TTX front runner spine cars

[20th_century]

I wanted to learn a bit more about these 4-wheel cars and came across a very old thread here which cited poor running qualities (hunting) and derailing, which, among other reasons, led to the demise of these cars. A question begs: How is it that the Europeans have been successfully running 4-wheel rolling stock at up to 75mph for many years?

I wanted to learn a bit more about these 4-wheel cars and came across a very old thread here which cited poor running qualities (hunting) and derailing, which, among other reasons, led to the demise of these cars. A question begs: How is it that the Europeans have been successfully running 4-wheel rolling stock at up to 75mph for many years?

Perhaps the European network has better track standards than most railroads in the US have today. Too, I believe that intermodal equipment and load factors are less than the 48K stuffed into American trailers.

[M636C]

Here are some illustrations of the Walthers model showing the Taperlite suspension:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Walthers-932-3981-HO-Scale-Front-Runner-Trailer-Train-120004-/142118907517?hash=item2116f26e7d:g:mOYAAOSw8w1X2ysC

I think that in general, track standards on main lines in Europe are better than the average in the USA and this allows the use of four wheel vehicles at higher speeds.

I think the non standard nature of the Front Runner prevented wider acceptance and like Flexi-Vans and Road Railers, just went away after the initial enthusiasm died out.

M636C

[RME]

I think the non standard nature of the Front Runner prevented wider acceptance and like Flexi-Vans and Road Railers, just went away after the initial enthusiasm died out.

I had the distinct impression that rakes of articulated spine cars, on the one hand, and lightweight, low-CG, articulated double-stack well cars, on the other, squeezed out single-unit low-tare-weight cars with axles at the ‘quarter points’. Why fight weird moments and motions at the couplers, and have to worry about stringlining and so forth, when articulated cars are inherently far more stable?

Note how quickly the ‘alternative’ of lightweight three-axle freight trucks with very low wheels for HAL service disappeared… together with the kinds of train they were to carry.

[Buslist]

M636C
I think the non standard nature of the Front Runner prevented wider acceptance and like Flexi-Vans and Road Railers, just went away after the initial enthusiasm died out.

I had the distinct impression that rakes of articulated spine cars, on the one hand, and lightweight, low-CG, articulated double-stack well cars, on the other, squeezed out single-unit low-tare-weight cars with axles at the ‘quarter points’. Why fight weird moments and motions at the couplers, and have to worry about stringlining and so forth, when articulated cars are inherently far more stable?

Note how quickly the ‘alternative’ of lightweight three-axle freight trucks with very low wheels for HAL service disappeared… together with the kinds of train they were to carry.

So of course my retired TTX buddy called Friday morning and said he couldn’t make it to the get together so I’ll have to pick his brain at a later date at an Irish Pub we occasionally frequent.

You’ve got me on this light weight 3axle truck (an oxymoron I believe). What are you thing of?

[RME]

RME

M636C
I think the non standard nature of the Front Runner prevented wider acceptance and like Flexi-Vans and Road Railers, just went away after the initial enthusiasm died out.

I had the distinct impression that rakes of articulated spine cars, on the one hand, and lightweight, low-CG, articulated double-stack well cars, on the other, squeezed out single-unit low-tare-weight cars with axles at the ‘quarter points’. Why fight weird moments and motions at the couplers, and have to worry about stringlining and so forth, when articulated cars are inherently far more stable?

Note how quickly the ‘alternative’ of lightweight three-axle freight trucks with very low wheels for HAL service disappeared… together with the kinds of train they were to carry.

So of course my retired TTX buddy called Friday morning and said he couldn’t make it to the get together so I’ll have to pick his brain at a later date at an Irish Pub we occasionally frequent.

You’ve got me on this light weight 3axle truck (an oxymoron I believe). What are you thinking of?

You would ask me that with everything packed up in storage and in the middle of moving!

If I remember correctly this was the ABC-NACO “TA-2000 tri-axle” that was mentioned in the May 1999 Railway Age (I will have to check the library later today as I can’t navigate their Web site successfully). Hopefully this will jog your memory for strange transient fads in railroad suspension design!

This was supposed to have a welded rather than cast sideframe and inherent radial steering (easier in a three-axle truck) and, for HAL, was in theory going to be able to approximate the contact patch of larger wheels with that of

[Masterist_Scale_Rail]

I wanted to learn a bit more about these 4-wheel cars and came across a very old thread here which cited poor running qualities (hunting) and derailing, which, among other reasons, led to the demise of these cars. A question begs: How is it that the Europeans have been successfully running 4-wheel rolling stock at up to 75mph for many years?

Many forementioned reasons such as reduced axle loads and shorter freights are correct but there is more to it: curve radii. Europe has a minimum curve radius of 160m or ~500’ as a STRICT MINIMUM, while mainlines will usually have more. This prevents buffer side-lock problem regardless of location on track. If you have space try different scenarios with long freight train: 50 cars on 22" curve and same on 40+" curve. You will see the difference in terms of grawgear forces even in model world. Given shorter train length in Europe even if car design is more derailment-prone broad curves are not tight enough for a dangerous situation.