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

[SandyEggoJake]

Thx for the pic add Jason.  And to be clear, I do encourage anyone with relevant photos to add them to this thread no matter who much time has passed.  This thread still lack any photographic or blueprint proof of Bob's assertion that a PFE R-40-4 reefer that had been rebuilt from an R-30-class PFE reefer that retained the wood-covered steel roof or a photo of the as built FGE36000.

As Jason mentioned already, this photo does seem to be a modified version of the FGE36000 compared to the as built blueprint already discussed.  To my eyes most of the deviation to the Kadee /MTL model seems to be in these modifications. 

But I do feel I need to redirect on of the comments below...

>The burden of proof falls on those who doubt it is so. 

Not quite.  As anyone trained in the science knows, it is  impossible to empirically disprove the existence of cryptic evidence.  And Occam's Razor is never irrefutable proof.  Sure, suggestions of prototype from the manufacture will be considered as premium evidence.  But only when such can be provided.  But after some extensive searching, I have yet to uncover any Kadee or MTL statement claiming any prototype for this model.  And so for those seeking to assert that  Kadee or MTL has made such statement, the burden remains on those seeking to introduce such evidence.   Personally, I feel we all should take a dim view of those who attempt to assert any claim without evidence but rather only by volume and repetition... a tactic which I've read seems to be developing a new name in some quarters: the TRUMPet.     

[bbussey]

Jake, the fact remains, no matter how much you attempt to deflect, that there is no evidence in this thread to refute what MTL has said the model is based on.  Present the photographic evidence, and you'll have the grounds to claim otherwise.  You're the one challenging the established given, not the other way around, so yes the burden of proof is yours and anyone else who doubts what has been established.

As with the original boxcar models, the reefer (probably) was tooled without the aid of computers.  It's possible some liberties were taken, for whatever reason, be it via flawed/superseded mechanical drawings or an inadvertent combination of mechanical drawings from different prototypes.  Since anyone involved with the initial reefer project is no longer with the organization, it would be near-impossible to confirm one way or the other.  But if you feel the burden of proof is on the company, after 39 years of sales and the spawning of three additional offshoot models, you're not being realistic.

[wcfn100]

I don't have time to break it all down, especially to those who aren't listening anyway but here's a few views that compare the MTL reefer to the FGE drawing in the 1931 CBC.

(Sorry I don't have a car with a vertical brake staff).



If you click the picture you should get a larger view.

Of course many details can be the same or similar from different cars but when you add them up, you can start to narrow in on possible prototypes.

For me, the biggest thing is still the channel sill.  This is not all that common, especially one deep enough for two bolts into the cross bearers (I've yet to find another).  Another thing is the single corner brace right at the roof line. This can be found, but again isn't very common many times there are two braces.  Another thing that stands out to me are the extra long hinges at the hatch.

Beyond that you can just look at the following:

All the door hardware matches spot on, the wide ladders, the peaked end boards under the roof line and another channel section on the ends at the bottom.

When I see a picture or drawing of a PFE car that even comes close to matching the MTL car in this many areas, I'll revisit this.  Until then, I'm not going to lose any sleep over thinking its the FGE car.

Jason

[SandyEggoJake]

Bryan, I'm rather surprised by the level of your apparent passion here.  If I may, it seems a tad bit misdirected and premature.  Allow me to explain.

You are quite correct this thread so far contains zero evidence that MTL (or Kadee) has made any statement that refutes the PFE as the prototype for this model.  But it can also be said we have yet to find ANY statements from MTL (or Kadee) that claims any specific PFE car as its prototype as well.  Sure, it might be a "established given" in your mind.  It might even be written on some secondary websites...and I tell you buddy, I'd be the luckiest guy alive if that did it for me.  But until such is reference is supplied, it is premature to defend or refute such statements.  Until such is located, we might as well attempt to refute MTL's equally undiscovered (and I suspect nonexistent) claim that the prototype of the casting was actually a next generation TARDIS built for more efficient transportation of Mammoth steaks across the space time continuum.  (Silly, I know... unless you've tasted fresh Mammoth! Yummy.)   

And this is the very reason for this series of threads.  It is merely an attempt to gather and respectfully debate all evidence on possible uses for a given car.  My modest goal is practical, for we can't start to judge the quality of a model in contemporary standards unless we have clear evidence of the prototype that it attempts to recapitulate.     

So let's be clear.   Bob Gilmore has provided much evidence for his PFE prototype and that is appreciated.  But so far we are all lacking any photos or drawings of any PFE car which match the specific specs of the car Bob suggests ... which I find rather odd. 

I'm also not the one who has suggested the MTL car is an FGE36000 series.  But Jason's contribution is equally appreciated as it has been backed up by actual blueprint evidence which I and others have find rather convincing and much closer to the mark.  But understand as I'm one who models Southern California in this era, I'd love nothing better than to find irrefutable photographic or blueprint proof that the MTL reefer is (also) a PFE car.  In fact, such is what I suspected we would find from the start.

Still, I'm also not losing any sleep over this ambiguous duality of the status of evidence on hand, and consider both to be working hypotheses.  But if you are, take heart.  The search for evidence in support of putative prototypes continues. And you are most welcome to join in with some constructive comments and evidence of your own should you wish participate.  I've also contacted one associated with the company on this very topic sometime ago.  While they haven't yet, if they care to provide such a statement that supports the PFE claim, it will be very warmly appreciated.  In closing, we agree the "burden of proof" doesn't really lay with the company anymore.  They are quite within their right to remain silent on this model should that be their desire, for the very same reasons you mention - especially since it's been a decade since they released any model from this casting. 

Enough said? 





 

[SandyEggoJake]

Pic of B end from 4700 series model w/ vert brake staff.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[peteski]

...They are quite within their right to remain silent on this model should that be their desire, for the very same reasons you mention - especially since it's been a decade since they released any model from this casting. 

Enough said?

Are you serious?  Decade? 

Sept 2015 049 00 230  Yellow/Black, Green, Rep Mks L, 'Crazy Water Crystals' R
July 2015 049 00 720 Red/Yellow, Black, Large 'Baby Ruth' Across Car (Baby Ruth Series #2)
June 2015 049 00 710 Yellow, Brown Ends + Roof, Baby Ruth Artwork Candy/Gum Across (Baby Ruth Series #1)
April 2015 047 00 100  Yellow, Brown Roof+Ends/Multicolor, 'Burp-Oh Beer' + Rep Mks L, 'Man of Extinction' Graphic R
Jan 2015 049 00 510 Yellow/Black, 'West India Fruit..." + Rep Mks L, Ship Herald R

Sep 2014 049 00 700 D Brown/White, Rep Mks + Company Trademark L, 'Hercules Powder Company' R
Apr 2014 049 00 690 D Yellow,Brown/Black, Multi, Heilemann Old Style Lager (Brewery #12)

That is just the last 2 years...

[sd45elect2000]

Pic of B end from 4700 series model w/ vert brake staff.

(Attachment Link)

CRLX , isn't that a Cudahy car lines car? Maybe an Old Dutch Cleanser car ? I'd really like to find some ACTUAL Cudahy cars....

Randy

[bbussey]

I don't have time to break it all down, especially to those who aren't listening anyway but here's a few views that compare the MTL reefer to the FGE drawing in the 1931 CBC...

If people weren't listening (or reading) then it wouldn't be possible to point out that the evidence presented isn't definitive.

Yes, there are details on your drawings that match up with the MTL model.  But there are major details that don't as well.  The difference in door height between the drawings and model are very apparent.  The board widths on the roofs and sides match, but not the ends.  The channel profile also is different.  The drawings also appear to be replicas and not official mechanical drawings, so there may be some discrepancies in the drawings as well (such as the width of the end boards).

The model certainly can pass in FGE livery, as many of the characteristics are close.  But there are enough differences as well.

I also return to one indisputable habit that Kadee/MTL always has followed — to release the definitive prototype scheme if applicable early in a model's appearance.  NYC on the stockcar.  SP on the caboose.  Railbox on the FMC sliding door and combo-door boxcars.  REA on the express reefer.  BN on the Thrall centerbeam flat.  PFE on the steel reefer.  ATSF on the 57' TOFC.  FGE on the riveted mechanical reefer.  PFE on the ribbed mechanical reefer.  TT on the 89' TOFC.  PRR on the wagontop boxcar.  SP on the bay window.  Never has there been an FGE release on any of the wood reefers.

You are quite correct this thread so far contains zero evidence that MTL (or Kadee) has made any statement that refutes the PFE as the prototype for this hkl'
21?>,m?cvmodel.  But it can also be said we have yet to find ANY statements from MTL (or Kadee) that claims any specific PFE car as its prototype as well.  Sure, it might be a "established given" in your mind.  It might even be written on some secondary websites...and I tell you buddy, I'd be the luckiest guy alive if that did it for me.  But until such is reference is supplied, it is premature to defend or refute such statements.

Hardly.  One would have to make an honest attempt to find the statement before concluding it never was stated, or summarily dismissing it, as is your position.  One could start by sending a query to MTL through official channels to see if there is any documentation still in their archives.   You argument also would be on better footing if you had been in the hobby and started purchasing Kadee cars prior to 1976.

bb

[SandyEggoJake]

Are you serious?  Decade? 

Seems I stand corrected at to date for its use.  I was going off a search I did using a download of the MTL db, for the 47000 casting, but perhaps it omitted the new MTL model number scheme.  Thank you for alerting me to this error.  Will re-examine my flat file to ensure it is up to date and confirm. 

[SandyEggoJake]

Yes, Randy.  The 47000 casting in my pic is indeed from an Old Dutch Cleanser car #2962, which I dissembled as I'm contemplating spiting it into two diagonally and mate to another two halves cut the same way.  The reasons is the prototypes seem to have only had ODC on one side and another Cudahy brand painted on the other.  (reference pg 40 & 41 of Hendrickson & Kaminski's "Billboard Refrigerator Cars".   

[SandyEggoJake]

OK, this is just getting silly now. 

Bryan, if I've somehow offended your sensitivities here, I do apologize.  But I've never once intended to concluded ANYWHERE in this thread (or anywhere at all) that MTL or Kadee has never stated this car was a PFE prototype.  Nor have I ever summarily dismissed such was a possibility.  So I humbly suggest you are (mis)reading FAR too much into my statements.  Still, if you do find such (mis)statements in my posts, I will gladly retract and amend.

As for "indisputable habit" what ever that is, I'll diplomatically agree such would be suggestive if you can agree that it is far from empirical evidence.  But all this is irrelevant to the question at hand, which again is what is the closest prototypes for this castings. 

BTW, even Jason has fully admitted there are some exceptions.  And Greg has already noted the end channel variation.   As for door height, by my math I've got the FGE car at 80 3/8".  By my gauge, I have the model's door height at 13.0 mm.  So 81 7/8" in N.  In my book, I wouldn't exactly call this 1.5" (sub 2%) deviation a "very apparent" difference... but hey, you are entitled to think differently.  In fact I encourage this debate, as long as it is (somewhat) mature and respectful.       

[wcfn100]

  The difference in door height between the drawings and model are very apparent.

In the case of the door, the drawing is out of scale for some reason (but just the height, the width scales fine  ).  The way it's drawn (assuming other things are drawn to scale), the height of the door in the drawing is only ~75".  But In reality, you can read that the door opening alone is 76" and there is couple inch overlap top and bottom which gets you about 80" which is what the MTL measures.  None of the vertical dimensions like the distance between the hinges are drawn correctly (to scale).

 

Jason

[SandyEggoJake]

By the way, I do need to reiterate that the quality of any argument has zip to do with the source of the argument.  To make such a connection in this case is termed a genetic fallacy of the ad hominen type.    Such could apply to placing too much confidence in the statements of a manufacturer, as much as it would be to dismiss the evidence provided by someone you deem is not an expert on that particular subject.   And as such, I rather encourage ALL to participate here - regardless of how much they think they know, or how much they know they have yet to learn.   

Even so, while it means nada to the topic at hand, perhaps it will appease you some to know that I (and my late father before me) were "in the hobby" well before '76.  But I'll fully admit my background is HO & 1960's era.  Not the N scale / 1920's I now model.  But still AT&SF all the way, baby!  Warbonnets unite!  (But now I also run Espee-ish SD&A with a few blocks of PFE cars.)

Cheers,

[bbussey]

If the general consensus is that the model is based on the FGE prototype, is seems that contacting FGE customer relations to see if they have that historical data available (or to get direction to where the information is available) is a better course of action as opposed to working with flawed drawings. If you have a thread you want to unravel, do the full research if it's that important, and follow the same standards that manufacturers here are held to. Make the effort to track down the actual mechanical drawings. That's what I have to do every time I prepare to design a new model.

And, you would be better off referencing the UMTRR archives for maintaining an up-to-date MTL-releases database than downloading the Excel files on the MTL website.

[wcfn100]

I'm not sure what consensus you're talking about as it's really just me and one other person who doesn't disagree with me.   

I'm still open to the idea that this cold be a PFE car.  Most of what I've done is in response to you and Bob trying to dismiss this other option and asking for photographic proof and what-not.  I think I've clearly shown that this FGE car is very, very close and spot on in regards to some specific and unique details.  And even it's not the prototype, it's not like I'm out on a limb suggesting such in the absence of other tangible evidence.

If you and Bob say it's a PFE car, I'm cool with that, in fact, I'm ready to help track it down.  PFE is well followed and very well documented.  I have to believe it wouldn't take too much work to track down a good prototype candidate.  Unfortunately I don't own any of the PFE books so hopefully other people who do have these books can help fill in any info they can.

Since you've suggested that MTL always does at least one or some prototypical cars for a certain body style, I looked up the road numbers produced but can't find any information about those series on line.  The next step would be to follow up with the paint scheme, specifically what class of car is written on the car?  I don't believe I own any of the wood PFE cars so maybe someone can get out the magnifier and read what it says. 


Jason