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>
![]()
__,_._,___
|
|