Fixing MTL 40' Boxcars

[bbussey]

With a by-far better-proportioned PS-1 40’ model on the market, I don’t see the need to rework a model originally released during the Nixon administration. I used to have a couple hundred of them. Other than the Original Nine, the Metropolitan Central cars and the MR 40th Anniversary Car that are among my collectibles, I can count the runners I have today on one hand, and I never run them.

[coosvalley]

The reason he doesn't just use the Atlas PS-1s is because they do not come in those cool weathered schemes.

I would love to see MT re-tool the 40' and 50' PS-1s, and the 50' ribsides, to at least be accurate bodies, even if they still use "foobie" or "close enough" paint schemes for them...Hopefully someday

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Well, I was hoping to make something that didn't look out of place with my more modernly tooled cars out of these: https://www.modeltrainstuff.com/micro-trains-n-02044167-weathered-40-standard-box-car-with-single-door-reading-2-pack/

[Point353]

With a by-far better-proportioned PS-1 40’ model on the market, I don’t see the need to rework a model originally released during the Nixon administration. I used to have a couple hundred of them. Other than the Original Nine, the Metropolitan Central cars and the MR 40th Anniversary Car that are among my collectibles, I can count the runners I have today on one hand, and I never run them.

What are you running in place of these two cars?

[OldEastRR]

Fiddling with couplers or using lower trucks and smaller wheels or grinding away the underbody is not going to solve the glaring problem: the MTL boxcar body is 6" higher than a prototype one. So you can have the roof higher than other mfgs PS-1s, or the sill lower than them, but you can't have both without reworking the shell. Some people can merely dump all their MTL cars and replace them with brand-new Atlas ones but but not everybody is that wealthy.
The only way to fix the MTL body is to lower it. I had only a few MTL PS-1s but I liked the paint schemes so I found a way to lower the body with minimal damage. The MTL door is the correct size, interestingly enough, so I only needed to reposition the inner tab to have a sliding door again. Or if you like gluing doors in place it's a snap.
Also, I don't see how the old MTL tooling is in any way inferior to today's productions. Lots of stuff from "Nixon's administration" still pass muster on looks today (MRC, Rivarossi, Minitrix). Nowadays cars come with detail parts instead of molded-on ones.
Paint matching for the new seam is sometimes easy, sometimes tricky, but with weathered cars it's not hard to disguise the repaint (there's just a thin seam around the body that needs painting).
So you can either replace all your MTL cars with other brands, do the truck/frame/coupler box finagling, hope that eventually Atlas or somebody will do all the schemes MTL has done including the weathered ones, or spend a little time and care reworking some favorite MTL cars of yours. Ed, if you want complete instructions and pic of the MTL mod PM me.

UPDATE: Those 2 NH cars are very easy to paint match; I've re-done the black one and you have to look really hard to see the seam. But you don't have to look hard to see it matches an Atlas PS-1 body.

[bbussey]

What are you running in place of these two cars?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I unloaded the MTL boxcars via auction and trade over a number of years, long before the Atlas model was released. New Haven had far more AAR boxcars than PS-1 cars, so that part of it was an easy decision once the InterMountain kits first appeared on the market. That Atlas has released a proportionally-correct PS-1 in recent years is icing on the cake.

[bbussey]

I stated the 20000-series model is proportionally incorrect. I didn’t state all the 1970s-tooled MTL models are inferior. Many of the early Kadee/MTL models are proportionally correct and the ride height of those models is correctable. I run other MTL bodystyles. Just not the 40’ PS-1.

[Point353]

I unloaded the MTL boxcars via auction and trade over a number of years, long before the Atlas model was released. New Haven had far more AAR boxcars than PS-1 cars, so that part of it was an easy decision once the InterMountain kits first appeared on the market.

I never tried any of their kits, but was turned off on IM products after buying a few of the factory-built cars and seeing the slipshod assembly quality and excessive use of glue.

[nkalanaga]

To get back to the original question, I lowered a couple hundred MT PS-1s.  Filing the bolster was easy, and put the underframe at the right height to use a 1025 coupler.  A 1015 would also work, if you prefer.  The 1027 "body mount coupler" is designed for the factory ride height, and WILL NOT work after filing the bolsters.

The problem is that the holes in the underframe are specifically designed for the 1027.  If you use the outer hole, the 1025 (or 1015) will stick out too far.  If you use the inner hole, there isn't room for the 1025 box, and the cars will be too close together with either coupler.

So, you have the choice of having the cars too far apart (easy, but doesn't look as good), or drilling and tapping a new hole (more work, but the right distance).  Take you pick.  It would be nice if MT would change the holes in the underframes.  I wonder how many people today body mount the couplers without lowering the car?

And, yes, I realize the MT car is proportioned wrong, but at the price of new Atlas cars, I'm not blowing my yearly budget on replacing them, especially since many are lettered with no-longer-available decals.  They don't look any worse, in a train, than many other N scale cars of the last 50 years, including a few recent ones.

[bbussey]

I never tried any of their kits, but was turned off on IM products after buying a few of the factory-built cars and seeing the slipshod assembly quality and excessive use of glue.

I bought and built all 12 of the New Haven AAR 1937 kits (the only way to get them since IMRC never offered them assembled) and lowered them and body-mounted the couplers.  Since they are in the 31000 series, they need to have metal roofwalks swapped in (as do the four red-orange cars I have).  I have four more extra script herald kits to build that will be renumbered into the 30000 series in order to keep their wood roofwalks.  I also picked up undec NYC Pacemaker kits, which technically are AAR Postwar boxcars that NH also owned, but I have yet to assemble and paint.  I want to paint some black AAR 1937 cars and apply the standard size herald as well, but those projects aren't as high on the list because I already have 20 or so prototypical NH 40' boxcars to hold me over.  And if IRMC releases NH schemes on those models in the interim, all the better.

[bbussey]

To get back to the original question, I lowered a couple hundred MT PS-1s.  Filing the bolster was easy, and put the underframe at the right height to use a 1025 coupler.  A 1015 would also work, if you prefer.  The 1027 "body mount coupler" is designed for the factory ride height, and WILL NOT work after filing the bolsters.

The problem is that the holes in the underframe are specifically designed for the 1027.  If you use the outer hole, the 1025 (or 1015) will stick out too far.  If you use the inner hole, there isn't room for the 1025 box, and the cars will be too close together with either coupler.

So, you have the choice of having the cars too far apart (easy, but doesn't look as good), or drilling and tapping a new hole (more work, but the right distance).  Take you pick.  It would be nice if MT would change the holes in the underframes.  I wonder how many people today body mount the couplers without lowering the car?

And, yes, I realize the MT car is proportioned wrong, but at the price of new Atlas cars, I'm not blowing my yearly budget on replacing them, especially since many are lettered with no-longer-available decals.  They don't look any worse, in a train, than many other N scale cars of the last 50 years, including a few recent ones.

If you drill/tap the inner dimples and body-mount 1016s, the coupling distance will be shorter and comparable to using 1023s/1025s, which used to have a good coupler distance back in the previous century.  I don't know what has changed, but I don't use those couplers any more due to the spring orientation.

We will have to agree to disagree on the appearance of the MTL boxcars in relation to other models that already have a scale ride height and are properly proportioned.

[Point353]

I also picked up undec NYC Pacemaker kits, which technically are AAR Postwar boxcars that NH also owned, but I have yet to assemble and paint.

The IM cars I bought were assembled NYC Pacemaker boxcars that BLW sold in a multi-pack as a special run.

[mark.hinds]

I'm really eye humping those recently released Reading cars but I know they're high-rollers.

Is there a shortcut to getting them riding at the right height (like order x part from Atlas and install), or am I suck filing and sanding?

WRT reworking the Micro Trains PS-1 body, I was in the middle of doing so on a couple of test cars, as evidenced in reply #68 of this thread:  https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=39994.50 .  FYI

MH

[nkalanaga]

"We will have to agree to disagree on the appearance of the MTL boxcars"
Not really, as I agree that the newer cars look better, and don't require the extra work.  I'd love to be able to replace all of my MTs.  However, I can't afford that many new cars.  Also, there's no point replacing an incorrect car that SHOULDN'T be a PS-1 with another PS-1, as it would still be incorrect!  Now, if Atlas, or MT, would tool a new, correctly proportioned, AAR boxcar, I would try to replace some of mine.  IM's cars are fine, but very hard to find, especially the undecs.

As far as I know 1025s couple at the same distance as they used to, but the MT underframes aren't designed for them.  Using the 1016s in the rear hole sounds like a good idea.  In my case, being cheap, and preferring to run the cars more than photograph them, I bought 500 pairs of 1025 boxes and reused the truck-mounted couplers.

If MT wanted to recognize the modelers who lower the ride height, it would be simple to tool a 1027 box that would sit at the proper height on a lowered car.  The coupler would be the same, so the distance would be the same, all that would be needed is a new box, similar in size to the 1025 box.  I have no idea if there would be enough of a market to make it worthwhile.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

What I'm taking away from this is that, despite that the decoration of the new Reading cars looks beautiful, I'm just not going to bother because fixing them up to get them looking right in a train with modern cars like those from ESM, Trainworx, and even MTL's own recent releases, is going to be a project.

A project that's just not worth the reward.

It's a bummer. And looking back, these aren't the only cars that are symptoms of this problem. I'd have bought a bunch of the recent 50' boxcars, both weathered and non-weathered, if the cars were properly proportioned. As they are, I just can't.

C'mon MTL guys. Fix this!!! Help me spend my money on your stuff!!!