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

[SandyEggoJake]

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

Clearly, such is a possibility.  Another is the discordant features were a compromise to meet production realities.  But of course, there is another possibility; that being that the FGEX 36000 series, while seemingly close, was not the basis for this body style.  The sill rivets suggest to me the straight frame was designed contemporaneously to the 47000 body.  And as such, perhaps a better prototype exists.  We have at least one vote for a PFE car, another for a Swift car (perhaps now withdrawn?) and I note Mark's Spookshow listing for this body style has it as a 30's era ACF 40' reefer.  But other than the FGEX 36000 series, I've yet to see evidence to back up these various alternatives in the form dimensions, images or diagram comparisons.   

OK, so a number of you want to talk underframes.  I'm too am just as interested to ID the frame with a possible prototypes.  Perhaps we might get lucky and be able to prototype one or both of the frames, and then use such to deduce a subset of cars that had such a frame?   

So I took apart a pair of my 49000 series cars (noting that the casting in the shell still calls both 47000), one of each the straight and the fishbelly (thumbnails should be expandable).

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

As standard MTL fair, both underframes are made of a white metal, chemically blackened.  Both have identical length of 77 mm, width of 15 mm and min thickness (flooring) of ~0.4 mm.   With the exception of the pair of center sills and the number of cross members, these frames seem identical.  Both have the same cast details, including what I suppose is meant to represent KD(?) brakes (admittedly, just my guess, based on that only two components are visible?) 

The Straight has maximum projections hanging below the underside of ~1.5 mm (both the bolster pin collars and the Brake's Reservoir).  Additionally, this frame has 6 cross members plus its two bolster bars, with the central cross members being noticeably beefer. 

The Fishbelly has maximum projections hanging below the underside of ~5mm - the "gut" of the fish belly center sills.  And this gut (the horizontal center portion) is 22 mm long and about 3 mm apart on center from each other.  Additionally, this frame has 4 cross members along with its two bolster bars. 

Attachment between the frame and body is a friction fit, with a pair of tabs that recess into the car body.  End stirrups are mounted to the frame via posts, however, the center stirrups fits in a recess in the car body.  While this model does not have side doors that open, tracks for side doors are evident on the topside of both.  BTW, correct orientation of the frame to the body is the "cone" of the Brake's cylinder should point to the B End (brake wheel).

[SandyEggoJake]

Bob,

Thx for the additional add.  Love the pics.  But are we to understand it that you've basically proven that PFE "built-up" frame is neither of the MTL 40' Wood Reefer underframes?  No argument here. 

(Though one small nit; the R-40-2 were not "Bettendorf", but rather called "built up frames" AKA "improved R-30-13" as per drawing C-3550.  The R-40-3 was to have Bettendorf type I beams, but in the end, the PFE never built any 40 tonners with Bettendorf frame.  But again, a small nit.) 

While the "improved R-30-13" has some similarities to the Fishbelly (pair of center sills, with 4 cross members), the MTL Fishbelly cross members are not nearly as exposed nor have an I beam profile, nor are they regularly spaced either.  Also the braces in the ends of the PFE built up "cut the corners", while those in the MTL frame extend from the bolster pin to the corners. 

While I'm still wanting to be convinced of your assertion that the prototype of the BODY of this MTL care is a PFE R-40-2 (or if I'm following you, rather a R-40-4 rebuilt and reclassed to the R-40-2), you might also consider some of the other PFE bodies that had different underframe types.  For example, the R-40-1 under structure was based on a ARA 1924 (or 1923) Reefer design with a straight frame and had no fishbelly.  And several early PFE cars of the R-30 had different frame arrangements as well.   

Cheers!

[wcfn100]

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...

Bob,the drawing and photos you've provided are a totally different design than what I'm referencing and what the MTL car is depicting.  Of course when the sill sits on top of the frame cross members, there won't be rivets that line up with them because they don't exist.  The FGE and MTL car have a sill that extends down and covers the cross bearers.  In this design, yes the rivets do line up with the cross bearers because that's how the cross bearers are attached to the sill.  Even welded cars from the 50's still had the main cross members visibly bolted to the sill.

In retrospect, I think I misspoke about the MTL frame.  I shouldn't call it a fabrication as it actually follows the design features of the FGE 36000 frame very well, it just failed in execution by not reading the drawing correctly.



Jason

[SandyEggoJake]

Drawing: Fig. 121, page 174; photograph: Fig. 122, page 175

So it took me a while, but I finally figured out these pg number reference is not for the actual 1931 Car Builders' Cyclopedia, but rather the Train Shed Cyclopedia No.3 (1972), which reproduces material from the former and is not copyright protected.  As such, when I get a chance, I'll add both the diagram and the photo of FGEX 36000.  I have to admit, Fig. 122, the builders photo of FGEX 36000 built 6-28 looks exceedingly like the MTL 47000 series, save the model's extra pair of rivet sets on the side sill already mentioned, and perhaps some minor rivet detail lacking on the end sill.   

[johnb]

We are talking about cars designed 40 years ago before there was any real desire from modelers to be 100% correct.

[wcfn100]

We are talking about cars designed 40 years ago before there was any real desire from modelers to be 100% correct.

Yes we are, and this thread is quite a testament to how well done these cars are.  Most cars from the same era aren't even worth talking about.  In fact, the car in question is heads and shoulders above what some companies are producing today.


Jason

[peteski]

Yes we are, and this thread is quite a testament to how well done these cars are.  Most cars from the same era aren't even worth talking about.  In fact, the car in question is heads and shoulders above what some companies are producing today.

How true!  Many companies today make models which do not have as delicately engraved details as the MT cars.  That makes a difference in looks between a scale model and a toylike representation of the 1:1 car.  Even if some of the new models have more accurate overall dimensions, the exaggerated engraving of the surface features still makes them look toyish (like a Lionel model in 0 scale).

[robert3985]

Bob,

Thx for the additional add.  Love the pics.  But are we to understand it that you've basically proven that PFE "built-up" frame is neither of the MTL 40' Wood Reefer underframes?  No argument here. 

(Though one small nit; the R-40-2 were not "Bettendorf", but rather called "built up frames" AKA "improved R-30-13" as per drawing C-3550.  The R-40-3 was to have Bettendorf type I beams, but in the end, the PFE never built any 40 tonners with Bettendorf frame.  But again, a small nit.) 

While the "improved R-30-13" has some similarities to the Fishbelly (pair of center sills, with 4 cross members), the MTL Fishbelly cross members are not nearly as exposed nor have an I beam profile, nor are they regularly spaced either.  Also the braces in the ends of the PFE built up "cut the corners", while those in the MTL frame extend from the bolster pin to the corners. 

While I'm still wanting to be convinced of your assertion that the prototype of the BODY of this MTL care is a PFE R-40-2 (or if I'm following you, rather a R-40-4 rebuilt and reclassed to the R-40-2), you might also consider some of the other PFE bodies that had different underframe types.  For example, the R-40-1 under structure was based on a ARA 1924 (or 1923) Reefer design with a straight frame and had no fishbelly.  And several early PFE cars of the R-30 had different frame arrangements as well.   

Cheers!

Yup, you're entirely correct about the R-30 underframes not being "Bettendorf" underframes, but "Bettendorf-like" because of the single I-beam design.  You're also correct about the 40 ton underframes being referred to as "built-up".  I stand gladly corrected!!

I think it's pretty clear from the photographic and drawing evidence that the underframes on these models (including the cast sill detailing) have nothing to do with a prototype PFE design.

Does this evidence mean that Kadee/MTL used a prototype that just happened to coincidentally look exactly like a PFE R-30 into R-40-4 1930's rebuild above the sill?...or did they design it above the sill from the PFE prototype, then, for whatever reason, design the underframe and sill detailing from either a non-PFE car or just make it up?   An interesting mystery, and one that we'll probably never have a definitive answer to unless somebody finds a near-exact prototype that matches the Kadee/MTL car.

As for myself, I'm satisfied with the results of my research...and now I'm able to confidently proceed with both detailing, painting and lettering my Kadee/MTL car project, and finally get them on the layout after 20+ years of languishing on the shelf!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[PGE_Modeller]

So it took me a while, but I finally figured out these pg number reference is not for the actual 1931 Car Builders' Cyclopedia, but rather the Train Shed Cyclopedia No.3 (1972), which reproduces material from the former and is not copyright protected.  As such, when I get a chance, I'll add both the diagram and the photo of FGEX 36000.  I have to admit, Fig. 122, the builders photo of FGEX 36000 built 6-28 looks exceedingly like the MTL 47000 series, save the model's extra pair of rivet sets on the side sill already mentioned, and perhaps some minor rivet detail lacking on the end sill.

 My original references to Fig. 121, Page 174 and Fig. 122, Page 175 are, in fact, straight out of my original (not a reprint) copy of the Thirteenth Edition - 1931 of the Car Builders' Cyclopedia.  When Newton K. Gregg reprinted material in the Train Shed Cyclopedia series, the page numbers were (generally) the same as the page numbers of the particular edition that they were reproducing.  The reproduction of the 1925 Locomotive Cyclopedia published in 1973 by Newton K. Gregg contains a 1925 Simmons-Boardman Publishing Company copyright statement.

Cheers,

[Palouse51]

This has to be one of the most interesting product discussion threads I have ever read.

I'm taking notes. Thanks to you all for the education.

[tom mann]

I also want to chime in hopefully without derailing the content: threads like this will make product discussion great once again! Thanks to all participants.

[Kisatchie]

I'm so glad this topic worked out. I had my doubts!

...threads like this will make product discussion great once again! Thanks to all participants.

Hmm... who knew...?

[SandyEggoJake]

So as a small aside, I may have found something a bit odd.    {Note: this post has been edited to correct errors noted by Jason below}

I was flipping pages of my copy of the Train Shed Cyc No 3 (reprint of the 1931 Car Builders), while also eyeing the Atlas 40' Reefer body vs the MTL.  While some have stated the Atlas shell is based on a 1930 Northern Refrigerator Car  built by Pullman, using the USRA fishbelly underframe (which I've yet to compare, so perhaps this is premature), to my eyes the details seems VERY close to the 40 tonner ARA Class RS with straight underframe by ACF for the DL&W, as per the Fig 111 & 112, save a hatch platforms, trapezoidal end stirrups and a few other very minor nits (still I've yet to compare dimensions). 

But what can be barely seen on the Atlas model are sill rivets....  and they nearly line up to the six cross members of the slightly longer, narrower MTL frame.  Again, I'm inclined to agree the closest diagram we've found yet to the MTL is the FGEX 36000 series, yet we have this issue Jason mentioned about the extra pair of cross members for a total of 6 on the MTL car vs the FGEX 36000 4 cross-membered frame in its diagram. 

So what is odd?  Fig 111 diagram of this ARA Class RS shows five cross members - not six. 

And the MTL underframe is similar to the USRA standard single sheath boxcar "straight" frame.  The two cross beams at the door sides are a tad beefier, but this drawing of the USRA design seems to show it had 7 cross members with an extra one in the middle:

https://lionelllc.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/singlesheethed_plan.png

While the USRA double sheath "fishbelly" seemed to have 5 cross members - again, an extra in the middle. 

https://lionelllc.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/doublesheathedbox.png

In other words.... is it possible that BOTH companies unintentionally & erroneously produced models with the wrong number of cross members?  I find that very hard to believe. 

So it may still be possible that if we keep digging, we may yet find a prototype that has an FGEX 36000 like superstructure on an underframe similar to the MTL frame for a bingo.     

Of course, it's also possible - and perhaps more likely - that the real explanation here might be that when it came time to add a reefer with a straight frame MTL (or rather Kadee)(and separately Atlas) used the straight frame off a prior boxcar model (thus saved some coin using an existing part) and then fudge a bit on the shell, adding a few extra rivets per side to make the supports.   In the absence of more info, that's my best guess...

[peteski]

Of course, it's also possible - and perhaps more likely - that the real explanation here might be that when it came time to add a reefer with a straight frame MTL (or rather Kadee)(and separately Atlas) used the straight frame off a prior model of a USRA single sheath boxcars (thus saved some coin using an existing part) and then fudge a bit on the shell, adding a few extra rivets per side to make the supports.   That's my best guess...

It should be fairly easy to compare each company's USRA single sheath boxcar underframe to their respective reefer underframe. If they are identical then your explanation is valid.  It sounds plausible.

[wcfn100]

  While some have stated the Atlas shell is based on a 1930 Northern Refrigerator Car  built by Pullman

Actually it's Atlas that states that, so in absence of a prototype picture or drawing, it won't be possible to comment.  I haven't located this car in the Cyclopedia, but being a Pullman car, it may have come from the Pullman Library collection.

Now like the MTL underframe, the USRA single sheath boxcar "straight" frame has 6 cross members with the two in the center being a tad beefier like this:

That drawing shows 5 cross members (and the 2 bolsters), you're missing the one in the middle.

If you want to talk about these other cars, I'd suggest a new thread otherwise everything is going to get mixed up.

Jason