Budd Involvement in the Arrow II/III/SL IV Cars

Discussion related to New Jersey Transit rail and light rail operations.

Moderators: Tadman, Kaback9, nick11a, ACeInTheHole

Re: Budd Involvement in the Arrow II/III/SL IV Cars

Postby mestevet » Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:53 am

I agree with the assertion that the SL IV and Arrow II/III cars were built by GE as the prime contractor with Avco built body shells. I've done research on the U.S. stainless steel EMU cars and also found multiple contemporary (at the time) references to Avco being the body shell builder. I'd have to dig through my resources a bit to find the specific references. The GE and SEPTA press releases I have don't make reference to the car body builder, unfortunately.

If you go looking for information from Budd at the RR Mus of PA archives, I doubt you'll find any reference to the Silverliner IV or Arrow II&III cars. My understanding was that Budd was heavily occupied in this time frame by filling the order for the Amfleet I cars that WERE designed and manufactured by Budd. If you're looking for signs of a "clear Budd design," look at the Metroliner/Amfleet carbody. THAT is what Budd's railcar design in the late 1960's and 1970's looked like, NOT the SL IV/A III design.

In fact, it's difficult to dig up primary source information about any of the original stainless EMU designs. I keep getting to the dead end every time I pursue researching it that "Bombardier bought the design" (which is apparently true for Budd, St. Louis, and Pullman). I also found out that Avco's rail products may have gone to Bombardier (although the primary aircraft business became Textron).

There were a number of traditional "Aerospace" companies at that time that got involved in railroad projects, Boeing, Rockwell, Hawker-Siddley, Avco, etc. Take a look at the 1974 Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia if you get a chance, and you'll see lots of aerospace firms with ads in there. I think there were two main reasons for this: 1) traditional passenger rail car builders (or the parent company's passenger rail divisions) were having financial trouble 2) there was government research funding available to develop new designs (from high speed rail to rapid transit), something the aerospace industry was familiar with.

It may also interest you to know that I have acquired engineering drawings of early Budd designs that were submitted for what would become the Silverliner IV order by SEPTA. They were in records related to the early bidding process for the SL IV cars. They apparently came from the collection of "junk" a retired railroad employee left behind. They look like double ended Metroliners (so with dual cabs) and show dual, mid-body doors (eerily fore-shadowing the SL V and others). (I have yet to scan those because of the large format, but could attempt a photo with my digital camera.) My point is that it's clear that Budd had the "Metroliner" carbody on their mind, and this may explain why GE sought out a different car builder to provide the SL IV and Arrow II/III designs. (also as example, I'd point out other Budd built railcars in this period which use the Metroliner shell, like the SPV-2000)

If you compare the details of the SL IV etc. designs to other Budd designs like the Silverliner II/Pioneer III (what is often referred to as the Silverliner I), it's clear that there are a lot of structural and "design" differences, and I would never characterize them as "clearly Budd designs". The car body profiles are different, the use of the "sill" around the bottom of the car on the SL IV/A II/A III, the end cab design, the non-Budd looking side fluting (much more widely spaced than that used by Budd), and yes, the quality of the welds, if you look at the SL IV cars closely, it's different. Yes, I am an engineer...

Also, the "blister" on the roof is a GE thing, not a Budd design. GE came up with that, I understand, as an answer to problems encountered in the "High Speed Demonstration Project" tests and early Metroliner tests. The blister moved components that were easily damaged by ballast strikes and poor cooling circulation under the car body of a rail car at high speed. So the rebuilt Metroliners got the blister (hump back), the SL IV, Arrow II, & Arrow III got it, and later built Metropolitan cars got it. That could be seen as a "family resemblance" but indicating GE influence, not Budd.

So for the record:
Pioneer III/Silverliner I: Budd
Silverliner II: Budd (with GE electricals)
Silverliner III: St. Louis Car Co. (with GE electricals)
Arrow I: St. Louis Car Co. (with Westinghouse electricals)
Metroliners: Budd (some with GE, some with Westinghouse electricals)
Metropolitans - early (M1): Budd (with GE electricals)
Metropolitans - later: GE (don't know all the car body builder info)
Silverliner IV: GE, Avco carbody
Arrow II: GE, Avco carbody
Arrow III: GE, Avco carbody (although I have some indications that by this time, the design was being produced by another manufacturer)

I will also add that I have a slide (see attached image) that shows an apparently new SL IV carbody shell being transported on a long (i.e. 89') PC flatcar, but unfortunately, there is no location given (although it has a "Western PA" feel to it, so might be near Erie). Clearly that isn't evidence of a builder, but provided for everyone's interest. I also have a bunch of photo scans from the collections at the Hagley Museum in Wilmington, DE, of new SL III, Arrow I, Metroliner, and SL IV cars (sorry, the Arrow II cars weren't in evidence in the collections I researched), and a lot more stuff I've acquired over the years...

Steve
Attachments
02781smc.jpg
Silverliner IV car body shell being transported on PC flatcar.
02781smc.jpg (215.12 KiB) Viewed 1305 times
mestevet
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:31 pm

Re: Budd Involvement in the Arrow II/III/SL IV Cars

Postby green_elite_cab » Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:01 am

mestevet wrote:
If you go looking for information from Budd at the RR Mus of PA archives, I doubt you'll find any reference to the Silverliner IV or Arrow II&III cars.


True, but there appears to be a handful of articles related to the Silverliner IV, and at least one for the Arrow II there. unfortuneately, the online catalog only lists documents, and does not make them viewable.

It may also interest you to know that I have acquired engineering drawings of early Budd designs that were submitted for what would become the Silverliner IV order by SEPTA. They were in records related to the early bidding process for the SL IV cars. They apparently came from the collection of "junk" a retired railroad employee left behind. They look like double ended Metroliners (so with dual cabs) and show dual, mid-body doors (eerily fore-shadowing the SL V and others). (I have yet to scan those because of the large format, but could attempt a photo with my digital camera.) My point is that it's clear that Budd had the "Metroliner" carbody on their mind, and this may explain why GE sought out a different car builder to provide the SL IV and Arrow II/III designs. (also as example, I'd point out other Budd built railcars in this period which use the Metroliner shell, like the SPV-2000)


Is there any chance that I can get a copy or scan of this? It sounds really interesting!

I will also add that I have a slide (see attached image) that shows an apparently new SL IV carbody shell being transported on a long (i.e. 89') PC flatcar, but unfortunately, there is no location given (although it has a "Western PA" feel to it, so might be near Erie). Clearly that isn't evidence of a builder, but provided for everyone's interest. I also have a bunch of photo scans from the collections at the Hagley Museum in Wilmington, DE, of new SL III, Arrow I, Metroliner, and SL IV cars (sorry, the Arrow II cars weren't in evidence in the collections I researched), and a lot more stuff I've acquired over the years...

Steve


cool picture!

Any chance you can send me a list of some of these things so I may search for them myself? I love collecting such things for research purposes.
Elite Juice Jack Modeler.
User avatar
green_elite_cab
 
Posts: 757
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:45 pm
Location: Hainesport NJ

Re: Budd Involvement in the Arrow II/III/SL IV Cars

Postby mestevet » Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:45 pm

mestevet wrote:If you go looking for information from Budd at the RR Mus of PA archives, I doubt you'll find any reference to the Silverliner IV or Arrow II&III cars.


green_elite_cab wrote:True, but there appears to be a handful of articles related to the Silverliner IV, and at least one for the Arrow II there. unfortuneately, the online catalog only lists documents, and does not make them viewable.


I'm not trying to be negative, it's just that every turn I've taken trying to research the Silverliners and Metroliners, I run into big gaps, almost like the files were intentionally pulled. The Hagley Library has a pretty extensive collection of PRR thru Conrail records and photos, but while there are some photos, the records are conspicuously absent. No one I've talked to at SEPTA or NJT (currently) has ever seen historical documents dating back to the late '60's & 70's regarding any of the MU cars. The earliest info I've gotten from current employees at NJT related to the rebuilding of the Arrow I cars into the Comet 1b cars (but some really good info, including photos of the cars being torn down and rebuilt my M-K at Hornell, NY in the mid-1980s). From current SEPTA employees, the earliest info I got dates to the M-K rebuilds of the SL II & SL III cars in the early 1990s. Most of the stuff I've been able to acquire came from private parties, railroad memorabilia dealers, and other sources like Ebay. My best sources have been letting dealers know what I'm looking for, and they contact me when they run into it. Obviously sources like Railway Age and the railfan magazines provide a certain amount of source information. But as has been pointed out, the railfan sources can be notoriously inaccurate, often relying on the "everybody KNOWS" source, which is often wrong.

I have had railfans INSIST to me that Silverliner IVs are entirely Budd build, saying that they're clearly just adapted RDC's, with the lame "everybody knows that" retort. It's not even worth arguing with people like that.

mestevet wrote:It may also interest you to know that I have acquired engineering drawings of early Budd designs that were submitted for what would become the Silverliner IV order by SEPTA. They were in records related to the early bidding process for the SL IV cars. They apparently came from the collection of "junk" a retired railroad employee left behind. They look like double ended Metroliners (so with dual cabs) and show dual, mid-body doors (eerily fore-shadowing the SL V and others). (I have yet to scan those because of the large format, but could attempt a photo with my digital camera.) My point is that it's clear that Budd had the "Metroliner" carbody on their mind, and this may explain why GE sought out a different car builder to provide the SL IV and Arrow II/III designs. (also as example, I'd point out other Budd built railcars in this period which use the Metroliner shell, like the SPV-2000)


green_elite_cab wrote:Is there any chance that I can get a copy or scan of this? It sounds really interesting!


I just put my hands on the drawings, there are 4 in the set I acquired. As I said, they were in with files on SEPTA commuter rail car acquisition, everything from stuff like design specs to ridership reports to Federal grant applications. The accompanying material already references the St. Louis Car Silverliner III and Arrow I orders, so I don't think these drawings were related to THOSE purchases. Anyway, the drawings were dated 4-6-1967, titled "104 Pass. Electric M.U. Car" "The Budd Company, Phila. Penna.", with drawing number DSK-47360 and clearly show a very Metroliner looking car, with dual cabs, dual end doors with steps for low platforms.

I was told that the folders I obtained came from files kept by a SEPTA employee who had formerly been a PRR employee working at the Wilmington Shops: clearly someone in the engineering department given the nature of the files.

Since these are engineering drawings (at least preliminary concept type drawings), they're in large format, like D or E size (22x34 or 34x44), faded, folded and a bit brittle. So the problem is they're not going to fit in my scanner. They need a large format flatbed scanner, and I haven't found someone with that capability around here. I have photographed large drawings like this before (essentially what a large format scanner does), but the quality will obviously not be as good.

I'll give it a try over the weekend.

mestevet wrote:I will also add that I have a slide (see attached image) that shows an apparently new SL IV carbody shell being transported on a long (i.e. 89') PC flatcar, but unfortunately, there is no location given (although it has a "Western PA" feel to it, so might be near Erie). Clearly that isn't evidence of a builder, but provided for everyone's interest. I also have a bunch of photo scans from the collections at the Hagley Museum in Wilmington, DE, of new SL III, Arrow I, Metroliner, and SL IV cars (sorry, the Arrow II cars weren't in evidence in the collections I researched), and a lot more stuff I've acquired over the years...

Steve


green_elite_cab wrote:cool picture!

Any chance you can send me a list of some of these things so I may search for them myself? I love collecting such things for research purposes.


I've collected a lot of stuff relating to the Silverliners, Metroliners, Arrows and Metropolitans (but weighted toward the Silverliners). I'm not sure where I'd even begin listing all the stuff I have. I have original proposal specification documents for the Silverliner II cars dating to 1961 for instance. I also have original Budd Silverliner II "general arrangement" blue prints. Some of these folders of 1960's SEPTA documents I obtained, I'm thinking may be one of a kind, just lucky to be in the right place at the right time to acquire them. One place I have not researched, but supposedly has more, is the St. Louis Car Co. collection at Washington University in St. Louis. They DO have stuff relating to the Silverliner III and Arrow I cars, but I have not had the opportunity to get to St. Louis and look.

Steve
mestevet
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:31 pm

Re: Budd Involvement in the Arrow II/III/SL IV Cars

Postby BuddCar711 » Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:19 pm

mestevet wrote:If you compare the details of the SL IV etc. designs to other Budd designs like the Silverliner II/Pioneer III (what is often referred to as the Silverliner I), it's clear that there are a lot of structural and "design" differences, and I would never characterize them as "clearly Budd designs". The car body profiles are different, the use of the "sill" around the bottom of the car on the SL IV/A II/A III, the end cab design, the non-Budd looking side fluting (much more widely spaced than that used by Budd), and yes, the quality of the welds, if you look at the SL IV cars closely, it's different. Yes, I am an engineer...


But the Almond Joys DID have that "sill" around the bottom of the car, and that is clearly a Budd design, and as far as the SL-IV/A-II and III not having the corrugated panels at the ends of the cars, the PATCO cars did not have them either and they too are a Budd design. As far as the humps on the Arrow III, while the humps are not a Budd design, it would have been something that Budd would install (back to the Almond Joy). Anyhoo, the SL-IV/A-II and III would be more compared to the A-I (which is a St. Louis product). The side windows are the same size and shape and the SL-IV and A-II and III. If you replace the corrugated panels and ends, you have a SL-IV/A-II and III.
BuddCar711
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 12:13 pm

Re: Budd Involvement in the Arrow II/III/SL IV Cars

Postby BuddCar711 » Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:22 pm

That photo. Despite that Penn Central caboose, judging by the lack of a bar pilot, that SL-IV would be a Reading car.
BuddCar711
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 12:13 pm

Re: Budd Involvement in the Arrow II/III/SL IV Cars

Postby ryanov » Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:15 pm

It seems to me that the Silverliner II and Silverliner IV have quite a bit in common designwise, which is why people think that they have the same designer. Is it true? No idea.
|=| R. Novosielski |=|
User avatar
ryanov
 
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:19 am
Location: Newark, NJ

Re: Budd Involvement in the Arrow II/III/SL IV Cars

Postby R36 Combine Coach » Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:47 am

BuddCar711 wrote:That photo. Despite that Penn Central caboose, judging by the lack of a bar pilot, that SL-IV would be a Reading car.

A single unit too. And since the RDG single units came first, followed by the Arrow IIs in late '73-74 and then the PC units (RDG pairs last), that would date the photo to 1973. Based on the ground and trees, perhaps autumn '73?
Since my friend continues to chain smoke nonstop, she is probably an Alco.
User avatar
R36 Combine Coach
 
Posts: 5202
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:51 pm

Re: Budd Involvement in the Arrow II/III/SL IV Cars

Postby mestevet » Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:13 am

Simply having a stainless steel car body with flutes does not constitute having the same design. My point about the fluted sides on the Silveriner IV/Arrow II/Arrow III is that the flutes, the individual raised flutes (corrugations in a rough sense) on the body panels, are different on the Silverliner IV/Arrow II/Arrow III than on the Budd built railcars, i.e. the Pioneer III, Silverliner II, Metroliner, Amfleet, and even the Almond Joy cars. Look at photos of all of the Budd cars, the flutes are much more closely spaced. They also have a different contour, if you go right up to the cars and touch them: go to any SEPTA or NJT station, look at an SL IV or A III, then drive an hour out to Strasburg, look at the Pioneer III and Metroliner cars preserved there (I'd point you to the SL II cars but they're in the process of being destroyed).

OK, so why focus on corrugations as "evidence"? Well, you have to understand how corrugated sheet metal is formed, it's done in a rolling press (someone will please fill in the correct name for the machine for me). The corrugations are pressed into a sheet of stainless steel by these rollers as it's fed through. That's an expensive machine, and expensive to re-tool the rollers. So what? Well why exactly would Budd re-tool an expensive machine, that they've used on countless cars to make corrugated/fluted stainless steel sheet, that they were using simply to make the Silverliner IV? If you look at the SL IV design specification, nowhere does it specify the shape and spacing of the fluting, so it's not like that the requirement was driven by the customer. No, that detail points directly at having a different car body manufacturer.

Also, the reason for the big fat sill, as I understand it, is similar to the reason they have sills on other rail cars, like a flat car - it's providing the major structural strength to support the body. Well, if you look at the Budd design philosophy, going back to the early days of stainless steel passenger car design (1930's), they follow the principles where the car body shell itself is carrying more of the load, rather than a frame or sill. That was part of Budd's marketing strategy for their "lightweight stainless steel" car construction that was popular throughout the years. This was their philosophy straight through producing the Metroliner/Amfleet carbodies (aside, there are photos of the Silverliner IIs - a scant few, and Metroliners under construction at the Hagley Library). That's straight from Budd literature. My point is that the heavy sill/frame construction is not typical of Budd design.

As far as the St. Louis Car designs, the Silverliner III & Arrow I, I have less design information on those cars. However, I CAN point to weaknesses in the St. Louis design that the Budd built Silverliner II (and Pioneer III) cars did not have, as evidence of a different design (and one not desirable to repeat). The St. Louis built cars had a tendency to buckle in the roof, and show an overall "sway back". I can only assume that this was due to some design flaws, since, as I said, the Budd built cars, which were older, never showed this. I have photos of SL III cars that clearly show the buckles in the roof sheets, and clearly show the downward bow of the cars. As an engineer, I have theories as to why this was, and may have been due to the manufacturing techniques St. Louis used in welding the cars - remember that they were more familiar with transit car production. Anyway, not just my observation, the sway back issue was also pointed out to me by SEPTA maintenance personnel when I visited Powellton yards a few years ago. Interestingly, when I also got to visit MMC, the NJT engineer who was giving me the tour ALSO mentioned the "sway back" issue with the Arrow I/Comet Ib cars, and pointed it out to me on the cars that were there (a string of 14 of them were parked there before they were sold, and he gave me a tour of the cars). He mentioned that when they were converting the Arrow I cars to the Comet 1b cab cars, one of the big hassles was dealing with cracks from the corners of the center doors, which he felt was due to the same problem as the "sway back" issue - the cars were bowing too much in the middle and it was causing the cracks in the metal around the relatively weaker door area (which in engineering, I'd point out, is a classic "stress concentration" issue).

As for the St. Louis Car designs, while the Arrow I may have a similar window size to the Silveriner IV/Arrow II/Arrow III, the Silverliner III, did not. Those windows are bigger, and have flat ends with round corners (not the total round). However, the similarity in window size IS easily explained because window size (or rather guidelines for it) WERE part of the original SL IV design specification. So having common window sizes isn't surprising. It's clear that from the standpoint of maintaining a standard parts supply, having standard sized windows across a fleet is desirable. Remember that in the mid-1970s vandalism was a big concern (there have been many discussions about the grilles that appeared over the cab windows on locomotives in the Northeast in this time frame), and so replacing windows was probably a big concern for the transit agencies (and PC, Reading, and later Conrail, who were the ones providing the service and maintenance at that time).

Budd rail division was busy building Amfleet in this timeframe (405 cars from 1975 thru 1978). The parent Budd Company, which was making MUCH more money building car and truck parts was trying to get out of the rail business (which they eventually did). No, I can't point to a document that says "Budd did not design the SL IV body", I don't know who did, GE, Avco, or someone else (my bet is that GE did the design and Avco just built it). But I'm saying that the design features don't LOOK like Budd, and the production details definitely aren't Budd. You know those guys who, when you go to the airport can just pick out a Boeing from an Airbus or McD-D because of the shape of the cockpit? Well, that's what I'm saying, the details of the design don't add up to Budd, even though they're stainless steel (by the way, the NH "washboards" were also stainless, had wider spaced fluting, no end fluting and were produced by Pullman, but yet no one is suggesting that Pullman made the SL IV/A II/A III, even though THEY were still in the rail car business at the time).

I'll point out another piece of "evidence": since Budd is a local company in the Philly area, you'd think that if they were involved in this huge rail car order in the mid-70's, that the the SEPTA press releases about the cars at the time would mention something about the "locally built content". Nope, not a word, conspicuously absent...

I'm sorry, I know everyone thinks they KNOW this, but Budd didn't produce the carbodies for the SL IV/A II/A III cars. Try to recall where you remember hearing it first... I seem to recall actually running into a "railfan" source in the timeframe of the 1980's that was the one that seemed to start the "Budd built the Silverliners" mistake, before that, if it was mentioned, it was Avco, after that, references seem to say Budd. But guys, the SL IV and Arrow II car bodies were produced by Avco. I just have to wade through all of my reference material to find the sources (I seem to recall finding something in Railway Age).

Steve

(I'm going to refrain from discussing my thoughts further until I can locate the references that provide the information about Avco being the builder)
mestevet
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:31 pm

Re: Budd Involvement in the Arrow II/III/SL IV Cars

Postby mestevet » Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:01 am

OK, so after saying I wouldn't discuss it further until I found references (fully expecting it would take most of my free time this weekend to re-locate them), I found one reference pretty quickly:

"Under Pennsy Wires," Paul Carleton, 1977, D. Carleton Railbooks, page 246, lists MA-1E cars 270-303 (Silverliner IV single units) as built by "GE & Avco 1974", MA-1G cars 534-603 (Arrow II) as built by "GE & Avco 1975", and MA-1F cars 304-399 (Silverliner IV married pairs) as built by "GE & Avco 1975". See the attached scan of the page (hopefully this doesn't violate any rules, please be gentle with me if it does, I will remove it).

Note that since this book is about "Under Pennsy Wires" that the Reading cars are not included in the reference.

Note also that since the Arrow III cars had not yet been delivered, they are also not included in the reference.

My notes also indicate that there is a reference to the Silverliner IV order in "Headlights" magazine from April 1974, and I indicated it was "good" but thus far I have not located that one.

I'll have to see if I can get back in contact with Dave Carleton (Paul's son) and see if he can shed any additional light or give additional sources.

Steve
Attachments
Under Pennsy Wires p 246 bwsm.jpg
From "Under Pennsy Wires" by Paul Carleton, 1977
Under Pennsy Wires p 246 bwsm.jpg (178.11 KiB) Viewed 1230 times
mestevet
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:31 pm

Re: Budd Involvement in the Arrow II/III/SL IV Cars

Postby mestevet » Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:21 pm

See the exchange I just had with Dave Carleton, he cites Bert Pennypacker as the source for the information in "Under Pennsy Wires":

Dave,

We've had discussions on railroad history before, and I was hoping you could help me on something. I got embroiled in a discussion on "who produced the Silverliner IV/Arrow II carbody" over at Railroad.net.
(viewt...01498#p1101498)

I have seen multiple sources that indicated G.E. was the prime contractor, but the car body was produced by Avco. One of the first sources I "re-discovered" that states this was your father's book "Under Pennsy Wires" from 1977. I have to re-locate some of my other sources.

I was wondering if you had any additional information to shed on this topic, or other resources that might help strengthen the position that Avco produced the car bodies for these cars.

Lots of folks are claiming that Budd produced the Silverliner IV and Arrow II carbodies, based on the "everybody KNOWS that" claim.

Thanks!
Steve


You are correct. Sure Budd got the ball rolling, but there were other players too. Our information found in Under Pennsy Wires was provided by Bert Pennypacker. That was the first time that we found out that some of the Silverliners had the motorman's controls on the left.

Before that book, right at the time that the states were starting to get involved, my dad would get together each week with a consulting engineer for the NJ DOT and they'd study the bible together and then discuss other matters of interest. I distinctly remember lots of brainstorming about routes and connections, and bits and pieces about the bidding process and that some vendors would get in and have trouble delivering. Bottom line, Budd did the Metroliners and Pullman did the Push-Pulls for the E.L., but SLC did the MU cars for NJ and SEPTA followed by GE and their contractor.

From my point of view the only open question is if the later Arrows and Silverliners should be wholly known as 'G.E.' products, which contractually they were, or if some reference should be made to the subcontractor. That is important from my current point of view as I do get questions about future long distance passenger cars after the remaining post-war cars are all allocated to various private operators. Curiously, the luxury and niche overnight market is doing rather well right now. But there's this belief that nobody can make new cars except for the successor to Budd. The example I throw back is "Did Budd build all the Silverliners and Arrows?" See, it is possible to use a different contractor!

David P. Carleton
D. Carleton Rail Books
mestevet
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:31 pm

Re: Budd Involvement in the Arrow II/III/SL IV Cars

Postby green_elite_cab » Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:43 pm

mestevet wrote:OK, so after saying I wouldn't discuss it further until I found references (fully expecting it would take most of my free time this weekend to re-locate them), I found one reference pretty quickly:

"Under Pennsy Wires," Paul Carleton, 1977, D. Carleton Railbooks, page 246, lists MA-1E cars 270-303 (Silverliner IV single units) as built by "GE & Avco 1974", MA-1G cars 534-603 (Arrow II) as built by "GE & Avco 1975", and MA-1F cars 304-399 (Silverliner IV married pairs) as built by "GE & Avco 1975". See the attached scan of the page (hopefully this doesn't violate any rules, please be gentle with me if it does, I will remove it).

Note that since this book is about "Under Pennsy Wires" that the Reading cars are not included in the reference.

Note also that since the Arrow III cars had not yet been delivered, they are also not included in the reference.

My notes also indicate that there is a reference to the Silverliner IV order in "Headlights" magazine from April 1974, and I indicated it was "good" but thus far I have not located that one.

I'll have to see if I can get back in contact with Dave Carleton (Paul's son) and see if he can shed any additional light or give additional sources.

Steve



Ah, if you needed those, you should have asked! I have the Revised 1982 edition of Under Pennsy Wires, which has a few additional photos, such as the AEM7s, and a pair of photos of Arrow IIIs. The Arrow IIIs are also included in the roster in this edition, but they do not distinguish between single and married pair Arrow IIIs.

I also have the "Headlights" issue. That I could probably scan for you a little later.

Also, fantastic exchange there, now I don't feel quite so crazy discounting Budd on the newer cars.
Elite Juice Jack Modeler.
User avatar
green_elite_cab
 
Posts: 757
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:45 pm
Location: Hainesport NJ

Re: Budd Involvement in the Arrow II/III/SL IV Cars

Postby Tadman » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:28 pm

the only open question is if the later Arrows and Silverliners should be wholly known as 'G.E.' products, which contractually they were, or if some reference should be made to the subcontractor


Great question, and I believe there are precedents set for this already.

1. Most Morrison-Knudsen cars built in the 1980's and 90's had Mafersa (Budd Brazil licensee) bodies, but nobody refers to them as MK-Mafersa cars. (IE Viewliner, CTA 3200, Metra 8400/7400 series)

2. Sumitomo and their corporate relative Nippon-Sharyo collaborate on cars for Marc and South Shore, but they're normally just Sumitomo

3. A bit of a stretch, but high-end automakers sometimes use an outside body source, IE Ferrari bodies by Pininfarina, Bentley bodies by Mulliner, Rolls Royce by Park Ward. The autos are never referred to as a "Pininfarina Ferrari" or similar. Just "Ferrari".
Tadman
 
Posts: 8862
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:21 am

Re: Budd Involvement in the Arrow II/III/SL IV Cars

Postby Jersey_Mike » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:59 pm

1. Most Morrison-Knudsen cars built in the 1980's and 90's had Mafersa (Budd Brazil licensee) bodies, but nobody refers to them as MK-Mafersa cars. (IE Viewliner, CTA 3200, Metra 8400/7400 series)


I consider both the Viewliners and M4/M6's to be effectively Budds because both were designed by Budd and had major components fabricated by Budd licensees probably using Budd jigs and tooling. Same goes for the Vickers-Canada PATCO cars. In fact in the case of those cars the Builders Plate does say Budd under Vickers-Canada. Some even have two plates if I recall correctly.
Jersey_Mike
 
Posts: 4689
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:39 am
Location: CHARLES aka B&P JCT MP 95.9

Re: Budd Involvement in the Arrow II/III/SL IV Cars

Postby green_elite_cab » Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:26 pm

While that is fair to just call them "GE" cars, its not really legitimate then to say that budd designed these MUs, since there seems to be no basis for that assertion.

Avco is the only source, and some articles cite them as designing the body shell on top of fabricating it.
Elite Juice Jack Modeler.
User avatar
green_elite_cab
 
Posts: 757
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:45 pm
Location: Hainesport NJ

Re: Budd Involvement in the Arrow II/III/SL IV Cars

Postby ex Budd man » Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:33 pm

I worked at Red Lion from May 75 to May 85 and there was never a mention of shells for GE other than the Metropolitan cars. These were on the line when I first started. Amfleet I quickly filled the shop until completion in 1977. After a lull in production the gallery cars went into production, followed by the CTA order.
"I may not have a brain, but I have an idea!" BOB, benzoate ostylezene bicarbonate.
ex Budd man
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:17 am

PreviousNext

Return to New Jersey Transit NJT Rail and Light Rail LRT

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests