what is the reason for two different trucks for the F29 flat cars. Buckeye or 3f-f1 kissel trucks.is there a reason for the two diff trucks? http://www.fandckits.com/HOFreight/8170.html
The PRR Railfan says the cars had Buckeye trucks based on 1940 PRR documents, but also says other types may have also been used. I suspect that F&C has found some documentation (probably photos) showing Kissel trucks.
In situations like that, it’s often the case where one type of truck was original, then another design replaced it. Special equipment like these cars often had a long service life, but better trucks could have been an upgrade at some point.
Gidday , Here’s a link to prototype photos…
Kissel trucks… http://prr.railfan.net/freight/freightphotos.html?photo=PRR_435493_F29_MLC1939.jpg&fr=clF2
Buckeye trucks… http://prr.railfan.net/freight/freightphotos.html?photo=PRR_XXXXXX_F29_34view.jpg&fr=clF29
Cheers, the Bear.
The trucks were changed to increase the carrying capacity of the cars. There were 10 F29 depressed center flats built in 1927 and another ten later on in 1929. They were the first true depressed center flat built by the PRR. They were built twelve years after Westinghouse requested them. As built the capacity was 210,000 lb. According to the PRR flat car book car #435493 had the 2F-F1 trucks which lowered the light weight to 101,500 lbs. but still had a 230,000 lb total capacity. It is not known how many were equipped with the 2F-F1 trucks.
Oddly enough these cars were sold to France but were not delivered due to France being run over by Germany in 1940.
Pete
That is very interesting and helpful. Thanks. Now I know which one to acquire.
kg
KG.
A very recommended book is the PRR flat cars. Revenue and work equipment 1881 to 1968. Put out by the PRRT&HS. http://www.prrths.com/estore/index_estore.html One of the best and informative books I have in my collection.
One more thing about the F29. Even though each end had its own brake system each car had three reservoirs mounted on the outside of the frame above each truck. The B end had only one on the right side of the car.
Pete
From that book:
The capacity for both versions was 210,000 pounds.
The load limit for both versions was 230,000 pounds.
So, there was no increase in capacity.
Also from that book:
“Note the 3F-F2 Buckeye six-wheel trucks, which were used on the second lof of F29’s instead of the Kiesel six-wheel trucks used on the first lot.” The author also says: “It is not known what class of trucks were furnished on all cars.” I have one shot of Buckeye’s on a car in the first batch. I’d say that truck “placement” is up in the air. If a person were to join the PRR Yahoo groups, perhaps an answer might arise.
Ed
Ed.
Sorry for the confusion. This mornings post was by memory or for that matter what little is left of it. I later ( after the wife woke up) went into the library/ bedroom and looked it up. The original 10 had a light weight of 100,800 lb. The Buckeye trucked cars had a light weight of 101,500 lb. So in fact the buckeye trucked cars had a slight decrease in capacity. But then again it is more like a guideline or recommendation for many times cars of this type were over loaded or weight concentrated on a smaller surface than designed.
No. The capacities were the same, as I noted. What the difference in light weights did do was make the max gross loaded weight (light weight + load limit) different, and consequently the axle loading slightly different. Considering that the gross loaded weight was approximately 330,000 pounds, the 700 pound difference in light weights was minor.
Ed
Ed and KGill.
I was talking to one of the members of my club who is a retired car man from the B&M rr. His father and several other members of his family were railroad men too. We discussed many things including the Kissel verses the Buckeye trucks on the F29. He mentioned that the Kissel while he does not remember or for that fact may have never seen one is primarily a PRR truck and probably not used by any other road. Since the cars were sought after and rarely sat idle it would have been expeditious to have a more popular truck to expedite off line repairs. The Buckeye being used by many other roads would have a greater chance of a quicker turn around time in the repair facility instead of waiting for parts to be shipped from the PRR to whatever facility needing it. This explanation made sense to me. He also said off line cars waiting for parts would be exempt from per diam rates and any transportation of parts would be standard freight rates. Common parts from the off line railroad would be charged to the owning road and off line cars would take priority over home road cars for repair. Non common trucks and draft gear parts were the major delay in repairing off line cars for the B&M he said. Cars could sit for weeks waiting for parts from the owning road.
Pete
Pete Really great info!! Thanks Kgill