Why were Allied Full-Cushion trucks outlawed from interchange service around 1956 or so? These are the trucks used most notably under the WWII troop sleepers and also under express box cars of the era, and most notably, the troop sleeper conversions.

From: http://www.trains.com/mrr/objects/pdf/m ... trucks.pdf

"The Allied Full Cushion truck shown in fig. 11 was used extensively from World War II through the mid-1950s in high-speed service – mainly express boxcars and troop sleepers. This distinctive-looking and complex truck rode quite smoothly, but it eventually earned a reputation for derailing. Because of this, the Allied Full Cushion was banned from interchange service in 1955."

Chuck

I wish I could find some original material explaining why these trucks were prohibited in interchange, insomuch as we're still using a car with them. I've never seen any documentation of what problems these trucks had, if any. This leads me to suspect that lack of readily-available parts in every carshop might have had more to do with banning interchange of these trucks than any inherent defect.

I distrust railfan media on matters like this, because they tend to reprint folklore without checking it. Especially since I know from personal experience that Full-cushion trucks do not ride "quite smoothly." When we took our ex-troop sleeper to Huntington in 1991, one old former GI came up to the open door and told the 1225 troops inside, "Boy, these sure were a rough-riding S.O.B." He was right. I guess the weird springing arrangement (coils in U-shaped hangers slung over the journal boxes) was an attempt to reduce unpsring weight. But it made no difference. Unbushed freight brake rigging doesn't help, either.

I imagine the designers were more concerned with ease of construction and adaptable reuse of the trucks instead of comfort for the riders.

I am curious as to why this design was chosen, which from what I have read was a new design, instead of relying on previous designs for express-type trucks.

I'm somewhat baffled as to what qualifies as "interchange." If I recall, the Monon had several of these cars converted to baggage and storage mail functions, and continued to use them well into the 1960s. The Monon had to use the K&IT to enter Louisville and the C&WI to enter the Chicago area, yet these cars were still used.

But they were still in a Monon train. "Interchange" means freight interchange as defined by the Car Service and Per Diem Agreement sponsored by the AAR and subscribed to by all the major railroads. Offering a car in unrestricted interchange meant that any road had to be able to repair it.

Thanks,

Strangely enough, I saw a photo of one of those cars, years later when used as a MOW tool car for the Monon, and they replaced the trucks with standard freight trucks. I guess it was more of a parts issue than anything.

This from New Haven RR Historical & Tech Assn. discussion board:

"WIth all the other good stuff on this thread, I thought the following memo, from the NHRR Collection at the UCONN Libraries T. J. Dodd Research Center at Storrs, would be of interest. It provides some additional background on the converted troop sleeper baggage and storage mail cars, and a history of the Allied Full Cushion truck problems.

The memo comes from a McGinnis-era equipment file documenting lost revenue and other problems resulting from shortages and poor condition of New Haven RPO, express and baggage-mail cars, and the railroad's efforts to upgrade existing cars through the sale/leaseback arrangement and to procure additional cars. The attachment shows that the while NH replaced the Allied Full Cushion trucks with Symington-Gould XL trucks on 25 cars during 1953, the PRR's ban on Full Cushion trucks following a 1955 derailment led the NH to replace these trucks with equalized express trucks on the remaining 100 cars.



Reference: NHRR Collection

Record Group II (Trustee Records)

Series II (New Company Sec'y Files) Box 33



File 412-014 Baggage, Mail & Express Cars


25 Feb 1955 – Memo from C. H. McGill to P. B. McGinnis on troop sleeper sale/repair/lease costs:


“Attached is story on troop sleepers, now known on the New Haven as storage mail and baggage cars. This is to get the story over to the Directors more than anything else.

One hundred (100) of these cars have been through the shops in the past year, and I believe our figure of $10,000 for rebuilding is high. The new trucks with roller bearings should cost about $6,000 per car and another $1000 for paint, etc. should be enough, plus $5000 for the car. This would total $12,000 instead of $15,000 and the rental would be about $150 per month, leaving us a net of $50 per month on each car. The rental of $180 per month on $15,000 is too close to our revenue of $200 per month, I believe.

24 Feb 1955 – Attachment to memo above, giving background on troop sleeper situation:

“The US Government in 1945 purchased 1,600 Troop Sleepers, steel sheathed, built by Pullman-Standard Car Mfg. Co., light weight of car 65,000 lb., capacity 50,000 lb., equipped with steam heat, wood inside lining at sides and ends covered with ¼” plywood; trucks Allied Full-Cushion.

These cars were designed for use by agreement with the AAR so they could be re-sold to American railroads. The New Haven purchased 150 of them in 1948 and converted them to Storage Mail and Baggage cars in 1948, 1949 and 1950. Purchase price was $2,641 each; 63 were equipped with electric lights, 67 were not so equipped. Total cost of cars and conversion was $5646 each for the 87, and $6678 for the 63. Depreciated value as of Dec 31, 1954: Cars 3600-3686 (87) $4534 each, and 3700-3762 (63) $5704 each.

These cars when built were equipped with “Allied Full-Cushion” trucks. AAR circular dated May 22, 1953 called attention to frequency of failures and difficulties in detecting serious defects prior to actual road failures in vital parts of cars equipped with Allied trucks when operated in passenger trains.

AAR Car Construction committee recommended as a letter-ballot item that cars having Allied Full-Cushion trucks be prohibited from passenger service on and after Jan 1, 1955, as a large number of failures are being experienced due to the construction of the truck and the locations in which breakages occur make it very difficult to detect fractures prior to actual service failure. The trucks are considered inadequate on passenger equipment cars in passenger service.

No definite action was taken by the railroads at that time and the recommendation was withdrawn. Circular letter issued April 28, 1954, recommended certain measures be taken to better maintain such cars and thereby avoid some of the accidents then occurring.

In 1953 the New Haven equipped 25 cars in the 3700 series with trucks furnished by Symington-Gould, known as the ‘XL’. No further action has been taken by the New Haven as to replacements since 1953.

On Jan 5, 1955, the AAR Car Construction committee recommended that effective Jan 1, 1956 all Allied Full-Cushion trucks on freight and passenger cars be equipped with improved swing hanger and swing hanger shoe.

On Feb 3, 1955, PRR train 54 (passenger) had a bad derailment coming east from Chicago with failure on one of these trucks. Following this, the PRR issued the following notice to various railroads including the New Haven:

“Effective at once and until further notice the Pennsylvania Railroad will not handle passenger head end cars equipped with ‘Allied Full-Cushion’ trucks on passenger carrying trains. To avoid excessive delay the loading and routing of cars so equipped should be prohibited via the PRR. This order does not apply to cars of B&O and CB&Q ownership who have made necessary changes. Please arrange. D 204.”

Necessary change refers to change in swing hanger and swing hanger shoe, which we do not believe will solve the problem as the possible failures still are concealed.

As these cars are less than ten years old, it is recommended that they be equipped with high speed passenger trucks suitable for any speed and capable of affording riding ease for messenger riders.


It is proposed to secure bids on 125 cars on a sale-leaseback agreement. Bids will involve sale of the cars for $5000 each; application of new trucks, general overhaul and painting to cost $10,000 each; with rental of $180 per month for ten years and option to continue any or all for five additional years.


It is estimated that these cars will be suitable for at least 15 more years of service if necessary rebuilding is accomplished. The work will be done at Readville Car Shops and will require one year to complete.


These cars average 4000 miles each per month and return $0.48 per mile on non-lighted and $0.57 per mile on lighted cars. Revenue is approximately $200.00 each per month.

Due to the cars being a so-called specialty type and considered passenger equipment, it may not be possible to secure a satisfactory arrangement. However, permission is requested to negotiate for bids on 125 cars through sale-leaseback agreement, and to follow to conclusion if a satisfactory agreement can be secured.”


By the way, if you visit the NH Archive in Storrs, there is a lot of other interesting stuff in this particular box."



The NH, during McGinnis management, had a number of these sale and lease-back deals involving freight cars.

This memo is the first real detailed info I've seen about why the Allied trucks were no longer acceptable for interchange. When the PRR spoke, most everyone, inlcuding the AAR, listened.

Howard P.

Howard,

Thank you for posting this, and kudos to the person that went "archive diving" to get the information.

I do find it interesting that the PRR allowed CB&Q and B&O cars to be carried, with the improvements to the truck, even though it really doesn't solve the problems evidently inherent in the design.