286,000 lb question

[jeaton]

Oops, my bad. Two more placards put it over the top, and I forgot the cool factor. Seriously-that is priceless.

[TH&B]

Jeaton, don't understate the savings in those cars, it's 4 placards you save, not just two. I still say build more of them because they look so cool, and you can see all those wheels so clearly.

[jeaton]

Hugh- Right on that point. For all, it could be salad oil or may even happen to be empty for that picture.

[Hugh Jampton]

It's not propane. You can see what it is slopped down the sides from the top hatch. Propane doesn't do that.

[edblysard]

Mac,
Depends if the car is placarded as class 3 combustible, it is a perfect cover car.
See if you can find a haz-mat or placement in train handbook.
Can't tell from the photo, what color was the placard?
If it was red on top, and white on bottom, with the number 3 on it, or solid red with the 3, it is a combustible, with no restrictions in train placement.
If it was a hazardous car, it would have to have 5 non hazardous (cover)cars between it and the motor.
And, not to be too much of a smart alek, but it really dosnt matter where in the train it is, even 5 cars deep or deeper, if something that big goes boom, its time to bend over, grab your ankles and kiss you tail goodby!

Send me a e-mail address that supports photos, and I will send you a placement in train chart with the placards and what they mean.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[Modelcar]

....Yes if that's Propane that would be an explosion to set records....I remember some years back there was some Propane cars or car explosion just east of kingman, Az. on the then Sante Fe and I was familiar with that area and from the description it caused damage in a wide radius.

[jeaton]

Modelcar-I suspect that most railroader get a little nervous anytime tanks are enroute. Propane has to be the worst nightmare. I once made a stop at the IC's Baton Rouge yard (on business). Felt like I was sitting on a primed keg of powder with a two year old playing with matches.

I thought I'd figure the "savings" based on the car components of that four truck monster.

One (1) ea set coupler and housing.
One (1) ea set brake hose
Two (2) tank ends
One (1) ea set/load/discharge/safety valves
Two (2) placards
Guy who dreamed this up? PRICELESS

[Modelcar]

...It seems out of place connected right to the engine where human lives are involved...One would think there would be at least several idler cars between that load and the power.

[TH&B]

I like those big rail whales, they look COOL. I've only very rarely seen them in real on passing frieghts. That is what I want my share of tax $$$ to go to... more rail whale bombs 315K, bigger then ever, then I'll go rail fanning a little more often again.

[broncoman]

Thanks for the information Mark. The place that I work gives me a front row seat to the Davis wye. California Northern is quite busy there. I have friends that use the elevator in Woodland, and was curious based on this topic. I will scope out some of the cars tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

I have the feeling I would feel a little uneasy about riding in a loco in front of one of these things....

[Anonymous]

CONGRESS JUST GIVE POOR SHORT LINES THE MONEY AND STOP SPECIAL INTERASTS CONTOLLING WASHINGTON

[Anonymous]

Broncoman: I bet if you check the appropriate short lines' web sites, you'll find that many if not all accept 286K cars, at least as far as the rice elevator.

You're correct that it's cheaper to upgrade 10 miles of track (assuming no bridges) than it is to build an elevator. But you don't need to build an elevator -- you can store the grain in the old elevator next to your now-defunct short line, then truck to the main line and use a simple jackscrew to load the car. Or, if you're moving a lot of grain, build a simple loading facility. Many main-line elevators built in recent years have no storage capacity at all; they merely are a transloading point and most of the cost is a track long enough to hold 220 cars (110 empties on one side become 110 loads on the other).

Because all grain starts in a truck, it can easily stay there a few more miles.

Grain is a business of tons and pennies. Most of the decisions on how to handle it turn on a few pennies a ton, but since there's lots of tons, even a penny a ton matters very quickly.

[broncoman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Broncoman,

Any short line handling open or covered hoppers has the problem. Even paper mills want 286K boxcars. Root problem is that marketing is offering incetive rates with too much incentive!

I don't know a figure so I won't give one, but it seems many of the rice elevators in my part of the country are only accessed by shortlines. Most were spin-offs from Class 1s. It would seem hard for say UP to market a rate when they still need the short line to get it from an elevator to a main line. It seem like the capital to build a new elevator would be huge compared to that of upgrading 10 miles worth of track, given the cost of real estate in CA, especially if you can find it near a main line.

[Modelcar]

...CShaveRR: Yes, I overlooked that of adding the 2 figures together....And that's going to be a little tough to do as I drive...but just a bit more of info. Today as I drove past another cut of them were placed there and the LD LMT of that group was 223,000.

[edblysard]

See them all the time.
Yup, rolling bombs are a good description.
The trucks are buckeye trucks, the third axle member is pinned to the solid two axle truck, and can move or flex up and down.
Huge spread bolsters.
Some of the older ones have puncture plates or shields on the ends, in case of a derailment, the trailing cars knuckle wont punch a hole in the headcap.

Ed

[TH&B]

The centipeed tenders (like those on UP844) has 5 axles in a row. Pennsy had 4 axle tender trucks. Sure two axle trucks are truely flexable on bad or sharp curved track, but 3 or more axles are a good way to spread weight when on good track like a main line should have. Germany uses 5 axle trucks on hot bottle cars, but they run on good track.
-ps; Carl very interesting website.

[mudchicken]

Saw plenty of 'em around the LA refineries, assume Ed sees "just a few" too. Switch crews in LA referred to them as "rolling bombs", especially the propane versions.

[CShaveRR]

QM,

The "219000" figure you were reading on the car sides was the load limit--"LD LMT".

Next time, read both the "LD LMT" and the "LT WT" figure and add the two up. The answer should be precisely 286000.

That's the gross rail load--the weight of the load, plus the weight of the car itself.


Now, as for your monster tank cars with more than four axles, the gross rail load will be higher than 286K, just because there are more than four axles to support it. My guess would be that the gross rail load on such a six-axle tank car would be based on the old 263K standard, multiplied by 1.5 (because there are six axles instead of four), or somewhere around 395K.

And for those of you who want to see pictures of some of these monsters, there's a site devoted to them:

http://railwhales.railspot.com/

Carl

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

...Just a comment on The heavier wt. cars. We have a NS route coming in from the north west and heading south and north here in Muncie....and I drive along a passing siding often coming into town and much of the time a length of covered grain hoppers are setting on the passing track and in a short time moved out...but yesterday I tried to eyeball the GVW figure as I drove along the tracks...For the most part what I saw was figures around the 219,000 mark....This route is a major route of this kind of traffic going through here....Didn't see any 286 units but I will now start to watch for them. Do they have a noticable different appearance...?

Yesterday on the same route, I witnessed at a crossing a large tank car that almost looked like a pressure cyl....It had rounded ends and fixtures on top at the center to input and unload the product, whatever that was...and it had 3-wheel trucks. I suppose the GVW on that car was pretty high. I wasn't close enough to see what it was. It was a rather large unit.

I have seen some of those monster tubes! Next to a "regular" one they are huge!

J

[Modelcar]

...Just a comment on The heavier wt. cars. We have a NS route coming in from the north west and heading south and north here in Muncie....and I drive along a passing siding often coming into town and much of the time a length of covered grain hoppers are setting on the passing track and in a short time moved out...but yesterday I tried to eyeball the GVW figure as I drove along the tracks...For the most part what I saw was figures around the 219,000 mark....This route is a major route of this kind of traffic going through here....Didn't see any 286 units but I will now start to watch for them. Do they have a noticable different appearance...?

Yesterday on the same route, I witnessed at a crossing a large tank car that almost looked like a pressure cyl....It had rounded ends and fixtures on top at the center to input and unload the product, whatever that was...and it had 3-wheel trucks. I suppose the GVW on that car was pretty high. I wasn't close enough to see what it was. It was a rather large unit.

[Modelcar]

....Ed, isn't it also true there is much less numbers of joint bars in use now with continuous rail almost exclusively on class 1's....But surely it is still highly important no matter how many there are it would only take one out of place to cause a derailment. I'm assuming that job is included in the track gang's duties now....

[edblysard]

Yes Dave, they did and do damage track, but most of the new C-C truck locomotives now days have some form of steerable trucks.
The old SD40s, and C30s, with a solid sideframes, is hard on industrial tracks.
The center axle will bind on a tight curve, and ride up and over the rail head, or exert enough sideways force that it can wide guage the track.
And keep in mind, both locomotives, and passenger cars have a different types of suspension, softer or more reactive than freight cars.

Grab a timetable of your favorite railroad, and read the speical instructions for each subdivision.
It will include a list of the trackage with axle restrictions for cars and locomotives.

And track maintainance on the tracks that saw passenger traffic was much more intense than for freight.
Today, you almost never hear of joint bar crews, whos sole purpose was to check and tighten joint bar bolts on their subdivision, but they were quite common before.
Where before, a track gang had maybe 50 miles of track to maintain and be responsible for, now days it can be 500 miles per single crew.
Add to all of this the fact that volume of cars moved is up, way up.

Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

I'm confused by the three-axle on cars comment. Are others?

1. Thousands of standard heavyweight Pullman cars roamed USA and Canadian Railroads with three-axle trucks, did not damge the tracks, and ran where appropriate at 100mph.

2. Why would a heavily loaded 6-axle freight car damage tracks but not a 6-axle locomotive? Dave Klepper

[rrnut282]

It has a lot to do with weight. The 6-axle passenger cars weren't heavier than their 4-axle counterparts out west. Rather the 6-axle cars were an attempt to provide a smoother ride over track that wasn't as smooth as it shuold have been. Contrary to popular belief, deferred (track) maintenance predated Penn Central.

[daveklepper]

I'm confused by the three-axle on cars comment. Are others?

1. Thousands of standard heavyweight Pullman cars roamed USA and Canadian Railroads with three-axle trucks, did not damge the tracks, and ran where appropriate at 100mph.

2. Why would a heavily loaded 6-axle freight car damage tracks but not a 6-axle locomotive? Dave Klepper

[PNWRMNM]

Broncoman,

Any short line handling open or covered hoppers has the problem. Even paper mills want 286K boxcars. Root problem is that marketing is offering incetive rates with too much incentive!

[broncoman]

I read over the post and missed the short lines in question. Was there a list or was it a general statement by one of them.

[Anonymous]

Overall-

Correct. This is essentially what many short lines are saying. They perform an essential service similar to a utility without which many major local employers and businesses would simply cease to exist. Perhaps some of these businesses could use trucks but the economics of moving bulk materials by truck will never compete with competitors with rail service.

Let's not forget that from the very public charter of most of our railroads, these private companies have received public support including powers granted by charter not available to other businesses (eminent domain, law enforcement, etc) and financial support from states and the federal government (cash, land, ROW grants, etc). Even recently programs such as grants under the 3R and 4R Acts provided for the Local Freight Assistance Programs. Oh and lets not forget the massive assistance provided in the purchase of various railroads to form Conrail and all the special rules that made it possible for short lines to be formed from the dying carcasses of the CRIP, Milwaulkee Road and Conrail's predecessors. The Staggers Act that deregulated most rail freight should also not be forgotten. The public purse has long been behind the railroads as they do provide essential public services and at the end of the day in some form or another there will be help from the government.

LC

[overall]

We should ask ourselves this question before we use tax dollars to upgrade a railroad. That question is this;
“Does the economic activity made possible by this railroad’s presence justify the expense of the upgrade?”
Utilities like water, sewer, electricity and roads are installed to customers all the time, not because their revenues will pay for the installation, but because that customer, while pursuing his business, will pay property, sales and other taxes into the local community, thus improving the standard of living for all who live there. If a western shortline is forced to abandon and the grain elevators it serves close, the tax revenue from those now closed elevators goes away also. If the railroad, in this particular context, is thought of as a utility, instead of a private enterprise itself, then it seems to me, that the use of tax monies to upgrade it is justified. Let us not forget that local governments use the promise of tax breaks and free utilities to get auto plants to locate near them. Couldn’t the same thing apply to some smaller railroads also?

George