Why do they stack 53' containers on top of 40' (or smetimes two 20') containers when they are all in a 53' wellcar? In one of the videos below, they have a 53' container on top of a 20' container and a 20' ISO tank container.
https://youtu.be/tXSfVBZ4Iqo?t=173
https://youtu.be/GQqZxERZaWI?t=18
https://youtu.be/g2nqldUHEFk?t=110
Do they intentionally try to stack containers with the heaviest on bottom to keep the center of gravity low?
Completely different topic... Why are there so many mid and rear DPUs screaming (turbo/supercharger whine?) when the lead locomotive isn't?
I am not aware that there0 were any 53 foot well cars made. The 53' design is not an ISO box. It is a domestic container not handled on ships. There may not be any 96" wide 53' containers. They may all be 102" wide, so there may not be any well cars where they fit into the wells. There may have been some well cars made for 48' boxes, but I think most are at 45'.
There is an effort to put heavy containers on the bottom, but it may not be real successful. The heavy containers are a pair of 20' containers and they are always on the bottom.
Am I reading this wrong?
https://www.gbrx.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/53-All-Purpose-Double-Stack.pdf
I see 53' wells every day at work......
There are also a lot of shorter well cars in service, and sometimes it is just convenient to load them in this manner to get as many boxes as possible onto the train.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70DudeI see 53' wells every day at work...... There are also a lot of shorter well cars in service, and sometimes it is just convenient to load them in this manner to get as many boxes as possible onto the train.
The corner post designs of all containers are based on the maritime TEU designation - Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit. Whatever is on the bottom level - be that two 20 footers, one 40 footer, one 48 footer or one 53 footer will have it so that the corner posts will allign. The larger container sizes do not have securing posts in their middles that would correspond to the 20 foot corner post spacings. The larger containers have their securing corner posts set at 40 feet, with their additional length build outside of the securing corner posts. Thus it is conceivable to have the containers that exceed 20 feet on both the bottom and top; however 20 footers can only be on the bottom since there would not be any corner posts to align them if they were on top of one of the larger boxes.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
David1005I am not aware that there were any 53 foot well cars made.
Usually the length of the well is prominently marked on the car or set somewhere. I am reasonably convinced that some of the air resistance of a stack train is decreased when a solid block of 53s over shorter containers is in use; I and I suspect many others have designed 'full-width diaphragms' that would lock into the ends of the corner castings to reduce quartering drag and turbulence...
One aspect of loading the gets overlooked...keeping the heaviest contaners on the bottom. All containers nominally have the same maximum weight - no matter if they are 20 foot or 53 foot - the maximum allowed weight is nearly the same. Two loaded 20 footers, have double the weight of a single 40, 48 or 53 footer.
Keeping the maximum weight on the bottom keeps the center of gravity of the entire loaded car at its lowest position.
BaltACD Two loaded 20 footers, have double the weight of a single 40
Two loaded 20 footers, have double the weight of a single 40
What am I missing? Why wouldn't a loaded (to capacity) 40' be about the same as two loaded 20' containers?
Perry Babin BaltACD Two loaded 20 footers, have double the weight of a single 40 What am I missing? Why wouldn't a loaded (to capacity) 40' be about the same as two loaded 20' containers?
Load limits! Highways have load limits, rail cars have load limits.
Shipped commodities either 'cube out' or 'weight out' - a load of styrofoam will fill up a container before it exceeds the weight limits of the container - a load of metalic ore with get to the weight limit of the container before it will visibly fill the container.
The containers that haul products are designed to the the 'proper size' for the products that are hauled. Large containers for commodities that are light in weight. Small containers for commodities that are heavy in weight.
BaltACDShipped commodities either 'cube out' or 'weight out' - a load of styrofoam will fill up a container before it exceeds the weight limits of the container - a load of metalic ore with get to the weight limit of the container before it will visibly fill the container.
Cue the story about the fellow who bid on a contract to move some amount of balsa from a ship to a warehouse. I forget the weight, but he figured he could make it in a trip or two and priced his bid accordingly... Not...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
BaltACD Load limits! Highways have load limits, rail cars have load limits. Shipped commodities either 'cube out' or 'weight out' - a load of styrofoam will fill up a container before it exceeds the weight limits of the container - a load of metalic ore with get to the weight limit of the container before it will visibly fill the container. The containers that haul products are designed to the the 'proper size' for the products that are hauled. Large containers for commodities that are light in weight. Small containers for commodities that are heavy in weight.
I was thinking something along the line of one vehicle or similar object in the 20 and two in the 40, not something with that sort of density, but I get your point.
Perry BabinWhat am I missing? Why wouldn't a loaded (to capacity) 40' be about the same as two loaded 20' containers?
The tare weight of two 20' containers includes a set of doors and a bulkhead, representing the two intermediate ends of the containers; there is also some lost cubage when you need to allow for the ends and their structure in what would be the middle of a van load.
Some of the long containers I see are marked to have a tare weight less than a Suburban, in the 6000lb range. That is almost amazingly light for a rackproof box framed to be lifted loaded by its top corners, and locked against spill by its lower.
David1005 I am not aware that there0 were any 53 foot well cars made. The 53' design is not an ISO box. It is a domestic container not handled on ships. There may not be any 96" wide 53' containers. They may all be 102" wide, so there may not be any well cars where they fit into the wells. There may have been some well cars made for 48' boxes, but I think most are at 45'.
A week ago I saw a fairly long train west bound out of Detroit with all 53’ containers . All cars were 53’ wells, some single stack, some double
Overmod Perry Babin What am I missing? Why wouldn't a loaded (to capacity) 40' be about the same as two loaded 20' containers? I think he may be comparing two ISO 20' marine-capable containers (which are stacked many high on shipboard) with a 40' domestic container. The tare weight of two 20' containers includes a set of doors and a bulkhead, representing the two intermediate ends of the containers; there is also some lost cubage when you need to allow for the ends and their structure in what would be the middle of a van load. Some of the long containers I see are marked to have a tare weight less than a Suburban, in the 6000lb range. That is almost amazingly light for a rackproof box framed to be lifted loaded by its top corners, and locked against spill by its lower.
Perry Babin What am I missing? Why wouldn't a loaded (to capacity) 40' be about the same as two loaded 20' containers?
I think he may be comparing two ISO 20' marine-capable containers (which are stacked many high on shipboard) with a 40' domestic container.
Sea Cans are all about how much volume you can move before maxing out the cube. The weight limit is more a function of what the highway energies and the local infrastructure can handle. Railroads generally can handle the heavier load. The car design generally more receptive to the 40 ft or double 20 ft container on the bottom because of the fixed IBCU locking/pinning the container to the floor.
There are still plenty of older well cars out there that cannot handle the 52-54 foot containers on the bottom. (along with the spine cars). These find themselves not being used as much anymore, sitting around in storage, because they are less than universal.
TEBU= Twenty Foot Equivilent Box units
The sea cans started as 8 foot wide boxes and now typically are now at 9.5. Anything for more load and less tare weight drives the shippers until clearances and weight limits in the practical real world stops them. [Practical reality - a concept that often escapes shippers] Height restrictions typically mean more of the limiting factor on older railroads that were built to a much older standard. (nobody 150+ years ago ever saw stack trains or 286K-315K coming)
Routes utilized for intermodal traffic have 'high-wide' clearance computer programs which dictate size and shape of loads that will not encounter fouling with bridges and tunnels or other impediments. The design of containers and the well-cars is influenced by those constraints.
mudchicken The car design generally more receptive to the 40 ft or double 20 ft container on the bottom because of the fixed IBCU locking/pinning the container to the floor.
The car design generally more receptive to the 40 ft or double 20 ft container on the bottom because of the fixed IBCU locking/pinning the container to the floor.
Are you referring to the railcar design? It was posted that there were no locks on the floors of wellcars and I could find nothing that showed any locks.
mudchickenThe sea cans started as 8 foot wide boxes and now typically are now at 9.5.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.