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

[peteski]

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


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

I'm 5' 9" and not touching this one either. 

[nkalanaga]

Dee:  If he was 10 feet tall he'd be in the NBA, even if he couldn't shoot a basket.  He could just drop it in!

SandyEggoJake:  I wouldn't be at all surprised if the MT caboose is an SP design, as they're in SP country, and it's a very popular road.  Does that first picture have a roofwalk on top of the cupola?

[JoeD]

My notes show this car was designed after a T&O Caboose, in that respect is accurate.  I think I still have the original blueprints in the lab.  Not sure which cupola was the standard and which was added to include SP Protos and others. No doubt these were absorbed at some point into the SP livery.   

Joe

> 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 5000 and Straight Cupola 5100).

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?

[SandyEggoJake]

nkalanaga, good eye.  Yes, this SP Straight Side does indeed have a walk right over the cupola.  However, according to Thompson starting in the 50's such would have been later removed for safety reasons, replaced by a white stencil saying "Employes must not get on top of cupola".  Wondering if Thompson had a typo, I did some searching on my own and found several pics where the SP stencil was indeed misspelled "Employes". 

Actually, straight side mod cupolas in the C-30-1 were relatively rare and late.  All were narrow slant side to begin with.  And often apparently just widened after the word came down to remove the walkaround.   

As stated elsewhere, federal government's requirement for rooftop running boards was apparently withdrawn in April 1966, stating also that all cars built after, October 1966 must not be equipped with running boards, and that by the end of, 1983, all cars built before 1966 must have their running boards removed.

[wcfn100]

As stated elsewhere, federal government's requirement for rooftop running boards was apparently withdrawn in April 1966, stating also that all cars built after, October 1966 must not be equipped with running boards, and that by the end of, 1983, all cars built before 1966 must have their running boards removed.

Covered hoppers still have running boards. 

Jason

[SandyEggoJake]

Yes, Jason, hoppers still have running board.  I was directing my truncated comments toward cabeese, even as similar regs applied to boxcars, etc. 

Shipsure, I assume you mean T&NO (Texas and New Orleans Railroad) - one of the Espee "lines". 

BTW, nkalanaga, here is an example of a SP C-30-1, with the mod to straight side w/o walk over cupola

[Sokramiketes]

The best format for something like this is Fred Klein's passenger car review pages.  His resource is an excellent mix of information including the "best prototype match" for each model, some discussion of things that vary from the prototype, and other modeler input on what they could be turned into/close matches.  It really feeds the passenger car modeling soul.  A freight car version is much more expansive, but a worthy project.

[SandyEggoJake]

Thx, Sokramiketes.  I too am a fan of Fred Klein's work.  However, on format, my mere intent is to use this as a workplace to Open Source and hash out opinions, invite comments and share common learnings. 

Personally, I've little interest to reinvent the wheel to create a new db on this topic.  If someone wants to, go for it.  For posterity, and to keep expectations nice and low as they already seem ( ) I'm happy if this just results in a few more prototypes added to the UMTRR body style db.  If others wish to consult this poorly referenced, far from primary source thread for their own db, have at it! 

By the way, I just checked Mark's still developing and excellent Spookshow N Scale Freight Car Encyclopedia and was pleased to find concordance on the MTL 34' wood as an SP C-30-1 (see http://www.spookshow.net/freight/mtwood.html)  Sure, one might suggest a few refinements to his summary (ex, the MTL model - given the lack of the iconic cupola walkaround - is not an "as built" C-30-1, and some may debate the use of a Harriman label on the C-30's) but overall, I applauded him for his effort. 

[sirenwerks]

Ooo I can't wait until we get to the gondolas and box cars... 

[wazzou]

Ooo I can't wait until we get to the gondolas and box cars... 

Don't forget flatcars. 

[SandyEggoJake]

So hearing no more discussion on the 34' wood caboose (MTL 50000 & 51000), pending a motion to reconsider, I will consider a motion that consensus is reached as to the prototype here being the SP C-30-1, as modified.  Additional comments are still welcomed.

However, we now have what I'll take as a new motion on the floor from sirenwerks, and what I'll take as a second, that we move on to other car types.  Since sirenwerks was first, and mentioned boxcars, at the discretion of the chair, I've now opened a new thread on the MTL 47000 and 49000 40' Wood Refeer.  If anyone objects to me referring to reefers as a subclass of boxcars, your objection is noted and then ignored...  I've got reefer madness.   

Next thread here: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=37065.0

[nkalanaga]

Jason:  The actual order says all cars, "unless there is a need for access to the roof", so covered hoppers, tank cars, iced reefers, etc. are exempt.  The order also forbid anyone to be on top of a moving car, which is why many covered hoppers, even with roofwalks, have short side ladders.  One has to climb the end ladder to reach the roof.