Steve, none taken - I realized after that I
hadn't explained the differences in the
construction. There was something else too that I meant to add, and forgot.
The clips on the P-S car were inserted into the
body. Which is another reason the fluid got into
the structure of the car - you have a hole to
attach something, the seal can never be complete,
and you'll end up with moisture where you don't
want it - and no way to air dry it either.
At 10:05 AM 4/19/2010, you wrote:
>Bob
>Â
>I understand what you said. I just was curious
>whether it was actually confirmed by the car
>itself. I apologize if you took offense. None was intended.
>Â
>sjl
>
>--- On Mon, 4/19/10, Bob Webber <cz17@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>From: Bob Webber <cz17@comcast.net>
>Subject: Re: [CBQ] Re: The Round-up
>To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
>Date: Monday, April 19, 2010, 8:58 AM
>
>
>Â
>
>
>
>
>I guess one more try.
>
>The P-S cars that had stainless sheathing had the sheathing attached
>with clips. It wasn't welded to the side, it was simply an
>applique. With that type of attachment, especially when the
>attachment is on the flat, versicle car side, you will see water and
>other fluids run down and under it. By the time the Q received
>their cars that originally had sheathing of this type (from the
>C&NW), the sheathing was gone.
>
>THE ROUND-UP on the other hand, was sheathed completely in stainless,
>which means that the shot-weld process was used to attach the various
>panels to each other, and the panels themselves were welded, not
>clipped, to the car side and ends. If you look at a stainless steel
>car, it is (essentially) one unit from the bottom of one side, to the
>other. So liquids can't (usually) get in behind the stainless
>siding. When the unit is basically a one piece shell, water can't
>get under it (easily). In order to get under this sort of
>construction, fluids typically get in via the windows or other body
>openings. If the shop is careful, and the openings are done with
>care, and sealed after, the possibility is a lot less.
>
>Compare that construction with the Wabash-built "stainless" cars (one
>of which was the Busch PV). Those cars were sheathed but not
>welded. The result was a (relative to THE ROUND-UP) failure, as
>fluids got behind and the cars were in less than optimum condition
>relatively quickly.
>
>The Q's Aurora shops were one of the more - if not the most -
>proficient railroad shop in working with stainless. They had already
>rebuilt several cars that would otherwise be totaled, built the
>pattern domes, sheathed the Zephyr backup Hudsons, and generally
>could do as well as Red Lion in terms of construction with
>stainless. I haven't heard of the pattern domes leaking, if any car
>the Q made would be susceptible to that, it was these cars (due to
>the location of the cuts (roof) and the flexing of the car in that area).
>
>At 08:16 AM 4/19/2010, you wrote:
> >Since it is a stainless steel sheathed car, how has it held up
> >regarding rusting underneath the sheathing?
>
>Bob Webber
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Bob Webber
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
CBQ-digest@yahoogroups.com
CBQ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|