>>6754>I once heard it said that a railfan cares only about the locomotives, while a railroader cares about what's *behind* the locomotives
That's very true. Nothing raises my interest more than seeing the "wrong" car in a train or a car that is very unusual.
Get them while you can. A lot of these are hitting their 50-year lifespans, and you need an FRA waiver for anything to be in interchange service beyond that. Which means anything pre-1969 at this point is due for the scrapper.
It doesn't stop people from trying. I just rejected the same loaded autorack back to the UP like 3 times because its build date was recorded as January of '69.
If I'm not mistaken, 50 year old freight cars are prohibited in general unless they're non-revenue(MoW) or they have an FRA waiver.
I also photograph most "clean" rolling stock I see. Recently read an article saying that graffiti on railroads was practically non-existent (aside from the occasional hobo chalk scrawling) until the late 1980s. Graffiti "artists" were tagging the ever-loving-crap out of NYC subway trains, and when the MTA cracked down, they turned to freight trains.
I've caught a couple of cars like this, where they repainted the bottom half of the car just to cover up the graffiti.
Oh dang it! I was just about to post a Russian 8-axle tank car but turns out you have them too (no, seriously, I didn't know). Now that's not interesting:(
Anyway, an 8-axle frameless tank car for the oil products, on the example of mod. 15-1500, has about 125 ton capacity with 51 t of empty weight (actually kinda not much given 23 tf axle load limit for most freight cars at the time).
8-axle tank cars for different liquid cargo were conceived in late USSR for greater efficiency and, as far as I know the story, have seen short period of mass production but then a flaw was discovered in their 4-axle bogies and the production was suspended but (probably due to… big surprise, the fall of the Empire!) never brought to life again as a project.
But somehow despite the design flaw many "octo-tankers" survive to this day and in relatively good condition, being mildly popular on some routes.
There are also models for hazardous chemicals. They have smaller volume (naturally) and more complex design (as far as I understand they have double-layer design with steam heating conduits inbetween, IDK why, not a chemist).
Do you guys even want me ranting about Russian cars? I mean there's just no telling between you being mildly interested and not giving a single shit about some russki scrapmetal.
That's really not that heavy. Most 4 axle cars in the US are limited to 143 tons in most places, and I figure Russians should be able to do a little less if not as much. If only because your coupler is slightly weaker than the Janney.
The only reason I can think of 8 axle tanks is the greater structural support.
>>6766> If only because your coupler is slightly weaker than the Janney.
We've actually discussed that once, it's not:) SA3 is a bit stronger, but the difference is negligent, to not hurt anyone's feelings effectively they're equal. Although it's load is often being artificially limited at 135 (metric) ton-forces, hence Russian trains are less prone to break apart (that's pretty much the main reason for the limitation).
In general, trains around here in 99% are limited by the length, not the weight, as most of the critical yards are from the days when 1.1-1.5 km was way more than enough, and here it is believed it's easier to drive trains more often than rebuilding all the yards and sidings
or uncouple overlength trains upon entering the station.
A bit of a shame though because for me as a railfan it is definitely a pleasure to watch your 200-car monstrosities (unless it goes slower than 60 km/h LOL). But I digress.
Anyway, I don't see how the coupler would impact the weight of the individual car, let alone axle load?
Our axle load on the mainlines are limited at 25 tons
on some lines) and it's kind of a mystery why, as we use - seemingly? - pretty much the same rails, the same tracks. But probably again, to give more longevity to the stuff.
>>6766>The only reason I can think of 8 axle tanks is the greater structural support.
That also is probably a false statement, not sure about your 4-axle bogies, but ours, despite being 4-axle, still provide only one point of support (counting along the length of the car) each, and given that the car has longer base than its 4-axle analog is has even less
The only reason I can think of is to increase the amount of cargo for a train of the same length, because, again counter-intuitively, the deadweight/empty mass ratio for 8-axle barrels is exactly the same as for the 4-sxle ones, around 2.45. So better cargo to empty weight efficiency was clearly not the goal here.
Again strangely, given that their theorhetical
weight limit, even confined to the quite modest 23 tf per axle then, looks very underused, at 176 metric tons full weight they could have used at least 8 more "spare" tons which could have increased the ratio.
P. S. Also pardon me if the previous comment sounded a bit arrogant, it was not. I really adore the enormity of the US trains, even given that the practical side of me sees certain disadvantages here, too.
P. P. S. At the very least both US and Russia have EU freight trains to laugh at together :D
I've been trying to figure this out with no luck. What kind of specialty load would require a car shaped like that?!
All the box cars we have left are two axle.
Lengt wise (12.7 m) this car could also be, but supposedly more capacity is wanted. The exle weight limit is like 22.5 metric tons in most places and those boxes may also contain "metal industry enrichment products". Indeed, the weights are max: 69.5t, tare: 20,5t. The cars are configured for two kinds of box containers and don't have mounting pads for 20 or 40 foots.>>6776
Here's a wild guess: something that needs to be stored in vacuum flask, perhaps.
Look, SA3! In fact, there are bunch of cars with SA3 these days, but Finland is still in transition phase with that for sure.
At least finally all new rolling stock consistently comes with SA3. The engines have been dual coupler for ages and there has been a series of ore cars that have already been retired I sometimes rambled about in a 1520-thread.
For some perverse reason these first appear in unit trains like the ore trains. So as to not disturb the happy manual coupling operation happening in mixed trains.
Milk, granulated polymers.
No idea why those vertical tanks tho. Maybe to prevent slushing in the first case and help flowability upon unloading in the second case?..>>6777
No, there's definitely no vacuum.
>>6763>it’s my ex’s dildo
Did somebody say unusual rolling stock? Have this video from about 7 years agohttps://www.dropbox.com/s/p8le3zmt5frlhdr/Video%20Aug%2023%2C%2019%2030%2014.mov?dl=0
these tanks are used to equalize gas well back pressure utilizing salt water following necessary fractoring of the well hole. when the hole pressure is
That photo is mine from last September, fwiw.
Same thing for UP's steam team. IIRC, one of these aux tenders carries water, the other carries oil, since all their company-sponsored steam engines have been converted from coal to oil. This photo is NOT mine.
– Under the Czech text, there is some German text visible: “Staubförmige Güter”. This means roughly ‘dry, dusty goods’. Think bulk flour, polymers, various dry chemicals… stuff like that.
>>6788>Think bulk flour, polymers, various dry chemicals…
Well as I said already, here >>6779
it reads ПО-ЛИ-МЕ-РЫ on the car, which is "polymers". It's a bit of a mystery why those cars are almost absent in Russia nowadays.
I suspect that now polymers are being transported in hoppers.
Like this one, it's used for transporting dry cement, and the larger types are used for granulated cargo like grain, phosphates, sulfur, technical carbon etc.
Also I suspect those small ones use pressurized air to get the cement flowing, giving it consistency of a liquid. Probably those vertical tank design aided the unloading process eliminating the need for the air supply.
This is apparently for sand and it's listed in maintenance of way equipment. "Official needs carriage" would be literal translation.>>6787
Fuel tenders? It's more economical also to bring your own rather than tank at the big railway's pump? I'm assuming pretty much all oil burners in heritage use nowadays run on light fuel oil, which is basically untaxed and filthier diesel. Or do these guys really stock up bunker fuel for these multi day trips?
I cannot imagine where those guys find water though. Won't it take too long to just get normal let's say 5 cm bore pipe that can reasonably be assumed to be found from still manned railway stations?
In today's railroad, there's only a handful of water towers at manned stations, and they're all on tourist railroads. Bringing a fuel and water tender allows the crews of touring locomotives to basically run quality control. The fuel tender let's them get away with paying for fewer visits from a fuel truck, and the water lets them fill up and treat the water to the softness they need instead of just hooking up to a city's water main and hoping it's not going to foul the boiler. They might still do that on occasion, but they'll fill both the tender and the auxiliary water tender at the same time and treat them all at once, which will let them run for quite a distance without having to worry.
Wait, so what exactly do they do? Bleed air from the braking pipeline? If so, then why not use a device similar to the tail car unit (or whatever they are called for you)? Actually can't quite figure out how does it have something to do with colder climate…
Or if it is there to increase the average braking effort then why use special container and not just a heavier type of car with better brakes?
It is called a FRED and or EOT device.
my bad vision makes everything look like VHS
I see now. Does those have diesel generators or just large batteries to power the compressor?>>6831
I like that obsession with RC toys of yours.
It's not like we don't use pusher locomotives or double trains, but pushers are usually used for just a short section of the train's route where the grades imply the use of another loco, so they just… man them. You heard that right, most of the pushers are manned. The rationale here is this: the pusher loco is used only on short section where it is really needed, so it is used with many trains per shift and it is already manned, so synching/desynching it to/from the leading loco would be a waste of time. Furthermore, some of the pushers are attached/detached in the middle of the stretch (usually before/after the limiting grade) or even on the go.
This practice doesn't then confine pusher locomotive to the tail of the train, so there are instances of so-called "pusher in the head" (textbook mutually exclusive paragraphs LOL), so again, even despite the physical contact to the "main" loco, the "pusher" is manned and coordinated by voice over radio or maybe by the auto-driving software.
Like on pic related. The "pusher" here is 1.5 bigger and more powerful than the "main" loco.
Same for some double/joined trains. However
there are areas where double trains or pushers are used for longer distances, this is where fancy Russian ISAVP-RT system comes in, which is not only the radio-control system, but also an auto-driving system which uses the auto-driving software to better coordinate the locomotives and correct the commands in accordance to the profile and other stuff to reduce the risk of breaking the train. For example on the video here >>6797
the second loco is likely unmanned.
>>6836>US railroads>Electric batteries
lol no. It's just a diesel powered air compressor with a remotely controlled brake valve so that you get reductions and increases much faster in the trainline.
Manned pushers are used here also, but only in areas where there is a steep grade. DP engines are used because they make for much better train handling and the much longer and heavier trains run in the N. America.
Also>That picture>Jointed rail on concrete ties
Granted it looks like they're changing it out, but still!