Passenger Trains > Rebuilding Passenger Cars

Greetings to everyone.

Yesterday (10-3-2011) erielackawanna started a thread about "Goodbye Comet 1's" whereby the discussion centered around these cars sitting on a siding in California, as to whether or not they are to be scrapped. I made a comment in response and I cannot believe that no one has bothered to answer. I asked all Trainorders.com members have you all seen either of the Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey Circus Trains?
To me this is proof that most passenger cars can be rebuilt and in the case of these ex-New Jersey cars, they should be rebuilt for the simple reason that it is far cheaper to rebuild a passenger car then to construct a brand new one. The circus trains are proof as I cannot imagine that Ringling Bros. would be rebuilding cars if it were cheaper to purchase them brand new. There was a very nice article in a "Trains Magazine" some time back (within the last two years I think) and it covered the circus and the rebuilding of the cars. I'll look for your comments folks. Thanks.

JH a/k ClubCar



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/11 03:57 by ClubCar.

It's cheaper, but not cheap. And a lot of it depends on intended use. Washington, D.C. Chapter NRHS just refurbished a 1949 Budd Car Franklin Inn, former PRR car, and put it back in service, up to Amtrak standards, for excursion service. Frankly, it's big business.... Helps if you have your own railroad.

For more about Franklin Inn, see: http://www.dcnrhs.org/projects/franklin-inn-collinsville-inn

Stainless steel body frames, such as Budd-built cars seem to be the overwhelming choice of rebuilders.

But there are notable exceptions, but their numbers are generally very small.

Commuter transit operators and Amtrak own the style of car, like the Comet 1. Are the core elements of these cars not worth saving?

I am assuming rebuilding costs $500,000 per car and would mean extensive reworking to meet ADA, safety, and other technological advances.

I have never found these cars to be particularly attractive for intercity use. Perhaps commuter usars found them okay?

MEKoch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stainless steel body frames, such as Budd-built
> cars seem to be the overwhelming choice of
> rebuilders.
>
> But there are notable exceptions, but their
> numbers are generally very small.
>
> Commuter transit operators and Amtrak own the
> style of car, like the Comet 1. Are the core
> elements of these cars not worth saving?
>
> I am assuming rebuilding costs $500,000 per car
> and would mean extensive reworking to meet ADA,
> safety, and other technological advances.
>
> I have never found these cars to be particularly
> attractive for intercity use. Perhaps commuter
> usars found them okay?


The Pullman-Standard Comet 1 cars were like the Orient Express for people accustomed to riding on the Lackawanna MU cars. MU cars were hot in the summer, no a/c, cold in the winter, dimly lit, rattan seats that would snag a suit or put a run in somebody's stockings (remember them?), etc.

There was a Comet 1 set due out of Newark just after an express to Morristown. The Comet made more stops and went out all the way to Lake Hopatcong in those days. People passed up the express MU to ride in comfort. That would have been about 1975 or 1976.

It's ironic that in 2011 there may be more Lackawanna MU cars in existence (still) than Comet 1 cars. They're all over. A few even turned up in the Knox and Kane auction, and I believe there are or were a few in Alberta.

The original Comet I cars (not called that at the time, later versions got that name) were decent cars for 1-2 hour trips. They originally had some rather comfortable 2-2 walkover seats. My favorite feature was the small snack stand. They took out three rows and had a nicely done setup. They employed a lot of the dining car department employees who were able to hang on a few more years. Great coffee and Danish!

Tim

The P-S Comet-I of 1970 was really an aluminum-skinned upgrade to the LIRR MP-75 MU of 1963, which was built at the Worcester plant, which was made of LAHTS steel. They originally had the same window sash. Had the LIRR gotten any, they would likely have been called P-75.

governments like to create jobs, they like new cars more jobs

$500,000 to rebuild a pass. car is fairly conservative. Depending on age, subsystems, etc., it could run $1 million plus.

Also, there is a point where it just makes no economic sense. Railcars undergo a lot of metal fatigue. Mild steel bodied cars (or worse, those that were mild steel under a stainless shell) often have rust and fatigue issues that make them highly impractical to rebuild. Budd cars seem to keep getting new lives as their construction and materials have given them some real longevity.

Z

I would hazard a guess that well over 99% of the people on this list have seen the Ringling Brothers trains, but your base arguement is simply ignoring the fact that some things have life left in them and some don't. My dad junked a 1966 Ford in 1973 because the car was done. It was rusted through, had poor compression and needed other work. There is a nearly identical 1966 Ford that is often parked on the street in my neighborhood in 2011. That doesn't mean that my dad's car was worth saving too. My dad's car clearly had had a rougher early life.

If anyone would like to see the Pullman Standard cars saved, it would be me, having grown up with them - and the truth of the matter is that I have NO INFORMATION or KNOWLEDGE about what condition that they are in - but that doesn't change the simple fact that somethings have the bones still to be rebuilt and something do not.

As I stated in the other thread, part of the issue is the value of the cars as a unit vs. value of the cars as scrap. Metrolink has an investment into the cars, they are a business, and either need to break even or improve upon their investment by the time they get rid of them. The cars in question didn't see revenue service at all on Metrolink, so Metrolink is already deep in a hole with the cars. When an agency decides to buy new cars vs. old cars they have to look at the cost of upgrading them to serviceable standards and factor that against the purchase price. The more work the cars need, the less valuable they are for bargaining. At some point the value of the cars as a unit dip below the value of the raw material used to build them. At that point the best option is to scrap them out for the raw materials in order to make the best return on your investment.

Apparently Metrolink has supposedly determined that the Comet Cab Cars don't have sufficient value to be sold off, so they're going to scrap them.

cars are going to Beach Grove to get rebuilt for the State of California for San Joaquin service according to this months railpace



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/11 11:30 by Out_Of_Service.

I'll re post here what I posted there:


[ Reply To This Message ] [ Quote ] [ Private Reply ]
Date: 10/05/11 11:53
Re: Other former NJT Cars for CA?
Author: cabanillas
ClubCar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> You're right to a point; however as I stated
> above, the Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey Circus
> rebuilds all types of passenger cars for the
> circus trains. Many of these cars are now over 50
> years old. These New Jersey cars are not that
> old. I'll bet that all of them can be rebuilt to
> operate for many more years cheaper then
> purchasing new ones. And don't forget, many times
> parts can be substituted with a complete rebuild.
> Have most of you here on Trainorders.com seen the
> circus train in operation? Again, I rest my
> case.
> JH a/k ClubCar in Maryland

Many questions have to be asked before a decent evaluation of the above question can be made, and comparing these cars to the RBBB cars may be apples and dinosaurs, to wit:

what type of construction? Monocoque versus semi monocoque versus body on frame?
What level of stress does the planned use put on the structure / frame / etc.
What is the history of the car? Leaks, hard coupling, damage repairs?
What are the spare part situations?
What is the economic life remaining after a rebuild?
What is the intended use? Low stress use can justify an extended lifetime rebuild where high use may not make a rebuild economical over a projected extended lifetime.
Stainless steel versus CorTen or Aluminum?
Level of corrosion? These things can make a big difference in the estimated lifetime.
Etc, etc, etc.

It is not a simple question to answer, and needs detailed knowledge of what is the current condition in detail and what is in the best interest of the potential user and his or her needs.

A few years ago the Heber Valley RR not far from my home was given an ex-Amtrak, ex-New Haven Pullman Standard 'Merchants Limited' parlor car. Preliminary plans were for it to be restored as a first-class parlor car for the excursion train operation there. It sat around on the back lot until recently when I noticed it loaded up on a trailer (actually it WAS the trailer...) headed off for scrapping. It was the first time I was able to get close to it so I did the obligatory fist-pound against the stainless fluting to hear the shower of rusted-out cor-ten rain down on the inside of the car walls. Then I understood why it was decided to scrap it. Stainless fluting over carbon-steel side panels was not one of Pullman's better ideas, and definitely a reason they're not as common as all-stainless Budd products any more.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/11 12:06 by davew833.

I have heard that Amtrak is considering retiring the Horizon fleet, which are essentially a newer version of that car. Problems include corrosion and fatigue. They are a unit-body construction where much of the structural strength is in the skin, making them lighter than a standard body on sills construction. It also means that when the skin develops cracks or corrosion repairs are very expensive. Trying to compare them to the Ringling cars is not appropriate, as construction techniques were vastly different.

Will we ever see the use of composites in passenger car design?

I just want to say a BIG Thank Yooooooooooo to all of you who responded. Very good points were made.

It is my understanding that VIA spent about $1 million per car to restore the Budd cars now used on their premium trains. Several of these cars were purchased from American owners including Amtrak. New cars would have cost about $2 million each. RBB&B favors St. Louis Car built cars as does UP. These are aluminum skin over steel. I used to own one. The problem of dissimilar metals was less than I as an engineer would expect. I have had the privilege to visit RBB&B rail shops in Florida. I was very impressed. Frank Corley, P.E.

David.Curlee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Will we ever see the use of composites in
> passenger car design?

I think you can bet heavily on that, assuming you are planning on being around for another decade or so to see it. You may not see them developed in the US, or at least not developed and put into producetion here. But in Europe or Korea or Japan or (later) China it is a pretty good bet.

Composite technology is nasty stuff to master, and there aren't that many masters yet. But it is being used in airplanes and cars, so it is only a matter of time until it is in trucks, busses, and probably passenger train cars. I expect busses might be first in this country, but probably trains elsewhere.

The main problem with structural composites are that they are close to unrepairable. And almost certainly any composite car would be built with the body being a major structural element. So anything much more than a scratch would be likely to total a car. Perhaps that means that they are likely to show up on subway and LRV use before mainline rail.

Also you aren't likely to see someone cutting bigger windows in a structural composite car. So that might limit the ability to upgrade and reconfigure previously built vehicles. That could be an argument for staying with metal materials.

Of course the FRA would probably have to make a complete new set of safety and construciton rules for composite cars, so that could delay their use by a couple of decades.