Looks like at least the boiler is on the way according to this pic in this FB post: https://www.facebook.com/1140847483/pos ... ZmrE7Xhzl/?

There is another flatcar right behind the car with the boiler, I wonder if it has the frame and running gear.

Okay, where's the crow sauce?

Yes.

No sauce for you - gag it down dry.

As soon as the JJJ interests entered the picture, this was only a delayed thing. Much as when Moorman and Levin got involved in 1361...

The frame, wheels and cylinders actually weigh significantly more than the boiler and are on an eight axle flat car, while the boiler is on a four axle one.

I can't help but picture one of those flats high centered on the Conway hump while the leading set of trucks rolls down into the bowl...

Sort of side topic:

I'm interested to know the challenges in using the "increased load" flat cars for moving steam engines. Using 8 to 12 axles appears to be an established solution to high axle loading, but I suspect that there are reasons not to use this approach for large engines. I am not very familiar with their use although I see that Kasgro shows a selection of a variety of flat cars with various load ratings. (http://kasgro.com/equipment.html <- not a plug - I'm sure there are others QTTX? see quote of another thread below)

Which of the following are the reasons why 8+ axle flat cars are generally not used:

1. Transporting payloads on 8+ axles flat cars is charged at a much higher rate than a standard flat car? (anyone care to estimate how much more 1.5X, 2X, ?)

2. These become special moves (hospital/reduced speed) which are difficult to schedule AND likely cost more? (any rough estimates of how much more for a special move 3X?)
a. and some railroads refuse to transport anything with 8+ axles?
b. presumably these 8+ axle flat cars meet some standard clearance plates but the
railroads still are uncomfortable with the risk of blocking a route if a load shifts or
swings too wide on a curve/tunnel?

3. The railroads don't have adequate clearance or the load won't fit a standard clearance plate (even on double stack routes) and therefore:
a. is not possible?
b. even with the extra axles to reduce the axle loading railroads still don't want to
risk/deal with considering if the track/bridges can handle the load?
b. charge a lot more to analyze, check clearances?

4. Extra/insurance is required and/or costs too much for these moves?

5. Extra evaluations/calculations are required/difficult/cost too much to evaluate the rigging to secure the load?

6. The amount of effort to secure the load, design fixtures protecting wheels, etc. is more difficult than cost of permits to move heavy locomotives over the highway?

7. A set of cranes on both ends are still required to load/unload (except that is the same as highway truck movement generally)?

8. Something(s) else?



Excerpts from another thread that brought up 8 axle flat cars to move steam engines:



viewtopic.php?f=1&t=47854 <- shows a full steam engine on 8 axle flat (Reading 2100) from some number of years ago

Some video of the move: https://www.facebook.com/groups/4426457 ... 777535884/?

(1) There are more advantages to stack-train vertical clearance than improving the theoretical steam separation on 'modernized' steam locomotives.

(2) Most of the actual heavy or high/wide moves that would utilize flats (depressed-center or otherwise) with more than eight axles would benefit more from Schnabel-type cars.

Nice tie-down job.

Back when Pittsburgh air was visible, I had cousins whose apartment overlooked Conway - never noticed the hump other than that it was there. We lived just across the bridge.

My experience with these has been...

1) Anything on a flatcar is incredibly less complicated than even attempting a move on own wheels and much less likely to get bad ordered in route. But that doesn't mean it's easy....

2) The connecting carriers don't want to hear about anything wierd once it's approved, it will assume to move at track speed in a regular train on regular equipment. With upgraded clearances and 286 weights, most main lines are good to go. Other than maybe a 'do not hump' placard, it's a big, but normal, movement.

3) The hard part is getting the load analyzed for clearances, tie-down and center of gravity, it's a pretty formal process. But after that it's just another car.

4) You'll get a rate from your connecting carrier and like it. How they came up with it for equipment charges, weight, probably won't get disclosed, or the rate divisions if multiple carriers. Here's the number. Take it or leave it. And if they want it in a special train movement at that rate, well, that's the way it is. It sure looks like 643 was handled that way.

5) Most stuff like this is assuming 286-grade loads, if your connecting carrier, shortline or museum has a bridge, you're on your own once it's off the Class 1 to check clearances and weight limits. We've had to have bridges inspected and re-rated for some special moves where 286 has never trod before.

6) You may do just fine with a deck flatcar with multiple trucks as opposed to a depressed center with a shorter deck, and the car itself weighs a lot less TTX has most of the car dimensions, capacities, etc. all on line. You can request specific car/class, but you may have to wait....and wait...and wait.

Finally, I've seen some incredibly creative ways to load equipment and unload using temporary tie ramps, multiple backhoes, house moving jacks with girders, etc. Don't necessarily assume you need a single monster crane that can dead-lift 100+ tons.

Thank you Randy for the reply!

As a matter of clarification for my understanding: Does the 286K weight standard (apologies for poor terminology) strictly control the total gross weight of car and payload such that almost all of these 8+ axle flat cars are going to exceed 286K with anything but the lightest payloads?



And therefore this also means that in spite of spreading the load over more axles (with 8+ axles) to meet a 36 ton per axle loading that practically all of these shipments are not going to be accepted as regular train movement (even if the center of gravity and tie down analysis is acceptable) due to exceeding 286,000 lbs gross? (and therefore cost goes up)

Or is it to be understood that 286K is based on 4 axles to limit the axle loading to 36 tons and therefore with 8+ axles the gross weight gets distributed over all the axles to meet a 36 ton per axle loading and therefore the flat car meets the "286K" standard even though the gross weight is far larger than 286,000 lbs (this seems unlikely but not sure)?

Thanks again

I think I get your question. The maximum allowable gross weight of 286k has to do with axle loading on the rail from a standard four-axle car. Divide that 286k by four axles to get your maximum axle loading on the rails. You can exceed that limit by adding more axles to further distribute/dilute that load thus not overloading the rails, bridges switch components, etc. 286kips is kind of the accepted standard with some main lines able to handle 315k but there aren't a lot of places those cars can go off the main line. And, a lot trackage still sits at the old 268k standard.