When did MTL start body mounting freight cars?

Nick Lorusso Jun 10, 2020

  1. tonkphilip

    tonkphilip TrainBoard Member

    244
    306
    18
    Jack, Here are some other views showing the old/new height difference and an underside view showing trunk and body mount.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. BarstowRick

    BarstowRick TrainBoard Supporter

    9,511
    5,673
    147
    Jack, I understood your original question. Sorry, I don't have any visualizations I can put my computer fingers on. Nor am I going to go to the trouble to set-up two sets of cars to compare them.

    As of now I've had no problems setting up my box cars in the 40' and 50' lengths converted over to body mounted couplers. The longer 60' to 85' freight cars is another story.

    Trains and various Model Railroad Wig Wags (magazines) will on occasion carry an article illustrating the length of the coupler pocket and how to install them.

    I was just strutting my stuff and thought it might help you. The Peacock thing.

    Go figure.
     
  3. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    2,264
    946
    51
    Thanks for the photos! It looks pretty clear from that second one (underside) that they've added significant spacing between cars. Even looking at your 1 truck / 1 body versus 2 body photos of the UP boxcars there is still a visible difference.

    We still haven't seen the true side by side comparison with similar body styles (i.e. my original request: "I would like to see a photo of two MT 40' steel boxcars with truck mounted couplers coupled together and a second photo with two recent MT 40' steel boxcars with the "improved" body mounts coupled together.). That will be the real evidence.
     
  4. tonkphilip

    tonkphilip TrainBoard Member

    244
    306
    18
    Jack and Rick, Here two more photos, this time on a 12 inch curve.
    1. The first has two new MT 50ft box cars with bodymount. The sides of the new bodymount coupler box are open, so there is a lot of coupler swing. So while it works well on 12 inch curves, it will probably work well on smaller curves as well. Also, the knuckles are slightly longer on the body mount.
    2. The second photo has an old 40ft MT Streamliner box car with truckmount and a new 40 ft MT undecorated box car with bodymount on a 12 inch curve. You can also see that the newer box car body is slightly lower, about the thickness of an NMRA track gauge.
    - Tonkphilip
     
    TrinityJay and BarstowRick like this.
  5. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    2,264
    946
    51
    Just to clarify, I haven't expressed any concerns with operating characteristics of the new configuration; just cosmetics. I'm probably as much a railfan as a model railroader (maybe pretty much the same thing?). I have a lot of classic videos (think Emery Gulash - Green Frog) and a large library of books on the topic. I'm very tuned in to how trains from the 50's and 60's should look, and my biggest pet peeve in N scale is ridiculous, non-prototypical spacing between locomotives and rolling stock. We may not be the majority, but I'm certainly not alone. Unfortunately, in many cases, the migrations to body mounting have taken things in the wrong direction. As an example, Kato F units couple too far apart for my taste (there is an easy remedy), but place them next to a set of IMR F units with the body mounted couplers and suddenly the Kato's look great! (y)
     
    BarstowRick likes this.
  6. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    2,264
    946
    51
    Can you take the same pictures on straight track with slack removed? Thx.
     
  7. tonkphilip

    tonkphilip TrainBoard Member

    244
    306
    18
    Jack, See my previous photos on straight track at 11:11 PM yesterday. I have two of the new 50ft MT box cars but only one of the new 40 ft box cars with body mount. - Tonkphilip
     
  8. BarstowRick

    BarstowRick TrainBoard Supporter

    9,511
    5,673
    147
    Mr. Norseman Jack, No argument here and proper distancing between locomotives, diesels and so on is on my wish list or plate as well.

    A not so recent poll, conducted here proved that there were more toy train enthusiast married to the tight radius curves then those who prefer wide radius curves. The manufacturers are looking at this market they serve and realized early-on they had to provide train equipment that will run the tightest of curves. So we are stuck with odd looking, expanded distance between locomotives and train cars. Toy Trains. Turning them into prototypical replica's can sometimes be a challenge. I have to take the imitative to change my equipment. To get busy and correct it. Usually in my own workshops.

    Harrumph! Wrap that flex curve around your little finger, what the heck.

    The question I ask myself is how much do I want to put into it?

    Still doesn't solve your immediate problem.

    Good visiting with you.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2020
  9. BarstowRick

    BarstowRick TrainBoard Supporter

    9,511
    5,673
    147
    Thanks Tonkphilip, I think this puts us on the right track.
     
  10. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    2,264
    946
    51
    Here's what I was looking for:

    tonkphilip's photo of two MT 50' boxcars with new body mounts coupled together:

    [​IMG]

    Two older MT 50' boxcars with truck mounts coupled together:

    [​IMG]

    While not as awful as I feared, it is still noticeable (at least to my eyes).
     
    TrinityJay and tonkphilip like this.
  11. BarstowRick

    BarstowRick TrainBoard Supporter

    9,511
    5,673
    147
    Yep, I see what you are talking about. This can be fixed depending on the clearances under the car.

    As seen here in Tonkphillip's picture:
    [​IMG]

    If you want your eyes opened and I'm guessing you've seen it but on the 1X1 scale there are a variety of heights for couplers. You'll see the same thing you see in the pictures above.


    Glad you found what you were looking for.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2020
  12. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    2,264
    946
    51
    I'm not sure which MT coupler number they have body mounted there, but it certainly looks like a shorter shank replacement would improve things. That one actually looks longer than a MT 1015 (IIRC). I understand that on many more modern cars, the prototypes may have longer coupling distances, but I'm more focused on those long strings of 40' and 50' boxcars from the 50's and before.
     
    tonkphilip likes this.
  13. BarstowRick

    BarstowRick TrainBoard Supporter

    9,511
    5,673
    147
    Looks like a cut off from a truck mounted coupler.
     
  14. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    2,264
    946
    51
    That's interesting. Hmmmm..... Could it be?? :whistle:
     
    tonkphilip and BarstowRick like this.
  15. BarstowRick

    BarstowRick TrainBoard Supporter

    9,511
    5,673
    147
    Jack, and all others tuned in here. You have me going here. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. So allow me to elaborate and bore you some more. :sneaky:

    If it's realistic distancing between cars, you are going to need a number of books that are out there and a scale rule. Guessing your already into that.

    I thought about this all week long. I've been in the middle of a project where I'm body mounting MTL's coupler boxes on a number of N Scale Box cars. Older Atlas, Life Like and some Model Power box cars.

    I have a height gauge I use habitually. There's no excuse for having a coupler ride higher or lower then the other's. Especially those I've installed. Except, yep there's an exception.

    A lot of N scalpers oop's I meant "Scalers," are concerned about the height of their train equipment and whether it's prototypical or not. I like these guys and gals. Nothing better then prototype.

    Some lower the car by removing or reducing the "what cha-ma-callit". Looks like my linguistics and use of such caught up with me. Which can often cause the wheels to drag on the bottom of the train car. Hey, realistic wheel screech. Should that be a question or statement?

    I've done that and am usually disappointed. I find if I body mount the coupler box I have to remove part of the bottom of the car frame or chassis. The same with my earlier Atlas and Kato diseasels (sp intended). I've done that and it works but it doesn't always turn out well.

    In the picture I shared here of the grain elevator, some of those grain cars are Bachmann, where I lowered the car and installed MTL's truck mounted freight trucks. One car leans over while another rocks as it goes down the track. They do what? :confused: You'll see that on the 1X1 foot scale. Even then i find it disconcerting.

    As to using the coupler box that is mounted to the truck frame. I've cut off the coupler box from my MTL freight trucks and body mounted them just as you see in Tonkphillip's picture. I've had to trim off the back of the coupler pocket, to allow... the freight trucks to swivel back and forth. Sometimes I have to shim it so it will drop down to the proper height or remove some of the frame or chassis.

    Caution: Becareful when you trim off the back part of that particular coupler pocket. You can have things flying all over the place. You can ask me how I know? Believe me I know.

    It's a lot of work but rewarding when everything works well.

    I hope that helps.:whistle:
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2020
    tonkphilip likes this.
  16. tonkphilip

    tonkphilip TrainBoard Member

    244
    306
    18
     
  17. tonkphilip

    tonkphilip TrainBoard Member

    244
    306
    18
    Jack and Rick, I went through MicroTrains's list of coupler drawings and the coupler on the new 50 ft cars looks to be the 1016-1 which is a 1015 with a longer shank. This coupler has the full loop and spring but the coupler box has mostly open sides for maximum coupler swing. MTs notes say that this coupler is for smaller radius curves than the 1015. I think that MT has made some interesting marketing decisions. They have lowered the ride height on their new 50 ft cars but this means having to use a bodymount as there is no room for a truckmount. Then for the smaller radius curves that most purchasers want, they need to lengthen the the coupler shank. By contrast, I think that they are still selling the 40 ft cars with the truckmount which means that they can use a shorter shank coupler for closer car spacing. - Tonkphilip
     
    NorsemanJack and BarstowRick like this.
  18. dualgauge

    dualgauge TrainBoard Member

    411
    448
    24
    Can change the 1016out for a 1015 to couple closer. Hate to spend more, but if was truck mounted and want to body mount still have the same thing.
     
  19. umtrr-author

    umtrr-author TrainBoard Member

    2,835
    3,394
    78
    Micro-Trains' 40 foot steel boxcars (Body Styles 020, 021, 023, 073, etc.) have gone over to the body mount with lowered floors. Other 40 foot cars-- refrigerators, stock cars, and wood boxcars, for example-- have not yet been converted.

    My understanding is that there will be a gradual conversion to body mount couplers and that new body styles such as the forthcoming 60 foot "TTX" double plug door boxcar and 2021's PS-2 hopper will have body mounts. Given the number of body styles I think that will still take a while. Tank cars and open hoppers will be the most challenging to change over in my "unofficial" opinion.
     
  20. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    2,264
    946
    51
    This sounds like the solution to the "problem." Perhaps somebody will do this and provide before/after photos.
     

Share This Page