule end of the car and a plain horizontal lower edge to the roof at the observation end.

I don't have a parlour car to check the roof dimensions.  "If" it has the a/c duct on one side only, it should be possible to cut two lengthwise and splice them together to give a plain roof with the pedimented shape at the ends.

With either the Rivarossi or the M-T roof, if you add the roof overhang of the prototype you end up with a roof that is marginally too wide.

Cheers,