Those articulated cars did serve well-as long as they had no problems.
Conductor Moedinger wrote of one night when he had in his consist one of the articulated sets of sleepers that had been built for, I as recall, the City of San Francisco, as well as one or more heavyweights--and a heavyweight developed a problem and had to be cut out. He commented that it was bad enough that that car had to be removed, but it would have been far worse if it had been the articulated set that had such a problem.
Just imagine having a problem develop on the Cascade--with the triple uint diner.
Johnny
BaltACDOne thing to remember - when the original lightweight cars were being designed (1930's) - the railroad industry was nominally constructed around Plate B clearances. With the railroads desiring to haul bigger loads with bigger cars after WW II the carriers began revising their lines to handle Plate C and larger clearance profiles. Many of the 89 foot freight cars are in the Plate E and Plate F clearance profiles.
That might be true but they also built articulated cars during the lightweight construction period and to me that looked like an effort on saving on wheelsets and vestibules.
CSSHEGEWISCH85-foot lightweight cars are already slightly longer than pre-1931 heavyweights, which were usually around 79 feet in length. Four extra feet of length aren't going to add that much revenue space (one extra row of coach seats, nothing in a sleeping car) and may have additional operating restrictions.
One thing to remember - when the original lightweight cars were being designed (1930's) - the railroad industry was nominally constructed around Plate B clearances.
With the railroads desiring to haul bigger loads with bigger cars after WW II the carriers began revising their lines to handle Plate C and larger clearance profiles. Many of the 89 foot freight cars are in the Plate E and Plate F clearance profiles.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
85-foot lightweight cars are already slightly longer than pre-1931 heavyweights, which were usually around 79 feet in length. Four extra feet of length aren't going to add that much revenue space (one extra row of coach seats, nothing in a sleeping car) and may have additional operating restrictions.
I was wondering...freight cars max out at 89" in length but passenger cars seem to be limited to 84'-85'. I would think the extra space would be a low cost way of adding significant revenue. Yet, aside from Colorado Railcar, I don't recall seeing any proposals for 89' equipment in the US/Canada. Howcum?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.