Prototypes for Con-Cor 40' Box SD and MRC/Con-Cor 50' Box PD

[bbussey]

The MRC/Model Power thread has me wondering about two models from the early days of N scale.  First, the general consensus is that the Kato-tooled 50' outside-post boxcar with plug door is based on the Pennsy X58.  But, what strikes me as odd is that the door is too wide for an X58.  I understand the body height was compromised so that the existing roof and ends tooling could be utilized.  But there would be no logistical reason for stretching the width of the door, which suggests the car sides are based on a prototype other than the X58.  Given that the X58 was a "home built" prototype unique to the PRR, surely there were other mid/late 1960s 50' plug-door outside-post boxcar prototypes made by the builders that had a wider door and a roofwalk?

Regarding the 40' steel boxcar with seven-foot door, I'm pretty sure this was the first Kato-tooled N scale Con-Cor model released, which suggests that there is a prototype.  The body height isn't compressed as other tooled models of the time period were, and the body relief is more fine as well.  If the effort was taken to make the best proportioned and best tooled model of that time period, surely it must be based on an actual prototype?  I find it difficult to accept that a Kato-tooled model wouldn't be based on a specific prototype.  Also, while many of Con-Cor's subsequent 40' models utilized the existing roof and ends of the first boxcar, the sides clearly are based on specific prototypes (the 40' steel reefer sides for example are based on the Fruit Growers Express insulated boxcar).  So it stands to reason that the boxcar is as well.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

The X58 had a 10 for door correct? I think the Kato model is either 10.5 or 11. It could have been a simple rounding error on the metric to imperial conversion. Also, youth will notice the door guides are not low enough in the sill for any prototype. So there are some inherent errors.

Usually I would say follow the suppliers... Who bought superior plug doors, Stan Ray x panel roofs etc, but half of these are known to be incorrect in this model.

We also know it does not match any standard production boxcar at the time so we are left with home built cars. The most notable cars are the X58, the CBQ clone (was there any difference except the roof? What about the Soo Line exterior plug door cars?

One other thing to consider. We may not even be looking for a prototype with capped or crowned ribs. They may need to have done that to fit the plug sides to the existing roof and ends.

In the end, I don't think we will find a better match than the X58/CBQ cars. Any way you look at the model, the early n scale models just had too many compromises to find an exact match.

[Mark5]

On the 40' Concor, perhaps some interesting discussion somewhere in here:

http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/archive/index.php/t-139461.html

Mark

[bbussey]

That Trainboard thread identifies the Con-Cor 40' boxcar as a 1937 AAR model with 7' doors and interim improved Dreadnaught ends.  So, the car is fairly accurate for a number of roads and fits in with the InterMountain AAR 6-foot door boxcars.

[wcfn100]

That Trainboard thread identifies the Con-Cor 40' boxcar as a 1937 AAR model with 7' doors and interim improved Dreadnaught ends.  So, the car is fairly accurate for a number of roads and fits in with the InterMountain AAR 6-foot door boxcars.

I never understood where the half ladders on the ends came from. 

It also suffers from the high/low (end/door) tack board issue that some of the Atlas PS-1s have.

Jason

[Cumbo2000]

I don't have the box car, but I do have the steel reefer and if the roof and ends are the same the ends represent late improved Dreadnaught ends with 4-4 corrugation configuration with the top corrugation being a panel (P). The short ladder and the simulated step over the coupler would place the end construction in the 1960s. The P/3-4 end implies a 10'-6" interior height and compared to the InterMountain AAR 1937 box car the Con-Cor model appears a little taller.

The roof is diagonal panel with over hanging roof eaves which would place it in the late 1950s as applied to box cars. The "ZU" eaves were common on all-steel reefers beginning in the mid-1930s. To represent a box car from the late 1950s the ends would have to be backdated by removing the "step" and replacing the half ladders with grab irons.

Bob Witt

[wcfn100]

The short ladder and the simulated step over the coupler would place the end construction in the 1960s.

I forgot it had that small step over molded in.  I know this end configuration is easy to find on 50' box cars especially RBLs of the early 60's.  I don't know that I've seen a 40' example.

Anyone got one? 

FYI, the roof on the box car is a rectangular panel not diagonal (at least mine is), and the Modified 1937 AAR cars are 10'6" which could have the car referred to.

Jason

[Cumbo2000]

I see on the Spookshow site that the Con-Cor/Kato 40-ft, single-sheathed box car does have the rectangular panel roof.

http://www.spookshow.net/freight/cc40obbox.html

The box car is a hybrid indeed; the type of ends are more modern than the roof.  Application of a rectangular panel roof with overhanging eaves to a box car would not be common.

Bob Witt

[nkalanaga]

Since no one else has posted a picture of the Con-Cor 40 ft cars, I'll show one of mine.  For those who've never seen an early one, when the tooling was new and crisp, and Kato was doing the paint and lettering, here is GN 29215.  I don't know when I bought it, but it was in the early 70s, possibly as early as 1969.  The other two cars are IM 12-panel GN cars for comparison.
 




No matter what combination of room light and flash I used, my camera simply would NOT show the IM red roadname clearly.  Apparently the red-on-green confuses either the sensor or the software.  The IM car really is a nice model.

The Con-Cor car is basically stock.  The only changes over the last 40+ years are painted wheels, KD couplers, and an ACI label, all made in the 70s.  The car you see hasn't changed, except for getting a little grimier, in at least 35 years.  It still looks at home with today's "good" models, although some of the high-end cars put it to shame.

For the younger modelers, multi-color paint schemes were very rare in the early years of N scale.  Printing technology wasn't as advanced, the companies weren't sure of how well N scale would grow, or even if it would survive, and many were hesitant to invest a lot of money.  In many cases, lettering was more a suggestion of the prototype than a reproduction.  I had one GN boxcar where the goat in the herald more closely resembled a crowing rooster.  So how did CC do such a nice job?  The herald and Rocky are a decal, factory applied, something I've never seen on any other mass-production N scale car.  That way, the rest of the lettering was one color, well within the technological and budgetary limits of the day.

Another sign of CC's attention to detail is the road number itself.  As of October, 1969, the GN had no boxcars with single 7 foot doors, and very few with 10-panel sides.  Most 40 foot cars had 6 foot doors, a few 8 foot, and almost all were the 12-panel cars built in their home shops.  Rather than use a real number, and be criticized for faking it, they chose to use an unassigned number.  The GN at the time had no 28000 series cars, so no one could complain if CC freelanced a model.  Not that N scalers back then would have complained.  We we happy with whatever we could get!

That also allowed another change.  The only 40 foot cars I've seen with the large standing goat are the 27000 series, which had red lettering, like the IM model.  By using a fake number, CC could combine common GN lettering elements to produce a plausible, but affordable, car.

When introduced, these were probably the best boxcars made in N scale.

[peteski]

When introduced, these were probably the best boxcars made in N scale.

Better than MT cars?

[bbussey]

The Con-Cor boxcar debuted before the Kadee boxcar existed.  So yes, it was the best when it was introduced.

[nkalanaga]

And, in two ways, it's still better.  First, it's better proportioned, and rides closer to the correct height.  Second, it's more typical of the "standard" 40 ft boxcar, most of which were not Pullman-Standard PS-1s.  The roof/end/ladder combination is unusual, but no worse than using a PS-1 for a non-PS car.

The Kadee/Micro-Trains car is a very nice model, and introduced several improvements to N scale, but as many people have noted over the years, it isn't perfect.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

What about the non-X58? Anyone know what these may better represent?

[nkalanaga]

I don't think that's ever been answered.  One thing to keep in mind is that it wasn't originally a Con-Cor boxcar, so was almost certainly designed by different people.  It was made by Kato, and apparently used parts of the Con-Cor tooling, but it was imported by Model Rectifier.  I still think it was SUPPOSED to be an X58, simply because nobody has reported finding anything closer to it, but the designers weren't as accurate as Con-Cor's.

To go with the 40 ft boxcar CC also imported a flat and gon, both slightly less than 50 ft long.  I've often wondered if they have any prototypes.  Like the boxcar, the tooling was beautiful, and they made good kitbashing fodder. 

[bbussey]

The 50' gondola resembles a Reading low-side prototype, but (most likely) the car is three feet too short.

Here's the Reading gondola from the CRHS Facebook photo album.