MTL 89' TOFC Flats and 12" radius

[Ed Kapuscinski]

It works!

[Dave V]

Very cool.  Looks like my TOFCs have a date with a jeweler's file.

[Philip H]

Well yes, it goes around the curve, but the overhang looks a tad . . . overhangy . . .

[wm3798]

My old layout in Bel Air had some necessarily tight curves, but I tried my best to hide them under scenery or otherwise behind things.  My 89' flats worked fine unaltered.

Easements and a little bit of superelevation don't hurt.

Lee

[Ed Kapuscinski]

The tricky thing is that last week, they WOULDN'T do that.

I ended up using a jewelers file and sanding and cleaning up all the moving parts (the swing arm, the underframe "bracket" and the insert with stirrups.

Before, I found that small burrs and molding remnants were causing the trucks to "stick" in various positions. Most amusingly, they would stick in the "turned" position, and derail when the car went back onto the straight track.

[davefoxx]

Before, I found that small burrs and molding remnants were causing the trucks to "stick" in various positions. Most amusingly, they would stick in the "turned" position, and derail when the car went back onto the straight track.

Just one reason why I body-mounted couplers on 89' flats and auto racks that I have owned.  After removing the truck-mounted coupler, I cut off the coupler swing bracket.  Then, I popped the plastic piece out of each end of the car (this is the piece that has the stirrups) and mounted a coupler to that part.  Snap the piece back in and voila!  Body-mounted couplers!  Advantages of this method include a rugged body-mount and no screw head is visible in the car's deck.

Hope this helps,
Dave

[ljudice]

They look almost the same on 24" curves too...

This is why I look forward to spine cars....

For some reason, R/C autoracks don't look so topheavy on curves, even though they use the same basic running gear as those flats.