Subject:
|
Re: Relative height of cars and cabooses
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:11:29 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
CMASI@CMASI.CHEMantispam.TULANE.EDU
|
Viewed:
|
868 times
|
| |
|
|
James Powell wrote:
>
> In lugnet.trains, Christopher Masi writes:
> > 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?
> >
>
> 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" clearances. Double Stacks, Hi-Cube's and Autoracks are
> all outside of Plate "C", however, even Dome cars are within it.
>
> Tank cars, and Hoppers for some materials (the shorty ones) are limited by the
> density of whatever you are carrying. Another portion of Plate C is the
> maximum axle weight allowed, which is something in the order of 30 tons. It is
> much easier to fill up a hopper car to this weight, or a tankcar than it is to
> fill a boxcar to this weight...hence Hi-Cubes. Container trains can be
> semi-articulated because of the maximum weights that containers are allowed to
> weigh are less than the maxiumum load that a single axle can carry.
>
> I'd like to add that my real knowlage is of UK trains, and the max axle weight
> in the UK is 25.5 Tons/axle (I'd assume 2240 lb tons) Double stack trains are
> not possible in the UK due to the limited loading gauge. There are substantial
> areas of the US and Canada that are off limits to them, because you require a
> clear height of around 17 ft to run them.
>
> As for Cabeese, they are nearly the same dimensions as a boxcar...I know of at
> least one converted boxcar caboose (the one at Vancover Island Model
> Engineers/SHAS in Victoria, BC). The Cupola is above the normal roof height,
> how much would depend on exactly how high the clearance above the track
> was...Cabeese are not as regulated as interchange stock, although there are
> special rules concerning material of construction/strength.
>
> James Powell
Thanks James,
Way more detail than I was looking for but your response is greatly
appreciated. I really was just wondering what everyone was doing height
wise, and if I needed to make my caboose taller (to make it as tall as
my engine). I plan on making my box cars, my covered hoppers (if I ever
get around to building one), my uncovered hoppers (I hope to build one
soon), and now my caboose the same height as my engine. I will make my
tank car a bit shorter when measured to the top of the tank, and my
autorack a bit higher that my engine.
When ever I build I consider the dimensions if I can find them easily,
but mostly I just try to make it look close. Once I decide on an
important detail, like the size of a truck or the distance between the
wheelsets, I build the model relative to that dimension. Now that my
engine is done I need to build everything else relative to that size.
Thanks,
Chris
--
PGP public key available upon request.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
