Hard to figure (or maybe not $o much...) why the Q did not simply add end
platforms to these cars. The NP did exactly that and ended up with waycars that
were considered the equal of their contemporary counterparts, and lasted into
the BN era. The KCS likewise built quite satisfactory waycars out of house
cars. The Pennsy, on the other hand, converted X23 boxcars into platform free
NX23 cabins, which were fairly short lived...most ended up in MofW service.
On another topic...there's a current thread dealing with mounting markers on
boxcars for use at the hind end of passenger trains. Are these cars being
discussed run-of-the-mill 40' cars, or more specialized boxcars such as the
converted troop sleepers?
John O'Connell
--- In CBQ@yahoogroups.com, "Rupert & Maureen" wrote:
>
> As the waycars converted from boxcars were so obviously unsafe (even to
> non-rail workers), I wonder why efforts weren't made to make them safer,
> possibly on the lines of the transfer waycar #14700. I know that the
> Burlington was frugal, but I have never seen a comment that it would
> deliberately risk the safety of its employees in order to save money. These
> conversions weren't exactly a new concept - the Burlington's subsidiaries
> had used "bouncers" and "box ways" since the early 1890's, and 24 of them had
> been assimilated into the CB&Q roster in 1904, so there was ample opportunity
> to identify the problems before the next round of conversions.
>
> Looking at the box waycars that the Burlington converted post-1904 and in
> 1943-5, the biggest obstacle to providing better egress and exit might have
> been the position of the trucks, which were nearer to the ends of the car
> than on a waycar, and there was insufficient space outside the trucks for
> conventional waycar steps. Whilst the underframes were wooden, all the cars
> had either truss rods or steel centre sills so moving the trucks inwards
> would have been a major difficulty.
>
> There were two possible solutions. Rebuild the superstructure ends (the XM-10
> and XM-11 cars that were used were double sheathed with wood ends as opposed
> to the steel ends of the XM-18's) to create a platform at each end similar to
> 14700 or, if rebuilding was not acceptable, at least put a door at each
> corner with steps below. That would have reduced the available space inside,
> but that would have been a small price to pay for the added safety. At least
> if there was a fall, the crew would not be at risk from the following truck.
>
> Rupert Gamlen
> Auckland NZ
>
------------------------------------
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/
|