|
|
| Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? (1251786) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Oct 4 17:16:04 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 16:54:47 2013. Disclaimer: I don't like the idea of 67' cars.That said, a new equipment order would either not have that limitation, or be designed around that limitation. One possible solution would be to build 3, 4 and 5 car sets with many more 4 car sets than the other sizes. The B2 division would have 4+5 and the B1 would have 4+4 or 4+3. Reasons why that is a bad idea: For B1, 8x67 is only 4 feet shorter than 9x60', so a platform extension project would be necessary anyway. And if they're doing that, they might as well stick with 60' cars. Without a platform extension, using 7x67 means you have shortened the eastern division trains by 11' (and only recovered 5' by the reduction of one between-car area). So there'd be a great amount of effort [stop markers, conductor boards, training] to accommodate an oddball size of equipment and when the dust settles, you have shorter trains... not really worthwhile. |
|
|
|