Within Jim Wrinn's "From the Editor" column on page 4 of the Trains issue for January 2011 (that I received in November 2010 !!), I find mention of "anti-graffiti coatings for passenger cars." Having seen, like us all, the scourge of such maliciousness on cars, railyards, and ROWs, I'd sure like to know about what kind of coatings can deter graffiti. Can any of you all educate me? Thanks very much in advance.
I'm guessing here, but I'd think that such finishes would be to spray paint what Teflon is to food on non-stick cooking surfaces.
I'd also bet that right now such finishes are a little pricey, but that you may well see the prices go down as more and more potential graffiti victims start to use it.
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...
There is quite a bit of technical information available in the Internet for anti-graffiti coatings. Basically they prevent any paint from bonding to the factory finish once it has been applied. The one question I wonder about is the cost of these coatings. If you paint a new railcar, what is the added cost to add an anti-graffiti coating to the factory paint? If there is significant extra cost, I wonder if the freight railroads would simply live with the graffiti rather than spend the money on anti-graffiti coatings.
Some of the anti-graffiti coatings are sacrificial, meaning that they must be pressure washed to remove the graffiti along with a portion of the anti-graffiti coating. And then more anti-graffiti coating must be applied over the original coating. So, I would tend to conclude that these anti-graffiti coatings and their maintenance would be deemed too costly for freight cars.
On thing to consider is that the availability of these anti-graffiti coatings might inspire the making of laws requiring such coatings in order to protect the aesthetic sensibilities of the general public. The freight railroads might be concerned about that development.
There are 2 basic categories of anti-graffiti coatings: Sacrificial and Non-sacrificial.
Sacrificial coatings come off after one to several graffiti removals.
Non-sacrificial coatings are permanent and repel graffiti for multiple removals.
Within the non-sacrificial group of coatings, there are a variety of products, but usually they are comprised of 2 component (usually urethane) and single component products.
Of the myriad of coatings available, few have independent 3rd party testing, case studies, governmental approvals, longevity in the market place and graffiti can be removed without the use of harsh chemicals.
I've seen some freight cars (primarily certain series owned by or leased to the ExxonMobil Corporation) that have black rectangles around the reporting marks and numbers. While I really have no clue as to what this may be for, it is conceivable that there is an anti-graffiti coating inside this rectangle, intended to keep the reporting mark and number visible. I suspect that this would be all that the railroads would really care about (other than the trespasser/safety aspect of taggers on their property). It's not that they wouldn't care about the rest of the car; it is, as others have suggested, probably too expensive.
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)
Typically the product costs including application for non-sacrificial industrial coatings can range from $2 to $4 per square foot. Large applications are less expensive and small/difficult applications are more expensive.
The benefit once applied is that with the GPA-300 product, no harsh chemicals need to be used to remove graffiti, but simply a towel or a cold pressure wash for larger tags. Also, the product has excellent non-stick characteristics so labels, stickers and fly-posters don’t adhere to the protected surface.
How do the anti-graffiti coatings affect future re-painting of the cars? Can they be removed or neutralized?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington How do the anti-graffiti coatings affect future re-painting of the cars? Can they be removed or neutralized?
Sand blasting will take care of alot of coatings. I know alot of OTR trucking companies are looking into these coating. They are tired of their equipment looking like crap when they get pulled from customers yards from IDIOTS with a spray can.
Well, therein lies the rub. People want a protective coating that repels everything, but also want to be able to paint over it. By nature, if the anti-stick properties are in place, then paint would not adhere to the surface-- just like graffiti spray paint won’t.
That said, there are several ways to remove the protective coating if necessary, but takes some effort.
Instead of anti graffiti why not tax the spray paint to cover the cost of graffiti removal? The clowns who fowl others' property like this may think twice about it if they had to pay $100.00 for a can of paint.
Ulrich Instead of anti graffiti why not tax the spray paint to cover the cost of graffiti removal? The clowns who fowl others' property like this may think twice about it if they had to pay $100.00 for a can of paint.
What do you think the paint manufacturers will think of that idea?
That is assuming that they are actually paying for the paint. And I've been told that some of the more (what's a good word?) experienced vandals use stuff from overseas.
I've noticed that in the past couple years, some outfits are using vinyl(?) decals for their reporting marks and numbers. I've seen some cars from another outfit that seems to have given up and painted their marks on the top quarter of the side of the cars.
Now the new issue is the reflective stripes that are soon to be required on all cars.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann Now the new issue is the reflective stripes that are soon to be required on all cars.
When those are fully required, it will be interesting to learn whether there will be a requirment to keep them free of dirt and grafitti paint.
I'm surprised that these people rarely are caught..or it appears that way...apparently it is easy to paint an expansive mural on a rail car...but your chances of offending someone with a camera are somehow greater...it doesn't add up.
It used to be that the odd rail car had graffiti on it..now it is almost every rail car...it is rare to see a car that hasn't been vandalized.
My idea of a government imposed tax on paint may not be the best idea...but it might be easier than going after the perpetrators. I'm surprised that the railroaders have let this go to the point it has...If it were my property I'd be more active about it...especially about curbing the racial slurs and profanity type hate graffiti.. not great for the old public perception..
Ulrich I'm surprised that the railroaders have let this go to the point it has...If it were my property I'd be more active about it...especially about curbing the racial slurs and profanity type hate graffiti.. not great for the old public perception..
I'm surprised that the railroaders have let this go to the point it has...If it were my property I'd be more active about it...especially about curbing the racial slurs and profanity type hate graffiti.. not great for the old public perception..
Yes, I think the railroads just roll with the punches when it comes to graffiti. Railcars are made with a high performance industrial paint coating to keep them from rusting. As long as the graffiti just goes on top of that, the railcar is not jeopardized. The graffiti is just a little more weight to haul around. However, covering up car numbers is a significant issue. But these items are a railroad company issue. Covering up the reflectors will be an FRA issue, and the maintenance of the reflectors against graffiti could be a significant cost issue if that maintenance should become mandated by the FRA.
A couple years ago, the city of Minneapolis passed a law that required property owners to remove graffiti within a certain time limit or face fines.
Bucyrus Ulrich: Instead of anti graffiti why not tax the spray paint to cover the cost of graffiti removal? The clowns who fowl others' property like this may think twice about it if they had to pay $100.00 for a can of paint. What do you think the paint manufacturers will think of that idea?
Ulrich: Instead of anti graffiti why not tax the spray paint to cover the cost of graffiti removal? The clowns who fowl others' property like this may think twice about it if they had to pay $100.00 for a can of paint.
Johnny
Perhaps coating the decals and reflective stripes with the anti-graffiti coating after they have been applied to the cars is a good approach? I know that there has been success in this approach for the waste/dumpster industry. Furthermore, the GPA-300 has anti-corrosive properties as well.
Lastly, some cities and corporations actually take the approach of graffiti proofing a mural or art as a way of encapsulating it.
Just an idea.
In other words, I, who use spray paint responsibly, should pay a tax to make sure that some moron somewhere doesn't commit a crime? Sorry, that reasoning is a bit too convoluted for me.
John Timm
Bucyrus When those are fully required, it will be interesting to learn whether there will be a requirment to keep them free of dirt and grafitti paint.
If you take a stab at translating this: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480333629
It seems is a certain percentage of the reflector stripe is obscured, then it must be eventually replaced. Not an instant FRA defect, unless we don't want to move cars anymore.
Railfans stick to some well-known visible places. But vandals will venture into the middle of a railyard in the middle of a night, or at an industrial lead - not great places for foaming. And I would venture to guess that authorities are more worried about theft and major vandalism than painting a railcar owned by a lease outfit...
While at North Platte last summer during Rail Fest we took the bus tour of Bailey Yard. I asked our tour guide, a Bailey Yard manager, if the graphitti caused a problem while sorting the cars in the hump yard. He said it's not a problem...with the reporting marks on all 4 sides they are usually visible somewhere. Particularly the ones up high on the ends of the cars. And also the AEI tags get scanned during the humping process.
desertdog In other words, I, who use spray paint responsibly, should pay a tax to make sure that some moron somewhere doesn't commit a crime? Sorry, that reasoning is a bit too convoluted for me. John Timm
Yes. That would be the price you pay. When you get on an airplane (or even as a tax payer in general) you pay for all kinds of security measures even though you have no intention of blowing up a plane. Sadly, people like you and me and others who are responsible for our actions must pay for the idiots, the criminals, and the weaklings. That's why we fork out our hard earned money for security..for police forces..for alarm systems... for security cameras etc... may as well add spray paint to the long list..
In Chicago the stores aren't supposed to sell spray paint to anyone under 18. At least, it isn't taxed (or they haven't thought of it yet).
we have something like that bylaw up here as well--the only problem is that it penalizes the good kids as well...
Then we also have supposed adults doing this--do we want further licenses just to buy a can of spray paint? Oh well----more stuff to do before you can do that simple thing...*sigh*
Might as well defrag this hot potato now...
Look at the cat...
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
MarknLisa While at North Platte last summer during Rail Fest we took the bus tour of Bailey Yard. I asked our tour guide, a Bailey Yard manager, if the graphitti caused a problem while sorting the cars in the hump yard. He said it's not a problem...with the reporting marks on all 4 sides they are usually visible somewhere. Particularly the ones up high on the ends of the cars. And also the AEI tags get scanned during the humping process.
It is a shame that graffiti has gotten out of hand since the debut of spray paint. I can remember when just chalk was used, mostly by yard men. That didn't last long , rain was a great eraser. Respect for private property was apparent in the early 40s. My my how times have changed.
Respectfully, Cannonball
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
Freight cars always had stuff scribbled on their sides. Some of it was switchmen notations, and some was just mindless graffiti. The fact that no one seemed to object to this kind of practice, coupled with the fact that freight cars go everywhere, led to the mindset that one could make a statement that would get wide exposure. Certain hobos and trainmen left their trademark brand on the cars. Around the 1900 era, somebody scrawled the signature, J. B. King on thousands of freight cars.
zugmann Bucyrus: When those are fully required, it will be interesting to learn whether there will be a requirment to keep them free of dirt and grafitti paint. If you take a stab at translating this: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480333629 It seems is a certain percentage of the reflector stripe is obscured, then it must be eventually replaced. Not an instant FRA defect, unless we don't want to move cars anymore.
Bucyrus: When those are fully required, it will be interesting to learn whether there will be a requirment to keep them free of dirt and grafitti paint.
Thanks for posting that link Zugmann. I have been a critic of the reflector rule since I first heard about it. On the surface, it seems like a good idea with nothing to lose. But it is an FRA mandate that is likely to impose a lot more cost on the railroads than what one might expect on casual consideration.
I think there will be a slippery slope of improvements and modifications to the reflector rules and to the basic reflector concept. Just reading that massive set of rules and specifications confirms my expectations, and this is only the beginning. When you throw the effect of graffiti into this complex set of regulations, I think it will evenually delay trains.
Canada has been using reflectors for years. Sure it's a cost to the car owners, but as we do some switching at night on country roads (including a customer that gets black propane cars), I really think the cost is worth it. No, it won't keep the drunk going 85mph from hitting the side of the car, but maybe it'll help someone that is in some control of their senses.
My only recommendation is that stripes should be added to the ends of the car. Anyone that has had to make a coupling to a dark car in the pitch black knows why. I think the WC boxcars have this... man is it nice.
Besides, it can't delay as many trains as the lack of engines and manpower is doing around here. And that's an easily fixable problem that they refuse to remedy.
Now that business is returning to the rails....lack of power & manpower appears to be hitting all the carriers. Locally the carrier did furlough a number of train service employees during the downturn....my understanding is that only 20% of those furloughed returned to the carrier when they were called back to duty, which has resulted in the need to hire and train new people....a process that takes much longer than bringing back a furloughed employee.
zugmann Besides, it can't delay as many trains as the lack of engines and manpower is doing around here. And that's an easily fixable problem that they refuse to remedy.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Maybe it won’t present any practical problem, but the reflector mandate comes with an official proclamation that freight cars can be hard to see at night, which conveys the implication that a driver might not be fully at fault for running into one. Prior to that, a driver was 100% responsible to avoid running into a train that was blocking a grade crossing because the crossbucks require a driver to yield to a train. I am amazed that the railroad industry has given up that principle without a fight.
Reflectors probably will prevent some run-into-train crashes that would have occurred if there were no reflectors. But some RIT crashes will still occur in spite of reflectors, so in such cases, it will be easy to argue that the reflectors did not do enough. And so there will be a call to make railcars even more conspicuous at night. That is the slippery slope I was referring to.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.