Re: [CBQ] Re: 36 foot stock cars/ steel coal cars

["STEVEN HOLDING sholding@sbcglobal.net [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>]

Larry and Leo

What about the cars that resulted into kit form when the glue stickyness wore out.  Parts would just drop off along the ROW

About every 20 years or so they have to reinvent the wheel.  And what goes round comes round

Steve in SC

On Monday, August 3, 2015 11:19 AM, "qutlx1@aol.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Larry,

From my perspective as a buyer of cars the typical Alum car has lost about 10-15% of its weight by the time we see them for scrap. Typically around 20 years old or so.

Leo

On Aug 3, 2015, at 9:51 AM, larry.graus@opc.com [CBQ] <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Leo,

As I recall, NS did a check of their first aluminum coal hoppers, and found that there was very minimal loss of thickness over the course of the cars' first 25 years in service. I don't know how much it costs to patch up a steel car with new sides/hoppers, etc. I know I've seen some of NS' cars used in Central App service and some had at least two newer layers per side. I would have thought that the additional costs for re-siding the cars, along with the extra fuel costs to move these cars vs. aluminum cars (after all, a reworked steel hopper could weigh 60k+ pounds compared to 46-50k pounds for an aluminum car) might convince them that aluminum was the way to go. But the difference in initial costs plus the fact that you might actually be able to repair a steel car that's been in a derailment, probably make sense to a railroad, where it doesn't make sense to a shipper like my company.

LarryG

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: STEVEN HOLDING <sholding@sbcglobal.net>

---

Visit Your Group

• New Members 3

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

__,_._,___