Western Railroad Discussion > Questions about AAR Plate F (HQ boxcar)

I've been reviewing AAR Plate diagrams and observed what I'd call an anomaly or conflict between width limits for Plate F and those for Plate J multi-level autoracks. However, the version I have is dated April 1978, and I wonder if the latest version has been materially revised.

Specifically, the 1978 version sets the "base" car as one with truck centers of up to 46ft 3in. Can anyone advise if that has been changed (lengthened) in the current version?

According to my paper copy of The Official Railway Equipment Register Volume 134, Number 4 (April 2019 - the most recent copy I have):

Referencing page HC-18:  Plate F:  Cars may be constructed to an extreme width of 10'-8" and to the other limits of this diagram when truck centers do not exceed 46'-3" and when, with truck centers of 46'-3", the swingout at ends of car does not exceed the swingout at center of car on a 13 degree curve.  A car to these dimensions is defined as the base car.

Referencing page HC-21:  Plate J - Equipment Diagram for Limited Interchange Service (Standard S-2047, Adopted:  2005; Revised:  2007):  1.0  Scope - This standard provides the maximum clearance requirements for conventional 19-ft 0-in. autorack cars operating in controlled interchange.  [The end diagram (Figure 1.1) lists the extreme width at 10'-8" and includes the following note]:  "Cars may be constructed to an extreme width of 10'-8" and to the other limits of this diagram when truck centers do not exceed 55'-1" and when, with truck centers of 55'-1", the swingout at ends of car does not exceed the swingout at center of car on a 13 degree curve.  A car to these dimensions is defined as the base car.

Since I don't have older copies of the Official Guide handy, I cannot determine what part(s) of the standard was revised in 2007, but it appears as though a new standard was created or the existing standard was changed sometime between your reference date and 2007.  I hope this helps...I'm curious to hear if that is how you read the information above?

It may have been introducing Plate J as a standard.  My 1997 copy only goes up to Plate H.

crazy_train_999 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to my paper copy of The Official Railway
> Equipment Register Volume 134, Number 4 (April
> 2019 - the most recent copy I have):
>
> Referencing page HC-18:  Plate F:  Cars may be
> constructed to an extreme width of 10'-8" and to
> the other limits of this diagram when truck
> centers do not exceed 46'-3" and when, with truck
> centers of 46'-3", the swingout at ends of car
> does not exceed the swingout at center of car on a
> 13 degree curve.  A car to these dimensions is
> defined as the base car.
>

Thanks for the info, CrazyTrain. That's exactly the same as what I had from the 70s--no changes.

One of the things that perplexes me is that Plate J multi-levels can be 10ft 8in wide with truck centers of 55ft 1in, while boxcars (which fit within the profile of Plate J) are limited to the shorter distance between truck centers. If a 10-8 wide Plate J car can have the 55-1 truck centers, why can't boxcars also be 10-8 up to 55-1 centers? This makes no sense to me.

Cheers



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/20 20:28 by Bandito.

Pg 350 of the Umler data codes defines dimension by plate code.


 

Since 13 degree curve is mentioned, is that the general standard for a lot of the various plates for swingout?

mapboy

Bandito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> crazy_train_999 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > According to my paper copy of The Official
> Railway
> > Equipment Register Volume 134, Number 4 (April
> > 2019 - the most recent copy I have):
> >
> > Referencing page HC-18:  Plate F:  Cars may
> be
> > constructed to an extreme width of 10'-8" and
> to
> > the other limits of this diagram when truck
> > centers do not exceed 46'-3" and when, with
> truck
> > centers of 46'-3", the swingout at ends of car
> > does not exceed the swingout at center of car on
> a
> > 13 degree curve.  A car to these dimensions is
> > defined as the base car.
> >
>
> Thanks for the info, CrazyTrain. That's exactly
> the same as what I had from the 70s--no changes.
>
> One of the things that perplexes me is that Plate
> J multi-levels can be 10ft 8in wide with truck
> centers of 55ft 1in, while boxcars (which fit
> within the profile of Plate J) are limited to the
> shorter distance between truck centers. If a 10-8
> wide Plate J car can have the 55-1 truck centers,
> why can't boxcars also be 10-8 up to 55-1 centers?
> This makes no sense to me.
>
> Cheers

I think the difference is up to Plate F are general interchange, but above that goes to the Clearance Bureau.

Waybiller Wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------
>
> I think the difference is up to Plate F are
> general interchange, but above that goes to the
> Clearance Bureau.

Correct. In general, you can run Plate F just about anywhere, but Plate J would not be permitted on certain lines that can handle Plate F due to clearance restrictions.

Posted from iPhone

mapboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since 13 degree curve is mentioned, is that the
> general standard for a lot of the various plates
> for swingout?
>
> mapboy

13 degress is used on all of the Plates I've looked at. And one of the questions I've had is "why 13 degrees?" I'm going to guess that that's a maximum curve allowed. It's unfortunate, because it increases the amount you have to decrease the car width as you extend truck centers beyond that of the defined base car. I'm tinkering with a car concept that would carry 17-20 percent more pallets per train-foot than double-stacked 53s, but it requires maintaining the 10ft 8in maximum width and would need 55 ft truck centers--which is compatible with Plate J but not Plate F.

And how many cars ever see a 13 degree curve? Where are they to be found? Horseshoe Curve is 9.5 degrees. The sharpest portions of CN's Matteson Junction are 11-something. Perhaps you see sharper curves on wyes and in legacy industry yards and industrial parks (such as Elk Grove Village outside Chicago). But those are going to be single track where passing cars on adjacent track isn't an issue.

And there are standards for increasing the distance between track centers for each additional degree of curvature, which result in the shortest distance between passing cars to be greater than when on tangent track.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/20 20:48 by Bandito.

subchief Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pg 350 of the Umler data codes defines dimension
> by plate code.
>
>
Thanks for the link. I had seen the Appendix J but hadnt all the rest. It'll make for some interesting research.

Note that on the AAR Plate info I have, it says that Plate F can be the maximum 10-8 width only up to 16 ft above top of rail. But UMLER shows that it can be at maximum width up to 16ft 3in. Separately, Plate J can be at maximum width up to 16ft 4in (per my AAR printout). I'll have to see what UMLER says.

czephyr17 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Waybiller Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ---
> >
> > I think the difference is up to Plate F are
> > general interchange, but above that goes to the
> > Clearance Bureau.
>
> Correct. In general, you can run Plate F just
> about anywhere, but Plate J would not be permitted
> on certain lines that can handle Plate F due to
> clearance restrictions.
>
> Posted from iPhone

Yes, obviously for the height, and the width at the upper reaches. But for the width up and down the entire height of the car? I think of some clearance projects for multi-levels and double-stack where they raised the roof, lowered the floor, or cut notches, but are there example where they also had to expand the width of the tunnels?

Plate F point to Plate C-1 for a table showing the maximum width at various truck centers. A boxcar with 55ft center requires a 6 inch reduction in width, from 10-8 to 10-2. Meanwhile, the autoracks can be 10-8.

 

Bandito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 13 degress is used on all of the Plates I've
> looked at. And one of the questions I've had is
> "why 13 degrees?"

It could be that that standard has been around so long, that there were more common instances of 13 degree curves.


> I'm going to guess that that's a
> maximum curve allowed.

That can't be because below I identify two places sharper than that.

> It's unfortunate, because
> it increases the amount you have to decrease the
> car width as you extend truck centers beyond that
> of the defined base car. I'm tinkering with a car
> concept that would carry 17-20 percent more
> pallets per train-foot than double-stacked 53s,
> but it requires maintaining the 10ft 8in maximum
> width, but would need 55 ft truck centers--which
> is compatible with Plate J but not Plate F.


I'm working with a design that is too long and the trucks are too far apart for open interchange, but they will be dedicated service and preliminary drawings of clearances on curves show that the places they need to go, they will fit.


>
> And how many cars ever see a 13 degree curve?
> Where are they to be found?

Sharper than that on UP (SP) in Portland and BN[SF] in New Westminster. Those are the only multiple track curves of 13 degrees or more that I know of. I'm sure I don't know all curves, so there may be more, but they're extremely rare.

Thjose curves are the reason there was no bidder other than Talgo for the Cascades trains. There is (or at least was) no tilting equipment that could negotiate a curve of more than 10 degrees.



TAW

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It could be that that standard has been around so
> long, that there were more common instances of 13
> degree curves.
>

TAW, thanks for your insight. That's the direction I had been leaning. Seems that using 13 degrees as the basis for determining reductions to car width is a relic of the distant past. And with the decades-long decline in boxcar traffic and there having been no innovation in boxcar design, there's no impetus for reviewing the standards.

And even though clearance approvals can be obtained, as in your case, I fear that simply going through the approval process gives the railroads a nice excuse to charge premium rates.

What I don't like about the standard cars is that they don't make the best use of the available 10ft 8in maximum width. With the interiors at 9ft 6in, they just aren't any good for carrying 40x48 in pallets. And that's what has to be targeted for the real growth potential. You need an interior wide enough to load three pallets per row (40 inch sides), and that leaves 8 inches to play with for the walls and racks). Any reduction in width blows that concept out of the water.

A car that makes the best use of width and height becomes more competitive with double-stack, especially when considered on a number of pallets per train-foot basis. Doublestack may make the best use of height, but the inherant trade-off is poor use of wideth and length. The maximum number of pallets per 53 is 60 (15 rows loaded sideways with 3ft left over at the end). The 3-well cars check in at just under 204ft, carrying 159ft of containers, with 45 of waste in between the boxes. At the theortical max of 60 pallets per container, the 3-well car carrys 360 pallets, or 1.76 pallets per train-foot. That's the number to meet and beat

To see innovation in boxcars, on has to look overseas for examples such as SCT Logistics' "Greater Freighter" (on the scale of autoracks) or Greenbrier's subsidiary in Poland.

Cheers
Bandito