What happened to the ACF "Adapto" car design?

[jrcrawford4]

Well it happens to the best of us. You really DO learn something new every day. Today I was flipping through a 1958 Model Railroader and discovered a how-to article on modeling the "Adapto" rail car. I've never heard of it. What I have figured out is that, around 1956, American Car and Foundry started producing this revolutionary flatcar design that could carry triple its own weight. It was 35' long and rolled on two axles and was, for all intents, a container car (I thought "intermodal" was a more recent concept, but I was wrong). What I cannot figure out is what became of these cars as a design. It looks like Rock Island bought a bunch but "how come" other roads apparently did not - Trailer Train ordered 1,000 but then canceled the order. Were they just not big enough? Too far ahead of their time? Too expensive to build? What? I have googled thoroughly to no avail. It thinks I want to know all about AC adapters.

 

[hauntedclipp]

Might've been the two-axle design. I expect they would ride roughly at higher speeds and jostle the cars' loads.

Images

 

[jrcrawford4]

That may be - it was the 2-axle design - it did have a more automobile-like suspension (torsion springs? I think?)

 

[whitepass]

All 2-axle cars have to be at the end of the train or you get derailments, this was found out back in the 1840's.

 

[nicky9499]

Was there a particular reason why European two-axle wagons didn't have any problems or was it just a simple weight issue; that North American trains were generally much heavier?

 

[jrcrawford4]

Well, yeah, you run 2-axles at the end, but would that be the cause of a (presumably) good design's demise? If it's convenient in 1958 to load autos in boxcars, I can't imagine it would be inconvenient to pop containers on a flat and tack it on the end of the train? Just sayin'. I really don't know.

 

[deneban]

It is a weight issue. There is a reliability consideration also, as Whitepass alluded to: Derailing one wheelset in a 2 axle truck(bogey) does not create much havoc since the car basically remains aligned with the train's line of longitudinal forces (i.e. push and pull forces). In contrast, a lone wheelset without a companion will misalign that car with the balance of the train and as a result will likely take other cars with it if it derails.

 

[jrcrawford4]

That makes sense. But since the physics were already understood, why not run a bunch of them at the end of the train? In other words, yours and whitepass's points are valid - even on the end of the train a lighter car will tend to whip - but I can't see that physics alone can account for the apparently short lifespan of the Adapto. Like nicky9499 says, the Europeans have run 2-axle cars, and North Americans run them nowadays (at the end). Now, if you say that RR's just weren't equipped to handle, in the 50s, the special requirements of such a car (such as consist placement, journal wear and tear, or something like that), that's different. That might mean the car was just too far ahead of its time. Or too costly to operate, or something like that. I could buy that.

 

[JCitron]

If there was a problem with them whipping and bouncing, would it have been better to run them in sets with a drawbar in between instead of regular coupler? This would effectively make a set of them into a single rail car.

John

 

[deneban]

That makes sense. But since the physics were already understood, why not run a bunch of them at the end of the train?

Having to differentiate rear of train items in the yard makes life more expensive and complicated when assembling a train. The most efficient yardwork results when any car can go anywhere in the train.

In other words, yours and whitepass's points are valid - even on the end of the train a lighter car will tend to whip - but I can't see that physics alone can account for the apparently short lifespan of the Adapto.

Whitepass and I did not mention whipping. I have a 2 axle bobber Burlington caboose at the end of a 25 car HO train in my basement and there is no whipping action. It cannot be whipping physics that demised the cars, European freight uses plenty of them.

Like nicky9499 says, the Europeans have run 2-axle cars, and North Americans run them nowadays (at the end).

Actually Nicky did not state NA's run them nowdays.

I have been watching live cams in Fostoria showing 5 Class I NA railroads, and I have never seen any two axle cars running, not even the shoving cabeese.

Now, if you say that RR's just weren't equipped to handle, in the 50s, the special requirements of such a car (such as consist placement, journal wear and tear, or something like that), that's different. That might mean the car was just too far ahead of its time. Or too costly to operate, or something like that. I could buy that.

Probably too costly to operate and more trecherous. 55 foot cars on two wheel-sets are going to wear those wheel-sets much faster. Also they reek more havoc in a wheel set derailment.

Judging from the very poor coverage on the web, it appears these cars were a commercial failure for ACF, only 50 were produced in 1956.

Here's some photos from the assembly instructions to a model made by Twin Star Cars:

 

[hauntedclipp]

That wheelbase looks pretty long, too. Railroad management would likely have to not only ensure that the adaptos were put at the end of a train, but ensure that they weren't used often on routes with tight curves. With a two-axle design, the turns could easily wear down wheelsets over shorter periods of time as opposed to bogied freight cars, along with a greater threat of derailment, which in turn would force speed limits of trains hauling these cars.
That, and it doesn't look like the adapto cars share many standard parts with other North American railroad vehicles.
On a similar subject, when were the first modern container cars introduced in NA?

 

[deneban]

With a two-axle design, the turns could easily wear down wheelsets over shorter periods of time as opposed to bogied freight cars,

....Agreed

 

[whitepass]

First container cars in US 1830 but did not take off tell 1960s.

 

[hauntedclipp]

Is it possible that with the introduction/increased popularity of modern container cars not very long after the adaptos were built in addition to the shortcomings whitepass, deneban, and I stated above, the adapto design simply fell out of favor?
That would certainly account for their short usage and small numbers.

 

[deneban]

To me, if you take a flatcar and tie down containers to it, you have a container car.

OR if you have a gondola and put containers in it, same concept, except without restraints. Are those the 1830 version?

 

[jrcrawford4]

...
Judging from the very poor coverage on the web, it appears these cars were a commercial failure for ACF, only 50 were produced in 1956.
...

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=424466
You're right. nicky didn't add that N. America ran 2-axles; I did (link to picture above). You're right, you and whitepass didn't mention whipping, I did. Look, I honestly don't mean any disrespect, and I apologize in advance if I've got it wrong, but from your tone it appears you're ignoring the thrust of my question (or don't know) to show off how much you DO know. I applaud your knowledge, but I also know that they only produced 50 in 1956. I also already know the web covers this subject poorly and I've already seen the photos you posted. That's why I posted here. I already suggested that if it made switching or consist make-up more difficult, that would be a strike against it.

If you know and can explain why the car didn't last, great. If not, just forget I asked.

 

[deneban]

Look, I honestly don't mean any disrespect, and I apologize in advance if I've got it wrong, but from your tone it appears you're ignoring the thrust of my question (or don't know) to show off how much you DO know.

Not at all, the thrust of your question(s) where not ignored and answered objectively with good engineering sense. Lets review your questions in the thread and see what the thread gave you:

Q: Were they just not big enough? A: They were too long for 2 axles and would cause premature wheel failure.
Q: Too far ahead of their time? A: No, they were a commercial failure that was not proliferated .
Q: Too expensive to build? (We didn't answer that one, no data)
Q: What? A: We gave several specific design drawbacks (weight per axle, derailment reliability, and excessive wear in short radii).
Q: you run 2-axles at the end, but would that be the cause of a (presumably) good design's demise? A: It was a presumptive question because the drawbacks outweigh the novel features.
Q: But since the physics were already understood, why not run a bunch of them at the end of the train? A: Standard freight cars do not impose that demand, and so that directive would add new impact to yard efficiency.

As far as the "person x didn't state that" clauses, the corrections were only fair to those who may appear misquoted.

1I applaud your knowledge, but I also know that they only produced 50 in 1956. I also already know the web covers this subject poorly and I've already seen the photos you posted. That's why I posted here.

Ok that's fine, I (or we) did not know what you had gathered previously on those specific points. Our contribution of them to the thread was effort expended in the spirit of rounding out your thread, or potentially giving the matter more public coverage for passers-by. Why interpret a positive as a negative?

I already suggested that if it made switching or consist make-up more difficult, that would be a strike against it.

No sir, in post #6 you state "I can't..." <-- i.e. cannot "... imagine it would be inconvenient to pop containers on a flat and tack it on the end of the train?" That suggests you could not imagine it being a strike against it to require rear of train assignment.

Then you concluded with "just sayin, I don't really know." If you state you don't know, you are looking for an explanation or discussion, so be cheerful, and not dismayed, if you receive such in response.

If you know and can explain why the car didn't last, great. If not, just forget I asked.

We did explain it, I wish it were received well. I don't think there would be any more points to add anyway, so it's too late to retract.