What does V-6-52 mean on side of freight car

[mmagliaro]

It's a marking on the side sill of a flat car.  Is this a date of June, 1952?  What does the "V" mean?

Thank you.

[wcfn100]

Without knowing more, it sound like a shop date.  The 'V' would represent where the shopping was done.

Jason

[Missaberoad]

"V" is the reweigh shop code for Great Falls, MT on the Great Northern.

[Chris333]

Did they shop anything in Vancouver?

[Missaberoad]

Did they shop anything in Vancouver?

That was my first thought but, Vancouver WA was RV on the SP&S and Vancouver BC had a number of reweigh symbols none of which match...

There's a decent list found here...
http://www.steamerafreightcars.com/prototype/resources/StationandReweighSymbols.pdf

[nkalanaga]

By the BN merger, the SP&S was using "V" for Vancouver, WA.  The SteamEra list is, as the site name implies, "steam era", but they don't give a cut-off date. 

[mmagliaro]

Okay so this is an SP&S logging flat car, one of a bunch that were purchased from the NP after WWII.  The car is shown in 1956.

What would it mean that it was "reweighed" in Vancouver?  Does that mean they reweigh it to get an accurate empty weight so they know the car markings are correct?  (The LT WT)

[nkalanaga]

Exactly.  At least through the 1970s, the AAR required revenue freight cars to be reweighed periodically, so that the weight of the cargo would be accurate.  By the mid-70s, the periodic reweigh was required every 5 years, but it was shorter in earlier eras.  Cars would also be reweighed after major repairs, which could affect the weight, or if a customer requested it.  Especially with wooden cars, or parts of cars, the weight could change quite a bit as the wood wears, rots, or absorbs moisture.

Shippers were sometimes billed by weight, not by "carload", and the car would be weighed after it was loaded.  Then the "LT WT" was subtracted, and the remainder was the weight of the goods.  If the LT WT was wrong, the shipper would be over- or under-charged, and either way, someone would be unhappy.

Also, the maximum rail weight is set by the trucks, and cannot legally be exceeded.  That weight determines the maximum cargo capacity, the "LD LMT" line, which is greater than the nominal "CAPY", which is a standard number.  A "50 ton" boxcar, for example, in 1970, had a nominal CAPY of 55 tons, or 110,000 pounds.  The maximum rail weight was 177,000 pounds for a 50-ton car.  This was lower until the early 60s, with a "50-ton" car actually having a CAPY of 50 tons (100,000 pounds), and the maximum weight 169,000 pounds.

If the car weighed 45,000 pounds, the the LD LMT would be 132,000 pounds.  That would be the maximum the customer could legally put in it.  In many cases, the billing defined a "carload" as the CAPY figure, so the customer might actually get a few free pounds.  On the other hand, if it was billed as a "carload", and weighed less then the CAPY, the customer would still pay for the entire rated CAPY.

That's one of the reasons 50-ton cars lasted as long as they did.  If one couldn't PUT 50 tons in the car, because the freight didn't weigh that much, paying for a 70- or 100-ton car didn't make any sense.

Sometime after 1980 they figured out that the CAPY number really wasn't much use, and cars today only have the LD LMT and LT WT lines.  Today's all-steel cars don't change much, although I sometimes wonder how much the graffiti weighs.

The AAR required that the CAPY be less than the LD LMT, so a heavy car might have a rated CAPY less than the usual nominal capacity for its trucks.  Also, especially in the early 60s, when the maximum weights changed, companies weren't required to restencil the CAPY, so you could still see cars stenciled 100,000, when they could have been 110,000, even though the LD LMT and LT WT lines had changed.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

These scale codes are a real secret weapon in tracing freight car stuff.

[mmagliaro]

Thank you for this fascinating and educational run-down on the CAPY, LD LMT, LT WT and the AAR rules!

These are wood-decked "skeleton" logging flats that were rebuilt by the NP from truss-rod reefers.  They had steel sills
and wood decks.   The "BLT" date on this one is 7-40, with  a V-6-53, which makes sense because the car was rebuilt and then sold to the SP&S after 1945, so it wouldn't be surprising for it to have to be reweighed in 1953.
CAPY=80000, LDLMT=88000, LTWT = 28500 all of which are consistent with your explanation.

[nkalanaga]

Max:  Thank you!

If you can find a copy of the AAR Interchange Rules book for your era, it will have the maximum weights for various "ton" classes, and journal sizes, as well as rules for how often cars need to be reweighed.

The rest of "my" explanation came from 50 years of model and prototype magazines...I read a lot.

[Missaberoad]

Max:  Thank you!

If you can find a copy of the AAR Interchange Rules book for your era, it will have the maximum weights for various "ton" classes, and journal sizes, as well as rules for how often cars need to be reweighed.

The rest of "my" explanation came from 50 years of model and prototype magazines...I read a lot.

Any ORER will have a listing of interchange rules aswell. Including reweigh intervals (in the steam Era this varied by car type)
These were published quarterly so you can find one suitable to your Era.

[Hawghead]

You're all wrong.  The V6-52 obviously means the flat car was equipped with a V6 engine with 52 cubic inches per cylinder or a 312 cid V6.  Wow talk about overlooking the obvious in search of the intricate. 

Scott

[nkalanaga]

Scott:  Don't look now, but it's possible...  I once saw a picture of a flatcar with a truck (semi) cab on one end.  The engine had been connected to one truck (wheels) of the flatcar, making a diesel-powered flatcar.

I have no idea where the picture was originally posted, as I've had my copy for 14 years.  It was taken by Dave Donaldson.

[Hawghead]

Scott:  Don't look now, but it's possible...  I once saw a picture of a flatcar with a truck (semi) cab on one end.  The engine had been connected to one truck (wheels) of the flatcar, making a diesel-powered flatcar.

I have no idea where the picture was originally posted, as I've had my copy for 14 years.  It was taken by Dave Donaldson.

While I've never seen anything like that, it doesn't surprise me in the least.  Despite all the bad things that get said about the railroads by people, myself included and despite the fact that more often than not, it's well deserved, I've always been amazed at the fact, that when they want to do something, the railroad can do anything.  That's one of the reasons I say, "there's a prototype for everything".  Thanks for sharing the photo.

Scott