Hmm ... it sounds as though one might define a "deep" fishbelly as being consistent with both definitions, and a "shallow" fishbelly as consistent with only the less restrictive one. Can that be expressed quantitatively?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...> wrote:
On May 16, 2011, at 5:34 PM, soolinehistory wrote:
he Car Builder's Cyclopedia started life as the Car Builder's Thanks, Dennis. After my earlier post on this subject, I went
Dictionary, with the express purpose of standardizing the
terminology. As such, I tend to use, and stand by, the definitions
it gives. Here is what the 1980 edition says, picked up, I'm sure,
from earlier editions:
"Fish-Belly Sill. A term used to describe a type of center sill
construction consisting of shallow sections at each end with
transitions to a deeper section at the center. Fish-belly sills are
often used on long cars which need heavier sections at the center."
Note it doesn't say how much deeper the section is, and I would
assume the intent that anything other than structural shapes that
pass through the bolster could be considered a "fish-belly sill" if
the section increases somewhere between the bolsters.
looking further and found in the 1953 CBCyc this shorter definition:
"Fish-belly sill. A type of heavy, deep, built up side or center
sill. Profile resembles that of a fish, hence the name." The use of
the word "heavy" here would seem to exclude a shallow fishbelly sill,
whereas the 1980 definition would include sills with a shallower
section between the bolsters."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]