Mathieson multiple-unit tank car

[wanswheel]

Traffic World, 1922

TREATMENT OF TANK CARS

Attack on the refusal of the carriers to treat multiple-chambered tank cars as tank cars has been made by the Mathieson Alkali Works (Inc.) et al on the ground that such refusal constitutes undue prejudice in violation of section 3, and that the refusal of the carriers to grant a reasonable mileage allowance is an unreasonable practice within the meaning of section 15 of the interstate commerce act. Three complaints have been filed, one against the Baltimore & Ohio et al, a second against the Erie et al, and the third against the Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh et al. As co-complainant, the alkali company has joined with it, in each complaint, a user of liquefied chlorine gas. That is the product hauled in the type of tank car which, according to the allegations, the railroads refuse to regard as a tank car.

The special type tank car, instead of carrying a single shell, carries fifteen shells, each designed to hold 2,000 pounds of the dangerous gas. According to the complaints, the alkali company uses the multiple-chambered tank car as a matter of safety, the underlying principle of which is the reduction of the unit of hazard from the single unit class V tank car containing 30,000 pounds of gas to 15 units, each containing only 2,000 pounds. The car is said to be constructed in accordance with the Commission's container specifications and the rules of the Master Car Builders. The transportation of chlorine gas, which is the foundation for all the poison gases used in warfare, except one or two, is carried on under rules prescribed by the Commission after formulation by the Bureau of Explosives of the American Railway Association.

Not only do the railroads refuse, the complaints allege, to make a mileage allowance for the tank car, as is done in the cases of other kinds of tank cars, but the railroads require the complainants to pay rates for transportation of the tanks at the same rate that is imposed upon the liquefied gas, while it is alleged that in the case of chlorine gas transported in other kinds of tank cars, the rate is imposed only on the weight of the commodity. The car used by the complainant is said to weigh practically the same as other cars and requires no greater or different transportation service than other cars. It is contended in the complaints that the carriers, in their treatment of the alkali company's equipment and shipments, violate their own tariffs, in that they make no allowance on either the outbound or inbound movement of the tank car, while making a mileage allowance to their competitors when the latter furnish tank cars. The prayer in each of the complaints is not only for reasonable, non-discriminatory, and non-prejudicial, rates, rules and regulations, and allowances, but also for reparation.

In each of the complaints, Wilbur LaRoe, Jr., attorney for the complainants, asserts the subject matter is of broad scope, involving the interests of many railroads not named as defendants, and brings into issue the provisions of the general classifications and tariffs applicable within the three classification territories. He said, therefore, it would be his purpose to serve a copy of the complaints on the chairmen of the classification committees, so that all interested might be advised of them and intervene if so minded. He also asked the consolidation of the three complaints for hearing and that they be considered as bringing in issue the classification rules in each of the territories.

 

Paper Trade Journal, 1924

MATHIESON CHLORINE TANK CAR APPROVED

Interstate Commerce Commission Rules Multi-Unit Car a Tank Car

The Mathieson multi-unit chlorine gas tank car, designed and operated by the Mathieson Alkali Works, Inc., is held entitled to the same freight rates and privileges as any tank car, by decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The Commission completely upholds the contentions of Mathieson Company and the “Safety First” principles embodied in this car design. The multi-unit car assures full compliance with the law by cleansing and accuracy in loading, and greatly increases the safety factor in handling and transportation by separating the units into fifteen containers carrying exactly 2,000 pounds each, as compared to a single unit chlorine tank car which carries fifteen tons in a single tank. The requirement of the law that containers carrying chlorine must be loaded on accurate scales, and approved plant practice of thorough cleansing and inspection of each container at the manufacturer's works is, with certainty, observed by this type of equipment. The reduction of the hazard is also an important factor. The certainty of the consumer that he is getting exactly 2,000 pounds of liquid chlorine in each container can not be accomplished by any other type of equipment.

When the Mathieson Company voluntarily went to the expense of designing and placing in service this multi-unit car over two years ago, the railroads held that it was not a tank car, and attempted to assess charges far in excess of those applying on the Class V tank car, ignoring the advantages to themselves, their employees and the public at large from a "Safety First" standpoint. In the interest of both the producer and the consumer, therefore, the Mathieson Company appealed to the Interstate Commerce Commission that this discrimination be removed, that the industry might be able, economically, to use this equipment. While this case was pending, the Mathieson Company assumed the excess freight charges on every movement, in many cases three times the charges on a single-unit tank car.

It is believed that this voluntary action is a far-sighted step in the interests of the general public safety, of the producer of the chlorine, of the consumer, and of the carriers. By this favorable decision the Mathieson Alkali Works has been upheld by the Interstate Commerce Commission, which body is responsible for the public safety in the transportation of any hazardous article. The Mathieson Company has performed an important beneficial service to the entire electrolytic alkali industry. All large chlorine consumers such as the pulp and paper industry will materially benefit in their ability to secure, in a safe, economical and convenient manner, one of their important raw materials.

http://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/lehman/company.html?company=olin_mathieson_chemical_corporation

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

 Once again:       Fascinating reading. 

- Paul North.   

[wanswheel]

Thanks Paul.

A similar car was still rolling in the ‘70s and it, too, was involved in a lawsuit.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1977841246PaSuper595_1766/NASH%20v.%20CHEMETRON%20CORPORATION

Topps, the baseball card company, had a card about it in the ‘50s.

Here’s the patent. Don’t look now but the inventor wrote the 1922 article above.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US1458588.pdf

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Interesting case - the linked lawsuit was an attempt to add $827,000 in tariff revenue to the previously collected $282,000.  That's almost 3 times as much - on the basis that the freight rate should have been based on and included the weight of the small tanks, instead of just the phosgene gas inside those tanks.  (Good thing helium or hydrogen wasn't the gas . . . would a full tank weigh less than an empty one ?!?  )  It was actually a decision on the appeal by the Trustees of the Lehigh Valley Railroad, which previously lost in the lower court.  With a decision date of March 31, 1977, it was likely filed sometime after the LV went into banruptcy (hence the Trustees,) but before it all went into ConRail.  As such, this claim would have been an asset that remained with the estate, for possible distribution to the railroad's creditors.  The Trustees were a litigious bunch and brought just about any kind of case conceivable (and a few not) in their zealous attempts to recover as much money as possible for the estate. 

Although I had not known of this decision before, it kinda sorta makes sense.  What's really weird is that the terminus of the shipments - Stockertown, PA - is maybe 20 miles / 25 minutes away.  Plus, I had a passing acquaintance with 2 of the listed attorneys - Richard F. Stevens, a real pit bull of a litigator who however was on the wrong side of this one, and Raymond J. DeRaymond, who I would not have thought had any expertise or capability in this field.

- Paul North.    

[Wizlish]

The first interesting point is that the ICC initial decision appears to be based on the locking mechanism, which assures that at all times that the car is running on the general system of transportation the containers are not movable separate from the car (as even the ton containers appear to have been before the special '15-well' cars were built).  This did not appear to have changed in the LV case, even though there appear to have been two key differences there -- the ton containers were further distributed after being removed from the car, the behavior being very similar to LCL containers or other packaging, and the fact that the same containers delivered on the car might not be, and probably were not, the same containers that arrived on it.  Who here has read the 'box that changed the world' books and knows the tariffs (and discussions about formulating them!), including systems like Flexi Van or the 'kangarou' system of specially-equipped trailers?

Also -- PDN or someone else knowledgeable, how did this situation change during and after deregulation?

I was interested to discover that some other chemicals routinely travel in this sort of packaging, notably one of my favorites, N2O4.  I would have thought that when Olin Mathieson made all that hydrazine (probably UDMH not MMH) for NASA they'd have shipped it this way, too ... but perhaps there was enough demand, and skilled enough people at both ends, to make shipping in a more conventional design of car the most economical approach...

[erikem]

Wizlish

I was interested to discover that some other chemicals routinely travel in this sort of packaging, notably one of my favorites, N2O4.  I would have thought that when Olin Mathieson made all that hydrazine (probably UDMH not MMH) for NASA they'd have shipped it this way, too ... but perhaps there was enough demand, and skilled enough people at both ends, to make shipping in a more conventional design of car the most economical approach...

I suspect that the big movement of N2O4 and UDMH was in the maintenance of the 54 Titan II ICBM's (IIRC, this was largely handled by tanker trucks). OTOH, NASA and the USAF did use a fair amount of both for the Titan Gemini, Titan III and Titan IV launches along with the Apollo Lunar Landing modules and more recently the OMS for the Shuttle.

 - Erik

[Paul of Covington]

wanswheel

Thanks Paul.

A similar car was still rolling in the ‘70s and it, too, was involved in a lawsuit.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1977841246PaSuper595_1766/NASH%20v.%20CHEMETRON%20CORPORATION

Topps, the baseball card company, had a card about it in the ‘50s.

Here’s the patent. Don’t look now but the inventor wrote the 1922 article above.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US1458588.pdf

 

   Note the Q&A on the right side of the lower picture.   Do I remember correctly that we had a discussion a while back where it was determined that the engineer was the boss?   Has it changed over the years?   Is the card wrong?   Do I dis-remember?

[tree68]

Paul of Covington

Note the Q&A on the right side of the lower picture.   Do I remember correctly that we had a discussion a while back where it was determined that the engineer was the boss?   Has it changed over the years?   Is the card wrong?   Do I dis-remember?

One of the conundrums of modern railroading:  A promotion to engineer means you're no longer the boss....

The conductor is, indeed, in charge of the train.  He/she is responsible for all the paperwork, etc.

The engineer is charged with safely and efficiently getting the train where it's going, proper train handling, etc.

Our rules state that the engineer is not to move the train without direction from the conductor.

As I often point out, I'm just pulling handles.

Note on "modern railroading."  As I recall, at one time there was a career ladder to climb to conductor, and a career ladder to climb to engineer.  They were parallel and did not cross, although I'm sure there were those who crossed over from one craft to the other.  

 

[Electroliner 1935]

tree68

The conductor is, indeed, in charge of the train.  He/she is responsible for all the paperwork, etc. The engineer is charged with safely and efficiently getting the train where it's going, proper train handling, etc. Our rules state that the engineer is not to move the train without direction from the conductor. As I often point out, I'm just pulling handles.

But let it jump the track and see who gets the blame. 

[tree68]

Electroliner 1935

But let it jump the track and see who gets the blame. 

Yeah - but at least I get to ring the bell and toot the horn! 

[Electroliner 1935]

tree68

Yeah - but at least I get to ring the bell and toot the horn! 

And I suspect, wave to the public.

[tree68]

Electroliner 1935

And I suspect, wave to the public.

Not to mention getting my picture taken...