Announcement: All-New Rivet Counter N Scale Multi-Max

[peteski]

I would assume so. Looking at the coupler pocket cover, it does have the little hole that is needed for MT couplers to work. There is some piping detail that needs to be removed to get the cover off.

Those slots or openings have to be in both. the pocket, and the cover. I assume that it is the case.

[turbowhiz]

I got one my hands on one of these cars today…

The coupler pockets and lids have the slots for MTL couplers, so they should just drop in easily.

They are definitely decent models to be sure, and I very much appreciate their existence.

That said, I’m also somewhat disappointed by them too. For me personally, they aren’t up to the same level as their previous N scale offerings.

The sides are just ok. They aren’t in my opinion as good as either the Micro Trains or Red Caboose in appearance, but they aren’t by any means terrible either.

However, one thing I do find much more problematic is the RIDE HEIGHT. These cars are definitely riding too high!! They are much closer to the ride height of a stock MTL rack then they are to the ride height of the RC rack.

They ride ~1mm higher than a RC rack. The RC racks ride at the right height, at least to me, and they match my lowered MTL racks along with the Atlas articulated racks as well as the Kato racks.

It’s also very evident when you look around the trucks, which unto themselves along the 28” wheels look fantastic but look out of place with the car sitting so high above them. The pictures on the ST site seem to very effectively obscure the ride height of the car relative to the trucks between the oversized handbrake rigging and the trainline plumping (?) by the truck on that side of the car. I’d almost want to suggest those cars are lowered...

That said, if you have a bunch of stock MTL racks, then the ST racks will won’t look out of place relatively, and you might be happier with the high ride height.

If you find your MTL racks are high riding, then you will probably be disappointed with the ST racks in the same fashion.

I regret ordering as many as I have, but that said, they are certainly a welcome prototype addition and I’ll definitely be lowering mine despite the work involved.

[EspeeGoldenState]

ScaleTrains Rack should be 19'
Atlas Articulated Rack should be 19'
MTL Rack should be 19'
Athearn AutoMax should be 20'2"
Red Caboose should be 19'

Honestly, as nice as the Red Caboose cars, the etched metal and the waviness it has at times is a bit much. I'll gladly take non see through cars, as those cars as ST has stated even, would be hard to see through those holes in n scale.

[kscessandriver]

I guess I didn't look at the ride height closely when I ran them around my simple loop the other day. I'll have to throw some of my RC cars on with these new ones to really see it. That said, for the price, I still don't think they're bad models, the new run of RC/FVM/IM autoracks are significantly more expensive than the ScaleTrains ones.

[Bob]

I am quite happy with them - for reasons that are not clear to me, I've had issues with both MT and RC autoracks; these track very nicely and none of them lean to one side or the other, which I have sometimes encountered with others.  I'll check the ride height - I had not paid much attention to this.  I'm really happy ST continues to be committed to N scale.

[sundowner]

Without pictures this tread is worthless. I think the ride height is just fine, here is an stock Atlas ABL, ST rack and MT rack with body mounts. They are really nice racks.


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[peteski]

That photo would be even more useful if taken at the N scale persons eye-level (well, the level of the car's deck).  As-is, the photo is a bit too high to get the most critical view (you can see both rails of the track the cars are sitting on).

[EspeeGoldenState]

There is about a 12” difference between the RC and ST/MTL racks just by eyeball and ruler.

[turbowhiz]

ScaleTrains Rack should be 19'
Atlas Articulated Rack should be 19'
MTL Rack should be 19'
Athearn AutoMax should be 20'2"
Red Caboose should be 19'

Honestly, as nice as the Red Caboose cars, the etched metal and the waviness it has at times is a bit much. I'll gladly take non see through cars, as those cars as ST has stated even, would be hard to see through those holes in n scale.

The sides are ok on the ST cars. Between the RC/ST/MTL cars, they all have their pros and cons. On balance, if you said pick only one, I'd say the MTL is the best of the lot.

The ride height is another matter. I'm know I'm not the only one who thinks the MTL racks ride high...

I did some quick measurements with my .1 mm calipers..


MTL car sits 37.4 MM rail head to the top of the car.
RC car sits 36.3 MM rail head to the top of the car.
ST car sits 37.3 mm rail head to the top of the car.

Even the RC car is too high.. But its by far the best. As I estimated, the ST car is 1 mm higher then the RC car, which still is technically over 19' high, but by far the closest.

Lots of folks will be totally fine with them as I said before... But I'm disappointed with the ride height personally.

[jagged ben]

I might try BLMA or ESM trucks and MT 2004 coupler shanks to lower these.  Hopefully the axle length on the 28" wheels matches so they can be swapped into different trucks.  Not that I've fully investigated yet, I just got one, really out of my era,  but nice looking car.  I do agree with turbo about the ride height, and it's a shame since the coupler is actually lower in the carbody than the prototype's. 

I like that the cut lever is a slippery plastic bit that easily bends out of the way if you want to work on the coupler.  Thoughtful.  More manufacturers need to do this, pick the right material for the detail based on where it is on the model.

[GaryHinshaw]

I got my order of these cars today and I immediately stopped work and unpacked them.   

I too was a bit bummed about the ride height so I did some investigating and came up with the following quick fix.  There may be better ways to do this, but this is what I came up with so far.  First I tried a straight truck/wheel swap with a pair of BLMA 70T trucks with FVM 28" wheels.  Alas the bolster height of the stock ST trucks is already lowered to about the same height as the BLMA trucks, so that did not do much.  It's virtually impossible to file the bolsters on the cars because of the screw post, so I decided to work on the trucks instead.  I chiseled and filed the central bolster ring on the BLMA until it was the same height as the cross member:

Left: modified BLMA, right: stock ST:



This works beautifully and does not require any modification of the body to maintain clearances, and the same mounting screw continues to work.  This lowers the cars by about 4 scale inches, which is small, but enough to help them blend in with the RC racks:

Left: stock ST, right: lowered ST:


Left: stock RC, right: stock ST:


Left: stock RC, right: lowered ST:


It looks like you could do a similar operation on the ST trucks, but with slightly less lowering.  One possible issue is that the ST trucks are quite a bit wider than the BLMA ones (the wheels have .562" axles, vs. .540" for the BLMA) so there may be a clearance issue.  I do like the way the narrower BLMA trucks appear to recede under the frame.

Overall these are very nice cars.  I'm happy with the way the side panels were rendered and the painting/lettering is great. Now about those couplers....

[Glenn Poole]

I’m working on lowing mine. I found that filing 1/32” off the top of the ST truck cross member is all that was needed. Less than 10 minutes per truck. It appears to me that the stock coupler was a tad high and after lowering the car it is now a tad low. Probably about 1/32” low, but I’m not sure I need to do anything there. If it turns out I do need to do something, I’ll swap out a MT 2004.
I’ve communicated my displeasure of the unacceptable high ride with ST.

[turbowhiz]

Ok, I managed to get started on these this weekend.

I'm drilling out the entire bolster from the top, and replacing it with a 3d printed replacement that matches the profile of the underbody molding to index it precisely in place. By far the hardest part is dealing with the bomb proof glue on the handbrake linkage, which needs to be at least disconnected from the underframe brake lever in order to remove the underframe from the body shell. Everything else is a snap... Reliably precise and fast, unlike say filing/cutting down the trucks. And you can get them low enough that they're looking right.

My approach is likely fairly radical for some, but I'm happy with the time to execute (fast!) and the end result... The truck is much closer to the prototype appearance of being tucked under the frame of the car. And the ride height now matches the RC racks. They are loads easier to lower then the MTL racks.

Why these cars ride as high as they do is a real mystery to me... I originally thought it was to get them around the advertised 11" minimum radius. But I was surprised that mechanically they accommodate the much lower ride height with absolutely no fuss. Even lowered to RC rack height, they still manage the 11" unitrack corner just as well as stock, totally ridiculous as that looks. And more perplexingly, the bolsters actually appear to be a separate part. So it really looks like, design wise, they were engineered to ride at a close to scale height (i.e. the RC rack height), and then they decided to jack em up to match the MTL racks at some point. Just maybe ST will rectify this in future runs, as the bolsters do appear to be separate parts oddly enough. I was unable to successfully remove them as a separate part mind you, so drilling works. Its somewhat unfortunate how the cars have various details in the ladders and doors that are prototype specific, but they suffer that all too familiar N scale problem of riding sky high. The ride height is way more important to the overall "rivet counter" mantra of prototypical appearance then the subtle ladder variance between prototypes, but I digress... (now getting both right is ideal!)

Here is the end result compared to a RC rack:



And the stock ST rack:

Now about those couplers....

Yeah, those are in progress now... For most, a 2004 should line up right in the stock box by the looks of it...

[GaryHinshaw]

Nice.  Do you have a photo of the surgery?

It almost seems like this might be lowered a bit too much, though it might be the photo angle.  My impression of these cars is that they sit a few inches proud of the older racks:



(Pardon the crappy webcam screen grab.)  In any event, you're able to fine tune the height however you wish with this approach.  Well done!

[samusi01]

Does anyone have access to the current ORER (or even a copy a few years old)? Should be able to pull at least some of the car heights from there. Latest one I have is a Jan '96 so not exactly helpful.