"Standard" wheels for Micro-Trains?

[tom mann]

The Evans hopper is a good ride height.

Is there any link to pix?

http://nscalesupply.com/MTL/MTL-09900060.html

[Pomperaugrr]

The Evans hopper is a good ride height.

Is there any link to pix?

http://nscalesupply.com/MTL/MTL-09900060.html

That looks great.  I am encouraged that MT might just turn the corner again.  The ride height has been a major reason I have slowed my purchases of MT rolling stock.  If the photo in the link you provided is any indication of their commitment to improving the appearance of their products, I'll happily switch my purchasing trends.

Eric

[ednadolski]

They do work on code 40.  I think that what they mean with "staying on track" is a reference to how truck mounted couplers want to pull the flange above the rail in a curve.  With low pros, this ended up in a derailment for some.

Ah, I just saw your comparison pix of the wheelsets.  It looks like it's basically a compromise on the flange size between lo-pros and pizza-cutters.  The new flange looks "beefier" than the lo-pro, without being excessively large. I can't tell from the pix what the taper & fillet are like.

[ednadolski]

http://nscalesupply.com/MTL/MTL-09900060.html

Looks nice but I was interested in seeing what it looks like on the track.   Ah well, the Denver train show is tomorrow, I'll see if maybe I can pick one up to check out.  Should make an interesting weathering project, too:

[tom mann]

Joe has dropped hints over the months that he would like to improve ride height.  If you ever converted a MT car to ride at correct height, you can imagine that this is not trivial and involves a number of things like underframe design, truck design, coupler box design, possible re-tooling to raise the sill, etc.

[Sokramiketes]

Joe has dropped hints over the months that he would like to improve ride height.  If you ever converted a MT car to ride at correct height, you can imagine that this is not trivial and involves a number of things like underframe design, truck design, coupler box design, possible re-tooling to raise the sill, etc.

All it would require is a new metal underframe, I don't think you'd even need to touch the plastic piping/cross member insert. 

[tom mann]

All it would require is a new metal underframe, I don't think you'd even need to touch the plastic piping/cross member insert. 

You do on their modern boxcars to lower them sufficiently.

[wm3798]

What about the ride-compensated body height on some models?  (the top of the car is where it's supposed to be, but the wall height is compromised from the bottom to allow for all the mozzarella and pepperoni...)

You'd have to fix more then the metal underframe.

Lee

[tom mann]

What about the ride-compensated body height on some models?  (the top of the car is where it's supposed to be, but the wall height is compromised from the bottom to allow for all the mozzarella and pepperoni...)

You'd have to fix more then the metal underframe.

Lee

That is an issue on some of their models, sure.

[bbussey]

But not all of them.  The 60' high cube boxcars, FMC modern boxcars and interestingly the recent three-dome tank are height-ratio challenged.  Everything else (other than the coupla cabooses, four covered hoppers and the new RPO) just sits too high.
 

[Mark5]

Open hoppers aint too bad on height are they?

[Sokramiketes]

But not all of them.  The 60' high cube boxcars, FMC modern boxcars and interestingly the recent three-dome tank are height-ratio challenged.  Everything else (other than the coupla cabooses, four covered hoppers and the new RPO) just sits too high.
 

Add in the bay window caboose as height-ratio challenged.  Didn't know the three-dome tank was wrong, but guess I shouldn't be surprised at this point.

[bbussey]

I was thinking about compressed height, and forgot about the bay window's elongated height.

The coal hoppers sit slightly too high, designed as such 30 years ago for the bay slopes to clear the pizza-cutter flanges I think.  They aren't nearly as noticeable as other cars.  I don't believe the steel ice reefers are that far off on ride height either, if at all.

The triple domes are compressed in the vertical of the domes.  The dome tops are at the correct height above the rail (or close to it), but the difference between where the top of the frame is as opposed to where it should be is taken from the length of the dome stacks.

[Mark5]

Makes ya wonder if they'll take the step of tooling new cars not backward compatible with the buzz saws ...

[ednadolski]

http://nscalesupply.com/MTL/MTL-09900060.html

Looks nice but I was interested in seeing what it looks like on the track.   Ah well, the Denver train show is tomorrow, I'll see if maybe I can pick one up to check out.  Should make an interesting weathering project, too:

Well I just picked one of these up, and all I can say is that it looks like the ride height is about the only thing this model has going for it.  Talk about a foob -- the tooling is not at all what I would expect from MT: the grabs and stirrups are quite crude, and the roofwalks and hatches are cast on.  Even the air reservoir is a cast-on half-cylinder kind of thing. Very toy-like, like something that was tooled about maybe 30 years ago, or that you would find in a train set. 

Disappointing to say the least, but I suppose that's what I get for buying based upon the brand, and not looking closely before I took it home and opened it up.

For basically the same money, the Athearn 2970 ACF 2-bay centerflow is a much nicer model, and it even comes with body-mounted couplers.

Ed