MTL Rollingstock Prototype - 34' Wood Caboose (50000 & 51000)

[SandyEggoJake]

During a visit to the UMTRR db (http://www.irwinsjournal.com/umtrr/) to determine the prototype of the body style of a recent MTL purchase, I noticed that many of the models have yet to be characterized with prototype info.  Sure, many are compromises, but given Ed's Law....   

So I invite anyone to post here suggestions on those missing prototype info the above linked table, along with your suitable proof or reference for this suggestion.  We'll all adjudicate, and I'll collate and submit to the UMTRR a prototype suggestions with a request that credit be given to the first submitter. 

Could be fun .... 

-Jake

[JoeD]

this won't end well

Joe

[Denver Road Doug]

Here's the actual link to the "body style vs prototype" page...  http://www.irwinsjournal.com/umtrr/mtbdst-test.htm

[Denver Road Doug]

this won't end well

Joe

Ha, I was thinking the same thing.   I've already been scolded this week for not accepting mediocrity so I'm just gonna grab my popcorn and watch this one.

[bbussey]

It was not your lack of accepting mediocrity that generated the flak.

[Nato]

      "This won't end well"+ 1. Nate Goodman (Nato). 

[John]

Most of the MT cars that have been identified as having real prototypes were done in RMJ by James Eager. I think its pretty well accepted that many of the cars are "close" but may not be completely accurate. I recall being told that they made compromises in overall dimensions on some of the molds ..

[sirenwerks]

It was not your lack of accepting mediocrity that generated the flak.

This statement, all the same, implies you did, in fact,lack the mentioned mediocrity tolerance; and continues to imply that wasn't your biggest screw up, apparently.  (Good for you, BTW, on the mediocrity intolerance).   

[thomasjmdavis]

I think we should not distract MT from its current mission of making every last head end car I ever wanted.

[SandyEggoJake]

Ha!  Not ending well?  How 'bout freak'n not STARTING well?  Yeesh!

But yes, Doug is correct.  Thx for providing the correct link.  And to clear up any confusion, I've no affiliation what so ever with MTL or even UMTRR.  So this should be consider a Double Unofficial MTRR effort.

John, might you have an actual reference for the RMJ article by James Eager?  Such might be a good place to start. 

But failing that ....  so who'd like to rise above the nattering nabobs of negativity (and mediocrity) and start us off?  Don't make me come over there and call on one of you!

[John]

John, might you have an actual reference for the RMJ article by James Eager?  Such might be a good place to start. 

I don't have all the RMJ's, but Jim Eager identified many of the Roundhouse and some of the MT cars during various articles on freight cars .. they are scattered about the various issues ..  Trainlife has them all online IIRC .. it would be some work ..  I think George Irwin already has those listed ..

This could be a fun project though . if we go "close enough"

[sirenwerks]

In my experience, a situation like this requires expectation management to keep it from sliding into mud slinging.  This requires three things - an agreed upon deifinition of "Good enough", ground rules, and a ref.  Ground rules would be what aspects defince "close enough" and how is a subject closed out and recorded.

My definition of "close enough" is being within 98% of prototypical dimensions (length and width of averall car and individual major characteristics, and overall and ride height) and having the same characteristics of the prototype, including style, placement, and number of roof and body panels and doors, domes, and hatches (including size); car end design; grab iron/ladder design and rings; construction type (wood versus metal and riveted versus welded), and truck, walkway, and brake wheel design.  "Close enough" inlcudes rivet and weld seam patterns (but not rivet count), sill design, coupler placement (i.e. cushion design), and major undercarriage components.  "Prototyipical" is defined by railroad/leaser owner, era, and design, the latter indlucing either a standardized design that included options of elements for railroads (i.e. the PS1 boxcar with its variety of door widths and types) or a specific prototype series built by a railroad.  A car that includes two or more design elements that did not exist on a prototype simultaneously is not prototypical.  To label a car "close enough" requires identifying the car it is close enough to, and the characteristics that are faulty and how they are faulty.

[SandyEggoJake]

> keep it from sliding into mud slinging.

No what would be the fun of that?   

By all means, yes, "close enough" (or perhaps "closest") .  But I've no interest to dwell on the meta of defining these terms, so will rather stick with the standard proposed by Justice Potter Stewart.   As for rules, I'll repeat, I propose this effort be aimed at determining possible prototypes for the body styles...not the paint and decals.  As for rules of decorum, I yield to those of this site.  And finally, a ref?  Well, I guess that would ultimately be George Irwin, no?  For again, my concept here is we provide him evidence to support our suggestion, and if he agrees, then I suspect he will add such to his body style database.     

So, in the absence of hearing any suggestions for MT cars to start on, I propose we start with what I hope to be an easy one (and a project I'm currently working on):

The MTL 34' Wood Caboose (both Slant Cupola 50000 and Straight Cupola 51000).

IMHO, this model is a good representations of the as-modified Southern Pacific C-30-1 waycar, in either the full-width straight or slant side cupola versions.  This car type was both a sizable fleet on the SP and also saw duty on several associated lines.   

Straight:


Slant:


Models:


Some issues do exist with the model for this prototype, but all are relatively easy corrections.

1) The model's vertical brake wheel should be horizontal, with its chain replaced with a vertical rod.
2) For this period, in most cases, the correct truck would be the friction bearing bettendorf-type caboose trucks, but unlike the stock MTL trucks which sport coils, the prototype generally rode on leaf springs (occasionally made by Kato & Atlas).  (And as per Ed's Law, as the slant side cupola prototype photo proves, leaf springs were not always the ride.)

Furthermore, if the "as built" version is desired (by more than just me) the slant side cupola can be narrowed to permit the addition of the prototype's walkaround.

I'm certainly not the first Espee modeler to note this.  Are there any objections, alternatives or additions?

 

[eric220]

I think we should not distract MT from its current mission of making every last head end car I ever wanted.

This. So much this. @Shipsure this!

Otherwise, to the mods I implore, ABORT MISSION!!! ABORT MISSION!!!

[Kisatchie]

I wouldn't touch this topic with a 10-foot pole.


Hmm... how tall is
Peteski...?