Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
    You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

    If you are not a 12ozProphet Member, please take a moment to register to gain full access to our website and all of its features. As a 12ozProphet Member you will be able to post comments, start discussions, communicate privately with other members and access members-only content. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join today and be a part of the largest and longest running Graffiti, Art, Style & Culture forum online.

    Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at [email protected] and we'll help you recover your account. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum (and don't forget to follow @12ozprophet in Instagram)!

SLACK ACTION question

Discussion in 'Metal Heads' started by im not witty, Apr 16, 2002.

  1. im not witty

    im not witty Guest

    ive been gathering information about train safety lately, and came across something interesting. id always thought it was safe to ride in cars full of cargo if you rode behind the load, assuming that if it shifted when the brakes were applied the load would move foward. however i found a guy quite adamently ranting about loads being able to shift both ways. i guess anything is possible, but is it not more likely the load would move foward? anyway. long winded question sorry.
     
  2. Ski Mask

    Ski Mask 12oz Loyalist

    Joined: Apr 11, 2000 Messages: 11,114 Likes Received: 209
    they shift because of momentum when the brakes are applied. But its possible depending on the load, that the braking could cause the load to shift free and tip over on you. Depends on the load and how its secured I guess...
     
  3. suburbian bum

    suburbian bum 12oz Loyalist

    Joined: Jan 30, 2001 Messages: 14,673 Likes Received: 3
    I would read the thread by Kabar entitled "slack action" pages of info.
     
  4. KaBar

    KaBar Senior Member

    Joined: Oct 9, 2001 Messages: 1,397 Likes Received: 11
    Is "Slack Action" still running?

    I thought it had been dumped. In any case, you should never, ever put yourself in a position where a load can pin you between it and a bulkhead. Inside of boxcars, ride ON TOP of the load if you can. Of course, it's best to never ride with a load, but realistically, sometimes one must. The only exception to this rule is riding container "well cars," which are fairly safe if you are BEHIND the containers. NEVER IN FRONT OF A LOAD. Slack action has force both ways, but it's a rare circumstance that would cause containers to walk towards the rear of the well car. BTW, the best container car is a TTX 48. NEVER ride a DTTX 53, there is no floor, only a web of steel girders, and it is definately, without question, NOT SAFE. There are a few different companies running container cars, but the TTX company is the biggest. The rule of thumb is "No floor, No ride." Like, DUH. Use common sense. Think "What is the worst possible situation?" "How could this happen?" "How could I avoid it?"
     
  5. im not witty

    im not witty Guest

    thanks kabar, i wanted to email you some stuff but your address isnt listed. if you wouldnt mind drop me a line at [email protected]
    with an address.
     
  6. KaBar

    KaBar Senior Member

    Joined: Oct 9, 2001 Messages: 1,397 Likes Received: 11
    bump for the info
     
  7. ASER1NE

    ASER1NE Veteran Member

    Joined: Oct 15, 2001 Messages: 7,577 Likes Received: 2
    So did the original Slack Action Thread get dumped/deleted ?
    i fuckin hope not ...
     
  8. ASER1NE

    ASER1NE Veteran Member

    Joined: Oct 15, 2001 Messages: 7,577 Likes Received: 2
    ok nm i finally found it......
     
  9. ghostvandal

    ghostvandal Senior Member

    Joined: Mar 9, 2003 Messages: 1,644 Likes Received: 0
    hey kabar, just wondering..are the ttx 48 flat any good? so far i've only ridden the ridged but i thought i remembered the flats were without a floor too, but maybe i was just mixed up.. I've seen a lot of ttx 40 in the last year. I wonder if they are replacing the 48 with the 40 so that nobody can ride them anymore.. maybe im just thinking too much once again too.
     
  10. KaBar2

    KaBar2 Senior Member

    Joined: Jun 27, 2003 Messages: 2,126 Likes Received: 64
    Ghostvandal---
    You know, I've caught myself thinking the same sort of thing, but the railroad industry doesn't make multi-million-dollar decisions about the design of rail cars based on whether or not tramps can ride them.

    Even if they created cars that had absolutely no place to ride, tramps and trainhoppers would invent some sort of hammock rig that would permit them to do so.

    Most likely a switch from 48-footers to 40-footers has more to do with the trend in international intermodal freight. We trainhoppers don't really figure into this sort of thing. They are dealing in millions of tons shipped per year. What's a hobo or two?
     
  11. NeCrOpHeLiAc

    NeCrOpHeLiAc Elite Member

    Joined: Aug 30, 2004 Messages: 3,698 Likes Received: 24
Top