G Scale Model Train Forum banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hallo MLSers,
i have got my 5 UP-cars and they did not fit with the aristos in height.
Couplers are too low, so i made new holding device.
Trying to remove the truck, there are the 2 wires for light going thru the truck. so i had to unsolder. Also turned the wheelflanges to 2mm to run at 5mm track, see the pics..
Greetings derPeter
 

Attachments

·
Super Modulator
Joined
·
20,573 Posts
People have also put Kadees "inside" that u-shaped bridge.


The short wires are indeed a pain in the butt.


with the nice electronics, you can easily eliminate one set of pickups, and the reduction in rolling friction is dramatic.


My buddy and I both bought the 10 car set (I run 12 cars) and stringlining has been an issue with the rolling friction.



Camarillo Pacific makes the Kadee mount.


We are going to change the carbon brush pickups to ball bearing pickups.


They are great looking cars, except for the threaded bolt visible in the center of the observation car


Greg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Hallo again,
got some small ballbearings 1/4" x 1/8" (6,35 x 3,175 x 3mm)
only 8pcs. per car, because the middle axe is loose.
The brass bushing can be easy removed with M3 thread tap.
Axle has 2,8mm dia, so i made small sleeve from alu-sheet, see pic
And added the kadees #820
Greetings derPeter
 

Attachments

·
Super Modulator
Joined
·
20,573 Posts
What do you mean about the wheel flanges, did you turn down the flange width or depth?


what does "run at 5mm track" mean? Surely your track is not 5mm wide. ;)


In any case, your coupler mount is very much like the Camarillo Pacific ones, of course, a good solution.




Thank you for the tip on the bearings. I'm going to take a different route because I want power pickup, but the friction losses I am seeing are coming from the carbon brushes, so converting to Train-Li ball bearing wheels with the power pickup and eliminating the carbon brushes.


Greg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Hallo Mr. Greg,
wheel flange originally is 3mm depth, so i turned down to 1,8mm depth to enable run on track with 5mm height (Euro-Standard, Märklin and others)
greetings derPeter
 

·
Super Modulator
Joined
·
20,573 Posts
Thank you!


Sorry, forgot the height, duh! We would refer to that as code 200, yes, the flanges were probably riding on the "spikes".


I try to shoot for 2mm flange depth myself...


Greg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
644 Posts
Has any body who has these cars, checked dimensions? I was wondering just how close thes could be to 1/32 scale? Iin which case I have a few projects to use them in. I have no way of seeing one here in Europe without odering them. Could any body post length width and height for them as the catalogue gives the length over couplers and these are overscale for short radius curve operation. They seem pretty close to 1/32 and that would be cool. Thanks for any help.
 

·
Super Modulator
Joined
·
20,573 Posts
They are perfectly 1:29 as advertised.

Tell me which ones you want measured, they are just outside.

club lounge car (we call a combine) 33-3/16" body without diaphragms, 4-3/8" width of body at sill (measured through baggage door)

Greg
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
Like Greg said, the USA cars are 1/29, but the Aristo cars are a little small for 1/29.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,684 Posts
Perfectly 1:29?
I guess it all depends on ones definition of 'perfect'!
The combination Club/Baggage car appears to be to Pullman Plan 3951.
This has a side length of 77' 3 ½", plus the one vestibule of 3' 9", plus the Baggage end of 1' 0" for a total of 82' ½" or 984.5".
So in 1:29 it should be 33.948", so the model is a little over ¾" short.
As to width, the overall width of Pullman Heavyweights was 10', or 10' 1" depending on which Pullman plan you are looking at.
4 ⅜" in 1:29 scale represents 10' 6 ⅞" which might cause issues on some railroads.
Cheers,
David Leech, Delta, Canada
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
David,
Is the prototype length from coupler pulling face to coupler pulling face, or the ends of the car?
 

·
Super Modulator
Joined
·
20,573 Posts
His numbers and post say the side length plus the length of the vestibules, so no couplers, no diaphragms as I read it. It should be from buffer to buffer (usually a raised block at the very end of the car, right under the bottom of the diaphragm)

I looked a bit for some drawings, and I have not looked to see if the USAT unit has a buffer... hmm.... hold on, walk out the back door... so the "buffer block" seems to be sort of simulated by the draft gear for the coupler.... and I have been changing over to Kadees with the Camarillo Pacific conversion boxes.

I did the initial measurements with a tape measure...

Looking at that, it appears that the car measurements I have given would be around 3/4" longer if I measured buffer to buffer.... so might still be "perfect" in length,

I also got a pair of vernier calipers and measured body width again, 4.197" > 121.713" inches in prototype, or 10" 1.7" wide perfect...

I stand by "perfect"

Greg
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,684 Posts
David,
Is the prototype length from coupler pulling face to coupler pulling face, or the ends of the car?
Hi Paul,
I will preface this with the fact that I can only go from what information that I have in books and plans in my possession.
Pullman may have changed things from plan to plan!
As you may know, for some reason Pullman would list and show lengths of a car as "just the sides" over end sills.
So you have to add to this to get whatever measurement suits your needs.
As I said, the vestibule is 3' 9" over bodywork, or 4' 5 ¼" over buffer, and 1' 8 ¼" at the 'blank' end over buffer.
A long way to answer your question, but I hope that it does.
Cheers,
David Leech, Delta, Canada
 

·
Super Modulator
Joined
·
20,573 Posts
so David, are you satisfied with my better measurement on width? Do you agree that in this world "perfect" is acceptable? :D

I'll re-measure the length over buffers... so to be sure, 4' 5-1/4 plus 1' 8-1/4 plus 77' 3-1/2" so I get 4+1+77= 82 foot, 17" or 83 feet 5 inches for the prototype over the buffers (seems long)

that should be 34.52" right?

Greg
 

·
Super Modulator
Joined
·
20,573 Posts
Just yanking your chain a bit David, but you did come back and dispute "perfect"... so I cannot get you to admit that the more precisely measured width is indeed "perfectly in scale"?

Did you post just to "put down" the USAT product? I thought we were all happy for ANY new products.

Greg
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,684 Posts
Paul,
Yes it does, but it is not an official Pullman drawing.
It looks to be a railroad 'Folio'. As "The TwilightLimited" was a New York Central train, I would assume that it is one of theirs.
As per the diagram, the Pullman list shows the Plan 3957 with a length of 74' 6", which is between end sills.
I would think that the railroads produced their folio diagram books so that the conductors would know how long each car was so perhaps they would know the total length of the train when coupled up, or something like that.
There are lots of different drawings of passenger cars made over the years, and I tend to be a little careful when researching and would much rather use an actual builders drawing if I can.
Cheers,
David
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
David,
It is interesting. I have wondered why some drawings would show coupler pulling faces as the length. I see it quite a bit on locomotives.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,684 Posts
Paul,
For interest, here is a link to the Pullman plan of the same car, fortunately a lot of plans are in the Newberry Library.
I don't believe pullman ever made side elevations of their cars, at least I have never seen one.
Perhaps as the actual windows were a standard position height wise, so all they needed was the dimension between them to make up a side.
It would be interesting to go back in time and see just how they did build a car.
Cheers,
David
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top