Since I still can’t seem to access specific threads here - including my own from a few minutes ago regarding that very problem ! - I’ll put it here instead:
In the "NICE RIDE !" article by Tom Murray of the current April 2009 issue of Trains, across the bottom of page 42 is an undated photo of a Big John that is credited as being from Norfolk Southern. Clearly visible are the following:
CAPY 200 000 [ = 100 tons nominal capacity]
LD LMT 207 800
LT WT 55 200
Adding the last two figures comes to 263,000 lbs., as a couple of us have been batting back and forth over the past few days. I can’t access or remember who started that thread, but this 3-page article may well answer some of those questions.
In the text of the article, it says that the Big John was 4,700 cu. ft. It also indicates obliquely that before the 263,000 lb. gross weight railcar became the near-universal standard, the previous weight limit was 240,000 lbs. (120 tons).
As an aside, it might be interesting sometime to come up with a tabulation of how railcar weights - for cars that are to be interchanged - have increased over the years. Maybe that dat ais already in Armstrong’s book, The Railroad: What It Is, What It Does, but my copy is in storage right now.
Paul,
These figures look accurate. I wrote you an extended response on the grain hopper car post. Yes there was an increase on gross weight on rail allowed for each size of journal then in service evidently just before thses cars were built. My recollection is that it was 10%, but I have no handy document to prove it.
Your memory of Armstrong’s book is good. Page 67 has a chart of current gross weight as a function of axle size. A nominal 100 ton car, like the Big John has a gross weight of 236,000 pounds. A nominal 70 ton car has a gross weight limit of 220,000 pounds.
Mac
Mac -
Thanks for the responses - it looks like my access is now working. Let me work through the accumulated posts and I’ll get back to you if I have anything further.
P.S. - Your figure above for Big John - “A nominal 100 ton car, like the Big John has a gross weight of 236,000 pounds.” - should that be 263,000 pounds instead ?
Paul,
Yes 263,000#. I find it hell to proof my own work, especially on the computer.
Mac
Understood - concur - same problem here. Spellcheck" doesn’t always solve it; sometimes a larger size or more distinct font helps to separate and differentiate the letters. Thank goodness (and Bergie !) for the [Edit] function - I have to use it at least once on almost every post of mine (including this one !). [sigh]
I’ve never known why the Southern called it “Big John” rather than something else. Was that intended to mean something special, and I’m just too dense to get the connection?
Jimmy Dean had a tremendous top 40 hit in 1952, called Big Bad John. The railcar was coming in the same time frame, and it was named for the name recognition of the record then on the charts. HTH
That should be 1962. I had to laugh when I saw this question in the Ask Trains section of the April issue of TRAINS.
It reminds me of a quote that goes something like the only problem with the young is that they are so very young.
In 1962 if you introduced something that was much bigger than the previously existing product and you didn’t call it a “Big John” that would likely trigger a Presidential Commission or a reconvening of The House Un-American Activities Committee"!
Have a nice day.
AgentKid