Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="TomDiehl"][quote user="futuremodal"][quote user="nbrodar"] After spine cars came into wide spread use, there was no need to convert the Front Runners.   The problem wasn't the drawbar connections.  It was the long rigid wheelbase of the single car.   Personal experiance is all I need to know about these cars.  More then once, they have derailed on me.  And like I said before, one had a catastophic failure of both wheelsets, because of in-train forces. It's becoming clear, that the Iron Highway cars were maintaince nightmares, possibly due to design, improper training, or the cost for specialty parts.  The answer is probably a combination of the three.    It seem CP had no spare parts.  Why?  Cost? Avalablility? Parts were requested and never delivered.   Did no -one order them?  Did the company not support it's product? You can't replace what you don't have. As for the absurd comment about replacing coal gon journals.  Every car shop has parts in stock for that coal gon, so it's a quick, easy fix.   The Iron Highway parts were very speciallized and not widely avalable, or evidently avalable at all. [/quote] What it comes down to is a sort of Catch-22 for new concepts in railroading.  Railroads have become obsessed with standardization, yet most new ideas inherently incorporate parts and mechanisms that haven't had time to become standardized.  In the end, the vendor of new ideas better be able to stock all the rail shops with the necessary spare parts if he wants his idea to have the time to supply feedback, make the necessary modifications, and eventually gain acceptance. As I pointed out to Tom, if the railroads (via TTX) could go the length of retrofitting 89' flats into Long Runners and 48' spine cars into 53' spine cars, they would have done well to do the same for the Four Runners rather than scrapping the whole lot.  What I mentioned about the drawbar connections of the Four Runners goes right to the heart of the rigidity debate.  Articulating those AC and DB connections would reduce the overall rigidity of each platform, and should have mitigated any such derailment tendencies.  For what it's worth, I have accomplished such an improvement in scale model with a little kit bashing, so such an improvement in tracking should translate to full scale. Why bother?  Because even with the articulation modification, the neo Four Runners would still have a net tare advantage over the standard 53' spine cars, albeit reduced by half from 5000' per platform to about 2000' per platform. [/quote][/quote] So many fish in a barrel, so little time........... [quote] Let me try to simplify this just a bit more so MAYBE you can understand it. [/quote] Again, the pot calling the kettle black...... [quote] Any equipment that uses nonstandard parts, especially suspension parts, will be harder to maintain, if for no other reason than getting the parts is harder. Plus, the more specialized the part, the more expensive they are. Plus, being suspension parts, they are more critical and can sideline a car quicker. There's such a thing as a volume discount. If parts are common (interchangable) to many types of equipment, it not only drives down the price per unit, but simplifies the parts stock necessary to have on hand at the shops. The less money you have to sink into having a huge selection of specialized and expensive parts, the more money will be available for other things, such as infrastructure improvements. Myabe you should check with an accountant to see how this affects the "bottom line" for a company, any company, not just railroads. [/quote] Please re-read the "Catch-22" analogy. [quote] The "retrofit" to make the 89 footers into long runners was simply pulling the coupler and draft gear out of one end of each car and putting in a rigid drawbar. Hardly an expensive change. The Front Runners and Four Runners would need the center spine lengthened, a major structural change. [/quote] When TTX retrofitted the 48' spines into 53' spines, that's exactly what they did - lengthened the spine.  What did you think I meant when I mentioned this particular retrofit by TTX? If it works for one set, it'd work for the other. [quote]  And yes, the vendors need to stock all the railroad shops with the new style parts. A new specialized car sitting on the RIP track waiting for one of these parts is:1. taking up valuable space, and 2. not making any money for the owner. [/quote] Which is true for any railcar sitting on any siding anywhere for any length of time, a situation that is all to common these days.  Hardly a crisis situation.  Now for the best bite of the day..... [quote] And where did you ever get the idea that a Four Runner only weighs one ton per platform? [/quote] I have no doubt you are the only one on this thread that made this blunder.  Where on earth did you get the idea that I said the Four Runner only weighs one ton per platform?
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag