Best Of MTL Rollingstock Prototype - 40' Wood Reefer (47000 & 49000)

[SandyEggoJake]

See the June 1999 issue of Railmodel Journal, pg 7-11 "Billboard Reefers" by Hol Wagner; http://www.trainlife.com/magazines/pages/287/21333/june-1999-page-7

At the very end of the article, he tosses the Nskulls a small bone.  pg 11:

"Microtrains as done accurately lettered N scale versions of the Robin Hood Beer, Tivoli Beer and Parrot Potatoes cars on its wood sided/fishbelly underframe model, which is a reasonably close replica of the BREX cars.  The Parrot Potatoes car was a FGEX 36000-series car, with straight rather than fishbelly center sills, so for accuracy the model's underframe would have to be replaced." 

Yep...just two sentences devoted to N scale models.  And given the lack of prototype photos or diagrams offered as proof, the above must be taken with heaping spoonful of salt.

But I'd admit this is at least an additional vote for the FGEX 36000 series with straight frame as a prototype for the 47000/49000.  And it gives a new hint for an alternative prototype for the fishbelly version.  Of course, we need to confirm the models to which he was referring in his article are even the body styles under discussion here.  So, looking in the MTL rolling stock db (http://micro-trainsline.com/databases) I was able to locate:

Tivoli Beer           (49440 released Aug '96 and Oct '00)

For the other two, I used some deductive logic:

Parrot Potatoes (If Mahaffey Commission Co., then 49480, released April '98)
Robin Hood Beer (If Fontenelle Brewing Company, then 49450, released Sept '96 and Nov '00)

Then on these later two, I was able to confirm in the UMTRR that these were Parrot Potatoes and Robin Hood Beer, respectively. 

Images of these specific models can be found in various places including fleabay.  Hmmm.... the Parrot Potatoes would seem ripe for a re-release, with a new road number and the apparently correct straight underframe, and by all means to improve that sickly looking '98 era print quality parrot! 

[SandyEggoJake]

See a most impressive relevant article  ; http://s-clmodeler.aclsal.org/currentissue/fgexwoodencars.pdf

"36000-37999 FGEX 1927 design
Originally featured double board roof, all rebuilt w/Hutchins roofs
and AB brakes. Many upgraded with adjustable ice grates. Cars in
this series equipped with Company Underframe 4. "

on pg 23

Also notes " BREX will build no examples, having built 1,000 new reefers in 1922 and 1923."  So PGE_Modeller, one might consider looking in BREX in years beyond the 1930 ORER.

"FGEX 36000-37999 & 50000-51999 The cars had an interior height of 7' 3-1/4" and a height to the eaves of 12' 7-
3/16". They had a capacity of 2013 cubic feet between the ice bunkers. The 36000-37999 series had a capacity of
75,000 pounds, while the 50000-51999 series was rated at 90,000 pounds. WFEX had these cars in their 67000-
67846 series, which they said had a height to the eaves of 12' 8"."

on pg 44

(Also note on this same page the pic of the HO model that has been modified w/ diagonal strap bracing across the car sides above the trucks to the upper corners.  I've yet to find any reference or prototype image of this bracing however.) 

[peteski]

the Parrot Potatoes would seem ripe for a re-release, w..., and by all means to improve that sickly looking '98 era print quality parrot!

Maybe the parrot itself will look better on a contemporary model, but the fuzzy ink jet printed sides are IMO sad step backwards from the razor-sharp Tampo-printed graphics.  Today the entire car side is printed on a flatbed  ink jet printer using CYMK inks. No longer the car side is painted yellow - the "yellow" is composed of a bunch of 4-color dots.  While it is the latest and greatest technology (which is also much less labor intensive and cheaper than producing paint masks and Tampo stencils), quality-wise, to me it is a step in a wrong direction.

[robert3985]

I've had a PFE project on the shelf now for the past 20 odd years when I bought 25 Kadee/MicroTrains kits to paint up in a "correct" PFE scheme.  I hadn't settled on a time period 20 something years ago, and information about PFE stuff was hard to come by (at least for me at the time), so the project languished. 

Last week, I was straightening up my engines and rolling stock projects in the shelves they're on, and decided I'd attempt to see what car the Kadee/MTL cars best represented in the PFE fleet.  I couldn't find any of the metal underbodies, so these comments are about the one-piece body, which is identical to the car photos at the beginning of this thread except for paint.

Trying to figure out what these cars are is not easy because of several factors.  I didn't go so far as to count the number tongue-in-groove boards on the sides and ends, but I did look at the width of the doors, what brake hardware is on the B end, the ladders & grabs and their placement, and the style of roof.

It appears from my research mainly from the excellent PFE book by Thompson, Church & Jones that this car, with an underframe that Kadee/MTL doesn't correctly supply is a rebuild of an earlier car (probably an R-30-4 and/or an R-30-8) to an R-40-4 specification between 1931-1934.  Cars were simultaneously re-numbered and re-classified as R-40-2 cars, even though they were structurally identical to R-40-4 cars.

The rebuild of the 30 ton cars to 40 ton cars was accomplished by installing new Bettendorf steel frames, whose main recognition feature was noticeably wider bolsters and various interior improvements to stiffen the car.

In the 20's, PFE undertook a program to put metal roofs on all their cars and by the time the 1931-1934 rebuild was underway, all of these cars had metal roofs.  At first glance, it appears that the Kadee/MTL car has a wooden tongue-in-groove roof, but several metal roof designs were used by PFE fairly indiscriminately with some roofs being "metalized" with an underlayment between the exterior wooden battens and the rest of the roof structure...so, outwardly, the roofs looked to be "wooden" and they were...but officially, they were improved metal roofs, with a wooden covering.  These were left "as-is" during this rebuild and the Kadee/MTL car depicts this.

However, the original grab irons were replaced with ladders on the ends and a single grab on the non-laddered sides and ends, which the Kadee/MTL carbody depicts.  The vertical brakewheels were replaced with a modern horizontal brakewheel assembly, which the Kadee/MTL carbody also depicts.

Since the roofs were covered with wood, no ice-hatch platforms were installed, as they were with cars with the "Murphy" galvanized metal roofs, since painted metal is a lot slicker than wood.

So, the Kadee/MTL car bodies are a very accurate representation of rebuilt R-30-4 and/or R-30-8 reefers into R-40-4 standards (renumbered and designated as R-40-2's) which lasted through 1949 according to the tables in "PFE"...but the text says they lasted through the 1950's before extensive scrapping took place...which is okay for my time period of 1947 through 1956.

However, the major problem is with the underframes, especially the shallow ones, which I would discard if you're building PFE reefers.  The "fishbelly" is closer (not perfect) and looks to be about right as far as depth of "underhang" is concerned.  But, the angles on the PFE rebuilds was sharper than those on the Kadee/MTL model so they don't look so "fish-belly-ish".  The Kadee/MTL underbodies also have only four braces between the bolsters, two thin ones and two thick ones and are not evenly spaced as the PFE braces are.  The bolsters are also much thinner than the R-40-4 rebuilds, the ends of which are clearly visible in prototype photos because they hang down several inches below the steel car-side frame which the sheathing is attached to.  There are also two large diagonal braces under the car running from near the outside of the bolsters towards the coupler pocket on the prototype, and small diagonal braces in each corner underneath, all of which is missing to accommodate the talgo coupler and non-lo-pro flanges used on the Kadee/MTL model.

Also, on the actual rebuilds, the brake hardware is attached to brackets near the bottom of the lower face of the "fishbelly" as opposed to being attached high up to the floor as on the Kadee/MTL car.

The good thing is it would be fairly easy (if you have a mill, or a vice and a sharp, fine bastard flie) to cut off all the cosmetic details on the Kadee/MTL fishbelly underframe and glue correct scratch-built pieces on since it's pretty simple...and use rivet decals for the visible rivets on the sides of the steel central beam.

Paint for these should be PFE "Orange" (Daylight Orange) with freight car red ends, roofs and metal frames showing at the bottom of sheathing. By 1953, all PFE cars were supposed to have orange "side hardware" rather than the eariier black, the UP herald was now black and white, both SP and UP logos were on either side, but there were always cars that somehow escaped being updated, but most PFE cars were meticulously maintained because of the fragile nature of their cargo.

Depending on paint, this car is for running no earlier than 1931 as a PFE reefer due to the roof and ladder details, with several intuitive paint choices to place it in general service no later than 1958 or maybe 1960

The car numbers are intermixed with R-40-2 numbers 70000 - 71272, 71301 - 71358, 71401 - 71428, 71501 - 71585.  There were 510 of the Kadee/MTL bodystyle cars rebuilt.

A few quick things to make these cars look a lot better IMO, is to (1) cut off the talgo mounted N-gauge couplers and replace them with MTL Z-scale couplers (cut off the Magnematic dongle if you're not going to use magnetic uncoupling ramps) (2) glue on either Precision Scale or BLMA brake hoses and paint 'em, (3) replace the wheelsets with metal lo-pros, and (4) pop out the running board, snip off the mounting pins, thin it down a little by sanding it on the underside while stuck to double-sided tape on a flat surface with a 320 grit sanding block and Tenax it back on.  If you want the hatches open then (5) paint the insulating block on the underside of the hatch a dirty off-white.  Lastly, weather at least a few of 'em up, which really makes a block of these jump out at you as opposed to them all looking like new.

Oh...the picture of the PFE car at the start of this thread has a pretty accurate paint job for the middle to late 40's, except the number is wrong. I have a couple of dozen of these cars and all of their numbers are wrong.  The paint is also too light (not orange enough) but might be okay for faded cars ready for new paint. As far as I know MTL puts their shallow underbody on all their wooden UP/SP PFE reefers (except the WP PFE reefers which have the fishbelly), when they should be using the more accurate fishbelly underbody.

Hope this comes in handy and answers some questions about the Kadee/MTL wooden reefer as a PFE reefer.

My conclusion:  The body if the MTL wooden reefer (not the underbody) is extremely close in all details to the aforementioned PFE  R-30-4 and/or R-30-8 reefers rebuilt into R-40-4 standards in 1931-1934 retaining the wood sheathed metal roof...510 cars total, and I am going to say it is the prototype for this MTL car.  I will assume that MTL didn't really research the underbody and went with a rough representation to save time and money or just because they thought nobody would give a rat's weenie about it.

Sorry, but all the photos I have of it are in the big "PFE" book and scanning them, then posting them here would be a copyright infringement.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[sirenwerks]

I doubt the reefer would be based on a Swift car as most were 36'.

I did say I was going from the top of my head.  There is another MT wood straight-silled reefer, no?  MT never kept an actual catalog of undec cars on its website, so I gave up using it as a reference.  Which is probably why MT cars feature so minimally in my fleet.

[wcfn100]

Well I may have figured out the sill issue.

In the upper left of the over head drawing for the the car there are three small tabs along the sill that support the vertical posts within the car. Unfortunately I can't find my calipers at the moment, but with the scale rule it measures very close to the sill rivets on the MTL car.  I believe the rivets on the sill incorrectly use the measurements for these sill post support tabs.

Hopefully Greg will read this and chime in his opinion.

edit:  To extrapolate from that, I think the floor could be wrong because of this as well if it were designed to have the cross bearers to line up with the sill rivets.


Jason

[SandyEggoJake]

sirenwerks, I suspect you are "refeer-ing" to their 58000 series, the 36' Wood-sided Refrigerator car, available both in truss rod and steel underframe.  Perhaps we will do that one next?

[SandyEggoJake]

robert3985, thanks for the add! 

I've also heard from another well respected modeler who has told me via PM he believes this MTL series is based off a PFE prototype.    As I'm a modeler of one of the Espee lines (SD&A) that saw plenty of the yellow fleet, that got my attention.  But I've yet to see much in the way of proof.  But I do welcome alternative views!

However, I've noted a few items of discordance in your post with some sources.  If I may, it would seem some of your comments are biased by the era you model?  So I'm concerned those who are not students of the PFE might get misled.  For example, on color; what became known as "Daylight Orange" was not adopted till 1929.  Prior to that, PFE cars were "Armour Yellow".    Also, while there was rebuilds and renumbering, the R-40-2 class was initially a de novo in house design of 1928, based on the field test of the R-40-1 class, an ARA 1924 (1923?) design.  The class was initially filled with two orders, each of 1000 cars, from Pullman and from PC&FCo, with more to follow in later years.  You can read about the R-40-2 starting on pg 111 on Thompson et al's PFE book, which goes into some detail on the underframe.

As for the superstructure of the R-40-2 (and the experimental R-40-3), Thompson teaches that such was actually a "improved R30-13" as per drawing C-3550.  In the absence of a unmodified car, such would be one document to use to prove your case.   You might wish to find a copy of Da Costa 1978 work, "Pacific Fruit Express Ice Refrigerator Cars, 1906-1932: Prototype Specifications-Diagrams".  In it, he reports the R-40-2 length over sheathing as 40' 11 1/8", the width over sheathing as 9' 2 5/8", and the height, from rail to the top of the brake staff as 13' 10".

However, as underframes are tangential to the body style discussion on hand, I would suggest you attempt to locate C-4470 and spec 66, which detail the R-40-2 underframe. 

[PGE_Modeller]

Well I may have figured out the sill issue.

In the upper left of the over head drawing for the the car there are three small tabs along the sill that support the vertical posts within the car. Unfortunately I can't find my calipers at the moment, but with the scale rule it measures very close to the sill rivets on the MTL car.  I believe the rivets on the sill incorrectly use the measurements for these sill post support tabs.

Hopefully Greg will read this and chime in his opinion.

edit:  To extrapolate from that, I think the floor could be wrong because of this as well if it were designed to have the cross bearers to line up with the sill rivets.


Jason

I think you have hit on the answer, Jason.  Those tabs for supporting the vertical body posts are riveted to the upper horizontal flange of the side sill channel while the crossbearers are riveted to the vertical web.  I agree that the positions of the tabs correspond closely to the positions of the rivets on the MTL side sill.  My initial evaluation was based on the photograph of FGEX 36000 on the facing page to the drawing which clearly shows two pairs of rivets between the bolster and the centreline of the car.  It looks as though the MTL car is a reasonably accurate model of the FGEX cars, as built.  They are, however, "correct" for a relatively short period of time:  1927 - mid-1930s approximately; i.e. prior to the re-builiding that replaced the double wood roof with the Hutchins metal roof and added stage icing provisions which reduced the inside height from 7'-8" to 7'-3 1/4" and reduced the cubic capacity from 2132 CUFT to 2013 CUFT.  I don't have my 1935 ORER handy but the July 1940 issue shows that the re-building had taken place by then.

Cheers,

[SandyEggoJake]

I think the floor could be wrong because of this as well if it were designed to have the cross bearers to line up with the sill rivets.

By this comment, wcfn100, I deduce you are looking at a model with a fishbelly underframe, correct?  For that frame and the 49000 body (and I suspect the 47000 as well) the rivets on the sills do not align with the cross bears.    However, on the original straight frame, they align perfectly.  And I suspect of these two frames, the straight version is the more prototypical at least for the FGEX 36000/WFEX 67000 series.   

[PGE_Modeller]

By this comment, wcfn100, I deduce you are looking at a model with a fishbelly underframe, correct?  For that frame and the 49000 body (and I suspect the 47000 as well) the rivets on the sills do not align with the cross bears.    However, on the original straight frame, they align perfectly.  And I suspect of these two frames, the straight version is the more prototypical at least for the FGEX 36000/WFEX 67000 series.   

Yes, on the straight center-sill frame the three crossbearers line up with the three sets of rivets on the side sill BUT the FGEX drawing and photograph in the 1931 Car Builders' Cyclopedia show that the FGEX 36000 series cars (and almost certainly the WFEX 67000 series) have a straight centre-sill with only two crossbearers each side of the doors.  On the MTL fishbelly frame each side of the doors there are the correct two crossbearers but their spacing does not match the FGEX drawing.  The crossbearer nearest the doors is 5'-2" from the centreline of the car (the prototype measurement is 3'-1") and the distance between the two crossbearers is 5'-2" (the prototype measurement is 6'-2").  The crossbearer nearest the bolster is 4'-11" from the bolster centreline (the prototype measurement is 6'-2" for a total of 30'-10" centre-centre of bolsters - the model measures 30'-6" +/-).

Greg

[SandyEggoJake]

Nice work Greg.  Thx. 

[wcfn100]

  And I suspect of these two frames, the straight version is the more prototypical at least for the FGEX 36000/WFEX 67000 series.   

I think the straight is a MTL fabrication based on using incorrect information from the drawing.

Taking everything else out that's been talked about up to this point and just looking at the frame, the design doesn't match what you find on other drawings.

First, the first cross bearer is too close to the bolster.  A regular box car might have the first cross bearer around 4'5" or so while this one measures nearly a foot closer.  This would not only interfere with the prototypical truck, but you can see that MTL had to notch the cross bearer on the model because it's in the wrong position. 

Second, a car with six cross bearers would have them more equally spaced, but most importantly wouldn't have such a large gap spanning under the door. Usually those sit close to either side of the opening.

Couple those with the fact that I think the sill rivets are incorrectly drawn where the post supports are on the drawing, I think the whole frame is not just incorrect, but non-prototypical.


Jason

[robert3985]

robert3985, thanks for the add! 

I've also heard from another well respected modeler who has told me via PM he believes this MTL series is based off a PFE prototype.    As I'm a modeler of one of the Espee lines (SD&A) that saw plenty of the yellow fleet, that got my attention.  But I've yet to see much in the way of proof.  But I do welcome alternative views!

However, I've noted a few items of discordance in your post with some sources.  If I may, it would seem some of your comments are biased by the era you model?  So I'm concerned those who are not students of the PFE might get misled.  For example, on color; what became known as "Daylight Orange" was not adopted till 1929.  Prior to that, PFE cars were "Armour Yellow".    Also, while there was rebuilds and renumbering, the R-40-2 class was initially a de novo in house design of 1928, based on the field test of the R-40-1 class, an ARA 1924 (1923?) design.  The class was initially filled with two orders, each of 1000 cars, from Pullman and from PC&FCo, with more to follow in later years.  You can read about the R-40-2 starting on pg 111 on Thompson et al's PFE book, which goes into some detail on the underframe.

As for the superstructure of the R-40-2 (and the experimental R-40-3), Thompson teaches that such was actually a "improved R30-13" as per drawing C-3550.  In the absence of a unmodified car, such would be one document to use to prove your case...

LOL   Of course I am "biased" to look for models that depict the era I model.  However, that has nothing to do with the information I have researched from the "PFE" book which is the basis for my conclusions as I am presenting Thompson, Church and Jones' researched information as accurate, as the consensus is that this book is well-regarded.  That the Kadee/MTL cars fit into my era is merely a fortuitous happenstance, even if they generally need to be more accurately repainted and slightly modified.

As to color and how it applies to the Kadee/MTL car, there can be no doubt that this carbody has been "improved" with ladders replacing grab-irons and new horizontal brake wheel appliances...which would also indicate they are members of the 510 30 ton cars which were updated to the R-40-4 specifications in the years 1931-1934...and the upgrade to a 40 ton car would have involved repainting.  1929 was the year that CS 22 Color #8 was introduced as "PFE Standard Refrigerator Orange" and to quote the "PFE" book from the Appendix, page 412 "Painting and Lettering"..."...It is typical of most freight cars that paint schemes can remain in service for years after their owner considers them obsolete, but wood-sheathed cars in general, and refrigerator cars in particular, tend to be exceptions in that repainting was needed more often.  In PFE's case, the policy was to repaint wood-sheathed cars every four to six years, and the evidence indicates that this was done.  Particularly since PFE cars passed through company shops for inspection, cleaning and repair several times a year (see Chapter 11), it was practical for paint schemes to be kept up to date, if that was management's wish.  Prior to about 1960, it appears that such was almost always the case."

Further..."1929. Car side color changed from yellow to orange (p.117).  Evidence (Chapter 6) indicates that this changeover in color had been completed for the entire PFE fleet by 1934. Color drift, p. 414."

So...where is anybody going to be "misled" due to my "bias" about the era I model concerning the appropriate color the Kadee/MTL cars as PFE reefers should accurately be???

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[robert3985]

Well I may have figured out the sill issue.

In the upper left of the over head drawing for the the car there are three small tabs along the sill that support the vertical posts within the car. Unfortunately I can't find my calipers at the moment, but with the scale rule it measures very close to the sill rivets on the MTL car.  I believe the rivets on the sill incorrectly use the measurements for these sill post support tabs.

Hopefully Greg will read this and chime in his opinion.

edit:  To extrapolate from that, I think the floor could be wrong because of this as well if it were designed to have the cross bearers to line up with the sill rivets.


Jason

I am not familiar with the particular car you are referencing, but the sills on the Kadee/MTL car are definitely not compliant with the rest of the carbody being so close to the PFE reefer re-build I talk about in my previous two posts.

However, having photos of PFE reefer sills show that the "sill rivets" if they indeed ARE rivets and not carriage bolt heads, have nothing to do with the PFE Bettendorf 30 and 40 ton steel undeframes attachment protocol.  Here's the evidence...

Photo (1)  Cross Section of steel 40 ton underframe in relation to reefer floor and sides:



Photo (2) single "rivet (?) heads" not lining up with every PFE underframe cross brace:



Additionally, here are two photos of 40 ton frames being transported.

Photo (3) 40 ton steel PFE underframes being transported, side view:



Photo (4) 40 ton steel PFE reefer underframes being transported, top view:



Even though the sills on these underframes are different than what you are talking about, I would be cautious to assume the cross braces need to line up with the "rivet heads" since in these photos, the "rivet head" placement is totally irrelevant to where the cross braces are placed, or how they are attached.

Back to the PFE argument...

In addition to having "rivet heads" that don't comply with 40 ton (or 30 ton for that matter) PFE/Bettendorf underframe design...the Kadee/MTL wooden reefer body is also missing the poling pockets on the lower corners in line with the underframe sills. Hmmm...looks like an excellent Shapeways project!

I still contend that Kadee/MTL did not expend a lot of energy into getting the underframe correct and went with two generic underframes that were designed to be chiefly very different visually, having not a lot to do with the carbody up top.

Interestingly, they made the carbody even less generic by not giving it a Murphy galvanized steel roof with ice-hatch platforms, but probably saved some mold making costs by choosing a simpler prototype than the much more common cars seen in most every PFE photo of wooden reefers.

From the sills up, this model is visually an extremely close model (I haven't taken measurement with my calipers yet) of the 1930-1934 R-30-2 thru R-30-5 reefer upgrade to R-40-2 spec's while retaining the wood-sheathed metal roof.

However, I'm still open to the possibility there may be a perfect match out there since reefer builds were often copies of other companies' designs, such as the PFE R-40-1 which incorporated many of SFRD's visual cues as well as borrowing from several then-newly designed ARA items.

As for me, they're "close enough" to call it PFE, but I'll be improving 25 of 'em for inclusion into my PFE fleet to run on my layout including new underframes and poling pockets.

Hellaciously FUN!!   

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore