hbgatsf gmpullman You could always file a chunk out of the side of the tank dot117-29k by Edmund, on Flickr Regards, Ed I think that the only question on that car is where the clearance problem is. That can't be a cheap solution. Rick
gmpullman You could always file a chunk out of the side of the tank dot117-29k by Edmund, on Flickr Regards, Ed
You could always file a chunk out of the side of the tank
dot117-29k by Edmund, on Flickr
Regards, Ed
I think that the only question on that car is where the clearance problem is.
That can't be a cheap solution.
Rick
Curves. The body of the railcar overhangs more on the inside of a curved track, so the exact middle of a railcar is the clearance issue. Also depends on the length and truck centers, since the longer the car the more overhang inside a curve.
Also, that's an insulated tank, so it's actually the insulated and "jacket" that's notched in, not the actual structural tank body.
You also see some of the big LPG tanks with flat sections on the sides or ladders offset from the middle of the car to deal with curve clearance issues.
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
There were a number of early notching experiments that used that 3" clearance from Plate H or K...
Remember the old adage about how rules are written in blood? You can figure out what went 'wrong with that picture' in the real world when you read the red-bordered box about various speeds vs. clearances.
Here's a fun read on car clearances:
https://aar.com/standards/2019DPLS_Presentations/Open%20Top%20Breakout/05%20-%20Duvall%202019%20Rail%20Clearances.pdf
Some time ago, I did a project with regard to cutting the "mouse ears" in the tunnels on the old WP line in California. This was done for double stack clearance. My recollection was that the ears were cut so as to clear the containers by 3", vertically and horizontally. Interesting to compare that with the quoted paper.
Ed
hbgatsf I think that the only question on that car is where the clearance problem is. That can't be a cheap solution. Rick
I believe the clearance problem is right around where they moved the ladder inwards.
At least there's a side rail to grab onto...
Just speaking from preferences (riding cars with side rails vs/ just grab irons - I kind of prefer the side rails.)
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Heres a thought in the safty departmenty. When a person goes up or down a ladder there is a chance that person could grab the side rails of that ladder with their hand and now their boot slips of a rung. Woops down their hand slides on that side rail only to get slamed in to a lower rung and maybe fall from the ladder altogether. Now if you only have rungs to grab a hold of while going up or down and your boot slip off a rung, you still have a hand holding on to a rung. Yep like I say, only a thought.
zugmannDoesn't look any wider
When did you move to Canterlot from Equestria? Did big city life appeal to you in the captial, or have you always been there and are you just being more specific?
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Doesn't look any wider, longer, or anything different from any other standard crude tank.
There is no question that a little less material is used which would equate to a cost saving, but it would be insignificant compared to the overall cost of the car. Added to the need to balance on your toes there are also fewer places for handholds. The fact that 358 had this configuration out of thousands made indicates it wasn't very popular.
Maybe it helped negotiate a tunnel somewhere.
zugmann 7j43k If a rung had been place ON the centerline, there would have been less clearance. Seems like a weird choice over just moving the ladder off-center like many other longer cars. I'm guessing someone's cost-saving idea.
7j43k If a rung had been place ON the centerline, there would have been less clearance.
Seems like a weird choice over just moving the ladder off-center like many other longer cars. I'm guessing someone's cost-saving idea.
I thought the same. But then you have to expand the platform.
By removing the ladder stiles, they use less material than the expanded platform approach, plus save a few pounds of weight.
I still don't like the idea of climbing a ladder on my tippy toes.
I'll bet that GATX knows why.
7j43kIf a rung had been place ON the centerline, there would have been less clearance.
I'm voting for clearance. This design projects "sideways" less than the standard design. Note also that that rungs closest to the car's centerline are equally spaced from that centerline. If a rung had been place ON the centerline, there would have been less clearance.
I'm guessing they picked up several "free" inches with this method.
This design sure doesn't give lots of room for a person's boot toes, though.
I guess it depends on your definition of a ladder. Is it possible for someone to reach the top of the car in the picture you provided? The answer is most definitely yes. The two reasons I can think of are safety and damage to the ladder. If the half ladder is side swiped or damaged it isn't going to effect the tank. Whereas a full ladder may twist and cause a puncture. Highly unlikely but possible. Also much easier and cheaper to replace if damaged.
Some years ago I had purchased some tank cars from Scaletrains.com that had half ladders. According to their website, in 2011 TrinityRail produced 358 tank cars with half ladders numbered GATX 286000 thru 286537 for General American Transportation Company. You can find many pictures of them on rrpicturearchives but I haven't found anything about the ladders.
I had asked scaletrains if they knew the reason for the half ladders and they could only speculate that there must have been a clearance issue someplace that these cars solved. Does anyone know the reason for the half ladders?