Fixing MTL 40' Boxcars

[DKS]

The ends are stretched as well. 

Of course; they had to match the sides, which were not retooled, and that saved them some money. Plus, since they're still selling well, they have no real impetus to go to the expense of starting over.

[bbussey]

So, you mean that we need to just buy a heap of MTL PS-1 box cars to wear out their tooling, and then we can count on Shipsure to make a new  side mold with correct prototype configuration?  I think I am already doing my part in that effort.

I’d rather see MTL tool a properly proportioned ACF or Magor 40’ boxcar prototype, and then proceed to release 100 schemes on it. I definitely would buy all of the prototypical ones.

[DKS]

So, you mean that we need to just buy a heap of MTL PS-1 box cars to wear out their tooling, and then we can count on Shipsure to make a new  side mold with correct prototype configuration?

Not sure about that plan. Some of their earliest tools are still going strong. Example: as far as I'm able to determine, every Z Scale coupler comes from their one and only original tool.

[bbussey]

Of course; they had to match the sides, which were not retooled, and that saved them some money. Plus, since they're still selling well, they have no real impetus to go to the expense of starting over.

The side slides would be the only component that hasn’t been retooled. The roof slide, end slides, brakewheel, roofwalk, doors, stirrups and underframe all have been retooled from the Kadee days. So I don’t see where the great savings is over tooling a new car body.

[DKS]

So I don’t see where the great savings is over tooling a new car body.

Never said "great" savings. Any savings is savings.

[peteski]

The side slides would be the only component that hasn’t been retooled. The roof slide, end slides, brakewheel, roofwalk, doors, stirrups and underframe all have been retooled from the Kadee days. So I don’t see where the great savings is over tooling a new car body.

But if the car is too tall, if they were to make the new (corrected height) sides, then the ends would also have to be retooled. And then all the doors.  That is a large expense.  And the doors would no longer be compatible with other body styles.  Or am I missing something?  There has been so much said about this that I forget what is the correct size and what is not. 

[Chris333]

If they do their own tooling the only real costs would be employees time.

[thomasjmdavis]

Whatever their flaws, in 1978 I saw my first "Kadee- Micro trains" cars- and bought them.  Those boxcars (ATSF map scheme) converted me from an HO modeler who was running some N scale until he could find a bigger apartment, into an N scale modeler. 

But if the car is too tall, if they were to make the new (corrected height) sides, then the ends would also have to be retooled. And then all the doors.  That is a large expense.  And the doors would no longer be compatible with other body styles.  Or am I missing something?  There has been so much said about this that I forget what is the correct size and what is not. 

I think the presumption is that the doors are the correct height, and what needs to happen is that the lower door track needs to move down onto the sill (per prototype photos) and then the body height reduced by the amount the door track (or guide, or slide, or whatever you call it- where is my Car Builders Cyclopedia?) is lowered.  At least, if I understand what everyone is saying. In that case, the door would stay the same, but obviously the sides and ends would need to be redone.

So, if I get it, the car as made by MT is modeling a car with an 11' (or 10'11") interior height, and the common PS1 interior height is 10'6".  Do I have the gist of it?  I was going to try to take some measurements, but my caliper needs a new battery.

If it makes anyone feel better, I have a copy of "Best of Mainline Modeler, Vol 1" which contains articles on PS 1 prototype, and a second article on all the things you needed to do at the time (early 80s) to make an HO scale PS 1 model look like a PS 1.  Which included making them a scale foot longer, and living with the incorrect position of the lower door tracks- so proportions and position of components are not just issues with the MT N scale model.

Funny, in my case- the "error" I notice- before sills and door positions and relative heights.... on my ATSF boxcars .... the darn tackboards are not in the right place on the doors- ATSF put them smack in the middle.... but as a couple people have noted, we all notice different things.

I put Atlas, MT and IM boxcars on a track next to each other. Added "lower MT cars" and "REALLY lower IM cars" to my list of things to do (items # 1045 and 1046).  I think the running boards on the IM cars I was looking at were a tad over 16 scale feet above the track.

[wcfn100]

But if the car is too tall, if they were to make the new (corrected height) sides, then the ends would also have to be retooled. And then all the doors.  That is a large expense.  And the doors would no longer be compatible with other body styles.

Actually the doors should be retooled for their width as the 6' door is too wide and the 8' door is too narrow.  The door height is okay which is why there's an issue with the location of the lower door track.

Jason

[nkalanaga]

One of the causes of the whole problem is that, on the prototype, an open door shows the edge of the floor boards.  On the MT model, the floor is even with the door track.  Given the design of the door, if the sides were retooled for the proper height, the underframe would also have to be changed, or a separate floor filler added, to bring the floor up to the proper height.  That, in turn, would require that the tabs on the inside of the door be modified, so they would clear the raised floor.

Intermountain caught the floor issue, and molded the lower door tabs high enough to clear the floor.

[Chris333]

Atlas doors are molded shut and don't have a large gap around them. I used to glue my MTL doors shut just so they would sit straight.

[nkalanaga]

True, molded-on doors solve the whole problem of door fit.  However, separate doors make it easy to offer various styles, although they can still be glued on.  IM did that on their recent runs.  If it's planned from the beginning to glue the doors on, there's no need for an opening.  MDC did that, using pins instead of glue, and some of their modern cars.

In my case, moveable doors are handy, because I can model grain doors, and leave the car doors open on empties.  They look nice at the elevator.

[bbussey]

The Atlas model has separate door parts in a number of styles. Ambitious modelers always can modify the model to represent an open door.

[thomasjmdavis]

Forgive me if someone has posted this already (did not see it in a quick review of the thread), but the other day while researching, I came upon a spreadsheet of PS1 (and useful lists for several other freight cars) info on the Steam Era Freightcar site-
http://www.steamerafreightcars.com/prototype/frtcars/protofrtcarsmain.html

Lots of stuff on dates of manufacture, which doors and brakes for which roadname, etc.

[Sokramiketes]

Ed, buy your cars, cut off the sill and renotch it to approximate the proper side height, lower the body on the frame, ignore the ends, and roll with it.

Stock on left, notched on right.


Notched MTL on left, Atlas on right.