I checked the coupled distance between MTL heavyweight passenger cars and came out with .250 inches. That scales out to 40 inches. Which seems to be approximately correct but reaching way back to my early history when I rode passenger trains that 40 " distance somehow seems a little excessive. I realize the cars do not have diaphragms on them which would fill in the gap which brings up another question on which diaphragms to use, the full width or the narrower ones?
Inkaneer and of course all tuned in here, I recently got into a discussion about "Full Length" passenger cars. The question was what is a "Full Length" passenger car? The answer is simple although we made it complicated. It is the length of the original 1X1 foot scale, prototype...passenger car. Now 40"s off that's right at 3.5 scale feet...a bit much in my book. Here's the real surprise. Disclaimer: To avoid slandering any particular manufacturer I will keep names out of the discussion. I got out my collection of passenger cars and a N scale rule and measured from one end of each passenger car to the other. Not including the diaphragms or the couplers as they are add ons. We found all kinds of discrepancies. It appears there has been a considerable amount of size compression with most manufacturers. I'm thinking it was done so the tight radius geeks... among us, can run on their tight radius curves. We did note a 3' to 4' foot deviation, which appears to be the rule and in a number of cases an extreme 5' to 6' deviation from the prototype. I thought I'd help you stir the pot a little and add a bit of fuel to the fire. Grin! .
There was a thread on here somewhere in which one of our members closed up the coupling distance with some tweaks to the trucks and couplers. I wish I could remember who it was. Skipgear, perhaps?
One of the keys to size compression is to do it without making it obvious. I was certain that heavy weights purchased years ago... were indeed full length. To my surprise I learned I had been fooled. Most of the cars are 3' to 4' shorter then the prototype. It is interesting were certain discussions take you. On the truck adjustment... to close the distance between cars, I don't think it was started by TonyH., but he did sound off. Still looking. Unless you know the exact name of the thread the "Search" feature here acts like it's paralyzed. And, we don't do so good at naming threads. Yes, it was started by Tony Hines aka Skipgear. My oops. It's well worth the read. Here you go: Improving the MTL heavyweight coupling distance - TrainBoard.com
"I realize the cars do not have diaphragms on them which would fill in the gap which brings up another question on which diaphragms to use, the full width or the narrower ones?" Narrow (standard) diaphragms. The full width diaphragms were exclusive to lightweights and some streamlined heavyweights.
I've checked with the members of the Passenger Car List and the consensus is that the distance between coupled cars would be approximately 15", though various builders had slightly larger or smaller distances. My MT cars will eventually have the MT Z-scale couplers, though how soon is anyone's guess.
I'm still experimenting, looking for a standard solution. Tried the Z's and even Intermountain original couplers (not reliable; too much swing) The Z's seem to be the best bet; they work on my brass cars with AL diaphrams (see pic below). I run on 18' minimum curves. Regards, Otto
So the MTL cars, as is, have about 2 feet extra space between them. If properly scaled the coupled distance between cars should be .09375 inches. That may cause a problem in adding diaphragms. Has anyone measured the distance with the Z scale couplers?
Thought I would let you all know that I have revised the car name file for the Pullman Plan 3959 observation car that Micro-Trains has announced to now also include Pullman Plan 3950 4 Compartment - 2 Drawing Room - lounge observation cars as well, since the Plan 3950 cars were nearly identical to the 3959. Because of someone on the N-scale Varnish List mentioning these cars I went in search of drawings or photos of these cars and was able to find that the difference between the 3950 and the 3959 cars was two single windows adjacent to the vestibule door on the bedroom side of the 3950s where the 3959s had only one single window. Below are some photos that I was able to find that bears this out. Here is the Railway Classic's Plan 3950A bedroom side (non-AC)... http://www.qconnection.biz/images/Brass/Railway Classics/SSL5500Plan3950ALot4760Right.jpg Here is Pullman "Golden Peak's" bedroom side... the additional window on the 3950 is noticeable on the model... http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=683534 And here is the Railway Classic's Plan 3950A aisle side... http://www.qconnection.biz/images/Brass/Railway Classics/SSL5500Plan3950ALot4760Left.jpg And Pullman "Central Park," close enough to be identical... http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1105562 Here is the link to the revised page... http://passcarphotos.info/Varnish/Pullman_3959.htm While it isn't a lot of extra cars it is still a few more that can be added to the car names. Hopefully Micro-Trains will appreciate the added names when they go to do cars for various roads.
Sounds good! I will be ordering out some of the Pullman cars currently available to run in my UP, SP and those all important AT&SF heavy weight passenger trains. My personal thanks to Jerry and the fine folks at Micro-Trains for making this happen.
If you molded some diaphragms out of 10 or 20-shore urethane, they would connect between cars and offer plenty of "squish" to allow tighter radii curves!! I could mold/cast some up to test this, it would cost about $0.05 per car in materials... and my trains are primarily loewy passenger cars; after looking at photo of cars equipped with diaphragms I think I need 'em! Oh, and locos too.... I run at least four sets of AB F/FT units.... and all my curves are tight..... ("that's what she said!" - for those of you who watch The Office)
They are looking into a candidate for a prototype that would be close to the coaches on as many roads as possible. One possibility is a Missouri Pacific single window model that is generic enough to sub for many different railroads. The old Rivarossi coach has double windows.
"They are looking into a candidate for a prototype that would be close to the coaches on as many roads as possible. One possibility is a Missouri Pacific single window model that is generic enough to sub for many different railroads. The old Rivarossi coach has double windows." There has been a good bit of discussion of this on the N-scale Varnish list and I hope that it will lead to a good prototype for MT to use. Having a single window coach (my preference) would be great but I know others are requesting some other types as well.
