|
|
| R-30 (1320480) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (1320480) | |
R-30 |
|
|
Posted by rbseabeach on Fri Oct 24 09:30:56 2014 I read that the R-30's received a light overhaul and did not get A/C since they were too heavy.I would think the R-32 being stainless steel would be heavier. Anyone know if this weight was the issue? |
|
|
| (1320486) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Fri Oct 24 10:17:43 2014, in response to R-30, posted by rbseabeach on Fri Oct 24 09:30:56 2014. In looking online, I see that the listed weight of an R-30 is around 10,000 lbs greater than a pre overhaul R-32. The post overhaul weight of the R-32 (incl A/C) is close to the delivered weight of the R-30.I'm sure one of the tech savvy folks on the sight will know how much of a factor weight would have been as to trucks, tracks, roadbed and el structures. We would be talking approx. 90,000 added lbs for a 10 car train. |
|
|
| (1320584) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 24 21:28:10 2014, in response to Re: R-30, posted by pragmatist on Fri Oct 24 10:17:43 2014. I believe the the TA used 9ton HVAC units for the rebuilt cars.32'so weighed 69,000 pounds A unit. 70,000 for compressor B unit. Added weight brought them up to 79-80 thousand pounds...a little under the R16/30/30a weight. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1320587) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by heypaul on Fri Oct 24 21:44:42 2014, in response to Re: R-30, posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 24 21:28:10 2014. I'm confused. I just read that the "9 ton" in a 9 ton HVAC unit is a reference to the cooling rate of the unit, not the actual physical weight of the unit. |
|
|
| (1320596) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Oct 24 22:54:33 2014, in response to R-30, posted by rbseabeach on Fri Oct 24 09:30:56 2014. Nope, the stainless steel was much lighter than the carbon steel of previous cars. It was big help for Budd when it won the contract. |
|
|
| (1320605) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Oct 25 00:35:24 2014, in response to Re: R-30, posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 24 21:28:10 2014. errr, no! "9 tons" is not the weight of the HVAC unit. In HVAC 1 ton = 12,000 BTU so 9 tons = 9 x12,000 or 108,000BTU per end. |
|
|
| (1320606) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Oct 25 00:36:05 2014, in response to R-30, posted by rbseabeach on Fri Oct 24 09:30:56 2014. No it was not a weight issue |
|
|
| (1320613) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Oct 25 01:28:58 2014, in response to Re: R-30, posted by heypaul on Fri Oct 24 21:44:42 2014. You are obviously correct. A "ton of A/C is equal to 12,000 BTU |
|
|
| (1320618) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Oct 25 01:54:04 2014, in response to Re: R-30, posted by heypaul on Fri Oct 24 21:44:42 2014. As one who had to specify HVAC for television studios (them lights are pretty damned hot, not to mention all the equipment) the REAL answer here is that "air conditioning tons" and their modern BTU equivalent is based on the weight of the amount of ICE, and the amount of extraction that would have occurred in cooling from X number of tons of ice. Tons is the amount of heat energy that would be extracted from one ton of ice in a 24 hour period.Rail related: Tons told refrigerated freight operators how many tons of ice they had to load in a car each 24 hours to maintain temperature for that amount of time. That was the earliest use of cooling for things that needed to be refrigerated, such as meat, dairy, etc. The British came up with the BTU conversions when mechanical means of refrigeration were possible. That's why it's called a British Thermal Unit. Same stuff though. BTU's is an hourly conversion from the prior. |
|
|
| (1320635) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by heypaul on Sat Oct 25 09:09:25 2014, in response to Re: R-30, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Oct 25 01:54:04 2014. Thanks Kevin. The origin of tons of cooling to actual tons of ice needed to cool a railroad refrigerated car is neat. |
|
|
| (1320641) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Sat Oct 25 09:45:21 2014, in response to R-30, posted by rbseabeach on Fri Oct 24 09:30:56 2014. Stainless steel cars are lighter because the stainless steel used is thinner than the carbon steel used in other cars. There is no need to allow for loss of strength over the life of the car due to corrosion. Because the stainless steel is thin it is corrugated to make it stiffer. |
|
|
| (1320644) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Sat Oct 25 10:12:41 2014, in response to Re: R-30, posted by heypaul on Sat Oct 25 09:09:25 2014. Refrigeration is a wonderful topic. There are so many things that take place that leave folks scratching their heads until fully understood. Always have fun trying to explain the notion of the "absorption chiller" Showing someone a burner unit or a heat source powering an a/c cycle throws folks for a loop. |
|
|
| (1320658) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Oct 25 12:09:32 2014, in response to Re: R-30, posted by pragmatist on Sat Oct 25 10:12:41 2014. Heh. I was amused the first time I worked on a propane refrigerator. :) |
|
|
| (1320659) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Oct 25 12:10:04 2014, in response to Re: R-30, posted by heypaul on Sat Oct 25 09:09:25 2014. You're welcome. I thought you'd find it amusing. :) |
|
|
| (1320660) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 25 12:14:02 2014, in response to Re: R-30, posted by Train Dude on Sat Oct 25 00:36:05 2014. So what was it? They just didn't want to bother fully overhauling them? |
|
|
| (1320668) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Sat Oct 25 13:49:23 2014, in response to Re: R-30, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Oct 25 12:09:32 2014. Had 2 400 ton Hitachi chillers I walked past for years going to my power and comm rooms at a site. Never could get used to seeing a flame under air conditioners. |
|
|
| (1320672) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Oct 25 14:18:54 2014, in response to Re: R-30, posted by pragmatist on Sat Oct 25 13:49:23 2014. Evaporation is a wonderous thing. :) |
|
|
| (1320675) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Oct 25 14:48:06 2014, in response to Re: R-30, posted by 3-9 on Fri Oct 24 22:54:33 2014. Which is unfortunate that it was so long before Budd got any NYCTS contracts. Although I haven't seen any artist's renderings, I have heard that Budd submitted a proposal for a stainless steel R-9 but that the B of T opted to go with the heavyweight steel design of the R-1through 7A contracts instead. The B of T and NYCTA had another opportunity in the 1950s to go with stainless steel steel by ordering cars subsequent to the R-11 of similar design or at least stainless steel versions of what was built but they dropped the ball on that one too. |
|
|
| (1320682) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Oct 25 15:15:49 2014, in response to Re: R-30, posted by merrick1 on Sat Oct 25 09:45:21 2014. Yet, the stainless steel used on the R-44s, 46s and 68s is not fully corrugated and the 62s and NTTs have no corrugation at all save for the roofs. |
|
|
| (1320728) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Oct 25 18:51:09 2014, in response to Re: R-30, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 25 12:14:02 2014. In 1986/87 the overhaul cost about $317K per car without the HVAC. At the time, while all new cars were being purchased with HVAC, the MTA was not totally committed to maintaining a non-stainless B division fleet long enough to make the additional investment for HVAC worth while. As it turned out, the cars only lasted 5-6 years. |
|
|
| (1320812) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun Oct 26 02:13:07 2014, in response to Re: R-30, posted by randyo on Sat Oct 25 14:48:06 2014. That really sucks, but I guess weight savings didn't become an issue until later? Even after the R-32, Budd didn't win any more subway contracts. |
|
|
| (1320813) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Oct 26 02:21:22 2014, in response to Re: R-30, posted by 3-9 on Sun Oct 26 02:13:07 2014. They didn't have the right friends among the politicos. Years later, Al D'Amato picked the winners. Game's been the same even before him. Back in the day, mayor got squeezed, after the MTA, it was the governor that got squeezed to give it to a particular contractor even if they weren't the lowest qualified bid. :(Damned shame about Budd. They built some really good stuff, and they built some really crappy stuff. But they were highly creative, and didn't always submit the bid to the original drawings, but were willing to sell good reasons why they did something a little different that should have been heeded. When you don't submit EXACTLY to specifications, that gives the politicos the out to disqualify you even if it's a superior design. When I worked for the state, I almost always got what I wanted, and would go to bat for a vendor who offered something far better than what was specified because things had changed since they were written. But if a vendor successfully challenges a bid by a competitor and has the balls of a leader, they win regardless. :( |
|
|
| (1320964) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Oct 26 20:58:05 2014, in response to Re: R-30, posted by 3-9 on Sun Oct 26 02:13:07 2014. They did, however get contracts for the M-1, M-1a, M-3 and M-3a rail cars for Long Island and Metro North. They were quite successful in New York |
|
|
| (1321122) | |
Re: R-30 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Oct 27 19:17:01 2014, in response to Re: R-30, posted by Train Dude on Sun Oct 26 20:58:05 2014. Did the TA have some aversion or grudge against the Budd Company, or were they simply in love with St Louis ?In hindsight, a better financial investment than the Redbird program would have been to simply scrap all the R26 - R36 in the mid - late 1980's (since they were about to quickly rot out) and award a R62B contract to Budd. We'd have far fewer NTT cars on the IRT today. |
|
|
