New Altas 100T Trucks too small of centering hole

I recd some of these new trucks too, and it’s definitely more than paint causing the issue. It takes a 13/64” drill bit to remove metal from the bolster to allow it to fit. 

No, I didn't notice this here. I have a couple of spare pairs yet to install.

 I've been working in so many different directions lately that I may have missed this?

I converted an Atlas articulated auto carrier to 2 rail a few days ago and had to go thru some extra work to set up the middle truck. It has a different bolster post and I had to tear apart the whole truck to swap out the bolsters.

On the ends, the trucks I got fit right on. I can't remember what car exactly they came from. I believe they were from a trade? I went to use a newer set and they seemed to be the same modern version with the narrower side frame spacing, so I used the traded ones.

rattler21 posted:

Mike,  Several years ago Atlas announced the difference in diameter was caused by the paint.  Removing the paint(ream the hole) is the easiest, practical solution.  John in Lansing, ILL

John,  As Jeff states this more then paint.  3/16" drill bit will clean the paint off, but still a very tight fit. Not like the last run of trucks.  It took 13/64" to really get back to where the trucks freely swivel when a screw is inserted. 

Engineer-Joe posted:

No, I didn't notice this here. I have a couple of spare pairs yet to install.

 I've been working in so many different directions lately that I may have missed this?

I converted an Atlas articulated auto carrier to 2 rail a few days ago and had to go thru some extra work to set up the middle truck. It has a different bolster post and I had to tear apart the whole truck to swap out the bolsters.

On the ends, the trucks I got fit right on. I can't remember what car exactly they came from. I believe they were from a trade? I went to use a newer set and they seemed to be the same modern version with the narrower side frame spacing, so I used the traded ones.

 

Thanks Joe. Are the trucks in your stash from the very latest run that was received within the last month?  Or where they old stock or pull-offs from an earlier run? 

older I bet

I didn't realize your describing just the latest run. For a few years now, posters describe the blister packed Atlas as new trucks.

Yes, the latest run of the "new" trucks with the thinner sideframes.  Like you, I did not experience too many issues with the earlier runs of the "new" trucks with the thinner sideframes.  This latest run, delivered within the last month, seem to not fit much of anything without at least reaming out the hole to 3/16".  After much trial and error 13/64" seems like a better route to go, because it allows trouble feel swivel of the trucks without compromising any stability.  

Thanks for the info Mike, as I need several 70 ton sets for some Lionel 86 ft cars I picked up recently.   Seems Atlas could at least get these right...LOL!

AFAIK, the Lionel 86' boxcars take 36" wheels, so they would take 100T trucks.  All the one's I done recently all said 36" wheels on them.  Also, when you ream the hole to 13/64" the trucks sits over the lip on the lionel bolster perfectly, you can use the lionel truck mounting screw and get's you real close to the correct coupler height.    Sometimes you can use a flat washer too to get the coupler height exact, also depends on if you use the lionel gearbox or the standard Kadee gearbox. 

I stopped buying any new trains. That means I missed out on several cars I wanted. The Lionel 86' box, their gondola, and the tank cars with sound.

I look forward to seeing what others did to convert these cars. I will get them someday soon.

Dave,  So the interesting thing is 1 US TON = 2000 lbs ... You're right on the MAX gross weight being around that 220,000 lbs on the prototypes.  

That being said, if I take 220,000 / 2000 = 110 Tons and not 70 Tons 

So I'm wondering why on the newer/shopped prototypes I've seen recently they've stamped 36" wheels on the ends? 

funny that the bigger car handles less load? Maybe designed for auto parts like frames or stampings, or similar larger items with less weight?

https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/...t/?mobileFormat=true

Boxcar Specifications

http://www.nscorp.com/content/...des/86%27_boxcar.pdf

Load Limits .............................................................108,000 to 145,000 lbs

Looks like the new(est?) models have higher load ratings?

The trucks are clearly designed for the GRL, not the nominal lading capacity of 70 tons, 100 tons, 110 tons, and so on.  Why the trucks aren't just labeled as such is a mystery to me.  I presume it's a practice left over from years ago.

With respect to upgraded cars, here are a couple of photos taken earlier this year.  I presume the trucks are "100 ton" capacity, with 36" wheels.  The spring group looks more like a 100 ton truck to me.  It starts to get a bit fuzzy when I zoom in far enough, but it looks to me like the NS car calls out 36" wheels on the end of the car.

Jim

DaveJfr0 posted:

Mike,

Actually, the type of truck is driven just by nominal load capacity and not the max GRL, though the max GRL's are what is referenced when determining truck size, which is why I said to add those up to determine. Why? A railroader can correct me, but from my understanding, the max GRL is used because it has always been a required formula. The CAPY line would make more sense, except history has it that it wasn't derived from a standard formula, making it meaningless across different car types, and the requirement for it was eventually dropped. (You'll see its absent on some modern cars.)

I see the math from your POV, but I am not entirely sure why the light weight is not included for determining the truck capacity. You'd think the car's weight would need to be included or maybe its because there is some AAR or FRA rule that requires a car to not be over a certain light weight, which is somehow silently acknowledged by truck designers already.

In the below example, the CAPY is 53T and the max GRL is 220K, so this matches up with 70T trucks.

 

 

And yes much of these larger boxcars were used for appliance and/or auto parts. 

 

I can only imagine that as time moved along, some of these cars were shopped and upgraded for heavier loads, since 110T trucks (286,000 GRL) are the standard today.

 

Dave, yeah my understanding is that a trucks rating is for the whole car, not just the LOAD WEIGHT/CAPY and somehow not count the LT Weight (car weight) .

anyone have section D from the AAR manual of standards and recommended practices?  

I do recall hearing the axle, journal sizes rating have a big part in determining the overall gross weight.  Then subtract the LT WEIGHT would determine the overall LD WEIGHT, vs like say using the CAPY data, as car's weight changes over the years.  

Bringing this back, regardless a washer between the bolster pin and the truck center plate hole will support either 70-ton or 100-ton trucks! 

One railroaders PoV from the AAR manual of standards and recommended practices, 100 ton trucks are used on cars/vehicles that carry 286,000 up to 315,000 lb capacity or 39 tons/axle max.  The weight of the empty car plus the weight of the load is the determining factor on which truck to use.  Every car is designed to carry a weight that either maxes out in the cu. ft. of space available for the load. or maxes out in weight alone.   Those are industry standards (Rules) to be applied when cars are in unlimited interchange service.  If cars are in captive service and no interchange those rules can also be waived by agreement.

All in all, sounds a lot like what we've already surmised.  

Hi Mike,

You may wish to look at this Trainorders Athearn HO scale thread, but I found the prototype content quite informative regarding car weight and wheel sizes. 

https://www.trainorders.com/di...on/read.php?3,432031

Scott

Thanks Scott.  So again, we have 86' boxcars designed or shopped to handle a standard design weight, or gross weight.  Also, as stated in your reference from TO, most railroad freight cars are built to the maximum design load of the body and freight trucks. 

What is obvious is that these standards and recommended practices have a history, like all standards though, have been refined and/or have exceptions to the rule.   Also, people's interpretations of these practices vary from person to person, even reading the same manual.   

I picked a couple cars I converted.. Where the dependencies come from... The CSX is similar to the prototype photo below, but only has MAX GROSS WEIGHT that is 260,100 lbs...  So not quite the 263,000 as noted above, but YET has is not the 220,000 that many other 86' boxcars seem to have... 

The CSX more closely follows the prototype photo above with the increase weight car data matching what's stamped on the ends for 36" wheels

However, check out NS, could be that shopped scenario..  clearly the weight data falls in-line to the 70-ton trucks discussion, but yet is stamped 36" wheels.   Maybe captive service on the NS and they are carrying heavier loads thus the needs for 100-ton trucks?