To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.trainsOpen lugnet.trains in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Trains / 7019
7018  |  7020
Subject: 
Relative height of cars and cabooses
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.trains
Date: 
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:38:09 GMT
Reply-To: 
cmasi@cmasi%stopspammers%.chem.tulane.edu
Viewed: 
546 times
  
I have noticed that box cars and hoppers (not all but a lot of them) are
the same height as engines, flat beds with truck trailers are a bit
higher, double stacks are a bit higher, autoracks are a bit higher, and
tanks are a bit lower. So where do cabooses fit in? I would guess that a
caboose without a cupola would be the same height as an engine too, but
what about a caboose with a cupola? I would guess that the main roof
line is level with the box cars and engines and the cupola sticks up a
bit. Is that right or should the main roof line of the caboose be a bit shorter?


Thanks,
Christopher
--
PGP public key available upon request.



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Relative height of cars and cabooses
 
(...) shorter? (...) Does someone have copies of the various plates? Chris, what I can say is that there are different "plates" (Loading gauges), the common one is Plate "C", and that -just about everywhere- in the US is a minimum of Plate "C" (...) (24 years ago, 22-Aug-00, to lugnet.trains)
  Re: Relative height of cars and cabooses
 
(...) This answer is for american practice, rather than european (where cabooses per se were not at all common, although brakevans *were* used)... note that early canadian writings may refer to a caboose as a brakevan. The answer is, of course: "it (...) (24 years ago, 23-Aug-00, to lugnet.trains)

7 Messages in This Thread:



Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR