MT SP Caboose Photo

[oakcreekco]

Tom, looks really nice to me.  Did you use a "flat" file/rasp to remove the material??

Haven't had mine apart yet, was the toolbox pretty easy to do??

Thanks for the updates and pics. $25.00 and a little elbow grease makes a nice looker IMO.

[TiVoPrince]

Tom
has it very close to "right" and I'm willing to compromise a little.  Checked by using posted image and scaled it by the wheel to get a known dimension.  Found a Tom Fassett photo of a C50-9 on espee.raifan.net and overlaid it to the modified MT model.  Scaled that photo by wheel dimension to make it all equal.  I am cetrain that the photo angle and other factors make this all less than scentific but we are dealing with a 1:160 representation here.  I found that scaling the prototype photo to 105% the major lines all come together vertically.  At the same time you have to scale to 94% to get the horizontals to match up.  I would be willing to wager that the copier used at some point was not all that accurate and the deminstions got warped.  Not perfect perhaps but certainly way more accurate than anything out there today...

Vertical dimensions line up at 105% proto photo enlargement
http://www.technologywrangler.com/images/MannSPcaboose.pdf

[Sokramiketes]

Tom
has it very close to "right" and I'm willing to compromise a little.  Checked by using posted image and scaled it by the wheel to get a known dimension.  Found a Tom Fassett photo of a C50-9 on espee.raifan.net and overlaid it to the modified MT model.  Scaled that photo by wheel dimension to make it all equal.  I am cetrain that the photo angle and other factors make this all less than scentific but we are dealing with a 1:160 representation here.  I found that scaling the prototype photo to 105% the major lines all come together vertically.  At the same time you have to scale to 94% to get the horizontals to match up.  I would be willing to wager that the copier used at some point was not all that accurate and the deminstions got warped.  Not perfect perhaps but certainly way more accurate than anything out there today...

Vertical dimensions line up at 105% proto photo enlargement
http://www.technologywrangler.com/images/MannSPcaboose.pdf

I'm confused, you enlarged a prototype to line up the verticals?  But your .pdf shows the horizontals lined up, but the prototype photo is sticking out past the ends?

By the way, how did you get an animated .pdf file like that, that was slick.

  

EDIT: I must be getting confused between "verticals" and "vertical dimensions... anyway, so there is a 10% swing on the proportions?  That's pretty major.

[bbussey]

This one basically settled it for me...

The twenty+ other photos I found that showed otherwise settled it for me...  

Jason, it doesn't matter if there are one thousand and twenty photos that show a different end configuration.  There is documented proof that the ends of the FVM boxcar are prototypical.  The fact that it is a prototype that some were previously unfamiliar with is not a relevant issue.  The general theme on other boards is that the model is the best representation of the prototype in any scale, so others must be familiar with that version of the ends.

The FVM "non-issue" is totally different from the bay window caboose issues.  The MTL model even appears to be different from the drawings it was designed from.  The obvious difference is when you look at the car from the end, where the model visually is much taller than either the drawings or the Overland models.  That's aside from the fact that the car could have been designed to sit lower (as every previous MTL caboose model is) with part of the coupler pad integrated into the underframe - as had been done for 25 years.  I think current 50000/51000/100000-series cabooses were redesigned to have separate coupler boxes now - I don't own any, so I'm not certain of that fact - and I understand the desire to standardize when possible.  But there were other reasonable design options available to have the car at the proper height and still use 2003 or 2004 couplers.  The steps/deck section could have been designed in plastic with an integrated coupler pocket for example, which would have allowed for a thinner deck and more pizza-cutter flange wheel clearance.  The bullet also could have been bitten on this model only where low-pros are used to help eliminate another few millimeters.  The efforts Tom has taken to shave roughly .040" off the height shows what was possible even with the full diecast floor/deck/steps and non-integrated couplers.  So there were alternatives in the model having a diecast floor/deck/steps component and standing at a prototypical height over the rails.  The height of the body though, I don't know what happened there.

[Robbman]

Jason, it doesn't matter if there are one thousand and twenty photos that show a different end configuration.  There is documented proof that the ends of the FVM boxcar are prototypical.

It's one photo taken at a certain angle and certain lighting conditions that hides the angles and fillets... whereas the miriad of other photos taken at different angles and varying lighting conditions show them. 


If I find a photo of a G26 gon where the lighting and photo angle show boxy drop-end, does that mean your car is wrong?

[Ryan87]

There is documented proof that the ends of the FVM boxcar are prototypical.  

Mark at FVM admitted the angle was a little off...  so Jason's complaint stands... (mind you how big of a deal that is is up to you)

[wm3798]

Personally, I find that if you have a layout with track on it that you have to maintain so you can operate the numerous engines that you spend time putting decoders in and details on, and in some cases painting, and you have scenes with buildings and landscaping, and benchwork to build and vehicles to arrange and lighting to worry about...

You tend to be a little more flexible with what you run on it.  You probably also get invited to more parties.

If you prefer to sit hunched over a table with your optivisor and calipers and a list of things that offend you, then you have bigger issues than whether or not your fillets are angled...

Go outside.  Chase a butterfly.  Watch a TV show... Do something, ANYTHING.

Lee

[Sokramiketes]

Jason, it doesn't matter if there are one thousand and twenty photos that show a different end configuration.  There is documented proof that the ends of the FVM boxcar are prototypical.

It's one photo taken at a certain angle and certain lighting conditions that hides the angles and fillets... whereas the miriad of other photos taken at different angles and varying lighting conditions show them.  

There are more as-built photos of the early production cars in RPC 13 that also show the spongebob squarepants ends, so it's not just one photo and possibly a running production change when someone realized that sharper corners are harder to stamp than rounded ones?  

I think there's enough photographic evidence so far to conclude that there are at least two styles of ends.

Matt did also say that to match the modeled end to the prototype, he sharpened up some of  the corners.  But compare that to the right prototype end before writing off the whole car series...

[71jeep]

Personally, I find that if you have a layout with track on it that you have to maintain so you can operate the numerous engines that you spend time putting decoders in and details on, and in some cases painting, and you have scenes with buildings and landscaping, and benchwork to build and vehicles to arrange and lighting to worry about...

You tend to be a little more flexible with what you run on it.  You probably also get invited to more parties.

If you prefer to sit hunched over a table with your optivisor and calipers and a list of things that offend you, then you have bigger issues than whether or not your fillets are angled...

Go outside.  Chase a butterfly.  Watch a TV show... Do something, ANYTHING

Lee

Here here drink a beer chill out its just model trains its supposed to extend your life through enjoyment not shorten it do to worrying about every little thing.

Allen.....

[Puddington]

Personally, I find that if you have a layout with track on it that you have to maintain so you can operate the numerous engines that you spend time putting decoders in and details on, and in some cases painting, and you have scenes with buildings and landscaping, and benchwork to build and vehicles to arrange and lighting to worry about...

You tend to be a little more flexible with what you run on it.  You probably also get invited to more parties.

If you prefer to sit hunched over a table with your optivisor and calipers and a list of things that offend you, then you have bigger issues than whether or not your fillets are angled...

Go outside.  Chase a butterfly.  Watch a TV show... Do something, ANYTHING.

Lee

Well said Lee.......It's "model railroading"... not "model rabblerousing"...... ;D

[wm3798]

Well, I just figure that on Saturday, I could have spent all afternoon running trains on John's layout, or I could have spent all afternoon pointing out what I thought was wrong with it...I chose the former...  You'd be amazed how many of those little details you can overlook when you're watching that rolling stock move around a layout under its own power!

Lee

[tom mann]

Anyway, back to the caboose.

[Puddington]

Anyway, back to the caboose.

......or " caboose to the back".....where it belongs..... ;D

[wm3798]

BTW, Tom, nice work fixing the obvious flaws on that caboose... I'm not saying we should look the other way on everything, but we don't need to look down our noses at everything, either!  So yes, back to PAGE 7 on the caboose... :

You guys go through band width like a dog runs through jell-o.

Lee

[Mark5]

So I decided to lower it even more<snip>

I also made the toolbox shorter.


Underframe work:

Nice work Tom. Amazing that in 2009 off the shelf models need this much manipulation.

Mark