Correct Gondolas for the 60-70's era

[unittrain]

Just was reading an issue of the B&O railroad historical societys magazine and ran across an article on B&O coil steel gondolas and I was just thinking about when N scale will see a correct 14 and 15 panel gondola from the 60's and 70's era!! There's some really good models of modern prototypes hitting the market. But we need some good 50' gons.

[ljudice]

Totally agree!  I think by the 60's, 70's most gons were 52 footers...

The MTL gons would not be too bad except they are only 50 feet long. Supposedly to re-use the boxcar underframes, but hey, I don't think they actually share an underframe with any boxcar.

So why was this done????

[Denver Road Doug]

Gons are the next frontier in N-scale.  Atlas has released a couple of nice ones, as has Exactrail. 

ESM has the older era mill gon that pretty much sets the bar, but we need that in a slightly more modern and shorter version.

[wazzou]

I agree.

[bbussey]

Actually, they were 52' in the `50s also.

The ExactRail SP Gunderson is a `60s prototype, but you have to keep it loaded since there is no interior corrugated detail to match the exterior detail.  The old AHM covered gon is based on a `60s Pennsy prototype whether keeping the roof or not, but it's two feet too short. 

The ExactRail CP gon is coming though, and it's a late `60s prototype.  I saw the sample model at the Springfield show and it looked better than the SP Gunderson gon in my opinion.

[ljudice]

So what's behind the MTL 50' cars??? 

I had always hear it was to re-use the boxcar parts, but that can't be right, since they were completely different underframes.

And then there were the fixed end cars which only came out a few years ago - with their own NEW underframes - and still 50'.

I believe in the 1-2' rule here - but I find the missing 2 feet really noticable on these cars, especially since they are a little high to begin with.

[Mark5]

Perhaps when they originally tooled the gons they used the 50' box underframe, then later tooled a different underframe?

I honestly haven't looked at the underframes on the few MT gons that I own.

Mark

[ljudice]

Could be - but the original 50' gons had a much slimmer underframe, with a cutout on each end, I believe...

[christoph]

Perhaps when they originally tooled the gons they used the 50' box underframe, then later tooled a different underframe?

It might be the jewel box.  Anything longer than 50' would not fit their standard size.  I think the size problem also applies to their flat car (but I might be wrong  ??? )

[bbussey]

So what's behind the MTL 50' cars??? 

I had always hear it was to re-use the boxcar parts, but that can't be right, since they were completely different underframes.

And then there were the fixed end cars which only came out a few years ago - with their own NEW underframes - and still 50'.

I believe in the 1-2' rule here - but I find the missing 2 feet really noticable on these cars, especially since they are a little high to begin with.

The gons use the same underframe as the flats and were introduced during the same period in the `70s.  The fishbelly flatcar is prototypically correct with it's 50' length.  Erie and New Haven are two of the roads that had the prototype it was based on, and Erie was one of the first releases on the model.

There was no new underframe tooled for the fixed-end cars.  Same underframe as on the drop ends and flats, which had been revised to have the free-standing brake detail prior to the fixed-end cars being released.

Both the gons and flats sit too high, but that's easily fixed by shaving the bolsters and body-mounting 1015s directly to the underside of the body (rather than using the gon/flat coupler adapter).

[ljudice]

Bryan - interesting... forgot the flatcars...

However - I am almost 100% sure the flats and the drop end gons had a different underframe - at least 10 years ago and earlier.  It was shaped like this:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
     xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
     xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx        <-----opening at each end
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[wazzou]

I believe both the gons and the flatcars shared that same underframe you have drawn.

[ljudice]

Yes, but it's different from the underframe in the later fixed end gons (14 and 15 panel).

So the question is - they tooled a new underframe, why not fix the length???

Shipsure???

[bbussey]

The fixed end gons started with the covered gon version.  Have you checked that underframe against current releases of the flats, and drop end gons (of which there have been few if any released in recent years)?  There have been special runs on the flats, most noticeably through the NSC.  I can't think of any drop end gons released in current times.  But it should be easy enough to compare a fixed-end gon underframe with one of the recent flats.

In answer to your "why not fix the length" question - retooling the underframe for whatever reasons (wear and tear, adding the extra brake hardware detail) is a lot different (and less expensive) than redesigning the entire model.  At the time the covered gon was released - NH was the first offering - I'm fairly certain it used the same underframe at the time as those on the drop-end gons and flats.  Whether that has changed in recent years I don't know off hand, but the car was designed to take advantage of existing components in order to help keep the tooling costs down.

[ljudice]

Speaking of gons - my kitbash of an Athearn 65' gon into a Conrail Panelized Turnout Carrier...  I did not want to wreck one of Bryan's beautiful models - but at least it is a start. I basically sanded down the sides and added new styrene sides and ribs. Will be heavilly weathered...