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

[SandyEggoJake]

Quite right, Jason.  Good eye again.  And it seems I was missing the same center cross member in both of the USRA designs above.  I will edit accordingly.

And your motion to table any further chatter about Atlas cars in this thread is accepted. 

[SandyEggoJake]

So via PM, I've received a strong endorsement for Bob's PFE claim - yet also without a diagram or image. 

But he does provides an observation that, while not evidence, is all the same rather damning.  If the MTL 47000 and 49000 was based on the FGEX 36000 series, why has MTL never painted any of this series in the FGEX reporting marks?  I double checked the MTL db, and he's absolutely correct.  In fact the ONLY MTL FGEX cars are 69000 series '51 rivet side mech reefers, save a lone MTL 38000 series Standard Box car "Solid Gold".

Now the MTL db does show an WFEX car - a Theodore Hamm Brewing billboard reefer - but not in the rd# originally assigned by WFEX to the cars it took of the FGEX 36000 type.  (Renumbers?)
And we have one published source suggesting that one MTL car of this series (49480, the Parrott Potatoes MACX #3300) was in actuality an FGEX 36000 series car. 

So I'm not ready to call this one either way, and still looking for a definitive diagram and/or images to a specific PFE class car - of even a reference to such - that matches this MTL series better than the FGEX car.

By the way, the author of this PM stated that MTL has them self claimed that the 47000 / 49000 series is PFE prototype, and such should be the end of the discussion.  I'm very interested in a manufactures prototype claims, I've yet to see this as a quote from Kadee or MTL.  And even is I had such, we've all seen foobies suggested to have a prototypes.  But more importantly, what would be the fun of that?!?

[wcfn100]

So I'm not ready to call this one either way, and still looking for a definitive diagram and/or images to a specific PFE class car - of even a reference to such - that matches this MTL series better than the FGEX car.

Well that's kind of where it sits.  Hopefully this person can give you the correct class for the car which could then put this to rest.

I've yet to see a PFE reefer with the same sill as the MTL car but now I know what I can look for.

As for not painting it in an FGEX scheme, the more threads like this on MTL cars will certainly make that mean less and less.

Jason

[SandyEggoJake]

As for not painting it in an FGEX scheme, the more threads like this on MTL cars will certainly make that mean less and less.

I'll take that as a compliment.  I think.  And right back at you for playing along! 

Personally, given what you've shown, I see no reason MTL shouldn't do a bunch of FGEX / WFEX cars using this series.  That is, when they're not so busy with Halloween cars, Burpo Beer and such.  But noting they've not released any from this series since 2004, I suspect this mold has been retired. 

[robert3985]

I finally did some research with one of my calipers and a calculator on a drawing of a PFE R-30-12 after checking a drawing of a PFE R-30-6 and finding the door measurements on the R-30-6 was much shorter than the door on the Kadee/MTL model. I wanted to find a wooden PFE reefer drawing that fit the model very closely above the side sills and underframe, and I discovered the reason for the difference in the door dimensions on the two drawings, and how that fits in with this interesting Kadee/MTL model's prototype history.

Photo (1)  Here's a photo of the drawing I found:


Here are my findings:

Givens: The drawing is for a non-rebuilt, original-build PFE R-30-12 with a "Murphy" metal roof and wooden ice hatch platforms.  You will note also that the drawing shows grab irons (no ladders), a vertical brake wheel, and the 30 ton "Bettendorf" single I beam style center sill all of which were typical of all PFE 30 ton all wooden reefers.

Measurements Comparo:
(1) The length between the running board ends on both drawings is identical at 42' 6.25" (3.189") and the model's running board is a scale 3.25" too short
(2) The body length between the end sills on both drawings is identical at 40' 9.625" (3.060") and the model's measurement is a scale 3" too long
(3) The body width between the side sills on both drawings is identical at 9' 1.125" (.682") and the model's measurement is a mere scale .0625" too wide
(4) The body width between the eaves (under the roof overhang) on both drawings is identical at 9' 4.125" (.702") and the model's measurement is a mere scale .5625" too wide
(5) The door measurements were valid only on the R-30-12 drawing, and as far as I can tell (with my Optivisor on) the model's door measurements are identical to the drawing's measurements at 4' wide (.300") by 6' 8.125" tall (.500")
(6) The length between truck centers on the drawing is 30' 8" (2.3") and it appears that the model's measurement is identical

Additionally, the above side sill detailing of the drawing appears to be identical to the model's relevant details, and matches photos of the pilot car for the R-40-4 rebuilding program with the documented (but no found photos) wood sheathed metal roof and correct no-ice-hatch platforms, including ladders, the single grabs on non-ladder ends and sides and geared horizontal brake wheel.

Major differences between ALL prototype drawings and photos of the prototype cars versus that Kadee/MTL model involve the higher mounted frame sills on the model ends which should be just a continuation of the bottom side sills.  I think this is an obvious clearance decision to accommodate the MTL stock talgo couplered trucks instead of a body mounted coupler.  Other differences are the rivet/bolt head placement details on the model's bottom side sills, and no poling pockets on the bottom sill corners.

Further research indicates the shorter 6' 1.250" door was the standard sized door until the R-30-12's were built, and all subsequent wooden reefers used the taller 6' 8.125" door.

Research confirms that the R-30-2 through R-30-6 cars rebuilt to R-40-4 specifications (but renumbered to R-40-2 numbers) in the 1929-1930 rebuild program were again rebuilt between 1937 and 1955 still retaining their "wooden roofs" but all finally receiving modern trucks and horizontal geared brakewheels, which the Kadee/MTL model accurately depicts.

Because the Kadee/MTL model has the later, taller door, and research states clearly that the cars were rebuilt to R-40-4 specifications (except for the roofs if the original wooden roof was in good condition) I think it is logical to include the taller door as one of the updates these cars received.

Research also indicates that the number of cars rebuilt is larger than I originally stated and the number was 1,443 cars, which, while not the most numerous PFE car, was certainly a significant amount and in no wise rare. A good choice for Kadee/MTL.

Why, or if, Kadee/MTL "imagineered" the lower sills and underframes on these cars would be a guess on my part and will remain so unless a specific prototype is found for one or both underframes (including the lower sill cast on the plastic body), but the accuracy is very close on the upper body to published drawings of R-30-2 through R-30-12 wooden PFE reefers which have been both rebuilt and reconditioned to R-40-4 specs and are valid for cars from 1939 through 1965.  The cars received another reconditioning in 1958-1959 which helped them survive into the 60's.  That means they are appropriate, depending on the paint job, for a 26 year period of time.

I've bought the paint, and I've got the decals to start my 25 car project once again, and I may include the factory painted cars I've got too.  I'll post photos when I get the first one finished for my 1947 through 1956 era on my layout.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore


 

[SandyEggoJake]

Over the weekend (when not checking out the Antique Engine & Tractor Show (http://agsem.com/event-tractor-show.php) and the Vista Short Track RR N scale layout (http://www.shorttrackrr.org/) I got a chance to pour over the "PFE Bible" aka "Pacific Fruit Express, Second Edition", by Anthony W. Thompson, Robert J. Church and Bruce H. Jones with the hope to settle my thoughts once and for all on the question of the MTL 40' reefer prototype.

Bottom line, I'm fairly certain the superstructure of the MTL / Kadee model is very close model for a FGEX 36000 - closer than any "as built" PFE series I have yet reviewed.  But I will concede to Bob that it is a fair stand in, and perhaps with modifications a close representation, of some subgroup of the rebuilt / reclassed R-40-2 PFE 40' reefer.  You be the judge.

As an aside, I should note that a request for feedback on this matter to MTL has yet to generate a reply.  Given this model predates the Kadee split, and it seems it has been years since this mold has been used, I'm not sure management has an opinion. 

But it is clear some of you do.  I received a terse PM from one not publically participating in this thread that basically suggested I was wasting my time, and if a manufacturer claims a prototype, then that should be the end of the discussion.  However, I reject that premise.  For we all have seen claims of prototypes from manufactures and their surrogates which are far from the mark.... and so the quest continues. 

Now like Bob (@robert3985), I've concluded that all wood sided PFE 40' R-40's "as-builts" series can be rejected as the prototype for the MTL/Kadee 47000/49000 series.

Reason include:

A) From around 1922 on, new PFE cars received metal roofs with hatch platforms, however the MTL model clearly exhibits a T&G wood roof of the earlier era.

B) The R-40-2 and the rest of the woodside '40s had a distinctive / exposed R-30-12 "improved built up frame".  However, the model exhibits a wide C channel sill covering the underframe.  (With the exception of rivet placement, this side sill along with the end sills, and their relationship to each other, seems identical to the FGE 36000 series car.) 

There is one PFE 40 tonner that is an exceptions to the above.  Like the model, it had both A) a T&G roof and B) an ARA straight frame; the R-40-1 class.  However, it had two very distinctive features that clearly eliminate it as well as the prototype for this car:

1) W corner braces, and

2) a much wider 5' door.

So with, with that, all as-built PFE 40 tonners are rejected.  Noting the later, heavy reefers were primarily steel, I turned to the R-30's.  And for the same reason as Bob (door size) I zero'ed in on the as built superstructure of the R-30-12 & R-30-13.  However, for many of these, issues still remain including the side & end sill.

Examining the drawing Bob provides, UP's C-2826 (per caption, as noted in pg 92 of Thompson et al) he is correct that this is a "non-rebuilt, original-build PFE R-30-12 / -13" (list of road number of the 1922 to 1924 cars built to this drawing is shown in table 5-2 on pg 90 of this same book).  And, as Bob points out, the drawing still has several notable differences from the MTL model:

A) Metal roof w/ hatch platforms
B) Grab Irons instead of the latter ladders.

But I would not agree that the "side sill detailing of the drawing appears to be identical to the model's".  To my eyes, the sill on the model seems wider, and unlike the version of the PFE R-30 in this drawing, the model's end sills do not align with the side sills.  Nor can I agree "Major differences between ALL prototype drawings and photos of the prototype cars versus that Kadee/MTL model involve the higher mounted frame sills ..." as the FGEX 36000 series seems to have both a wider side sill but also one that - like the model - is not aligned with its end sill.  Still, while this generation of PFE cars all had thin side & end sill, with iconic underframe exposed, I can kind of let this go here, as the topic is really about body style / superstructure.

Finally, as for Bob's specific claim that the model is a R-40-2 (renumbered from a R-40-4 (rebuilt from a R-30-12 or -13))?  All I can say is I've yet to find any picture or drawing that supports such is closer than the FGEX 36000.  Is it plausible that a few R-40-4s kept their T&G wood roofs (and thus not require the hatch platforms), yet still been given upgraded safety ladders in place of the prior grab irons?  Sure.  But I've yet to see Bob's  evidence ... and suspect such cars were not that common and didn't last long in that form.   

Equally plausible is that one of the earlier versions (1922 or earlier) of the PFE  R-30-12 or -13  cars (w/o metal roofs) (per perhaps with the ladders added later) might be a closer prototype.  Perhaps the 1920 drawing C2788, which I have yet to review?  [CSRRM archives: 246 C 2788 Not dated / Jan. 28, 1920. Refrigerator car, with Bettendorf underframe, 60000 capacity, used with 80000 capacity trucks. Used on: Class R 30 12. 36 x 65 Ink on linen. Filing location:Box 677 (XX) + D ID 31911].

But in both cases, I suspect the sill issue (which the FGEX does not suffer) remains. 

[John]

I received a terse PM from one not publically participating in this thread that basically suggested I was wasting my time, and if a manufacturer claims a prototype, then that should be the end of the discussion.

I find this thread / and others like it very interesting .. just ignore the nay sayers ..

[Mark5]

Fascinating thread! 

[wcfn100]

Wasn't planning on bring this thread back to life but a picture of the 36000 series reefer that's been referred to as a possible prototype for the MTL car popped up on ebay.



This one looks like it's got a new roof already.

Jason

[robert3985]

Looks pretty close until you get to the roof (except for the batten screwed on the car side just above the sill, and two [instead of one] grabs on the non ladder ends ).  It also appears from what I can see of the ice hatches that they're a newer metal type instead of wood like the Kadee/MTL model.

However, the non-brake end, especially the sill on the ends (being higher than the sill on the sides) is really close to the Kadee/MTL model.  The major difference on the end that I can see is the straight-across roof edge, unlike the roof-edge on the Kadee/MTL model, which is parallel to the angle of the roof, forming a peak in the middle of the car. This "edge" or whatever it's called, is much deeper on the Kadee/MTL model than on this car...all the way around.

Looks to me like the Kadee/MTL car doesn't match either the rebuilt PFE R-30- cars (rebuilt to R-40-4 specification, but retaining their wood covered steel roofs), OR the FGE 36000 series car perfectly.

However, the carbody on the Kadee/MTL is a nearly perfect match for the PFE R-40-4 reefers ABOVE THE SILL (which I've stated a number of times in this thread), particularly the cars rebuilt from the wood covered steel roof cars of the R-30- series...which retained the wood coverings (over steel) on their roofs into the '60's...with wooden ice hatches and no ice hatch platforms.

Interestingly, the stirrups below the sill on the Kadee/MTL model are much different than either the PFE or FGE car.  Prototype stirrups are much longer and the middle stirrup on the prototypes form a truncated cone, rather than the simpler rectangular shape of the model.

The carbody on the Kadee MTL is much closer to the FGE 3600 series reefer FROM THE SILL DOWNWARD.

If you want to ignore 95% of what's visible on these models, then yes, they match the FGE car pretty good...if all you can see is from the sill downward.

If you want to ignore the 5% of the model that looks like the FGE car, then the remaining 95% is nearly identical to the rebuilt PFE cars.

Until I see photos and drawings of a car that matches the Kadee/MTL car, then my money is on the PFE solution...and who knows why Kadee went with a different sill and underbody on the model than is on the PFE cars (?).

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[wcfn100]

Looks pretty close until you get to the roof (except for the batten screwed on the car side just above the sill, and two [instead of one] grabs on the non ladder ends ).  It also appears from what I can see of the ice hatches that they're a newer metal type instead of wood like the Kadee/MTL model.

Ugh, which is why I said it had a new roof (which I also talked about early on in this thread).  The original wood roof matches the MTL car perfectly.



Jason

[robert3985]

Ugh, which is why I said it had a new roof (which I also talked about early on in this thread).  The original wood roof matches the MTL car perfectly.



Jason

I understand, but reefers built in this time period had several types of metal roofs, some of them looking like the FGE car and some of them looking like the PFE R-30 series reefers, which had wooden covers over steel...and looked like wooden roofs but weren't.

I couldn't find a photo specifically of a PFE R-40-4 reefer that had been rebuilt from an R-30-class PFE reefer that retained the wood-covered steel roof, but documentation is plentiful that these roofs weren't replaced if they were in good condition during the rebuilds, and these roofs were retained into the '60's.

I don't know much about FGE reefers, but...and this is also a point, this photo doesn't look very close to the Kadee/MTL model...except below the sill.  Maybe there's an FGE reefer that is exactly like the Kadee/MTL reefer, but this car isn't it.  If a photo or drawing can be found and posted, I'm sure several posters here will be happy to see it!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[bbussey]

... If you want to ignore 95% of what's visible on these models, then yes, they match the FGE car pretty good...if all you can see is from the sill downward...

Yeah, funny how that works. 

The MTL model definitely isn't based on the FGE prototype in this photo.

If a manufacturer states a model is based on a certain prototype, one must present irrefutable proof that it is based on another prototype before stating definitively that the manufacture's statement is not factually accurate.  So far, none of said evidence presented in this thread rises to that level.  One can doubt the manufacturer's position, but it can't be refuted credibly without photographic evidence of a different prototype that matches the model.

[wcfn100]

If a manufacturer states a model is based on a certain prototype, one must present irrefutable proof that it is based on another prototype.

Where does Micro Trains state what prototype it is?

Jason

[bbussey]

At some point over the last 40+ years, they have stated it.  I'm not going to go back and research four decades to find the statement.  The burden of proof falls on those who doubt it is so.  To this point, that hasn't happened in this thread.