Author Topic: 53' cans: MT vs. Scale Trains  (Read 2369 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ljudice

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3026
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +148
    • NS/CR Camp Car Models
53' cans: MT vs. Scale Trains
« on: December 28, 2017, 08:02:23 PM »
0
Any thoughts, comparisons...

Interoperability with Kato well cars and their pin/magnet system>
« Last Edit: December 29, 2017, 12:10:53 PM by GaryHinshaw »

Philip H

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 7479
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +527
    • Layout Progress Blog
Re: 53' cans: MT vs. Scale Trains
« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2017, 10:07:27 PM »
0
Picked up a Scale Trains 53 in Schneider over the holiday. Looks good. Will be setting it up with the MT 48 tomorrow so
I’ll let you know.
Philip H.
Chief Everything Officer
Baton Rouge Southern RR - Mount Rainier Division.

"Yes there are somethings that are "off;" but hey, so what." ~ Wyatt

"I'm trying to have less cranial rectal inversion with this." - Ed K.

"There's more to MRR life than the Wheezy & Nowheresville." C855B

jagged ben

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2459
  • Respect: +253
Re: 53' cans: MT vs. Scale Trains
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2017, 11:45:25 PM »
0
In a nutshell:  ScaleTrains' are fully interoperable with Kato, and were seemingly designed to be.  Micro-Trains' are not.

If you stick a ScaleTrains or Kato container on top of an MT container, you get an unrealistic gap in between (unless you cut off the pins).  You need a strong magnet system to hold this combo together.    If you stick an MT container on top of another brand, you get a slightly less unrealistic gap because the pins are lower profile.  (real containers have a very slight gap in between when stacked, which no manufacturer seemingly has tried to model).

I found the tolerances on ST pins a weeee bit off.  They usually fit just right but sometimes if you pick a random two containers they take a little massaging to pop onto each other, or will only do so in one direction.

Neither ST or MT come with magnets.  I don't care, I use my own magnet system.   You probably want to use magnets, personally I find the pins are not that reliable when a train gets going, although they are helpful for keeping things aligned, if not stacked.

MT containers are a wee bit long, by a few thousandths, but they still fit in Kato wells.  (They do not fit in Deluxe Maxi-IV wells.  But I believe this is partly the fault of the Deluxe cars, as flabbergastingly, Deluxe 53ft cans don't fit in them either.) 

ljudice

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3026
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +148
    • NS/CR Camp Car Models
Re: 53' cans: MT vs. Scale Trains
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2017, 04:26:00 PM »
0
Thanks!

I presume MT's mate with MT reasonably well...

How does Atlas fit into the picture?

daniel_leavitt2000

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 5459
  • Respect: +563
Re: 53' cans: MT vs. Scale Trains
« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2017, 01:54:41 PM »
0
There was actually a standard IBC connector design in N scale at one point. Walthers, Intermodel, and a few others had it. Seems to have fallen out of favor after at sometime around 2000.
'In my great and unmatched wisdom'

cfritschle

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 856
  • Respect: +133
    • N Scale Vehicle Association
Re: 53' cans: MT vs. Scale Trains
« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2017, 03:25:32 PM »
+1
Thanks!

I presume MT's mate with MT reasonably well...

How does Atlas fit into the picture?

Lou,

The MT 53-ft and 48-ft containers work well together, but will not work at all with containers that are a scale 96 inches wide.

The Atlas containers appear to be deliberately designed to have the distance between the pins slightly greater than the distance between the holes.  This allows the containers to "snap" firmly together so there is no need for magnets.

To digress a bit, I have been on a 30-year quest to make all of my containers interoperable, and I finally achieved interoperability within the last year.  I have one forty foot container and one 20 foot container as my "standards" in which all of my other containers are modified in order to be compatible with the appropriate standard container. 

Basically, I use a three magnet system for 40 foot and longer containers, one magnet is centered along the mid line of the container, and the other two magnets are spaced 10 scale feet either side of the center magnet.  The Rolland 40 foot containers use this spacing, as well as the new Jacksonville Terminal Company containers.  Steel plates are then attached to the roof of the containers directly above the magnets.

I also only use two pins, one on the right front corner of the container and the other on the left rear corner of the container.  The pins consist of 0.02 inch styrene rod in which the protruding portion is filed to a more or less cone shaped nub that has barely more than 0.01 of an inch protruding from the bottom of the container.  By having only two pins at a diagonal to each other, they do not have to be all that precise in their placement.  If for some reason the pins do not fit into the holes in the "roof" of on my "standard" container, I can simple file them flat and start over.

I currently have over 100 containers that are completely interoperable with each other, with several hundred more to go!  Sorry, I don't have any photos of the models or the process at this time, but I was able to convert my spec sheets to jpegs and post them in the photo gallery.

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=3924

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=3925
Carter

N Scale Vehicle Association
"For the modeler and collector of 1:160 scale model vehicles and equipment"
http://nscalevehicles.org/

jagged ben

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2459
  • Respect: +253
Re: 53' cans: MT vs. Scale Trains
« Reply #6 on: December 31, 2017, 01:26:22 AM »
+1
Lou,

The MT 53-ft and 48-ft containers work well together, but will not work at all with containers that are a scale 96 inches wide.

The Atlas containers appear to be deliberately designed to have the distance between the pins slightly greater than the distance between the holes.  This allows the containers to "snap" firmly together so there is no need for magnets.

...

For what it's worth, Kato and Scaletrains pins have the same problem with respect to 96" wide containers.  Kato screwed this up when they made their 53ft containerss, putting the pins too far out to properly line up with a scale model of an ISO box.  They've followed up with two different models of 40ft containers that are both flawed.  Their high cube has the corner casts protruding beyond the ISO dimensions (to match their 53ft models), and they are thus a tight squeeze or a non-fit in properly scaled 40ft wells.  So when they made their standard height model, they modeled the outside of the corner castings as open, which makes it line up with all their other products for stacking but doesn't look at all realistic up close.

The Atlas 53ft (and 45ft) boxes are only announcements so far, but perhaps we can presume that the pins will line up with Atlas' 40ft cans and thus be properly aligned in scale per ISO standards.  At this point that would be small consolation for the total lack of an industry standard; might as well cut off pins and rely totally on magnets.  There's something to be said for containers with no pins at all (hey, the proto doesn't have any!).  With those you just know your adding magnets (see my method here) and you don't have to combat any reservations about cutting the pins off.

« Last Edit: December 31, 2017, 01:44:31 PM by jagged ben »

Scottl

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4052
  • Respect: +480
Re: 53' cans: MT vs. Scale Trains
« Reply #7 on: December 31, 2017, 08:34:17 AM »
0
I thought the proto does have pins.  They just aren't a scale 6" long  :ashat:


jagged ben

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2459
  • Respect: +253
Re: 53' cans: MT vs. Scale Trains
« Reply #8 on: December 31, 2017, 11:37:06 AM »
0
I thought the proto does have pins.  They just aren't a scale 6" long  :ashat:

The interbox connectors used on the proto are a separate component, not a permanent part of the container.  And for the bottom of a bottom container in a well, there would be none present.

Scottl

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4052
  • Respect: +480
Re: 53' cans: MT vs. Scale Trains
« Reply #9 on: December 31, 2017, 12:11:00 PM »
0
OK thanks.  I assumed they were permanent.  I have a hard time imagining someone putting the connectors in with the prototype, but I see the reasoning.

Atlanticflier

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Respect: +20
Re: 53' cans: MT vs. Scale Trains
« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2018, 03:41:54 PM »
+3

Coming Soon to N scale to help with container compatibility issues: JTC Replacement underframes:

For Scale Trains 53' dry and reefer boxes - JTC replacement Underframes have 3 magnets as per JTC system AND connecting PINS to match the JTC/Atlas ISO boxes.
For M-T 48' and 53' boxes - replacement underframes to have 3 magnets as per JTC system. (Remove existing PINS)
Atlas 40' standard height box - replacement underframe to have three magnets as per JTC system (PINS already align)

These will allow compatibility of the above to stack ON top of All the JTC containers (40' canvas/open tops, 40' HC and (2)-20' standard containers, +++), and the Atlas 40' standard containers. M-T containers will need to have their 'pins' removed, and connect via magnets only. Expect these in March/April.
https://www.facebook.com/JTCmodeltrains/

The compatible JTC Magnetic system will be used on the all appropriate JTC containers in the developing product line. Consideration is being given to include metal top plates in the package(s).

BR,
Steve
JTC Product Development


cfritschle

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 856
  • Respect: +133
    • N Scale Vehicle Association
Re: 53' cans: MT vs. Scale Trains
« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2018, 12:13:47 PM »
+2
Coming Soon to N scale to help with container compatibility issues: JTC Replacement underframes:

For Scale Trains 53' dry and reefer boxes - JTC replacement Underframes have 3 magnets as per JTC system AND connecting PINS to match the JTC/Atlas ISO boxes.
For M-T 48' and 53' boxes - replacement underframes to have 3 magnets as per JTC system. (Remove existing PINS)
Atlas 40' standard height box - replacement underframe to have three magnets as per JTC system (PINS already align)

These will allow compatibility of the above to stack ON top of All the JTC containers (40' canvas/open tops, 40' HC and (2)-20' standard containers, +++), and the Atlas 40' standard containers. M-T containers will need to have their 'pins' removed, and connect via magnets only. Expect these in March/April.
https://www.facebook.com/JTCmodeltrains/

The compatible JTC Magnetic system will be used on the all appropriate JTC containers in the developing product line. Consideration is being given to include metal top plates in the package(s).

BR,
Steve
JTC Product Development

Steve,

This is a great step in the right direction for creating an industry standard for the placement of magnets in N scale containers!

And, I would like to suggest you consider a container chassis (or four) as you develop your product line.   :D 

As you know, no one is currently producing ready to use North American prototype container chassis.  Chassis King includes a lot of specs on their website.  http://www.chassisking.com/products/container-chassis/

If you do decide to produce a container chassis, I would also suggest that the wheels and axles be interchangeable with Trainworx wheels and axles.  A two-hole Budd would be nice since Trainworx doesn't make that one, so you would not be reinventing the wheel, so to speak.   :facepalm:

One last request would be for a 48-foot corrugated container.  The APL and Pacer stack trains from the latter part of the 1990s into the first decade of the 21st Century had a lot of these, but I have not been able to locate any in N scale.

Thanks for listening!

 
Carter

N Scale Vehicle Association
"For the modeler and collector of 1:160 scale model vehicles and equipment"
http://nscalevehicles.org/

ljudice

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3026
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +148
    • NS/CR Camp Car Models
Re: 53' cans: MT vs. Scale Trains
« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2018, 01:31:12 PM »
0
Second on the chassis - I am seeing a lot of 53 boxes on chassis on spine cars....     (on BNSF)

GaryHinshaw

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 5540
  • Respect: +695
Re: 53' cans: MT vs. Scale Trains
« Reply #13 on: January 07, 2018, 02:39:05 PM »
0
Looking forward to trying these out.  Might these also be compatible with the Deluxe cans?

Atlanticflier

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Respect: +20
Re: 53' cans: MT vs. Scale Trains
« Reply #14 on: January 11, 2018, 03:21:06 AM »
+1
Steve,

This is a great step in the right direction for creating an industry standard for the placement of magnets in N scale containers!

And, I would like to suggest you consider a container chassis (or four) as you develop your product line.   :D    YES (3)

As you know, no one is currently producing ready to use North American prototype container chassis.  Chassis King includes a lot of specs on their website.  http://www.chassisking.com/products/container-chassis/  We have a N.A. Prototype ...

If you do decide to produce a container chassis, I would also suggest that the wheels and axles be interchangeable with Trainworx wheels and axles.  A two-hole Budd would be nice since Trainworx doesn't make that one, so you would not be reinventing the wheel, so to speak.   :facepalm:  Good Suggestion

One last request would be for a 48-foot corrugated container.  The APL and Pacer stack trains from the latter part of the 1990s into the first decade of the 21st Century had a lot of these, but I have not been able to locate any in N scale.  YES

Thanks for listening!    Thank You for the input and suggestions....