cx500 7j43k Perhaps to you. I did respond to Balt's comment three posts later. Moving the trucks inward would reduce the overhang at the mid point of the curve. Unfortunately the ends will now swing wider towards the outside of the curve. Both factors are equally critical clearance issues.
7j43k Perhaps to you. I did respond to Balt's comment three posts later.
Moving the trucks inward would reduce the overhang at the mid point of the curve. Unfortunately the ends will now swing wider towards the outside of the curve. Both factors are equally critical clearance issues.
Since you quoted me referring to a certain post:
Note my first sentence, where I said to keep the truck centers constant. I did NOT say to move the trucks inward.
I agree that the ends will swing wider--pretty much the same as an 89' flat.
Ed
https://www.bnsf.com/ship-with-bnsf/ways-of-shipping/equipment/pdf/Tri-Level-Specs.pdf
Length is 90'
At the sill 9' 1.375"; at the eaves 9' 10" while including appliances (ladders) 10' 8"
So to the OP (7j43K):
Why do you think there are no 89' passenger cars? Since you shot down pretty much every thought in this thread, I'm curious for your opinon.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann So to the OP (7j43K): Why do you think there are no 89' passenger cars? Since you shot down pretty much every thought in this thread, I'm curious for your opinon.
Kevin C. Smith is the OP.
7j43k is not.
Since Kevin hasn't shown himself since he first asked the question, I will assume it's for me.
Nobody wants to bother. That's the reason. If I'm wrong, there'll be some decent research on an 89' car, where the negatives will be revealed. I sincerely doubt such research has been done.
And I don't think I "shot down pretty much every thought". It's just that some made no sense. And I pointed it out.
The implication from most of the comments is that the idea MUST be bad because no one is doing it.
I remember when US automakers thought it a thunderous waste of time (and profits) to make a small car. Small cars MUST have been a bad idea, since no one was doing them. Then the VW bomb.
So, just because something is not being done does not mean doing it is a bad idea.
I think back of all the things we studied in my little piece of the railroad over the years. Many of them you will never find any public trace of. Unless you happen to get in touch with someone that took part (and remembers taking part).
I believe, someone, somewhere, in some time of the history of railroads has looked at 89' passenger cars. I can't prove it and you can't disprove it, unless we find said person.
Yeah. I do understand that, in this modern internet age of instant access, that there are many things that are safely in a drawer. Somewhere.
But I surely would like to read it, if it exists. It's fun to read through original source material. BART comes to mind.
Somewhere around here I have a paper (prepared by the participants) about how the West Coast longshore strike was resolved back in the sixties (I think it was). A stunning display of rationality all around (rationality: it's out there. Somewhere.)
7j43kYeah. I do understand that, in this modern internet age of instant access, that there are many things that are safely in a drawer. Somewhere.
Unless they move HQ or yard offices. Then all that paperwork gets pitched in a dumpster.
zugmann 7j43k Yeah. I do understand that, in this modern internet age of instant access, that there are many things that are safely in a drawer. Somewhere. Unless they move HQ or yard offices. Then all that paperwork gets pitched in a dumpster.
7j43k Yeah. I do understand that, in this modern internet age of instant access, that there are many things that are safely in a drawer. Somewhere.
Methinks Ed is the spawn of Conrail Joe and Euclid.
BaltACD What would be the economic justification for a longer passenger car?
What would be the economic justification for a longer passenger car?
Since perhaps a third of the weight of an early lightweight car was in its trucks, a longer passenger could reduce the cumulative "truck weight" per passenger. The earliest light weight trains were often articulated consists in an attempt to reduce cumulative truck weight. A more recent way to reduce weight per passenger is to double deck the cars, and the Santa Fe El Capitan bi-level cars had a lower weight per seat than contemporary single level cars with the same floor space per seat.
Zug:
As noted in my previous post on this thread, the CB&Q had a few pe-war cars that were 88'8" over coupler faces, which is almost 89'...
charlie hebdo zugmann 7j43k Yeah. I do understand that, in this modern internet age of instant access, that there are many things that are safely in a drawer. Somewhere. Unless they move HQ or yard offices. Then all that paperwork gets pitched in a dumpster. Methinks Ed is the spawn of Conrail Joe and Euclid.
I look forward to your developing that theme. Especially that "spawn" part.
As has been suggested in previous posts, one of the reasons for no 89' passenger cars may be that the ends don't properly line up around relatively tight curves. The last time I looked, passengers regularly move from car to car while freight tends to stay put.
CSSHEGEWISCH As has been suggested in previous posts, one of the reasons for no 89' passenger cars may be that the ends don't properly line up around relatively tight curves. The last time I looked, passengers regularly move from car to car while freight tends to stay put.
It is not clear in the above whether the suggested misalignment is between cars of 89' length, or between an 89' car and a shorter one.
I will assume the latter, though the writer can correct me.
Here is a photo of what I believe is a 70' car coupled to an 85' car. I'm pretty sure passengers were allowed to move between cars. And the length difference is greater than 89' - 85' = 4':
I believe there were quite a number of passenger carrying cars that were more than 4' shorter than 85', and were intermixed with them.
7j43k CSSHEGEWISCH As has been suggested in previous posts, one of the reasons for no 89' passenger cars may be that the ends don't properly line up around relatively tight curves. The last time I looked, passengers regularly move from car to car while freight tends to stay put. It is not clear in the above whether the suggested misalignment is between cars of 89' length, or between an 89' car and a shorter one. I will assume the latter, though the writer can correct me. Here is a photo of what I believe is a 70' car coupled to an 85' car. I'm pretty sure passengers were allowed to move between cars. And the length difference is greater than 89' - 85' = 4': I believe there were quite a number of passenger carrying cars that were more than 4' shorter than 85', and were intermixed with them. Ed
You don't have permission to access /caspsf00sp3198.jpg on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Hi! Just popped over to this thread after a while...and, while I don't mean to rain on anybody's parade (of speculations), a lot of the discussion has focused on drawbar/lateral forces. Yet, Colorado Railcar (now US Railcar) has offered an 89' option for many years. While they have sold few (if any), I can't believe it has to do with end of car overhang.I think we are going to have to file this under "Nobody knows".
I'm pretty sure somebody know, but you're not likely to run into them here.
I am thinking of various purchasing agents and spec writers and such.
One possibility is that it never occurred to them to extend the car length.
Another is that it did, but they chose not to, for various reasons. If so, it would be swell to know what they are.
I think it's mostly government agencies that buy passenger cars these days. Perhaps someone has some time to go a-calling........
The 85-foot length for passenger cars has tended to be a standard since about the late 1930's when the early articulated streamliners outgrew their fixed consists. The prime exceptions were head-end cars, which usually were shorter. I would think that a lot of shop arrangements were made with the 85-foot length in mind, an 89-foot design just wouldn't fit.
I think 85' was the longest car Pullman's transfer tables could handle. The size was set during the late wooden underframe era and may have involved the size of certain frame members required to go over that length.
I'm wondering why this extra 4' seems to be so significant? It clearly was not seen by the rails or manufacturers as worth whatever changes needed to be made to accommodate.
charlie hebdo I'm wondering why this extra 4' seems to be so significant?
I'm wondering why this extra 4' seems to be so significant?
Does it seem significant?
It does only for me because any lengthening of passenger cars has been very rare for about a century. NOT because I think it is of great importance.
If you are questioning the particular interest in the 4' dimension, I suggest it is because Trailer Train decided that an 89' flat was better than an 85'. Since passenger cars are nominally 85' long, it's not a great leap to also consider a coincident length.
It clearly was not seen by the rails or manufacturers as worth whatever changes needed to be made to accommodate.
Clearly? You are assuming that they even seriously considered it. I am not convinced that they did.
Apparently, up in Alaska, someone DID. And decided it DID make sense.
7j43kIf you are questioning the particular interest in the 4' dimension, I suggest it is because Trailer Train decided that an 89' flat was better than an 85'.
I would suspect it was because that was the minimum length they needed to fit 2 truck trailers on the car.
The earliest piggyback flats were 75' long because that was the length needed to accomodate two 35' trailers. Trailers got longer and so did the flatcars. Some intermodal flats are 93' over pulling faces to handle two 45' trailers. Flatcars got longer to fit the business.
CSSHEGEWISCHThe earliest piggyback flats were 75' long because that was the length needed to accomodate two 35' trailers. Trailers got longer and so did the flatcars. Some intermodal flats are 93' over pulling faces to handle two 45' trailers. Flatcars got longer to fit the business.
To some extent, I am surprised that rail cars have not been created to handle two 53 foot Trailers.
53 foot containers - because containers are constructed on the basis of the TEU (twenty foot unit) can be stacked on top of a pair of 20 footers, a 40 footer, or a 48 footer or another 53 footer presuming the rail car can handle the 53 footer on the bottom.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.