Just curious how much easier the streamlined cars pull compared to heavyweight. On the Grand Canyon RY. they use 2 ALCO FPA-4’s[8D] rated at 1800 hp each to pull 5 heavyweight harriman coaches.(GCR has 3% grades[:0]) but I’ve seen a picture of a F7[;)] (1500 hp) pulling 7 streamlined bi-level cars. I know streamliners pull easier, but how much easier?
There are 2 different issues here:
o - Standard steam heated(either HW or LW) passenger cars. Heat is provided by Steam, axle generator set driven off if the car axle. These produce a lot of ‘drag’. The streamliner cars are lighter, but not that much!
o - HEP heated/cooled/lighting provided by the engine. No axle gen sets, these cars are very easy to pull. Those bi-level cars you referenced; short haul, basically level route, and lots of stop/start.
You mentioned 5 cars up a 3% grade - maybe 15-20 cars on the level? Grades really eat up pulling capacity …
Jim Bernier
I think GCRy’s coaches are heated by a standalone HEP unit (when pulled by steam engines) (which is another car to pull) but the FPA-4’s should be equipped for heating them as well. Yes, the 7 car bi-level train was a short haul train.
You’re talking a tourist operation here… They probably run two FPA’s back to back because of the lack of turning facilities - the same reason many roads run two units.
The F7 with the bi’s probably had a cab car on the end.
There’s not much difference per se between the cars - the NH/PRR Senator for instance had the same engines when it was HW and when it was replaced with LW.
And those Harriman commuter cars are considered by most operators to be lightweight cars, as are the RI cars and the Stillwells, even though they are not SS. They are devoid of most everything inside and outside that makes the car “heavyweight”, and some SS cars are actually heavier than they are.
First off, heavyweight cars have concrete floors. That alone adds tremendous weight as opposed to a lightweight, stainless car. And the construction techniques used muc lighter materials for stainless cars. Another factor, speaking as built, is that stainless cars ride on roller bearings, as opposed to the friction bearings that most heavyweight cars rode on.
Lightweight cars also hade axle driven generators (for power requirements) along with steam heat and steam air conditioning (steam ejector AC systems, found primarily on the Santa Fe). The steam was provided by either a steam generator car at the head end of the train, or from the locomotives themselves.
Heavy weight cars do not have concrete floors. I have been in deteriorated cars under-going restoration and they weren’t concrete - the sub-floors were steel - there is a sub-surface and the actual floors were carpet, or in later cars, commercial tiles like in super markets and the like or maybe even linoleum (sp?) - but certainly NOT concrete.
Roller bearings vs. friction bearings don’t make a tremendous difference in weight.
All cars (both HW and LW) had steam heat supplied from an outside source (before HEP) and each car had its own AC system - either ice (early HW) or electro-mechanical (rebuilt HW and LW cars).
As the names say, heavyweights are much heavier, and the streamlined ones are lighter and streamlined.
First off, Pullman Standard DID build their cars with concrete floors. I have been heavily involved in the restoration of the Pullman 12-1 McKeever and a the Santa Fe Division Superintendant’s car #404. These are both heavyweight cars built by Pullman Standard (McKeever build year 1924; #404 build year 1926) and they definately have concrete floors along with many other Pullman built cars.
And as far as the trucks go, rollor bearings have much better rolling charactaristics than that of friction bearings, thus allowing less resistance.
Get your facts straight before po
I think you need to realize what you posted.
A roller bearing truck does not weigh more than a friction bearing truck as you implied - instead of clarifying you meant you choose to lower the quality of the discussion by insulting - obviously the rolling characteristics are different, but thats not what you originally implied.
Now secondly, I’m not sure you can be serious - I have been in PS Parlor cars and coaches rusted though to the point where you could see the track below. No concrete - plaster, adhesives, steel, wood, other materials, yes - but not concrete.
Again, check your facts. It is not an insult, it is something you need to do if you are going to totally dismiss something that was posted by another member. Again, to get the FACTS out there, Pullman Standard DID use concrete in the floor construction of many of their cars. Believe me, it is not fun to deal with when dealing with restoration. You get buckled and cracked concrete that makes installing new flooring a chore. There is a corrugated metal base with a concrete flooring on top of that.
OK then. There is a difference with the cars we work on.
The ones I was inside, do not, the ones you work on, do. We’ll have to leave it at that.
I will say this, many commuter cars weren’t built with the concrete floors. Having the concrete floors were great on the long haul passenger cars because they absorbed a lot of noise and vibration.
The concrete was added for ride quality as well. See below. This came from the Aristo Heavyweight Car Tips from a Google Search.
"Heavyweights
The heavyweight passenger car came into existence after the turn of the century. It’s design evolved from the recognized inadequacies of the older wooden coaches.
The cars were called “heavyweights” for a very good reason. Besides the steel used in construction, the cars often had a six inch slab of concrete cast into their floors. This added a lot of sprung mass which made the car bodies tend to resist the tendency to bump and bounce over track irregularities. This resulted in significantly improved riding qualities, especially at the high speeds often used in the late steam era.
Only significant improvements in suspensions allows the newer and lighter streamlined cars to ride better."
So, Heavyweights did use concrete! It does say often, so that would mean there would be some cars out there without the concrete. If people would read up on the different cars and how they are constructed, before posting, we could avoid lots of mis information. Do not want to read a book? Do a Google search.
My great grandfather worked for the PRR as a passenger conductor, when they used heavyweights. We heard stories when stream liners came out, car rebuilders would remove the concrete and put on new roller bearing two axle trucks, to avoid buying new cars. I do not know if that was true or not, but I can believe it.
Just my $0.02
OK then I admit I was wrong and apologize that “all” cars did not have concrete floors.
Being that the ones I am familiar with don’t, and that not all did, some had them removed, that shouldn’t be unexpected.
Also wrong was the blanket statement that they all did.
Simple. Extends hand shake.
Handshake recieved, and reciprocated.
We be good![:)]
thanks everyone, but GCRy doesn’t double head the ALCO’s so they can run the train in the opposite direction for the return trip. They have a wye for turning trains. Maybe the ALCO’s are just double-headed for extra power. here’s more about their engines-
#4960 2-8-2 mikado can haul 7 or 8 of the harriman coaches
#18 2-8-0 consolodation can haul 6 coaches up the 3% grades
#29 2-8-0 can haul 7 coaches up the 3% grades
http://www.thetrain.com/learnmore_fleet.cfm I obtained the # of cars they can pull when watching a show on the GCRy and the amounts i listed is the MAX number of cars they can pull
dingoix, I have ridden the Grand Canyon Railway 2 times, both times in the summer. They needed the 2 Alco’s in addition to the steam loco for the size of the train. Also the steam locos have MU controls to run with the Alco’s.
In addition to 3% grades there are also sharp curves on the line that need additional horse power.
The last time I was there only the ex SP commuter cars were steam heated, the rest of the train was Head End Power including lights in the commuter cars. They have ex steam generator cars from 1 of the Canadian railroads that they put HEP in to supply the train in addition to under car generators on the first class cars.
i didn’t know a stemer could be MU’ed with a diesel- how many cars did they pull with the three engines? which steam engine were they running with the ALCOs? I’d like to say #4960 is my favorite stem engine of ALL TIME -she was the former CB&Q #4960 and the GCRy spent $1.5 million dollars rebuilding and restoring #4960