Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Freight car evolution
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="MichaelSol"][quote user="Bucyrus"] <p>I understand your points about specialized equipment. I am only pointing out the inherent tare weight penalty on all cars in a loose-car system, and how a fixed car train-set can overcome that penalty as well as the penalty of slack. [/quote]</p><p>Well, I think the term "penalty" creates the unjustified presumption. </p><p>I would use the terms "durable", "interchangeable", "highly flexible" and "time-tested", as well as "continuingly evolved". Not sure about the "penalty of slack". With slack, the starting coefficient of friction is pretty reasonable, without any slack, it is enormous.</p><p>For specialized equipment, I might use the terms "production cost penalty", "maintenance penalty", "inventory penalty", "back-haul penalty", "congestion penalty", and "captive price penalty".</p><p> </p><p>[/quote]</p><p>I use the term, penalty in reference to weight, merely as meaning weight that could be eliminated by some alternate design. But eliminating one penalty usually incurs other penalties as you mention. Aluminum eliminates the weight penalty of steel, but aluminum comes with the penalty of higher cost and less strength compared to steel. </p>
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
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy