Has anyone out there tried to (and succeeded) convert some of the old passenger brakes to AB-types? With the short service times on UC and L valves, and the sharply rising expense of periodic servicing of same, I think conversion to AB-type (AB, ABD, ABDW) for operating equipment makes some sense. I'm not looking for 26 conversions; I know that has been done, but the 26 components are also expensive.

I seem to recall that Mid-Continent did some conversions to AB--- any info on that?



hpincus@mindspring.com

I have seen and worked on a few old passenger cars that were converted from UC to AB brakes while in MOW service (a Colorado & Southern coach and a Great Northern coach that are here in Colordao come to mind)In all of the cars I have seen, the cylinder and air resivoir were replaced with freight car parts as well.

Jason Midyette
> Has anyone out there tried to (and
> succeeded) convert some of the old passenger
> brakes to AB-types? With the short service
> times on UC and L valves, and the sharply
> rising expense of periodic servicing of
> same, I think conversion to AB-type (AB,
> ABD, ABDW) for operating equipment makes
> some sense. I'm not looking for 26
> conversions; I know that has been done, but
> the 26 components are also expensive.

> I seem to recall that Mid-Continent did some
> conversions to AB--- any info on that?


amjm@indra.com

Pittsburg air brake makes a rack set up. It's all self contianed. Pick up the rack, attach it to the floor, and if Remember correct make 3 pipe connections and you have ABDW with all new parts.
I think it's a little pricey, but he does use all quality parts and from what I hear it works pretty slick.

irss@eriecoast.com

I wouldn't do it. I converted Coach 661 to ABDW many years ago. We chose this path simply to follow NS practice. The brakes on this car apply slower, release slower and, given the same amount of brake pipe reduction, do not offer the same braking power as a UC or D-22 equipped car (despite trying various relay valves).

No matter how many improvements have been made to it, the AB family is still a freight brake. Its operational characteristics are not up to either UC or D-22. The AB family can only be set in direct release.

Has anyone considered an effort to get the wash dates changed for UC and D-22? Perhaps something like a days of service schedule like the smoke engines now have in Part 230?

G. Mark

TVRM Shop Updates by Steve Freer
aw90h@cs.com

> Has anyone out there tried to (and
> succeeded) convert some of the old passenger
> brakes to AB-types? With the short service
> times on UC and L valves, and the sharply
> rising expense of periodic servicing of
> same, I think conversion to AB-type (AB,
> ABD, ABDW) for operating equipment makes
> some sense. I'm not looking for 26
> conversions; I know that has been done, but
> the 26 components are also expensive.

When the FRA showed up at SCRM, we were faced with having to do the dining car every 18 months or something like that. We had it converted over from UC-12 to D-22, using parts from SOU lightweight #800, which is a useless piece of Pullman $#@&. ABDW was considered, but since we had the D-22 parts and the Canadian coaches were already D-22, it was decided to go with the D-22s so everything would be standard. Charlie Pulling of East Tennesee Railcar did the work. The brakes work great.

At the risk of starting a flood of questions I can't answer or a flood of waiver requests to the FRA, we were able to get a waiver on our D-22s that extends the time beyond the usual 24 months. The FRA had no data on whether D-22 valves could go longer than 24 months, so we're being used as a test. We were able to get the waiver for 36 months, in another year we'll know if we can go to the max of 48. I'd strongly suggest waiting until our test period is over before talking to your own FRA mechanical person, though. I just barely know what I'm talking about on air brakes so please don't ask me any technical questions!

The South Carolina Railroad Museum
mconrad@compuzone.net

To get an ABD to perform more like a passenger car in braking rates, etc., it is necessary to incorporate an H-5 relayair valve in the system. This was originally designed by NY Air Brake for the Amtrak Auto Train, and the schematic has been fairly well distibuted throught the Rail Passenger Car Alliance circles.

The RPCA pettitioned the FRA to allow all tourist , historic , and excursion railroads to have the same time periods as Amtrak and commuter, based on the reasoning of our level of service, and the fact that the documents referenced by FRA in 49 CFR 232 appendix B were not available, and thus in violation of Fed regs on incorporation by referrence. They corrected this by changing the address from the AAR to the FRA for a copy of Standard S-045, which is where the time periods for COTS are. An officer of the RPCA sent a letter to FRA last year asking for a copy of this as referenced, and still has not gotten a copy of S-045 back.

The FRA said that they would not allow us to have the same periods as Amtrak and commuter without a full Rulemaking and RSAC involvement. There are some in the industry worried if we go to Rulemaking, it will bring down on us a lot of additonal new requiements that we do not wish to bear, such as licensed Qualified Maintanence Persons , and the like.

Any additional questions on this may be addressed to me personally off line, if you are uncomfortable with the open forum.

SZuidervee@aol.com

> I wouldn't do it.

Another issue is whether or not you have truck mounted cylinders or the large body mounted ones. Seems to me that the volume of air flow is a problem with the AB systems if you have a single large cylinder.

Second item is on the COT&S time for UC, remember that it isn't just the failure of the valve we are interested in, but the design of them. The UC's don't hold lubricant the way a D-22 and other valves do, so if you run them longer than 15 months, the issue is one of how much damage you might do to the brass inside the valve.

My thought is that if you cannot afford a regular UC valve service and COT&S from PABCo (or similar), you probably might want to consider raising your ticket prices! Seriously, the time and effort to a proper conversion might make sense from a "corporate" viewpoint, but I suspect every group has more important projects to do. UC's are a good time tested design.

David Farlow
Whitewater Valley RR

Hudson.Industries@att.net

>The Heber Valley Railroad has a number of cars that have been converted from all of the types mentioned to any given version of the AB. (AB, ABD, ABDW ABDX) My favorite is the ABDW.

Duirng the 2002 winter games, the Utah Dept of Transportation assigned a special heat sensing van to watch the brake systems of the buses being used at the venues. Twice the van was placed near the HVRR crossing of state road 113 and the HVRR.

The van operator was a foamer of sorts. The first day he was out he filmed the passing of the train with his little heat sensing camara. Later that day, he confessed and told me of his study. I was so interested that I asked to see the film. The result was amazing!

I am with Mark Ray, in many ways, I beleive that the old valves just do a good job all the way a round. I was of the opinion that converted systems were no good.

In watching the video from the heat sensing camara, I saw that the converted brake systems were producing better and more consistant braking in terms of rail, wheel and brake shoe tempratures. Granted, brake systems must be balanced-that is, one truck can not-or should not brake more than another. All things being equal, the converted cars showed better in the heat and braking test according to UDOT............Take it for what it is worth.

Moral of the story, The remaining three UC cars on the HVRR are slated for change........this year!

P.S. The FRA also spent a number of days with the UDOT van watching the buses and trains in the same location. I was informed by FRA region 7 that a full study of the heat sensing system would be made and that FRA may some day use such a program to watch brake systems on down grade trains. For more info, contact FRA Region 7. Sacramento Cal.

To get an ABD to perform more like a
> passenger car in braking rates, etc., it is
> necessary to incorporate an H-5 relayair
> valve in the system. This was originally
> designed by NY Air Brake for the Amtrak Auto
> Train, and the schematic has been fairly
> well distibuted throught the Rail Passenger
> Car Alliance circles.

> The RPCA pettitioned the FRA to allow all
> tourist , historic , and excursion railroads
> to have the same time periods as Amtrak and
> commuter, based on the reasoning of our
> level of service, and the fact that the
> documents referenced by FRA in 49 CFR 232
> appendix B were not available, and thus in
> violation of Fed regs on incorporation by
> referrence. They corrected this by changing
> the address from the AAR to the FRA for a
> copy of Standard S-045, which is where the
> time periods for COTS are. An officer of the
> RPCA sent a letter to FRA last year asking
> for a copy of this as referenced, and still
> has not gotten a copy of S-045 back.

> The FRA said that they would not allow us to
> have the same periods as Amtrak and commuter
> without a full Rulemaking and RSAC
> involvement. There are some in the industry
> worried if we go to Rulemaking, it will
> bring down on us a lot of additonal new
> requiements that we do not wish to bear,
> such as licensed Qualified Maintanence
> Persons , and the like.

> Any additional questions on this may be
> addressed to me personally off line, if you
> are uncomfortable with the open forum.


jrimmasch@yahoo.com

John, what are you planning to do in your conversion? Do your cars have the single large (16-18") body-mounted cylinder? Cast iron shoes, or are you converting to comp? Inquiring minds want to know! Thanks.

hpincus@mindspring.com

We are planning on changing the entire system, this means triple valves and Cylinders so that systems match. On the old AB stuff we still use Iron shoes, on the ABD ABDW we use Comp

John

> John, what are you planning to do in your
> conversion? Do your cars have the single
> large (16-18") body-mounted cylinder?
> Cast iron shoes, or are you converting to
> comp? Inquiring minds want to know! Thanks.


jrimmasch@yahoo.com

> We are planning on changing the entire
> system, this means triple valves and
> Cylinders so that systems match. On the old
> AB stuff we still use Iron shoes, on the ABD
> ABDW we use Comp

Do you adjust the braking ratios accordingly?