All new MTL Heavyweight Body Style

[Cajonpassfan]

Joe, thank you, a great choice!
Exactly the kind of car we (I) need! Not only a nice generic car, but one that ran all over the place.
I also hope the trucks will be available separately, for use on other cars.
Regards, Otto

[sd45elect2000]

I like the Erie Lackawanna car a lot but I'm a little confused. I have a set of DL&W cars from Wheels of Time but obviously they are a shorter car. Is the Micro trains car correct and the wheels of time car a foobie?

Little doubt that I'm going to buy a bunch !!

Now put an RPO section in the car!!

 I don't have my info with me so I'm not sure if express RPO cars were the same length but it would make a versatile car in different configurations like coach express RPO etc...

Randy

[Chris333]

Erie and DL&W were 2 separate railroads 

[nkalanaga]

Jerry;  That's fine.  The SP&S had some shorter baggage cars, and since this isn't correct anyway, I won't mind.

Numbers 90 and 91 seem to be the best choice, unless one prefers an unused number for a foobie.  These were 73ft 6in cars, built in 1915, and survived without rebuilding into the BN era.  In fact, 91 was on display, in rather scruffy condition, in Corvallis, OR, a few years back.

[CBQ Fan]

I just wish you could get some n scale sp&s passenger decals.  I don't plan on spelling them out letter by letter!

[NYC1956]

While not the ubiquitous 60' NYC car I was hoping for, I agree this was a very good choice.
Certainly better than  the originally-planned 80' car.
This should be a useful and popular model for many of us.

[nkalanaga]

Brian:  That's one reason I don't have many SP&S passenger cars...  Another is that they were extremely rare in Montana, except for the "GN/NP" cars owned and initialed for the SP&S.  One of the streamlined dining cars, "Columbia", was a fairly common sight in Amtrak's Empire Builder, in SP&S's modern scheme, but like you, I don't want to try to piece the name together.

I grew up in Pasco, so the SP&S was a common sight.  There was often a heavyweight baggage car parked at the NP/SP&S depot, even after the merger.

[mmagliaro]

Just so you know that the MT baggage car will be over 10 feet short since SP&S 64 was rebuilt from Pullman car Sycamore, a Plan 2410F 12 - 1 sleeper.

My mistake.  Try #60 or #61, which my SP&S passenger car plan book shows as being 73'6" over the end posts, whereas this MTL car is 70'.
That would be only 3'6" short, and the cars weren't scrapped until the 1970s.

There is also SP&S 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, which my drawings show to be 70', so they would be an even closer match.
Unfortunately, none of those was in service after 1940.

I'd be more excited about doing them as cars in the 90 series, except that Lowell Smith already did 90 and 91.

[nkalanaga]

I had ruled out #60 and 62 because the "SP&S Color Guide" from Morning Sun Books gave their length as 82ft.  They don't mention 61 at all... However, those "Color Guides" aren't always accurate, and I'd rather believe your plan book.  Those would be fine with me, and if 90 and 91 have already been done, would probably sell better. 

Morning Sun claims #64 and 65 were "almost identical" to #60 and 62 except for the doors being a foot wider.  If they were also 73ft 6in cars, #64 was painted in the modern "wide stripe" scheme, allowing for two runs.

[mmagliaro]

Ugh... the confusion.

Yes, 60 and 61 were too long for this MTL car.
I also looked at the SP&S color guide, and yes, it does show 60 and 62 as being 82' cars.
Looking again at the plan (from "Passenger Car Diagrams of the SP&S Ry", by Paul T. Hobbs),
it labels these as "73'6" Baggage Cars", and they are 73'6" over the end posts.  However, they are
82' over the couplers.


Why all these cars are grouped as "73'6" Baggage Cars" makes no sense to me, except perhaps that they are
counting the actual usable baggage space inside the car.  The rebuilt Pullmans have these extra spaces at either end
for lockers and a toilet.  The plan shows those spaces as being kept in the car, but the actual usable
baggage carrying space is only 73'6" even though the car is 82' long.

Cars 66-71 are actually 73' 8-1/4"  over the couplers, so they would be a much closer
match to the MTL car.
92,93 and 94 are also 73'6" over the couplers according to the plan.

So all of these would be closer choices than 60-61.  Unfortunately, none of the shorter cars made it past the 1940s
(except in MoW service)
so they aren't much use in the 1950s.  90,91 lasted a lot longer, which is probably why Lowell chose to do those.

[jmlaboda - RIP]

Why all these cars are grouped as "73'6" Baggage Cars" makes no sense to me, except perhaps that they are
counting the actual usable baggage space inside the car.  The rebuilt Pullmans have these extra spaces at either end
for lockers and a toilet.  The plan shows those spaces as being kept in the car, but the actual usable
baggage carrying space is only 73'6" even though the car is 82' long.

The reason for this is because that is the length of the interior measured bulkhead to bulkhead, with the space formerly occupied by the vestibules not being counted.  Typically (but not always) the vestibule bulkhead remained inside the walls of a car with that space not  being used for much and typically not being counted as part of the interior capacity (73' 6" in these cars case).  With 60 - 69 the former vestibule space had been given over to a bathroom and a cloths locker on one end while a supply locker and electrical cabinet were placed in the other end.  This practice has been common on nearly all roads that operated passenger service and even to this day the usable space would only be considered when measurements inside of a car are taken.

[nkalanaga]

Thank you, everybody.  It looks like any SP&S car suitable for the early BN would have to be a foobie...  Fine with me, but maybe not commercially viable.

Unrelated, if anyone is wondering why my responses sometimes run a little late, my job is now four 10-hour days, and I only check the forum on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights.  Irritating, but at least I HAVE a job, so can't complain!

[jmlaboda - RIP]

Is the Micro trains car correct and the wheels of time car a foobie?

Foobie?  Yes.  The WoT car is based on a Harriman prototype while the Lackawanna car was a bit different...

http://rrpicturearchives.net/rspicture.aspx?id=593098

Close?  Depends on whether you consider them "close enough".

[arbomambo]

apart from the signature channel sill...this new body style baggage car will make a pretty good 'stand in' for ATSF 70' baggage/express and baggage/mail storage cars!
~Bruce

[JoeD]

I wanted something visually different from the WOT car...the doors on the Erie proto are further apart than the WOT seriies.  BTW, I love what they did and they are far beyond being saddled with the Foobie saddle.

Joe