if you were designing a new N scale freight car ....

[Atlanticflier]

Hypothetically, if you were designing a new N scale freight car - what brand trucks/wheels and couplers would you design into it ? (choosing from existing),.... or are you are not satisfied with existing products, would you design something new?

[Philip H]

Depends on the era. I’d for sure use low profile metal wheel sets. Modern stuff could either be BLMA/Atlas ASF ride control or MTL Barber roller bearings. Transition era I’d have to get the Atlas friction bearing side frames.

[C855B]

Body-mount couplers? Use "standard" MTL 1015 boxes, please. The general adoption of body-mounts is finally an industry reality, but I'm finding myself stymied in adoption of the advanced MTL True Scale Couplers by manufacturers whose solution to body-mounts has been to cast their own box into the model based on their choice of coupler. This is infuriating - it was much, much easier to change a truck-mounted design to body-mounts than to convert from one body-mount system to another.

[ai5629]

I would utilize a body mounted 1015 coupler box, but it has to be placed to allow the car to be at the proper ride height.  As far as trucks go, I would use BLMA / Atlas trucks with their wheels and centered / recessed bolster.  However, another option would be an offset bolster truck that comes with the bolster being recessed.  This would be similar to the current MTL and Trainworx iterations, but the recessed bolster would give you an aftermarket option.  You could market these as an easy option to lower the ride height of cars that use an offset bolstered truck, but ride too high.  Similar to what many use the BLMA trucks for.  Thanks.

Jeff

[nkalanaga]

The biggest problem with the standard 1015 box is its thickness.  A custom box can fit in the height of the center sill, and looks much better than a big blob hanging from the end of the car.

The old 1025 mounted at the same height, but was still a lot thinner than the 1015.  How about MT making a 1015-style shank in a 1025-height box?  The inside of the box would be the same as the existing 1015, so the length and width would be the same.  That's basically what the manufacturers are doing with their freight cars.

Jeff:  That sounds like something MT would actually consider.  That, plus a 1027 coupler in a thin box, would make lowering their boxcars, and body mounting couplers, a very simple project.  So simple, in fact, that they could do it at the factory!

[bbussey]

For the couplers, a box that accepts MTL 1015 knuckles and compatibles.  Regarding the trucks, it depends upon the prototype.  If a model is being designed from scratch and will have body-mounted couplers, it really doesn't matter on the trucks because the model can be designed to have scale ride height with any of the truck frames available today - regardless of the bolster cross beam height or the center/off-center position of the bolster hole.

[peteski]

I'm with N Kalanga - the 1023/1025 draft gear boxes are much better looking (less clunky) than the large, thick-walled 1015s.  But if the coupler box was incorporated into the model's under-frame molding then this is a moot point. But I would still like to see it finer than the 1015 boxes.

[C855B]

OK, agreed the 1015 box is clunky. It's clunky with the TSC as well, especially top thickness. Nonetheless, I still want to see an end to the trend of the coupler box molded into the model, as it limits choices now that we actually have alternatives.

[cjm413]

Nick Molo started making individual freight car components with the long-term objective of offering complete models (in HO)

Parts (including draft gear):
https://www.molocotrains.com/collections/parts

Complete models:
https://www.molocotrains.com/collections/freight-cars/undec

[bbussey]

If you’re dedigning your own coupler box where the inside cavity dimensions are to 1015 specs, it’s a moot point. The 1015 design from a functional standpoint is better than the original 1023 design because the centering spring is in front of the post instead of behind. I’d rather have the oscillation when reversing the consist than when the consist is moving forward.

Also of note regarding the existing MTL boxes — you always can use 1015 knuckles in the 2004 box, which is considerably thinner in total height and lid/floor thickness than the 1015 box.

[cjm413]

If you’re dedigning your own coupler box where the inside cavity dimensions are to 1015 specs, it’s a moot point. The 1015 design from a functional standpoint is better than the original 1023 design because the centering spring is in front of the post instead of behind. I’d rather have the oscillation when reversing the consist than when the consist is moving forward.

Also of note regarding the existing MTL boxes — you always can use 1015 knuckles in the 2004 box, which is considerably thinner in total height and lid/floor thickness than the 1015 box.

Will an Accumate work in a MTL 2004 box?

[C855B]

If you’re dedigning your own coupler box where the inside cavity dimensions are to 1015 specs, it’s a moot point. ...

Maybe for standard MTL ("Magnematics") and other things like the McHenry and clones where the bare shanks will fit the box, but otherwise it's not a moot point. The TSC does not work in the 1015 box. Compatibility there is external box dimensions only.

[cjm413]

Body-mount couplers? Use "standard" MTL 1015 boxes, please. The general adoption of body-mounts is finally an industry reality, but I'm finding myself stymied in adoption of the advanced MTL True Scale Couplers by manufacturers whose solution to body-mounts has been to cast their own box into the model based on their choice of coupler. This is infuriating - it was much, much easier to change a truck-mounted design to body-mounts than to convert from one body-mount system to another.

This is what Athearn did with their former MDC 50' boxcar underframe.

[Missaberoad]

Maybe for standard MTL ("Magnematics") and other things like the McHenry and clones where the bare shanks will fit the box, but otherwise it's not a moot point. The TSC does not work in the 1015 box. Compatibility there is external box dimensions only.

I'm hoping that one of Micro-trains future projects for the TSC line is a retrofit kit for 1015 boxes... that would help in a number of situations...

Although I have some of @wcfn100 's boxes to play with now so I'm back on the conversion path...

[jagged ben]

If you’re dedigning your own coupler box where the inside cavity dimensions are to 1015 specs, it’s a moot point. The 1015 design from a functional standpoint is better than the original 1023 design because the centering spring is in front of the post instead of behind. I’d rather have the oscillation when reversing the consist than when the consist is moving forward.

Except that the 1015 design collapses to the side when shoving, which inspires derailments.  Personally I pretty much never see the slinky effect in my operations.  YMMV.  But it's still a matter of preference.