What is a clone boxcar?rapido trains are building them for CPR.
I can only postulate that it is a car built using a design of another railroad or entity.
For instance there were hundreds of “clones” of USRA designs. The basic dimensions and construction details were adopted, sometimes slightly modified, and the results were a clone of the design.
Often a Canadian manufacturer will be established to manufacture equipment for use there (Alco/MLW) or vice-versa. The designs will be a “clone” of the originals. Canada didn’t have a United States Railroad Administration for obvious reasons, but the designs were probably shared.
The PRR J1a was a near-copy of a Chesapeake & Ohio design. I suppose that could be considered a “clone” as well?
Good Luck, Ed
A car that is a copy of or the design is derived from another car but is not built by the original builder.
In one of the Rapido ads, they explain what a clone car is[:o)] and what the specific difference actually is on the CP car(s) in question.
Thankyou for the good information
If only Arnold had triumphed at Quebec…Anyway, no USRA, but CN came close to sweeping up everybody except CPR
Referring to them as “clone” cars (rather than ‘copies’)is less an actual railroad / model railroad term as it is an example of Rapido’s Canadian humor (humour?) as seen in it’s ads, videos, and even instruction sheets. They also use a lot of references to Star Trek and Doctor Who TV shows.
No it’s not a term made up by Rapido’s sense of humour, as explained in the very first response to this thread. While it may be a railfan/modeler term rather than an “official” one, it’s not a Rapido invention.
Rapido was producing a USRA design boxcar - USRA being United States Railroad Administration - which obviously does not apply to Canada. But CP had a huge series of cars, built in Canada by Canadian manufacturers, that copied (cloned) the design. These have long been known as “USRA Clones”. Way longer than Rapido has been around.
(To the OP: the key in the “clone” boxcar name is properly including the “USRA” part in the “USRA clone” name. That’s what the CP cars are clones/copies of…)
The CP cars could only be “clones” if they were exact copies of a USRA design. CP apparently used different ends than anyone else. If the original design allowed that possibility, say on a list of acceptable suppliers, the CP cars would be clones. If not, they’d be “variants”.
There could also be “improved”, I guess.
And, speaking of “”, Rapido very properly put quotes around their usage of the word “clones”.
Ed
“Clone” is a relatively recent word, meaning to make a copy of a living organism by an asexual method…so technically you can’t “clone” a boxcar, but you can build a copy of one.
[;)]
There are many references in print to USRA copies of freight cars and locomotives, I understand that after the USRA’s brief existence many railroads bought equipment that based on USRA designs. I suppose someone somewhere may used the term “USRA clone” in recent years instead of “USRA copy”. Just like some people use the humorous word “cabeese” as a plural for caboose, rather than the correct “cabooses”. I would say “USRA copy” is still the more common phrase.
There is an even more recent usage of the word:
“someone or something that looks or behaves exactly like soneone or something else”
pretty much an exact copy of anyone or anything.
Since a biological clone IS an exact copy, I assume the new usage of this word is meant to express EXACT copy. Or extremely accurate copy, emphasizing the accuracy.
Besides, it makes better advertising copy.
“In 1903, plant physiologist Herber J. Webber coined the term ‘clone,’…”
Ed
The TH&B, in my hometown of Hamilton, Ontario, bought 300 USRA double sheathed boxcars from the NEW YORK CENTRAL in 1941. The Central and CPR owned controlling interest in the TH&B, until the CPR took full control after the Penn Central merger. Those USRA cars were built by ACF in 1918, and some survived on the TH&B until the mid-'70s.
Accurail offers a very nicely-done version of those USRA boxcars, but they weren’t around when I decided to convert three low-height Train Miniature double sheathed boxcars into my own TH&B “clones”…
I simply scribed the moulded-on sidesills, then added new ones made from strip styrene, to create a taller car. The fishbelly underframes were scratchbuilt, while the doors and ends were from Tichy. Lettering was dry transfers, from C-D-S, now, unfortunately, long gone.
I do have quite a few USRA cars from Accurail, too…
…including this one, modified to match a specific prototype…
And of course that’s wrong-o wrong-o wrong.
“Cloning” only replicates the genetic code of an organism, the original efforts involving manipulation of the nucleus of a fertilized egg. In the olden days of ‘one gene - one protein’, knotheads assumed that if the genetic code of an embryo was identical, the developed organism would have identical phenotype (a fancy scientistic word for appearance). That turns out not to be the case, for example with coat patterns in kittens.
So it is somewhat correct to use the term in the sense the original Canadian builders did, adhering to the construction details and dimensions of the USRA cars as their principal reference. While the ‘perfection’ was disturbed by using different ends, etc. the sense of a high degree of effective genetic transfer and expression is still, I think, applicable. But a clone is not a perfect physical replication of its genetic original. (It won’t live as long, either, but that’s another story…)
The TH&B cars are no more ‘clones’ than adopted children would be; they are USRA cars transferred to Canada.
Now, the public acceptance of ‘clone’ meaning a perfect functional copy is far too well established for scientific common sense to correct. Just don’t try invoking actual science to explain it… [;)]
And since there’s nothing biological about USRA boxcars, that would appear to be the usage of the word.
Though I have my doubts about inserting the word “functional”–if it’s perfect, it’s obviously as functional as the original. If it weren’t, it would imply an imperfect copy.
Ed
That’s certainly true, and I get into trouble with the semantics of ‘perfect’ from time to time… as here.
In partial defense, you can have something of ‘perfect’ appearance that is less than fully functional – Princess Aurora at one point being a kind of example. But I’ve had too much fun with semantical stuff on this thread on a railroad forum already…
What the heck will the CPR be using these for?
Why would Arnold have been at Quebec?
You thinking of Montcalm?
Not enough men in 1775?
That would be difficult in 1775 as he’d been dead over a decade and a half by then.
Perhaps not so much that Arnold might have triumphed as that Montgomery had not been killed.
And a victory at Quebec might have kept Arnold from… subsequent events.