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 / 7034
7033  |  7035
Subject: 
Re: Relative height of cars and cabooses
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.trains
Date: 
Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:44:38 GMT
Viewed: 
906 times
  
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
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.


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 smushed coal car, no-one is in it, whereas if the caboose is
squished, then there would have been 2-3 people in it.

One other interesting thing about pusher operation, although "illegal" by the
rulebook, at least some banking (pusher) operations were done with the loco
connecting and disconecting on the fly.  The one which there is direct evidence
of is Lickey bank in the UK, with a 0-10-0 doing it at about 30 MPH to a
passenger train!

James



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Relative height of cars and cabooses
 
(...) 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 (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