Athearn ps-2 2600 hoppers

[unittrain]

Has anyone lowered any of these and if so what is the best way?

[GaryHinshaw]

I picked up one of these a few weeks ago (nice model) and put MT's on it to bring the coupler spacing in.  I haven't lowered it yet, but it looks to me like the easiest way is to files the bolster ring down to the cross beam and drill the bolster hole out for a standard press-fit pin.  You should be able to get an easy 6-8" off that way and still clear the MT coupler box.  (It may not be the best way, but that's how I'll do it.)
-Gary

[Robbman]

I'd be wary of lowering it... there's not much room between the flange and the bay, you'll have to file off some detail to get it lower...  Have you measured it to see if it is actually too high from TOR?

[GaryHinshaw]

With MT trucks and 33" FVM wheels, there appears to be plenty of room.   (I'd post a model shot but my camera is out of service.)  Judging by this photo and measurements of the model, 6" would be just about right and pretty easy.  But it looks decent without doing anything too -- except shortening the ridiculous coupler spacing.

[Robbman]

Ahhh... using a 70T truck on a 100T car would get you a little more room. 

Note that the car in the photos is a PS2-CD (center discharge), i.e, it has one bay cossing the center sill, the Athearn model is a non-CD version. 

[lock4244]

The 2600cuft looks to be a perfect base for one of these...

http://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=103

[GaryHinshaw]

Ahhh... using a 70T truck on a 100T car would get you a little more room. 

My dirty little secret is out!   
When MT starts making 100T trucks, I'll be one of the first to switch.  But until then (or until I bite the bullet and start body-mounting) this is by far the easiest way to close the coupler gap, which is a much more obvious flaw in my book.

But in this case, it's not so much the truck size as truck position that affects the clearance: the Athearn truck that ships with these has almost the same wheelbase as the MT (it's less than 5'9" but more than MT's 5'6") but the MT bolster hole is offset, so the trucks centers sit a bit further from the bays than the Athearn ones do.  I still think 4-6" of lowering is possible with the stock truck, unless you have really sharp curves. 

[Robbman]

I keep forgetting that some MT trucks have offset bolsters...

[bbussey]

Try Atlas 100t trucks with FVM wheelsets and body mount either MTL 1015 or 2004 knuckles in 1015 boxes.

[SkipGear]

I'll try to remember to take a picture in the morning before work. I have a pair of the B&O versions, one lowered the other not. I just never got around to doing the second one. If I remember, I didn't do anything but modify the bolsters. Truck and couplers are still stock. I did put MT LoPro's wheel sets on them.

More info in the morning.

[tom mann]

Try Atlas 100t trucks with FVM wheelsets and body mount either MTL 1015 or 2004 knuckles in 1015 boxes.

Or, keep the Accumates.

I agree, a car like this needs 100 ton trucks.  Otherwise, it'll look like Ed K wearing women's size 6 high heels.

[Chris333]

Why? because Ed usually wears a size 5?   ???  ;D

[SkipGear]

Sorry about the delay, here is the result of my lowering the car. I filed the built in bolster pin flush with the sub-frame. Then re-drilled the screw hole to accept an Atlas truck pin. Car on the left is stock.





It's not a huge amount, maybe .015" lower but it works with no other modifications and doesn't effect performance. The couplers still clear the car ends also.

[Chulvis]

Looks a lot better, SkipGear.

[unittrain]

Thanks for the pics I agree these are good cars they are only slightly too tall. Athearn has been putting out some really good
stuff latley. I'm considering lowering my B&O and Chessie 2600's I was a little reluctant at first because it seemed the wheel would
hit the bay on the one side when it went around curves.