Atlas PS-1 boxcars in hand! (INNER HEIGHT CLARIFICATION)

[wazzou]

I find it more astounding that, as mentioned, the ride height isn't the real issue. 
The sills of the two cars line up pretty well.  It's the overall height of the car.   

[DKS]

They are capable...

Perhaps, from the standpoint of equipment and technology. But the competence of personnel must be factored in as part of the overall "capability" equation, and based on the product that has been emerging, they appear to have a deficit in that department.

[MichaelWinicki]

Perhaps, from the standpoint of equipment and technology. But the competence of personnel must be factored in as part of the overall "capability" equation, and based on the product that has been emerging, they appear to have a deficit in that department.

You make a good point David.

Someone from MT's management team had to sign off on this project... In their mind it was acceptable to design it, make it and ship it... as we see it.  Obviously someone thought it was "good enough".  That's the challenge at MT at the moment.   Their "good enough" isn't up to some other's "good enough".

[Hornwrecker]

I got my Buffalo Crk PS1s in today.  I have an old Con-Cor that I picked up for a dollar at train show (not my weathering) that surprisingly is pretty close in height to the Atlas.

[Mark5]

40 years ago Kadee came out with a PS-1, here's old and new (both no mods):

Am I wrong in thinking the Atlas car is just a tad too high over the trucks? Reference photo:

http://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail2.php?ID=19470

Mark

[peteski]

We all know that the MT car sits too high on the trucks but the photo shows difference in body heights. So, is the MT car body is too tall or Atlas one too short (or both)?    Has anybody taken measurements and compared them to the 1:1 dimensions?  Or were there different versions of PS-1 cars and both heights are correct?   

As far as the molding quality of the body goes, I still say that MT car stands up to the current standards.

EDIT: I agree that the Atlas car appears to sit too high over the trucks (practically the same as MT car).  And this is with body mounted couplers! 

EDIT #2: Looks like I (sort of) found an answer about the MT car:   https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=24020.0

[Chris333]

Lowering didn't make them correct.  Just made them look better.

[mplsjct]

Just a quick, perhaps random thought, when I line up MTL, Deluxe Innovations and Intermountain 40 foot boxcars, they all have similar dimensions, regarding height above the rails and overall height. Does this mean that all 3 are incorrectly scaled?, I know that the new Atlas and MTL are both PS1's, but I would think at least one of the 3 mentioned was done correctly.

Don't mean to hijack the thread or anything.

[bbussey]

Am I wrong in thinking the Atlas car is just a tad too high over the trucks? Reference photo:
http://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail2.php?ID=19470

Looking at the N&W photo, it appears that the body on both models is at the correct height above the rails.  The sill tabs over the bolsters are just above the top of the truck frames in both the model photos and the prototype.

You also can see where the extra height is on the MTL car.  The lower door track should be on the sills, not on the car side.  And the MTL door height actually appears to be correct.

Just a quick, perhaps random thought, when I line up MTL, Deluxe Innovations and Intermountain 40 foot boxcars, they all have similar dimensions, regarding height above the rails and overall height. Does this mean that all 3 are incorrectly scaled?, I know that the new Atlas and MTL are both PS1's, but I would think at least one of the 3 mentioned was done correctly.

Don't mean to hijack the thread or anything.

The DI and IMRC cars stand too high over the rails but the bodies are the correct height floor-to-roof.  The MTL body is much taller than the DI and IMRC bodies.

[bbussey]

... EDIT #2: Looks like I (sort of) found an answer about the MT car:   https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=24020.0

I started that thread when the conversation was regarding the 10-stiffener roof juxtaposed with some of the end details on the MTL car, and the fact that there were prototypes that did have the combination of details that the MTL model has (although not many).  The height of the car body, which clearly is off, was not the topic of discussion.

[BN1970]

Out of interest I measured different car heights a few months ago using a scale ruler.  So I would call my measurements ball park, not precise.

Model                            Proto Height      Model Height         
MT PS1                         14' 11 3/4"         15’  7”

IM 12 Panel                   14’  9”                15' 

IM IM 1937 Boxcar        14' 6 9/16"         15' 3"

Atlas 1932 AAR Boxcar   13’  10 3/16”    13’  8”

One thing that I did notice is roof walk thickness does vary and can add a few extra inches because its to thick.  The numbers above include the roof walk. --Brian

[peteski]

The DI and IMRC cars stand too high over the rails but the bodies are the correct height floor-to-roof.  The MTL body is much taller than the DI and IMRC bodies.

OK, but you also say that the overall body height of the MT car is too high.  If the door is correctly scaled, where is the extra height coming from (after all the largest area height wise on the body is the area where the door sits).  The only (relatively small proportionally) areas are the sill, the top door channel and the roof. Are those all too tall?

[John]

the minuscule subset of proto modelers represented here

David .. your characterization is incorrect. We are the rounding error not just subset 

[bbussey]

OK, but you also say that the overall body height of the MT car is too high.  If the door is correctly scaled, where is the extra height coming from (after all the largest area height wise on the body is the area where the door sits).  The only (relatively small proportionally) areas are the sill, the top door channel and the roof. Are those all too tall?

As stated up-thread, the lower door sill of the MTL car is positioned at least a foot too high on the sides.  It should be down on the tabs below the floor line.

[skm]

Rob's PRR site has the dimensional data for the X48.
20 PS1 boxcars, equipped with rubber-cushioned underframes, purchased by the PRR in 1954.
The photo of the N&W car appears to be from the same series of 100 cushioned underframe cars produced by Pullman.....

From the equipment diagram;

height over rails - 14' 11 15/16" (to top of roofwalk) close to 15' (duh!)
floor of boxcar - 3' 7 3/4"

further info here: http://prr.railfan.net/freight/PRRdiagrams.html?diag=x48.gif&fr=cl

The center sill should extend to the back of the coupler box and fill in that open gap.
I don't have either model in front of me to measure, sadly....