Best Of Which freight cars don't need to be lowered?

[Ian MacMillan]

What a great thread....sticky!

[mark.hinds]

Great thread!  I thought I was the only one picky about equipment height.

A more systematic approach to this issue would be to establish personal measured “standards” for equipment height, instead of just doing it “by eye”.  For each type of equipment, the standard could either be the scale height, or some other height which the modeler feels is a more practical compromise, given personal preferences. 

To facilitate checking model car height against one’s standard, one may want to create a jig.  Here’s an image of a jig which I made.  Its main advantage is that it allows a more precise measurement from railhead to the top center of the end of the car, independent of viewing angle.  One first adjusts the height of the bar relative to the rail head at that end of the tool, using a scale ruler.  Then one tightens up the clamp.  The bar in the image happens to be set for 14’ (for F7s).    This jig can also be used to check for car sideways lean, by putting a small machinist’s square vertically along side the car on the “shelf” and sighting from one end of the jig. 



The following is an example of the type of height standards compromise which a particular modeler might decide on.  It derives from my experience back in the 1980s, when I last did significant work on my layout (which has been in a state of suspended animation since).  This issue almost certainly needs to be revisited by me, in light of currently available N-scale products and improved modeling standards. 

Anyway, back then I had decided that some equipment was so off that adjustment to actual dimensions was impractical (personal decision here).  For example, the steel ice reefer shells I was modifying to represent R-40-20s (above image) could only be lowered so much before they started looking worse.  This was because the model car body width was excessive when compared with the width of the MT trucks I use, thus making the body overhang the trucks when viewed from above and to the side, thus making the car look too “low” when viewed from that angle.  So I settled on reducing the height to 14’ instead of to the actual 13.5’. 

Based on similar reasoning, here were some of my actual prototype / standard modeled heights.  The models would have been adjusted to match the 2nd number.  Note that in all cases the models were originally even higher, as produced by the manufacturer:

EMD F7 diesel    14’ / 14’
PS-1 box car   15’ / 15.5’
R-40-20 reefer   13.5’ / 14’
R-40-25 reefer   13.7’ / 14.2’

MH 

[wcfn100]

If this thread is going to live on, I think some correction and clarification is needed in regards to the data printed on our cars (box cars in particular).

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

There is no measurement for overall height which in the case of the car in the graphic is 15' 1".

Jason

[nkalanaga]

Jason:  That's what I thought.  Most railroads aren't interested in the actual height, only if it will fit their clearances.  That's what the "Plates" are for.  As long as the car is within the maximum height for its plate the railroad will be satisfied.

The shipper may be interested in the maximum usable height, but for a boxcar that's the inside height, which isn't much help to modelers.

I have a gauge, looks like a portable tunnel portal, cut to fit the Plate B height of 15-1.  Probably should make one for Plate C (15-6), but i was mostly interested in lowering the IM mechanical reefers.

I would also add the Con-Cor 40 ft boxcars to the list.  If anything, they seem to sit too low, and certainly aren't too tall.

[Lemosteam]

Sorry if I sound a bit confused- isn't this about making the sill to truck height look more realistic, rather than the overall height of the car? 

[tom mann]

Sorry if I sound a bit confused- isn't this about making the sill to truck height look more realistic, rather than the overall height of the car? 

I guess if you can count on the body being uncompressed, then both.

[Glenn Poole]

Sorry if I sound a bit confused- isn't this about making the sill to truck height look more realistic, rather than the overall height of the car? 

Exactly what I thought was more important.  I've read where some of MT cars are the proper height from rail to top of car, but they are NOT the proper height above the trucks.

[Lemosteam]

I guess if you can count on the body being uncompressed, then both.

Thanks Tom, I see how both could come into play in terms of realism.

[cjm413]

Which freight cars don't need to be lowered?

The ones owned by Bryan Bussey.   ;D

Ron Bearden

Also any 50' boxcars that have been retrofitted with Hydra-Cushion or Keystone underframes purchased from Bryan Bussey 

[mark.hinds]

Sorry if I sound a bit confused- isn't this about making the sill to truck height look more realistic, rather than the overall height of the car? 

Both the overall height, and the height above the rail are important, IMHO.  This leads to complications when one lowers a car whose body is "stretched" in the vertical dimension (e.g. Microtrains PS-1 box car).  Back in the 1980s, I handled that issue by lowering the car on its trucks, but only part way, as mentioned in my post above.  A better way to address that issue is with additional labor, as mentioned in this thread:  https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=28313.0.  Some sort of jig would be helpful for the sill modifications.  This is what I plan to do going forward, as I don't want to throw out all my MT PS-1s.  I will probably also lower the truck bolsters, so that half of the remaining excess car body height is "below" the correct scale position of the car body.  A jig for lowering bolsters can be created by using a shimmed flat file.  One tapes temporary shims to each end of the file, puts the floor of the box car upside-down on a flat surface, and files it down to the shimmed level. 

MH

[bbussey]

Both the overall height, and the height above the rail are important, IMHO.  This leads to complications when one lowers a car whose body is "stretched" in the vertical dimension (e.g. Microtrains PS-1 box car).  Back in the 1980s, I handled that issue by lowering the car on its trucks, but only part way, as mentioned in my post above.  A better way to address that issue is with additional labor, as mentioned in this thread:  https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=28313.0.  Some sort of jig would be helpful for the sill modifications.  This is what I plan to do going forward, as I don't want to throw out all my MT PS-1s.  I will probably also lower the truck bolsters, so that half of the remaining excess car body height is "below" the correct scale position of the car body.  A jig for lowering bolsters can be created by using a shimmed flat file.  One tapes temporary shims to each end of the file, puts the floor of the box car upside-down on a flat surface, and files it down to the shimmed level. 

"Raising" the sills on the various MTL PS-1 boxcars won't solve the problem.  The door height is correct even though the car height is exaggerated, so both of the door tracks are out of position.  The roof remains too high even after Mike's modification, even though the model looks much better with the lower sills re-cut.  There really is no way to make the model prototypical in one area that doesn't affect another area.

[bbussey]

Exactly what I thought was more important.  I've read where some of MT cars are the proper height from rail to top of car, but they are NOT the proper height above the trucks.

It depends on the model.  Some are height-compressed, such as the FMC series of 50' boxcars.  Some ride too high but proportioned correctly, such as the flatcars and wood reefers. 

[mark.hinds]

"Raising" the sills on the various MTL PS-1 boxcars won't solve the problem.  The door height is correct even though the car height is exaggerated, so both of the door tracks are out of position.  The roof remains too high even after Mike's modification, even though the model looks much better with the lower sills re-cut.  There really is no way to make the model prototypical in one area that doesn't affect another area.

I only own one Atlas PS-1 (with an 8-foot door), but in comparing it to my MT PS-1s it appears that the lower door track is farther from the bottom of the sill on the MT model.  Thus, cutting away the bottom of the MT sill positions the door track closer to the bottom edge of the sill, as in the Atlas model and as in the plans in Mainline Modeler magazine.  This also reduces the height of the car, and filing down the bolsters reduces it more, to within a few scale inches of the prototype's 15-foot roofwalk height.  For me, that's good enough for now.  Remember, the rest of the stuff on even the best quality layouts is often off by more than this. 

I admit that the Atlas PS-1s look nice, and I was considering replacing my PS-1s with them.  However, I don't like the wheelsets and the body-mounted couplers, and the Atlas design makes it difficult to switch to MT truck-mounted couplers (my layout standard). 

MH

[cjm413]

The ideal solution would be the N scale equivalent of Accurail's HO 40' and 50' boxcar underframes.

Whether anyone wants to cough up the $ to make them in N scale to sell at about $4 each is another story...

[cjm413]

I only own one Atlas PS-1 (with an 8-foot door), but in comparing it to my MT PS-1s it appears that the lower door track is farther from the bottom of the sill on the MT model.  Thus, cutting away the bottom of the MT sill positions the door track closer to the bottom edge of the sill, as in the Atlas model and as in the plans in Mainline Modeler magazine.  This also reduces the height of the car, and filing down the bolsters reduces it more, to within a few scale inches of the prototype's 15-foot roofwalk height.  For me, that's good enough for now.  Remember, the rest of the stuff on even the best quality layouts is often off by more than this. 

I admit that the Atlas PS-1s look nice, and I was considering replacing my PS-1s with them.  However, I don't like the wheelsets and the body-mounted couplers, and the Atlas design makes it difficult to switch to MT truck-mounted couplers (my layout standard). 

MH

If you find a way to use MT trucks w/couplers, I'd happily take those Atlas Barber trucks off your hands...