Show off your reskins!

acela_2_p42_by_pfreeman008-dbrqan2.jpg



Finally getting to a point where I can get back to doing some stuff...


peter
 
Not to pick, but I was always taught that a turtle back roof was a type of arch roof, humped up more than arch, Harriman style or SOU, etc. with squared clerestory style ends and an arch roof was a commuter coach or something that had raised vents. That a turtle back was turning a clerestory into someone to look like an Arch potentially with garland vents or A/C ducts underneath the outer skin. Note how the turtleback arch roof has squared off ends whereas the regular archroof does not. Harriman ends are usually not all the way rounded, SOU turtleback rooofs, SLSF, etc, usually have a slight squared off profile to the turtleback arch roof.
I somehow doubt it, simply because arch roofs vary from one railroad to another. Harriman ends have the most recognizeable shape, while D&RGW's streamstyled archroofs featured ends more like those Frisco cars. However, the "Peak" series diners had a yet different design, curving down slightly before ending in 3 truncated panels. Other archroof cars had slightly bowed ends, or completely flat ones for a more streamlined/lightweight shape, et cetera. I honestly don't know where "archroof" stops and "betterment" or "streamstyled" begins though, because in large part, cars that were built with arch roofs tended to follow a more Harriman design, while modernized cars could really have any shape or size, in part because they often didn't remove the original roof and instead integrated it too. My guess would be that whether a car is "Harriman," "Turtleback," "Archroof," "Streamstyled," or "Betterment" more or less depends on who you ask, because as stated in my original post on the subject, absolutely nothing was standard. Each railroad likely had their own name, if they had any name at all, and railfans are notorious for adopting completely different names than any railroad ever used. That's where we get whaleback tenders, Pullman green, Railroad Roman, and many other commonly used names which can be misleading to the new researcher.
 
Last edited:
Alrighty folks we've strayed a bit off topic here with these roof debates. This thread is for showing off your reskins.

If you'd like to continue the roof-type discussion, I would suggest starting a new thread. I'm willing to split off these posts into a new thread if you'd all like; just report this post and ask for it.

peter
 
I think you mean MT-73?

Judging by the number I think he definitely means MT-1. Not that it makes a difference, the two classes are the exact same thing, just a difference between overall road designations and builder designations. I've only seen the UP themselves refer to the class as MT-1, whereas the class is referred to as MT-73 after they were retired. Interestingly enough, while the MT-73 designation looks to be used to cover both the MT-1 and MT-2 classes, it seems the UP chose to differentiate them due to their difference in weight. At the time the two classes were built, the difference was enough to limit the MT-2s from operating over certain parts of the system, but the MT-1s did not have this limitation. After the arrival of larger motive power, which necessitated the extensive rebuilding of a good chunk of the UP system, the limitation was largely removed, hence the retroactive designation change. Not a UP expert so I can't be entirely sure, but that seems to be the long and short of it. After all, doesn't pay to be a know-it-all when you don't have all of the facts!

LA&SL 7858Brooks63764Built Jan 1923Scrapped Mar 1955

Pretty good idea for a stand-in cmoehrle! I might wind up trying the same thing myself at one point!
 
Last edited:
Interresting, I never found anything in my books including my Cyclopedia of American Locomotive Design of 1925 calling them MT-1s and MT-2s...only MT-73s.
 
Last edited:
Well your books must've completely forgotten the LA&SL existed then didn't they? Believe it or not, books aren't always 100% correct. On the UP they were classed MT-73 and on the LA&SL they were MT-1, simple as that. Now they may usually be called MT-73s to avoid confusion with the Southern Pacific's MT-1 class, but their official designation on the LA&SL is MT-1.

-Ben
 
Upon further research, I can't find any resource that refers to the locomotives as MT-73s aside from Broadway Limited Imports. Almost every other source, including steamlocomotive.com and the UPTHS refer to them as either MT-1s and MT-2s. Keep in mind also that these websites also properly cite their sources, and additionally steamlocomotive.com's page on the UP 4-8-2s references diagrams straight from the UP that it retains in its locobase.

With this in mind, I'm not entirely sure how correct the MT-73 designation is aside from differentiating UP and SP locomotives, and seems to be derived from the driver diameter of 73 inches in some form. This was common on roads towards the end of the steam era, but those designations aren't really classes as much as a way to save time and group together similar motive power into a single designation across different classes.

Also worth noting is that a lot of the time books can definitely contain wrong information, particularly as you go further back in time when it was harder to cross-reference sources. Some other notable errors that have popped up in print are the history behind the name of the PRR's Broadway Limited, miscredit to the design of the GG1's streamlined body to Raymond Loewy (his contribution to the design was the recommendation of welding the carbody rather than riveting it, plus the final paint scheme, but that's about it), and numerous cases of misinformation regarding early narrow gauge railroads (tiffany reefers anyone?). Point is, you can have as many books as you want, doesn't mean the information they contain is always correct.
 
Last edited:
On Union Pacific, there were two similar but different series of locomotive Classes, also known as Class Designations or Classifications. Locomotive classes were shown in UP's locomotive folio diagram sheets, in the Accounting Department's Form 70 "List Of Agencies, Stations, Equipment, Etc.", and on the locomotive cab sides.
The original classes started in the Harriman Common Standard era, and were first shown on painting and lettering sheets dated 1904. These were the CS classes such as MK-1, MK-2, etc., where a wheel type was designated (C for Consolidation, and MK for Mikado, etc.), with a trailing sequential number. These designations were not used on the locomotives' cab sides, and apparently went away during the 1930s.
The cab side lettering instead included the classes without the sequential number, using the more common class and driver size combination. An example would be the Common Standard Mikados MK-1 and MK-2, both becoming MK-57, or the WWII era MacA-57.
The cab side lettering started in 1937. (see Jim Ehernberger's article in The Streamliner, Volume 8, Number 1)

Taken from Utahrails.net (Which is a very reliable source which references all of it's sources clearly)

So in other words MT-1 or MT-2 is the pre-war classification and MT-73 is the postwar classification.
This also mean that after the war the FEF-2/3s would have actually been FEF-80s, but FEF-3 sounds better!
:p

-Ben
 
OK Ill put your mind at rest. IN 1930's UP started rebuilding, renumbering, and reclassifying locomotives system wide. 2-8-8-0's were going from compound to simple, and locomotives were being classed for the needs at hand. MK-1&2 became MK-57 due to the 57 inch drivers. These engines were used in helper or drag freight service. Class MK-63 with larger drivers higher speed freight and passenger. The headache was with the 2-8-8-0 , compounds drawing slower freights, simple higher speed both types were on the road at the time of there rebuilding. As dispatchers this classification was vital for railroad operation, assigning the right engine for the train at hand. If a type was system wide and generic purpose and standard like 2-8-0's one class was given C-57. The same was true with the 4-8-2's there was no difference system wide with them so one designation was used MT-73. The FEF's were all different FEF-1 were smaller. FEF-2 larger. FEF-3 Different systems applied to the locomotive. (There was an FEF-4 class planed) However with the late challengers and Big Boy's the system went to a different route and these engines were 4-6-6-4-3. Not CSA-3 to help distinguish the 2 challenger designs. This was carried through the rest of the articulated locomotives on the system. For example a 2-8-8-0 was SAC 2-8-8-0
S-imple
A-rticulated
C-onsolidated
2-8-8-0
 
Books with wrong info are classic, like Lucius Beebe books, they have wonderful pictures and data from a time when private cars still operated, or mixed trains, or anything else, but the internet didn’t exist then, archive libraries were not as large and didn’t include as much of this as Baldwin, ALCo, Lima, etc were still making the locos, so mistakes were common.

Saturnr
 
Back
Top