One explanation might have been that one end of the load was over one truck and extended toward the other end of the car. That was probably permissible since it would not place all of the weight between the truck centers. Tony Wagner
Larry Kline <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: David Soderblom wrote:
Regarding the mill gon, if the load was indeed 140,000, the same as
the nominal capacity, then it appears to me that the car was loaded
improperly. Car loading rules called for placing that high a mass
over the bolsters, not equally distributed.
According to AAR loading Rule 4, it depends on the length of the
load. If the load extends beyond the truck centers, then the car can
be loaded to 100% of capacity unless the ORER listing states
otherwise. In this case the truck centers are 37' 6" apart and the
load is 33' 6" long. My 1941 edition of the loading guide says that
for loads with lengths between 24' and and the distance between
truck centers, load weights up to 75% of the load limit are allowed.
In this case that would be 0.75 x 160,900 = 120,675. So I believe
that the car was improperly loaded according to the 1941 version of
AAR Rule 4.
In this case, in 1949, the PRR stated that the car was properly
loaded. Had AAR loading Rule 4 changed by 1949?
Yesterday I showed the photo to a former car inspector and
yardmaster. He said that he had seen a number of similar failures.