The beauty of lowering expectations (MT cars)

randgust Dec 4, 2015

  1. ClassiCut

    ClassiCut TrainBoard Member

    141
    13
    5
    I have been inspired as well..... Thanks again for the information. I have a set of 20 Silver sides Southern gondolas and I will post details in a while. They look SO much better tucked down a bit.
     
  2. Hardcoaler

    Hardcoaler TrainBoard Member

    10,653
    44,658
    142
    Well, my efforts at significantly lowering Life Like's N Scale 'Northeastern" have been rather fruitless. Lowering it even a small bit invites the draft gear to rub the underside of the end platform and swapping to body mounted couplers invites the trucks to hit the platform steps as they swivel. As best I can see, it can be lowered a bit, but not enough to make a significant difference. Oh well, no loss in cutting up the underside. It appears as if Life Like designed the caboose to fit existing boxcar trucks they had on hand in their inventory.
     
  3. cjm413

    cjm413 TrainBoard Member

    112
    40
    11
    Uh-oh, you removed the part of the frame that could have been used to mount a pair of Z scale couplers :)

    I lowered a MTL 50' box by doing nothing more than swapping out the MTL trucks with BLMA trucks and a pair of Z scale couplers awhile back, I'll post some pics after (and if) I could get my kids to settle down.
     
    ClassiCut likes this.
  4. cjm413

    cjm413 TrainBoard Member

    112
    40
    11
    I prefer the Bachmann NE caboose, but I do still have a few Life Like NE cabooses that need some work...

    I haven't tried to fix any of them yet, but MTL's Z scale couplers may have a small enough coupler box to avoid any interference with the trucks. Offhand, I don't recall if the Life-Like cars were designed to accept trucks with centered or offset bolsters, which may also play a factor in eliminating any interference with the steps, etc.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2015
    Hardcoaler likes this.
  5. randgust

    randgust TrainBoard Member

    3,493
    502
    56
    I've got one of these on the workbench gathering dust for an LEF&C display. Maybe I'll take a crack at it.
     
  6. ClassiCut

    ClassiCut TrainBoard Member

    141
    13
    5
    I have been following along here and have decided to try lowering some gondolas. I have a set of 20 Bachmann Southern "Silver Sides" coal cars that look really silly in stock form. I started by cutting the chassis in three pieces and then hit the bolsters on the belt sander to thin them down. I trimmed a little on the ends of the car and then lowered the mounting flange just a tad and I can the wheel flanges just about to the bottom of the car. I am really excited about the new look and maybe this will keep the Prototypical Police away for a while........ Lol

    Pictures

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]
     
  7. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,522
    22,603
    653
    That does help, a lot.
     
    ClassiCut likes this.
  8. Carolina Northern

    Carolina Northern TrainBoard Member

    216
    145
    23
    I really like this. ow about a picture of the new underside? I'm not sure how you mounted the trucks after the change.

    Thanks,
     
  9. ClassiCut

    ClassiCut TrainBoard Member

    141
    13
    5
    The stock part is re-used. Here's a picture of one car in process. This particular one has split from previous damage and I am going to replace it but this gives you the idea. [​IMG]
    These parts are CAd back onto the bottom of the car and trucks mount as before [​IMG]
     
    Carolina Northern likes this.
  10. Carolina Northern

    Carolina Northern TrainBoard Member

    216
    145
    23
    To make sure I have this right, you cut the pieces off, shaved them from the underside, then reattached them to the bottom of the car.
    Sounds doable, and I like your results. Thanks
     
  11. ClassiCut

    ClassiCut TrainBoard Member

    141
    13
    5
    Exactly!! I just thinned them down as far as possible and went from there. This is a huge improvement. I am working to get them just a little lower. I have tried milling the flange down a little as well. I may try something like the post above using a whole new bolster. Basically a tab 2mm thick and a 3/32 hole is really all that is needed to attach a truck. This may end up being the easiest way but this sanding trick is working well
     
  12. PK

    PK TrainBoard Member

    61
    7
    20
    When it comes to filing down a metal bolster, are there any tricks to getting the car to sit level? I replaces the trucks on some Athearn woodchip cars with MT. That involved filing off the bolster and drilling out the pin hole. I tried to be careful, but they still ended up being slightly rounded and the cars leaned. If the bolster isn't perfect, is there a way to correct it beyond continue filing and try to get it flatter? Cutting the metal off I've got several more of these to do and I'd also like to start lowering some MT gondolas, but I don't want to ruin them.

    Paul
     
  13. ClassiCut

    ClassiCut TrainBoard Member

    141
    13
    5
    Paul,

    Everyone is different with hand tools and techniques can be used to compensate. I would suggest this......... Take the plate, bolster, whatever you are filing on and lay it on a flat surface. Then take your file (a large one) and make a equal height spacer on each end. This can be taped in place and tape used to fine tune the height. This should hold the file perfectly flat........ In theory.
     
  14. randgust

    randgust TrainBoard Member

    3,493
    502
    56
    It may seem perverse, but use a bigger file. The longer and wider the file is, the more you can sense whether or not it is not flat, or out of square. It's much more difficult to keep a little file flat and square than a big one.
     
    ClassiCut likes this.
  15. bbussey

    bbussey TrainBoard Member

    146
    6
    20
    This.
     
  16. bbussey

    bbussey TrainBoard Member

    146
    6
    20
    Since you're creating new bolsters for the flats and gons and keeping the existing trucks, make sure to allow for the offset bolster holes so that the trucks properly line up with side bolster / tabs detail.

    OR ... use the trucks with the medium extended coupler and cut off the coupler arm. Those are the lone MTL couplers with a centered bolster hole.
     
  17. randgust

    randgust TrainBoard Member

    3,493
    502
    56
    Oddly enough, I found it easier to use a new styrene sill/bolster and get it both flat and straight than filing and hacking away at the original MT one. I thought it would look bad, but you can't see under there anyway when it is properly lowered.

    On a related/unrelated thread, I got an Atlas 20,700 gal. tank for Christmas, and the trucks and wheels on those are seriously bad. Wheels out of round, and the coupler boxes hung on the end platforms. For an otherwise beautiful car, those trucks are a downer. Putting on MT trucks and couplers involved more hacking and surgery than I ever expected; I got it to work and got it as low as possible, but still, wow, what an exercise in frustration. I can only compare it to the awful trucks that used to show up under Con-Cor cars in the bad old days. At least it didn't screech on the Rapido springs, but I really think the days of wobbling wheels should be long past.
     
  18. Hardcoaler

    Hardcoaler TrainBoard Member

    10,653
    44,658
    142
    Oh my gosh -- I'd forgotten all about those. Probably the worst trucks ever produced. Many of my old Con-Cor cars leaned too. I fixed that by setting the underside with trucks at an angle to the body -- the body would then be level and the underside would be angled. :notworthy:
     
  19. mr magnolia

    mr magnolia TrainBoard Member

    91
    25
    12
    Hello team
    Been following this with some interest - I've recently got a set of microtrains 40ft boxcars that sit noticeably higher than my Intermountain's - but also some puzzlement:
    Is there a clear consistent 'wrongness' in the heights of production models compared with prototype? And if so, why, given that it seems possible to fix?
    thanks
    Donald

    Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk
     
  20. randgust

    randgust TrainBoard Member

    3,493
    502
    56
    MT (Kadee) came out with their first 40' boxcar model.... wow, must have been like 1973 or 1974. At that time, that car was so leading-edge compared to anything else it wasn't even funny. Thin roofwalks, operating doors, way, way advanced. First production model with MT wheels and trucks. Cast metal underframe instead of a plastic one with a steel insert. Even then, the car was 'high', but that was primarily to clear the already-designed Bettendorf trucks and the higher flanges of the era. Bluntly speaking, a car that rode a little high was the least of the problems if you looked at the quality of virtually anything else out there. Just no comparison in that era.

    That cast-metal 40' freight car frame got put under more cars and was mildly retooled, but that basic design is what started the issue. Some newer-tooled cars with different underframes don't have the problem at all, or much less so. But the original 40' and 50' cars using that single-piece cast underframe have that legacy, and it's more visible on some cars than others.

    I think Joe chimed in here earlier that he is well aware of it, and it's a matter of replacement tooling cost as much as anything.

    One of the things that has really changed (along with Code 55 rail and smaller flanges) is the ability of almost anybody to do macro photos now with digital equipment from N-scale person height. If you can't see it with the naked eye, and you can't photograph it, it doesn't exist - at least in 1974. Well, now it exists. You can photograph it easily, and it's much more visible due to that technology.

    The basic rule of thumb on the prototype is car floor height at 4 feet. That's a standard for loading docks. See http://www.nscorp.com/nscorphtml/pdf/Customers/ID/design/k.pdf
    And if you park a boxcar beside a propertly-scaled building loading dock, and it's a couple of feet high, well, that does say something is wrong somewhere. Piggybacks get lower for clearance. And just to reinforce how 'low' the prototype is, I remember touring the local railroad car repair shop when I was a teenager. They were busily replacing steel floor plates on Thrall 55' 100-ton wood chip hoppers - because the WHEEL FLANGES had pounded right through them. Yes, it was PC. Yes, the track was rough, but the flanges were just barely under the floor on the real ones.

    So, do the math - 4 foot max. floor height, on a car you have a nominal 33" wheel, 1" flange, subtract floor and frame material thickness..... hmmm.... And go to a 36" wheel for 100-ton and you're really running out of space. You'll see on a lot of the newer MT designs how the floor is 'dipped' at the visible door to accommodate it visually.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2015

Share This Page