Passenger car designs from 1930 to 1950

3829 views
41 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 7,010 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, September 17, 2018 6:41 PM

Jones1945
I wonder if the UA Train could maintain 120mph or above after electrification and modification

Yes. Easily.  (Certainly as easily as a Metroliner!)

If I recall correctly the APT-P had a similar arrangement that kept the pantograph from tilting with the carbodies.  I strongly recommend that anyone at all interested in this join the APT Yahoo group, as many of the original engineers actively participate and it's a bit like being at a symposium on Olympus ... even with the edge of history threatening.

It would not have been different to develop a better 'fast scheme' for a G in Amtrak colors, including in black (or DGLE) with only the 'stripe' in color as on some of the E units.  Or color five-stripe (see Josh Moldover's paint-shop site for GG1 drawings to start your own experimenting...)

On the other hand... I still remember as one of the high points of my life Raymond Loewy signing 4935 with a felt-tip marker; hard to get anything better than that.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 964 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, September 17, 2018 7:21 PM
Raymond Loewy's insight on GG1 was right, using of a smooth, welded body instead of riveted one. But I personally prefer the shape and details of the original 4899, later 4800, the riveted body gave the engine a tougher looks, but rust stain from the rivet would make them looked beat up after a few years.
 

Note the number board on the tip of the front end. 

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,675 posts
Posted by M636C on Monday, September 17, 2018 7:24 PM

BaltACD

 

 
Jones1945
. Although, I think the apperance of the UA TurboTrain was much more attractive. 

http://www.cnynrhs.org/locos.html

 

Has to be the ugliest GG1 paint job - ever.

 

I think the strange scheme (Bicentennial?) on 4800 was even worse....

Peter

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,675 posts
Posted by M636C on Monday, September 17, 2018 7:35 PM

If I recall correctly the APT-P had a similar arrangement that kept the pantograph from tilting with the carbodies. 

I think there was a serious proposal for such an arrangement on the BR APT but my recollection was that in the APT-P as built, the non passenger carrying power cars did not tilt. These were basically Swedish RC4s in a new shell and with trucks designed for higher speed.

As a result, I think the SJ X2000 ended up with the same power as the APT-P also in a non tilting body.

The Italian Pendolinos, on the other hand, do have pantographs on tilting vehicles. I understand that after the original prototype didn't reach expectations, the Italians used the BR APT designs, adapting them as required.

Now of course, Pendolinos run past the preserved APT-P at Crewe on services to Liverpool and Glasgow.

Peter

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 964 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, September 17, 2018 8:53 PM

Sorry deleted.

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 964 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Saturday, October 20, 2018 10:28 PM

Some pics extracted from Railway Age at Google books:

 


 


 

 


 

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 3,655 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, October 22, 2018 6:58 AM

The observation coach by Pullman was not considered succedssful, especially the aluminum trucks.  The "George M. Pullman" observation-lounge-sleeper was more successful, especially after its 4-wheel aluminum trucks were replaced by more conventional Pullman 6-wheel trucks.  Both Pullman and ACF built all-aluminum cars in the 1930s and early 1940s.

All-aluminum cars fell out of favor after a disastrous rear-end collision on the Missouri-Pacific around 1942.  Union Pacific continued to get aluminum cars (with steel underframes) until at least 1956 from Pullman, ACF and St. Louis Car.

  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 11,164 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, October 22, 2018 10:08 AM

Aluminum bodies with steel underframes often suffered corrosion at the point of contact due to electrolytic interactions between the different metals.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 3,655 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, October 22, 2018 11:19 AM

CSSHEGEWISCH

Aluminum bodies with steel underframes often suffered corrosion at the point of contact due to electrolytic interactions between the different metals.

 

Quite true.  Most prewar aluminum cars were retired very early because of this.  ACF developed some kind of buffer material used between steel frame members and aluminum sheets that was good enough for most of UP's postwar aluminum cars to survive long enough to see Amtrak service.

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 7,010 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, October 22, 2018 11:25 AM

CSSHEGEWISCH
Aluminum bodies with steel underframes often suffered corrosion at the point of contact due to electrolytic interactions between the different metals.

Note that this is also true of stainless sheathing over carbon-steel structure (as on all those Pullman-Standard cars that couldn't compete with Budd on all-stainless fabrication).  The rot in some of those, especially when chloride gets into the mix, can be amazingly awful.

  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 3,655 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, October 22, 2018 1:33 PM

Overmod
Note that this is also true of stainless sheathing over carbon-steel structure (as on all those Pullman-Standard cars that couldn't compete with Budd on all-stainless fabrication). The rot in some of those, especially when chloride gets into the mix, can be amazingly awful.

The P-S problem was that the stainless steel corrugations were snapped onto studs, instead of being part of the car structure. Water (and cleaning chemicals) got in behind the sheets.  SP smooth-sided a pretty fair percentage of the prewar Daylight cars to fix the problem. Some were already beyond repair before it was discovered.  Budd also used snap on side panels, but with a stainless steel frame it didn't matter.

Smooth side cars made of Cor-Ten didn't have this problem.  P-S refused to license Budd's shotwelding patents, so the few all-stainless cars they built used rivets and putty.  Not until M-K-T's 1202R, a replacement car built in 1954 for the Texas Special, did P-S use shotwelding, and then only because Budd's patents had expired.

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,675 posts
Posted by M636C on Monday, October 22, 2018 5:31 PM

rcdrye

 

 
CSSHEGEWISCH

Aluminum bodies with steel underframes often suffered corrosion at the point of contact due to electrolytic interactions between the different metals.

 

 

 

Quite true.  Most prewar aluminum cars were retired very early because of this.  ACF developed some kind of buffer material used between steel frame members and aluminum sheets that was good enough for most of UP's postwar aluminum cars to survive long enough to see Amtrak service.

 

The US Navy, which used aluminium superstructure on most ships built from the late 1950s until the current DDG51 class, used strips of explosively joined steel and aluminium. Apparently this not only fused the different materials together but acted as an electrolytic insulator. I imagine that this wasn't a cheap process and failure could still occur by mechanical means as the ship distorted in heavy seas.

Peter

SUBSCRIBER & MEMBER LOGIN

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

FREE NEWSLETTER SIGNUP

Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter