CPMY 7209 - SL-125 - 1979 - Ex-CPOX 3 - Donated to CPMY in 2023 by Consumers Energy. Former J.H. Campbell plant switcher. Serial # 41109.
![Image](https://www.mlive.com/resizer/ck99odTEaLT3Smlw6lfF2fpcfs4=/800x0/smart/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/advancelocal/G57J3YKDE5HWXEI6QFUEXMLT3M.jpg)
I am not privy, so I removed my initial comment.
Standard Lumber is still an active customer. I think they get switched 2-3 times a week?
It's down to approximately twice a month now.
At 136 tons, the engine is only 2 tons heavier than the max you cite. Yeah, its over the old number, but hardly a huge deal ultimately. What matters now are the present bridge ratings.Schteinkuh wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 10:59 amThose still within the RR have said it weighs in the ballpark of 136 tons as it was fitted with extra ballasting, whether that's true or not I don't really know. However I do recall that the Ottawa sub (CPMY trackage West of Penn Jct) is only rated for 268,000lbs and the GTW set that limit back in the 60s, so if it's really 136T then I'll let everybody do the math on that.
Would you look a regulatory agent in the eye and say "but it's only 2 tons!", yes or no?Saturnalia wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 7:30 pmAt 136 tons, the engine is only 2 tons heavier than the max you cite. Yeah, its over the old number, but hardly a huge deal ultimately. What matters now are the present bridge ratings.
The SL144 also has a longer wheelbase, measuring 39'3" compared to the EMD SW9's 30'0". That will distribute out the load also. The SL144 weighs 6930 lbs/ft while the SW9 is 8267 lbs/ft.
Sounds like a disgruntled former volunteer....Schteinkuh wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:10 pmWould you look a regulatory agent in the eye and say "but it's only 2 tons!", yes or no?Saturnalia wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 7:30 pmAt 136 tons, the engine is only 2 tons heavier than the max you cite. Yeah, its over the old number, but hardly a huge deal ultimately. What matters now are the present bridge ratings.
The SL144 also has a longer wheelbase, measuring 39'3" compared to the EMD SW9's 30'0". That will distribute out the load also. The SL144 weighs 6930 lbs/ft while the SW9 is 8267 lbs/ft.
There are no bridge ratings. For the whole railroad. I persistently asked years ago and got a bunch of roundabout answers of how bridges don't have ratings like track does. If this railroad was a space shuttle it'd be Challenger. Or Columbia.
There's a good reason almost 15 of them just walked off about a year ago
Track ratings typically are designed around the idea that everything below the limit is 100% ok without review. Basically, they’d want to review anything heavier, not necessarily ban anything heavier.Schteinkuh wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:10 pmWould you look a regulatory agent in the eye and say "but it's only 2 tons!", yes or no?Saturnalia wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 7:30 pmAt 136 tons, the engine is only 2 tons heavier than the max you cite. Yeah, its over the old number, but hardly a huge deal ultimately. What matters now are the present bridge ratings.
The SL144 also has a longer wheelbase, measuring 39'3" compared to the EMD SW9's 30'0". That will distribute out the load also. The SL144 weighs 6930 lbs/ft while the SW9 is 8267 lbs/ft.
There are no bridge ratings. For the whole railroad. I persistently asked years ago and got a bunch of roundabout answers of how bridges don't have ratings like track does. If this railroad was a space shuttle it'd be Challenger. Or Columbia.
Standard Building Systems at this site, but yes, that is corrrrrreccttt.
Don’t completely fill the fuel tankSchteinkuh wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:10 pm
Would you look a regulatory agent in the eye and say "but it's only 2 tons!", yes or no?
All these years I've only heard it referred to as Standard Lumber... This has been corrected on the Wiki.
HAHA! Okay that was pretty goodStandard Railfan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 7:56 amDon’t completely fill the fuel tankSchteinkuh wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:10 pm
Would you look a regulatory agent in the eye and say "but it's only 2 tons!", yes or no?
I agree that the bridges (or specifically the people in charge of them) are a far bigger concern. The condition of the infrastructure and the actions/inactions of two specific power players in the company were a major factor in what happened last year. If you shoot me your email (I'll do this for anyone who PMs me), I'd be more than happy send you the full bridge inspection report from 2020-2021 and you can make more educated judgements from there. While I crawl in my skin hearing your views on labor management, I wholeheartly respect your engineering knowledge.Saturnalia wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 6:58 amTrack ratings typically are designed around the idea that everything below the limit is 100% ok without review. Basically, they’d want to review anything heavier, not necessarily ban anything heavier.
Railroads issue overweight permits all the time, including to themselves. Often if it’s a repeat customer they’ll do an analysis, including wheelbase to figure how well the weight is distributed, then make a call as to what restrictions need to be in place, most often a speed restriction.
Given that, it’s not at all hard to see where a locomotive that’s two tons over the statutory limit would be permitted to operate on a regular basis. If the track speed were higher they might prescribe a slower speed, but since the C&M is slow anyway, it wouldn’t really be an issue.
The bridge ratings thing though is everything. You can run GEVOs on basically any track including 90# rail, you’re just going to be breaking a lot of stuff. The bridges are what really matters for load ratings.
Some good examples of repeat heavy loads are ore Jennies, hot bottle cars and certain locomotives. As described above, they’ll often have speed restrictions over certain bridges, usually prescribed in the timetable if the move is frequent enough.
Yeah they uhhh kinda wrecked it lol