Possible kitbash for MTL PS-1?

[mark.hinds]

Take a look at this link.

https://books.google.com/books?id=_8qQS0ZNCTIC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=improved+dreadnaught+1944&source=bl&ots=8-HkiZo7qB&sig=gEfr554wK06QMwumRTTFcdqLAjQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZrNyv2ZzPAhUM9YMKHaL5DoUQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=improved%20dreadnaught%201944&f=false

There's a quick summary in captions 1-10 and 1-11.

Jason

OK, but as you may know, the Intermountain cars are designed to be sold with different combinations of roofs and ends.  The Intermountain 10'-6" cars I have came with Improved Dreadnought ends, per your caption 1-11.  Hence despite the terminology used on their website, the model would appear to be suitable as a representation of at least some 1944 AAR cars.  Remember that the latter had different roofs, ends, running boards, brake wheels, etc., and were made from 1941 through ?? 

WRT your concerns mentioned previously about my contaminating the thread, all I can say is that I dislike conflict, and given the degree of drift from the original intentions of the OP, I didn't think I was too far off topic.  I think the main bone of contention is that people differ in what they feel is important in a model, and we sometimes are a bit intolerant of others' preferences in this area. 

Mark H.

[Missaberoad]

The models differ true, but just out of curiosity, what aspects of the Intermountain model (which I own) preclude it being used to represent a 1944 AAR car? 

Mark H.

Combine the 10' 6" body with Improved dreadnought ends and you have a 1944 AAR car. These were cars built after 1945. the 1944 standard did not exist until then...

Any car built between 1940 and 1945 with a 10'4", 10'5" or 10'6" Inside height is considered a modified 1937 AAR car. all of these had 5/5 dreadnought ends.

You can build a 1944 AAR car with Intermountain components but it would be improper to refer to all IMRC 10' 6" boxcars as that...

There is alot of oversimplification in this thread. having the correct height overall does not guarantee that all the parts of a car will have the proper proportions.

While your modification to the MTL car corrects the ride height and overall height, it does nothing to address the incorrect location of the upper door track, the incorrect weld lines along the roof or the "stretched" components on the car ends. good job on improving the look of the MTL car but it is not a matter of opinion that it remains incorrect in a number of ways. Like I said earlier it is a matter of everyone having different standards.

While I will not fault you for being happy with the MTL car, likewise you can't fault someone for finding it unacceptable.

[mark.hinds]

Combine the 10' 6" body with Improved dreadnought ends and you have a 1944 AAR car. These were cars built after 1945. the 1944 standard did not exist until then...

Any car built between 1940 and 1945 with a 10'4", 10'5" or 10'6" Inside height is considered a modified 1937 AAR car. all of these had 5/5 dreadnought ends.

You can build a 1944 AAR car with Intermountain components but it would be improper to refer to all IMRC 10' 6" boxcars as that...

There is alot of oversimplification in this thread. having the correct height overall does not guarantee that all the parts of a car will have the proper proportions.

While your modification to the MTL car corrects the ride height and overall height, it does nothing to address the incorrect location of the upper door track, the incorrect weld lines along the roof or the "stretched" components on the car ends. good job on improving the look of the MTL car but it is not a matter of opinion that it remains incorrect in a number of ways. Like I said earlier it is a matter of everyone having different standards.

While I will not fault you for being happy with the MTL car, likewise you can't fault someone for finding it unacceptable.

Fair enough.  MH

[cjm413]

The models differ true, but just out of curiosity, what aspects of the Intermountain model (which I own) preclude it being used to represent a 1944 AAR car? 

Mark H.

Roster info for both are here:

http://steamerafreightcars.com/prototype/frtcars/protofrtcarsmain.html

[bbussey]

... BTW, to correct a misstatement made earlier in this thread, car height doesn't have to be a function of how you mount your couplers.  That is because car height is determined by the height of the truck, and the height of the body resting on the truck.  Couplers only come into the picture if you lower the car in a manner which results in inadequate clearance for the coupler box, which is avoidable.

This is exactly the type of statement that is misleading. You can't lower a model with truck-mounted couplers to a scale ride height (or scale roof height as you prefer) without compromising the ends on the overwhelming majority of N scale models. You can lower a car with body-mounted couplers to a proper height without drastically compromising the ends because there are a number of mounting options in coupler boxes and shank orientation. Nearly every N scale model that has body-mounted couplers can be lowered to a scale height over the rails. That is not the case for equipment with truck-mounted couplers.

[OldEastRR]

It's obvious that the door tracks on the MTL car are too thick, and the ends have been stretched above the bolted seam that runs across halfway up the body end. What weld lines specifically are wrong?
Funny thing is, the MTL door matches the same type Atlas door in height and width. Another funny thing: the old Atlas Trainman PS-1s match the height of the new PS-1s. Whaaaaa????
Also, some people are not rich enough to toss all their MTL cars and buy new Atlas replacements.

[wcfn100]

OK, but as you may know, the Intermountain cars are designed to be sold with different combinations of roofs and ends.  The Intermountain 10'-6" cars I have came with Improved Dreadnought ends, per your caption 1-11.  Hence despite the terminology used on their website, the model would appear to be suitable as a representation of at least some 1944 AAR cars.  Remember that the latter had different roofs, ends. running boards, brake wheels, etc., and were made from 1941 through ?? 

Okay, first, sorry for the lazy link.  It wasn't exactly what I was trying to say but I'm glad I did it - and I'll get to that in a second.  Second, I did forget that IM had those ends for the Modified 1937 car.  Now I don't know if just putting those on makes it a 1944, but I don't know that it doesn't either so I'm good with whatever.   I do know that there were 1937 Modified cars that had the 4/4 Improved Dreadnaught ends, but have no idea how they would fit into any of this.

So all of this made me do some research and it looks like the confusion comes from the fact that it's confusing.  Using the Car Builders Cyclopedia, the '1937 Modified AAR' is the last reference to any particular year of a design.  So in 1947 (or whenever), it's just called AAR standard.  Along the way the standard end (4/3/1) and roof (diagonal panel) were altered without any new designation.

So I guess it comes down to just trying to identify certain groups of cars from others.  The 4/4 Improved Dreadnaught seems to be the key identifier without any other design considerations to the earliest modelers 1944 designation of a car and I can live with that.  However, this only works if the Deluxe car is referred to something other than just a 1944 design.  Some may refer to it as 'Post War' and others just a 'late 1944' design.


Jason

[wcfn100]

It's obvious that the door tracks on the MTL car are too thick, and the ends have been stretched above the bolted seam that runs across halfway up the body end. What weld lines specifically are wrong?
Funny thing is, the MTL door matches the same type Atlas door in height and width. Another funny thing: the old Atlas Trainman PS-1s match the height of the new PS-1s. Whaaaaa????
Also, some people are not rich enough to toss all their MTL cars and buy new Atlas replacements.

The MTL car is 6" too tall in side dimension but the door is the correct height (but not width, but that's another discussion) so the the lower door track is placed 6" higher than it should be which takes it off the sill where it's supposed to be and puts it up on the body of the car.  And because of the excess height, other features are stretched out or misplaced as well.

No one is saying to sell anything.  But in terms of a kitbash, it's hard for some of us to imagine starting with all this mess just because one's laying around instead of a car that's properly dimensioned and easily obtained.

Jason

[OldEastRR]

Yes, the MTL Youngstown door is 3" narrower than the Atlas. I admit sawing off the roof of the MTL car, removing a little bit more than the kerf width, then gluing to roof back on makes for a project but results in a substantial difference . The only tricky part is narrowing the lower door tracks along the car side. But like real railroads sometimes our shops have to modify older models to make them better.

[bbussey]

Your time and labor have value also.  Spending $20 on the Atlas model or Athearn model and eating the $15 on the MTL model (or far less depending on its release date) is far less expensive than spending four hours trying to make the $15 model presentable or passing it off as the reasonable basis for another multi-hour kitbash effort — which is not possible due to the myriad of reasons stated up-thread.

And, this is not an MTL bash.  It is a factual assessment of the PS-1 series of models.  MTL does make models that are dimensionally accurate in the body (as scale allows).  It just so happens that the PS-1 models are not among them.

[Nato]

                     "Oh ye rivet counters of little faith !" Let the Force take you over to the lighter side and become a "Semi-Rivet Counter. So what if the car is short one row of rivets, but otherwise looks enough like the prototype to you. Then you should embrace it and rejoice that you have a car that looks mostly like the ADJ road car you wish to portay (represent). Only you and "Rivet Counters" from the darker side would know the difference, the average Jon Doe viewer who may not be a model rail or rail buff will never know, but will love the nice ADJ orange and blue lettering scheme. As my modeling mentor Yodenski said to me if it looks enough like the real thing to you and moves the correctness of your heart then so be it. And yes let us  hope for a better GP-30 coming to a manufacturer Far Far Away  near you soon. Nate Goodman (Nato). Semi-Rivet Counter at heart.

[Sokramiketes]

All this and nobody has measured the Atlas PS-1 yet?  Tisk tisk...

[wcfn100]

All this and nobody has measured the Atlas PS-1 yet?  Tisk tisk...

I've measured it.  It's about 1.25" to 1.5" too short sill to top of side. At least the 6' door version is.  It should be noted some of that is an undersized sill.

edit: To follow up on the sill, the prototype use a 6"x 6" angle bar for the sill which is overlapped at the top with the side sheet.  The sill on the Atlas car measures about 4.25"- 4.5" depending what side of the seam you measure to.  I don't know exactly what the overlap of the sheet measures but on the drawing it looks like about 1/2".  With all that you're looking a sill that about 1" too short give or take which accounts most or all the height discrepancy from the bottom of the sill to the top of the sides.

Care to add anything Mike?

Jaosn

[cjm413]

                     "Oh ye rivet counters of little faith !" Let the Force take you over to the lighter side and become a "Semi-Rivet Counter. So what if the car is short one row of rivets, but otherwise looks enough like the prototype to you. Then you should embrace it and rejoice that you have a car that looks mostly like the ADJ road car you wish to portay (represent). Only you and "Rivet Counters" from the darker side would know the difference, the average Jon Doe viewer who may not be a model rail or rail buff will never know, but will love the nice ADJ orange and blue lettering scheme. As my modeling mentor Yodenski said to me if it looks enough like the real thing to you and moves the correctness of your heart then so be it. And yes let us  hope for a better GP-30 coming to a manufacturer Far Far Away  near you soon. Nate Goodman (Nato). Semi-Rivet Counter at heart.

Are there any cars out there with "semi-rivets" to count? 

[Nato]

                 If we are going to measure the inside of boxcars, and we are "Rivet Counters" then we should probably line the interriors with scale size wood for the walls ends and floors, or scale size "Nailable Flooring" then do our measurements. Nate Goodman (Nato).