Western Railroad Discussion > Something you don't see everyday.

I thought these pioneer and rare stack cars had long been retired, so I was surprised to see one on a eastbound UP stack train this morning. I chased the train down and so I had some decent photos of the car.

PS; I found some more info. This car was built by FMC in 1984 for Sealand, and later carried the mark of SP 2397 for a long time. It's possible that this is a lone prototype car too, but I don't know if that is true (SP 2398 was a more common Gunderson bulkhead style car)

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/11 10:07 by funnelfan.

---

---

---

Nice catch. Also thought they were gone. Interesting to note how clean they are for their age.

In the ~5 years I've worked around BNSF's Hobart Yard in Los Angeles, I think I've seen a car very similar to that maybe once or twice. Rare indeed!

Mr. MRL

Those cars recently came off Tacoma Rail and put back into service. I remember seeing them near Ft. Lewis for some time. There are a few more sets out there just South, kinda buried. Pretty neat to see them back in service.

Definitely great to see them being used again. With the RR's pushing for standardization of 3 container types--20' and 40' international and 53' domestic--these cars are still of value, at least for the 40' boxes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/11 00:45 by coach.

One wonders why the triangular beam is placed above the straight side sill. The load of the container is carried at the four corners which mount near the bolsters of the car. The middle of the car would not have any load carried unless there were 20' containers loaded. Would it be possible to load 2 20' boxes in the lower level and the same above with box connectors in the middle positions? Probably a pair of 20s in the lower level bridged by a single 40' box restrained by the car corner restraints would work, though. Perhaps a structural engineer can help us out here.

Obviously the triangle shaped piece was to give the sides more depth of support in the middle of the well, to keep it from bowing down. But containers are designed to transfer weight to the ICB points, and that is where you need most of the strength in the car. The design is unusual to say the least. It also appears that the car can handle 45' containers, but I'm not sure about 20' containers.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

I edited the original post with updated info. Here is a website I found with more photos from 2006.

http://www.elvastower.com/forums/index.php?/topic/12190-sp-2397-unique-double-stack-car/

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

fbe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One wonders why the triangular beam is placed
> above the straight side sill. The load of the
> container is carried at the four corners which
> mount near the bolsters of the car. The middle of
> the car would not have any load carried unless
> there were 20' containers loaded. Would it be
> possible to load 2 20' boxes in the lower level
> and the same above with box connectors in the
> middle positions? Probably a pair of 20s in the
> lower level bridged by a single 40' box restrained
> by the car corner restraints would work, though.
> Perhaps a structural engineer can help us out
> here.

They have stenciled on them not to haul 20 ft containers.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/pictures%5C17631%5CSP%202397%2007.jpg

Great photos and thread! Thanks, this solves a mystery. A friend who works in BNSF MOW called me about these cars. I had zero idea what he meant, until now.

Al Seever
Minneapolis, MN

If you look at the last image at the link funnelfan posted, you can see one of these cars and a normal well car next to each other. It appears the chord of the main rail (with "Sea Land" stenciled on it) is about 2/3rds the chord of a normal container car side. For some reason the Sea-Land cars aren't continuous below this side rail, so there is no longitudinal strength along the bottom of the container, as there is ao a normal car. They appear to have made up for the lack of this lower tension member with the triangular compression member extending up from the top of the main side beam. I expect the overall strength is approximately equivalent, though these cars are probably a little heaver than the newer cars. Certainly those end supports for the container add a good deal of weight.

Note that as well as having to support the weight of the car sides themselves, the wheels are outboard of the container ends, so you do have a (short) lever arm between the wheel and the load point of the container, so you do need truss strength in the side of the car.

This is definitely a one-of-a-kind car, built in April 1984 as GBRX 1984, probably a demonstrator or test car. I believe it predates all other Gunderson bulkhead stack cars.

The design seems to have held up well, despite not being copied. Perhaps later designs were more economical to build, or lighter in weight (all of the bulkhead stack cars had a serious weight disadvantage over (under?) the cars that employed IBCs to hold the top container.

Carl Shaver
Lombard, IL