Re: More C&S caboose under frame weirdness.

Posted by John Greenly on
URL: http://c-sng-discussion-forum.254.s1.nabble.com/the-caboose-that-never-was-tp8369p9450.html

Looking back through this steadily developing thread, there is now at least one thing we can say with absolute certainty, based on the 313/Blackhawk photo.  The modern 9 ft wheelbase undercarriage was not required in order to have Westinghouse brakes.  At least one version of the short, 6' 3" wheelbase did have them.  

Given this, and the supposition (proven, or not?) that none of the cars were born with the modern, independently sprung 9 ft undercarriage, then why did they get rebuilt with this undercarriage?  If it was to improve their ability to stay on the rails as seems likely,  then why was this done, to at least most of the cars,  instead of putting them on trucks?  After playing around for a minute with a pair of trucks and my model, it looks that it would be a very tight squeeze to get trucks with outside brake shoes under the short-bodied cars. Likewise, looking at the photo of  Jim's beautiful 1002 two-truck model and scaling the body length down, I come to the same conclusion: the brake beams would not clear each other on a short-bodied car unless the trucks were moved further out to the ends of the car, and then the journal boxes would almost certainly interfere with the steps.    

By the way, I'm totally convinced by Jim's two-truck analysis of the 1002 photograph in the eight-wheel caboose thread.  Interesting to see that he doubted his sanity after being forced to his conclusion, just as I did mine, with 313!

So,  maybe the modern 9' four-wheel undercarriage was the solution for the short-bodied cars, and then, the parts having been produced, was used under long-bodied cars as well.

John