All Atlas rolling stock fleet

[asciibaron]

in the course of shopping for freight cars, i found myself only looking at and buying Atlas cars.  since i model 1967, i am only buying rolling stock that would have been used at that time.  the Micro-Trains boxcars look great until you put them in a consist with other manufacturer's cars.  the sill is way to high, i guess to allow room for the pizza cutter wheel flanges. 

there are plenty of car types and schemes i'm interested in that Micro-Trains make, but the unprototypical look of the high sill just ruins it for me.  is there a way to reduce the sill height, like filing the bolster, to gain a more prototypical look from these cars?  i "won" a Micro-Trains car at Bedford and promptly traded it for an Atlas model.  some shook their heads because they felt i got the short end of the deal. 

until i figure out how or if i can make the Micro-Trains cars lower, i'll have (mostly) an all Atlas fleet.

-Mr. 1967

[Mark5]

Damn, were the lowering threads deleted? >

[Mark5]

You can lower MT boxcars. Some of the same principles are covered here:

http://forum.atlasrr.com/archive/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=38126&SearchTerms=lowering

[sirenwerks]

Don't forget Steve, you lower the ride height and you lower the roof profile as well. Think about increasing the sill thickness using styrene? Personally, I'm getting rid of the few MT boxcars I have.

[Mark5]

this may be relevant as well:

http://home.comcast.net/~j.sing/Lowering_N_scale_ATSF_Hi-Cube_Micro_Trains_boxcar.html

(read for Tom Mann reference)

[tom mann]

John Sing pretty much sums it up.  That's the way I've lowered countless MT boxcars over the years.  Note that all MT boxcars do not need to be lowered drastically, like in John's example.  Check a photo of the prototype first.  My only comment is to check the clearance of the flanges (by running the car over your tightest radius curve) after you drill out the underframe.  Switching to metal wheels will help you hear the squeal if it's too tight.

[Robbman]

Message deleted

[Chris333]

Whenever I alter the height I also change the couplers till they match the couple height gauge. Same with Z scale couplers I center them with the N scale height gauge.

[ednadolski]

As info, every freight car drawing I've seen (from 1895 to 2005+) has the draft gear (and thus coupler) centerline at 2' 10.5" off the top of the rail.  Anybody measured a lowered car to see what the centerline is??

Believe it or not, but the MT truck mounted coupler is 2' 10.56" TOR to coupler centerline... if it just wasn't so thick (sigh)

I thought that 34.5" was to the top edge of the coupler, not the centerline? And it would be a bit lower when the car is fully loaded?

If you're lowering your cars tho, you shouldn't be changing the coupler height -- best to check against the MT height gauge.

See the Sep-Oct '07 NSR for a great article by Bryan Bussey on fabricating a coupler pocket from rectangular brass tubing.  This approach solves the truck mount issue and, since it uses Accumates, it fixes the pogo/slinky oscillation problem that plagues MT couplers (even the Z scale ones).  Since the wall of the brass tubing is 0.014" thick it should also help if you want to lower the carbody.   I'm planning to try this out as soon as I get the time.

Ed

[Robbman]

Message deleted

[Ed Kapuscinski]

BTW, back to the original gist of this thread, I too have a mostly Atlas roster.

I have a few intermountain hoppers, some red caboose stuff, and a growing amount of Athearn things, but in the past 5 years, I don't think I've bought a single micro-trains car, mostly for these reasons, and the fact that they're over-priced and under-researched.

[Frank Amato]

For me, the new Atlas transition-era cars are fantastic - my "era" is 1960.  That said, the Micro-Trains PS-1s are nice models, as are the 52' gons.  Like Ed says, their paint jobs (and availability) are not always prototypical, so I often repaint and decal...

[wm3798]

My fleet is predominantly Atlas, ranging from the ancient and venerable Austria shots from the late 60's to the latest Precision Design cars.  Obviously, the 55 ton fishbellies and 90 ton WM stone hoppers (inaccurate though they may be) make up a sizable chunk.  Next would probably be MDC hoppers and tanks, and a smattering of boxes.  Then there's the dowdy AHM and Trix cars, and a couple of Life Likes.

Microtrains dominates the Auto Rack roster, and a growing number of gondolas.  For me it's not so much about brand loyalty, it's about what can be had.  MT has a handful of cars that I'd like to add to the roster, but the pricing sometimes gets out of control thanks to the collector goobs, and plus they rarely produce something that fits my scenario.

Lee

[Mark5]

For me it's not so much about brand loyalty, it's about what can be had.

This drives my decisions as well.

[3rdrail]

Probably the largest component of my car fleet is Kadee and Micro-Trains. It has only been in the past five years that Atlas has caught up with and surpassed Micro-Trains and I've been buying, kitbashing, and scratchbuilding freight cars in N scale for 40 years. I also own a fair number of InterMountain cars, built from kits and quite a few made from components of more than one manufacturer. I don't care who makes it, to me, it is "does it fit into my scheme of PRR operations" or "does it just cry out 'buy me'" that decides what I purchase. Most of my billboard reefer purchases are the latter.  ;D ;D ;D