Possible kitbash for MTL PS-1?

[bbussey]

                 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.

You can calculate the simulated "inside height" by measuring the relief on the outside.  But you always can measure the distance between the eaves height and the rail top and juxtapose it with the measurement for the prototype class in the ORER, which is far more accurate than measuring to the top of overly-thick roofwalks.

[OldEastRR]

So ... to summarize ... all MTL PS-1 boxcars, whether 40 or 50 foot, single door, double door, plug/sliding, etc -- are too tall?
Along with their too-short long gondolas, what other models are inaccurate? X29s? Tank cars? Mech reefers?

[bbussey]

The bodies of the majority of the Kadee-era models are compromised in some fashion, compressed either in height or length, some more blatant than others.  Off the top of my head, removing ride height from the equation, the models that have correctly-proportioned bodies are the wood sheathed boxcars, USRA boxcars, stock car, 40' appliance car (although there are roof issues I believe), all the reefers wood and steel, the 50' auto boxcar, the 50' wagontop boxcar, the drop bottom gon, the cupola cabooses, TOFC/COFC, the passenger cars other than the horse car, the scale car, the Ortner hopper, the Greenville 60' boxcar, all the covered hoppers.  I'm probably missing some.  But the compression program mainly resides in the boxcars, gondolas, flatcars, tankcars and bay window caboose.

[cjm413]

The bodies of the majority of the Kadee-era models are compromised in some fashion, compressed either in height or length, some more blatant than others.  Off the top of my head, removing ride height from the equation, the models that have correctly-proportioned bodies are the wood sheathed boxcars, USRA boxcars, stock car, 40' appliance car (although there are roof issues I believe), all the reefers wood and steel, the 50' auto boxcar, the 50' wagontop boxcar, the drop bottom gon, the cupola cabooses, TOFC/COFC, the passenger cars other than the horse car, the scale car, the Ortner hopper, the Greenville 60' boxcar, all the covered hoppers.  I'm probably missing some.  But the compression program mainly resides in the boxcars, gondolas, flatcars, tankcars and bay window caboose.

MTL has two different Greenville 60' boxcars, I presume you are only referring to the later MTL model that represents a car built in the early 1960's:

http://www.spookshow.net/freight/mt60ddplug.html

Vs the older MTL release based on a car built in the early 1970's (e.g. the undecorated car at the top of the page)

http://www.spookshow.net/freight/mt60excess.html

Also note the funky roof on the car with the single sliding door - it appears the roof on the model is based on a cross-section view of a diagonal panel roof.  Athearn made the same mistake on their HO EV caboose that was based on a Rock Island prototype, which in turn, was copied by other manufacturers in other scales....d'oh!

http://www.spookshow.net/freight/bachwv.html

[bbussey]

The recent standard height model is correct.  The four excess height models are height compressed.

[Mark5]

All of the Micro-Trains excess height 60 footers have compressed bodies height wise  . Still waiting for some good models of these in N scale.

HO had some decent models of the Berwick 7315 and 7327 60 footers ... (Exact Fail):

https://exactrail.com/products/x-p-s-7315-waffle-box-car-nw

They also did the Greenville excess height 60':

https://exactrail.com/collections/archive-1/products/x-greenville-60-double-plug-door-box-car-nw-1

Mark

[cjm413]

All of the Micro-Trains excess height 60 footers have compressed bodies height wise  . Still waiting for some good models of these in N scale.

HO had some decent models of the Berwick 7315 and 7327 60 footers ... (Exact Fail):

https://exactrail.com/products/x-p-s-7315-waffle-box-car-nw

They also did the Greenville excess height 60':

https://exactrail.com/collections/archive-1/products/x-greenville-60-double-plug-door-box-car-nw-1

Mark

Athearn Genesis:

http://www.athearn.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=ATHG4019

[OldEastRR]

The bodies of the majority of the Kadee-era models are compromised in some fashion, compressed either in height or length, some more blatant than others.  Off the top of my head, removing ride height from the equation, the models that have correctly-proportioned bodies are the wood sheathed boxcars, USRA boxcars, stock car, 40' appliance car (although there are roof issues I believe), all the reefers wood and steel, the 50' auto boxcar, the 50' wagontop boxcar, the drop bottom gon, the cupola cabooses, TOFC/COFC, the passenger cars other than the horse car, the scale car, the Ortner hopper, the Greenville 60' boxcar, all the covered hoppers.  I'm probably missing some.  But the compression program mainly resides in the boxcars, gondolas, flatcars, tankcars and bay window caboose.

When you say "auto boxcar", is that the one with the doors on one end? And the mech reefers are wrong?

[bbussey]

It's the only auto boxcar they make.

I did post that all of the reefers, wood and steel, were proportionally correct.  That includes the mechanicals, although the outside-post version has one too many ribs per side if I remember correctly.

[unittrain]

We definitely need proper 60' excess height boxcars, surprised no one has taken these on given the diversity of schemes possible. The MTL ones are compressed about 1/32" to 1/16" can't remember as I measured them awhile back. I believe if I remember right again that the roof is correct within a couple inches above the rail so the body would need to be stretched downward over the trucks to be correct, it was either that or the car needs lowered 1/32" to get the roof at correct height above the rail, then stretch the body downward 1/32" over the trucks to get the correct proportions.

[bbussey]

On the MTL excess height boxcars — the roof is the correct height above the rail, but the cars ride high.  The problem is, as with the FMC outside post boxcars, that the body is proportionally compressed.  So there's no real way to fix them.  One of the cars, the smoothside double-plug door if I remember correctly, has a shallow lower sill.  That can be modified with styrene strips to make it closer to prototype and in essence help "lower" the car.  @Scott Lupia wrote an article on that for NSR.  It greatly improves the appearance of the model, but it's still not enough to compensate for the body compression.

[AlbertSpor]

Hi,

The ribbed mechanical reefers have one too many ribs to be used for PFE_R-70-11 and R-70-12 reefers. They are however very close for Santa Fe and Burlington.
Santa Fe classes RR-71 SFRC 1700-1874, and RR-72 SFRC_1875-1899 are almost correct. The 1700s have a 4 rod door, while the 1800s have the 2 rod door of the MTL model. Of course MTL decorated them as 1700s. The Burlington  BRMX 5100-5149 (meat rails), and BRCX 5150-5199, also need the 4 rod doors, but are otherwise correct for the ribbed sides.

Thanks
Albert Spor

[Cumbo2000]

The ribbed mechanical reefers have one too many ribs to be used for PFE_R-70-11 and R-70-12 reefers. They are however very close for Santa Fe and Burlington.
Santa Fe classes RR-71 SFRC 1700-1874, and RR-72 SFRC_1875-1899 are almost correct. The 1700s have a 4 rod door, while the 1800s have the 2 rod door of the MTL model. Of course MTL decorated them as 1700s. The Burlington  BRMX 5100-5149 (meat rails), and BRCX 5150-5199, also need the 4 rod doors, but are otherwise correct for the ribbed sides.

Albert Spor

As I recall all the MTL mechanical reefers have the wrong type of roof.  They should have a roof with over hanging eaves as they correctly modeled on their PFE R-40-10 40-ft steel reefer.

Bob Witt

[bbussey]

It uses the same roof as the riveted side mechanical reefer, which is correct for the FGE prototype.

[coosvalley]

I would love to see a list of all the MT cars that are correctly proportioned(ride-height notwithstanding), vs those that are "proportionally challenged". This would be a huge help . For instance, how do the bulkhead flats or the centerbeam flats scale out?...I've noticed n scale has a deficit of older versions of 60 footers of both of these car types...