Thanks Tim.

Photographic evidence in several places shows some of CP's series 375000 and 373000 ore cars fitted with permanent side extensions maybe 12-18" high. These cars were originally 50 ton cars but lod limit was increased about 1930. John Riddell advised me the cars load limits were 100,000 lbs in the Dec 1928 ORER and in Oct 1931 125,000 lbs. For some reason the revised cu feet capacity doesn't show up anywhere. I am still looking for a photo of the extended side cars to see if the cu ft data is different.

Peter Bowers

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/92 - Release Date: 9/7/05

PBowers wrote:

Photographic evidence in several places shows some of CP's series 375000
and 373000 ore cars fitted with permanent side extensions maybe 12-18"
high. These cars were originally 50 ton cars but lod limit was increased
about 1930. John Riddell advised me the cars load limits were 100,000 lbs
in the Dec 1928 ORER and in Oct 1931 125,000 lbs. For some reason the
revised cu feet capacity doesn't show up anywhere. I am still looking for
a photo of the extended side cars to see if the cu ft data is different.

Peter,

Are you confusing Load Limit with Nominal Capacity? The ORER's provided Nominal Capacity data only, but the Canadian roads seemed to have selected Nominal Capacities much closer to the calculated Load Limits than their American counterparts.

Tim Gilbert

At 04:40 AM 9/8/05, you wrote:

PBowers wrote:

Photographic evidence in several places shows some of CP's series 375000
and 373000 ore cars fitted with permanent side extensions maybe 12-18"
high. These cars were originally 50 ton cars but lod limit was increased
about 1930. John Riddell advised me the cars load limits were 100,000 lbs
in the Dec 1928 ORER and in Oct 1931 125,000 lbs. For some reason the
revised cu feet capacity doesn't show up anywhere. I am still looking
for a photo of the extended side cars to see if the cu ft data is

different.

Peter,

Are you confusing Load Limit with Nominal Capacity? The ORER's provided
Nominal Capacity data only, but the Canadian roads seemed to have
selected Nominal Capacities much closer to the calculated Load Limits
than their American counterparts. - Tim Gilbert

Tim,

Info on the side of a car without the side extensions is: (1965 photo of a 375,000 series car) Capy=131,000, Ld Lmt=131,000, Cu Ft=892, IL 26.6, IW 9.6 and IH 6.7.

The ORER shows the above car having 123,000 lb nominal capacity.

The side extensions would add at least 300 to 400 cu ft capacity.

Peter Bowers


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/92 - Release Date: 9/7/05

PBowers wrote:

Tim,

Info on the side of a car without the side extensions is: (1965 photo of a
375,000 series car) Capy=131,000, Ld Lmt=131,000, Cu Ft=892, IL 26.6, IW
9.6 and IH 6.7.

The ORER shows the above car having 123,000 lb nominal capacity.

The side extensions would add at least 300 to 400 cu ft capacity.

What was the Light Weight of the car stenciled? Using the 131,000 pound Load Limit with 5 1/2" x 10" truck journals, the Light Weight should have been 38,000 pounds using pre-1962 standards. An extension to the car sides would add to the Light Weight which would reduce the Load Limit pound for pound - LD LMT plus LT WT had to equal 169,000 pounds for cars with 5 1/2" x 10" trucks - after 1962, the GRL could increase to 177,000 pounds if the trucks were roller bearing.

The only constriction to what Nominal Capacity was declared by the car owner was that CAPY had to be equal or less than the LD LMT. In terms of a stencil, the nominal capacity was about as useful as a male teat - which was pointed out in much more politically correct terms by the CN's John Coleman at the 1924 Master Carbuilder's Convention in Atlantic City.

That's what the rules were; but for cars that were not interchanged, there were instances that these guidelines were somewhat ignored.

Tim Gilbert

At 12:53 PM 9/8/05, you wrote:

PBowers wrote:

Tim,

Info on the side of a car without the side extensions is: (1965 photo
of a
375,000 series car) Capy=131,000, Ld Lmt=131,000, Cu Ft=892, IL 26.6, IW
9.6 and IH 6.7.

The ORER shows the above car having 123,000 lb nominal capacity.

The side extensions would add at least 300 to 400 cu ft capacity.

What was the Light Weight of the car stenciled? Using the 131,000 pound
Load Limit with 5 1/2" x 10" truck journals, the Light Weight should
have been 38,000 pounds using pre-1962 standards. An extension to the
car sides would add to the Light Weight which would reduce the Load
Limit pound for pound - LD LMT plus LT WT had to equal 169,000 pounds
for cars with 5 1/2" x 10" trucks - after 1962, the GRL could increase
to 177,000 pounds if the trucks were roller bearing.

Lightweight of car was as you note 38000 lbs

The only constriction to what Nominal Capacity was declared by the car
owner was that CAPY had to be equal or less than the LD LMT. In terms of
a stencil, the nominal capacity was about as useful as a male teat -
which was pointed out in much more politically correct terms by the CN's
John Coleman at the 1924 Master Carbuilder's Convention in Atlantic City.

That's what the rules were; but for cars that were not interchanged,
there were instances that these guidelines were somewhat ignored.

These cars were not interchanged and were stenciled against loading to US points. Looking at the 1956 and 1960 ORER, I note that the 373001-373129 cars were not even listed although the cars existed until about 1969

Peter Bowers


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/93 - Release Date: 9/8/05