I have a question regarding passenger cars. I know a little about their construction,but am not sure about how older cars will fare being modified. I am interested to know what problems might arise from converting,say a coach, to a private car with an open obsevation platform end?
If the car is all steel, would it be much trouble to cut away the outside ends of the vestibule and create an open platform or will the structural integrity of the car be damaged?
I have seen some cars that were sort of converted,but the two main "posts" on the end were left in place.
Does this type of modification rub FRA rules the wrong way? Even if sufficiant bracing is worked into the new design?
And lastly what about even OLDER cars that are half wood/half steel on the ends?


btamper@hotmail.com

First, if you want to run on Amtrak, you will have to abide by their rules, which means that a PE who knows what he is looking at will have to analyze and stamp your modification drawings. Short of having the original AAR spec from when the car was originally built, you will have to go by the present 800,000# strength requirements.

The old AAR standards stated that for stub collision posts, there had to be a backup set of colision post next to the doorway into the car. Classic old Pullman Car Works construction had this as a large I beam, shaped into a large 'J", with a little twist in it, as the distance between the two at the door is wider than the distance on the platform gate. While the draft gear had to withstand the 800,000# load, the collision posts only had to withstand 300,000# at the attachment to the underframe. The top also has to be attached to something to resist a specified load at 18" above the buffer beam. This is why for obs cars there are two sets of posts.

If you modify a car for private service, you will come under the FRA "tourist and historic equipment" clauses, which probably means they will leave you alone as long as the work is not out and out shoddy. However, if you ever have an "oops", and the NTSB and the lawyers come out, you will loose civily.

Several cars have been legally open platformed for private car service on Amtrak in the past twenty years.

Steve

> I have a question regarding passenger cars.
> I know a little about their construction,but
> am not sure about how older cars will fare
> being modified. I am interested to know what
> problems might arise from converting,say a
> coach, to a private car with an open
> obsevation platform end?
> If the car is all steel, would it be much
> trouble to cut away the outside ends of the
> vestibule and create an open platform or
> will the structural integrity of the car be
> damaged?
> I have seen some cars that were sort of
> converted,but the two main "posts"
> on the end were left in place.
> Does this type of modification rub FRA rules
> the wrong way? Even if sufficiant bracing is
> worked into the new design?
> And lastly what about even OLDER cars that
> are half wood/half steel on the ends?


SZuidervee@aol.com

I wouldn't try to go AMTRAK or interchangeable with the wood composite cars either assuming we are talking about the same steel framed wood sided cars.

Many tourist railroads have made such alterations and in private capacity they can serve well. Stone Mountain comes to mind, having substantially altered LIRR retirees into a pleasant light duty excursion set which retains the streingth of the commuter duty frames with a more open carbody.

The vestibule roofs will self support in most cases but check out the structure carefully before torching anything large. And, by all means never telescope the train.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

From Vol A-III of the AAR Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices, dated 4-1-84 (latest revision, but now obsolete)

S-045 Passenger Car Maintenance Requirements

7.0 CARS AND CAR BODY

7.8 Cars Prohibited in Passenger Service

7.8.2 Cars having all wood or combination wood and steel superstructure with wood sheathing are not acceptable in passenger service.

also

7.8.2 Cars which have structural and/or mechanical deficiencies are not acceptable for passenger car service.

Amtrak uses the former S-045 for all matters that are not covered in the new American Public Transportation Association Standards and Recomended Practices.

Steve

> I wouldn't try to go AMTRAK or
> interchangeable with the wood composite cars
> either assuming we are talking about the
> same steel framed wood sided cars.

> Many tourist railroads have made such
> alterations and in private capacity they can
> serve well. Stone Mountain comes to mind,
> having substantially altered LIRR retirees
> into a pleasant light duty excursion set
> which retains the streingth of the commuter
> duty frames with a more open carbody.

> The vestibule roofs will self support in
> most cases but check out the structure
> carefully before torching anything large.
> And, by all means never telescope the train.

> Dave


szuidervee@aol.com

> Many tourist railroads have made such
> alterations and in private capacity they can
> serve well. Stone Mountain comes to mind,
> having substantially altered LIRR retirees
> into a pleasant light duty excursion set
> which retains the streingth of the commuter
> duty frames with a more open carbody.

I thought the cars at Stone Mountain were former C&NW commuter cars. Correct me if I am wrong....

Are you referring to the open cars they just put in service this past year? I was there last Summer and took the ride. I didn't see their older equipment except from a distance.

Trolley Museum of New York
n2xjk@ulster.net

> I thought the cars at Stone Mountain were
> former C&NW commuter cars. Correct me if
> I am wrong....

The LIRR cars replaced the C&NW cars when they used them up some years back.

Dave

lathro19@idt.net

> The LIRR cars replaced the C&NW cars
> when they used them up some years back.

> Dave

Used them up??? Explain Dave, if you will. No maintenance perhaps? For those of us in the rail preservation "biz", used them up is a no-no term!

midlandblb@cs.com

> Used them up??? Explain Dave, if you will.
> No maintenance perhaps? For those of us in
> the rail preservation "biz", used
> them up is a no-no term!

They shall remain nameless, but there is an organization that has gone through complete sets of:
B&M wooden coaches
CNJ steel coaches
Long Island Ping Pongs
Another set of CNJ coaches
Lackawanna MU trailer cars.
. . .with a small handful of Stillwells and Boonton branch coaches thrown in!

Over 60 coaches 40 years!

(Once upon a time it was cheaper to buy ex-commuter coaches for $500 ea. than to fix what you had. . .)



Rrsteve@aol.com

Tourist railroads are not in the preservation business. The C&NW cars were highly depreciated when moved south to Stone Mtn and got cursory maintenence there. About 12 years ago, the refurbishing costs were considered and newly retired LIRR cars were a lot cheaper than overhauls. Stone Mtn has invested heavily in adapting the LIRR stock to their use including wheelchair lift access built in, and the cars will probably last at least 15 to 20 more years.

I do, however, truly bemoan the fate of their steam locomotives. Either repair and operate them properly or dispose of them to those who can preserve them better.

Dave

Dave

lathro19@idt.net

There have been severaly well qualified groups who have approached stone mountain, and were rebuffed. The mangement sees nothing wrong with their approach to "Railway preservation." Honestly, stone mountain is in noway a shrine to the confederacy, or any type of legit presrvation of anything other than a third rate theme park sideshow. The sculpture is significant forwhat it is, but the commecialization of the place(a laser light show on the mountain face fer cryin' out loud)proves them to have no real place in serious history circles.

lorija799@aol.com

Isn't Stone Mtn. owned and operated by the State of GA? I know Dave would love to have one of those 4-4-0's! Weren't they once part of the Paulson Spence collection?

I do take a little exception to Brother Dave's comment about tourist railroads not being in the preservation business. Although the Tennessee Valley is partially both a tourist railroad and a museum, we are certainly in the preservation business. I also like to preach that we are in the entertainment business and not the transportation business.

Is this Friday?

Mark - TVRM

aw90h@cs.com

I imagine the New Museum at Long Lief, La would like to have the former Red, River and Gulf 4-4-0 back, since they have the rest of the railroads rolling stock and the lumber mill and railroad to go with it. If you ever get the chance to go there, go it's a neat place. My dad visited there just after they closed in the 60's and he took my brother and I in the 80's and my brother and I went back just after the site was donated to the state in the mid 90's. It's a wealth of history and information on the logging industry and railroads with a lot of hard to find equipment to boot.

Stuart

Seeking Info.
gnufe@apex.net

There is at least one occaision where Stone Mt. sold a piece of equipment after they 'used it up.' See tmny.org/tmny0358.html.

Stone Mountain's "Dinkey"
n2xjk@ulster.net

>Nah Mark, will trade both to you for the C of G 4-4-0.

Tennessee Valley RR used to be Tennessee Valley RR Museum. It is gratifying to know that the change in primary focus hasn't diminished the preservation ethic there - you guys are a class act.

Consider your neighbor Tweetsie RR as an example of a traditional tourist RR that isn't as concerned about preservation and I am sure you will understand the not so subtle distinction.

Dave

lathro19@idt.net