2-axle freight car - not common in the US

Hello
I always wondered that 2-axle freight cars are not common in the USA resp. Canda
Are there same examples for "non-truck-cars" esp. "single-axle-traincar" ?

I found this picture somewhere in the internet (pls dont ask me where..)

I 've tried to found something about it.
But the only thing i found, was a article of a railway magazin; it says, that TTX bought several hundert 2-axle cars, but the article was dated several decades before, and this train car looks very new. So we are talking about two different car types.


(A second example i found was MoW flatcars from the Septa RR )

Greets

It looks like it has some kind of steering axle arrangement .

Yes I remember these cars... They were all pulled out of service about 5-6 years a go. There were too many problems with them. Since they were only 2 axles, braking was inadequate when loaded, and due to their light weight when empty TTOX cars were a nightmare for train placement and compliance. There were too many restrictions as far as where they could be placed in the train, which caused numerous delays in switching and repositioning of the cars, so the railroads decided to let them go...

I remember having one of these cars, without a trailer, derail as a train was pulling over the East Hump at Enola when I was TM there. It was very quick and easy to rerail with a small Pettibone rubber tired crane.

There was not much to these cars. It took very little buff force (compression) to lift them off the rail.

These were called 'Front Runners' (at least some of the several types were - did the article mention that?) - and they indeed were children of the 1980s
Although perhaps you were also thinking of why North American railroads in general don't (and really never did) have 2 axle stock like this:
http://gallery6801.fotopic.net/p24497238.html

I was actually thinking the same thing after reading the article on the "Oxenhope: a traveling Protofour layout" in the July Rail Model Craftsman (the module pictured, of a LMS branch line in the 1930s, includes dozens of 2 axle freight wagons).
All I could think of was axle loading and poor track: perhaps in the beginning American railroads needed more axles since their track was in general less superior than British railroads, then as track and rail technology caught up, the American roads continued to use 4 axle trucks and gain a higher axle loading weight (and hence carry more freight per railcar).

Or maybe , its just everything American is bigger .

The main reason North American cars have had trucks from the beginning is because of their vastly superior tracking qualities. A car with trucks is much more tolerant of sharp curves and track imperfections than a 2-axle car. The length of a 2-axle car is limited by curves, because the rigid wheelbase is almost the length of the car. With 4-axle cars, the rigid wheelbase is only the wheelbase on the trucks (about 6 feet) which allows for much longer cars--not to mention much better weight distribution.

By the way:

.Taurus. wrote:[...]
I found this picture somewhere in the internet (pls dont ask me where..)
[...]

Ok, i found them here: forums.railfan.net

TTUX #140237 Front Runner was caught in Monroe, VA on Oct. 21, 1984

And i thought this is a new car

------------------------------------




Greets

I seem to remember that the crews on the FEC started calling these things "disposable train cars" somewhere along the line, as when they were in any kind of derailment, they were usually so twisted up that they were just scrapped on the spot. can't recall if that was true or not, but not hard to believe.

I remember as a kid in Jacksonville watching these things on pig trains down there (mostly on the FEC but also CSX) and usually wondering how on earth they survived...

Logically (on paper!) they make a lot of sense - why lug around extra weight for no purpose; just strip the car down to the basics of an underframe, trailer hitch and wheel platforms, brake/control equipment, and since these cars would NOT be carrying 100t or more weights, but just one road trailer apiece (is this 35t max nowadays?), just use single axle 'trucks'.
Now, spline cars are superficially similar in being striped down to the basics, but rode on 2 axle trucks (although since they were usually articulated 3-5 platform cars, in effect the middle cars were riding on single axles) - how did they fare in simular service.
And are spline cars even used nowadays, or did TTX just give up and use well cars for containers and flats for trailers nowadays?

.Taurus. wrote:By the way:

.Taurus. wrote:[...]
I found this picture somewhere in the internet (pls dont ask me where..)
[...]

Ok, i found them here: forums.railfan.net

TTUX #140237 Front Runner was caught in Monroe, VA on Oct. 21, 1984

And i thought this is a new car

------------------------------------




Greets

The "new" date is clearly visible, in the first picture. It IS new, if the year is 1984...................

Sir Ray wrote:Logically (on paper!) they make a lot of sense - why lug around extra weight for no purpose; just strip the car down to the basics of an underframe, trailer hitch and wheel platforms, brake/control equipment, and since these cars would NOT be carrying 100t or more weights, but just one road trailer apiece (is this 35t max nowadays?), just use single axle 'trucks'.
Now, spline cars are superficially similar in being striped down to the basics, but rode on 2 axle trucks (although since they were usually articulated 3-5 platform cars, in effect the middle cars were riding on single axles) - how did they fare in simular service.
And are spline cars even used nowadays, or did TTX just give up and use well cars for containers and flats for trailers nowadays?

2 axle frgaht cars have always been a populer thing in Europe don't know whay but they are. About the only place where 4 Axle cars have been in use sent the late 1860's were in Russia due to the extreame cold the 4 axle sets were beter suted for equalzeing the weaght under the load on brittle rail compared to a 2 axle car which was heavey and was more able to crush the rail when the tempatures plunged below zero. I once took a trip to see a Friend there and watched the tempature drop to -100 below zero at leased twice during my stay the rest of the time it houng around
-75 with the warmest day toping out near -50 there and the trains keeped runing.

scharnhorst wrote:2 axle frgaht cars have always been a populer thing in Europe don't know whay but they are.

Well, this may be for different reasons (or maybe the same core reason) then my note on 4 runners - but I always thought that it was because European Freight wagons (there are many good examples on-line, mostly British simply because there are legions of webpages displaying historical British rolling stock) tended to be smaller and lighter (often much smaller) than their contemporary North American counterparts - note again if you look at pictures of stock, as time progresses and heavier and longer wagons are introduced, eventually 2-axle bogies become common, and you end up with 2 bogies/4 axles wagons much like American freight cars. But whether the wagons used 2 axles simply because they were smaller and lighter and so didn't need 2-axle bogies (in addition to the European trackage usually being in better shape and smoother than contemporary North American trackage) or for some other reason, I don't know.

Sir Ray wrote:

scharnhorst wrote:2 axle frgaht cars have always been a populer thing in Europe don't know whay but they are.

Well, this may be for different reasons (or maybe the same core reason) then my note on 4 runners - but I always thought that it was because European Freight wagons (there are many good examples on-line, mostly British simply because there are legions of webpages displaying historical British rolling stock) tended to be smaller and lighter (often much smaller) than their contemporary North American counterparts - note again if you look at pictures of stock, as time progresses and heavier and longer wagons are introduced, eventually 2-axle bogies become common, and you end up with 2 bogies/4 axles wagons much like American freight cars. But whether the wagons used 2 axles simply because they were smaller and lighter and so didn't need 2-axle bogies (in addition to the European trackage usually being in better shape and smoother than contemporary North American trackage) or for some other reason, I don't know.

Anything is possable. I'll go along with your thought. I'll have to tap into the mind of a friend of mine in Britian and see what he can tell me whay 2 axle fraght wagons are used as well of if they still use them.

After more than 1000 km at high speed the rolls are still at the same spot as loaded.

The running gear was developed by Powel Duffryn in England. The running gear is now marked by Axiom Rail






In England the loading guage is about the same as for lorrys. In Sweden cars can bee 3,6 m wide and 4,8 m in height.
The pictured car is for transporting paper rolls at 100 km/h and 25 tons axle load. The running is so smoth so the vulnerable paper rolls are not secured in any way.
I supose there must bee a market in the US for such running gear for cars transporting paper rolls at high speed and no damage at all for the load. The american three pice truck has inferior running quality and the paper rolls transported on such trucks must bee in danger of damage.

http://www.kindustrier.se/Products/Frei ... _Eng_4.pdf

http://www.kindustrier.se/Products/Frei ... _vw011.htm