Re: PRR freight cars (was Pennsy, Arrogance, and Bad Management)
Russ Strodtz <sheridan@...>
Tim,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Yesterday I mentioned the CB&Q SM19 series "Z" bracing. They did specify Cor-Ten Steel. Basic design was used to build cars from the late 30's until the early 60's. From what I've heard it weathers much better and actually works best when it's not painted. Russ Strodtz ----- Original Message -----
From: timboconnor@... To: STMFC@... Sent: Friday, 23 March, 2007 09:43 Subject: [STMFC] Re: PRR freight cars (was Pennsy, Arrogance, and Bad Management) Ok, Bill. To get back to freight cars, there are hundreds, thousands, of examples of proprietary freight car designs as well as modifications to 'standard' designs that ultimately did not pan out. So the PRR bought an over-designed flat car? Is this the first time someone overdesigned a freight car? Why did the UP insist on using Cor-Ten steel in its freight cars to save a few hundred pounds of steel, at the added complexity of extra side posts stiffeners and rivets (hence, alternate center rivets or ACR) when just about every other owner was content using the AAR standard design? And why did SP buy so many thousands of 10'0" box cars years after most other railroads had accepted 10'6" as a standard? For that matter, think of the vast numbers of 40' box cars built after WWII that were retired before their normal lifespans because they were technically obsolete before 1970. The PRR's design department is not to blame for the decline of the PRR. That is all that I meant by that being a 'silly' argument. Tim O'Connor |
|