BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CBQ] Stainless steel fluting

To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Stainless steel fluting
From: "Bill Hirt whirt@fastmail.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 15:10:31 -0600
Authentication-results: mta1006.groups.mail.ne1.yahoo.com from=fastmail.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=messagingengine.com; dkim=pass (ok)
Delivered-to: unknown
Delivered-to: archives@nauer.org
Delivered-to: mailing list CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoogroups.com; s=echoe; t=1517519437; bh=RnJbX+WH3RVUamJpBBlWkubyfxYYLgFeADKG+q/61ws=; h=To:References:In-Reply-To:From:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:Date:Subject:Reply-To:From:Subject; b=qm8eavW4i5nGxwKmDfrUbbQEoTdSgDoIJSxEhYuUgLWwrIF5rHnqJxFhiFKAXNVhDmvqkT8zyZ68PFqoIZSdi5xS8Lsj/Nv/0MgkdevDt0NMwON7m8uLQOR4F86k052zf7sbqwZCSif7me+T41avcPg+yHxgJNE/m1WUBSNro+o=
In-reply-to: <p4v3ld+fkms3d@YahooGroups.com>
List-id: <CBQ.yahoogroups.com>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Mailing-list: list CBQ@yahoogroups.com; contact CBQ-owner@yahoogroups.com
References: <MEAPR01MB232562FF57DB633DDC3D98BDB9FB0@MEAPR01MB2325.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com> <374A6A08-016B-486E-93C3-BD88E5ED8056@prospectortech.com> <p4v3ld+fkms3d@YahooGroups.com>
Reply-to: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Sender: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2


On 2/1/2018 7:11 AM, thommack@yahoo.com [CBQ] wrote:
Another reason may be that I believe Budd got a patent on the stainless welding process Rupert mentions. If so, it makes sense that other manufacturers could not use the Budd welding process and so would have to build their car using regular carbon steel for strength, then add the fluting over it for looks. Stainless weighs more than carbon steel, but if you can avoid having to double layer the car, you make a lighter car, and that saves fuel, etc. While fuel costs may not have been so important back then, if you can make a lighter car you can pull more of them on a train with the same power and that means more revenue. With all the talk of E-unit nose MU and limits on two E-units per train until nose MU was added, getting an extra car on a train would be a real money maker.

I have read several places regarding post-war passenger car building competition that Budd was willing to license the shot-welding process. ACF and Pullman-Standard, their main competitors, either declined or had no interest. I've never seen any discussion about what the licensing cost was, but I am sure it was mainly a competitive issue with ACF and Pullman-Standard. If you are licensing the Budd shot-welding process to build your passenger cars, who would your customer not go get the real thing from Budd instead? By the time the rust and decay problem became evident on the Pullman-Standard cars in the mid-late 1950s, the post-war passenger car building rush was over and the new passenger car market had pretty much dried up except for occasional commuter equipment orders.

Bill Hirt


__._,_.___

Posted by: Bill Hirt <whirt@fastmail.com>



__,_._,___
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>