10-15-2011, 04:40 PM
It is my understanding that even in the late 70's to early 80's, 40 foot boxcars were still being used in grain service [notably in Canada] where the branchlines had rail that was too light and or the sub-roadbed was too weak to handle the weight of firstly 100 ton covered hoppers then later the cylindrical 110 ton covered hoppers.
Remember not all rail is equal and there can still well be spurs, bridges and branchines that are still in service but not able to bear the weight of 286,000 lb railcars or big modern heavy or extra heavy locomotives.
You could well argue that the industry you are serving has track which is lightweight and while the business is happy to continue to use rail, they cannot afford to upgrade the privately owned rails. Or else someone high up in management refuses to be convinced as to why the rails need to be replaced, when in actual fact it is he who needs replacing. "We've always used 40 foot boxcars ,cause thats what we've always used". Sound familiar?
If in doubt spend a little time viewing railfan videos and you will still see the very occasional 40 foot boxcar.
Hope this opinion helps.
Mark
Remember not all rail is equal and there can still well be spurs, bridges and branchines that are still in service but not able to bear the weight of 286,000 lb railcars or big modern heavy or extra heavy locomotives.
You could well argue that the industry you are serving has track which is lightweight and while the business is happy to continue to use rail, they cannot afford to upgrade the privately owned rails. Or else someone high up in management refuses to be convinced as to why the rails need to be replaced, when in actual fact it is he who needs replacing. "We've always used 40 foot boxcars ,cause thats what we've always used". Sound familiar?
If in doubt spend a little time viewing railfan videos and you will still see the very occasional 40 foot boxcar.
Hope this opinion helps.
Mark
Fake It till you Make It, then Fake It some More