# Aristocraft 46201 PFE Reefer - Misprint?



## TheTrainGuy (Dec 3, 2014)

Hi guys,

I recently came across these two identical cars and I'm a little confused. I'm new to the train world, so please excuse my ignorance. They both say "Southmern Pacific" instead of "Southern Pacific", so I'm assuming that is a misprint. Also, one of them has the number 46204 instead of 46201, which I'm assuming is also a misprint. They are both made in Korea. Are they rare? What can anyone tell me about these?

Thanks!

Sam


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Sam,
The two different numbers are somewhat typical as many manufacturers will release a specific paint scheme with more than one road number as many modelers will buy more than one of that specific paint scheme. The Soutmen (sic) Pacific is yes technically a misprint from the prototype, but was most likely done on purpose in order to not violate a copy right from Southern Pacific. I don't know the exact history of these cars and when they were produced, but I'm sure some other members will pop in with that info.
Hope this helps.
Craig


----------



## TheTrainGuy (Dec 3, 2014)

Thanks Craig. That's an interesting point about the copyright, I never thought of that. I do understand the idea of the same car having a different road number so you can run more than one of the same car, that definitely makes sense. However, on the box (and every website I find) it says 46201 is "Reefer Pacific Fruit" and 46204 is "Reefer Heinz". I don't think it's a road number in this case. In light of this new info, what do you think?


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

bnsfconductor said:


> The Soutmen (sic) Pacific is yes technically a misprint from the prototype, but was most likely done on purpose in order to not violate a copy right from Southern Pacific.


That is unlikely to be the reason for the misspelling, since they didn't misspell Union Pacific..and that sort of deliberate mispelling to avoid copyright doesnt really happen with model trains..the far more likely reason for the misspelling is because the models were made in China.

IMO, the misspelling will decrease the value, not increase it, because modelers won't like the mispelling, and there aren't really "Aristocraft collectors" who would desire and specifically seek out mistakes such as this. There is no real market for Aristocraft mistakes..LGB or Lionel perhaps, but not Aristocraft.

Scot


----------



## TheTrainGuy (Dec 3, 2014)

Thanks for the clarification Scot, much appreciated.


----------



## Michael Glavin (Jan 2, 2009)

I have several of these same A/C cars, brought this shortcoming up many years ago in a thread herein. Unfortunately I don't recall what the prevailing opinion was. For some reason I still have the cars. FWIW: I don't like these cars, their early A/C with all their faults and poorly done IMO. I'd suggest less value than other more desirable cars of the mix and match variety of typical freight trains.

In the scheme of things unless you have a lonnng string of 'PFE' only reefers your just playing train... That said I have been amassing a train of USAT's interpretation of UP/SP PFE 40' reefers over the last couple of years. Being an SP fan, the PFE unit trains are a need, know make that a scratch I keeping having to itch...

Michael


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Scottychaos said:


> That is unlikely to be the reason for the misspelling, since they didn't misspell Union Pacific..and that sort of deliberate mispelling to avoid copyright doesnt really happen with model trains..the far more likely reason for the misspelling is because the models were made in China.
> 
> Scot


Scot,
Don't you remember the "Onion Pacific" cars that I think Aristo Craft (or someone else produced? It might have been in a different scale, but I recall seeing them at some point.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

They are "Road Numbers"... in the real world, every train car of a specific type (flat, reefer, auto rack, gondola, etc.) has a unique serial number so the RR's can track them (for routing to the correct customer and so the owner can collect rent from the company using them). Not unlike automobile license plates, but registered with the American Association of Railroads (AAR) instead of a State. Purists in the toy train hobby don't want all their cars with the same number, so manufactures will SOMETIMES issues cars with different road numbers (but maybe only 10 or 20 total numbers and will issue hundreds of cars with those 10 or 20 numbers).


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Yes, several years ago a lawyer for one of the class 1 RRs (U.P. as I remember it) got to feeling his oats and threatened the major toy manufactures with "trademark infringement" for making models of trains with realistic trademarks printed on them... it took a melee of letters to the RRs complaining that the price of our toys would skyrocket if we had to pay royalties to the RRs to have their logo on the sides of the cars. Cooler heads prevailed and it all went away.

I think some "require" a token registration that you are going to use their trademark and some request that you send them a sample of what you plan to sell with their logos.

And all RRs that have merged, purchased or otherwise absorbed previous roads have kept the previous roads trademarks in force so you cannot say you can use the Southern Pacific logo because it doesn't exist anymore (U.P. OWNS it).

(But you'd better not put any of the RR's in a bad light by selling perversions of their logos! That has hit the fan a couple of times to the chagrin of some toy manufacturers!)


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

Lots of those cars out there. Very common car, not collectable. Gray box would indicate a early car probably made in Korea.


----------



## TheTrainGuy (Dec 3, 2014)

I shall consider my questions answered, thanks everyone!

Sam


----------



## Doug C (Jan 14, 2008)

Was even listed in the 'UNcatalog' ;

http://aristodatabase.x10host.com/?prodid=46201&year= 
Described as a "error car" !

(Your) 46204 seemingly never submitted to the Db as a alternate number.


----------

