It's a bird... It's a plane.. No, it's Super Hopper... 390000 and 390002 in BNSF's Bakersfield yard today, 11-15-06.. Kel
Wow that is a big hopper, I wonder if they were not cost effective and that is why I have not seen more. Kevin
I had read a railroader said somewhere that nothing ever goes through LA without getting tagged. Looks like this one got a little further south at some point.
That sure would make a good model in N-scale! It really is a neat looking car. Didn't BN do a super coal hopper that was something like this?
On the Colorado Joint Line a couple of years ago, BN's super hopper Trough Train sheered a joint clean off, not just the knuckle or coupler, mind you, but the entire mid-car joint. The photos below are courtesy DRGW.net. Half was left near Sedalia... (click for full size) The surviving half was abandonded near Tomah Road.
These pictures (aside from the catastrophe) kind of make me wonder why there aren't more kinds of articulated cars. I see auto racks and container cars but not hoppers or gons. I know they are probably a bit of a maintenance headache and can probably influence unit flexibility, but since these are the kinds of things that usually operate together it seems that some amount of articulating would make sense. Shrug.
I suspect that load weight versus strength of materials would play a big part as to why there are not more articulated heavy-weight cars. The cross-sectional area of the failed drawbar in the picture appears rather small when you consider a string of permanently connected cars, each fully loaded with 100-120 tons, being jerked when slack is taken up over 100+ cars. Two cars connected by couplers have many points where slack shock can be absorbed, e.g. coupler pockets, knuckle hinges, knuckle movement, knuckle faces, etc. But a drawbar is a single piece of rigid steel with the two car frame pins being the only points for absorbing shock. I remember as a kid watching four FTs trying to start a 100(+/-) car freight. The engineer would first back the cars to compress all the slack in the couplers. Then he would go forward with plenty of power taking up the slack one car at a time just to get the train started. By the time the slack take-up reached the caboose, the engines would be going about 5 mph. I'm surprised that there were/are not more reports of broken couplers. I guess modern engines have so much more power than the old FTs that trains can be started directly without using the slack take-up technique. Four FTs had only 5400HP whereas one of today's engines has nearly that much all by itself.
That's a good explanation of the reason. The same amount of slack action force from an equally loaded train is distributed over fewer shock absorbing devices. Also, am I correct in stating super hoppers would only unload in a straight dump through the bottom of the hopper? I can't imagine these cars going through a rotary dump.
Yea, BN's super hopper Trough Train was featured in Trains mag when it was brand new. They showed it in a consist fixing to go into a curve somewhere in the montains. It was empty when it was shown. That was the ony thing I had ever heard about them sense. I'll have to go find the artical on it. I said this somewhere before about BN being a "science project" railroad with all their idea's that seem to be flopping right to the ground. Of course I can see why it happened. It's the same thing with rail. That why they use an untra sonic detector to find cracks and weak spots in rail before it cause's a serious problem such as a wreck. Look's to me they didn't do it on the car's during testing and after so much jerking back and forth some side to side and up & down movement with all that weight resting on one main point would cause it to get weak pretty quik. The idea was good for improved transportation but the design as you can see just wasn't the best thing in the world. If it were it would have worked and we wouldn't be looking at these pictures and talking about it. "Savy?" lol
I can't speak to the quality of steel used in that drawbar forging. Having it serve not only as a coupling, but also as a load bearing point with kingpin/bolster, seems to be asking a lot. :sad: Boxcab E50
I agree. It appeared to snap at its weakest point, at the mid-point of the kingpin hole. Looks like the designer failed to add any extra material to surround and strengthen the location where the drawbar is at its narrowest. Sometimes you get the Bear, sometimes the Bear gets you.....:sad:
It would be interesting, to know who did the casting/forging. I recall some of the items made when I was at PC&F. Out of in-house scrap. Which seemed to me, was not always the cleanest. I wonder about QC..... Boxcab E50
I always thought the Trough Train was cool. I saw it in Alliance, NE in 1995 pretty soon after it was built and I understand it did make visits to Texas although I've not seen it, just pictures in New Mexico and Colorado when it was on the way down. Not sure anyone would ever do it, even in brass, but that MIGHT be one of the few brass pieces I would ever consider if they did. (someone at a train show told me they WERE done in brass, but I've searched and never came up with anything) I still think the concept is compelling, especially in coal where they could be in captive service. Other than ripping themselves apart, I think they were actually pretty well received but probably not enough to make any more so they just retired them. They certainly wouldn't be the first car to bust a drawbar like that, although potentially a little bit more of a mess in their case. They were mothballed on a siding near Bridgeport, NE when we were there for the FOBNR convention in '03 so I assume they haven't seen service since then?
I'm surprised noone has asked how many cans of spray paint it took to spray that whole car from the SF logo down!
