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.
CSSHEGEWISCH Aluminum bodies with steel underframes often suffered corrosion at the point of contact due to electrolytic interactions between the different metals.
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
OvermodNote 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.
CSSHEGEWISCHAluminum 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.
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.
Some pics extracted from Railway Age at Google books:
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
Sorry deleted.
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.
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.
Jones1945 . Although, I think the apperance of the UA TurboTrain was much more attractive. http://www.cnynrhs.org/locos.html
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....
Note the number board on the tip of the front end.
Jones1945I 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.
I give it a 3.87/10 My favoite color scheme of GG1 is the Featherstripes version:
For UA Train, I pick this one:
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/212069/
Jones1945. Although, I think the apperance of the UA TurboTrain was much more attractive. http://www.cnynrhs.org/locos.html
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Overmod I remember discussions about providing 12.5kV electrification for the UA train (with UK-sourced pantographs mounted on extensions of the intercar pendular frames, not touching the carbody); the situation with the glassed-in domes was no "worse" than running under the New Haven electrification, which the train did almost from new......
I remember discussions about providing 12.5kV electrification for the UA train (with UK-sourced pantographs mounted on extensions of the intercar pendular frames, not touching the carbody); the situation with the glassed-in domes was no "worse" than running under the New Haven electrification, which the train did almost from new......
I wonder if the UA Train could maintain 120mph or above after electrification and modification or not, as rcdrye and you stated the almighty GG1, AEM7 and F40 plus Amfleet I coaches proved hard to beat, there was no economic incentive to further develop the UA Train, given that Overmod even with federal subsidy, there wasn't enough money to keep the track lined and surfaced for that train to run with the necessary acceleration and speed. Although, I think the apperance of the UA TurboTrain was much more attractive.
Overmod even with federal subsidy, there wasn't enough money to keep the track lined and surfaced for that train to run with the necessary acceleration and speed
rcdrye... the flexibility of AEM7 and F40-hauled Amfleet I coaches proved hard to beat.
That's the real reason in a nutshell from the mid-Seventies on.
Note that he has left out GG1-hauled Amfleet I cars. There are reasons for that.
The initial use of the UA Turbos into GCT illustrates something that Penn Central (and New Haven) knew - that New York was never going to generate a large amount of transfer traffic between Turbos and Metroliners. The reroute into Penn in November 1971 introduced more problems without generating more traffic, as the East River tunnels were not very forgiving to the third rail motors. By the time any changes would have been made to the drive train, the reality of the suspension issues negated any real interest. The Turbos were also leased from UA by DOT, and not Amtrak owned.
Extending some Metroliner runs to New Haven probably met the service demand. The RTG and Rohr turbos were reasonably successful in the markets they were used in, but the flexibility of AEM7 and F40-hauled Amfleet I coaches proved hard to beat.
Jones1945... I think it needed a lot more effort to improve its suspension systems (which didn't happen) and now I understand that why it faded out in America's RR history.
Actually, the thing that killed it was the OPEC fuel 'crisis' of the early Seventies and the high relative price of the necessary 'burn' of turbine fuel. Very similar economics initially changed the French TGV from gas-turbine to electric propulsion.
A secondary factor, in the United States, was diversion of one of the prototype trains to what was essentially a branch-line service to a political destination. Even considering the TurboTrain as a glorified motor train a la EMC, it was the opportunity cost that hurt things. The TurboTrain was intended as the New York-to-Boston extension of the Metroliner service (from New York to Washington) and that was not conveniently done with one of the precious prototypes helping out Harley's re-election chances.
Interestingly, there were other turbine trains (the RTG and then Rohr variants) that succeeded in niche markets for a while. The early versions, at least, were considerably less exotic than the 'ground airliner'.
I'm not sure that anything short of full-active suspension in 3 planes could have saved the ride over the early Seventies New Haven, whether into GCT or later Penn. It wasn't that employees were incompetent, just that even with federal subsidy there wasn't enough money to keep the track lined and surfaced for that train to run with the necessary acceleration and speed.
I remember discussions about providing 12.5kV electrification for the UA train (with UK-sourced pantographs mounted on extensions of the intercar pendular frames, not touching the carbody); the situation with the glassed-in domes was no "worse" than running under the New Haven electrification, which the train did almost from new. The motor arrangement suitable for the Park Avenue tunnel was, of course, not sufficient for any particular speed; the consensus when I heard it was that traction motors would replace or supplement some of the turbines in the allowable array (which would make the train tripower capable by keeping the original gearbox-driving motor arrangement). It's interesting to follow the history to see why this was not taken up as a solution.
OvermodWell, what they were thinking was to have an observation that maximized the usable space inside the car, and that could be coupled anywhere in the train and still 'walked through' with a good diaphragm-protected connection.
That’s why RRs needed industrial designer, they could maintain a balance between beauty and practicality in their works. I believe when PRR needed a new design of observation car which could connect to additional cars, any industrial designer could provide a much better design for the post war View Series, but they didn’t hire any noted designer or probably didn’t request Pullman to make an interesting observation lounge car for their prime train as a greeting of the arrival of 1950s. When the ridership was declining rapidly, I think RRs needed cars and services which were good enough to wow and to lure patrons back.
https://www.hideawayreport.com/
OvermodI never quite understood why no one combined the 'dome' idea with glass-end observation in an arrangement like a B29 nose with bi-level visibility but preserving full pass-through if the car were run midtrain (or with private cars appended).
Exactly, there are so many possibilities to design an attractive observation car; the most important car in a consist for passenger’s entertainment and social networking. RRs from the mid-west and Northwest did much better job than PRR imo.
OvermodCertainly Cripe's 'turbine motor train' (that became the UA TurboTrain) both needed and got an effective and practical method of progressive passive tilt good to above 160mph. That its primary suspension and NVH absorption were inadequate for contemporary track maintenance and jointed rail is a peripheral concern.
When I reveiwing the RR history of the States, I once thought the UAC TurboTrain could be the solution to revival America's passenger service, but after reading your reply, I think it needed a lot more effort to improve its suspension systems (which didn't happen) and now I understand that why it faded out in America's RR history.
Certainly Cripe's 'turbine motor train' (that became the UA TurboTrain) both needed and got an effective and practical method of progressive passive tilt good to above 160mph. That its primary suspension and NVH absorption were inadequate for contemporary track maintenance and jointed rail is a peripheral concern.
I travelled in the VIA Turbotrain from Toronto to Montreal (almost Montreal) in 1977. On leaving Toronto Union Station passengers were instructed to remain in their seats and not to attempt to move about until the train had cleared all the switches in the station yard. I was still trying to find my seat at that time and while I remained standing, I had to hold on to an adjacent seat back. The coach class dome was leading, so I spent much of the journey up there until a fire warning near Dorval Airport shut the train down, and we transferred across the ballast to a Rapido that we had overtaken earlier. To avoid fire, all the seat padding in the dome (above the turbines) was attached by Velcro and the speed with which the crew removed the seat padding suggested that they had done it before.
The original Lark cars had the same floor plan as the American Milemaster and Muskingum River (all variants of Plan 4082) and more importantly used the same Pullman diagram for a 2 DBR, 1 Cpt, 1 DR buffet lounge observation.
According to Randall's book of SP Prewar PS floor plans, the three NYC cars, American Milemaster and Muskingum River had one minor difference. There was a sofa facing rearward in the curved end in those five cars while the two "Lark" cars just had individual lounge chairs around the side facing inward. Apparently the "Lark" cars had radio speakers in the observation room not in the others.
The rearward facing sofa was a feature of the "Island" cars used on the 20th Century, so this allowed the Pullman pool cars to replace them if required. During the war, the low capacity of the Island cars meant that River cars were substituted at Government direction.
Randall indicates that Muskingum River had an aluminium body (on a steel girder frame) although Dubin in "More Classsic Trains" suggests that it was stainless steel. Since Randall had the drawings, I'd side with him, although the notes on the floor plan aren't really clear as to material.
If it was indeed aluminium, that might explain its withdrawal after a sideswipe since the damage may have been greater to aluminium body panels.
Jones1945 ... that dull and uninteresting postwar squared-off design built for PRR (what were they thinking almighty!)
Well, what they were thinking was to have an observation that maximized the usable space inside the car, and that could be coupled anywhere in the train and still 'walked through' with a good diaphragm-protected connection.
Most of the early parabolic-end cars had little better than a schoolbus-door type arrangement, suitable perhaps for reverse moves with a monkey-tail arrangement, and putting a full diaphragm and buffer involved both higher weight and some ugliness, particularly when the diaphragm and frame were externally added. You will note that the actual amount of useful room in the pointed end was considerably less than a flat end obs (or a solarium-car arrangement) especially when you arranged the seating to face the rear windows. (Ain't never gonna replace the outside observation platform!)
That said, I have never really cared for square-end observations; the Skytop being one of the better alternative arrangements. I never quite understood why no one combined the 'dome' idea with glass-end observation in an arrangement like a B29 nose with bi-level visibility but preserving full pass-through if the car were run midtrain (or with private cars appended).
... I am glad you mentioned about the Pendulum car, the articulated prototype was a bit too much in terms of its appearance but the CB&Q No. 6000, the Silver Pendulum looked very interesting and the idea of the whole project; building a Tilt Train for America really deserve some credit, I consider this project as one of those many good things that lost the chance because of [WWII].
I think you're partly right about WWII killing Preco's passenger-car market ... but it's also true that both the early and late 'versions' of their pendulum system were dramatically underdeveloped and weird-riding. There is more to building a high-speed railroad car than proportional centrifugal tilt over good truck design -- one thing in particular that was missing was adequate vertical and lateral damping; you will notice that none of the three production cars survived very long, if at all, in any kind of high-speed service (despite their Flash Gordon styling).
By the time America again became interested in pendulum tilt, the world had moved on, first through the Talgo boondoggle and then through the lightweight-train craze; most of the high-speed compliance in the interim being accomplished with better and better outside swing-hanger arrangements. It will probably have occurred to you that passive tilt was a 'natural' for the Budd Tubular Train ... if a system proven to provide it reliably had been engineered at that time.
Certainly Cripe's 'turbine motor train' (that became the UA TurboTrain) both needed and got an effective and practical method of progressive passive tilt good to above 160mph. That its primary suspension and NVH absorption were inadequate for contemporary track maintenance and jointed rail is a peripheral concern. And since the late '60s most of the experimentation in tilt has either been active or electronically-controlled versions of passive, neither of which requires the boxed-in long secondary spring towers the Preco design relied on.
OvermodYes, but if you're referring to the Milwaukee Skytop you pictured, that design of car was made by Brooks Stevens in the mid-Forties, built 1947, by which time the use of really large observation windows as in some NYC cars was under way. I don't think the streamlined end on the Pendulum Car prototype counts in this comparison; it was a compound-curved shape rather than parabolic.
I don't think the streamlined end on the Pendulum Car prototype counts in this comparison; it was a compound-curved shape rather than parabolic.
source: Classic Streamliners
Source: TrainWeb.org
I am glad you mentioned about the Pendulum car, the articulated prototype was a bit too much in terms of its appearance but the CB&Q No. 6000, the Silver Pendulum looked very interesting and the idea of the whole project; building a Tilt Train for America really deserve some credit, I consider this project as one of those many good things that lost the chance because of the War World II.
The original Lark cars had the same floor plan as the American Milemaster and Muskingum River (all variants of Plan 4082) and more importantly used the same Pullman diagram for a 2 DBR, 1 Cpt, 1 DR buffet lounge observation. The 400 was hit in September 1941, the 401 in Decmber 1942. Since the seasonal Arizona Limited did not run in 1942, Muskingum River was readily available.
Both cars had their ends squared off in 1957. 9501 was damaged in a sideswipe in 1959 and retired, 9500 removed from Pullman lease and sold to EMD in 1963. The January 1960 OG listing for the Oakland Lark still lists a Buffet Lounge Sleeper.
rcdrye Even in "Forty Niner" service, Bear Flag and California Republic were Pullman Pool Service cars. Before 1947 there wasn't much distinction, as even UP-painted Pullmans were probably owned by Pullman and leased to UP. The two-unit car remined in the Pullman Pool until it was dismantled in the late 1940s. The tail shape of California Republic was copied on quite a few prewar and postwar trains. The two pool service observations "American Milemaster" and "Muskingam River" replaced nearly identical cars 400 and 401, assigned to SP's "Oakland Lark" and identified by number at SP's request. The original 400 and 401 were wrecked a couple of months apart, and the pool Pullmans were readily available. Sold to SP in the Pullman breakup, renumbered 9500 and 9501, 9500 ended up as EMD's test car.
Even in "Forty Niner" service, Bear Flag and California Republic were Pullman Pool Service cars. Before 1947 there wasn't much distinction, as even UP-painted Pullmans were probably owned by Pullman and leased to UP. The two-unit car remined in the Pullman Pool until it was dismantled in the late 1940s. The tail shape of California Republic was copied on quite a few prewar and postwar trains.
The two pool service observations "American Milemaster" and "Muskingam River" replaced nearly identical cars 400 and 401, assigned to SP's "Oakland Lark" and identified by number at SP's request. The original 400 and 401 were wrecked a couple of months apart, and the pool Pullmans were readily available. Sold to SP in the Pullman breakup, renumbered 9500 and 9501, 9500 ended up as EMD's test car.
Clearly the SP was under strain with extra wartime traffic to have two rear end collisions in relative quick succession with their premier overnight train. The two reolacement cars were slightly older, American Milemaster built for the 1939 New York World's Fair (along with three "River" class for the New York Central) and Muskingum River, with a polished aluminium clad body in 1940 (in time for the second year of the fair?)
BaltACD Overmod I don't think the streamlined end on the Pendulum Car prototype counts in this comparison; it was a compound-curved shape rather than parabolic. And just how archaic does the kerosene marker lamp look?????
Overmod I don't think the streamlined end on the Pendulum Car prototype counts in this comparison; it was a compound-curved shape rather than parabolic.
And just how archaic does the kerosene marker lamp look?????
OvermodI don't think the streamlined end on the Pendulum Car prototype counts in this comparison; it was a compound-curved shape rather than parabolic.
Jones1945Milwaukee’s own shop built some very “Advance” observation cars for their fleet which made Pullman’s Progress aka California Republic looked not that progressive anymore in terms of their appearance.
Yes, but if you're referring to the Milwaukee Skytop you pictured, that design of car was made by Brooks Stevens in the mid-Forties, built 1947, by which time the use of really large observation windows as in some NYC cars was under way.
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter