Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Why we'll never see the 4 axle 315k cars as the next "standard"
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by 440cuin</i> <br /><br />What makes the net/tare of a car with 3 axle trucks higher? <br /> <br />But instead of 3 axle trucks and/or 315K cars how about using shorter regular cars. If you can squeeze 286K into a 40 foot length car type, a train load will carry more weight then 60 foot 315K cars for the same length of train effectively resulting in a greater load factor capacity without changing the truck designs or the rigidity of 3 axle trucks. <br /> <br />You could even go to even shorter rigid 2 axle cars with no trucks. Three 40 ton 2 axle cars could equal one 120 ton 6 axle car on 3 axle bogies. The simplicity of the short 2 axle car might have a higher net / tare ratio. <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />The net/tare of 3 axle trucks would be higher because you have more axles to support the weight. A 286k car has four axles with 71,500 load limits. By throwing in two extra axles at the 71,500 per axle limit, we now have a car with a gross load limit of 429k. Subtracting the extra tare from the addition of the two extra axles would still give us a car with revenue load limit in the high 300ks. <br /> <br />
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy