Topics

Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars


Brian Rochon
 

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-21-19/X5845.jpg

 

From EL photo archive today.

 

Brian Rochon


Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
 

Hi Brian and List Members,
 
Thanks Brian for calling our attention to this.
 
I find it interesting that the bridge girder is NOT mounted on the exact center of the trio of PRR class FM flat cars, and the bridge girder is instead somewhat closer to the camera. This does two things that I find somewhat puzzling...
 
(1) It imbalances the load on the trucks on the two flats at the ends - for each of these two cars, one truck will be carrying more load than the other truck
 
(2) It required the brake wheel on the flat closest to the camera to be removed. Had the load been placed so it was in the center, that car maybe could have kept its brake wheel in place, as is the case on the flat furthest from the camera. Note there is a removed brakewheel mounted to the deck of the flat closest to the camera, and another removed brakewheel mounted on the deck of the flat furthest from the camera - presumably this last one came off the midle flat car
 
Any thoughts on this?
 
Claus Schlund
 
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 10:08 AM
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-21-19/X5845.jpg

 

From EL photo archive today.

 

Brian Rochon


Lloyd Keyser
 

Why is there not a Do No Hump sign on this load  Lloyd Keyser


Charles Peck
 

Lloyd's question raises another question. When was the first hump yard
built and where?
Chuck Peck

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 11:45 AM Lloyd Keyser <lloydkeyser@...> wrote:
Why is there not a Do No Hump sign on this load  Lloyd Keyser


Bill Lugg
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_yard#Hump_yard

"According to the PRRT&HS PRR Chronology, the first hump yard in the United States was opened May 11, 1903 as part of the Altoona Yards at Bells Mills (East Altoona). Other sources report the PRR yard at Youngwood, PA which opened in the 1880s to serve the Connellsville coke fields as the first U.S. hump yard."

Only as far away as Google and Wikipedia.  ;o)

Bill Lugg

On 12/21/19 9:56 AM, Charles Peck wrote:
Lloyd's question raises another question. When was the first hump yard
built and where?
Chuck Peck

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 11:45 AM Lloyd Keyser <lloydkeyser@... <mailto:lloydkeyser@...>> wrote:

Why is there not a Do No Hump sign on this load  Lloyd Keyser


mel perry
 

out of curiousity, why weren't these
comments/questions not included,
in the OP?, where they belonged, 
instead of creating a seperate thtead?
mel perry

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 9:13 AM Bill Lugg <luggw1@...> wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_yard#Hump_yard

"According to the PRRT&HS PRR Chronology, the first hump yard in the
United States was opened May 11, 1903 as part of the Altoona Yards at
Bells Mills (East Altoona). Other sources report the PRR yard at
Youngwood, PA which opened in the 1880s to serve the Connellsville coke
fields as the first U.S. hump yard."

Only as far away as Google and Wikipedia.  ;o)

Bill Lugg



On 12/21/19 9:56 AM, Charles Peck wrote:
> Lloyd's question raises another question. When was the first hump yard
> built and where?
> Chuck Peck
>
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 11:45 AM Lloyd Keyser <lloydkeyser@...
> <mailto:lloydkeyser@...>> wrote:
>
>     Why is there not a Do No Hump sign on this load  Lloyd Keyser
>
>




Lloyd Keyser
 

Sorry, I just did not think of it. Lloyd Keyser


Drew Bunn
 

Not to sound insulting,  Claus - but I think you're seeing things. There is no way that load would remain upright unless it was perfectly centered on those flats. I've unloaded centerbeams, and two forklift operators have to remove the load evenly on both sides or the car will fall over.

Cheers


On Sat., Dec. 21, 2019, 10:21 Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;), <claus@...> wrote:
Hi Brian and List Members,
 
Thanks Brian for calling our attention to this.
 
I find it interesting that the bridge girder is NOT mounted on the exact center of the trio of PRR class FM flat cars, and the bridge girder is instead somewhat closer to the camera. This does two things that I find somewhat puzzling...
 
(1) It imbalances the load on the trucks on the two flats at the ends - for each of these two cars, one truck will be carrying more load than the other truck
 
(2) It required the brake wheel on the flat closest to the camera to be removed. Had the load been placed so it was in the center, that car maybe could have kept its brake wheel in place, as is the case on the flat furthest from the camera. Note there is a removed brakewheel mounted to the deck of the flat closest to the camera, and another removed brakewheel mounted on the deck of the flat furthest from the camera - presumably this last one came off the midle flat car
 
Any thoughts on this?
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 10:08 AM
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-21-19/X5845.jpg

 

From EL photo archive today.

 

Brian Rochon


Bill Keene
 

OK. Here is my take on why the girder was not mounted to pivot on the longitudinal center of the end flat cars… 

Placing the pivot point closer to the truck would result in less overhang inward on curves. Also doing so may reduce the outward overhang at the ends of the girder. In short, there may have been operational restrictive reasons for what appears to perhaps be an odd loading.

Also, a long shot idea here, loading closer to the trucks would perhaps allow for a heavier load to be carried than what would be the limit if loaded at the longitudinal center of the car. 

Both of the above are just food for thought.

Cheers,
Bill Keene
Irvine, CA



On Dec 21, 2019, at 7:20 AM, Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;) <claus@...> wrote:

Hi Brian and List Members,
 
Thanks Brian for calling our attention to this.
 
I find it interesting that the bridge girder is NOT mounted on the exact center of the trio of PRR class FM flat cars, and the bridge girder is instead somewhat closer to the camera. This does two things that I find somewhat puzzling...
 
(1) It imbalances the load on the trucks on the two flats at the ends - for each of these two cars, one truck will be carrying more load than the other truck
 
(2) It required the brake wheel on the flat closest to the camera to be removed. Had the load been placed so it was in the center, that car maybe could have kept its brake wheel in place, as is the case on the flat furthest from the camera. Note there is a removed brakewheel mounted to the deck of the flat closest to the camera, and another removed brakewheel mounted on the deck of the flat furthest from the camera - presumably this last one came off the midle flat car
 
Any thoughts on this?
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 10:08 AM
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars



Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
 


Hi Drew,
 
No insult taken, but perhaps I was unclear in my question...
 
I meant to say it was not centered across THE LONG WAY. Indeed, I feel as you do, that it is properly centered across the short way
 
On the flat car closest to the camera, the load comes to nearly the end sill of the car. On the flat car furthest from the camera, the load comes to only about the middle of the car. If centered the long way, both flats would have the load end at roughly the same place on both cars.
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
 
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Drew Bunn
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

Not to sound insulting,  Claus - but I think you're seeing things. There is no way that load would remain upright unless it was perfectly centered on those flats. I've unloaded centerbeams, and two forklift operators have to remove the load evenly on both sides or the car will fall over.

Cheers

On Sat., Dec. 21, 2019, 10:21 Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;), <claus@...> wrote:
Hi Brian and List Members,
 
Thanks Brian for calling our attention to this.
 
I find it interesting that the bridge girder is NOT mounted on the exact center of the trio of PRR class FM flat cars, and the bridge girder is instead somewhat closer to the camera. This does two things that I find somewhat puzzling...
 
(1) It imbalances the load on the trucks on the two flats at the ends - for each of these two cars, one truck will be carrying more load than the other truck
 
(2) It required the brake wheel on the flat closest to the camera to be removed. Had the load been placed so it was in the center, that car maybe could have kept its brake wheel in place, as is the case on the flat furthest from the camera. Note there is a removed brakewheel mounted to the deck of the flat closest to the camera, and another removed brakewheel mounted on the deck of the flat furthest from the camera - presumably this last one came off the midle flat car
 
Any thoughts on this?
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 10:08 AM
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-21-19/X5845.jpg

 

From EL photo archive today.

 

Brian Rochon


Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
 


Hi Bil and List Members,
 
Interesting insights there Bill!
 
From the flat car's point of view, this would appear like it is a point load, since the flat carries the full load at the spot where the load bolsters (is there a more correct term for this?) are installed on the flat. Puting the point load right in the middle of the car would make the load stress the worst it could possibly be, and moving it closer to the trucks would help with this.
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
 
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

OK. Here is my take on why the girder was not mounted to pivot on the longitudinal center of the end flat cars… 

Placing the pivot point closer to the truck would result in less overhang inward on curves. Also doing so may reduce the outward overhang at the ends of the girder. In short, there may have been operational restrictive reasons for what appears to perhaps be an odd loading.

Also, a long shot idea here, loading closer to the trucks would perhaps allow for a heavier load to be carried than what would be the limit if loaded at the longitudinal center of the car. 

Both of the above are just food for thought.

Cheers,
Bill Keene
Irvine, CA



On Dec 21, 2019, at 7:20 AM, Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;) <claus@...> wrote:

Hi Brian and List Members,
 
Thanks Brian for calling our attention to this.
 
I find it interesting that the bridge girder is NOT mounted on the exact center of the trio of PRR class FM flat cars, and the bridge girder is instead somewhat closer to the camera. This does two things that I find somewhat puzzling...
 
(1) It imbalances the load on the trucks on the two flats at the ends - for each of these two cars, one truck will be carrying more load than the other truck
 
(2) It required the brake wheel on the flat closest to the camera to be removed. Had the load been placed so it was in the center, that car maybe could have kept its brake wheel in place, as is the case on the flat furthest from the camera. Note there is a removed brakewheel mounted to the deck of the flat closest to the camera, and another removed brakewheel mounted on the deck of the flat furthest from the camera - presumably this last one came off the midle flat car
 
Any thoughts on this?
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 10:08 AM
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars



Bruce Smith
 

Drew,

He meant end to end, not side to side 😉 and the load is definitely offset to the near end of each of the end cars. That is for good reason. The location of this load is due to several factors:

1) Most flat cars CANNOT carry their rated load concentrated at the center of their span. Offsetting the load to one end or the other allows a heavier load to be carried. In the PRR fleet, the F22 and F23 were among the only cars that could carry their rated weight in the center of the span of the car.

2) There were limits for the allowed free span between the pivot points. Too long a span would overhang on curves and could exceed line side clearances. Think about 85' passenger cars on 18" HO scale radii 😉

3) There were also limits for the free end length for the same reasons as #2, although that was less likely to be an issue

Removal of the brake wheel was no big deal... done all the time. 

While hump yards were at least 25 years old at the time, they were not common. Looking at this load, I see a card on the side of the 3rd flat. While this is most likely a route card, it may also contain the instructions "Do Not Hump". Alternatively, rules are made because of stupid people. At this point in time, that rule may yet to be in effect as everyone looks at this load and KNOWS it should not go over the hump. Give stupid folks a few more years to screw it up and the sign will be required. 

Regards,
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Drew Bunn <drew.r.bunn@...>
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 12:24 PM
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io <main@realstmfc.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars
 
Not to sound insulting,  Claus - but I think you're seeing things. There is no way that load would remain upright unless it was perfectly centered on those flats. I've unloaded centerbeams, and two forklift operators have to remove the load evenly on both sides or the car will fall over.

Cheers

On Sat., Dec. 21, 2019, 10:21 Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;), <claus@...> wrote:
Hi Brian and List Members,
 
Thanks Brian for calling our attention to this.
 
I find it interesting that the bridge girder is NOT mounted on the exact center of the trio of PRR class FM flat cars, and the bridge girder is instead somewhat closer to the camera. This does two things that I find somewhat puzzling...
 
(1) It imbalances the load on the trucks on the two flats at the ends - for each of these two cars, one truck will be carrying more load than the other truck
 
(2) It required the brake wheel on the flat closest to the camera to be removed. Had the load been placed so it was in the center, that car maybe could have kept its brake wheel in place, as is the case on the flat furthest from the camera. Note there is a removed brakewheel mounted to the deck of the flat closest to the camera, and another removed brakewheel mounted on the deck of the flat furthest from the camera - presumably this last one came off the midle flat car
 
Any thoughts on this?
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 10:08 AM
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-21-19/X5845.jpg

 

From EL photo archive today.

 

Brian Rochon


BRIAN PAUL EHNI
 

I think he was referring to the fact that the load is all the way left on the nearest car, and not centered on the center car. 

Thanks!
Brian Ehni 
(Sent from my iPhone)

On Dec 21, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Drew Bunn <drew.r.bunn@...> wrote:


Not to sound insulting,  Claus - but I think you're seeing things. There is no way that load would remain upright unless it was perfectly centered on those flats. I've unloaded centerbeams, and two forklift operators have to remove the load evenly on both sides or the car will fall over.

Cheers

On Sat., Dec. 21, 2019, 10:21 Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;), <claus@...> wrote:
Hi Brian and List Members,
 
Thanks Brian for calling our attention to this.
 
I find it interesting that the bridge girder is NOT mounted on the exact center of the trio of PRR class FM flat cars, and the bridge girder is instead somewhat closer to the camera. This does two things that I find somewhat puzzling...
 
(1) It imbalances the load on the trucks on the two flats at the ends - for each of these two cars, one truck will be carrying more load than the other truck
 
(2) It required the brake wheel on the flat closest to the camera to be removed. Had the load been placed so it was in the center, that car maybe could have kept its brake wheel in place, as is the case on the flat furthest from the camera. Note there is a removed brakewheel mounted to the deck of the flat closest to the camera, and another removed brakewheel mounted on the deck of the flat furthest from the camera - presumably this last one came off the midle flat car
 
Any thoughts on this?
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 10:08 AM
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-21-19/X5845.jpg

 

From EL photo archive today.

 

Brian Rochon


Tony Thompson
 


I think he was referring to the fact that the load is all the way left on the nearest car, and not centered on the center car. 

      Not that the load rests on both end flat cars between 4 and 5 stake pockets from the end. As Bruce Smith mentioned, this is doubtless the preferred loading point.

Tony Thompson




Charlie Vlk
 

Llyod
Think about the dynamics of the three cars going over the approach and crest of the hump.....the load is not secured for extreme vertical curves nor the impact of running into a string of cars after being humped (if the middle car didn’t dislodge the girder as it went over the top!!).
Charlie Vlk 


On Dec 21, 2019, at 10:57 AM, Charles Peck <lnnrr152@...> wrote:


Lloyd's question raises another question. When was the first hump yard
built and where?
Chuck Peck

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 11:45 AM Lloyd Keyser <lloydkeyser@...> wrote:
Why is there not a Do No Hump sign on this load  Lloyd Keyser


mel perry
 

that also my thought, there is no forward
or backwards restrains at all, i guess back then "g's" hadn't been invented, lol
:-)
mel perry

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 12:32 PM Charlie Vlk <cvlk@...> wrote:
Llyod
Think about the dynamics of the three cars going over the approach and crest of the hump.....the load is not secured for extreme vertical curves nor the impact of running into a string of cars after being humped (if the middle car didn’t dislodge the girder as it went over the top!!).
Charlie Vlk 


On Dec 21, 2019, at 10:57 AM, Charles Peck <lnnrr152@...> wrote:


Lloyd's question raises another question. When was the first hump yard
built and where?
Chuck Peck

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 11:45 AM Lloyd Keyser <lloydkeyser@...> wrote:
Why is there not a Do No Hump sign on this load  Lloyd Keyser


Matthew Metoyer
 

These Erie photos tend to be of damages, either to the car or lading. Could the load have shifted and hence the photo?

Matthew Metoyer

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 3:01 PM mel perry <clipper841@...> wrote:
that also my thought, there is no forward
or backwards restrains at all, i guess back then "g's" hadn't been invented, lol
:-)
mel perry

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 12:32 PM Charlie Vlk <cvlk@...> wrote:
Llyod
Think about the dynamics of the three cars going over the approach and crest of the hump.....the load is not secured for extreme vertical curves nor the impact of running into a string of cars after being humped (if the middle car didn’t dislodge the girder as it went over the top!!).
Charlie Vlk 


On Dec 21, 2019, at 10:57 AM, Charles Peck <lnnrr152@...> wrote:


Lloyd's question raises another question. When was the first hump yard
built and where?
Chuck Peck

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 11:45 AM Lloyd Keyser <lloydkeyser@...> wrote:
Why is there not a Do No Hump sign on this load  Lloyd Keyser


Guy Wilber
 

mel perry wrote:

“that also my thought, there is no forward or backwards restrains at all, i guess back then "g's" hadn't been invented, lol”

The load matches The ARA’s Open Top diagram (for the period) for girders. The manufactured bolsters are bolted to the flat car deck through its ends and on each side of the center sill. The girder is secured on each end with the rods passing through the attached bolster and into the bracket bolted to the bottom flange.

Guy Wilber
Reno, Nevada


mel perry
 

if you look closely at the pic, the front
centering bracket is partially separated
from the bottom of the girder, indicating
that the load had shifted forward slightly
probably becauae of lack thereof or
insufficient restraints, wonder if cfr49
was in existence back then or would
have been the aar?
mel perry



On Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 3:23 PM Matthew Metoyer <mmetoyer@...> wrote:
These Erie photos tend to be of damages, either to the car or lading. Could the load have shifted and hence the photo?

Matthew Metoyer

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 3:01 PM mel perry <clipper841@...> wrote:
that also my thought, there is no forward
or backwards restrains at all, i guess back then "g's" hadn't been invented, lol
:-)
mel perry

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 12:32 PM Charlie Vlk <cvlk@...> wrote:
Llyod
Think about the dynamics of the three cars going over the approach and crest of the hump.....the load is not secured for extreme vertical curves nor the impact of running into a string of cars after being humped (if the middle car didn’t dislodge the girder as it went over the top!!).
Charlie Vlk 


On Dec 21, 2019, at 10:57 AM, Charles Peck <lnnrr152@...> wrote:


Lloyd's question raises another question. When was the first hump yard
built and where?
Chuck Peck

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 11:45 AM Lloyd Keyser <lloydkeyser@...> wrote:
Why is there not a Do No Hump sign on this load  Lloyd Keyser


Bud Brock
 

Also note the watermelon car.  The 2 doors are strapped together to move as one.
    Bud Brock
PC&C RR