neat gondola load


Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Manfred Lorenz" <germanfred55@...> wrote:

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@> wrote:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-1/1137438/f991.jpg
Looks like the springs are bottoming out. Is that legal?

Manfred
But they're not… I can still see space between the coils.

The October 1970 ORER shows WM 55262 (if I read that correctly) has a
capacity of 154,000 lbs, which is what I think I read on the car side.
UTLX 48994 has a capacity of 100,000 lbs, and a tare weight of 47,000
and change. Even if the tankcar is fully loaded, it is well within the
capacity of the gon. So what's the problem?

Dennis


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Manfred Lorenz wrote:
Looks like the springs are bottoming out. Is that legal?
I'm sure it's legal but not a good idea for the sake of the car structure. The engineering term for that is, springs have "gone solid," which neatly explains why they are no longer springs when in that condition.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Ron Smith <rpsmith@...>
 

Manfred,
That is common on loaded cars.

Ron Smith
Carman UPRR

----- Original Message -----
From: Manfred Lorenz
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 3:46 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: neat gondola load


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:
>
> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-1/1137438/f991.jpg
>

Looks like the springs are bottoming out. Is that legal?

Manfred


Manfred Lorenz
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-1/1137438/f991.jpg
Looks like the springs are bottoming out. Is that legal?

Manfred


Tim O'Connor