Tank Car Positioned Next To Locomotive


Bob Chaparro <thecitrusbelt@...>
 

I cannot quite make out the reporting marks on the car behind the locomotive on this photo link

http://www.atsfrr.com/resources/Sandifer/FT/Photos/A-BHelperWLight-footboards-rear.jpg

but the car is a tank car.

Can anyone tell if this tank car might be carrying a cargo that would be prohibited from being located next to a locomotive in a train?

Thanks.

Bob Chaparro
Hemet, CA


Richard Hendrickson
 

On Jun 10, 2013, at 2:10 PM, "Bob Chaparro" <thecitrusbelt@yahoo.com> wrote:

I cannot quite make out the reporting marks on the car behind the locomotive on this photo link

http://www.atsfrr.com/resources/Sandifer/FT/Photos/A-BHelperWLight-footboards-rear.jpg

but the car is a tank car.

Can anyone tell if this tank car might be carrying a cargo that would be prohibited from being located next to a locomotive in a train?

Bob, I have a much better print of that photo and the tank car is SDRX 122, an 8,000 gal. three compartment car built by the Standard Tank Car Co. and owned by the Sinclair Refining Co. Since Sinclair was exclusively in the "awl" business, as they say in Texas, the car was doubtless intended to carry petroleum products. However, note that there are no placards in the placard holders, as there would have been if the car were loaded or if it still contained flammable vapors from a previous load. So the rule about not placing tank cars adjacent to locomotives would not have applied in this case.

Richard Hendrickson


Tony Thompson
 

Richard Hendrickson wrote:
Bob, I have a much better print of that photo and the tank car is SDRX 122, an 8,000 gal. three compartment car built by the Standard Tank Car Co. and owned by the Sinclair Refining Co. Since Sinclair was exclusively in the "awl" business, as they say in Texas, the car was doubtless intended to carry petroleum products. However, note that there are no placards in the placard holders, as there would have been if the car were loaded or if it still contained flammable vapors from a previous load. So the rule about not placing tank cars adjacent to locomotives would not have applied in this case.
Richard is right about the placards, but he didn't mention that if the car were carrying a cargo not requiring a placard, it simply would not have one at all. So you cannot be sure the car is empty, only that it does not contain anything that crewmen need to know about. And as Richard observes, no restriction on placing the car where it is.

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, tony@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


mikefrommontanan
 

Not having my Official Guide at the ready (and it may not apply to the era of the photo), would I be wrong to say that the car is a multi-compartment tank. Either that, or it's very short. Also, the picture looks like helpers cut in ahead of the caboose, so perhaps the loaded car next to the locomotive rule was not as rigidly enforced?


____________________________________________________________
Political system upset?
Democrats BIG advantage in America about to completely vanish
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/51b6543f676eb543e6df2st02duc


geodyssey <riverob@...>
 

Tony's right. The car is either 1) empty, no hazmat residue or 2) loaded with a material not requiring a placard (non-hazmat). Placards, if present, can not be used to determine if a car is loaded or residue.

The car is cut in ahead of helpers, but the same car placement rules would apply as if the locos were leading.

Robert Simpson

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Michael Seitz <mikefrommontana@...> wrote:

Not having my Official Guide at the ready (and it may not apply to the
era of the photo), would I be wrong to say that the car is a
multi-compartment tank. Either that, or it's very short. Also, the
picture looks like helpers cut in ahead of the caboose, so perhaps the
loaded car next to the locomotive rule was not as rigidly enforced?


Tony Thompson
 

Robert Simpson wrote:
Tony's right. The car is either 1) empty, no hazmat residue or 2) loaded with a material not requiring a placard (non-hazmat). Placards, if present, can not be used to determine if a car is loaded or residue.
Robert, of course, is quoting (correctly) post-1970 rules. In the period of this list, separate empty placards were used for many commodities.

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, tony@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Staffan Ehnbom <staffan.ehnbom@...>
 

Probably empty, as the truck springs don't seem to be compressed?

Staffan Ehnbom

----- Original Message -----
From: geodyssey
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 12:48 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Tank Car Positioned Next To Locomotive



Tony's right. The car is either 1) empty, no hazmat residue or 2) loaded with a material not requiring a placard (non-hazmat). Placards, if present, can not be used to determine if a car is loaded or residue.

The car is cut in ahead of helpers, but the same car placement rules would apply as if the locos were leading.

Robert Simpson

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Michael Seitz <mikefrommontana@...> wrote:
>
> Not having my Official Guide at the ready (and it may not apply to the
> era of the photo), would I be wrong to say that the car is a
> multi-compartment tank. Either that, or it's very short. Also, the
> picture looks like helpers cut in ahead of the caboose, so perhaps the
> loaded car next to the locomotive rule was not as rigidly enforced?
>