Tri-level railcar

Abstract

A tri-level railcar wherein the B deck is fixed along its entire length, rather than having hinged end sections, so that the B deck contributes to the strength and rigidity of the car. To provide sufficient clearance in the A1 and A5 positions, the B deck is positioned at a higher elevation than in conventional prior art auto rack cars. Clearances above each of the three decks may be approximately equal. High cambered decks are preferably employed at both the B and C level. The overall height of the railcar is preferably about 20′2″. All three decks may be continuously loaded and unloaded without the need to stop loading and unloading to pivot the B deck end sections. The ability of the B deck to function as a structural member of the railcar from end to end may eliminate the need for cross braces, i.e., brace bays, as included in typical prior art tri-level auto racks. The side wall posts may all be of the same or similar cross-section.

Description

[0002] The invention relates generally to railcars, and more particularly to an improved railcar for carrying automotive vehicles in commercial rail service.

[0003] For many years, tri-level auto rack railcars have been constructed by building racks on flatcars. In conventional railcars of this type, the deck of the flatcar functions as the first deck of the tri-level car, and the second and third decks are supported by the rack. The first, second and third decks are commonly referred to as the A, B and C decks respectively. The A deck typically has a depressed center portion between the trucks, whereas the B and C decks are at a generally uniform elevation along the length of the car. The clearance over the A deck is accordingly greater along the depressed portion.

[0004] Conventional tri-level cars have hinged end sections on their B decks to increase clearance or drive-in height at the ends of the A decks. The hinged end sections are pivotable between raised positions for providing increased clearance, and lowered positions for supporting automotive vehicles. The end sections are typically raised and lowered manually during loading and unloading operations. To facilitate controlled raising and lowering of the end sections, springs are typically provided to apply upward force to the hinged sections when they are in their lowered positions.

[0005] The clearances at the ends of the A deck are typically quite limited when the hinged end sections of the B decks are in their lowered positions. Accordingly, in a typical tri-level railcar carrying 5 automobiles on each deck, the positions at each end of the A deck, i.e., the A1 and A5 positions, must be occupied by automotive vehicles with very low profiles, or otherwise must remain empty during transport. Thus, while the hinged end sections of the B deck permit flexibility in carrying various types of automotive vehicles in the three middle locations on the A deck, the A1 and A5 positions are of limited utility.

[0006] In order for a railcar to be commercially viable for use in commercial service, the rack structure must have sufficient strength and rigidity to withstand many years of dynamic loading during transport of vehicles. The loading on the rack includes longitudinal loads associated with acceleration and deceleration of the railcar, as well as various other loads associated with the motion of the car, the weight of the motor vehicles supported on the rack, loading and unloading of the motor vehicles, and the weight of the rack itself.

[0007] The rack structure typically relies on vertical posts to support the B and C decks, and relies on the B and C decks themselves to contribute strength and rigidity to the rack. The hinged end sections of the B decks must have sufficient strength and rigidity to support the weight of motor vehicles during loading, unloading, and transport when in their lowered positions, but typically do not otherwise contribute significant strength or rigidity to the rack structure. Among other structural members of the rack, a cross-brace or brace bay is typically included in each side wall between the A and B decks and between a pair of posts near the hinged joint associated with each of the hinged end sections of the B deck.

[0008] While tri-level railcars have proven to be a safe, cost efficient option for transportation of automotive vehicles, room for improvement remains in certain areas. One problem is that the brace bay contributes weight and expense to the railcar, and also locally reduces interior width, limiting the vehicle width that can be accommodated, and limiting the space available for drivers to walk past the vehicles during loading and unloading operations. Another problem is that the hinged sections of the B deck contribute expense without significantly contributing strength and rigidity to the rack structure. The need to raise and lower the hinged sections also increases the time required for loading and unloading, and adds to the amount of labor required in loading and unloading operations. In addition, the hinged sections require lubrication and other maintenance.

[0009] Various alternatives to the conventional tri-level cars described above have been developed. It is believed that in some tri-level railcars manufactured and sold in the United States several years ago, the hinged end sections of the B deck did not extend the full width of the B deck. In these cars, the B deck had fixed edge portions extending along the entire length of the railcar. Other tri-level auto rack cars are described and shown in U.S. Pat. No. 5,979,335 and U.S. Pat. No. 6,273,004.

[0010] There remains a need for further improvements in methods and apparatus for transport of automotive vehicles by rail.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0011] The invention provides a tri-level railcar that eliminates the conventional hinged end sections of the B deck. The B deck is preferably fixed, i.e., bolted or welded in place along its entire length, rather than having hinged end sections as in the prior art cars discussed above, so that the B deck contributes to the strength and rigidity of the car. To provide sufficient clearance in the A1 and A5 positions, the B deck is positioned at a higher elevation than in conventional auto rack cars. A minimum clearance of 65{fraction (15/16)}″, plus or minus 1½″, measured 30″ off center, may be provided for each of the three decks. Clearances above each of the three decks may be approximately equal. The car is preferably capable of carrying automotive vehicles up to about 63″ in height, including the PT Cruiser on each of the decks, without requiring any upward displacement of end sections of the B deck to accommodate such vehicles on the A deck.

[0012] The railcar may be based on a conventional flat car, an upsill flat car, or a flat car having a 39½″ ATR (above top of rail) running surface. To facilitate maintenance of appropriate clearances, high cambered decks are preferably employed at both the B and C level. The overall height of the railcar is preferably the maximum permissible height, which under current regulations is 20′2″.

[0013] Provision of fixed decks facilitates loading in that the all three decks may be continuously loaded and unloaded without the need to stop loading and unloading to pivot the B deck end sections. Thus, circus loading is much more efficient.

[0014] The ability of the B deck to function as a structural member of the railcar from end to end may eliminate the need for cross braces, i.e., brace bays, as included in typical prior art tri-level auto racks. Elimination of the brace bays may reduce costs and weight, and may also increase interior clearances, and simplify door edge protection.

[0015] The railcar described above may also eliminate the need for heavier posts at certain locations. In conventional tri-level auto rack cars, the number 3 and number 4 posts, i.e., the third and fourth posts from the end of the car, are often heavier than other posts. The railcar described herein may eliminate the need for these heavier posts.

[0016] The railcar may also have identical B and C deck assemblies, thus greatly reducing the number of parts needed to build the rack. That is, rather than having a B inner deck, two B outer decks, and a C deck, the car may have identical B and C decks. In commercial production, this would reduce the number of machine setups required to manufacture parts, and would reduce the number of materials needed in inventory. It is likely that this would also reduce the costs of parts, since they would be manufactured and/or purchased from suppliers in greater numbers. Similar economies of scale would also be possible with the post assemblies, due to the greater number of standard posts and the elimination of the need for conventional cross braces and heavier posts at certain locations.

[0017] Parts that are included in a conventional tri-level auto rack but eliminated in the preferred auto rack of the invention include four hinge assemblies, four hinge support assemblies, 8 cone assemblies on posts and 8 on-deck cone assemblies, four deck support assemblies on posts and four on hinge decks, four deck lock receivers, four deck lock assemblies, four deck lift chain and/or spring assemblies, and 8 lift attachment assemblies. These parts would be replaced with 24 standard bolting plates, with a great reduction in labor and fixturing.

[0018] The preferred embodiment may also feature additional improvements including lighter post tubes, smaller post gussets at the joint between the post and the flat car, lighter knee braces, and lighter bolting plates. Shear plates may be used between some or all adjacent posts.

[0019] In the preferred methods of manufacturing the railcar of the invention, automatic welding and robotic assembly may be used to a greater extent than in the past, due to the reduced number of different parts and greater number of identical parts. The costs of fixtures would also be reduced for the same reasons.

[0020] Use of the preferred embodiment in commercial rail service would, of course, eliminate the significant lubrication and maintenance requirements associated with the hinged deck sections on conventional tri-levels.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0021] FIG. 1 is a side elevational view of a railcar in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention.

[0022] FIG. 2 is an end elevational view of the car of FIG. 1, with one of the end doors removed.

[0023] FIG. 3 is a transverse sectional view taken substantially along line 3-3 in FIG. 1.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

[0024] The invention is preferably embodied in a tri-level auto rack railcar 10. The railcar comprises a flatcar 12 having a rack structure constructed thereon. The flatcar has a deck that functions as the A deck of the railcar. The A deck has a depressed center portion 14 between the trucks, and end portions 15 at higher elevations. The rack structure comprises a plurality of vertical posts 16, and B and C decks 18 and 20 respectively supported by the posts.

[0025] Each of the decks is connected to the posts by vertical plates 22 and knee braces 24. Tire guides 26 and a chock track 28 are provided on each deck. Longitudinal member 30 such as roof rails and/or top chords tie the vertical posts together at their upper ends. A corrugated roof 32 encloses the top of the car. Radial end doors 34 having a top panel overlying an end portion of the roof sheet and pivotally attached thereto are preferably employed at each end of the car.

[0026] The B deck 18 is fixed along its entire length, rather than having hinged end sections as in the prior art cars discussed above, so that the B deck contributes to the strength and rigidity of the rack structure. To provide sufficient clearance in the A1 and A5 positions, the B deck is positioned at a higher elevation than in conventional auto rack cars. Minimum clearances of ha, hb, and hc, measured 30″ off center are maintained above the A, B and C decks respectively. A minimum clearance of 65{fraction (15/16)}″, plus or minus 1½″, may be provided for each of the three decks. Clearances above each of the three decks may be approximately equal. The car is preferably capable of accommodating automotive vehicles up to about 63″ in height, including vehicles such as the Chrysler PT Cruiser.

[0027] The railcar may be based on a conventional flat car, an upsill flat car, or a flat car having a 39½″ ATR (above top of rail) running surface. To facilitate maintenance of appropriate clearances, high cambered decks are preferably employed at both the B and C level. The overall height of the railcar is preferably equal to the maximum height permissible under AAR regulations or other applicable regulations, i.e., 20′ 2″.

[0028] Provision of fixed decks facilitates loading in that the all three decks may be continuously loaded and unloaded without the need to stop loading and unloading to pivot the B deck end sections. Thus, circus loading is much more efficient.

[0029] The ability of the B deck 18 to function as a structural member of the railcar from end to end may eliminate the need for cross braces, i.e., brace bays, as included in typical prior art tri-level auto racks. Elimination of the brace bays may reduce costs and weight, and may also increase interior clearances, and simplify door edge protection.

[0030] The railcar described above may also eliminate the need for heavier posts at certain locations. In existing auto rack cars, the number 3 and number 4 posts, i.e., the third and fourth posts from the end of the car, are often heavier than other posts. In the illustrated embodiment of the invention, all of the posts may be of the same or similar cross-section.

[0031] The invention is not limited to the preferred embodiment described above. The invention is further described in the following claims.

Claims

1. A tri-level auto rack railcar comprising first, second, and third decks capable of supporting automotive vehicles during loading, unloading and transport of such vehicles in commercial rail service, wherein the second deck has fixed end sections that extend across the entire width of the deck and contribute strength and rigidity to the railcar structure.

2. A railcar in accordance with claim 1 wherein vertical clearances of at least ha, hb, and hc, measured 30″ off center are maintained above the first, second and third decks respectively.

3. A railcar in accordance with claim 2 wherein ha, hb, and hc are each greater than or equal to 63 in.

4. A railcar in accordance with claim 3 wherein ha, hb, and hc are each greater than or equal to 64 in.

5. A railcar in accordance with claim 3 wherein ha, hb, and hc are each greater than or equal to 65 in.

6. A railcar in accordance with claim 3 wherein ha, hb, and hc are each greater than or equal to 65{fraction (5/16)} in.

7. A railcar in accordance with claim 3 wherein ha, hb, and hc are approximately equal, within 1½ in. of a predetermined value.

8. A railcar in accordance with claim 3 wherein said second and third decks are high camber decks.

9. A railcar in accordance with claim 3 wherein said second and third decks are substantially the same, and are welded in place along their entire lengths.

10. A railcar in accordance with claim 3 wherein said second and third decks are substantially the same, and are bolted in place along their entire lengths.