Who bought the CV coach and boxcar?

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:02 pm

Quote:

My biggest fear about moving an artifact by rail is they’ll hump the darned thing and destroy the coach. I’ve seen it before.

Which is why you NEVER ship an unusual load like this that you care about without an escort. I've personally stood in the towers of several major yards, literally breathing down the yardmasters' necks, to see that this didn't happen to passenger cars I was escorting. Twenty or thirty "DO NOT HUMP" signs don't seem to be enough these days.[/b]

crij · **Joined:** Sun Aug 22, 2004 12:15 am **Posts:** 585

Dennis,

Dennis Storzek wrote:

This appears to be one of those situations where good intentions overrule practical considerations. Since I’m not familiar at all with the situation, I get to think it through from the start without various people pushing their agendas on me. I’m not picking a fight, but from reading the response above, these questions come to my mind: Why does this coach have to ride a special flatcar? Why does it need to be raised FOUR FEET to load it, and what’s so special about the flatcar if the resulting load ends up being too high? Why can’t the rigger do the job with jacks (unless he owns the cranes and likes to bill for their services)? What is Amtrak’s height restriction on the corridor?

The reason why she would have to be lifted so high is to clear the ends of the car, which is a drop deck (think transformer or heavy equipment carrier), and there is no parallel track from which to work from, for a sideways slide. Also as I said before the truss rods sit less then a foot off the rails. ~4 feet = height of end platform on carrier plus safety clearance.

Dennis Storzek wrote:

To begin to formulate a plan, it would be helpful to know a few basic things about the car, such as its size and weight. Since from the photos I can see it has ten pair of windows and six wheel trucks, I’m going to assume the worst, that it is a 70’ coach. This is a big car from the last decade of wood car production, and it’s heavy. The two nearest examples I have references handy on are a 1903 Pullman built chair car and a 1910 Barney & Smith built coach. Both are 70’ even over the body end sills; 77’-9” over the buffers. The Pullman car is listed as weighing 111,800 pounds, and the B&S coach weighs 117,300. However, we need to subtract the weight of two six wheel trucks at an estimated 8,000 pounds each, and the full compliment of furniture, since in the photos the car does not appear to have seats. If each of the 28 - 32 seats were to weigh 150 pounds, that would be another 4000 pounds to deduct. All told, it looks like the body alone will weigh between 92,000 and 98,000 pounds, or just under fifty tons.

The coach body is 66'-4" long, 14'-6" tall over the rails (from AC&F & CVRy documents and confirmed on site), your weight is close to what I remember our calculations to be.

Dennis Storzek wrote:

Being an eastern road car, the overall height very likely does not exceed 14’-1”, and the bottom of the body sills will be between 3’-6” and 3’-9” off the rails. Based on these numbers, I’d explore the use of a common, everyday TTX “all purpose” flat to haul this car. The deck height is 3’-6”, so if the body was shorn of its bolsters, draft sills, and truss rods, it would be no higher than the original 14’-1”. The Plate C, clearance diagram, which is for un-restricted interchange, allows 15’-6”. That would indicate that the body could be blocked up 17” from the flatcar deck and still not exceed Plate C. That would leave plenty of room to accommodate the body bolsters and draft sills. The steps and brake equipment would have to be removed, of course.

What about the truss rods? Best case scenario is they would straddle the flatcar deck. TTX all purpose flats are only 9’-0” wide. Diagrams in the 1906 Car Builders’ Dictionary show typical wood frame passenger cars of this era to be 9’-9” – 9’-10” over the outside of the frame, with the two truss rods centered under the outer 5” wide sills. This would indicate that the truss rods are on 9’-4” – 9’-5” centers. Careful measurement MAY show that the TTX car will slip right between them with an inch or so to spare. It’s not much, but as they say, “clearance is clearance.”

All this seems to indicate that the coach would only need to be jacked about 12-15” to have the car slid underneath. The TTX car is rated for 150,000 pounds of load, with proviso that it be de-rated for loads concentrated between the bolsters, which are 66’-0” apart. The coach could be blocked 24” inboard of each end sill and be supported directly over the flatcar bolsters. I’d be inclined to argue for a second set of blocking at the coach bolster, so the coach is supported where the builder intended, but having it blocked solid at the flatcar bolsters should allow the full capacity of the car to be used; more than enough for the job.

What happens if the truss rods WON’T fit outside the flatcar? Bummer, but not the end of the world. If you’ll refer to the framing plan of any wood coach, you’ll find that the body is framed with an internal plank truss in the wall. The truss rods can be removed temporarily with no ill effects to the car. I’d be inclined to support the car on three needle beams and six jacks, and would want to block the center solid to the flatcar deck, but it is certainly do-able. Keep in mind that passenger car truss rods DO NOT typically run through the floor to the end sill like on a freight car, but terminate at anchor castings on the bottom of the sills, inboard of the bolsters. The pins may be frozen and need to be cut out, but not impossible to do.

She was originally equipped with 6 truss rods, and after she received a riveted steel or iron center sill, 4 of those rods remain. Since it has been may years since anyone has seen the inside of the walls, we would not want to take the RISK of compromising the structure by removing the truss rods. We would not want to find out that enough of the pinned & mortised joints had rot in them and that the compression provided by the truss rods was the only thing preventing the structure from coming loose, especially when you add the vibration of rail travel.

Dennis I am not sure about those diagrams, especially since those are not builder prints, but reference diagrams. From photos I have looked of heavyweight AC&F, OB & Pullman First Class Coaches and Diner cars there was significant quantity of 6 axle wooden First Class coaches that were held together by 4-6 truss rods, usually it was the shorter 4 axle cars that only had outer rods and others also had a pair running next to the center sill that aided in the transfer the draft gear forces to the opposite end (mainly freights & flangers).

Dennis Storzek wrote:

My biggest fear about moving an artifact by rail is they’ll hump the darned thing and destroy the coach. I’ve seen it before. To that end I’d want the car secured so it can’t slide off the end of the flatcar, and the 89’ length provides six feet at each end in which to build a steel fabrication to bear against the coach buffer spring casting and weld it to the top of the flatcar center sill. You want a real structural welder to do this work, not “Buzz Box Louie”. After these are on, the biggest problem will be to keep the railroad’s car inspector from insisting you cut holes all over the car to run tie downs through. See if you can talk him (or her) into steel strapping all the way around the load, as it will do the least damage, unless they turn the car over. Heavy tie downs through the step wells over the coach center sill would do the real work.

The move is primarily a one road move (99% on one road, 2 road jobs and 1000 feet on a second road, but the first road might be able to get clearance to deliver directly). Also 3 or 4 friends of the museum work those road jobs and many more support us. There are no Hump yard is the route, just one flat classification yard (where of course that could happen). Per the RRs requirement the car would be rigged professionally and approved by inspectors from all 3 roads.

With your clearance is clearance comment, tell that to Amtrak about the Northeast Corridor. I am not sure of the height, but double stacks (even modified) and Automobile carriers are not allowed on the NEC (in Ct, RI & MA), except on the newly built track in RI. The Catenary wire is lower than most other area in the US, because it dates back to the first experiments by the NYNH&H Some of which was still in operation 3 years ago, when it was updated to constant tension, without a change in elevation.

Dennis Storzek wrote:

Good luck It seems there was interest in restoring this coach. I sure hate the thought that the project died because the crane guy was going to eat the bulk of the funds.

Dennis where were you 2 years ago when we asked for logistical help from people in the know?

Then there is the other problem at the museum, we currently have the following items in need of restoration at the museum, wooden coach NYNH&H 4414, wooden Baggage car NYNH&H 3841, wooden Caboose CVRy 4029, Iron Framed Wood sheathed Caboose CVRy 4052, (2) NYNH&H 8600 series steel coaches, steel caboose NYNH&H C-618, Budd SPV 2000 MNCR 293, ALCo S-4 CVRy 8081, at the same time we also need to acquire 2 battery sets (one for EMD SW-8 Wabash 130 & GE 44 tonner LIRR 400 [and a 3rd when 8081 is done]), install an additional 1-2 miles of track, 10 switches, a restoration building (roundhouse will be used in the meantime), a coach shed (to slow degradation of unrestored equipment) and a visitor's center. This is in addition to maintaining the working equipment and buildings, and running the museum. Unfortunately if the coach was able to get to the museum it would be a few years before we could get to her, unless someone donated plenty of money into a dedicated restoration fund to even think about finishing the restoration of her that her current owner was doing about 5-7 years ago (IIRC).

Our restoration backlog has been because of our focus to finish the turntable, roundhouse and rails up to the roundhouse (where restoration work can really happen on a weekly basis). We should be able to bring equipment into the roundhouse by next fall, Turntable timbers and decking are going out for treatment this week.

Rich C.

Dennis Storzek · **Posted:** Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:20 pm

crij wrote:

Dennis where were you 2 years ago when we asked for logistical help from people in the know?

Here in northern Illinois, trying to make a living. I don't do much of this anymore; my local railway museum seems bound and determined to keep acquiring equipment until they choke on it and bankrupt themselves.

I am interested in this, however, because this seems to be one of the better preserved wood cars out there, and it would be a shame to not see it saved by some group where it would be significant to their collection. Not to beat a dead horse, because Rick has listed a whole bunch of reasons why his group chose to walk away, and rightfully so with the amount they already have on their plate, but I'd like to go through my reasoning on the situation. Perhaps it will be of value to the next person or group that needs to move this car.

It appears from previous postings that the decision was made early on to use a depressed center flat car specially equipped for hauling commuter coaches. This led to some uncertainty if the resulting load would meet Amtrak's clearance requirement on the NE Corridor, over which the load would have to move to leave its present storage place.

I have not been able to find a definitive answer to Amtrak's clearance limit on the corridor, but one current reference on the web says that it will clear "modern refrigerator cars" Most modern refrigerator cars built for unrestricted interchange are built to the Plate C clearance dimensions, which allows 15'-6" above the rail. Lacking any better information, I'll assume that this is the correct clearance, and that Amtrak isn't comfortable, and won't approve, anything that exceeds this.

If the special flat car was designed to haul present day commuter cars, it likely has end decks around 4'-0" above the rail. Heritage Fleet cars (and other lightweights that were built to the old AAR standard passenger car cross section) stand 13'-6" above the rail. Metro-liner type cars are 12'-8". If a 13'-6" car rides on trucks with a 2'-1 3/4" centerplate height, those centerplates can ride 4'-1" above the rail and still meet Plate C. The dropped center portion of the car accommodates center step wells, a/c equipment, and whatever else is hung under the car. However, the CV coach is 14'-6" high, and very likely rides on trucks with centerplates about 2'-10" above the rail. About the best overall height than can be hoped for, carrying this car on a flat with 4'-0" high end decks, is 15'-8". Not good. It gives Amtrak every right to decline to move it. I can't blame anyone for refusing to proceed without a firm commitment that the load will be handled, even if it is two or three inches too high.

But why use this car at all? It also forces the car to be jacked or lifted considerably higher than necessary, which suggests the use of two cranes, at great expense. At this point the whole plan needs to be re-evaluated.

Let's look at using a TTX "all purpose" car. It's deck height is only 3'-6", so it lowers the load by six inches, to four inches below Plate C. However, to use it, one needs to remove the truss rods from the car.

Near as I can tell from Rick's description and the photo in the ad, this car has been rebuilt with a Commonwealth steel underframe. These consist of a large steel casting at each end of the car that includes the body bolster and draft sills, connected by 12" structural shapes making a new center sill. There are four cast steel crossbearers riveted to these sills, the center two having queenposts for four truss rods. Given the size of the center sill, I would have no problem jacking or lifting the car with the truss rods removed. Yes, it would be easier to move the car without this additional work, but if it is the only way the car can be moved, it is certainly doable.

It also results in some other advantages. The car no longer has to be raised anywhere near as high, which means it should be able to be done with jacks, not cranes. The railway preservation field always seems to have more willing people than money. Jacks are cheap, and the people to run them are free. Cranes are not. In addition, by their very nature, cranes require the load be lifted by only one or two points. If there is any concern that the coach will sag, just use more needle beams, and more jacks. When we moved a boxcar sized rapid transit station out to IRM years ago, we used five needle beams and ten jacks, simply because we had no way of knowing how well the structure would hold together, and having it collapse on active transit tracks was not an option. Getting ten guys to man the jack handles was the least of our worries.

As I said before, I still hope this car finds a good home.

crij · **Joined:** Sun Aug 22, 2004 12:15 am **Posts:** 585

Actually the drop center car was our last idea, after exhausting a dozen over the road proposals, and hospital moves ideas. The Railroad that would have hauled her most of the way suggested the car.

Rich C

Mike LaBouliere · **Posted:** Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:47 pm

Question to anyone who knows, this car is located at Seaview in RI correct? I don't understand how it can be that there is only one underpass into Seaview designed for 40 ft trucks. Couldn't it be moved to another location in Seaview and trucked out at another point? There has to be another way out by road. These are questions not personal attacks on anyone, I just find it hard to beleive there is only one way out of such a large industrial facility.

crij · **Joined:** Sun Aug 22, 2004 12:15 am **Posts:** 585

I have been relaying information about the exits from Seaview as they were told to me from the Museum member that was heading the project. When the options were being discussed.

After looking over the area by Satellite images, it looks like there are multiple main roads that pass over the NEC, but the over the road situation would still have caused us a problem because of the weight. Since I don't have a trucker's atlas I don't know the weight ratings of the Rt 403 bridge that crosses the NEC or any of the others. But I know that all the routes where a 70 foot trailer can travel, leading to the museum all have at least one 30 ton bridge in the way.

So theoretically it could be moved from it's current location over the road to another location on the other side of Amtrak where it could be transfered back to rail, but that means we have added another player into the move and the need for a specialized road trailer. Thus unless we lucked out and the owner of the tractor and trailer donated their time and equipment, the cost just went up. Even at that we have added the problem of permitting because of the over width, over height and over length load the coach would create.

I would love to see her get out of there and come to Willimantic, but unless Amtrak would allow a to hospital move her at night over the NEC and the freight RR could get permission from the FRA to also allow a Hospital move to our door step, I have yet to see a feasible or affordable method to get her to Willimantic.

Rich C.

Ted Miles · **Posted:** Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:49 pm

guys,

Thank you for a bunch of well thought out postings. I like wooden passenger cars and thank you for your efforts to save another one.

This may be to far away to be applicable but the Western Pacific Railroad Museum in Portola, CA has run several hospital trains in the last few years and some of the folks there may have some ideas.

They have used flat cars and also friction bearing equipment on its own wheels.

It just may be easier because we are in Union Pacific territory here in Northern California and they as a Corperation do know what preservation is all about.

Ted Miles

203 · **Posted:** Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:02 pm

Gulf & Ohio Railways bought the boxcar. We are restoring it in North Carolina.

Dennis Storzek · **Posted:** Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:09 pm

I'm almost afraid to ask, but, how did they move it?

203 · **Posted:** Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:21 pm

A semi with a flatbed trailer carrying a second flatbed trailer went from North Carolina to Rhode Island, returning with the carbody. It then went back and picked up the second trailer carrying the trucks.

Dennis Storzek · **Posted:** Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:51 pm

Thanx. Of course, the boxcar wasn't as tall as the coach is, very likely no more than 13'-6" rail to running board.

One other option someone should consider with the coach is house mover dollies. If the coach does have a Commonwealth underframe retrofit, it would be plenty strong with the car only supported on dollies at the truck bolster locations. These could either be the fancy self propelled ones like you saw under the Big Boy on Mega-Movers, or the old fashion low level deck trailers, which could make highway speed.

Still don't see why the coach would need to be railed from Rhode Island to Connecticut, I thought it was possible to spit from one to the other. Once the load is out on the Interstate, it doesn't care where it's going.

Joe Magruder · **Posted:** Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:14 am

I am out of my depth here, but several years ago the Western Railway Museum moved 4 ex SP steel interurban cars over the road from Utah to California using a truck tractor under one end and a dolly under the other. (This was 4 800+ mile moves.) A picture of SP 358 with these wheels under it is in the equipment section of the museum's web site as the car's roster shot. The specs say the cars weighed 122,620 pounds , and are 68' long and 13' 8" high (that's with trucks, which they don't have).

crij · **Joined:** Sun Aug 22, 2004 12:15 am **Posts:** 585

Dennis Storzek wrote:

Still don't see why the coach would need to be railed from Rhode Island to Connecticut, I thought it was possible to spit from one to the other. Once the load is out on the Interstate, it doesn't care where it's going.

Dennis,

Look back at my previous postings and you will see that twice I gave the reason it had to be transfered back to rail, before arriving at the museum. There currently is no route that can handle over sized loads (length) leading to the museum, that has a bridge capable of handling the weight. As you figured before, the body alone weighs approximately 95-98,000 lbs (47-48 short tons [2000 lbs], 44-45 Standard tons [2200 lbs] not sure which the bridges are rated in) and that is before you add the weight of an extra long drop center trailer and the Road tractor that pulls it. All the main routes have at least one bridge that carries a weight limit sign of 30-35 tons.

Rich C

Stephen S. Syfrett · **Posted:** Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:56 pm

Rich, I'm a geologist, not a highway bridge engineer, and it looks like all the options have been explored thoroughly, but just a thought for consideration - are the bridges long enough that the entire trailer/load combination would be entirely on the bridge structure, or are they short enough that only a portion of the load would be carried? Seems that if the latter, it might be worked out with the DOT to move slowly across the structures. More logistics, money, etc., I understand, and certainly asking this totally out of ignorance of the situation, but just wondering.

crij · **Joined:** Sun Aug 22, 2004 12:15 am **Posts:** 585

IIRC the DoT, unless pressed, really doesn't care about the length vs. bridge loading.

From what I have been told by 2 professional truckers is that the DoT usually only looks at the total weight (sometimes divided by axle count), length, width and height when approving the permits. Sounds like bureaucracy at it's best.

Rich C