In another post, our forum members shared some idea about the Mack FCD Rail Bus and other railbuses used in different railroads and different countries. I would like to open a new thread and moving some content to here for the record.
Mack FCD Rail Bus:
Overmod Jones1945 I once suspect such idea was inspired by the Aerotrain of GM. But at least the Aerotrain was constructed by new material not used buses. There was a very important difference between the 'American' Leyland bus and the Aerotrain: the suspension. The Aerotrain as first built had truly pathetic primary suspension and compliance, with the idea -- it worked pretty well on over-the-road GM coaches -- of secondary air-bag suspension (promising good isolation, an absence of spring-rate harmonic effects, and inherent load-leveling for lightweight trains, among other things). Unfortunately, all the aspects that have made air suspension so well loved in luxury automobiles over the years were present in a train that was expected to negotiate typical pathetic '50s track without all that expensive lining, surfacing, joint build-up, and so forth. Let alone negotiate it at Zephyr or Hiawatha speeds. The Leyland we got here was a legitimate 100mph vehicle, with the suspension sophistication to allow that on decent 'permanent way'. One of the reasons I'd like to see it restored would be to run it, say, on the new rebuilt track north of New Haven toward Springfield, to see if the default level of new construction 'as built' by one of the up-from-the-ground track-building machines would support the Wickens predictions of vehicle dynamics performance. (And yes, I have given some thought to active weight-transfer management in operation as a way to get around certain ... aspects ... of four-wheel relatively short-wheelbase vehicle construction, especially with unexpectedly high polar moments of inertia at times...) It was SAID that the last car "improved" by EMD and added to the Aerotrain got rid of the ride issues. Perhaps someone (hint, hint!) can find what was actually involved with the improvement, and also find objective reporting, perhaps with recorded data, as to how much better the improvement proved to be.
Jones1945 I once suspect such idea was inspired by the Aerotrain of GM. But at least the Aerotrain was constructed by new material not used buses.
There was a very important difference between the 'American' Leyland bus and the Aerotrain: the suspension. The Aerotrain as first built had truly pathetic primary suspension and compliance, with the idea -- it worked pretty well on over-the-road GM coaches -- of secondary air-bag suspension (promising good isolation, an absence of spring-rate harmonic effects, and inherent load-leveling for lightweight trains, among other things). Unfortunately, all the aspects that have made air suspension so well loved in luxury automobiles over the years were present in a train that was expected to negotiate typical pathetic '50s track without all that expensive lining, surfacing, joint build-up, and so forth. Let alone negotiate it at Zephyr or Hiawatha speeds.
The Leyland we got here was a legitimate 100mph vehicle, with the suspension sophistication to allow that on decent 'permanent way'. One of the reasons I'd like to see it restored would be to run it, say, on the new rebuilt track north of New Haven toward Springfield, to see if the default level of new construction 'as built' by one of the up-from-the-ground track-building machines would support the Wickens predictions of vehicle dynamics performance. (And yes, I have given some thought to active weight-transfer management in operation as a way to get around certain ... aspects ... of four-wheel relatively short-wheelbase vehicle construction, especially with unexpectedly high polar moments of inertia at times...)
It was SAID that the last car "improved" by EMD and added to the Aerotrain got rid of the ride issues. Perhaps someone (hint, hint!) can find what was actually involved with the improvement, and also find objective reporting, perhaps with recorded data, as to how much better the improvement proved to be.
Jones1945 Overmod There was a very important difference between the 'American' Leyland bus and the Aerotrain: the suspension. The Aerotrain as first built had truly pathetic primary suspension and compliance, with the idea -- it worked pretty well on over-the-road GM coaches -- of secondary air-bag suspension (promising good isolation, an absence of spring-rate harmonic effects, and inherent load-leveling for lightweight trains, among other things). Unfortunately, all the aspects that have made air suspension so well loved in luxury automobiles over the years were present in a train that was expected to negotiate typical pathetic '50s track without all that expensive lining, surfacing, joint build-up, and so forth. Let alone negotiate it at Zephyr or Hiawatha speeds. There is a close up pic of the suspension of GM Aerotrain in this pdf file: https://www.gmheritagecenter.com/docs/gm-heritage-archive/historical-brochures/Innovation_and_Technology/Here_Comes_Tomorrow.pdf Looks like GM did carefully design the suspension system but it didn't work out. Ironically, riding quality was supposed to be one of the main selling points of GM Aerotrain. It was probably the last attempt to lure patrons back from airlines and coaches but failed miserably. Speaking of railcars, this was not a successful example, but at least they were not built upon a HSFV. Mack FCD Rail Bus.
Overmod There was a very important difference between the 'American' Leyland bus and the Aerotrain: the suspension. The Aerotrain as first built had truly pathetic primary suspension and compliance, with the idea -- it worked pretty well on over-the-road GM coaches -- of secondary air-bag suspension (promising good isolation, an absence of spring-rate harmonic effects, and inherent load-leveling for lightweight trains, among other things). Unfortunately, all the aspects that have made air suspension so well loved in luxury automobiles over the years were present in a train that was expected to negotiate typical pathetic '50s track without all that expensive lining, surfacing, joint build-up, and so forth. Let alone negotiate it at Zephyr or Hiawatha speeds.
There is a close up pic of the suspension of GM Aerotrain in this pdf file:
https://www.gmheritagecenter.com/docs/gm-heritage-archive/historical-brochures/Innovation_and_Technology/Here_Comes_Tomorrow.pdf
Looks like GM did carefully design the suspension system but it didn't work out. Ironically, riding quality was supposed to be one of the main selling points of GM Aerotrain. It was probably the last attempt to lure patrons back from airlines and coaches but failed miserably.
Speaking of railcars, this was not a successful example, but at least they were not built upon a HSFV. Mack FCD Rail Bus.
Overmod Jones1945 Speaking of railcars, this was not a successful example, but at least they were not built upon a HSFV. Mack FCD Rail Bus. Note I referenced these on Wednesday. Thanks for finding the detail on them! These did not "fail" so much as suffer from politics: they were ordered by one New Haven administration, and so 'deprioritized' by the next one, even before they were delivered, that no real use was made of them. (To be fair to MacGinnis, I think union crew requirements turned out to be part of the issue with actual FCD profitability; the things made sense only when run with one man like a road bus.) It could be argued that most railbuses, anywhere, weren't much of an effective solution in the United States, as 'real' buses were in general a much preferable alternative for a range of reasons. Even the Evans Auto-Railer never found a particularly workable niche. Perhaps the local service the FCDs were intended to continue (think of them as doodlebugs on an even smaller scale) would have become expediently cancelled much more quickly had contemporary legislation permitted. But for mandated service, something very economical was indicated, and the New Haven gets credit for thinking to acquire what looked at that brief point in time like relatively good new equipment for this.
Jones1945 Speaking of railcars, this was not a successful example, but at least they were not built upon a HSFV. Mack FCD Rail Bus.
Note I referenced these on Wednesday. Thanks for finding the detail on them!
These did not "fail" so much as suffer from politics: they were ordered by one New Haven administration, and so 'deprioritized' by the next one, even before they were delivered, that no real use was made of them. (To be fair to MacGinnis, I think union crew requirements turned out to be part of the issue with actual FCD profitability; the things made sense only when run with one man like a road bus.)
It could be argued that most railbuses, anywhere, weren't much of an effective solution in the United States, as 'real' buses were in general a much preferable alternative for a range of reasons. Even the Evans Auto-Railer never found a particularly workable niche. Perhaps the local service the FCDs were intended to continue (think of them as doodlebugs on an even smaller scale) would have become expediently cancelled much more quickly had contemporary legislation permitted. But for mandated service, something very economical was indicated, and the New Haven gets credit for thinking to acquire what looked at that brief point in time like relatively good new equipment for this.
Jones1945 Overmod Note I referenced these on Wednesday. Thanks for finding the detail on them! These did not "fail" so much as suffer from politics: they were ordered by one New Haven administration, and so 'deprioritized' by the next one...... But for mandated service, something very economical was indicated, and the New Haven gets credit for thinking to acquire what looked at that brief point in time like relatively good new equipment for this. I am glad you like those pics, Overmod . I read about their brief history and note the new administration of New Haven sold most of them without putting them in service (except one?). As you might remember I am a fan of ACF Motorailer, I think these Mack FCD Rail Bus were a simplified and economical version of Motorailer, a much better option than using 3-car consists towed by 2000hp diesel or switcher for mandated services. Look at those deeply cushioned seats, I believe patrons would have loved these railbuses. Evans Auto-Railer:
Overmod Note I referenced these on Wednesday. Thanks for finding the detail on them! These did not "fail" so much as suffer from politics: they were ordered by one New Haven administration, and so 'deprioritized' by the next one...... But for mandated service, something very economical was indicated, and the New Haven gets credit for thinking to acquire what looked at that brief point in time like relatively good new equipment for this.
These did not "fail" so much as suffer from politics: they were ordered by one New Haven administration, and so 'deprioritized' by the next one...... But for mandated service, something very economical was indicated, and the New Haven gets credit for thinking to acquire what looked at that brief point in time like relatively good new equipment for this.
I am glad you like those pics, Overmod . I read about their brief history and note the new administration of New Haven sold most of them without putting them in service (except one?). As you might remember I am a fan of ACF Motorailer, I think these Mack FCD Rail Bus were a simplified and economical version of Motorailer, a much better option than using 3-car consists towed by 2000hp diesel or switcher for mandated services. Look at those deeply cushioned seats, I believe patrons would have loved these railbuses.
Evans Auto-Railer:
daveklepper A note on the NYNH&H Mack Railbuses. I spent a day in one on an NRHS fantrip. Ir rode OK. I believe it used PCC B3 trucks and motors. Definitely not 4-wheel if my memory is correct.
A note on the NYNH&H Mack Railbuses. I spent a day in one on an NRHS fantrip. Ir rode OK. I believe it used PCC B3 trucks and motors. Definitely not 4-wheel if my memory is correct.
Thank you, Dave, for providing more details about the Mack Railbuses.
PCC B3 "Super Silent" Trucks:
Source: http://www.kmk.krakow.pl/artykul_tramwaj_pcc_1.html
(to be continue)
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
Some examples manufactured by American Car and Foundry Company before the 1950s:
ACF (or Edwards Rail Car Company?) M100
Wiki
http://passcarphotos.rypn.org/Indices/DB2a.htm
ACF M300
https://www.mendorailhistory.org/1_railroads/railbuses.htm
http://www.air-and-space.com/Locomotives.htm
ACF Motorailer
http://passcarphotos.rypn.org/Indices/DB4b.htm
Alaska 213, ex-U.S. Navy #19.:
https://www.alaskarails.org/pix/former-loco/JK-213.html
Here is an example of what I think the FCDs were intended to supplant:
There were relatively many of these 'bus conversion' railcars over the years; you can find many of them in Ed Keilty's books. Some were quite sophisticated replacements for older interurban cars, but none of them long survived the great falling-off of interest in 'rail interurban' service.
The Motorailer (and the Budd RDC, in a different sense) are a different paradigm: full-size, full-featured lightweight trains following up the original motor-train developments of the early 1930s as opposed to the high-speed train 'streamliners'; think of them as the logical application of industrial design to EMC-style doodlebugs to make them more attractive conveyances. Note how hard Budd fought to keep railroads from pulling trailers with the original RDCs, even though it would have been comparatively simple to rig the transmissions for 'towing' even with friction lockup for high.
One of the unremarked reasons for the precipitate decline of interurbans might have been Roosevelt's push for rural electrification in the early New Deal years. Very little about interurbans made sense if the overhead wiring was not extensively subsidized by companies deriving benefit from it -- for example, utility companies. Once wire installation, maintenance and energization became 'sunk' expense items, much of the charm of operating electrics vs. motor trains disappeared. I think one of the major 'proofs' that interurbans died of their own faults rather than some NCL-like conspiracy is precisely that internal-combustion alternatives did not catch on, even with the model of the Dan Patch Line as a very early and relatively technologically crude example.
I'm still trying to figure out why GM couldn't figure out how to jigger the Aerotrain suspension to give reasonable ride and accommodation of curve roll. For some reason, although there are a thousand references to air suspension and its failure, hard engineering analysis of the actual detail design, reasons for its incompetence in service, and descriptions of the 'fixes' that were tried are either thin on the ground or hidden in paywall-protected scholarly articles. This leaves me having to guess at what is going on with things like the five-axle 'Micheline' or original Aerotrain suspension. Let me repeat that part of the solution involves the 'last car' modified at EMD and put in one of the consists, which was said to have addressed and largely solved the riding issues. It would be nice to know what it was so I can assess whether it did.
MEANWHILE there is a whole 'nother possibility that wasn't taken up: the application of the Pickwick Nite Coach kind of bus service to the rails once it began to be legislated out of existence (by Missouri, most importantly) once the effect of large vehicles on roads and traffic began to be realized.
I for one would be highly interested in the idea of small-scale 'sleeper' service between destination pairs, and on routes, that would not support their own full Pullman treatment. Even if the vehicle were so small that it would have to stop, and the passengers get off for rest or meals, while the berths were being made up or folded. When I look at some of the Austro-Daimler cars (can anyone find the old "Eagle of the Rails" I posted somewhere here years ago?) the idea of what to do with large double-deck size begins to give tantalizing possibilities.
We all know how things worked out in 'real' history, and to a large extent why. But there is no need to think that all railbuses had to be like the old Sykes coaches, or provide the level of service implicit in the old McCoy Toonerville/Galloping Goose parody:
Overmod Here is an example of what I think the FCDs were intended to supplant: There were relatively many of these 'bus conversion' railcars over the years; you can find many of them in Ed Keilty's books. Some were quite sophisticated replacements for older interurban cars, but none of them long survived the great falling-off of interest in 'rail interurban' service. The Motorailer (and the Budd RDC, in a different sense) are a different paradigm: full-size, full-featured lightweight trains following up the original motor-train developments of the early 1930s as opposed to the high-speed train 'streamliners'; think of them as the logical application of industrial design to EMC-style doodlebugs to make them more attractive conveyances. Note how hard Budd fought to keep railroads from pulling trailers with the original RDCs, even though it would have been comparatively simple to rig the transmissions for 'towing' even with friction lockup for high. One of the unremarked reasons for the precipitate decline of interurbans might have been Roosevelt's push for rural electrification in the early New Deal years. Very little about interurbans made sense if the overhead wiring was not extensively subsidized by companies deriving benefit from it -- for example, utility companies. Once wire installation, maintenance and energization became 'sunk' expense items, much of the charm of operating electrics vs. motor trains disappeared. I think one of the major 'proofs' that interurbans died of their own faults rather than some NCL-like conspiracy is precisely that internal-combustion alternatives did not catch on, even with the model of the Dan Patch Line as a very early and relatively technologically crude example. I'm still trying to figure out why GM couldn't figure out how to jigger the Aerotrain suspension to give reasonable ride and accommodation of curve roll. For some reason, although there are a thousand references to air suspension and its failure, hard engineering analysis of the actual detail design, reasons for its incompetence in service, and descriptions of the 'fixes' that were tried are either thin on the ground or hidden in paywall-protected scholarly articles. This leaves me having to guess at what is going on with things like the five-axle 'Micheline' or original Aerotrain suspension. Let me repeat that part of the solution involves the 'last car' modified at EMD and put in one of the consists, which was said to have addressed and largely solved the riding issues. It would be nice to know what it was so I can assess whether it did. MEANWHILE there is a whole 'nother possibility that wasn't taken up: the application of the Pickwick Nite Coach kind of bus service to the rails once it began to be legislated out of existence (by Missouri, most importantly) once the effect of large vehicles on roads and traffic began to be realized. I for one would be highly interested in the idea of small-scale 'sleeper' service between destination pairs, and on routes, that would not support their own full Pullman treatment. Even if the vehicle were so small that it would have to stop, and the passengers get off for rest or meals, while the berths were being made up or folded. When I look at some of the Austro-Daimler cars (can anyone find the old "Eagle of the Rails" I posted somewhere here years ago?) the idea of what to do with large double-deck size begins to give tantalizing possibilities. We all know how things worked out in 'real' history, and to a large extent why. But there is no need to think that all railbuses had to be like the old Sykes coaches, or provide the level of service implicit in the old McCoy Toonerville/Galloping Goose parody:
Example of a somewhat later MoPac railbus than the Eagle of the Rails: Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western, cutting-edge modern in 1948, ran until the 1960s. (Company formally merged into Missouri Pacific in March 1956)
Two-Footer, Sandy River and Rangely Lakes at Strong Maine.
SR&RL_pair_at_Strong_ME by Edmund, on Flickr
SR and RL Longcar Reo by Edmund, on Flickr
Caption written by my father:
SRandRL_Longcar_Reo1935 by Edmund, on Flickr
Regards, Ed
Overmod Here is an example of what I think the FCDs were intended to supplant: There were relatively many of these 'bus conversion' railcars over the years; you can find many of them in Ed Keilty's books. Some were quite sophisticated replacements for older interurban cars, but none of them long survived the great falling-off of interest in 'rail interurban' service...
There were relatively many of these 'bus conversion' railcars over the years; you can find many of them in Ed Keilty's books. Some were quite sophisticated replacements for older interurban cars, but none of them long survived the great falling-off of interest in 'rail interurban' service...
Thank you for the info, Overmod. I think using diesel motor car or larger size motor train like the ACF Motorailer; which was a very successful example when used by Missouri Pacific, to replace steam or electric interurban vehicle would be an economic solution to further decrease the operation cost for routes (including commuter services) which had lower demand, since the management could get rid of all dated electric infrastructure in phases without discontinuing of services. Imagine the maintenance cost of running a 30 km electric railway system with only a few "streetcars" running on it. I didn't know that many interurban systems were owned by electric companies and detailed background history behind them...... it sounds more complicated than I imagine.
The Eaglette MotoRailer #670:
http://www.trainweb.org/screamingeagle/eaglette.html
Overmod I'm still trying to figure out why GM couldn't figure out how to jigger the Aerotrain suspension to give reasonable ride and accommodation of curve roll. For some reason, although there are a thousand references to air suspension and its failure, hard engineering analysis of the actual detail design, reasons for its incompetence in service, and descriptions of the 'fixes' that were tried are either thin on the ground or hidden in paywall-protected scholarly articles...
I'm still trying to figure out why GM couldn't figure out how to jigger the Aerotrain suspension to give reasonable ride and accommodation of curve roll. For some reason, although there are a thousand references to air suspension and its failure, hard engineering analysis of the actual detail design, reasons for its incompetence in service, and descriptions of the 'fixes' that were tried are either thin on the ground or hidden in paywall-protected scholarly articles...
I did a brief searching for it last night but it seems that you are right, it probably being treated as a commercial secret which is being locked somewhere in GM's HQ. Since it was probably not a major redesign, I believe it can't be easily found like those patent drawings. I wonder what we would have got if AeroTrain used the rubber-tired wheel with advanced technologies on its car instead of small diameter normal metal wheels. It seems that 4-wheel passenger cars never manage to provide comfortable ride quality at higher speed, example like the Leyland Railbus of the UK. I guess a 2+4 wheel arrangement like the Greyhound Scenicruiser might worked better on the AeroTrain, but I can't provide any scientific explanation for it, just a wild guess.
A 6-wheel passenger car.
Overmod MEANWHILE there is a whole 'nother possibility that wasn't taken up: the application of the Pickwick Nite Coach kind of bus service to the rails once it began to be legislated out of existence (by Missouri, most importantly) once the effect of large vehicles on roads and traffic began to be realized. I for one would be highly interested in the idea of small-scale 'sleeper' service between destination pairs, and on routes, that would not support their own full Pullman treatment.
I for one would be highly interested in the idea of small-scale 'sleeper' service between destination pairs, and on routes, that would not support their own full Pullman treatment.
I love this idea! Every time I look at a pic of ACF Motorail, I can see a lot of potential of these larger size "railbus", they could have provided sleeper service and commuter service at the same time, picking up the passenger outside the mainline system until it continues its journey as a normal named overnight sleeper trains (detach the commuter car first). ACF would have needed to increase the power of the train and upgrade the trucks.
Even convert a Pickwick Nite Coach to a railbus might work if the price of the ticket was competitive enough. "Sleeper Railbus" provided another option for passengers who couldn't afford or unwilling to pay for All-Pullman level service. It could have been a new market which provides a higher frequency of sleeper service with much lower operating cost. Such sleeper railbuses probably couldn't reach 65mph, but inside larger RRs system, they could use the track for freight services.
http://theoldmotor.com/?p=166339
gmpullman Two-Footer, Sandy River and Rangely Lakes at Strong Maine. SR and RL Longcar Reo by Edmund, on Flickr Caption written by my father: SRandRL_Longcar_Reo1935 by Edmund, on Flickr Regards, Ed
Thank you very much, Ed. It is interesting to know that they had such a funny nickname. Local RRs probably never had the resources and sense to make their fleet looks better, especially when the US was still recovering from the Great Depression.
1937 - Central Argentine Railway - single & double railcars (Top speed: 68mph)
https://www.derbysulzers.com/argentinadmu1935.html
I found this article about the long forgotten Streamliner: The GM&O Rebel
The ‘Infamous’ GM&O Rebel
https://olebillwrites.wordpress.com/2017/01/16/the-infamous-gmo-rebel/
Yes, Its was a Streamliner which was as large as the UP M10000, if the definition of a Streamliner was a streamlined train serving between big cities, I shouldn't call The Rebel a motorcar. But at the same time, the size of it was just dozens of feet longer than the two-car ACF Motorailer. So I would like to put the article here for readers' convenience.
I just realized (after reading this post: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/742/p/272814/3104379.aspx#3104379 ) that an interurban must be powered by electricity, so if my fantasy of dieselized an interurban with motorcar or railbuses, it no longer could be called an interurban. Could fancy motor car like the Motorailer or much smaller railbuses manage to prevent the demise of interurban in the States? No. When local folks could easily obtain a less expensive truck or 2nd hand cars, even buses became irrelevant.
http://www.dieselpunks.org/profiles/blogs/sunday-streamline-63-the-slowest-one
Some pic I found from the rrmuseumpa:
ACL Motorailer, the streamlined motor car designed for commuter services. Underrated!
Before the ACF Motorailer, The Rebel of the The Gulf, Mobile and Northern Railroad. Probably the slowest Streamliner in terms of average speed. A product of racial segregation policy of the US in 1930s.
Demise of a motor car.
https://dotlibrary.specialcollection.net/Document?db=DOT-RAILROAD&query=(select+1330)
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I find I am still requried to log in. Until the people maintaining the server learn how to spell correctly, I have to wonder if it's actually the Government serving the files... I don't remember this access convention or the misspelling before the 'defunding'.
It was an ICC investigation report of an accident involved a motor car near Painesville, Ohio in 1927. Does that mean Motor Cars were seen as a dangerous vehicle which could easy get involved in traffic accidents and get people killed in the States? I remember the demise of ACF Motorailer was also directly or indirectly caused by a traffic accident which resulted in the death of the engineer.
All of these things just scream "I'm a bus". They all look like junk to me, especially the streamlined ones. Budds RDC's were pretty zippy and relatively rattle free and at least acted like it was railroad equipment. Not very sexy looking though, utilitarian appearance ( exception: the NYC Jet powered one time whatever the heck that was for thingie).
I'll take a light Pacific, Jubilee or Mogul and 2 or 3 heavyweights any day over any of it.
Pacific 2702 clatters across the Northern Pacific tracks at McGregor, Minn., 81 miles west of Duluth, with Soo Line’s Thief River Falls–Duluth train 64 in September 1954.Philip R. Hastings photo
Jones1945 Does that mean Motor Cars were seen as a dangerous vehicle which could easy get involved in traffic accidents and get people killed in the States?
Suspect that is one reason for the fall-off in their popularity after the 'age of EMC cars' in the '20s. See also the Redondo Beach accident with RDCs, which soured ATSF on their great high-speed rail-diesel-car future almost before it began. Few people like riding in a 100mph ... or 55mph ... beer can with their heads close to contact level, let alone doing it with several hundred gallons of gasoline or distillate in close proximity to hot manifolds.
I'm not sure I'd attribute the entire 'death' of the Motorailer itself to the Land O Corn beer-truck collision. IC itself wanted to replace the train 'in kind' but as I recall WPB requirements did not allow it; postwar the usual increase in successful traffic led to that train being kept with full-size equipment. MoPac famously not only kept their 'Eaglette' in service through the early Fifties but resurrected it once in its original service and then stuck it on Delta Eagle service later.
The things were too light for the kinds of line they would be used for, and the relatively low horsepower didn't help them. The better solution was the same thing that confronted doodlebugs en masse in the postwar years: cars and buses did any real job they could fulfil and do it better.
Except good safe secondary roads were not all yet in place, certainly not reliable to numerous rural areas especially in winter. Salting, sanding and snowplowing techniques took a while to be emplaced and used on many rural roads. Gas stations could be far in between and not always open. Main roads and highways were generally ok but a good winter storm could knock them out quite easily back then. Not sure but I would say that things were good and reliable by the early 60's for the most part.
Yeah very unfortunate with the Sante Fe RDC's but that was an outlier. It did end their relationship with although it should not have.
Even in the modern age well into the 2000's VIA/CN ran up to ten scheduled RDC's Toronto-Niagara Falls. Took those trains out of Toronto Union many times and I would be back in Burlington way before anyone could drive it on the QEW. 20-25 minutes, they just let 'em go, you could really feel the speed. Highway all jammed and slow going. We would wave and we zipped by. You could buy your ticket on board, relax and have a smoke. Those days are gone, but it wasn't that long ago.
OvermodI find I am still requried to log in. Until the people maintaining the server learn how to spell correctly, I have to wonder if it's actually the Government serving the files... I don't remember this access convention or the misspelling before the 'defunding'.
I had to Sign IN with the re-establishment of the DOT web site. Since establishing the 'new' identity I have not had any issues.
Prior to the site having been taken down, I don't recall that signing in had been a requirement.
Overmod The things were too light for the kinds of line they would be used for, and the relatively low horsepower didn't help them. The better solution was the same thing that confronted doodlebugs en masse in the postwar years: cars and buses did any real job they could fulfill and do it better.
The things were too light for the kinds of line they would be used for, and the relatively low horsepower didn't help them. The better solution was the same thing that confronted doodlebugs en masse in the postwar years: cars and buses did any real job they could fulfill and do it better.
Agree. That's why in my post on Nov 9, I admitted that these fancy looking Railbuses couldn't prevent the demise of "interurban" in the States when local folks could easily obtain a less expensive truck or 2nd hand cars. Even buses; which is more feasible and cheap became irrelevant.
The reason I think ACF Motorailer was underrated is that there was a very rare successful example happened on MoPac 'Eaglette' MotoRailer #670, where the local folks actually developed an emotional bonding with the car:
" When word got out the the Eaglette's Lincoln-Union service was to come to an end, words of protest from the public reached the highest places. One letter written to the Nebraska State Railway Commision stated that no less than Paul J. Neff himself, MP's chief executive officer, heard of the impending retirement from of the Eaglette in 1952. It so happened that the Motorailer was a long-time favorite of Neff's -- by the time he had his say the Eaglette was immediately back in service and the official responsible for its early retirement was demoted."
*Full Story here: http://www.trainweb.org/screamingeagle/eaglette.html
This example really made me rethink the potential of Railbus in the States since this kind of vehicle were widely used in many EU countries. But I didn't pay enough attention to the postwar development of automobiles industry in the States.
Miningman I'll take a light Pacific, Jubilee or Mogul and 2 or 3 heavyweights any day over any of it.
Okok, FULL STEAM AHEAD.
TheNarragansette Pier Railroad, connecting with the NYNH&H at Kingston, R. I., used a flanged-wheeled school bus, painted blue, as its only passenger service for many years, rode it 1950. Ran backwards one-way, not turning at end ponits.
I read that some rail-buses had trouble with engine cooling (radiator) running backwards. Did they find a fix for that?
MidlandMikeI read that some rail-buses had trouble with engine cooling (radiator) running backwards. Did they find a fix for that?
The probable definitive solution to this would be an electric cooling fan (or some externally-driven fan or blower if an electric fan weren't cost-effectively available at the time).
Would that the cooling issues with the SPV2000 APU have been as easily solved! (Well, actually they could have been, but the job didn't get addressed in time...)
Not sure about how the cooling issue was solved, but there is an example from the UK to handle such issue:
AEC Q type bus. The engine and the radiator were placed on the right side of the bus, the latter was "facing" the ground. For the railcar in the States, it was not necessary to place the engine on the side, but the radiator with an electric fan could be modified and place it near the car side.
Leyland Olympian, one of the most successful products of Leyland. The radiator is placed at the front, engine at the rear. Not sure if such design ever available or adapted in the States.
Some pics I found from a truck forum. Mack AC Rail Cars:
I didn't know that some of the Mack FCD railbuses were still alive in 2016:
You have pictures there of what I'd think would be the two likeliest 'culprits', so here goes my hypothetical discussion:
The usual 'cheap' way of implementing automotive cooling was to use a mechanical fan on the front of the engine (usually driven by the same belt turning the water pump) which turned proportional to engine speed (and water-pump circulation speed) pulling air through the radiator.
Even minimal forward speed produces the equivalent of ram air circulation through a forward-mounted radiator, and depending on how the ducting around the mechanical fan is constructed this may be many times more effective than 'fan circulation' (as drivers from the era of large American V8 powered cars with air conditioning may remember when in traffic on hot summer days!) It is not difficult to imagine a boxy railcar with small engine hood (or Mack-like radiator behind the engine) where reverse aerodynamic effects either 'spoil' airflow through the radiator or actually counteract what the fan is trying to move in the 'normal' direction. The result might easily be far less actual cooling airflow than expected, or extraction of relatively hot engine-compartment air through the radiator for heat exchange just as peak heat rejection from the engine coolant is most needed...
In automotive applications sustained operation at full throttle 'in reverse' is usually not observed, so it might not be surprising that problems were only observed intermittently in "special" situations. Some of the baroque radiator installations that came to be used on doodlebugs may be related to this issue (particularly those in large boxes completely atop the car with free airflow in both directions).
Some solutions for cooling. Looked shabby but better than NO service!
Back to America. I wonder how many people still remember this motor car --- The Southern Utah McKeen Car #100, some says it was the largest McKeen Motor Car ever built.
https://mckeencar.com/gallery/s/southern-utah-railroad/
Cooling Coil on the roof and at the front pilot. The temperature of sunlight in Utah must be much lower than other states or countries...
At least some of what you observe is a bit different from providing 'sufficient' cooling where there wasn't enough; it involves packaging the cooling where it does not occlude operating vision or deduct from salable interior space. This might particularly apply to the RDC-like roof radiators of the Southern Utah car.
For the longest time, doodlebug people tried to make passive radiators work, where there was no external fan stuff applied to the "coils" and the internal resistance to pumping was kept intentionally minimized. You can see the parallel to this design philosophy in the 'radiators' used on steam locomotive air-brake systems all the way up to the Fifties (where fin-tube designs of some kind began to show up). I suspect very complicated arrangements proportioning cooling to outside temperature were needed in these coil systems, if we can use automatic shutter control on early diesel-electrics as a comparison. Insolation of many of these coils, particularly the ones under the pilot on the Southern Utah car, would have been a relatively minimal source of heat gain compared to what was being rejected to air ... even at the occasionally very high local OATs presumably in that area during operation.
Compare the radiator arrangement on the Budd RDC, which had about the absolute minimum 'cooling system' intrusion into the passenger space (the insulated pipes could be relatively easily accommodated in slightly-thickened car walls, between window openings). Convection up, heat exchangers away from road dirt and mechanical shocks and damage, little chance of leaves and snow blocking air exchange. Compare this with the arrangement, even as amended, on something like the Motorailers with their smaller engines.
Thanks, Overmod. I agree with you that the roof radiators of the Southern Utah car didn't occupy salable interior space; it also didn't make the car looks like a battleship like other doodlebugs. If the cooling effect of it was good, it was a win-win situation. Though I don't know why the radiator of it was ridiculously large, compared to other McKeen Motor Car.
I note there was plenty of room in the engine compartment where both sides of the room had enough space to place a radiator with fans attached to a generator or the motor and create a convective airflow by making two larger grilles on both sides of the engine room. Anyway, the Southern Utah McKeen Car #100 was not a successful example. But I think it looked quite good.
"What's up?...."
I found this odd duck on the web. The Autotram, an aluminum self-propelled railroad car built by the Clark Equipment Company of Battle Creek in 1932. Powered by a 16-cylinder gasoline engine with a hydraulic clutch, she was displayed in 1933 Chicago World Fair. (Note the light rail under the car)
"the builders claimed the Autotram was capable of 100-mile-per-hour speeds"
https://www.railarchive.net/centprog/autotram.htm
The Cab and the front end reminds me of the design of the flying boat Dornier Do X.
The driver (should I use the term "engineer" here?) tried his best to pretend nothing happened, but you can see the car was shaking like a rollercoaster at high speed.
I guess this is the official rendering of The Autotram:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulmalon/13518793944
Patent number #2,051,073 (Clark Tructractor Co) showing the original 12-wheel design.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US2051073?oq=2051073
More pics and detail:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/joes_place/sets/72157608122355729/
Other product by Clark Tructractor Co, Clark Tructractor CT.40 of 1943
Jones1945The Autotram, an aluminum self-propelled railroad car built by the Clark Equipment Company of Battle Creek in 1932.
Unless I am mistaken, the greatest success of this effort came when parts of the running gear were used for PCCs (and, as Dave Klepper will tell us, experimental New York subway equipment!) I am surprised more people posting about this on the Web haven't figured this out.
The book can apparently still be found on this page (scroll down for the page listing; they cannily mention no publication data, but provide a link to their e-commerce 'shopping cart'. In my opinion this is $16.95 reasonably well-spent.
That's one of the the early-Thirties Cadillac engines. And factory dual exhaust! No problems with smoothness and low-end torque with THAT...
From Mike:
, 1933 Pittsburgh Railway Club proceedings about Autotram
Miningman 1933 Pittsburgh Railway Club proceedings about Autotram https://archive.org/details/officialproceedi31rail/page/112
https://archive.org/details/officialproceedi31rail/page/112
Note the discussion of the Budd Company executive regarding Micheline performance, 112-113...
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