#### Frt Car Weight lettering questions

Mike Brock <brockm@...>

OK, I know I should know this but...

I note that the light weight and load limit total for a frt car is the
maximum permitted weight of the car. Capacity seems less than important, it
being an approximation of the capacity of the car which one might assume to
be the load. I note that the AAR removed the requirement for this term in
1988. A 50 ton car had a maximum load capability of 169,000 lbs. This seems
to equate to an axle loading of 42,250 lbs per axle and I note figures for
various truck capacities are included in the table in the introduction by
Tony Thompson to the 1953 ORER reprint by the NMRA. A typical 50 ton box car
is shown with a load limit of 124500 lbs and a capacity of 100000.

A couple of questions. First, why the capacity at all? Were those
limit?

Next, I note that tank cars don't appear to have a load limit applied to the
car. Capacity is present and gallons...volume I assume...is also evident.
But it would appear that the need for knowing total weight would still be as
necessary as with any car.

Mike Brock

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>

Mike Brock wrote:
I note that the light weight and load limit total for a frt car is the
maximum permitted weight of the car. Capacity seems less than important, it
being an approximation of the capacity of the car which one might assume to
be the load. I note that the AAR removed the requirement for this term in
1988. A 50 ton car had a maximum load capability of 169,000 lbs. This seems
to equate to an axle loading of 42,250 lbs per axle and I note figures for
various truck capacities are included in the table in the introduction by
Tony Thompson to the 1953 ORER reprint by the NMRA. A typical 50 ton box car
is shown with a load limit of 124500 lbs and a capacity of 100000.
Mike, the axle journals are sized for particular loads; that's the maximum load origin. That "typical" box car load limit depends, of course on the light weight. Exercise for the reader: what is the light weight of that car?

Next, I note that tank cars don't appear to have a load limit applied to the
car. Capacity is present and gallons...volume I assume...is also evident.
But it would appear that the need for knowing total weight would still be as
necessary as with any car.
Nope. The light weight is on there so when you weigh a loaded car, you know what to subtract (the shipper only pays for the weight of the cargo). If it's by gallonage, as was normal with tank cars, you could not care less about the weight.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2942 Linden Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history

Mike Brock <brockm@...>

I wrote:

> Next, I note that tank cars don't appear to have a load limit applied
> to the
> car. Capacity is present and gallons...volume I assume...is also
> evident.
> But it would appear that the need for knowing total weight would still
> be as
> necessary as with any car.
And Tony Thompson replies:

Nope. The light weight is on there so when you weigh a loaded car,
you know what to subtract (the shipper only pays for the weight of the
cargo). If it's by gallonage, as was normal with tank cars, you could
not care less about the weight.

I understand that. But wouldn't there be a need to know the cargo weight restriction for the car? I mean..isn't that why the load limit is present on other cars? IOW, if the tank car had an 8000 gal capacity, wouldn't that merely be volume and not weight? Wouldn't the type of load determine the actual weight?

Also, are you saying that capacity with regard to a box car is the limit for loading the car?

Mike Brock

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>

Mike Brock wrote:
I understand that. But wouldn't there be a need to know the cargo weight restriction for the car? I mean..isn't that why the load limit is present on other cars? IOW, if the tank car had an 8000 gal capacity, wouldn't that merely be volume and not weight? Wouldn't the type of load determine the actual weight?
Both the gallonage and capacity are nominal values. Neither one is precise. On tanks, the exact gallonage was lettered on the tank end by some owners, e.g. 8132 gallons on an 8k gallon car.
The nominal capacity sort of tells you the truck, i.e. axle, capacity. But you really don't care about that unless you are replacing the trucks (and as soon as you glimpse the journals you know what you are dealing with anyway). Yes, of course liquids of different density have different weights in an 8000-gallon load. For private owners, they presumably send the right car to the loader, who can fill it shell-full and not exceed the capacity. But in principle I suppose somebody could put 8000 gallons of something heavy like sulfuric acid into a car by mistake--but the lining might also be a problem in that case . . . I think this is only a conceptual problem (once defined as topics only discussed with energy in bars).

Also, are you saying that capacity with regard to a box car is the limit for loading the car?
No, on the contrary it is the load limit.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2942 Linden Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history

Tim Gilbert <tgilbert@...>

Mike Brock wrote:

OK, I know I should know this but...

I note that the light weight and load limit total for a frt car is the
maximum permitted weight of the car. Capacity seems less than
important, it
being an approximation of the capacity of the car which one might
assume to
be the load. I note that the AAR removed the requirement for this term in
1988. A 50 ton car had a maximum load capability of 169,000 lbs. This
seems
to equate to an axle loading of 42,250 lbs per axle and I note figures for
various truck capacities are included in the table in the introduction by
Tony Thompson to the 1953 ORER reprint by the NMRA. A typical 50 ton
box car
is shown with a load limit of 124500 lbs and a capacity of 100000.

A couple of questions. First, why the capacity at all? Were those
responsible for the load unable to read such numbers as provided by
limit?
Mike,

When the Mechanical Division of the ARA convened in Atlantic City
between June 11 and 18, 1924, exactly the same question was asked by
John Coleman of the CN:

Coleman: "Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for information from the
Chairman of the Car Construction Committee (WF Kiesel of the PRR). On
page 7, there is the stenciling of the capacity. As read there the
capacity and the load limit and the light weight. Is that repetition?
it not?"

Kiesel: "That is merely of what we were requested to do. The diagram
represents a location for the lettering. We were requested to show
capacity, load limit and light weight. Capacity is supposed to be the
nominal capacity; for instance, with 100,000 pounds nominal capacity,
and a car that weighs 40,000 pounds, the load limit would be 129,000
pounds.... We had nothing to do with maintaining those weights. We
simply show here how they should be applied to a car." (Page 476 of the
1924 Proceedings)

So Coleman's question effectively went unanswered for 60 odd years. The
only ruling was that nominal capacity had to be equal or less than the

At the 1924 Convention, there was a proposed revision to Rule 5 of the

"Where maximum weights of lading are not specified, the following will
be allowed:

"On cars of less than 80,000 lb. capacity, the usual excess of 10% above
marked capacity.

"On cars of 80,000 lb. capacity and over, the maximum carrying capacity
as follows:

80,000 132,000 132,000 less LT WT of car
100,000 169,000 169,000 "
140,000 210,000 210,000 "

"Note 1 - Where cars are marked with capacity, 80,000 pounds or over,
they can be loaded to the above "Load Weight Limits" except where other
load limit markings are stenciled on the cars.

"Note 2 - Cars of odd capacity over 80,000 lbs. must be classed
according to axles under cars.
MCB Standard 5" x 9" - 80,000 lb. capacity
MCB Standard 5 1/2" x 10" - 100,000 lb. capacity
MCB Standard 6" x 11" - 140,000 lb. capacity."

Before the concept of Load Limits were accepted for size of axle
journals 5"x9" or greater (1920 some one said on the STMFC if I remember
correctly), cars were allowed to be loaded up to a limit of 110% of
Capacity as the smaller axles were.

The proposed revision which was approved consisted of providing GRL's
(Total Weight of Car & Lading) for the two smaller trucks plus a small
adjustment in the GRL for a 5"x9" truck (80,000 CAPY) as per the table
below:

3 3/4"x7" 40,000 66,000 66,000 less LT WT
4 1/4"x8" 60,000 103,000 103,000 "
5" x9" 80,000 136,000 136,000 "
5 1/2"x10" 100,000 169,000 169,000 "
6" x11" 140,000 210,000 210,000 "

"Note: Cars of odd capacity must be classified according to (the size)
of axles under cars."

Cars with 6 1/2" x 12" axles (200,000 pound capacity, 251,000 GRL) were
not considered until the 1930's.

Hope this helps, Tim Gilbert

Mike Brock <brockm@...>

Tim Gilbert writes:

"Mike,

When the Mechanical Division of the ARA convened in Atlantic City
between June 11 and 18, 1924, exactly the same question was asked by
John Coleman of the CN:

Coleman: "Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for information from the
Chairman of the Car Construction Committee (WF Kiesel of the PRR). On
page 7, there is the stenciling of the capacity. As read there the
capacity and the load limit and the light weight. Is that repetition?
it not?"

Kiesel: "That is merely of what we were requested to do..."

So Coleman's question effectively went unanswered for 60 odd years. The
only ruling was that nominal capacity had to be equal or less than the

So...Apparently I'm the only one in 60 yrs [ actually it looks like 80 ] to ask the same question that John Coleman asked? By my action it appears that I'm the only one qualified to assume his position...assuming he was probably rather high in the CN and in a confortable pay grade. Anyone know if I could perform his other CN duties from my home? I mean...I wouldn't have to live in Canada...would I?

Mike Brock

Tim Gilbert <tgilbert@...>

Mike Brock wrote:

Tim Gilbert writes:

"Mike,

When the Mechanical Division of the ARA convened in Atlantic City
between June 11 and 18, 1924, exactly the same question was asked by
John Coleman of the CN:

Coleman: "Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for information from the
Chairman of the Car Construction Committee (WF Kiesel of the PRR). On
page 7, there is the stenciling of the capacity. As read there the
capacity and the load limit and the light weight. Is that repetition?
it not?"

Kiesel: "That is merely of what we were requested to do..."

So Coleman's question effectively went unanswered for 60 odd years. The
only ruling was that nominal capacity had to be equal or less than the

So...Apparently I'm the only one in 60 yrs [ actually it looks like 80 ] to ask the same question that John Coleman asked? By my action it appears that I'm the only one qualified to assume his position...assuming he was probably rather high in the CN and in a confortable pay grade. Anyone know if I could perform his other CN duties from my home? I mean...I wouldn't have to live in Canada...would I?
Mike,

Coleman was the CN's General Superintendent Car Equipment.

I once called CAPY to be a BS number, and Chris Barkan climbed all over me. Perhaps, he will climb all over you welcome to the Club!

Tim Gilbert

CBarkan@...

In a message dated 8/3/04 10:29:39 PM, tgilbert@... writes:

<< Mike,
I once called CAPY to be a BS number, and Chris Barkan climbed all over
me. Perhaps, he will climb all over you welcome to the Club!
Tim Gilbert >>

No climbing, I'll just repeat what was the essence of my explanation then.
CAPY is useful shorthand to railroaders about a number of mechanical specs for
the car, eg. journals, center bowl, wheels, etc. I am not speculating on
this, in my work with RRs we characterize cars in this way all the time. Simply
referring to a "100-ton" car provides one with useful info about the
requirements of the car's construction and the parts needed for repairs of those items.
Tim summarized some of those in his previous message. I suspect that the
principal user of this info was not the shipping agent or the customer, but
rather the mechanical department, and maybe some others on the RR.

Chris

Tim Gilbert <tgilbert@...>

CBarkan@... wrote:

In a message dated 8/3/04 10:29:39 PM, tgilbert@... writes:

<< Mike,
I once called CAPY to be a BS number, and Chris Barkan climbed all over me. Perhaps, he will climb all over you welcome to the Club!
Tim Gilbert >>

No climbing, I'll just repeat what was the essence of my explanation then. CAPY is useful shorthand to railroaders about a number of mechanical specs for the car, eg. journals, center bowl, wheels, etc. I am not speculating on this, in my work with RRs we characterize cars in this way all the time. Simply referring to a "100-ton" car provides one with useful info about the requirements of the car's construction and the parts needed for repairs of those items. Tim summarized some of those in his previous message. I suspect that the principal user of this info was not the shipping agent or the customer, but rather the mechanical department, and maybe some others on the RR.

Chris,

Agreed that CAPY can be a useful shorthand provided that the use of standard nominal capacities were the only ones cited, but there can be confusion when some roads had "55 ton" cars which were the same as "50 tonners." It would have been more correct to use the 169K GRL as the shorthand reference. Granted, it would have been a mouthful to say it was an 84.5 ton car.

It should be noted that the CN and CP were notorious for applying non-standard nominal capacities much closer to the load limits (e.g. 60 tons for a car with 5 1/2" x 9" axle journals vs. the more normal 50 or 55 tons; 80 tons for a car with 6" x 11" axle journals instead of the more normal 70 tons).

The B&M, NYC and New Haven all acquired 40' PS-1's in 1947-1948; the B&M's were "50 ton" cars, the NYC's were "55 tonners," and the NH's "60 tonners." Each of these nominal capacities was acceptable since the only restriction upon what nominal capacity was selected was that the load limit equaled or was greater than the nominal capacity. To infer that the NH's had a greater load carrying capacity than either the B&M's or NYC's would have been false.

When comments such as the average capacity of all freight cars increased year-to-year, one has to wonder how much of this was real (increasing the size of journals), and how much was numerical manipulation (using non-standard nominal capacities).

Sometime between 1996 and 2003, GRL replaced Nominal Capacity as an ORER column; in my opinion, it was about 75 years overdue.

Tim Gilbert

CBarkan@...

In a message dated 8/4/04 6:31:45 AM, tgilbert@... writes:

<< Chris,

Agreed that CAPY can be a useful shorthand provided that the use of

standard nominal capacities were the only ones cited, but there can be

confusion when some roads had "55 ton" cars which were the same as "50

tonners." It would have been more correct to use the 169K GRL as the

shorthand reference. Granted, it would have been a mouthful to say it

was an 84.5 ton car.>>

I'm not saying it wasn't confusing if you didn't know the system. It took me
awhile to get it but my point was that in the proper context the system had
utility. You are right that actual versus nominal started to be used it got
worse. I wonder if these other uses were the result of some unholy marriage
of terminology between the legitimate (or at least understandable) mechanical
department vernacular and the transportation or sales departments not wanting a
car's capacity to be misunderstood.

<<Sometime between 1996 and 2003, GRL replaced Nominal Capacity as an ORER

column; in my opinion, it was about 75 years overdue.>>

Yes, and indeed we use the terminology "263K" and "286K" now as much as the
older nominal tonnage capacity when talking about car size. Again, I should
say that virtually all of my experience with industry personnel on this matter
is with the mechanical or engineering dept., not marketing etc. I would even
venture that the vernacular may vary depending on whether the car is a "70-ton"
or a "286K" (old vs new I suppose).

Chris

Richard Hendrickson

Mike Brock writes:

So...Apparently I'm the only one in 60 yrs [ actually it looks like 80 ]
to ask the same question that John Coleman asked? By my action it appears
that I'm the only one qualified to assume his position...assuming he was
probably rather high in the CN and in a confortable pay grade. Anyone know
if I could perform his other CN duties from my home? I mean...I wouldn't
have to live in Canada...would I?
Mike, you would have to know a whole lot about CN freight cars (N&W hoppers
won't cut it). What's more, you would not only have to live in Canada (and
freeze your butt off half the year), you would have to declare your
allegiance to the Queen. But at least you wouldn't have to deal with the
infamous Keisel as chair of the AAR car committee.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520

Chet French <cfrench@...>

--- In STMFC@..., "Mike Brock" <brockm@b...> wrote:
OK, I know I should know this but...

I note that the light weight and load limit total for a frt car is
the
maximum permitted weight of the car. Capacity seems less than
important, it
being an approximation of the capacity of the car which one might
assume to
be the load. I note that the AAR removed the requirement for this
term in
1988. <snip>
I always felt that the capacity line, especially on box cars, was a
quick reference that trainman, switchmen, yard clerks, carmen, and
shippers could use to determine what size car it was. Box cars were
usually referred to as 80 cap and 100 cap cars. A carman might be
instucted to go inspect and classify for loading, all 80 cap cars in
the yard. He would then only have to look for the capacity 80000
line to determine it was a 80 cap car. A switch crew could be told
that the local needed two 80 cap grain box for A, and three 100 cap
grain box for B. If their switch lists weren't marked they would
just look at the capacity line on the cars.

Chet French
Dixon, IL

Tim Gilbert <tgilbert@...>

Chet French wrote:

I always felt that the capacity line, especially on box cars, was a
quick reference that trainman, switchmen, yard clerks, carmen, and
shippers could use to determine what size car it was. Box cars were
usually referred to as 80 cap and 100 cap cars. A carman might be
instucted to go inspect and classify for loading, all 80 cap cars in
the yard. He would then only have to look for the capacity 80000
line to determine it was a 80 cap car. A switch crew could be told
that the local needed two 80 cap grain box for A, and three 100 cap
grain box for B. If their switch lists weren't marked they would
just look at the capacity line on the cars.
How would the "car man" classify a 110 cap car or a 120 cap car?

Tim Gilbert

Chet French <cfrench@...>

--- In STMFC@..., Tim Gilbert <tgilbert@s...> wrote:
Chet French wrote:

I always felt that the capacity line, especially on box cars, was
a
quick reference that trainman, switchmen, yard clerks, carmen, and
shippers could use to determine what size car it was. Box cars
were
usually referred to as 80 cap and 100 cap cars. A carman might be
instucted to go inspect and classify for loading, all 80 cap cars
in
the yard. He would then only have to look for the capacity 80000
line to determine it was a 80 cap car. A switch crew could be
told
that the local needed two 80 cap grain box for A, and three 100
cap
grain box for B. If their switch lists weren't marked they would
just look at the capacity line on the cars.
How would the "car man" classify a 110 cap car or a 120 cap car?

Tim,

They would show the car as 110 or 120 cap and what loading it was fit
for. I don't recall too many 120 cap cars but often we would use a
110 cap car for grain loading if we did not have a 100 cap ca

Chet French
Dixon, IL

Tim Gilbert <tgilbert@...>

Chet French wrote:

--- In STMFC@..., Tim Gilbert <tgilbert@s...> wrote:
Chet French wrote:

I always felt that the capacity line, especially on box cars, was
a
quick reference that trainman, switchmen, yard clerks, carmen, and
shippers could use to determine what size car it was. Box cars
were
usually referred to as 80 cap and 100 cap cars. A carman might be
instucted to go inspect and classify for loading, all 80 cap cars
in
the yard. He would then only have to look for the capacity 80000
line to determine it was a 80 cap car. A switch crew could be
told
that the local needed two 80 cap grain box for A, and three 100
cap
grain box for B. If their switch lists weren't marked they would
just look at the capacity line on the cars.
How would the "car man" classify a 110 cap car or a 120 cap car?

Tim,

They would show the car as 110 or 120 cap and what loading it was fit
for. I don't recall too many 120 cap cars but often we would use a
110 cap car for grain loading if we did not have a 100 cap car.
Chet,

That's the problem with using a capacity because a 100 cap car, 110 cap car and 120 cap car had the exact same gross rolling load of 169,000 pounds. There was no difference in terms of weight.

Tim Gilbert

ljack70117@...

On Saturday, August 7, 2004, at 02:16 PM, Chet French wrote:

--- In STMFC@..., "Mike Brock" <brockm@b...> wrote:
OK, I know I should know this but...

I note that the light weight and load limit total for a frt car is
the
maximum permitted weight of the car. Capacity seems less than
important, it
being an approximation of the capacity of the car which one might
assume to
be the load. I note that the AAR removed the requirement for this
term in
1988. <snip>
I always felt that the capacity line, especially on box cars, was a
quick reference that trainman, switchmen, yard clerks, carmen, and
shippers could use to determine what size car it was. Box cars were
usually referred to as 80 cap and 100 cap cars. A carman might be
instucted to go inspect and classify for loading, all 80 cap cars in
the yard. He would then only have to look for the capacity 80000
line to determine it was a 80 cap car. A switch crew could be told
that the local needed two 80 cap grain box for A, and three 100 cap
grain box for B. If their switch lists weren't marked they would
just look at the capacity line on the cars.

Chet French
Dixon, IL
You are 100% correct. When I was working on the UPRR and SF that is what we looked for. So in the STMFG era that is the way it was done.
Thank you
Larry Jackman
ljack70117@...
If life was fair Elvis would still be alive and all the impersonators would be dead.

Tim Gilbert <tgilbert@...>

Chet French wrote: wrote:

I always felt that the capacity line, especially on box cars, was a
quick reference that trainman, switchmen, yard clerks, carmen, and
shippers could use to determine what size car it was. Box cars were
usually referred to as 80 cap and 100 cap cars. A carman might be
instucted to go inspect and classify for loading, all 80 cap cars in
the yard. He would then only have to look for the capacity 80000
line to determine it was a 80 cap car. A switch crew could be told
that the local needed two 80 cap grain box for A, and three 100 cap
grain box for B. If their switch lists weren't marked they would
just look at the capacity line on the cars.

You are 100% correct. When I was working on the UPRR and SF that is
what we looked for. So in the STMFG era that is the way it was done.
Visually, it would seem easier to determine and then describe a boxcar by its length, and by its sheathing than by its capacity - most people could not differentiate between a 5"x 9" truck and a 5 1/2"x 10" one. The only visual reference to make this differentiation is to read manually the stenciled capacity, but even that brings in the factor of standard vs. non-standard nominal capacities. If to determine the capacity of a car was the sole reason for carman to walk the yard, it seems that it would be far more efficient to record the capacities of boxcars from the ORER's.

There were only a few commodities which would weigh out before they cubed out when loaded into boxcars. Grain was one of them so it was important in yards which supplied boxcars for grain loading to separate the cars with 5"x 9" trucks (80,000 standard nominal capacity) vs those with 5 1/2"x10" trucks (100,000 pounds standard nominal capacity).

There were, however, many boxcars with the non-standard 110,000 pound capacity, and fewer, but still significant number of boxcars having a non-standard 120,000 pound capacity even though the boxcars had the same 5 1/2"x10" trucks as the 100,000 pound capacity boxcars. Did the yard walkers (or car dispatchers) automatically classify these 110 and 120,000 pound capacity boxcars in the same category as the 100,000 pound capacity boxcars or did they classify them separately?

This dilemma caused by non-standard nominal capacities could and probably did result in confusion in the yards, and, in the efficient loading of cars. In the early 1930's and during the War, there were numerous pleas noted in RAILWAY AGE and by the ODT for shippers to load to the load limit instead of only to capacity in order to attain a savings in cars. Some of this could have been avoided by either an elimination of the notion (and stenciling) of nominal capacity, stenciling the GRL, or mandating the standard nominal capacity to be within a range of 95-99% of the Load Limit. (The standard nominal capacity of a 40' boxcar with 5 1/2" x 10" trucks was about 80% of the Load Limit; for a 50' boxcar with the same size trucks, about 83% of the load limit - which left plenty of room to have legitimate non-standard nominal capacities.)

This was not done in 1924 because the two men who chaired the ARA's Car Construction and Loading Rule Committees were Pennsy, and the PRR did not use non-standard capacities except in the cases where the light weight was so heavy to create a load limit less than the standard nominal capacity rated for the particular size truck adjusted by the number of axles which the car had.

Tim Gilbert

ljack70117@...

On Sunday, August 8, 2004, at 09:19 AM, Tim Gilbert wrote:
isually, it would seem easier to determine and then describe a boxcar
by its length, and by its sheathing than by its capacity - most people
could not differentiate between a 5"x 9" truck and a 5 1/2"x 10" one.
The only visual reference to make this differentiation is to read
manually the stenciled capacity, but even that brings in the factor of
standard vs. non-standard nominal capacities. If to determine the
capacity of a car was the sole reason for carman to walk the yard, it
seems that it would be far more efficient to record the capacities of
boxcars from the ORER's.

There were only a few commodities which would weigh out before they
cubed out when loaded into boxcars. Grain was one of them so it was
the cars with 5"x 9" trucks (80,000 standard nominal capacity) vs those
with 5 1/2"x10" trucks (100,000 pounds standard nominal capacity).

There were, however, many boxcars with the non-standard 110,000 pound
capacity, and fewer, but still significant number of boxcars having a
non-standard 120,000 pound capacity even though the boxcars had the same
5 1/2"x10" trucks as the 100,000 pound capacity boxcars. Did the yard
walkers (or car dispatchers) automatically classify these 110 and
120,000 pound capacity boxcars in the same category as the 100,000 pound
capacity boxcars or did they classify them separately?

This dilemma caused by non-standard nominal capacities could and
probably did result in confusion in the yards, and, in the efficient
loading of cars. In the early 1930's and during the War, there were
numerous pleas noted in RAILWAY AGE and by the ODT for shippers to load
to the load limit instead of only to capacity in order to attain a
savings in cars. Some of this could have been avoided by either an
elimination of the notion (and stenciling) of nominal capacity,
stenciling the GRL, or mandating the standard nominal capacity to be
within a range of 95-99% of the Load Limit. (The standard nominal
capacity of a 40' boxcar with 5 1/2" x 10" trucks was about 80% of the
Load Limit; for a 50' boxcar with the same size trucks, about 83% of the
load limit - which left plenty of room to have legitimate non-standard
nominal capacities.)

This was not done in 1924 because the two men who chaired the ARA's Car
not use non-standard capacities except in the cases where the light
weight was so heavy to create a load limit less than the standard
nominal capacity rated for the particular size truck adjusted by the
number of axles which the car had.

Tim Gilbert
My e mail is not intended to put anyone down but from the thinking of the railroad workers view point you guys are out in left field with this thread. I was on the RR from 1949 t0 1954. (STMFC) We did not worry about 110, 120 cap cars. Some one would order a car for loading no one except the grain elevators would order by size. They would order an 80 cap or 100 cap. We always gave the flour mills 100 cap. There were not that many 80 cap running around. At least where I was in Kansas. The shipper was not that concerned with Cap Wheat was not sold or shipped by weight. It was sold by the bushel. A 100 cap car cold handle the weight of the number of bushels loaded. A farmer would sell his wheat to a small country elevator who in turn sold to to a dealer in grain. It would be shipped to the dealer but while in transit he would be trying to sell it to some one else. On the UPRR the cars would stop In Salina, Junction City, Topeka or KCK for inspection. The Kansas grain inspection dep't would enter the car and talk samples and test it to be be sure the grain was the type as listed on the bill of sale and waybill. This report would be given to the owner of the car load. He would use it to sell the car. The destination would be changed when the car was sold. Either for a flour mill or for over seas shipping.