MTL NYC Greenville car

[sirenwerks]

I just got done packing all my RR books up last week for an impending move.  And then I saw the MTL NYC Greenville car on Klein's website.  Did the NYC have these early Greenville cars (as compared to the later version produced in HO by ExactRail) in that scheme?

[bbussey]

Good question.  Most likely the prototype pic is in one of the two F&PCG books.  I don't have the books in front of me to check at the moment either, but would think that it would be obvious by reviewing the pics and/or captions.

[jmlaboda]

How 'bout a link so we can see what you are talking about?  I would bet that it is a former CR car that received NYC reporting marks to denote that the car was to go to CSX...

[sirenwerks]

That would be way after my era; it's an original NYC car, none of that post-modern crap (PC) -

[jmlaboda]

MicroTrains has this to say about the model...

" It was built in May 1964 as part of 36-car lot 938B (53179-53215) and assigned to carry six-cylinder engines on 48 racks."

Hopefully someone with knowledge of NYC freight cars will be able to check on its accuracy...

Terry Link has a diagram of the prototype cars on his Canada Southern website... unfortunately he states that the builder was DSI (Despatch Shops)...
http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/images/lot-938.jpg

[bbussey]

It's in NYC CGFPE#1, page 80.  Photograph date is May 1964 as well as the build date.  They were assembled by DSI, although the ends appear to be Greenville.  So NYC had them, but the accuracy of the model is a different issue.  The lower sills are even with the sides on the prototype rather than inset as on the model.  The white rectangular EXTREME HEIGHT graphics belong on the sill rather than above it.  The couplers should be rust instead of jade green.  The RETURN TO text is missing to the left of the door.  The graphics on the left side (other than the EXH note) appear to be accurate, but the graphics on the right side are way off.  All of the right-side graphics are one panel too far right, and the herald is about 25% too large.  The roof also should be aluminum (unpainted).  The roofwalk as well, except for the sections that extend past the ends, which are green.

UPDATE:  The reporting marks are off.  The "C" is not correct and the numbers are too small.  All of the dimi data appear to be too small.  It's not clear from the model photo if the end data are present, but the end data are fully legible in the photo.

So the model represents the prototype somewhat.  I suggest comparing it to a photo of the prototype before deciding if it is acceptable to you.

[peteski]

...and what's up with those green couplers?!  I've seen few other MT cars using wildly colored couplers but I think that doing this is just plain silly.    I suspect that this is done because the coupler and its pocket are molded on a single tree, but they should really replace the couplers with ones molded in a more appropriate color (black or brown).  This would probably add 50 cents to the cost of the car but I don't think anybody would complain or notice (since MT prices are not fixed anyway, so there is no hard reference for MSRP of any of their decorated car).

[ai5629]

MTL really dropped the ball on this NYC car.  NYC had Greenville built double plug door cars.  They were lot 937B: NYC 53085-53125.  The 938B cars were Despatch Shop built clones.  They are close, but as Bryan mentioned the sills are somewhat different.  I may get one to support the eastern railroad effort.  I am patiently awaiting the no roofwalk version if it comes to pass.  This one has 10 holes in the roof to patch, so I will wait for MTL to do it for me.  Thanks.

Jeff

[ljudice]

It's in NYC CGFPE#1, page 80.  Photograph date is May 1964 as well as the build date.  They were assembled by DSI, although the ends appear to be Greenville.  So NYC had them, but the accuracy of the model is a different issue.  The lower sills are even with the sides on the prototype rather than inset as on the model.  The white rectangular EXTREME HEIGHT graphics belong on the sill rather than above it.  The couplers should be rust instead of jade green.  The RETURN TO text is missing to the left of the door.  The graphics on the left side (other than the EXH note) appear to be accurate, but the graphics on the right side are way off.  All of the right-side graphics are one panel too far right, and the herald is about 25% too large.  The roof and also should be aluminum (unpainted).  The roofwalk as well, except for the sections that extend past the ends, which are green.

UPDATE:  The reporting marks are off.  The "C" is not correct and the numbers are too small.  All of the dimi data appear to be too small.  It's not clear from the model photo if the end data are present, but the end data are fully legible in the photo.

So the model represents the prototype somewhat.  I suggest comparing it to a photo of the prototype before deciding if it is acceptable to you.

Other than that, it's a perfect replica.

[ljudice]

...and what's up with those green couplers?!  I've seen few other MT cars using wildly colored couplers but I think that doing this is just plain silly.    I suspect that this is done because the coupler and its pocket are molded on a single tree, but they should really replace the couplers with ones molded in a more appropriate color (black or brown).  This would probably add 50 cents to the cost of the car but I don't think anybody would complain or notice (since MT prices are not fixed anyway, so there is no hard reference for MSRP of any of their decorated car).

Isn't actually against the rules to paint couplers, since it might cover up a defect?

[jmlaboda]

"Isn't actually against the rules to paint couplers, since it might cover up a defect?"

It is, it is... so why did MT do it???

[jmlaboda]

The fact that NYC assembled the cars at Despatch Shop is not unusual... the bigger parts could have been provided by Greenville.

Some roads have purchased a variety of cars as kits and assembled them in the company shops.  Some roads fabricated around 90% of cars with the remainder being purchased from a variety of suppliers, i.e.: the N&W and VGN both built a variety of hopper cars with the hopper door releases, break wheel assemblies and trucks coming from a supplier other than the railroad... N&W even went so far as to build some hoppers for other roads, I would guess because they could do it cheaper than if they were built by a car builder.  And the Roanoke Shops continues to do such work, with the Top Gons and some former N&W hoppers both being stripped down to the center frame and trucks and then reassembled with new parts to meet the needs of the line.

Where the NYC got their parts is hard to say but even if the car is close (aside from the coupler snafu) to what the NYC car was like it will help to fill a void and hopefully make a number of modelers quite happy.

[bbussey]

As Jeff pointed out though -- NYC actually owned the prototype that the MTL model is based on, in another lot class.  So the proper path would have been to replicate a car in the 937B Greenville lot, rather than one from the DSI-built 938B lot.

[bbussey]

NYC had Greenville built double plug door cars.  They were lot 937B: NYC 53085-53125. 

Actually two groups of cars under the same lot number:  53085-53125 and 53126-53178, all built in 1964.  The only difference between the two groups appears to have been the door width -- 16'1" and 16'5" respectively.  I have no idea what the MTL model's door width scales out to.

[ai5629]

As Bryan mentioned, there were additional 937B cars: NYC 53126-53178.  These were double sliding door boxcars.  Thank you.

Jeff