0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
delamaize: I don't know how he did it, but I've lowered mine very simply. It takes almost as long to read as it does to do.Cut the ends off the underframe, at the first crossbearer inside the body bolster. That's needed for wheel clearance.Build a new body bolster. It needs to be 0.090" high, so I usually use 0.060 and 0.030 styrene strip, 1/8 (0.125) inch wide. Drill a 5/64 inch hole in the center. If reusing the MT couplers, mark the position for the bolster hole before removing the underframe, then center the new bolster over that hole. If using trucks with centered bolster holes, the hole should probably be moved. Mount the coupler directly to the floor. Either 1025 or 1015 will work. Cut the stirrup steps apart, removing the center section to clear the couplers. Glue them to the floor, then add styrene blocks to the end sills, to "clamp" the steps in place. They don't glue well by themselves.You might be able to lower the car using ESM or BLMA trucks, but even then, I suspect that flange clearance will be an issue.The same method works on the 50 ft flatcars. I've been doing this since the 70s, when I used 3/32 inch basswood for the bolsters. I still have one flatcar with those old bolsters.
Still plodding ahead, but made a lot of progress. And it seriously runs well, I'm so happy with it. The projects I've started and just abandoned because of performance issues have their own drawer.
CJM413: "Once it was clear that the BLMA trucks couldn't do anything that a scratch built bolster couldn't do with trucks with higher bolster arms" sums up my opinion as well. By making new bolsters, the original trucks can be used, and I can reuse the couplers. Years ago I ordered 500 pair of 1025 boxes and covers. To body-mount the couplers on a MT car, I take the couplers off the trucks, take the box apart, throw the box away, and put the coupler in the 1025 box.It's possible to lower the car, and keep the pizza-cutter wheels, if one still uses them. I don't, but there are some who do.I know, most people today seem to prefer the 1015s, but I've been using 1025s since the early 70s, and like the thinner box. They're about the thickness of the center sill, so blend in better.
Looking at the PDF for Micro Trains couplers, I am not seeing the dimension from the pulling face to the car body end (nor the other dimensions needed to compute it) for the 1015 and 1016 couplers. I am assuming that they are different, because the text says 1015s are short shank for large radius curves and 1016s are "regular shank" for short radius curves. But both have the same dimensions shown in their drawings.And, I am also considering the 905s, if anybody has the pulling face to car body dimension for that one.
1015 and 1016 differ by the distance between the centering post/mounting hole and pulling face. The distance between the pulling face and car body ends will always vary based on the type of car (and corresponding car ends) and the location of the mounting hole.For example, the coupling faces of the 1016's I used on the Red Caboose Evans coil car don't extend much further from the car ends than some of the 1015 or 1025 couplers used on others due to the fact that I mounted them to the underside of the car body rather than the walkways (Attachment Link)
The #1023 coupler would be perfect if MTL redesigned it so the centering spring was in front of the pivot post rather than behind. People prefer the #1015 because the equipped cars don’t oscillate when being pulled.
Honestly Bryan, in my experience the cars will slink, regardless of the location of that spring. You have observed otherwise?
Author
Topic: Weekend Update 12/20/20 (Read 9724 times)
