Has anyone here fixed the problem with the atlas 89'4"? On all of mine the wheel sets rub on the bottom of the cars and ride like garbage. Help!!! Also I thought I seen it written some where that the trash flats that were being done up for container service would have the supports (holders) included???:question:
I think I have an Atlas TOFC that has this problem. Mine's the Trailer Train version. Mine has stayed in the box as of late.
Some info here: http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/showthread.php?151553-Atlas-89-footer/page2 Suggestions include checking for/removing excess molding flash and replacing wheelsets.
I had to clean off the flash, change the wheel sets, and couplers, to get mine to run nice and stay on the track. I won't be buying any more unless they fix these problems.
Yes, had the same problem. It also wouldn't go around a 13" radius curve without rubbing. I dremeled off part of the frame as well as those mold ejector marks over the flanges but it still wasn't enough. The coupler swing on the end of those Atlas cars isn't any where near wide enough. Nice looking car for sure, but I ended up reselling mine and I won't be getting more either. I also had issues with the BLMA and Trainworx, but I got those to work by swapping out wheels and doing a bit of grinding as well, those have become as reliable as anything else. I just want to go on the record as saying it's not the wheels and it's not the body-mounts, it's the limited swing on the couplers that finished me off. They really had stringline problems on my layout that nothing else had.
I just took the truck off and spun it around reinstalled it and it works...... I only tried it on one car so far..... I will be changing the wheel sets also...
I bought one of these just to see how they would work with my other cars. I made some spacers to raise the height of the car so the wheels didn't rub as much but as Randgust said, the limited swing in the couplers made me put it in the box and put it away. I tried coupling it to different cars and locos and it constantly derailed and my curves are no less than 22". You shouldn't have to do so much to a car to get it to work, even changing wheelsets.
I finally changed the couplers on mine because I really liked the cars and want to run them. My only choice was the huge Bachmann couplers. They work great and the cars go threw my medium yard turnouts without any problems. I will keep looking for a better replacement but for now at least I can run the cars.
I've kind of come to the conclusion that while the MT cars may not be the best looking, they still are by far the best designed to actually operate pretty much out of the box except for some RDA trimming and pin height adjustment. Every 'new car' that's come out with low-pros and body mounts has taken an inordinate amount of time to get to the equal level of reliability. It's easier for me to invest the time in painting and weathering an MT car rather than reengineering the car itself to perform reliably, and when you've got an entire train of 89' flatcars and Trainworx trailers, a catastrophic derailment that can put stuff to the floor certainly refocuses your priorities. All cars are not created equal. Unfortunately this car has become emblematic to me of what happens when 'scale' design with lo-pros and body mounts, mixed in with some rather sloppy manufacturing with the ejector marks, manages to make a product that simply isn't usable out of the box.
I could not say it better myself. 60 foot and longer cars should not have body mounted couplers IF your intention is to run the cars up a 2 percent grade and around a 180 degree turn even if the turn is a 24 inch radius. I have set for many a minute looking directly at the side of an MT 89' flat compared to a BLMA and Atlas and the height (which is my issue) is so slight, and the running quality of the MTs is just so much better, that I am sticking to the MTs.
The problem I had with MT 89' flats is I can't back a train up there my yard. I modified the trucks, (screw) so it would act like a body mount and now they back up great.
Please advise what the item numbers are on the cars you are having problems with. After the first run, we made some small tooling modifications that should have eliminated the flange rub. After seeing this thread this morning, I had our guys retest the cars from the second run, and there were no issues with flange rub, and they ran around our 13.75" radius track without any derailment or uncoupling issues.
Mine were #50 001 047, 048, 049, and 050. I'm would assume these were all from the first run. Glad to hear you fixed at least one problem. Couplers were also a problem with mine going threw a medium Peco turnout.
Mine are #50 001 043, #50 001 035, #50 001 047..........................................are these cars from the first run??? And now what???
Yes those are first run (033-054). Maybe Atlas can tell you what they did and it will be an easy fix. Jason
Here is the announcement page for the first run --- http://www.atlasrr.com/NFreight/n89flatcar.html The first run product numbers are 50 001 033 to 50 001 054.
Grinding off the ejector marks and even getting a little more flange clearance on the center sill is easy. I also cut back the cut levers to try to get a little more coupler swing, and even filed the box a bit wider inside. But that short-shank coupler in the cast metal tight box with limited side swing, that's a killer. Both BLMA and Trainworx have a body mount with a noticeably longer shank. That appeared to be just enough difference that the 'leverage point' on the car was high enough to stringline it on curves where nothing else like it did. At that point, rather than redesign the entire car, I just sold it and bought two more MT's. They take their own kind of second effort to get a decent car, but that's all appearance. I've never had any problem backing them, and I've got a 14-car train of 89' cars.
I'm running 18 cars and it was just the last couple cars that I had problems with, and only when backing threw several medium turnouts. All my cars have metal wheelsets so they roll real nice and free.
Jim - torqueing the trucks sideways and picking the points or frog? Or some other syndrome? I've got a whole yard full of old Atlas #5's (pretty much the same exact geometry as a Peco Electrofrog medium) and I've had to modify the frogs and sharpen the points as SOP to prevent Micro-trains flanges from picking them when backing, but it's worked reliably. The only problem I have is when I've got empty 55-ton MT hoppers on the front end of a long cut backing in the yard, those will still lift and pick, cars just too light. Had to add a bit of weight. I have a couple situations where I'll back up to 25 cars with truck-mounts through one of those #5's and I'll take it pretty easy, but it will do it reliably. I'll do body-mounts without prejudice, as most seem to work just fine, but I don't do it to prevent the kind of derailment problems that others seem to have. When I was in HO I know that I couldn't back into a yard with truck-mounts to save my life, so it's not like I don't understand the problem.
