@Bob Bubeck posted:
Permit me to suggest that it is the complete tank construction that you and I find desirable. It results in a model that is more prototypical and visually superior. Most of the standout knuckle coupler tank cars from Gilbert were built in this manner (e.g., 910 Gilbert Chemicals, 912 Koppers, 24319 Penn Salt, '58-'59 24316 Mobilgas, 24323 bakers Chocolate, '59-60 24324 Hooker, and so forth). Where just a seam exists with the split tank, there is a riveted seam detail modeled with the complete tanks. Granted, the split tank construction was a Gilbert 'innovation' done to save costs and all subsequent tankers have been built in this manner up to the present, but the final result is less appealing. YMMV.
In any case, please enjoy any version.
I will agree with everything you said except that the 24316 Mobilgas is not one of those tankers that is in the same class as the others for me. It is a bit plain and even if it had a platform it still wouldn’t be up there with the others, personal choice.
When Gilbert went from the solid tank body to the split tank version for cost savings it would have meant tooling up for a new tank body and lower frame/chassis at a cost. If the original solid tank body tooling was still in good shape and not worn out (and my ‘59’ Bakers body’s shows no signs of this) why stop using it? I find it difficult to understand that the split tank version was going to make any significant savings. I’m not seeing what those savings are in manufacture or assembly.
Have I missed something?