When did MTL update their ACF hoppers?

[nkalanaga]

Since Aurora Postage stamp Locos were made by Minitrix, they were worth copying.  Until flywheels came along, the best running locos I had were a fleet of Minitrix Fs.  Fortunately the BN in the 70s still had a lot of Fs in the Northwest!

[daniel_leavitt2000]

just so we are talking apples and apples...in what way underslung?  I'm assuming a depressed bolster to lower the car? I just want to be clear we are on the same page and not some new Railwirespeak

Joe

I was using MTL speak! The 2004 couplers at described as underslung.

Can't MTL make an underslung truck that matches the offset of the 2004 coupler? That would mean that you could use these trucks and the 2004 couplers instead of standard height trucks and 1015 couplers. This would minimize required tooling changes to the freight cars.

[cjm413]

The right trucks for the FMC box depend on whether it has the original or revised underframe.

Joe does that mean we'll get some 100t trucks with an underslung and offset bolster that will match the offset of your 70t trucks?

I need tons of these. I know that Trainworx makes them, but they are hard to get and I don't like the idea of my MTL cars running on non MTL trucks.

They would work well in your 56' tank, 90t hoppers, covered hoppers, gondolas, auto parts boxcars. And lots of plug door FMC boxcars came with 100t trucks too. All these cars need to be lowered and all of them have offset bolsters, so I can't use BLMA or other center bolster trucks without throwing off the truck spacing.

[bbussey]

I was using MTL speak! The 2004 couplers at described as underslung.

Can't MTL make an underslung truck that matches the offset of the 2004 coupler? That would mean that you could use these trucks and the 2004 couplers instead of standard height trucks and 1015 couplers. This would minimize required tooling changes to the freight cars.

Then you'd have to worry about the outer axle hitting the bottom of the coupler box.

I'd rather see the tooling modified so that coupler boxes are properly integrated.  Then model could stand at the proper height without compromising end detail, or the axle hitting the coupler box, or having to use "underslung" couplers.

[cjm413]

Then you'd have to worry about the outer axle hitting the bottom of the coupler box.

I'd rather see the tooling modified so that coupler boxes are properly integrated.  Then model could stand at the proper height without compromising end detail, or the axle hitting the coupler box, or having to use "underslung" couplers.

Emphasis on the word "properly."

Athearn may have taken a few steps backward when they modified the PS 2600 from truck-mounted couplers to coupler boxes that appear to be integrated into the frame.

http://www.athearn.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=ATH16320

The ride height on the older runs is an eyesore, but it is relatively easy to fix with BLMA trucks and 903/905 couplers (or any other coupler boxes that don't hit the axles)

It wasn't unreasonable to assume that they'd fix the ride height when they added the new coupler boxes...but they didn't...

I haven't bought any of them to say for sure, but unless the new coupler boxes are not integrated or are at least easy to remove without damaging the body, it's not unreasonable to assume that lowering these would be a total PITA.