Gross Weight Load: Can It Be Used for Railcar Gravity Force?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Altai
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Load Weight
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the appropriate use of the term "gross weight load" in the context of calculating the gravity force of a fully loaded railcar. Participants clarify that "gross weight" typically includes both the tare weight of the railcar and the net weight of its contents, suggesting that the term "gross weight" alone suffices without the addition of "load." There is some confusion about whether the term "force" is necessary, as the audience primarily consists of railway professionals who may be more interested in weight rather than force calculations. The conversation highlights the importance of precise terminology in technical translations for clarity in communication. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards simplifying the terminology for better understanding among English-speaking railwaymen.
Altai
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Dear native English speaking professionals!
Would someone please advise on the term "gross weight load" - is it possible to use it for gravity force of a fully loaded railcar?

I use it in the following context:

"Estimated vertical force on one chord section is assumed to be equal to:
q(v) = P(gr) : n
where P(gr) is gross weight load;
n is number of car dumper clamps; it is assumed that n = 8 (4 per side)."

Is it OK to use this term here? Being no native English speaker, I'm not 100% sure...
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
Hi Altai! :smile:

I'm not familiar with transport terminology :redface:, but I've always understood gross weight to include the load, and net weight to exclude the load …

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_weight#Measuring_weight"
Gross weight is a term that generally is found in commerce or trade applications, and refers to the total weight of a product and its packaging. Conversely, net weight refers to the weight of the product alone, discounting the weight of its container or packaging; and tare weight is the weight of the packaging alone.​

So the word "load" would be unnecessary (I think).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for your reply tiny-tim.
I was also thinking about "gross weight force", but... again, I'm not so sure. Though what "P" stands for is really a force due to the weight of a fully loaded railcar - including the weight of the car itself (tare weight) and the weight of its contents (net weight).
 
Hi Altai! :smile:

Weight is a force.

m is mass, and mg is weight.

Of course, a lot of people say "weight" when they mean "mass" …

who is this being written for?​
 
It's for English-speaking railwaymen. I'm just translating some Russian material into English.
So the "force" part is also excessive here? Oops.
 
Altai said:
It's for English-speaking railwaymen.

mmm … I don't really understand why a railwayman would be interested in force :confused:

what calculations do they need to make?

Don't they simply want to know what the weight (the mass) is?
 
tiny-tim said:
mmm … I don't really understand why a railwayman would be interested in force :confused:

Well, the material is about all kinds of loads and forces acting on a railcar, so why not?
 
Tare weight = weight of the empty container or car
Net weight = weight of the contents of the container or car
Gross weight = total of Tare and Net weights

These figures are displayed on the sides of shipping containers, for instance
 
Back
Top