Curious about an aspect of the first streamliners, and wonder what the group might have to say. I watched the Pentrex "Tour of the M-10000" tonight, and recently read several reviews of the Con-Cor HO Zephyr, and it raised a question in my mind.
I understand, I think, many of the technology drivers for these units - lightweight, new and more efficient motive power, high-speed, and so on. I also understand the appeal of the design - the role of the art deco movement in the streamlined body, and the perhaps subconscious appeal during the Depression era of demonstrating modernization and commitment towards the future on behalf of the nation. There's no doubt the units were successful in many aspects, from public relations to technology testbeds.
My question is more narrow - why were these consists so short? Both were three car units - locomotive, coach, and coach-buffet car. Both were initially designed in such a fashion that they had to operate in this configuration. I think both handled passenger counts in the
80-100 range. Given the large investment in tooling and then radical lightweight construction, why wouldn't the roads have built them for larger capacities? Simply a limitation based on the engine technology? Necessary to achieve the target speeds? Or something else?I realize that the Zephyr in particular added at least one additional car later in its existence, and I know that both roads found that the semi-permanent operational articulation of the cars was a drawback, and abandoned that aspect of the design as the concept evolved in subsequent iterations of other streamlined units. I'm curious what the logic was in the original design that dictated the as-built launch configuration.
Chris Kansas City