PC X58 boxcar oddity

[nkalanaga]

I received my PC X58 today, PC 361978, ESM 222301.  Reading the fine print, I noticed something odd.  As these cars' lettering is based on actual photos, I assume the model is correct.

The "NEW" date is 4-65, while the "BLT" date is 4-68.  Do prototype shops make this type of mistake often?  I haven't been close enough to most freight cars in the last 35 years to read the dates...  Since the PC merger was in 1968, 4-65 seems a little early.

On the other hand, I have a copy of the BN's Pacific Division "Special Instructions N0. 1" dated "Friday May 10, 1968".  That was the result of a legal delay in the merger, with the timetable and special instructions printed for the original date.  It does make an interesting collectable.   It even has instructions for the "Electrified Zone" in the Thirteenth Subdivision.  Didn't know the BN had overhead wires?

[bbussey]

The built and new dates are both 4/65.  The car was not serviced when it was repainted.

[wcfn100]

The built and new dates are both 4/65.  The car was not serviced when it was repainted.

How'd they take the running board off without servicing it?

Jason

[C855B]

How'd they take the running board off without servicing it?

Low bridge.

[bbussey]

How'd they take the running board off without servicing it?

Good question.  The markings however, are accurate.

[wcfn100]

A prototype for everything. 

Jason

[Ian MacMillan]

A prototype for everything. 

Jason

And Ed just died a little inside...

[GonzoCRFan]

Makes me wonder when the prototype car was photographed. Methinks 1968 seems pretty early to be removing roofwalks...

[Bsklarski]

Just two days ago I saw a boxcar with a build date and rebuilt date of 4-76. I BELIEVE it was a SSW boxcar. I Why I remember these silly things I do not know.

[nkalanaga]

Bryan:  Thank you.  Then the printer goofed, because mine very clearly says "BLT 4-68" on both sides!  They can easily be read with a magnifier.  This image isn't the greatest, as my camera was never intended for this kind of shots, but maybe it will show. 

I'm not complaining, as I can't read it anyway without magnification, but just wondered if the prototype was wrong.  It wouldn't be unheard of for the painters to grab the wrong stencil.



Gonzo:  Not really.  They weren't required after 1966(?) and would have been removed when the car was painted.  Painting a roof with the roofwalk on was a little hard, so it would have come off anyway, and then it was left off. 

[wcfn100]

Looks like 56. 

(but I'm looking on my phone)

Jason

[Scott Lupia]

That lettering is so small I didn't even know it was there! 

scott lupia

[Ian MacMillan]

Looks like 56. 

(but I'm looking on my phone)

Jason

I thought so on my phone as well. And now on the 24" monitor It looks like 56 as well to my eyes.

[Packer]

It even has instructions for the "Electrified Zone" in the Thirteenth Subdivision.  Didn't know the BN had overhead wires?

I never heard of that one before either. Maybe that's why they considered E60Cs?

[nkalanaga]

I'll admit, the picture isn't the greatest, but even so, the consensus seems to be that the last digit ISN'T a 5.  If you have one of the cars, and a good magnifier, I'd be interested in what yours shows.

The BN's "Electrified Zone" was a section shared with the Milwaukee, so it was actually the MILW wires and motors.  Even so, it was BN track with live overhead and electric-hauled trains.