http://rrpicturearchives.net/pictures/128058/20180524_121409.jpg
KYKX is the reporting mark, the car looks to be ex-NS. Who now owns it?
I need more information than what's available to me to determine the owner of reporting marks KYKX. I can confirm that KYKX 111500 was formerly NS 111500; it originated as Southern 118032, built in March 1974. This company owns ten such cars, range 111500-111536. But I can't find the #$%^&* owner!
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
I don't know enough about the private car business to make any form of 'educated' pronouncement about what I have seen taking place in recent years.
Over the past decade, and probably more, what were once railroad ownership cars have been going into private ownership (car intials end with X). Undoubtly this is some form of financial ploy - but I have no idea who is benefiting. The railroads by selling the cars off the books; the financial organizations that get the cars, maintenance of the cars, car hire generated by the cars and lease rates from customers for the cars. The formere railroad cars that I have seen in private service seem to be 'free runner, general service' type cars, hoppers, gons, flats - and as such I doubt that a railroad customer is the leasing party, I suspect the railroads are leasing fleets of these cars to sustain their car needs.
What the monetary difference is between ownership and leasing of the same cars is beyond my expertise.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I couldn't find anythinf on RRPA which is what I usually try and look at. Infact I have the first picture of that mark on there.
I also decied to look up the line I found this on (NS). There's a pulp mill I think that International Paper owns them. Not sure if it's related to the lumber mill located nearbye that I think the cars are used for.
Built March 1974 - isn't there a 40-year age limit on freight cars (2014), or could that have been waived?
- PDN.
Paul_D_North_Jr Built March 1974 - isn't there a 40-year age limit on freight cars (2014), or could that have been waived? - PDN.
You can apply for a life extension to 50 years.
After that point I believe cars are banned from interchange service.
I have recently seen a number of CN gondolas with mid-1960s build dates in revenue service, hauling scrap metal mostly. And many of our orange welded-rail train flatcars were built during the 1940s and are riveted together, not welded.
How do age regulations work for passenger equipment?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Age restrictions on passenger equipment? Well, up until recently when it appears that the current Amtrak "Big Cheese" is doing his damndest to lose the business there didn't seem to be any age limit on privately owned passenger cars as long as they were Amtrak-compatable in all respects. Some of those cars go way back into the "heavyweight" era, and that's 80 years or more.
I believe a lot of the "Am-Can" passenger cars are well over the 40-year mark but are still in service, they just keep rebuilding 'em and they just keep rolling.
SD70Dude Paul_D_North_Jr Built March 1974 - isn't there a 40-year age limit on freight cars (2014), or could that have been waived? - PDN. You can apply for a life extension to 50 years. After that point I believe cars are banned from interchange service. I have recently seen a number of CN gondolas with mid-1960s build dates in revenue service, hauling scrap metal mostly. And many of our orange welded-rail train flatcars were built during the 1940s and are riveted together, not welded. How do age regulations work for passenger equipment?
The age limits in the US apply to cars used in Interchange Service. Cars in excess of the age limits can still be used on the owner property.
How that applies to Private Ownership (X) cars on a single property, I have no idea. I also have no idea of how the age limits apply to passenger cars.
That is a very good point about private cars, I wonder how far back the oldest "street legal" one dates!?
I was thinking more of the VIA Rail stainless steel and Amtrak "heritage fleet" cars, which were built during the 1950s if not earlier and are still in revenue service today.
Does a Amtrak or VIA train running on multiple freight railroads count as "interchange service"?
SD70DudeThat is a very good point about private cars, I wonder how far back the oldest "street legal" one dates!? I was thinking more of the VIA Rail stainless steel and Amtrak "heritage fleet" cars, which were built during the 1950s if not earlier and are still in revenue service today. Does a Amtrak or VIA train running on multiple freight railroads count as "interchange service"?
I BELIEVE there is a entirely different subset of Car Rules that apply to the aspects of Passenger Car Operation and their maintenance requirements and age limits if any.
Most of us have only been involved on the freight side of the railroad business and therefore have had limited if any involvement in the Passenger Car Rules.
I saw Jade Green ex-PC Hoppers around in 2015 so I think there are a few exceptions.
DavidH66I saw Jade Green ex-PC Hoppers around in 2015 so I think there are a few exceptions.
If cars stay on their owners property - there is no age restrictions. Depending upon the reporting marks on the Jade Green ex-PC cars - they can run anywhere on their owners property - the owner could be either CSX or NS; however cars with the NS family of reporting marks could not be on CSX and be legal.
BaltACDThe age limits in the US apply to cars used in Interchange Service. Cars in excess of the age limits can still be used on the owner property.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding BaltACD The age limits in the US apply to cars used in Interchange Service. Cars in excess of the age limits can still be used on the owner property. Yes, but...I don't want to sound like I'm searching for the exception, but it does make me wonder about something in reference to "Interchange Service". For instance, the Dakota & Iowa Railroad hauls rock trains from their company owned quarry 20 miles down the road on D&I owned tracks. At that point they hop on the BNSF tracks formerly owned by the state of SD (long ago, Milwaukee Road). From there, they run another 75 or so miles to Sioux City Iowa, where the rock is dumped (I've been told) to be reloaded on an outgoing railroad's cars. In a situation like that, are those cars owned by the D&I considered as being in Interchange service?
BaltACD The age limits in the US apply to cars used in Interchange Service. Cars in excess of the age limits can still be used on the owner property.
Yes, but...I don't want to sound like I'm searching for the exception, but it does make me wonder about something in reference to "Interchange Service". For instance, the Dakota & Iowa Railroad hauls rock trains from their company owned quarry 20 miles down the road on D&I owned tracks. At that point they hop on the BNSF tracks formerly owned by the state of SD (long ago, Milwaukee Road). From there, they run another 75 or so miles to Sioux City Iowa, where the rock is dumped (I've been told) to be reloaded on an outgoing railroad's cars. In a situation like that, are those cars owned by the D&I considered as being in Interchange service?
Only my opinion. but since the cars are handled in D&I trains using trackage rights over BNSF, they aren't being interchanged. They aren't being used in interline service.
Jeff
KYKX is the reporting mark of Kykenkee, Inc. The company's been raound since 2010; it's based in Vance, Alabama.These cars have been granted a waiver to permit them to run up to 50 years after beig built.
They may have only started acquiring railcars in 2010, but the company has been around a lot longer than that:
http://www.kykenkee.com
Google Earth shows a rail spur with log and lumber cars at their mill.
I keep seeing people write there is an exception to the 50 limit if the car is not used in interchange. However, when I read the law, I see no such exception. It looks to me like the FRA has to approve of a freight car over 50 being used even if it is not interchanged.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/215.203
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
The best example I can think of of were the CNW iron ore cars that ran through the 80s into the 90s in interchange service. I think the cars were built in the 30s but were still interchanged per agreement with the interchange partners.
They were 60+ years old before they were replaced.
Randy Stahl The best example I can think of of were the CNW iron ore cars that ran through the 80s into the 90s in interchange service. I think the cars were built in the 30s but were still interchanged per agreement with the interchange partners. They were 60+ years old before they were replaced.
CNW acquired DMIR ore cars on at least two separate occasions, and relettered and renumbered them to their own series. The last time was 500 cars, acquired in 1989.I wish I had a numbers-to-date correlation for the DM&IR cars--they had to be pretty ancient at times. Why, at one time I saw a couple of cars in Proviso that were lettered DMIR, but if you looked closely enough at the paint they carried logos for the Duluth, Missabe & Northern, which morphed into the DM&IR (with a couple of other companies) in mid-1937!CNW also got a series of over 100 B&LE ore cars--some of which also began life on the DM&IR.
CSSHEGEWISCH Randy Stahl The best example I can think of of were the CNW iron ore cars that ran through the 80s into the 90s in interchange service. I think the cars were built in the 30s but were still interchanged per agreement with the interchange partners. They were 60+ years old before they were replaced. I believe that the ore jennies were operated under an FRA waiver, probably because they were in what amounted to captive service.
The jennies were waivered by the FRA so the CNW (later WC) could use them but the waiver does not require an interchange partner to accept them. That is a written agreement between carriers. The jennies were often interchanged in Chicago.
They were nasty little trains to handle, 13000 tons and 4000 feet, AB brakes and steel shoes...
Randy StahlThey were nasty little trains to handle, 13000 tons and 4000 feet, AB brakes and steel shoes...
Usually, with a unit train, most of the brakes set and release about the same; however, the ore jennies did NOT brake the same as standard rail cars. I'm not sure which was worse, a unit ore train, or having 25 loaded ore jennies on the head-end of a manifest train. At least the unit train was more predictable regarding train-handling.
The CNW frequently added 25 ore jennies to the head-end of train 490 (later ITPRA) out of Itaska to Proviso. 490 was already a beast to operate even before the ore cars were added. It was a generic manifest freight with mixed loads and empties, except for the 40-50 loaded center-beam and box cars of lumber on the rear-end. So you'd have to try and handle 25 loads concentrated in a short space on the head-end, with an anchor of 40-50 loads on the rear, with lots of empties in between. Can anyone say, "Stringline risk?")
I think it's a testament to the skill of the Engineers that got those trains over the road, usually in one piece; and without dynamic brakes! But those trains were fickle - one day they'd run nice, the next trip would be straight out of Hades.
zardoz Randy Stahl They were nasty little trains to handle, 13000 tons and 4000 feet, AB brakes and steel shoes... A slack run-in with one of those trains was an event an Engineer did not soon forget. A Dodge Viper may go from 0 to 60 in 3 seconds, but a serious run-in can propell you from 10 to 20 in about the same amount of time; that may not sound like much until you've experienced it. Usually, with a unit train, most of the brakes set and release about the same; however, the ore jennies did NOT brake the same as standard rail cars. I'm not sure which was worse, a unit ore train, or having 25 loaded ore jennies on the head-end of a manifest train. At least the unit train was more predictable regarding train-handling. The CNW frequently added 25 ore jennies to the head-end of train 490 (later ITPRA) out of Itaska to Proviso. 490 was already a beast to operate even before the ore cars were added. It was a generic manifest freight with mixed loads and empties, except for the 40-50 loaded center-beam and box cars of lumber on the rear-end. So you'd have to try and handle 25 loads concentrated in a short space on the head-end, with an anchor of 40-50 loads on the rear, with lots of empties in between. Can anyone say, "Stringline risk?") I think it's a testament to the skill of the Engineers that got those trains over the road, usually in one piece; and without dynamic brakes! But those trains were fickle - one day they'd run nice, the next trip would be straight out of Hades.
Randy Stahl They were nasty little trains to handle, 13000 tons and 4000 feet, AB brakes and steel shoes...
A slack run-in with one of those trains was an event an Engineer did not soon forget. A Dodge Viper may go from 0 to 60 in 3 seconds, but a serious run-in can propell you from 10 to 20 in about the same amount of time; that may not sound like much until you've experienced it.
I didn't say I got them over the road in one piece...Not the first few times anyhow..
Randy StahlI didn't say I got them over the road in one piece...Not the first few times anyhow..
Good Judgement comes from Experience.
Experience comes from experiencing the results of bad judgement.
Jim, did you set those ore cars out somewhere off 490? I remember 490 coming into Proviso with box and bulkhead flat cars full of lumber off the D&WP, and lots of potash. I used to hate humping that train!However, the ore cars (more correctly, pellet cars; CNW 110500 series) from Black River Falls came into Proviso on 298--behind the power, like you say, but ahead of a block of autos from Bain and miscellaneous stuff for the Penn Central. They didn't leave much Proviso stuff in Yard 9. Pretty sure they turned it over to the transfer crew at East 5. (This was 1971-1974 or later that I'm talking about.)
CN keeps that most of that lumber for themselves all the way to Chicago now, and the potash moves in unit trains.
Farther west, they like to put an empty grain, sand or coke train on the tail end of the lumber. Empties behind loads is the proper way to marshall things but one still has to be careful when taking air, as the empties brake better and dig in like a anchor.
This is far better than the way many of our westbound manifests are built, over 10,000 feet with loaded grain or tank cars behind the autos.
Lots of old 95-foot flatcars have been pulled out of storage and are hauling large-diameter pipe in preparation for several upcoming pipeline projects, and they like to put those near the head end too.
Switching them is a pain, you can't cross over (legally) and they all have stemwinder handbrakes that barely work.
You haven't had fun until you pulled a half loaded tanker trailer according to my drivers. We have a customer that orders a concentrated acid think one with less water in it than normal. It weighs in at 20 lbs a gallon our normal trailer carries over 5K gallons of liquids. When this place orders a load we can only load less than 2K gallons to be legal. The drivers that are in the acid fleet draw straws as to be unlucky bastard that has to haul it. Yeah it beats them up that bad.
I feel your pain Shadow, I've gotten rides in half-full fuel trucks and switched partially-loaded tank cars, it is not fun at all.
Slosh, slosh, slosh... all day long!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.