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
|
|
|
|
