From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
   >On Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:44:20 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
      
   >>I don't quite agree with your mathematical analysis there, Stephen.   
   >>Within certain ranges of excessive speed, lighter rolling stock can   
   >>bounce more than heavier rolling stock, INCREASING derailment risk,   
   >>whereas in other ranges, it's possible for lighter to have a lower   
   >>derailment risk than heavier. With regard to poor track, it depends on   
   >>what maintenance is required and I suppose a bit of luck, so don't   
   >>make any general statements, George.   
      
   >A "light weight" train is still quite heavy.  A train's actual weight   
   >isn't as important as the truck design, the suspension system, and   
   >weight distribution.   
      
   Yes, I agree.   
      
   >You mention PCC cars.  Some cars on some lines rode poorly, but that was   
   >due to the PCC truck design being optimized for smooth welded rail in   
   >city street service; the trucks did poorly on jointed rail and rural   
   >track.  An improved truck rode better.  (Also, the CTA PCC L cars were a   
   >heavier design than PCCs built for street service.)   
      
   Oh, let's see:   
      
   4000 series heavyweight cars   
   Weight:	54,000 lb. (4001-4066 trailers), 70,000 lb. (4067-4250),   
   	76,800 lb. (4251-4455)   
      
   6000 series PCC   
   Weight:	41,700 lb.   
      
   No difference stated between the cars built as "L" cars and the cars   
   built from components of the scrapped brand-new streetcars (Green Hornets).   
      
   I'm not finding the weight of the Green Hornets (post-war streetcars)   
   when received as streetcars.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)