Hi folks. I decided to split off of the prototypical rolling stock thread to focus on a more specific concern; that of ride height, body mounted couplers, and their lack of ability to play nicely. Micro trains specifies 7.1 mm from the rail head to the mounting surface of the car for a 1015 coupler, so that the centerline of the coupler is at 5.5 mm. That 5.5 mm to the coupler centerline matches the 32-33 inches to the center of prototype couplers on American trains. All good. Except that is also where everything goes out the window. The MT box is notoriously thick, and that 7.1 mm distance makes most cars look like they're riding rather too high. The fact the box also restricts turning radius adds to the issue. If I use BLMA trucks to get the ride height of a 1932 or 1937 boxcar to a more reasonable height, the 1015 box simply doesnt fit, and if it did, it would be below the standard. I can use a Z scale coupler, or I could use an alternative like the McHenry. However, that would mean adapting every piece of rolling stock for a lower ride height and coupler height. I do not use magnetic uncoupling, so at least that's not an issue. Is it possible to have one's cake, namely, body mount 1015/1016/etc couplers, AND to eat it too; a better ride height? Or does something simply "gotta give"?
This is the conundrum that one faces when one tries to change one aspect of a complicated issue. One will find, as you did, that it isn't that simple. Changing one variable will affect others requiring changes there too. It really comes down to a question of how much time, effort and money you want to throw at it and is the end result really worth it. That is a question only you can answer. Bear in mind that this issue of ride height is not new and has been discussed before on various forums with no clear consensus.
Seeing as the BLMA trucks are entirely wrong for a 1930’s car, I would just file the bolster down the little bit to bring the car back to a correct ride height. Use the appropriate MT trucks for your prototype.
I got the idea to use the BLMA trucks from Lance Mindheim's ongoing N scale steam era project. They do look great, but I think I'll have to just deal with higher ride height. Switching all my trucks out and switching to Z scale couplers is more trouble and expense than I think I wish for. Thanks all.
I love BLMA trucks, the ride height is .02” lower than MT, but they are modern era. If you are modeling the 1930’s, you should have journal boxes and not roller bearings.
BLMA do make solid journal trucks, which are the ones I ordered, and they do look wonderful! https://www.midwestmodelrr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/BLM9045a.jpg I'll post a comparison pic of a car with these and one with the stock Atlas trucks shortly, when we have some light outside here in Holland.
Here is the comparison photo: The weathered box on the right sits on Atlas trucks and has MTs installed at the recommended height. The left car has the BLMA trucks installed, and no couplers as the standard MT box won't fit here:
Without question, the car on the BLMA trucks looks better, but it still looks farther off the rails than the prototype. But I'm confused. I've done a lot of body mounting of MT couplers with filing off the bolsters to the point where the underside of the floor meets the MT gauge,and rarely had the slightest issue with the size of the box. Many times I have had to use different MT's but could always find one to fit. But, I've never tried BLMA trucks. I usually just cut the coupler off the truck and use it again, but I'm cheap.
Car height has always been an issue for us N Scale model railroaders. I finally took one of my Atlas box cars trackside and took a picture of a 1:1 foot scale box car with real Atlas trucks and MTL couplers. I first checked the track by turning it over to be sure it to was Atlas sectional track. Yep, we are good. The picture showed the real deal was proportionally the same height as the model. Then I heard a voice saying to me it's time to wake up grandpa we have a Dr.s Appointment to get you to and prescriptions to pick up at WallyGreens. Say what? You can't interrupt me when I'm solving a problem for a friend of mine on TrainBoard. Fully awake I noted I had been sleep writing or something like that. Anyway the point is: Take any N Scale train car trackside and try to find a matching 1:1 foot scale and check out the height and how it really looks. Then look at your model and see where if any deviations may occur. I install the 1015's on my train equipment all the time. So we are on the same page here, I'm body mounting all of mine. Some I have to shim as the N scale car sits up to high. Honestly those are the easy ones. Otherwise I end up getting my Dremel tool out and cut a hole in the floor of the car to install the 1015, box and all. One of the things that seems to help is I will switch out the truck and wheel-sets to MTL and then start from there with body mounting the coupler box to the floor of the car. Radius curves aren't a problem as I pushed them out a long time ago. And, I don't use #4 switches. Suggesting you use as I do the #6 switches as the minimum, in any gauge. You can do the same and I won't be offended.
Hehe, I won't go below a no 6 turnout or a 13 inch radius curve, I don't believe, so the side to side clearance of the MT box isnt an issue. I haven't had to raise the floor of any yet, so here's hoping I don't encounter that often. That sounds... unfun. I do want to address the ride height, but it seems very much to be an all or nothing proposition. I can correct it, but that means having cars that arent at the usual 7.1mm mounting height, and using Z scale MTs or perhaps McHenrys; not that McHenrys are a bad option.
I have fought with a few cars trying to get them to look right as far as 'ride height'. I have filed bolsters...tried different trucks...shimmed couplers...filed floors...notched floors...filed coupler boxs and even attempted to make my own coupler boxes. In the end I found if I just lower the boxcar shell itself over the floor..all is well. Would the floor actually be above the inside of the door if you looked at it close up. Of course ! But when looking at the cars from the side the height looked better. When weighting the options of all that filing etc. versus notching out the end of the box itself to fit over the coupler box and to get the car body lower over the floor so the ride height looked better...I went with plan "B". The bottom of the car body should be approx. 42" from the top of the rail. I can lower the shell that much over the floor. It was alot easier and the results where more then acceptable IMHO. YMMV
And meanwhile MTL has announced as part of their January 2019 releases three-- maybe four*-- boxcars with lower ride height and body mounted couplers. *Checking on the fourth one since it appears to be from the product image but it's not advertised as such.
Well, that's good news! I wonder which types? If they'd do a USRA single or double sheathed box, a 1932/37 AAR box, and maybe a PS1, us steam era folks would be happy as! EDIT: Read their January release. All too new for me, but this is a good sign!
If my assumption is correct, the PS-1 boxcar, their 20000 / 020 series, would be among those with the new lowered ride and body mount couplers. That's the one I'm checking on. The Approximate Time Period for this release, a Santa Fe "Shock Control" boxcar, starts in 1959. The general ATP for that body style starts in the early 1950s.
I know I'm in the minority here, but as long as that doesn't mean body mounting the couplers, that sounds great. Being someone with a very limited modeling space (24" x 80" Hollow Core Door) who does like from time to time roundy round operations. From time to time I do enjoy rail fanning my little world and just watching the train tick off the miles. Because of my limited modeling space, I've had to settle for a 10" radius curve. Because of this tight curve, I have problems with some cars that have body mounted couplers. I've had zero problems with Micro-Trains cars with truck mounted couplers. That includes backing through Atlas standard line turnouts and yes I'm using the Micro-Trains low profile wheel sets. I threw the Pizza Cutters away years ago.
If your cars are under 70 or so scale feet long, (i.e. if you're running mostly 50' boxcars, covered reefers, etc, then you should be just fine with body-mounted couplers. Body-mounted couplers are actually superior to truck mounted couplers in operations since truck-mounted couplers will cause derailments when backing up a long string of cars. Do not fear the body mounts!
I body mount MTL couplers on their and other brand cars and didn't have any issues with 11 inch radius curves. Nothing longer than 50 foot cars, although I have simulated Cushion Underframes by mounting couplers outboard of the body.
