I picked up some of the newly available Atlas 100T roller bearing trucks and noticed the centering hole in the bolster isn't large enough for most of the Atlas freight cars this truck would be appropriate for... Including the black plastic pins used for converting MTH cars to 2R. 

Rather then reaming the hole out to 3/16" I chose 13/64" for a much better operation and better fit once a screw is installed to retain the truck on the freight car.  Anyone else have this experience.  I've installed 40 pairs of these new trucks on Atlas, MTH and Lionel cars and have had to enlarge every single centering hole.

 

 

 

Thank you,

Mike

Original Post

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.

 

" on Sour mash and cheap wine " ??

Why go back to DCC when I have DCS!

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. 

Thank you,

Mike

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? 

Thank you,

Mike

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.  

Thank you,

Mike

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. 

Thank you,

Mike

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.

" on Sour mash and cheap wine " ??

Why go back to DCC when I have DCS!

Sort of off topic, but everyone else went in this direction..

Generally:

220,000 = 70T car, use 33" wheels
263,000 = 100T car, use 36" wheels

 

I just looked at one of the SOU 86' boxcars on ebay. The LD LMT + LT WT = 221000, so that would probably have 70T trucks under it. I looked at a few other cars I own on eBay and they all have similar weight limits.  Then again, for me, truck spotting features are hard to see even at the 3' rule, so you do you on using 100T trucks. I'm sure I've already done the same.

Although, I've converted quite a few 86' boxcars and wrote a conversion article for OST some years ago, I haven't done so or compared the 70T and 100T trucks in a few years.  I can't remember if the 70T trucks have 33" wheels, but comparing photos on the Atlas website makes it look like it. I am guessing the ride height would be affected, but if you want a more accurate truck, that is something easily compensated. Definitely make sure you use only thin-frame trucks for the conversion on these cars. The older ones do not swivel well.

https://shop.atlasrr.com/p-279...-bearing-trucks.aspx

https://shop.atlasrr.com/p-279...-bearing-trucks.aspx

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? 

 

 

Thank you,

Mike

Attachments

Photos (1)

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

 50' Standard50' Hi-roof60' Standard60' Hi-roof86' Auto
Inside Length50' 7"50' 6"60' 9"60' 9"86.6
Inside Width9' 6"9' 6"9' 4"9' 6"9' 6"
Inside Height10' 11"13'10' 10"13'13'
Door Typeslide and/or plugplugslide and/or plugplugslide and/or plug
Door Width10'10' - 12'10'10' - 12'20'
Door Height10'12'10'12'12'
Exterior Length55' 5"58' 2"67' 11"67' 7"93' 6"
Exterior Width10' 7"10' 8"10' 6"10' 8"10' 8"
Cubic Capacity5,238 ft.6,269 ft.6,085 ft.6,646 ft.9,999 ft.
Freight Capacity70 - 100 tons100 tons70 - 100 tons100 tons70 tons

" on Sour mash and cheap wine " ??

Why go back to DCC when I have DCS!

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.

PHOTO2

 

 

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.

 

Attachments

Photos (1)

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.

DSC06257DSC06258

Jim

Attachments

Photos (2)
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.

PHOTO2

 

 

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! 

Thank you,

Mike

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.  

Thank you,

Mike

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.   

Thank you,

Mike

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... 

CSX Box Car 181053

 

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? 

 

Thank you,

Mike

Attachments

Photos (6)

You assume the Lionel car is 100% accurate.  It could be liberally done with regard to the LD LMT or the ends, though Lionel has a decent track record.

The only other thing I can conjecture is that if you find a prototype car that matches the above, then at some point maybe it was cheaper for NS to just standardize on 36" wheels/100T trucks for any car with a GRL of 263K or less. Or maybe 70T trucks just aren't made anymore.  Though this is totally beyond my knowledge.

For me, as you pointed out, verify with the prototype what trucks, details are appropriate for your model.  If that interests you...

If not, both 70-ton and 100-ton trucks work in the model, look and function well, one requires a little more shimming.  

I think we have enough data to safely say the prototype cars are riding with both 70-ton and 100-ton trucks and how that is determined.   There obviously is more that can be uncovered, but refer back to the prototype and know that there are/could be exceptions to the rules. 

Thanks for prompting the research exercise, was fun learning more about how these numbers play into determining the appropriate wheels for your ride!  

Thank you,

Mike

I would not assume that Lionel is correct with their lettering.   Most 86 ft cars I've seen have 70 ton trucks on them, albeit there could be exceptions, such as rebuilt cars.  And as most of these hi cubes are reaching their life expectancy, the rebuilt factor will come into play.   Figure that these cars started production in the mid 1960's, and continued through the early 80's.   The Lionel car is a Pullman Standard car that was from the mid 60's through the late 70's when PS was bought out by Trinity.    Thrall and Greenville Steel Car, had longer production times on these cars, going into the early 80's.

 I generally use 70 ton trucks on my 86 ft boxcars,  using a 3 mm screw and a nut as a spacer.  Will need to look at 100 ton trucks,  to see just how well they look on a few of my cars.

 As Mike said, both  70, and 100 T can be used, depending on the prototype.   I try to use a Google search to locate a prototype photo of the model as a reference.  Sometimes however, seeing just what size truck sits under one of these beasts can be difficult at best.

 

R Nelson posted:

 

 As Mike said, both  70, and 100 T can be used, depending on the prototype.   I try to use a Google search to locate a prototype photo of the model as a reference.  Sometimes however, seeing just what size truck sits under one of these beasts can be difficult at best.

 

Definitely agree with you! 

Thank you,

Mike

On another note....

I used the long shank KDs on my longest cars. I mistakenly put a set on an articulated Atlas autocar and decided to remove them. They weren't needed and looked too long. I then looked more closely at my other cars wondering which needed the long shanks. I have sets on my Lionel auto cars for example and wondered if they made the cars look too far apart.

 Now that I see them in the real pics posted above, I guess the real world spacing of these cars due to the long shank couplers is accurate. So I will continue to use them where needed and appropriate. 

" on Sour mash and cheap wine " ??

Why go back to DCC when I have DCS!

Joe, I often think the same thing.  Sometimes, I end up moving the gearbox back just slightly and drill and tap new holes.   If you do that, you need to trim/grind off the lip on the top cover plate.   I noticed the gearbox provided with the lionel 86' boxcar also uses the 746 long shank coupler. 

I've used the 746 on some passenger cars to support the diaphragms  and they work out nicely.   Only issue sometimes is needing to trim the lower portion of the diaphragm to allow the coupler to clear. 

Thank you,

Mike

Add Reply

Likes (1)
ALCO-C628
Post
OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
330-757-3020

www.ogaugerr.com
×
×
×
×
×