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?
There are costs in every phase of manufacturing, from raw material to finished product. Every part, no matter how large or small has a monetary value for material and labor. Labor costs are perhaps the highest cost component of manufacturing. Tooling is a one time cost amortized over the expected manufacturing life of the product.
The people that assembled Gilbert Flyer most likely worked on a rate: They would be expected to produce X amount of cars or sub-assemblies in a given time.
Now, I have no idea what the rates were in the Gilbert factory, but let's say it took five minutes to assemble one solid body tank tank car. 12 cars an hour. Even if it then took five minutes to assemble 1.25 split frame tank cars, that's a savings and an increase of production. 15 cars an hour. And that's just in final assembly. In an 8 hour shift that's 96 cars vs. 120 cars. In a week, it becomes 480 vs. 600. It adds up.
I've spent the last 24 years of my working life in manufacturing environments. (Fortunately, I wasn't an assembler, it can be pretty mind numbing doing essentially the same task every day.) Manufacturers are always looking for ways to reduce costs. If there's no potential for significant cost reduction, they don't do it.
Rusty