hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote to Mike Powell <=-
The most successful unit was the RDC. Excellent design.
Unfortunately, even though it was much cheaper to operate,
branch line service was still a money-loser in most cases.
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote to Mike Powell <=-
ha> The most successful unit was the RDC. Excellent design.
ha> Unfortunately, even though it was much cheaper to operate,
ha> branch line service was still a money-loser in most cases.
I like the RDCs and the idea of one. I wish they had been more successful.
They would have been great for the branch lines.
... DalekDOS v(overflow): (I)Obey (V)ision impaired (E)xterminate
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote to Mike Powell <=-
The most successful unit was the RDC. Excellent design.
Unfortunately, even though it was much cheaper to operate,
branch line service was still a money-loser in most cases.
I like the RDCs and the idea of one. I wish they had been more successful.
They would have been great for the branch lines.
I like the RDCs and the idea of one. I wish they had been more successful.
They would have been great for the branch lines.
I take it that you've never seen the SPV-2000, which Budd built as a successor to the RDC?
In a word, these units were a lesson of how ***not*** to build a rail car.
On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 2:34:47 PM UTC-5, houn...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I like the RDCs and the idea of one. I wish they had been more successful. >>> They would have been great for the branch lines.
I take it that you've never seen the SPV-2000, which Budd built as a
successor to the RDC?
In a word, these units were a lesson of how ***not*** to build a rail car.
I rode the SPV a few times and it was ok.
However, they had a very poor reliability record.
I'm not sure what went wrong. Budd had extensive experience
with the RDC and certainly knew how to build a reliable
self-powered train. I don't know what they did differently
on the SPV that made that a failure.
In the Official Guide of 1954, there were many 'mixed trains' shown
on little branch lines. For whatever reason, they felt it necessary
to mark the train as such.
On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 3:19:47 PM UTC-5, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
In the Official Guide of 1954, there were many 'mixed trains' shown
on little branch lines. For whatever reason, they felt it necessary
to mark the train as such.
In further reading, there were a great many mixed trains in 1954.
Almost all the railroads had at least one, sometimes several. Some
of the branches were rather short, like ten miles, but others were
longer. As mentioned, the trains were slow--needing an hour to
travel just ten to twenty miles.
In some cases service was provided in only one direction.
Curiously, the railroads also had listings for many branch lines
that were freight only. There were also numerous tiny carriers
that were freight only.
A few branches did carry passengers, but with the notation
"irregular schedule, consult agent". Must have been a 'fun' trip.
But some hardy railfans liked to rack up rare mileage and actually
sought out and rode those trains.
Have you ever heard of a Parliamentary train, a.k.a. a Parly?
In article <q1e2d0$mnk$1@dont-email.me>,
hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Have you ever heard of a Parliamentary train, a.k.a. a Parly?
Yes.
In <q1e7rt$2e9s$1@gal.iecc.com> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
In article <q1e2d0$mnk$1@dont-email.me>,
hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Have you ever heard of a Parliamentary train, a.k.a. a Parly?
Yes.
Have you ever heard of the "white train"?
(yes, there's even a wiki article...)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 339 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 85:44:16 |
| Calls: | 7,480 |
| Files: | 12,703 |
| Messages: | 5,633,987 |