Date
1  4 of 4
OMI GATX 8K insulated tank is too big?
nyc3001 .
I took out my GATX 10k (OMI 3229, painted) and 8k (OMI 3270, unpainted) insulated tank cars and found that they were the same size and length. I'm aware that varying amounts of insulation could account for their same size, but I'm still wondering whether or not the 8k tank is too big.
Phil Lee


Todd Sullivan
Hi Phil,
While I don't have diagrams for GATX 10K and8K insulated tank cars to compare, it seems entirely reasonable that there should be some dimensional differences between them, tank diameter and length being the two most obvious. Insulation and the sheet metal jacket to cover it would add only 2.53.0" of additional thickness to the tank. Maybe someone with more information will chime in. Todd Sullivan


Richard Townsend
Looking at AC&F tank car drawings in the 1947 CBC, insulation is called out as being 4" thick. That adds 8" to the diameter. The steel jacket over the insulation is called out at 1/8" adding a negligible 1/4" to the diameter. The tank ends also are shown as insulated with 4" of cork, adding 8" to the length.
An uninsulated ICC103 AC&F tank car of 10K gallon capacity is called out with a tank length of 36'3.5" and a diameter of 87.25".
Unfortunately there are no dimensions called out for an 8K insulated tank car.
There is a 6.8K insulated tank with diameter of 70" (plus 8") and a length of 35'1" (plus 8"), and 10.5K insulated tank with a diameter of 85" and a length of 37' plus 8" for both dimensions. So one could assume the dimension of an *K insulated tank would be somewhere in between, which would be comparable to the dimensions of the 10K uninsulated tank.
This is not GATX, of course, but I think it is informative. Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR
Original Message
From: Todd Sullivan via groups.io <sullivant41@...> To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io Sent: Sat, Nov 27, 2021 4:30 pm Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] OMI GATX 8K insulated tank is too big? Hi Phil,
While I don't have diagrams for GATX 10K and8K insulated tank cars to compare, it seems entirely reasonable that there should be some dimensional differences between them, tank diameter and length being the two most obvious. Insulation and the sheet metal jacket to cover it would add only 2.53.0" of additional thickness to the tank. Maybe someone with more information will chime in. Todd Sullivan


Richard Townsend
Ooops. 1946 CBC. Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR
Original Message
From: Richard Townsend via groups.io <richtownsend@...> To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> Sent: Sat, Nov 27, 2021 4:54 pm Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] OMI GATX 8K insulated tank is too big? Looking at AC&F tank car drawings in the 1947 CBC, insulation is called out as being 4" thick. That adds 8" to the diameter. The steel jacket over the insulation is called out at 1/8" adding a negligible 1/4" to the diameter. The tank ends also are shown as insulated with 4" of cork, adding 8" to the length.
An uninsulated ICC103 AC&F tank car of 10K gallon capacity is called out with a tank length of 36'3.5" and a diameter of 87.25".
Unfortunately there are no dimensions called out for an 8K insulated tank car.
There is a 6.8K insulated tank with diameter of 70" (plus 8") and a length of 35'1" (plus 8"), and 10.5K insulated tank with a diameter of 85" and a length of 37' plus 8" for both dimensions. So one could assume the dimension of an *K insulated tank would be somewhere in between, which would be comparable to the dimensions of the 10K uninsulated tank.
This is not GATX, of course, but I think it is informative.
Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR
Original Message
From: Todd Sullivan via groups.io <sullivant41@...> To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io Sent: Sat, Nov 27, 2021 4:30 pm Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] OMI GATX 8K insulated tank is too big? Hi Phil,
While I don't have diagrams for GATX 10K and8K insulated tank cars to compare, it seems entirely reasonable that there should be some dimensional differences between them, tank diameter and length being the two most obvious. Insulation and the sheet metal jacket to cover it would add only 2.53.0" of additional thickness to the tank. Maybe someone with more information will chime in. Todd Sullivan

