Lowering FVM PS5344 boxcars

[squirrelhunter]

So everyone knows that the FVM PS 5344 boxcar has a ride height issue- as a Plate C boxcar the actual overall height seems to come in between Plate C and Plate F. The photos below show how this results in a car that is tall enough to stand out in a train (just like real PS 5344's) but to also be tall enough to look wrong.

Next to an IM Gunderson High Cube Plate F


Next to a WoT PC&F RBL Plate C

[squirrelhunter]

So what can be done? I've read that the only reliable solution is to body mount the couplers and then shave down the interior supports that rest on the frame until the riddle height is corrected.

But I think I stumbled on a simpler solution that isnt perfect but goes a long way to fixing the ride height.

I had a spare underframe from an Atlas FMC 5077 lying around.  Nice frame, has body mount couplers on it and is a drop in replacement for the FVM frame. But with the stock Atlas trucks, there wasn't much improvement.

I also had a spare pair of BLMA 70 ton roller bearing trucks to hand- replacing the stock truck with BLMA ones made a huge difference.

Now I think the modified car is probably just a bit taller than it should be under Plate C, but it no longer looks like a hallway between Plate C and F high rider.

Next to IM Gunderson High Cube Plate F




Next to WoT PC&F RBL Plate C





Next to an unmodified FVM PS5344

[nkalanaga]

If you want to measure your cars, and see if they really are within Plate C clearances, here is the official AAR Plate C diagram, from an unknown website:

[cjm413]

I kept the FVM underframe, but filed down the bolsters, swapped the trucks with BLMA, mounted underslung couplers to the underframe.

This particular car used a pair of MTL 2004 couplers I already had, but I've also used Accumate coupler boxes mounted directly to the underframe without the coupler lid. [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[squirrelhunter]

If you want to measure your cars, and see if they really are within Plate C clearances, here is the official AAR Plate C diagram, from an unknown website:

Thank you! I've been think of making a clearance diagram mounted to piece of unitrak. My main this is not to be super rigorous since the difference between Plate B and Plate C is .03125 in N scale. At the same time cars that ride significantly high can look off as the difference between a Plate B and a Plate E is .1 inch.

Basically as the PS 5344 comes from FVM it is very obviously taller than other cars that are supposed to be Plate   B and C cars so it looks out of place. But now that it is lowered it does not tower above other Plate C cars.

 I suspect if I measure it as I have modified it it would be just above Plate C and inside Plate E.

[squirrelhunter]

cjm413, do you have any photos of the coupler installation?

I will say that the Atlas underframe gives couplers at the right height, although the car still rides a little high.

[cjm413]

cjm413, do you have any photos of the coupler installation?

I will say that the Atlas underframe gives couplers at the right height, although the car still rides a little high.

I don't have it in front of me, but it's a stock MTL 2004 (or the short one from MTL 2001).

Off the top of my head, I don't recall if the underframe was from an early release with truck mounted couplers or the later ones that have the spacer molded in place on the underframe to lower the coupler box.

[cjm413]

Found one with the Accumate coupler and coupler box without the lid mounted to the FVM underframe while looking for an example with MTL 2004/short 2001.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I also don't recall if this underframe was the early or later version with the spacer.

[cjm413]

2004/short 2001 on left, McHenry mounted to underframe with styrene channel stock on right

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[cjm413]

This is not a FVM PS 5344, but I found it while I was looking for them...

The ride height of the Atlas 60' ACF Precision Design is just as much of eyesore as the FVM PS 5344.

Conversion is basically the same concept - file down bolsters, swap trucks with underslung trucks*, and mount long 2001 couplers.  I used spare 1016 coupler boxes since I had them and didn't want to seal the 2001 coupler box shut, nor did I deal with them falling apart before I could secure them in place...and yes, I know I haven't painted them yet...   

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

*Check prototype to determine correct trucks.   This UP order had 100T trucks, but others may need 70T roller bearing trucks, or in the case of one I have in EL paint that is buried somewhere else, 70T plain bearing trucks.

Signature Press has an excellent book covering ACF boxcars with a ton of good photos and info.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I've done it.

http://conrail1285.com/lowering-fox-valley-models-50-foot-boxcars/

[Mark5]

I've done it.

http://conrail1285.com/lowering-fox-valley-models-50-foot-boxcars/

Looks good Ed! Shouldn't these ride on 70 ton trucks though?

[cjm413]

Looks good Ed! Shouldn't these ride on 70 ton trucks though?

There were some that were 100T, but most were 70T

[cjm413]

I've done it.

http://conrail1285.com/lowering-fox-valley-models-50-foot-boxcars/

If you don't have a problem with Accumates, the coupler box doesn't need any modifications to mount it without the lid, and the lack of a spring makes the couplers easier to install without the lid.

[squirrelhunter]

Both of y'all have give me some more to think about. I need find my MTL coupler height gauge and see how my modified car checks out.

I may go back and try to trim down the bolsters to see if I can shave if a little more height.

Also I'm thinking some more about how to make some Plate clearance diagrams from styrene and mounting them to a piece of unitrak so I can try to find cars that are most out of spec on overall height.