"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
USAF TSgt C-17 Aircraft Maintenance Flying Crew Chief & Flightline Avionics Craftsman
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH Additional weight (315K) is possible, but it requires larger wheels, heavier rail and more ROW maintenance. The last point is probably the real reason that 315K cars won't become more common.
QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe I am trying to figure why an empty 315K car weighs more than a 286K car when both are basically the same car. The figures look bogus to me. The light weights of the cars will be just about the same. The AAR wants the 315K cars and so this is how it will be.
QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin What makes the net/tare of a car with 3 axle trucks higher? 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. 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.
Originally posted by futuremodal According to the ZETA-TECH guys... Who is ZETA-TECH? Bob Reply mudchicken Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Denver / La Junta 10,820 posts Posted by mudchicken on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:35 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox Originally posted by futuremodal According to the ZETA-TECH guys... Who is ZETA-TECH? Alan Zarembeski & crew.....Railroad Technical Research Consultants/Engineers, current darlings of the industry. Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:43 AM And who paid them how many bucks to come up with the incredibly complex calculation of the net to tare ratio of 286's vs 315's? Do they have a math genius on their staff? Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply mudchicken Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Denver / La Junta 10,820 posts Posted by mudchicken on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:11 AM Alan has quite a bit of alphabet soup after his name, including PhD and PE.....You can't get through a railroad technical paper w/o finding him somewhere in the footnotes. Would not be surprised at all if this was an AAR or FRA commissioned study. Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:43 AM MC OK. Here is the obvious deal. For a 14.5 ton increase in gross weight, 10 tons of additional product can be carried in each car. That additional weight could ge a little less than a 5% increase in revenue per car IF, (very big if) rates for the larger cars were not dropped. On the cost side, there comes increases for the purchase price of the larger cars and money for track upgrades and higher costs for track maintanence. There might be some slim reductions in operating expenses. On the whole, it might not be a good deal for the railroads, but the point is moot. If the market place wants it, competition among the railroads will cause it to come about. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply TH&B Member sinceJuly 2003 964 posts Posted by TH&B on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:06 AM Sure add ten tons to an existing car to make it capable to haul 14 tons. But build a new car design from scratch and you might get a way better ratio, especialy if someone wants to. That net / tare ratio can easily be changed by technological improvements, of course even the 3 axle truck can be improved so we will see. But you can't realy say "never". 3 axle trucks are still a way to reduce axle load and still haul heavy loads. So is using four 2 axle trucks. But Like I said, just build the cars shorter with the same carrying weight capacity and you should improve net / tare using standard components. This will work for bulk comodities. Shorter cars are lighter, long cars need heavier frames. Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:22 AM A 14.5 ton increase in gross weight to gain 10 tons in product carried means a 4.5 ton increase in car (tare) weight. Three-axle trucks will reduce the axle load but the track still has to carry the extra weight. Note that loaded ore jennies aren't that much heavier on a per car basis but their short (24') length concentrates the weight, resulting in the need for a heavier track structure. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 2:37 PM How come nobody's mentioned maximum gross weight of car restrictions? Reply Edit bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton And who paid them how many bucks to come up with the incredibly complex calculation of the net to tare ratio of 286's vs 315's? Do they have a math genius on their staff? Jay Their a lot of talented enginers around but you must know how to reach out and touch the customers. Bob Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:24 PM It will be interesting to see if larger cars pan out. If it is cheaper it will happen. That is why people using covered hoppers like rail-it is cheaper. About 1978, while I was still working for the C&NW, FMC obtained some new covered hoppers capable of loading 125 tons of soda ash vs. the then standard of 100 tons. The UP came up with new rates based on the the standard cost sharing formula spliting the savings 50/50 with the customer. Once the cars started to operate we discovered some bad assumptions. On the C&NW it was no problem to move the car from the UP at Council Bluffs/Fremont to Proviso(Chicago) connections but when we checked into spotting a car at glass plants we served we found we could not make it into the plant. Few reciever's sidings could not safley handle the added weight. Although the C&NW did not set the benchmark for track maintance :-) even the UP was having problems on their mainline. The excess wear showed up rapidly on the mainline between the soda ash mines, which are just west of Green River, and the Green River yard. After a year the UP agreed to let FMC keep the lower rates but dropped the minimum weight back to 100 tons. However, with time and I am told improvements in rail, covered hoppers carrying 125 tons of soda ash became the standard. 315k cars may or may not become the standard but never say never. Bob Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 6:03 PM No one want to acknowlege that all of the subs that I've worked on have a 143 ton "A" car weight restriction. 315,000# cars put you at 157.5 tons. Single car moves of in excess of 143 tons up to 157.5 tons are permitted if the car length is greater than or equal to 49'6". These cars must be seperated by at least 1 car weighing less than 143 tons to qualify as a single car move. No train consist may contain more than 10 of these cars. This would be a train blocking nightmare. There is alot more to this stuff than ya think. 440: you can't just shorten the cars and run the 157.5 tons. Cars less than 49'6" are restricted to 143 tons and that weight decreases as the car gets shorter. Reply Edit TH&B Member sinceJuly 2003 964 posts Posted by TH&B on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:32 PM My point realy is to run short 143 ton cars instead of long 157 ton cars to have the same overall train weight and still use the lower axle load, or istead of using 3 axle trucks under long cars. Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:37 PM I know I read this in Trains Magazine at one time, but can someone explain why it would be a benefit for shippers to ship in 315,000 # cars? Thanks Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. 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
Who is ZETA-TECH? Bob Reply mudchicken Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Denver / La Junta 10,820 posts Posted by mudchicken on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:35 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox Originally posted by futuremodal According to the ZETA-TECH guys... Who is ZETA-TECH? Alan Zarembeski & crew.....Railroad Technical Research Consultants/Engineers, current darlings of the industry. Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:43 AM And who paid them how many bucks to come up with the incredibly complex calculation of the net to tare ratio of 286's vs 315's? Do they have a math genius on their staff? Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply mudchicken Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Denver / La Junta 10,820 posts Posted by mudchicken on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:11 AM Alan has quite a bit of alphabet soup after his name, including PhD and PE.....You can't get through a railroad technical paper w/o finding him somewhere in the footnotes. Would not be surprised at all if this was an AAR or FRA commissioned study. Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:43 AM MC OK. Here is the obvious deal. For a 14.5 ton increase in gross weight, 10 tons of additional product can be carried in each car. That additional weight could ge a little less than a 5% increase in revenue per car IF, (very big if) rates for the larger cars were not dropped. On the cost side, there comes increases for the purchase price of the larger cars and money for track upgrades and higher costs for track maintanence. There might be some slim reductions in operating expenses. On the whole, it might not be a good deal for the railroads, but the point is moot. If the market place wants it, competition among the railroads will cause it to come about. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply TH&B Member sinceJuly 2003 964 posts Posted by TH&B on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:06 AM Sure add ten tons to an existing car to make it capable to haul 14 tons. But build a new car design from scratch and you might get a way better ratio, especialy if someone wants to. That net / tare ratio can easily be changed by technological improvements, of course even the 3 axle truck can be improved so we will see. But you can't realy say "never". 3 axle trucks are still a way to reduce axle load and still haul heavy loads. So is using four 2 axle trucks. But Like I said, just build the cars shorter with the same carrying weight capacity and you should improve net / tare using standard components. This will work for bulk comodities. Shorter cars are lighter, long cars need heavier frames. Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:22 AM A 14.5 ton increase in gross weight to gain 10 tons in product carried means a 4.5 ton increase in car (tare) weight. Three-axle trucks will reduce the axle load but the track still has to carry the extra weight. Note that loaded ore jennies aren't that much heavier on a per car basis but their short (24') length concentrates the weight, resulting in the need for a heavier track structure. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 2:37 PM How come nobody's mentioned maximum gross weight of car restrictions? Reply Edit bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton And who paid them how many bucks to come up with the incredibly complex calculation of the net to tare ratio of 286's vs 315's? Do they have a math genius on their staff? Jay Their a lot of talented enginers around but you must know how to reach out and touch the customers. Bob Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:24 PM It will be interesting to see if larger cars pan out. If it is cheaper it will happen. That is why people using covered hoppers like rail-it is cheaper. About 1978, while I was still working for the C&NW, FMC obtained some new covered hoppers capable of loading 125 tons of soda ash vs. the then standard of 100 tons. The UP came up with new rates based on the the standard cost sharing formula spliting the savings 50/50 with the customer. Once the cars started to operate we discovered some bad assumptions. On the C&NW it was no problem to move the car from the UP at Council Bluffs/Fremont to Proviso(Chicago) connections but when we checked into spotting a car at glass plants we served we found we could not make it into the plant. Few reciever's sidings could not safley handle the added weight. Although the C&NW did not set the benchmark for track maintance :-) even the UP was having problems on their mainline. The excess wear showed up rapidly on the mainline between the soda ash mines, which are just west of Green River, and the Green River yard. After a year the UP agreed to let FMC keep the lower rates but dropped the minimum weight back to 100 tons. However, with time and I am told improvements in rail, covered hoppers carrying 125 tons of soda ash became the standard. 315k cars may or may not become the standard but never say never. Bob Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 6:03 PM No one want to acknowlege that all of the subs that I've worked on have a 143 ton "A" car weight restriction. 315,000# cars put you at 157.5 tons. Single car moves of in excess of 143 tons up to 157.5 tons are permitted if the car length is greater than or equal to 49'6". These cars must be seperated by at least 1 car weighing less than 143 tons to qualify as a single car move. No train consist may contain more than 10 of these cars. This would be a train blocking nightmare. There is alot more to this stuff than ya think. 440: you can't just shorten the cars and run the 157.5 tons. Cars less than 49'6" are restricted to 143 tons and that weight decreases as the car gets shorter. Reply Edit TH&B Member sinceJuly 2003 964 posts Posted by TH&B on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:32 PM My point realy is to run short 143 ton cars instead of long 157 ton cars to have the same overall train weight and still use the lower axle load, or istead of using 3 axle trucks under long cars. Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:37 PM I know I read this in Trains Magazine at one time, but can someone explain why it would be a benefit for shippers to ship in 315,000 # cars? Thanks Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. 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
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox Originally posted by futuremodal According to the ZETA-TECH guys... Who is ZETA-TECH? Alan Zarembeski & crew.....Railroad Technical Research Consultants/Engineers, current darlings of the industry. Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:43 AM And who paid them how many bucks to come up with the incredibly complex calculation of the net to tare ratio of 286's vs 315's? Do they have a math genius on their staff? Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply mudchicken Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Denver / La Junta 10,820 posts Posted by mudchicken on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:11 AM Alan has quite a bit of alphabet soup after his name, including PhD and PE.....You can't get through a railroad technical paper w/o finding him somewhere in the footnotes. Would not be surprised at all if this was an AAR or FRA commissioned study. Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:43 AM MC OK. Here is the obvious deal. For a 14.5 ton increase in gross weight, 10 tons of additional product can be carried in each car. That additional weight could ge a little less than a 5% increase in revenue per car IF, (very big if) rates for the larger cars were not dropped. On the cost side, there comes increases for the purchase price of the larger cars and money for track upgrades and higher costs for track maintanence. There might be some slim reductions in operating expenses. On the whole, it might not be a good deal for the railroads, but the point is moot. If the market place wants it, competition among the railroads will cause it to come about. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply TH&B Member sinceJuly 2003 964 posts Posted by TH&B on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:06 AM Sure add ten tons to an existing car to make it capable to haul 14 tons. But build a new car design from scratch and you might get a way better ratio, especialy if someone wants to. That net / tare ratio can easily be changed by technological improvements, of course even the 3 axle truck can be improved so we will see. But you can't realy say "never". 3 axle trucks are still a way to reduce axle load and still haul heavy loads. So is using four 2 axle trucks. But Like I said, just build the cars shorter with the same carrying weight capacity and you should improve net / tare using standard components. This will work for bulk comodities. Shorter cars are lighter, long cars need heavier frames. Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:22 AM A 14.5 ton increase in gross weight to gain 10 tons in product carried means a 4.5 ton increase in car (tare) weight. Three-axle trucks will reduce the axle load but the track still has to carry the extra weight. Note that loaded ore jennies aren't that much heavier on a per car basis but their short (24') length concentrates the weight, resulting in the need for a heavier track structure. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 2:37 PM How come nobody's mentioned maximum gross weight of car restrictions? Reply Edit bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton And who paid them how many bucks to come up with the incredibly complex calculation of the net to tare ratio of 286's vs 315's? Do they have a math genius on their staff? Jay Their a lot of talented enginers around but you must know how to reach out and touch the customers. Bob Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:24 PM It will be interesting to see if larger cars pan out. If it is cheaper it will happen. That is why people using covered hoppers like rail-it is cheaper. About 1978, while I was still working for the C&NW, FMC obtained some new covered hoppers capable of loading 125 tons of soda ash vs. the then standard of 100 tons. The UP came up with new rates based on the the standard cost sharing formula spliting the savings 50/50 with the customer. Once the cars started to operate we discovered some bad assumptions. On the C&NW it was no problem to move the car from the UP at Council Bluffs/Fremont to Proviso(Chicago) connections but when we checked into spotting a car at glass plants we served we found we could not make it into the plant. Few reciever's sidings could not safley handle the added weight. Although the C&NW did not set the benchmark for track maintance :-) even the UP was having problems on their mainline. The excess wear showed up rapidly on the mainline between the soda ash mines, which are just west of Green River, and the Green River yard. After a year the UP agreed to let FMC keep the lower rates but dropped the minimum weight back to 100 tons. However, with time and I am told improvements in rail, covered hoppers carrying 125 tons of soda ash became the standard. 315k cars may or may not become the standard but never say never. Bob Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 6:03 PM No one want to acknowlege that all of the subs that I've worked on have a 143 ton "A" car weight restriction. 315,000# cars put you at 157.5 tons. Single car moves of in excess of 143 tons up to 157.5 tons are permitted if the car length is greater than or equal to 49'6". These cars must be seperated by at least 1 car weighing less than 143 tons to qualify as a single car move. No train consist may contain more than 10 of these cars. This would be a train blocking nightmare. There is alot more to this stuff than ya think. 440: you can't just shorten the cars and run the 157.5 tons. Cars less than 49'6" are restricted to 143 tons and that weight decreases as the car gets shorter. Reply Edit TH&B Member sinceJuly 2003 964 posts Posted by TH&B on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:32 PM My point realy is to run short 143 ton cars instead of long 157 ton cars to have the same overall train weight and still use the lower axle load, or istead of using 3 axle trucks under long cars. Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:37 PM I know I read this in Trains Magazine at one time, but can someone explain why it would be a benefit for shippers to ship in 315,000 # cars? Thanks Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. 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
Originally posted by futuremodal According to the ZETA-TECH guys... Who is ZETA-TECH? Alan Zarembeski & crew.....Railroad Technical Research Consultants/Engineers, current darlings of the industry. Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:43 AM And who paid them how many bucks to come up with the incredibly complex calculation of the net to tare ratio of 286's vs 315's? Do they have a math genius on their staff? Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply mudchicken Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Denver / La Junta 10,820 posts Posted by mudchicken on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:11 AM Alan has quite a bit of alphabet soup after his name, including PhD and PE.....You can't get through a railroad technical paper w/o finding him somewhere in the footnotes. Would not be surprised at all if this was an AAR or FRA commissioned study. Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:43 AM MC OK. Here is the obvious deal. For a 14.5 ton increase in gross weight, 10 tons of additional product can be carried in each car. That additional weight could ge a little less than a 5% increase in revenue per car IF, (very big if) rates for the larger cars were not dropped. On the cost side, there comes increases for the purchase price of the larger cars and money for track upgrades and higher costs for track maintanence. There might be some slim reductions in operating expenses. On the whole, it might not be a good deal for the railroads, but the point is moot. If the market place wants it, competition among the railroads will cause it to come about. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply TH&B Member sinceJuly 2003 964 posts Posted by TH&B on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:06 AM Sure add ten tons to an existing car to make it capable to haul 14 tons. But build a new car design from scratch and you might get a way better ratio, especialy if someone wants to. That net / tare ratio can easily be changed by technological improvements, of course even the 3 axle truck can be improved so we will see. But you can't realy say "never". 3 axle trucks are still a way to reduce axle load and still haul heavy loads. So is using four 2 axle trucks. But Like I said, just build the cars shorter with the same carrying weight capacity and you should improve net / tare using standard components. This will work for bulk comodities. Shorter cars are lighter, long cars need heavier frames. Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:22 AM A 14.5 ton increase in gross weight to gain 10 tons in product carried means a 4.5 ton increase in car (tare) weight. Three-axle trucks will reduce the axle load but the track still has to carry the extra weight. Note that loaded ore jennies aren't that much heavier on a per car basis but their short (24') length concentrates the weight, resulting in the need for a heavier track structure. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 2:37 PM How come nobody's mentioned maximum gross weight of car restrictions? Reply Edit bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton And who paid them how many bucks to come up with the incredibly complex calculation of the net to tare ratio of 286's vs 315's? Do they have a math genius on their staff? Jay Their a lot of talented enginers around but you must know how to reach out and touch the customers. Bob Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:24 PM It will be interesting to see if larger cars pan out. If it is cheaper it will happen. That is why people using covered hoppers like rail-it is cheaper. About 1978, while I was still working for the C&NW, FMC obtained some new covered hoppers capable of loading 125 tons of soda ash vs. the then standard of 100 tons. The UP came up with new rates based on the the standard cost sharing formula spliting the savings 50/50 with the customer. Once the cars started to operate we discovered some bad assumptions. On the C&NW it was no problem to move the car from the UP at Council Bluffs/Fremont to Proviso(Chicago) connections but when we checked into spotting a car at glass plants we served we found we could not make it into the plant. Few reciever's sidings could not safley handle the added weight. Although the C&NW did not set the benchmark for track maintance :-) even the UP was having problems on their mainline. The excess wear showed up rapidly on the mainline between the soda ash mines, which are just west of Green River, and the Green River yard. After a year the UP agreed to let FMC keep the lower rates but dropped the minimum weight back to 100 tons. However, with time and I am told improvements in rail, covered hoppers carrying 125 tons of soda ash became the standard. 315k cars may or may not become the standard but never say never. Bob Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 6:03 PM No one want to acknowlege that all of the subs that I've worked on have a 143 ton "A" car weight restriction. 315,000# cars put you at 157.5 tons. Single car moves of in excess of 143 tons up to 157.5 tons are permitted if the car length is greater than or equal to 49'6". These cars must be seperated by at least 1 car weighing less than 143 tons to qualify as a single car move. No train consist may contain more than 10 of these cars. This would be a train blocking nightmare. There is alot more to this stuff than ya think. 440: you can't just shorten the cars and run the 157.5 tons. Cars less than 49'6" are restricted to 143 tons and that weight decreases as the car gets shorter. Reply Edit TH&B Member sinceJuly 2003 964 posts Posted by TH&B on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:32 PM My point realy is to run short 143 ton cars instead of long 157 ton cars to have the same overall train weight and still use the lower axle load, or istead of using 3 axle trucks under long cars. Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:37 PM I know I read this in Trains Magazine at one time, but can someone explain why it would be a benefit for shippers to ship in 315,000 # cars? Thanks Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. 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
Who is ZETA-TECH?
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton And who paid them how many bucks to come up with the incredibly complex calculation of the net to tare ratio of 286's vs 315's? Do they have a math genius on their staff? Jay
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.