This thing?
I found this tidbit:
"The former BN Trough Train is being eliminated. The Trough Train has spent most of the last five years in storage in various places. It was stored on the former Rock Island main line east of Amarillo, TX that was abandoned only a few miles east of the trough train cars for over a year. This was a storage track for Progress Rail Car Shops. On August 22, [2004], a train of 21 of the trough cars was seen passing through Lincoln, NE on its way to Birmingham, AL as BNSF train U-GUEBIR1-18. The cars had most recently been in storage at Guernsey, WY where they were moving empty from to the CSX at Birmingham listed as condemned cars. Power for the empty Trough train was BNSF SD40-2 7903, KCS AC4400CW 2046 and EMD SD60 9092 as it departed Lincoln. The train arrived in Birmingham on August 26th at 11:41 and was interchanged to CSX at 11:42. The only car missing of the original 23 cars built in late 1994 was the BN 552006 that had previously been separated and probably scrapped. One of the units of that car is still at Progress Rail in Amarillo. The Aluminum cars were 278' 4" long per 13 unit car. The 23 cars could carry the equivalent of 146 standard coal hoppers at a reduced tonnage due to the light weight of the cars. The Car numbers for these cars were BN 552000 - 552022. None were ever renumbered as BNSF cars." *
* Source
Dutchrailnut wrote:wow 23 cars can carry 146 car equivelent of coal ??? winzip for choo choo's ???
Yeah, but one mechanical defect or one wheel on the ground and 23/146 cars of coal aren't going anywhere. (and then, when you get to the power plant, unloading gets interesting, even when it works properly....ie - anybody got a monster rotary dump to go along with the rediculous turntable from the other thread?))
Kinda makes you look like DOS in a Windows environment.
....I don't see it in the photo...How could 23 connected cars equal 146 car capacity....? What was the mechanical means of unloading them..? Why were they not successful at all...{according to above info}....?
Quentin
Quentin, they mean 23 of the 13-car articulated units. The units in the articulated cars were smaller than a conventional coal car, and the lack of solid ends between units (I think) further enhanced their capacity. One of the trough-train cars could handle the rough equivalent of six or seven coal cars.
These were, if I remember correctly, bottom-dumping cars using gates more akin to old ballast-car doors--that was probably a problem in itself.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
....Oh, ok....I see now what they are talking about....{the 13 vs. 146}. Thanks Carl.
raymondtylicki wrote: another good idea that died in railroad buracracy....
Was it a good idea? The reliability issues that MC brought up would make me very hesitant to invest heavily if I were a railroad exec...
-ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams
raymondtylicki wrote: The barge traffic can carry more as 20-40 railroad cars equal one barge and the weight is reduced because there is less ancellory equipment to haul around
Huh? Those are two very different animals. I don't think you can make any fair comparisons between them. What does that have to do with reliability anyways?
mudchicken wrote: Dutchrailnut wrote:wow 23 cars can carry 146 car equivelent of coal ??? winzip for choo choo's ???Yeah, but one mechanical defect or one wheel on the ground and 23/146 cars of coal aren't going anywhere. (and then, when you get to the power plant, unloading gets interesting, even when it works properly....ie - anybody got a monster rotary dump to go along with the rediculous turntable from the other thread?))Kinda makes you look like DOS in a Windows environment.
And yet many in the railroad industry feel fine taking that risk when it can sideline as many as 10 containers full of valuable consumer goods in one fell swoop.
CShaveRR wrote: Quentin, they mean 23 of the 13-car articulated units. The units in the articulated cars were smaller than a conventional coal car, and the lack of solid ends between units (I think) further enhanced their capacity. One of the trough-train cars could handle the rough equivalent of six or seven coal cars.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Copcarss:
How old must one be to remember Burma-shave signs along the road???????
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe Vet,
Actually, Burma Shave signs date to the years B.C. - Before Chris. I'm only 27, but appreciate older classics like steam locomotives, Burma Shave signs, etc. I've got a couple books at home on the Burma Shave signs, including one that is supposed to have each of the slogans ever applied to the signs. I thought the version in my signature line was appropriate for a railroad forum!
CopCarSS wrote: Phoebe Vet,Actually, Burma Shave signs date to the years B.C. - Before Chris. I'm only 27, but appreciate older classics like steam locomotives, Burma Shave signs, etc. I've got a couple books at home on the Burma Shave signs, including one that is supposed to have each of the slogans ever applied to the signs. I thought the version in my signature line was appropriate for a railroad forum!
CopCarSS:
My YOUNGEST child is more than 27, and I do remember Burma-Shave signs. They were the highlight of any long trip. (& my eldest is named "Chris")
I have cut & pasted yours, and plan to put a set on my layout. Thanks.
During the cold war, Mad Magazine had a parody set of signs that said:
Fat Nikita's
Getting Stronger
Can't afford to
Wait much longer
Sherman Tanks
lol.
(Gee, how old does one have to be to remember Mad Magazine?)
I remember the Burma-Shave signs, too.
Back to coal. We've had at least one power plant in our area make the switch from barge to rail in recent years. The economics ae shifting. We still send a few trains to transloading facilities, but that's often ultimately destined to power plants that can't handle trains (such creatures exist!). More often, these plants are supplied by lake freighters, but one sees barges going up the canal, too.
CShaveRR wrote: (Gee, how old does one have to be to remember Mad Magazine?)I remember the Burma-Shave signs, too.Back to coal. We've had at least one power plant in our area make the switch from barge to rail in recent years. The economics ae shifting. We still send a few trains to transloading facilities, but that's often ultimately destined to power plants that can't handle trains (such creatures exist!). More often, these plants are supplied by lake freighters, but one sees barges going up the canal, too.
Moving coal from Scranton / Carbondale/ Lackawanna to the Atlantic Ocean (At Hoboken) at one end, and to the Great Lakes (At Buffalo) at the other end was the primary purpose of the Lackawanna Railroad. I bet even some of those barges were coming from a train.
Phoebe Vet wrote:Copcarss:How old must one be to remember Burma-shave signs along the road???????
I've read about them in history books
Go here for my rail shots! http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=9296
Building the CPR Kootenay division in N scale, blog here: http://kootenaymodelrailway.wordpress.com/
eolafan wrote:Are these the type of cars that sometimes haul garbage out of big cities like New York?
trainfan1221 wrote: eolafan wrote:Are these the type of cars that sometimes haul garbage out of big cities like New York?Actually the garbage trains are simply containerized units on a flat car. And they smell..and have an incredible tendency to stop in front of wherever you happen to be train watching. Has happened to me several times.
Thats funny!!!! Not insulting you, but that is funny! Sounds like my luck too.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.