|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Dec 19, 2021 20:38:20 GMT -8
I present to you SP 599900:  probably the shortest flat car you're ever going to see that's not holding up one end of a bunch of logs. It's SP class F-40-8, and it's in the January 1965 ORER. IL is 11' - 8" (as indicated on side of car). OL is 12' - 9". I see there's a LT WT of 40400. 20 tons of steel? Maayyyyyyybee. Ain't never seen nuthin' quite like that! No, it is not a scale test car. It's an idler car. At 12', why bother? Ed |
|
|
|
Post by rounder on Dec 19, 2021 22:30:34 GMT -8
Since it is an idler, I wonder if they built a pair, so they’d have one on each end of the laden car, at least…
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Dec 20, 2021 8:37:30 GMT -8
It does not appear that SP built a second. I checked a 1970 and a 1980 ORER, and there was only the one.
The car is covered on pages 352-353 in Tony Thompson's "Southern Pacific Freight Cars, Volume 3". It was built in August of 1964, and used as a spacer between two other flat cars, typically heavy duty. There's a photo of it in use, separating two flats, each with four 6-wheel trucks. And a load. Looking at the photo, I don't see what was gained by using the car. Well, 12'. But there was room to assemble the load without the car. Perhaps it was to spread the weight out just a wee bit.
It does appear from the photo of the load that SP could not have used a regular length car for the job.
From the photos and the captions, it appears weight was added to the car some time after it was first delivered: that rectangular volume with the air brake comment. So maybe it DID weigh 20 tons.
While the sample photo above doesn't show an air connection on the end, the car DID have one. So it could have been placed, all by itself, anywhere in a train.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by bridge2nowhere on Dec 20, 2021 8:47:54 GMT -8
In addition to fitting the physical constraints of the load, spacing out the concentrated heavy axle loads an additional 12' can reduce bridge loadings significantly.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Dec 20, 2021 9:32:50 GMT -8
In addition to fitting the physical constraints of the load, spacing out the concentrated heavy axle loads an additional 12' can reduce bridge loadings significantly. It weren't the first, so it's gotta be the second. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by rounder on Dec 20, 2021 9:43:53 GMT -8
I believe 12’ just so happens to be a common bent spacing on some wooden trestles.
As to the weight, I bet it was ballasted with concrete. It would need to meet a certain threshold to keep the flanges from climbing the rail.
I also wonder if it was assigned to a specific home point. One that had a fabrication works nearby, and they anticipated a frequent need for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Dec 20, 2021 13:44:42 GMT -8
I believe 12’ just so happens to be a common bent spacing on some wooden trestles. As to the weight, I bet it was ballasted with concrete. Nope, rail. Yeah, maybe. There's one photo caption that says it was stored in Englewood Yard in Houston in November 1978. The particular load in the photo was transported from Babcock & Wilcox in Barberton, Ohio to Standard Oil in Richmond, California. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Dec 20, 2021 14:23:08 GMT -8
Here's a link to info on the two load-bearing cars in the photo I saw "hugging" Stubby: southern.railfan.net/flat/cars/up/ssw.htmlEach of them has a capy of 600,000. Actually, I'm only sure of the near car of the two being SSW. PRR and D&H had very similar cars........ Ed |
|
|
|
Post by bridge2nowhere on Dec 23, 2021 11:15:19 GMT -8
SP timber trestles were generally 15' spans. This car wouldn't help much on those spans, as the two end trucks of each adjacent car pretty much fully load spans of that length. It would help on slightly longer spans though.
It could also have been built to space the cars to center the supports for better load distribution, at least the first load. Putting a deck on an old passenger truck may have been cheaper than sourcing longer or higher capacity cars.
It was probably managed with the rest of the heavy duty flatcars, since it doesn't have much purpose beyond that.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Dec 23, 2021 12:45:12 GMT -8
Thompson mentions that the "empty" car was transported on another car. I imagine it was easier to do that than to trust that all the employees interacting with it would make the appropriate decisions. Looking at the load in the photo, I see no reason that the load supports couldn't have been slid inwards on the load for 6' each. It's a long, large, and heavy tube. With end caps. I think it would have been slightly better for clearances, as the swingout of the load at the ends would still be minimal, while the overhang at the center would lessen. However. I am sure there WAS a reason that made sense to the SP, being as they spent the few bucks it took to build the car. It may well have been a matter of bridge loading. Speaking of bridge loading, here's where something went badly wrong: www.globaltimes.cn/page/202112/1242838.shtmlWhile there's a lot of talk in the article about the excessive weight of the load, the bridge didn't "break", it tipped. I'm pretty sure that the vehicle was way over into the outside of the curve, and that caused the bridge to tip on the two center columns. Ed |
|
