Re: [CBQ] Re: Emergency waycars

["John D. Mitchell, Jr." <cbqrr47@yahoo.com>]

The 8500's were 50 foot freight boxcars modified for passenger service with an AAR designation of "BX" or box express cars. They had, among other things, permanently mounted marker brackets.

--- On Sat, 1/26/13, jonnyo55 <johnnyo55@hotmail.com> wrote:

From: jonnyo55 <johnnyo55@hotmail.com>
Subject: [CBQ] Re: Emergency waycars
To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013, 1:04 AM

 

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
>

__._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___