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? 

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!  

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! 

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. 

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. 

It seems Atlas 100 ton 2 rail trucks are hard to get.

Any suggestions who I might buy some from?

Thanks.

Not sure many dealers are out again...  You might be waiting for the next shipment, promised soon by Atlas.

One thing I'd like to point out is, the weight limit rating on trucks is not always by the wheel diameter, but also by the size of the actual roller bearings, and or wheel thickness.   Some trucks use a 6 1/2 x 12" bearing, while others use a 7 1/2 x 12" bearing, depending upon axle size.   Model companies do not always  replicate this.   So........ while 33" wheels =70 ton to us modelers,  this may not necessarily be the correct assumption.     Just to throw some flies into the ointment....LOL!  

Now, keep in mind that the Lionel lettering showing 36" wheels on the hi cubes is likely due to the fact that the bigger wheels (36")  are the only wheels Lionel has!  They do not have 33" wheels on their stock trucks!  Only in their 2 rail conversion kits.   I cannot say just how well Lionel researches these cars when planning new roadnames.......

Now....FWIW,  I did bend Lionels' ear at Trainfest this past month about doing the next run of 8 door cars, with a 1970s light blue GTW car, along with a darker (Burdakin blue) car in GTW with the CN logo between the doors.   Also a UP 8 door car, in UP brown,  with the larger UP logo, and the Building America slogan.   We'll see if they take the bite!

Hi,

Are 8 door boxcars also known as all door boxcars or are the 2 different?

I believe all door boxcars carried lumber products.

Thanks

emdalco01 posted:

Hi,

Are 8 door boxcars also known as all door boxcars or are the 2 different?

I believe all door boxcars carried lumber products.

Thanks

Yes. The ‘all door’ design is lumber/building materials. 

A 8 door 86’ car was generally auto parts(door skins, fenders, bumper covers) items that would cube out a car, before weight out a car 

R Nelson posted:

One thing I'd like to point out is, the weight limit rating on trucks is not always by the wheel diameter, but also by the size of the actual roller bearings, and or wheel thickness.   Some trucks use a 6 1/2 x 12" bearing, while others use a 7 1/2 x 12" bearing, depending upon axle size.   Model companies do not always  replicate this.   So........ while 33" wheels =70 ton to us modelers,  this may not necessarily be the correct assumption.     Just to throw some flies into the ointment....LOL!  

Now, keep in mind that the Lionel lettering showing 36" wheels on the hi cubes is likely due to the fact that the bigger wheels (36")  are the only wheels Lionel has!  They do not have 33" wheels on their stock trucks!  Only in their 2 rail conversion kits.   I cannot say just how well Lionel researches these cars when planning new roadnames.......

Now....FWIW,  I did bend Lionels' ear at Trainfest this past month about doing the next run of 8 door cars, with a 1970s light blue GTW car, along with a darker (Burdakin blue) car in GTW with the CN logo between the doors.   Also a UP 8 door car, in UP brown,  with the larger UP logo, and the Building America slogan.   We'll see if they take the bite!

Great suggestions  Richard, let's hope they offer those cars in the next runs! 

Lehigh Valley Railroad posted:

emdalco01 posted:

Hi,

Are 8 door boxcars also known as all door boxcars or are the 2 different?

I believe all door boxcars carried lumber products.

Thanks

Yes. The ‘all door’ design is lumber/building materials. 

A 8 door 86’ car was generally auto parts(door skins, fenders, bumper covers) items that would cube out a car, before weight out a car 

Really fascinating discussions around car weights, reporting data, load types, etc...  

The "All-Door" cars mentioned, were built by Thrall Car Co. of Chicago Heights, Ill. in the 1970s.  A similar style car was built for the Southern Railway, but had roll up doors, where as the Thrall cars had eight plug doors.  Both Gloor Craft Models, and the old Quality Craft Models had kits in HO, O, and N scales.   The Thrall cars on occasion are seen, but in very few numbers these days.....   Would be an interesting car, if done correctly by some small model company.