You should also remove the crossmembers near the inner axles. Our oversized flanges and wheel tread width need extra clearance.
.
Also… it is always the best idea to use Kadee coupler boxes if at all possible. Manufacturer cast-in coupler boxes tend to have thicker walls and coupler lids.
.
-Kevin
.
Absolutely!
Also, Kadee makes a narrower coupler box, the #262:
https://kadee.com/htmbord/page262.htm
Both of these items are more work than it took to do the approach in the photos.
Mounting trucks and couplers is an interesting “field”. I’ve just been doing that on some Athearn trailer-flats.
It DOES look like the trucks swivel, so it appears to be a matter of minimum radius. That is, it looks like the trucks work OK on straight track. At what radius does the problem develop?
Ed
The problem radius is like 30" radius!
That IS a surprise. Oh, well. The two mods I describe will likely get down towards 24". Maybe.
You should also check clearances for the wheels (see Kevin’s comment above).
All this MAY be beyond your abilities, right now. Like many things, it’s easy if you have the tools and the experience–NOT easy if you don’t. “Been there. Done that.”
If available, I’d suggest checking out a class in machining. Or even take your project to the teacher for guidance. Teachers LOVE it when someone shows up who doesn’t HAVE to!
When I was in school, I had a job at a machine shop; and I learned a LOT. I even (eventually) got to design a model BART train for them. THAT was about the most fun getting paid ever.
Ed
One problem, as of May I became a high school graduate, also I was home schooled so no machining classes there![sigh]
Looks like to me like the (edit) wheels on the lead axle are hitting the coupler box with the truck almost pointed straight ahead.
As I said, when people who don’t HAVE to attend a class show up and ask teachers questions, they love it. If your local high school, junior college, or city college has such a class, drop by for a chat with the teacher. I doubt you HAVE to be enrolled to do such a thing.
It’s a thought.
Ed
If the coupler is at the right height, it’s pretty difficult for the axle to hit the coupler box, even if it’s right under it.
Ed
Sorry, I meant the wheel, not the axle.
I agree, the inside of the wheel flange is hitting the coupler box. On wide radius curves this would not be a problem, but its obvious the curves on the layout are too tight for this long car.
I can’t say for sure, but perhaps the trucks are mounted too close to the end of the car - especially as they are 3 axle trucks.
In the prototype world, the span between those trucks is awfully long, and the car better have a really strong underframe or it would sag from any significant weight.
The vertical walls of the sides are mostly what acts to keep the body from bending. This is why so many flatcars have fishbelly underframes, and so many gondolas do not.
It IS a long car. Making the top chord heavier would likely handle it. Also it would be good to have some ties between the two top chords.
MAYBE thicken the side sheets by 1/16", which would add 4500 pounds to the car weight.
Ed
This is what I’m going for.
Steven,
I don’t think I’d do it the way you’re talking about (You, obviously, CAN.).
I think I’d raise the section above the trucks. That would create a look similar to the photo. All the vertical ribs would go down to the bottom of the side. The problem/irritation, though, is that model won’t have the same height as the prototype–it will be lower.
Also, if I moved the floor of the car upwards (about a foot, it looks like), then I would build a whole new floor in that area, and the coupler and truck mounting would then be replaced in a manner that suited me.
I think my approach would produce a car that looks more like the prototype than yours does. But, then, I’m not totally knowing exactly where you’re going. I just somehow have doubts about grafting a flatcar onto the bottom.
Ed
Seems like an easy thing, sand down the flat car deck and sides and glue the gondola shell onto that, what is your concern with that idea? Perhaps you’re seeing something I’m missing.
The tough part is going to be making the “struts” or braces on the sides of the flat car and on its underside, I guess use styrene strip in the dimensions of the original braces?
The flat car is going to be a good fit because the sideframes are 1.25" across and the gondola shell is that at the bottom from each side, not including the braces.
If you’re worried about the joint lines not looking good I’m planning to rattle can paint the cars anyways so those minute details will get covered to a degree.
I think that using a flat car would be simpler than fabricating my own underframe or lowering the car (which isn’t ideal because the car is short now so lowering it would make it look too short.)
My styrene cutting isn’t the best yet either so I can make basic shapes but even they’re a little wacky.
Yup, that’s it. Extending the ribs downwards. IF you can do that cleanly, that’s good. Because it will make the car body taller, which was a concern of mine.
“Minute”, indeed. 20-40 years from now, dig this car out and re-evaluate the work. But we all gotta start somewhere. And here you are.
Back to work, dude.
Ed
.
I think we are all seeing something you are missing, but do not let that stop you. Maybe you can make it work. Maybe it will not work. Either way you will learn a lot. Keep working.
.
.
Have you painted this car yet? If not, break out the rattle can and get to it. I really want to see it finished.
.
-Kevin
.
.
Do you have any other pictures of the car? A straight on side view will help a lot.
.
-Kevin
.
Butchering a Rio Grande hi side gon? Heresy I say!
Sadly I have not been able to attain a photo from a perpendicular angle, the are some at sharper angles to the car, but 99% of those photos are of the cars in woodchip service with either their 3 axle trucks removed and replaced by 2 axle trucks, 75% of the photos are this, and the remaining few are of the extended side ones with their 3axle trucks.