1937 AAR Standard Design Boxcar Survey

Re: 1937 AAR Standard Design Boxcar Survey

Postby Arseny » Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:52 pm

Great info! The more I read your articles the more I like it! And the more I learn about American railroads!
For example, today I've got known who is Phoebe Snow, and it was very interesting!
Thanks again Marquette!
User avatar
Arseny
 
Posts: 2586
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:42 am
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia

Re: 1937 AAR Standard Design Boxcar Survey

Postby Arseny » Sat Sep 17, 2011 5:35 pm

Marquette, can you tell anything about the "poling pockets" ?
As I know, there were some "dimples" called "poling pockets" used to push cars out of a siding if it faced the wrong way to retrieve a car.

Some cars have such "pockets", but some have no...

ERIE-78249.jpg
CN-479972---2.jpg
Without pocket...


When they were removed?
User avatar
Arseny
 
Posts: 2586
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:42 am
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia

Re: 1937 AAR Standard Design Boxcar Survey

Postby Marquette » Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:17 pm

They weren't removed - the car on the bottom is a CN car; Canadian cars didn't have poling pockets.

These pictures are also good to point out another feature that distinguishes Canadian from American cars - the Canadian cars have a step under the ladder on the end, too; American cars do not.
http://espeett.blogspot.com - The SP in 1:120 - my attempt at a blog
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
User avatar
Marquette
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:16 pm

Re: 1937 AAR Standard Design Boxcar Survey

Postby Zs12 » Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:49 am

Another interesting point are the couplers, one has the uncoupling pin on top, one at the bottom. What's the reason for these different technical solutions?
Zs12
 
Posts: 287
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:31 am

Re: 1937 AAR Standard Design Boxcar Survey

Postby Marquette » Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:30 pm

The arrangement of the uncoupling lever (or "cut lever" as it's commonly called) pretty much came down to the railway's preference - this had nothing to do with one being Canadian and the other American. Lever on top is, I think, the more common.

As for a technical reason, I can only make a guess as to why the lever-on-top arrangement is more common - it's out of the way. Look how the rod sticks out in the top photo, floating through the middle of space, where any number of things could get caught in it (say, a workman's foot...); whereas on the bottom photo, it's neatly tucked away against the bottom of the car's end, where nothing can get caught in it.
http://espeett.blogspot.com - The SP in 1:120 - my attempt at a blog
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
User avatar
Marquette
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:16 pm

Re: 1937 AAR Standard Design Boxcar Survey

Postby Zs12 » Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:02 am

Aha ... ! I also guess the on-top-lever is simpler and safer. Because the pin must be lifted for uncoupling and the gravity hold it always in proper (closed) position. :?:
Zs12
 
Posts: 287
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:31 am

Re: 1937 AAR Standard Design Boxcar Survey

Postby TinGoat » Wed Sep 21, 2011 9:49 am

lüTTe wrote:Aha ... ! I also guess the on-top-lever is simpler and safer. Because the pin must be lifted for uncoupling and the gravity hold it always in proper (closed) position. :?:


AFAIK: The Coupler Pin is always held down by gravity to keep the knuckle closed.

The Coupler Pin is pushed or pulled UP to open the knuckle.

The lower cut-lever PUSHES the coupler pin up.

The upper cut-lever PULLS the coupler pin up.

This is an illustration from Proto48 for Bottom Operating Cut Levers For San Juan Couplers
Image

Read the article here:
http://www.proto48.org/p48_art_t04.htm
Happy Railroadin'
The Tin Goat
Ron Wm. Hurlbut
Overlooking Fairbank on the Toronto Belt Line
Ontario, Dominion of Canada
====
The Ontario Narrow Gauge Show:
http://www.narrowgaugeontario.com
====
Humber Valley & Simcoe Railway Blog:
http://humbervalleysimcoerailway.blogspot.com/
====
"Do you mind being apathetic?"
User avatar
TinGoat
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 7:36 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Dominion of Canada

Re: 1937 AAR Standard Design Boxcar Survey

Postby Zs12 » Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:16 pm

Thank you! One knowledge gap less ... :)
Zs12
 
Posts: 287
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:31 am

Re: 1937 AAR Standard Design Boxcar Survey

Postby scaro » Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:43 am

It’s interesting to me that some big roads like the C&NW, Milwaukee, Burlington and Rock Island didn’t appear to own these boxcars. I wonder why? Were they not suited to the traffic on granger roads or something?

Ben
scaro
 

Re: 1937 AAR Standard Design Boxcar Survey

Postby Tom Dempsey » Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm

It seems to me that it sort of depended on the what was the latest design during each particular companies purchasing cycle. For example, if the Railroad went big on the 1932 house car design, there would be no reason to purchase another run of cars five years later when the cars averaged a 20 life cycle plus two 10 year rebuild cycles.
Tom Dempsey
 
Posts: 235
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Prototypes / Models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests