I have always wondered what a double deck or bi level fantasy scratch built caboose would look like going behind an autorack freight car. Has anyone ever envisioned such a thing? I would like to try to build or even create something.
So build one, and show us what they would look like, or at least your version.
Mike.
My You Tube
Random_Idea_Poster_6263a double deck or bi level fantasy scratch built caboose
That's kind of a neat idea. I love seeing some of the fantasy creations for railroads.
If you design this, post some pictures of your idea, and then keep us up-to-date with how the build goes.
York1 John
I want to see your conceptual sketch nof this idea.
Would it be made from a Bi-Level passenger car?
-Kevin
Living the dream.
I'd make it from 2 cabooses. A bay window on the bottom and a center cupola on the top.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
A bi-level caboose with a cupola on top may be whimsical, but certainly not a practical thing to have, as it would not be able to clear bridges and tunnels.
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
Riding in the cupola would probably make you sea sick ! I remember how much movement there was in the top bunk of a high level Amtrak car, and they are much bigger / heavier / smoother than a caboose !
Mark.
¡ uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ 'dlǝɥ
Not if you started with the lower level sunken like a well car. It would certainly be bizarre looking however.
Back in the day of the caboose, just how high were the auto racks?
A thought I had, have the last auto rack fitted with an enclosed quarters, that takes up the same space as an auto on the top deck, at the rear of the car.
A "dog house". if you will.
Make the enclosure so it could be removed and used on a differet car.
I think a caboose that would allow crew members to view the top layer of cars on a 3 level auto rack would be terribly unstable, and top heavy, no matter how it's built.
Was there a problem, back in the day of the caboose, with a train of auto racks?
Couldn't a regular caboose, with a cupola, fitted with a top running board and hand rails, like a transfer caboose, work as well?
BUT, this thread is about fantasy, not real or practical, so...the sky (or the lowest overpass) is the limit.!
I once considered putting an F unit cab on a gp7 or 9. Same wheel base. Same stuff inside. It would add some aerodynamics and theoretical fuel savings while giving a better view of the train. Nver built it thoigh
ndbprrI once considered putting an F unit cab on a gp7 or 9. Same wheel base. Same stuff inside.
The Australians did this very nicely with large cowl units. I would be tempted to tell you not to bother with early Geeps at all, as you'll note that ATSF would likely have done this with some part of the CF7 project if it made any real sense. (See the history of nose modifications on the FP45s for some more ideas on practical re-use of F-unit noses on a Geep or SD24 conversion...)
What would 'most' benefit from better streamlined cab would be something like a GP50 or 60 in fast and visible service. Might be an interesting story to get GP60Bs on the cheap and adapt reinforced F noses on them. (For fun you could do this to a GE dash-7 B unit too ... it would be far from the strangest locomotive to wear F noses!)
mbinsewiA thought I had, have the last auto rack fitted with an enclosed quarters, that takes up the same space as an auto on the top deck, at the rear of the car. A "dog house". if you will. Make the enclosure so it could be removed and used on a different car
I think you're missing the far more obvious (and flexible) solution here.
There is little point in building a crew doghouse with severely limited 'ceiling height' to ride on the top deck of a trilevel -- in the real world union issues alone would slam it. How would you get the crews in and out of it safely?
On the other hand, why not take a leaf from RRollway and just use a suitable automobile riding on the autorack as the actual 'caboose'? I'm thinking you could start with 'older' railroad-president inspection cars -- big Chryslers or Lincolns eith the hi-rail gear already on them for emergencies. Then tack a few dozen onto rental-fleet orders going forward and have the usual sorts of 'upfitters' modify the things for better amenities, visibility, etc. (And then there are limousines, pop-up campers, low-roof RVs like Vixens... not to mention the idea of using a whole low-tare autorack with various kinds of vehicle on it AS the caboose, switched just as a plain steel cab would be... hmmm, there are interesting possibilities here...
The best view is at 5:40 but it first appears around 3:20
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
In the steam era, house cars (boxcars, reefers, stock cars) were normally 8'-6" high. Cabooses were built with their roofline matching the rooflines of the house cars, so the cupola extending above the caboose roofline allowed an unobstructed view along the top of the train.
Beginning in the later 1930's, new house cars tended to built to a height of 10'-6"; later "hi-cube" cars and automobile carriers were even taller. Rather than building taller and taller cabooses, railroads began to switch to bay-window cabooses which allowed a view along the side of the train, or (begining in the 1950's) the 'extended vision' caboose, which had a wide cupola that extended out beyond the side of the caboose.
Some railroads also preferred bay-window cabooses early on, as the cupola could contribute to injuries due to falls.
I don't think regulations (or rail unions) would allow the rail crew to ride on a freight car inside an automobile. This would also be awkward since the auto cars often travelled over more than one railroad, so changing crews and such would be required. Some European railroads had a small cabin built into some freight cars for a brakeman (kinda like the 'doghouse' on some US cabooses) but I don't think that was ever done in the US.
Any cupola higher than an autorack exceeds the available clearance prism, so that's out. Bay windows would be the obvious choice because of this, but I'm going even further out of the box.
Assuming there's a requirement that there be a crewed presence at the rear of the train, I'd still throw technology at it. You'd have carbody very similar to old bay window cabooses, so that the center of gravity was lower and the sway is reduced. The bay windows aren't bay windows at all: they're a pair of nacelles covering gimbal mounted camera arrays and sensors (infrared, for instance). If topside observation was required, I'd have an extendable camera mast. Something visually similiar to the camera masts on the Mars rovers, more than a submarine periscope. In addition, there would be telemetry like that provided by EOT devices.
The interior would be nothing like any caboose ever fielded. It would have more in common with the interior of an AWACS aircraft.
NittanyLionAny cupola higher than an autorack exceeds the available clearance prism, so that's out.
It was pretty clear to me that when the OP said 'autorack freight car' in conjunction with full bilevel caboose he was talking about AutoMAX style full double-stack height equipment. And yes, to look forward over the top of that equipment you're talking camera turret rather than cupola, even before you get into tunnel issues... watch any film of the view from a GN Z-motor approaching a tunnel to see why. Probably not that good an idea to have extensible elements like periscopes or multiaxis camera objectives, though, for many of the reasons you don't want to rely on a BRS emergency crew-ejection pod for impending collisions.
Assume the thing has DPU control (with MU sockets both ends) and all the valves for rear emergency release from the head end. Full light-show rear end anticollision lighting, including emergency-application Mars-light warning as practiced on some railroads including MILW, C&NW and UP. While we're at it, put a full set of running cameras on it to allow the engineer at the other end to run it as a driving cab while 'looking around' as desired, with the rear-end crew able to share the feed on what may be a large screen. This doubles as a video source for realistic simulators (cf. SP)
I'd have the upper deck made with a large canted full-width-and-deck-height glass window so it can serve as a track-inspection car ... with shutters for 'urban penetration missions' where rocking might be among the lesser dangers. Sure, I know cameras can do this better, in forced-perspective stereo and enhanced overlay... but how cool a panorama window is for the living space...
Presumably this AWACS business is recent enough to include drones... you forgot the drones. These are autolaunched using the GIS/GPS component of PTC and kept 'aware' of terrain and weather, so no problem with launching into stuff they can't handle; at least a couple are large enough to carry knuckles or hoses after the smaller more agile ones have inspected along and under the train for the trouble spots. Expect a side bay with elevator on each side to deploy the gyro-stabilized ATVs or exoskeletons or whatever that the crew use to walk the train or go to service or human-inspection locations or whatever.
This would be the perfect platform for the 'extended cruise' model being proposed around the time of the early GE MATEs (which among other things could easily accommodate many thousands of gallons of fuel tankage plus a full crew dorm in a typical locomotive consist). The idea, such as it was, was to allow 'parity' between towboat crew cycles and railroad operations, with the personnel rotating like extended SAC bomber crews on and off duty for what might be a full 'triangle trip' for a scheduled power set, with the same general compensation but the same available amenities as waterborne crews. You can imagine how well this turkey flew back in the day, but in a my-railroad-my-rules world the functional savings might 'pay' for a very great number of attractive amenities, including gourmet cooked meals from a comfortable galley and all sorts of off-duty entertainment and hobby opportunities (why not a Gorre & Daphetid-style model railroad, perhaps from a dystopian world in which only flat switching at 10mph was permitted and weed weasels were everywhere). As Selene Vigil said, "...it's just a thought..."
If you do enough railfanning sooner or later you'll run into an autorack car which has had an unfortunate encounter with a bridge or other obstruction - someone wasn't paying attention to routing restrictions and ... ke-BANG! OK it's only sheet metal on an autorack but now you'd be talking human life and limb in a cupola of similar height.
taller and taller freight cars is one reason why the bay window caboose became so popular. Even the very tall cupolas on some Union Pacific cabooses (the tallest I can recall seeing) just were not enough. And really, in a day of auto racks - we are talking extra height for the caboose crews to see ... what? Not brakemen on running boards conveying signals or setting brakes, as those running boards were outlawed, and radios made conveying hand signals less significant. Hot boxes? Fewer of them in the roller bearing era and the bay windows (and a good sense of smell) were good enough for that.
If for some reason the caboose requirement had been retained, and if for some reason seeing over the tops of very tall cars was considered useful or important, I think technology would either have gone the route of closed circuit television cameras relaying into the caboose what was going on, or the crew in the caboose would have a drone above them.
But if we want to pretend, what about those camp cars that were in some logging camps - two and even three stories high? But note: I doubt if anyone rode in them or at least in the upper stories when they were being moved, and they likely were moved VERY slowly.
Dave Nelson
dknelsonBut if we want to pretend, what about those camp cars that were in some logging camps - two and even three stories high?
For a world in which the air brake was never invented, and full-crew laws and union 'craft' exclusivity were successfully promulgated by progressives and never relaxed. A 'crew' in the full marine sense, thirty-odd brakemen and conductors and deputy conductors and carmen and mechanics and vacuum specialists and a shop steward or two all happily parading in and out over the tops or boiling like ants when the train has to stop or develops mechanical trouble. Now add all sorts of demanded (or perhaps demented) amenities...
Overmod It was pretty clear to me that when the OP said 'autorack freight car' in conjunction with full bilevel caboose he was talking about AutoMAX style full double-stack height equipment. And yes, to look forward over the top of that equipment you're talking camera turret rather than cupola, even before you get into tunnel issues... watch any film of the view from a GN Z-motor approaching a tunnel to see why. Probably not that good an idea to have extensible elements like periscopes or multiaxis camera objectives, though, for many of the reasons you don't want to rely on a BRS emergency crew-ejection pod for impending collisions.
I'm saying I wouldn't even bother with a double deck. Literally a bay window caboose, like the kind that already exists. Except that the windows in the bays that face the direction of travel are now the covers for the camera arrays. That sort of technology is off the shelf and used in far harsher conditions with far greater physical demands.
As for a topside camera mast, you'd need something taller than 19' to clear the top of an auto rack and a few more feet to gain some perspective. The roof of a caboose is about 12' 6," so you're going to need about another 12' of camera mast. It only has to retract to clear the 19' level, meaning it would need about 6' of travel if you want it to max out at at 25 feet. You probably wouldn't clip many of them off, as the system could easily be equipped with a laser rangefinder that triggers the retraction based on the distance to an obstruction and the speed. It wouldn't even need to be a large device, a 7' tall tripod with a mast made out of fairly small diameter material. The sensor pod on top wouldn't be very large. Three or four cereal boxes would be the same size.
Well the NYC Pacemaker did convert using five forty foot long caboose made from wood freight cars with plywood sides. The cupola and antenna where no higher than the freight cars. Some bridges would just clear the caboose on the route from what I read some years ago. I have a painted brass model of the caboose with many freight cars. No idea why the needed such a long caboose. I have the NYC book on NYC caboose.
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
All excellent points guys, BUT....this is a fantasy thread, nothing at all about practical, or prototypical.
I hesitated to reply to mr. random poster in the first place. His handle/ID says it all, just here for the mischief.
I'll wait and see what he has to say, if we ever do hear from him.
In the mean time, I won't waste anymore effert on this thread, or any of his other threads.
Random_Idea_Poster_6263I Mike, I hope I didn't intend to make you confused. Being that many form names are made up, and being this is my first time being on a large form like this, I thought the user name would fit as I have many things to ask and start discussions with.
OK, fair enough. A little tutorial on I did the quote:
Go to the post that you want to reply to, click on "Reply", a box opens up, highlight the sentence or paragraph that you want to respond to, click on "Add Quote to your Post", and what you highlighted, will appear in the text box.
Hit enter, so the curser drops down a line, and begin your post or reply. If you don't hit enter, and drop the curser to a new line, your response will end up within what you quoted, and will appear as one big quote.
That will help omit any confusion on who your answering or rplying to.
Anxious to see your drawings, and ideas.
Random_Idea_Poster_6263I Mike, I hope I didn't intend to make you confused. Being that many form names are made up, and being this is my first time being on a large form like this, I thought the user name would fit as I have many things to ask and start discussions with. I am only trying to fit into and participate with the community after all, and learning to use the forum as well.
The forum software is a little gllitchy. Do not try to change your user name, or you could get locked out.
Also, people have been having trouble changing their avatars lately, so if you try, you might become a default weeble.
Please tell us a bit about yourself.
Good advice Kevin, as many things in here aren't working as they should.
Hi random_idea_poster_6263
I would sugest laying on its side all bashed up, I would think its center of gravity would be all wrong for it to be a stable piece of rollingstock, and the cupola would in all probabillity get flattend the first bridge or tunnel it encountered.
That said something similar to what was proposed and trialed for the BR freightliner trains might work untill your crews complain about a very rough ride.
It was a cabin that was lifted onto the last container spot in the trains and dismounted and moved as operational needs required something similar that sits in a car space might work.
But how it would be powered and conected to the brakes I don't know and it would have to be securely conected to the brakes and powered to perform its function.
I would sugest the cabin would have a periscope ( spelling) for watching the train, and yes these have been used on trains before and are a fixed bit of kit for the train crew to view whats going on up front or to the rear.
regards John
John BusbyThat said something similar to what was proposed and trialed for the BR freightliner trains might work untill your crews complain about a very rough ride.
This promptly suggests that 'manned brake repeater containers' be fitted with appropriate amenities -- quite possibly less than a wholly daft solution. This directly addresses the brake issues, and the ride issues remaining on the rear unit of modern articulated stack equipment at modern PSR speed might be accommodated by some combination of 'whispercab' construction and Bostrom-style seating. The engine used for the compressor could easily generate all the power including hydraulics instead of straight air if desired for the periscope (correct sp.)
This started to lead to evil thoughts about a manned Arrowedge with a compressor/generator and an 'observation lounge' like a hypersonic-styled Skytop stuck on top of the trailing end of a stack consist with a couple of cases of Dramamine kept stocked inside... if nothing else it would be a sure conversation starter...