USRA 55 Ton Hopper

[Mark5]

On nomenclature - clone implies a near exact copy. Maybe derivative or related is the word that might be more appropriate.

Mark

[Mark5]

According to this ORER: http://www.alphabetroute.com/wm/orer/1945ORER.pdf The WM had 33' hoppers shown here:

Those appear to be fishbellys.

Mark

[wcfn100]

Those appear to be fishbellys.

Mark

Yep.

Jason

[skm]

MTL Car Dimensions:

32.06 feet inside end to inside end

33.46 feet outside end to outside end

Possible Prototypes:

PRR H31

PRR GLd

The Bachmann model is lettered as a GLa which was produced at least a decade prior to the USRA hoppers.
This is more foobie than the H31 MTL cars

The MTL 56xxx series hopper is close to both the above PRR prototypes but is neither accurately.
Perhaps George Irwin might have an answer as to which prototype the MTL represents?

[pjm20]

Those appear to be fishbellys.

Mark

Yes they are fishbellys. The WM had these in 20000 range, but the WM also had 33' hoppers in the 10000 range and those may be derivatives of the 55 toner since they were built to a different design than the 20000 range. I am just showing the 20000 range as proof that WM basic hopper design is close to the 55 toner.

On the clone debate - To me, a few dimensions that are stretched are shrunk a little bit is a near exact copy to me, but everyone's opinion is different so lets leave it to that. Anyway, typing clone is easier than derivative. 

[pjm20]

The MTL 56xxx series hopper is close to both the above PRR prototypes but is neither accurately.
Perhaps George Irwin might have an answer as to which prototype the MTL represents?

The GLd was the USRA 55 ton hopper. We have already shown that the MTL hopper is around 1.5-2 feet longer, so the PRR H31 is a good candidate.

I really do not think there is a prototype. The measurements of the twin bay are your run of the mill 1930s, early 1940s twin bay hopper. Most of these hoppers were 55 tonner clone designs, where the measurements may be a little give or take of the original USRA design. I think MTL was trying to make a generic model of this, where there is mostly likely a prototype of the hopper, but it wasn't the intention. Basically, the dimensions will match a clone design, but it will be by shear accident and not on purpose.

Anyway, MTL doesn't have a good history of producing a 100% accurate freight car to one specific prototype.

[Mark5]

Yes! The PRR H31 is a pretty good match for the MTL flat end twin:

http://prr.railfan.net/freight/freightphotos.html?photo=PRR_220383_H31.jpg&fr=clH31

As is the VGN H12 and H13:

http://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail.php?ID=91053

And other road's hoppers too I suspect.

Mark

[fredmoehrle]

On nomenclature - clone implies a near exact copy. Maybe derivative or related is the word that might be more appropriate.

Mark

How about "Knock-off"?

[Mark5]

How about "Knock-off"?

Hehe, I'm sorry to be so particular. I model N&W and spend a great deal of time thinking about open hoppers. To me the MTL twin is so different than the USRA 55 twin that is not even close to being a knock-off.

Mark

[wm3798]

PJM,
The WM fishbellies in the 21000 number series were basically the same cars as the early number series, renumbered when they were rebuilt in the 60's.  They kept their fleet of 55 t cars almost to the end due to the limitations of the export rotary dumper at Port Covington.

There was a sizable fleet of 55t cars that resemble the Bachmann car, mostly built in the late 1920s and early 30s, and retained in service into the 60s.  I'm sure some of them lasted longer in MOW service, but I don't have my references at my fingertips at the moment.

The car I would most like to see done is a channel side, much like the PRR car diagrammed earlier in this thread.  Basically the same proportions as the Bachmann car, but with distinctive C channel steel ribs instead of the solid ribs depicted here.

From what I can see in the Bachmann circular, the numbering (10900) follows the Atlas series on the fishbellies, which may or may not be accurate for this car.  I'll have to do some digging.

Lee

[wm3798]

http://www.mountvernonshops.com/sitebuilder/images/U-Channel_Intsructions-600x236.jpg

Here's a channel side.  Many made it into speed lettering.

I guess the bottom line for me is that it doesn't look bad, the body mount couplers look like they offer a reasonable coupling distance, and the paint scheme looks reasonably good. 

It's nice that a fellow can walk into the Bachmann aisle and get a couple of WM RS-3s, a dozen WM hoppers, and a nice looking caboose to bring up the rear, and feel reasonably close to accurate.  I give them a gold star.

Now how about doing some Circus scheme F units again with the upgraded drive?

Lee

[pjm20]

Thanks for the info Lee. Ok, so the WM are close, but not great, so I am counting them out. So far we got the PRR H31 and the VGN H12/13 for the MTL hopper. Anybody got anything else? I bet there is a B&O class that will match.

[wm3798]

I'll pull out the color guide when I get home (unless Sizemore gets to his first...) and we'll see what we have with the WM car.  Don't give up, they had a assload of small hoppers over the years...

Lee

[Mark5]

Apparently the WM's channel side hoppers (H1-H4) are closely based on the USRA 55 tonner:

http://www.trainlife.com/magazines/pages/369/27102/may-1997-page-28

Mark

[Mark5]

As for WM matches to the MTL twin, here's the WM twin hopper classes as I understand it:

H1-H4 Channel side (USRA based design)
H5-H11 55 ton Fishbelly
H12 and H13 (built in the 50s, some H13 had RB trucks) I can't find much other info on these (Lee? Sizemore?)

I'm wondering what those H12 and H13s look like (can't find any pics online).

Mark