Wrong trucks on FVM boxcars?

[Robbman]

>MT doesn't make a 100T truck...

Gee, that looks like a 100T truck to me, though as marketted by MT they are actually 70T trucks since they use the 33" wheels instead of the more accurate 36".

As already stated, number of visible springs in the pack does not dictate capacity... axle bearing size does, which then determines wheel size and axle wheelbase.  A 286K truck should have 36" wheels and a 5' 10" axle spacing, which the MT truck does not.

[Sokramiketes]

To answer the original question, FVM has it right... or as close to right as they can do with the MTL trucks available.  Check out as-delivered photos of the Railbox cars.

I realize this is a different series, but the trucks are well lit anyway:


As far as using the MTL medium or long extension to simulate a cushioned draft gear, that's a personal preference issue.  I don't think their bulky coupler boxs look anything like a cushioned draft gear, but that's just me.  I wouldn't fault FVM for using the short extension because of this.

[Ryan87]

Those would be ASF "Ride Control" under that Railbox.

Mind you I can't see how a picture of one ACF car (not only a diffrent series but a diffrent prototype) confirms that FVM is right or wrong...


Using Railbox FMC cars as an example I was able to find this photo with Barber style trucks.
http://freight.railfan.ca/ttx/rbox40192.jpg

and this one with ASF style trucks.
http://freight.railfan.ca/ttx/rbox37936.jpg

So I have to stress, it depends...

[Sokramiketes]

Those would be ASF "Ride Control" under that Railbox.

Mind you I can't see how a picture of one ACF car (not only a diffrent series but a diffrent prototype) confirms that FVM is right or wrong...


Using Railbox FMC cars as an example I was able to find this photo with Barber style trucks.
http://freight.railfan.ca/ttx/rbox40192.jpg

and this one with ASF style trucks.
http://freight.railfan.ca/ttx/rbox37936.jpg

So I have to stress, it depends...

Just an example of a "two spring" truck, since that seems to be the only matter at large here.  I'm not going to argue that the MTL truck is the correct prototype, but I do think it's the closest they have available.  I'm also not arguing that trucks got changed out during the life of a car.  I just said to look at the as-built cars for evidence.

[Ryan87]

Sorry must of misunderstood...

To answer the original question, FVM has it right...

[bsoplinger]

The one with the ASF type trucks, the '2 spring' trucks, also shows that the short extension is the right length to match the look of that car. Which means that FVM would have the spring count and the length correct to match that particular car.

Having said that, I've found that whenever I've had any company's car with such a short, tucked under the end of the car, coupler things worked much better if I pushed the trip pin upwards in the coupler, trimmed off the top end of the pin then pulled it down to be the correct height. I guess if I had a good flush side cutter I could just trim the bit sticking up without resorting to the 'push more up, trim, then pull down to where it should be' approach but since I don't, I do