Poorly Secured Load?


Bob Chaparro
 

Poorly Secured Load?

Two 1952 photos of the same load from the Tacoma Public Library Digital Collections:

http://cdm17061.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p17061coll21/id/33748/rec/109

http://cdm17061.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p17061coll21/id/34113/rec/103

I was a bit surprised to see that this large storage tank load was only secured by two steel bands/rods. Even with the bottom blocking I would think a third band/rod would be needed to provide extra security should one of the other two fail.

Opinions?

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


mopacfirst
 

The photos show a vertical vessel, and the second photo (in the shadows) shows the skirt end with blocking against it.  The other photo, showing the top end, appears to have blocking also.  Those would probably keep the vessel from sliding back and forth, while the two saddles carry the weight.  I'll bet somewhere there's a 'do not hump' placard.

Ron Merrick


 

My WAG is those loads are so heavy, they stay on cars by shear weight alone. Only reason for the bands is to who knows what. ~}


Donald B. Valentine <riverman_vt@...>
 

   I'll go a bit further than Ron's suggestion that there is a "Do  ot Hump" placard, or will be before it
leaves town, on this load. Given the width of the tank, as evidenced by the inward taper of the tie 
down bamds, one wonders if this car wold be moved in regualr service or as a "High Wide" move.
The blocking looks substantial which might mean that the bands are perfectly adequate if their 
strength were known. Bob suggests the need for a third one. Where? In the middle? The ability
of another band in the middle would be badly compromised if ether of the end bands failed. I'd 
prefer to see a double band on each end if there were any doubt at all, which there is with me, 
about the two present but that may come from my 35 years of insuring railroads.

Cordially, Don Valentine


Charlie Vlk
 

All-
Looks like the photos were taken on the CB&Q (FTs in the background of one of the photos) likely in conjunction with damage claim.  Not the band shifting causing wearing off of the paint and maybe some pressure on the end blocking.
Charlie Vlk


On Apr 10, 2020, at 1:20 PM, Bob Chaparro via groups.io <chiefbobbb@...> wrote:



Poorly Secured Load?

Two 1952 photos of the same load from the Tacoma Public Library Digital Collections:

http://cdm17061.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p17061coll21/id/33748/rec/109

http://cdm17061.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p17061coll21/id/34113/rec/103

I was a bit surprised to see that this large storage tank load was only secured by two steel bands/rods. Even with the bottom blocking I would think a third band/rod would be needed to provide extra security should one of the other two fail.

Opinions?

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


mel perry
 

looks like the load did shift, look at the
end blocking
mel perry


On Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 7:55 PM Charlie Vlk <cvlk@...> wrote:
All-
Looks like the photos were taken on the CB&Q (FTs in the background of one of the photos) likely in conjunction with damage claim.  Not the band shifting causing wearing off of the paint and maybe some pressure on the end blocking.
Charlie Vlk


On Apr 10, 2020, at 1:20 PM, Bob Chaparro via groups.io <chiefbobbb=verizon.net@groups.io> wrote:



Poorly Secured Load?

Two 1952 photos of the same load from the Tacoma Public Library Digital Collections:

http://cdm17061.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p17061coll21/id/33748/rec/109

http://cdm17061.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p17061coll21/id/34113/rec/103

I was a bit surprised to see that this large storage tank load was only secured by two steel bands/rods. Even with the bottom blocking I would think a third band/rod would be needed to provide extra security should one of the other two fail.

Opinions?

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA