Micro Trains June cars in person

[Chris333]

Heavyweights

Got my plate ready for a big helping 

[71jeep]

Heavyweights

Got my plate ready for a big helping 

Me too!!!!!



Allen......

[Mark5]

The PC release got me thinking about another MT 60' PC release:

http://crcyc.railfan.net/model/yourstone/pcbox.html

 ;D

[SkipGear]

Dave, if you can lower the car further, the couplers will not be an issue if you use #2004 knuckles in the #1015 coupler box.  Then, you get the offset shank that has been on all prior MTL caboose models since Day One.

You can also ream out the hole in the coupler box and use a flathead 00-90 screw to mount the coupler, rather than using the #1019 pin if that is what will interfere with the trucks.  The screw will sit flush with the coupler box and buy another millimeter or so.  FVM wheelsets also have a thinner and more true axle than the MTL 1008s.


bb

It looks to me like it already has 2003's on it (2004 coupler in a 1015 box). The coupler shank is offset up already.

[Dave V]

I'm going to try to lower it further.  It still looks like it needs to file a flight plan with the FAA every time it rolls.

If you're an SP guy you're probably in hog heaven.  For the CR guys, you may just want to pass on this unless you can get a good deal.  I'm not sure I can make it look more Conrail without screwing it up.

For now it doesn't look completely bad rolling on code 80 (it has this whole Lionel high-rail look; makes me want to add a third rail down the middle), but as I lay the extension in code 55 it will definitely look weird.  That is, unless I can remove another scale 6-12".

[JoeD]

Coupler heights are always the 500 lb gorilla in the room when working out the tooling issues.  We can't go any thinner on the zinc, so the platforms are what they are.  I guess we could have lowered the shell, but then you compress the ends and the railing and you run the risk of hitting the sides with the trucks.  I'm sure we would have been called on that as well.  I've been talking with our Drafting Lead about shortning the bolster and seeing if we can squeeze the decks some more...but it looks like it would cause a lot of problems in the injection process.

Joe
MTL

[Chris333]

Dave,
You can notch out the deck and lay a sheet of .005" brass over it. Then mount the coupler in the notch using Walther's goo.

This is a Z scale Robert Ray flatcar:

To lower it I notched out the frame. The deck has double stick tape to hold it down. The couplers are stuck right to that tape with no problems.

Are there drawings of this class Conrail caboose?

[Mark5]

I just noticed they did another oddball 3 dome:



I wonder if they'll ever get around to doing a "normal" black 3 domer ...

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/shpx42.jpg

Mark

[bbussey]

Coupler heights are always the 500 lb gorilla in the room when working out the tooling issues.  We can't go any thinner on the zinc, so the platforms are what they are.  I guess we could have lowered the shell, but then you compress the ends and the railing and you run the risk of hitting the sides with the trucks.  I'm sure we would have been called on that as well.  I've been talking with our Drafting Lead about shortning the bolster and seeing if we can squeeze the decks some more...but it looks like it would cause a lot of problems in the injection process.

Why not incorporate the "top half" of the coupler box into the deck/floor casting, the way the 50000-series caboose used to be?  That's what Atlas does on their newer cabooses and that's what InterMountain did on their pending ATSF caboose.  No need to worry about "coupler swing" because the cabooses never use truck-mounted couplers due to the steps.