Request for 1960s/70s GTTX TOFC flat

[nkalanaga]

Those of us modeling 1960s/70s intermodal, back when it was still TOFC/Piggyback, have a good variety of flatcars available in N scale.  However, there is one style we still lack, and I would like to suggest that someone make one.  ESM, maybe, as they don't have a TOFC car yet, and cars similar to these were contemporaries of their X-58 and X-72 boxcars.  The only available models of the GTTX cars, with their prominent above-deck centersills, themselves date from the 60s and 70s, and none of them are anywhere near today's standards.  Arnold/Rapido, Minitrix, and Con-Cor all tried their hands at these, and the Arnold car, which I believe was the earliest, is, in my opinion, the best of a poor bunch.

[bbussey]

Those are one of the easiest classes to scratchbuild in N, aren’t they?  A TOFC flatcar would be way down on the list for ESM. There are other general bodystyles that we hope to represent ahead of a TOFC.

Trainworx released a 1960s-era TOFC model. Not a GTTX but period-appropriate.

[dem34]

I have a few of the Trainworx, you can also get them for around $20 a piece since I guess their minimum curve is a bit of a hard sell for most N scalers.

[southernman]

I have a few of the Trainworx, you can also get them for around $20 a piece since I guess their minimum curve is a bit of a hard sell for most N scalers.

So what is their minimum curve? I was thinking about getting a couple of these but was unaware that their minimum operating radius could be larger than average which is what I think you’re alluding to.

[nkalanaga]

Bryan:  fairly easy to scratchbuild, IF one likes scratchbuilding, and IF one can get the plans.  But for those who like to run trains, scratchbuidling usually isn't high on their list of interests.  Besides, they'd almost have to be done in metal, for the weight, and to keep them from warping.  The Minitrix version is plastic, and even when new, tended to warp.  I haven't seen a straight one at train shows for years.

The only reason I mentioned ESM is that you don't have a similar car yet, and they do fit your era.  I don't really care who makes one, as long as it's a reasonably good model.

[wcfn100]

A G85/89 would be great to see in N.  Too bad Walthers makes them for HO.  I wouldn't say they'd be easy to scratch build, but they would be easy to approximate.  Didn't Ritchie do one that looks real good?

A lo-dec 89' flat like an F89CH would be welcome as well to finally get some 60's auto racks.  That car is not easily scratch built.


Jason

[bbussey]

Bryan:  fairly easy to scratchbuild, IF one likes scratchbuilding, and IF one can get the plans.  But for those who like to run trains, scratchbuidling usually isn't high on their list of interests.  Besides, they'd almost have to be done in metal, for the weight, and to keep them from warping.  The Minitrix version is plastic, and even when new, tended to warp.  I haven't seen a straight one at train shows for years.

The only reason I mentioned ESM is that you don't have a similar car yet, and they do fit your era.  I don't really care who makes one, as long as it's a reasonably good model.

You'd just need a brass slab for the main body/deck, and everything else could be fabricated from styrene and wire or 3D-printed.  Being a New Haven modeler, that's always been my go-to option since up until the last decade or so there haven't been any RTR options for NH-specific equipment.

[dem34]

So what is their minimum curve? I was thinking about getting a couple of these but was unaware that their minimum operating radius could be larger than average which is what I think you’re alluding to.

Double Checked, wheels start to bind on the sill around 14" radius. It'll still run just with drag. Anything lower it basically stringlines itself.
Which for an 85' car is fair enough I guess, it still looks incredibly goofy on a 14" curve.

[nkalanaga]

Jason:  I've successfully lowered (not enough, but quite a bit) the ancient Arnold/Rapido cars, and am using two of them for now.  One was bought new in 1969, the other was "found" as the underframe in an auto parts boxcar.  So, I have an acceptable approximation.

Con-Cor's cars look like they started with the Arnold mold, and stretched it two underframe sections.  They measure well over 90 feet long, and simply look silly with a properly scaled car.  The Arnold cars are about 83 feet long, but will comfortably hold two 40 ft trailers, so look acceptable.

As for the Trainworx cars on sharp curves, the prototype had the same problem.  In grade school, probably 1968 or early 1969, we took a field trip to a museum in Yakima, WA.  Almost to the museum, we had to stop for a Yakima Valley Transportation train in the middle of the intersection.  The YVT started life as an interurban, was by then freight-only, and now is a tourist/museum line, still electric. 

The crew was trying to get a Trailer Train, probably 89 ft, flatcar around the corner.  A 90 degree turn, in the intersection, so it probably wasn't much over a 100 ft radius curve - 7.5 inches in N scale. 

Most of the students were bored, sitting and waiting.  A few of us liked trains, and were fascinated.  The crew had to block the wheels, disconnect all of the brake rods from the trucks, uncouple the car from the motor, attach a chain between the couplers, and remove the wheel chocks.  Then, with liberal greasing of the rails, from an actual bucket of grease, they very slowly towed the car around the corner.  Once clear, we went on, but they would have had to put everything back together before continuing.  They routinely ran modern mechanical reefers, but the flatcar was a little too long.

So, in theory, your car should take sharper curves.  But our wheels are thicker, less back-to-back clearance, and probably the center sill is thicker, so the trucks can't turn as far.

[dem34]

That is the trade off of the realistic ride height. My Athearn and Microtrains can go down to 12" radius but those ride a few scale inches higher for clearance.

[southernman]

That is the trade off of the realistic ride height. My Athearn and Microtrains can go down to 12" radius but those ride a few scale inches higher for clearance.

Thanks for the info. You probably saved me from buying something I couldn’t use. While my radius doesn’t hinder the operation of M-T , BLMA/ Atlas or even Trainworx flexi-van flats I think I’ll pass on the TW flats.

[nkalanaga]

OK, I dug out one of my Trainworx cars, and looked at the underside.  Mine will take what is supposed to be an 11 inch radius curve, pushing and pulling, coupled to a Kato 45 ft tank car.  I tried it on three different industrial sidings, and it worked on all three, as well as through handlaid #4 turnouts.  Normally such a car would never be on these tracks, as they don't have any TOFC ramps, but it will work.

If you do need more truck swing, a little work on the sides of the center sill, and the edges of the flange-clearance cutout in the floor, should give give what you need.  It wouldn't be hard to do, and wouldn't affect the appearance of the car.

If you want one, I'd say to go ahead and buy it.