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 / 7033
7032  |  7034
Subject: 
Re: Relative height of cars and cabooses
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.trains
Date: 
Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:23:14 GMT
Viewed: 
711 times
  
In lugnet.trains, James Powell writes:
Cabeese are not as regulated as interchange stock, although there are
special rules concerning material of construction/strength.

Right. And cabeese in hilly country often had to have specially reinforced
frames because they might have several pusher units coupled on behind them to
help get over steep grades.

++Lar



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Relative height of cars and cabooses
 
(...) Hence the PRR's early use of all steel cabeese. However, it was illegal in some areas to put the pushers behind the caboose, they had to be cut in in front of the caboose. One simple reason why: who cares if a coal car is converted into (...) (24 years ago, 23-Aug-00, to lugnet.trains)

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

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

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