# Old Rolling Stock



## George K (Jan 29, 2015)

On the way home on the Metra BNSF branch one evening, I was in the vestibule waiting for my stop to come up, and I was talking to the conductors (yeah, there were two) in the vestibule. I asked how old the car that we were in was. One of them walked to the seating section, opened a panel, and showed me a panel, indicating that the car was built in 1963!

Wow.

50 years old.

Is that typical for local commuter rail?


----------



## Ryan (Jan 29, 2015)

Most are a good bit newer, but there's a decent amount of rolling stock still out there at age 50.


----------



## Tokkyu40 (Jan 30, 2015)

There are Budd RDC units in revenue service older than that, and the New Orleans streetcars date back to the 20s and 30s.
With proper maintenance, a rail car can last a lot longer than a bus.


----------



## spacecadet (Jan 30, 2015)

I remember riding on Erie Lackawanna EMU trains in the early 1980's that must have dated to the 1930's. They were real relics, with the full heavyweight look, wicker bench seats and small steel fans at the four corners of the interior for when it got hot. I remember the exterior color of most of them could best be described as "rust", although a few were freshly painted.

Nowadays I live on Long Island and the LIRR doesn't have much older than about 10 years at the moment. They still have a few Budd M3 cars left that do date to the 1980's, but they're rare nowadays. Most of their cars are either Bombardier M7's or Kawasaki C3's that are at most 15 years old but are still in the process of being delivered today, so they all feel relatively new if you can ignore the occasionally ripped seat vinyl. Believe it or not, though, the M3's definitely run smoother than the M7's. (The C3's are pretty smooth running and nice cars; I prefer them but they don't run on my line.)

As for Erie, NJ Transit absorbed them in something like 1983 and began modernizing immediately. I think the oldest cars NJ Transit still runs are some Comets that probably date to the mid-80's.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jan 30, 2015)

Metra has some rolling stock that dates back to 1953. Several years ago, Metra even bought back some cars from Virginia Railway Express that it originally sold to VRE for its startup! Commuter equipment can roll on for many years, provided they're well maintained.


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Jan 31, 2015)

SunRail's locomotives were originally freight locomotives (EMD GP40s) for the Seaboard Coast Line, Illinois Central, Penn Central, and one from the B&O. They were rebuilt into passenger locomotives for MARC.

After MARC retired them a few years ago, MotivePower bought them and rebuilt them again. Now these locomotives of 1966-1970 vintage are operating here. These locomotives have quite a LONG history. The durability of those EMD locomotives are still proving themselves, 49 years later after they were built.


----------



## jis (Jan 31, 2015)

When significant rebuild from the ground up is involved, I wonder when does the resulting vehicle essentially become a new one as opposed to the old one. Suppose you rebuild a car which at the end of it has only the original ashtrays and a few frame parts in the new vehicle, is it still the old vehicle or is it a new vehicle reusing some parts from the older vehicle?

Not suggesting that any of the examples mentioned here fall into this category, but just pondering the general question.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jan 31, 2015)

jis said:


> When significant rebuild from the ground up is involved, I wonder when does the resulting vehicle essentially become a new one as opposed to the old one. Suppose you rebuild a car which at the end of it has only the original ashtrays and a few frame parts in the new vehicle, is it still the old vehicle or is it a new vehicle reusing some parts from the older vehicle?
> 
> Not suggesting that any of the examples mentioned here fall into this category, but just pondering the general question.


So, if I get new knees, a new heart, etc, I can be "NEW" again. Cool. Wonder if my insurance will pay for all that just so I can be young again. J/K.


----------



## jis (Jan 31, 2015)

Identity issues for sentient beings is even more complex than for no-sentient things. So I am not going to even attempt touching that with a pole of any length whatsoever.


----------



## Tokkyu40 (Feb 1, 2015)

jis said:


> When significant rebuild from the ground up is involved, I wonder when does the resulting vehicle essentially become a new one as opposed to the old one. Suppose you rebuild a car which at the end of it has only the original ashtrays and a few frame parts in the new vehicle, is it still the old vehicle or is it a new vehicle reusing some parts from the older vehicle?
> 
> Not suggesting that any of the examples mentioned here fall into this category, but just pondering the general question.


The most extensive restoration I've heard of was a wooden yacht where half the frames and planks were removed and new wood shaped and bent into place. then the rest of the wood was removed.

Before the planking was finished they removed and replaced the keel, retaining a small section with the original builder's plaque.

By the time the decks and masts were completed, that small block set into the keel was the only wood left of the original yacht, and it was only there to say it's a restoration rather than a copy.


----------



## spacecadet (Feb 1, 2015)

There was a perhaps short-lived show on the Travel Channel just a little while ago (my TiVo got 3 episodes and no more, so maybe that's all there was) that was about private rail cars. As most people here probably know, most of those are extensively rebuilt before being returned to the rails from whatever junkyard they were discovered in. But it was a little odd to see the owners on the one hand talking about how they had stripped their car down to its metal frame before rebuilding it completely to look like any modern private luxury yacht, and on the other talking about how old and historical the car is and how they had "saved" it.

Then there are odd cases like a museum/historical railway that found one of the first-ever commuter RDC's (I don't remember exactly what it was) serving as a room in a plumbing office building. It seemed to literally be just the outer shell - one wall of the car was the outer wall of the building, and I guess the opposite wall and roof were still there, which was apparent when they tore the rest of the building down. But no interior, no drive mechanism, no undercarriage. You couldn't even really call it a rail car at that point - it was more like a mobile home. This museum/railway got it and rebuilt everything that was missing from scratch based on old photos and schematics. (I'm not sure how they built the trucks and drivetrain, but somehow they did.) The result was beautiful and no doubt looked even better than the car did on any given day when it was in service. But I couldn't help but think "this is not the same rail car it once was; this is a replica."


----------



## cirdan (Feb 3, 2015)

jis said:


> When significant rebuild from the ground up is involved, I wonder when does the resulting vehicle essentially become a new one as opposed to the old one. Suppose you rebuild a car which at the end of it has only the original ashtrays and a few frame parts in the new vehicle, is it still the old vehicle or is it a new vehicle reusing some parts from the older vehicle?
> 
> Not suggesting that any of the examples mentioned here fall into this category, but just pondering the general question.


They say the human body changes all its cells within a 7 year cycle, with maybe a small number of exceptions.

Similarly, you don't need a full rebuild to introduce a lot of new material to a rail car. This happens in regular maintenance cycles too.


----------



## jis (Feb 3, 2015)

cirdan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > When significant rebuild from the ground up is involved, I wonder when does the resulting vehicle essentially become a new one as opposed to the old one. Suppose you rebuild a car which at the end of it has only the original ashtrays and a few frame parts in the new vehicle, is it still the old vehicle or is it a new vehicle reusing some parts from the older vehicle?
> ...


I was not thinking about normal wear and tear replacement, which over a period of time can indeed replace quite a proportion of parts. I was thinking more in terms of rebuilding after a complete strip down as is done with many restored cars.


----------



## FriskyFL (Feb 4, 2015)

Tokkyu40 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > When significant rebuild from the ground up is involved, I wonder when does the resulting vehicle essentially become a new one as opposed to the old one. Suppose you rebuild a car which at the end of it has only the original ashtrays and a few frame parts in the new vehicle, is it still the old vehicle or is it a new vehicle reusing some parts from the older vehicle?
> ...


The " Ship of Theseus" paradox...does a ship that has had all of its original parts replaced remain the same ship?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus


----------



## jis (Feb 4, 2015)

Even more confusing is when the name of a ship is just transferred to another one of like design. This has happened quite a bit for airliner. Makes it difficult to keep track of things unless you are able tot rack down tail number and chassis numbers of aircraft.

Then there were all those SDP40Fs that got converted to whatever else. That was hard to keep track of.


----------

