Into the archives...

Dear Tim,

Your question sent me scurrying into my archives, as I'm sure I had some lists saved previously...

Firstly, it's a bit generic, but check this from 2015
https://www.railcartracking.com/aar-car-type-codes-explained-resources-2/

A BNSF link provided this...
http://www.bnsf.org/EquipmentCharacteristics/js/ec/ECCarTypePage.html

...and this from the team at OpSIG gives a key clue,
that contemporary "car codes" are known as "UMLER" codes...
http://www.opsig.org/pdf/AARFreightCarCodes.pdf

A Google for UMLER gave
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/mechanical/article/New-UMLER-system-will-enable-car-owners-to-communicate-more-clearly-and-quickly-Railinc-says--20810

and then, if you want to dive deeper than.... well... Ok then...
https://www.railinc.com/rportal/documents/18/260655/UmlerDataSpecs.pdf

I hope this helps,...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Thanks

Hi Prof:

Thanks a bunch for all the digging, I look forward to browsing through them -- always something to learn

TIM

They did change

The basic letter codes did change over time.

The Official Railway Equipment Register usually had a listing near the back.

One change was on the FB code - original Flat, Barrel,  later Flat, Bulkhead

So be sure to check your time period

And if you got back to my era (1905), they did not exist yet.

Howard Garner

AAR Codes

Since this topic is about AAR codes (albeit modern ones), would there perchance be a simplified AAR code for us lesser-determined op idiots for say the late-50s to mid-60s?

It's been so long since I've had an operating layout I've forgotten some of the classifications.

Andre

Simple Codes

Bear in mind that the AAR Mechanical Designation (e.g. XM, FM, FB, etc.) and Type Codes (e.g. A302) are different things. Some sites and sources tend to call the mechanical designations "types" or "codes" and that can be confusing whether you're talking about that or the newer, more specific codes.

In the 50s, the new type codes wouldn't have existed yet, only the mechanical designations. One of the links above shows what the mechanical designations were around 1932 (but the file name is "car codes" and doesn't seem to actually use the term "mechanical designation" - see what I mean about imprecise/confusing terms?).

This link is a better one that actually shows the changes to the AAR mechanical designations listed in equipment registers over time:

http://nakina.net/other/aartype.html

Now, you can always on the model railroad choose to use the AAR types or designations, or just a simplified system for your railroad.

Using the first letter of the AAR designations and not worrying about additional letters (so just X, F, G, H, R, L, T etc. for example) might be one reasonable approach. Or just the first letter of the major type e.g. (B)ox, (C)overed hopper, (H)opper, etc.

Thanks Chris!

That will absolutely work!

Andre

What's it for?

Chris's note about just using the first letter makes a good point.  And it's prototypical in at least some cases - the paperwork of at least one shortline uses (or at least used within the last 20 years) just the first letter.

If this code is going to end up printed on car cards / way bills / switch lists, it needs to be something your operators are going to easily recognize.  Or you're going to need an additional field to translate so people who have no interest in learning that A302 is a type of boxcar know they're looking for a boxcar.

Ken:

Exactly.

Once I have a simplified list that will cover my needs, I will print a list of them and post them conveniently at select locations on the layout.

Andre

My system

I've long pondered how to make these codes easier for operators to read on a waybill or switchlist and correlate that to a model freight car in front of them whose lettering is often too small to read, especially as we get older.

For my photos I modify the AAR Mechanical Designations so I can see at a glance more specifics of the car in question when looking at the slide mount or file name.  First off, keep in mind I worked for the Southern so I know the basic codes by heart, but I also know their limitations.  So I start with the AAR initials and expand them.  To wit:

Boxcars start with X.  A regular boxcar is an XM.  A "loader equipped" boxcar is an XL or an XML.  An XL with racks or pallets considered to be part of the car is an XP.  A boxcar with an epoxy lining is an XF for hauling package food.  That covers the vast majority of boxcars.  Now I add the nominal inside length, since that's how we refer to boxcars both in the model and real world.  Then I add letters to indicate door types.  For a regular single sliding door I add nothing.  Double door is DD, plug door is PD, double plug door is DPD, and combo door (plug and sliding) is CD.

So a standard plain jane 40-foot boxcar is an XM40.  A typical 50-foot lumber box car is an XM50DD.   A Railbox ABOX is an XM50CD.  A 60-foot autoparts box might be an XP60DD.  A big 86-foot parts box with two sets of plug doors is usually an XL86QPD (quad plug door).

Insulated boxcars were a quite common car type from the '60s into the early 2000s.  The AAR considered them to be a Refrigerator, Bunkerless (no provision for icing), and most were loader equipped.  By definition all had plug doors.  So the most common 50-foot version is simply an RBL50.  The common Evans 52'6" double-plug is an RBL53DPD.  And so on.

Most ice reefers were type RS ("Stage" icing, which meant the size of the ice bunkers was adjustable).  Meat reefers were RM.  I add the nominal carbody length (36, 40, 42, or 50) and PD for the few later ones that had plug doors.  Most ice reefers had swinging doors.

Mechanical reefers were mostly RPL and only had a single plug door so I just add the nominal carbody length (40, 50, 57, or 60).

Flat cars and gondolas are also categorized by length in the real world.  A lot of modelers think of "40-foot" and "50-foot" flats and gons but in the real world those lengths are quite rare.  41'6" and 52'6" were the typical sizes in the steam era, with several other lengths out there.  The lengths are usually rounded up.  The typical flat car is an FM and the typical gon is a GB.  Add the inside length (stenciled on the car side) and you're done.  So FM42 and GB53 for instance.  Piggyback flats are FCs.  Coil gons are usually GBSRs (Gon, Bulkhead end with tight floor, Special fittings (the coil racks), Roof).  If the coil gon was made from a regular gon I add the length.  I don't bother on purpose-built coil gons because the length is not obvious.

Bulkhead flats are FBs, and like Trailer Train I've usually noted them by carbody length.  So FB53 and FB68 are the two common lengths.  On the other hand, centerbeams are generally FBC60 and FBC73 which refers to their inside length.  Again, a Trailer Train thing.  I never said railroaders were consistent....

Hoppers and covered hoppers are a different story.  In the real world we didn't care about their length except when calculating train length, and that's based on coupled length, not inside length.  So all I note is the number of bays.  So a 2-bay open hopper is an HM2.  Regular 3-bay and 4-bay open hoppers are HT3 and HT4.  No, I don't know why the AAR long ago saw fit to say that open hoppers with three or more bays are type HT.  Rapid Discharge hoppers are HTS4, 5, or 6.

Same for covered hoppers, type LO.  Just add the number of bays.  For Pressure-Differential cars I add PD.  The one complication for me is I've always noted Airslides by writing out "Airslide".  I haven't decided how I will translate that to an abbreviation for a car card or waybill.  I've thought about calling them type "LA".  At the railroad they were just noted as yet another LO.

Tank cars are never refered to by length in the real world and my codes are TM (uninsulated non-pressure), TMI (insulated non-pressure), TA (acid), and TP (pressure).  There are too many gallonages to worry about it.

Works for me and makes slides and spreadsheets easier to peruse.  How it will work on car cards or "computerized" switchlists remains to be seen.

Scott Chatfield

Purpose

A lot of what should determine the car type is what the code is being used for.  If its used for matching car cards with waybills or cars with shipments, then it can be as complicated or obscure as you want since typically only the owner will be using them.  If its to help the operators find a car, then the simpler or more intuitive will be better.

As far as hoppers go, from a real railroad's perspective, whether the car has 3 or 4 hoppers is immaterial.  They don't care.  Twin hoppers were mostly in the 50-55 ton range and the triples or quads were in the 70-90 ton range.  A railroad cares about capacity, they really don't care how many hoppers they have, that's a model railroad thing.  They want to know is it a smaller capacity car (50 tons) or a larger capacity car (70 tons).

One thing that will surprise you is most real railroaders are terrible about loco and car spotting.  With a locomotive they will know the horsepower (or other measure of pulling power) and will know the make, but the specific model, eh, don't really care, its not important.  

Usefulness

Real railroaders are much more "compartmentized" to use a military term.  They know what they need to know to do their jobs and generally don't know much else.  On the Southern it was not a GP38-2, it was a "5000".  On the UP in those days a GP38-2 was a "2000".  Two "names" for the same thing.

Most open and covered hoppers built between 1963 and 1994 were "100-ton" cars.  Absolutely accurate and yet nearly worthless to everybody outside the billing department.  I did not send our 100-ton sand hoppers to the coal mines.  I did not send our 100-ton kaolin covered hoppers to the grain elevators or the cement plants.  More info is needed.

Doesn't work for model railroaders and historians.  Many modelers are both.  And the data on little models and captured on little pieces of film is hard to read on the fly.  That's why we use codes.  They are quick ways to convey information.  My codes for my photos are perhaps more specific than needed for a car card but the basic "X = boxcar" is nowhere near specific enough.  

Scott Chatfield

Tanks for that

We're using a system similar to Scott Chatfields', and it is geared toward sending the appropriate car to appropriate customer -- hence a general-service tank car (there is no such a thing) is a TA,  but there are also TC for chemical, TP for propane, TF for food-grade products like corn syrup.  Covered hoppers marked LO are sorted by length and have similar add-ons for Plastics, Grain, Fertilizer, Cement, and Sand service. LO55P, LO45F, etc.

Boxcars are classified by length, door type, and number of doors, i.e. X50DP for a 50-foot double plug door. Flats are F, with FB for bulkheads, FC for centerbeams, F89T for TTX flats, and FL for log bunks. Specialized cars like Thrall-Doors (LU) are known by the old AAR alpha codes.

Our crews have more luck with this than figuring out volume, loading and unloading details etc. We model 1979 when car designations were transitioning.  The downside is that it's an invented system but visitors catch on quickly. We were pessimistic that, in monthly operations, people would never catch on to alpha-numeric codes.

Why does the crew need to know?

I'm curious why the crew needs to know car type?  Does your operating system give the crew the responsibility of selecting appropriate cars to fill an empty car order?

The systems I've operated the crews didn't pick empties, either the system did or an agent type person - someone who could be expected to know a bit more about the particular setup, codes, etc.

Eyesight, for one

Ken asked "why does the crew need to know the car type?"  So they can find the car.  Gets harder to do as the scale goes down and the operator's age goes up.  Also, some operating systems do have "clerks" assigning cars to waybills during a session.  It can also help the layout owner, in his role as "agent" or "chief clerk", match waybills to proper cars.

Putting a picture of the car on the card card can help with the eyesight problem, but not the second problem.  And real waybills don't have a place for a pretty picture.....

Scott Chatfield

My freelance modern shortline...

...uses customized AAR codes that start with the real letters then adds extras to subdivide the types when needed, as others have suggested. In my case it's so that ShipIt! knows to assign loads to the correct car types.  

How many letters?

A good question is how many letters can your computer program handle in the car type field?  I'm sure that varies by program.  The answer will drive and limit your choices.

There's a prototypical analogy.  Over the years locomotive names have gotten longer, but UMLER (the program real railroads use for interchange) only has space for eight characters in the loco type field.  Different railroads have different ways of dealing with that problem.  For instance, a General Electric Dash 8-40CW needs eleven spaces (the dash and the space count).  NS shortened it to D840CW in UMLER but usually had D8-40CW on the loco's cab.  CSX used CW40-8  whileUP used C40-8W.  (If memory serves.)  I always use the NS style (without the dash) when I label slides or name files.

Keeping track of stuff is a PITA and the railroads used to employ an army of clerks to do it.

Scott Chatfield

Eyesight

Yup eyesight can be a problem.  I've had a few issues with that myself in N scale, and on the upper deck of a multi-deck layout - bifocals/progressives focus close in the bottom part of the lenses, and it's hard to line that part up with the car numbers on the upper deck without messing up your neck.

I asked because it seemed like you were putting more detail in the codes that was strictly necessary to help find the car.  But since you're using the same code to help crews find the car and to help clerks route the car (which is certainly a reasonable thing to do) it makes sense.

My thoughts on how to solve the identifying the car problem on my N scale layout before I had to tear it out to move were to go in one of two directions - either tab on car, or optivisor assist for reading car numbers during op sessions, with a simple single letter car type code on the waybills.  I verified both approaches work, but with different tradeoffs.

Harder than it needs to be

A general freight boxcar is an XM.

An auto parts car is type XA.

One thing about tying a car type to a commodity, what happens when you get a Centerflow car that hauls grain?

What happens when a gravity unloaded covered hopper (a grain covered hopper) hauls soda ash, potash, fertilizer or anything other than gran hopper?

Finding a car should be where the list or car cards say it is.  If the lists are any good, if the car is the third car on the track, train or switch list, then the car  should be the third car from the end.  If people are keeping track of the car cards then the third car from the top of the deck of car cards should be the third car in the track.  Basic railroading 101.

I use a modified UMLER scheme

When I was adding cars into my database, I developed my own scheme similar to what Scott described, only mine is loosely based on UMLER instead of AAR type codes.  I say "loosely" because ultimately, only the first letter (car type code) is what I used from UMLER, and the rest of the code is what I created.  The remaining 3 digits in the UMLER code are probably way too much detail and too cryptic for our needs.  I also simplified by not using all of the type codes, grouping some similar types together (e.g. both unequipped and equipped gondolas are "G"), and a couple of type codes are made-up.

My type codes are 3-6 alphanumerics long.  The first letter is the type code, then 1 or 2 optional letters for a sub-group, then 1-3 numbers for a type-specific designation (e.g. car length, car capacity, number of doors/bays/levels, etc).  It is designed so that hopefully a visiting operator should be able to figure it out fairly quickly. The type code groups are as follows:

• B: Boxcar - code contains door type, number of doors, and length
• C: Covered Hopper - code contains specialized type or commodity, number of bays, and capacity
• D: Diesel (locomotive) - code is similar to CN and CP class codes, lists type/use, axles, and HP
• F: Flatcar (excluding intermodal) - code contains specialized type, and length
• G: Gondola - code contains specialized type and length
• H: Open Hopper - code contains specialized type, number of bays, and capacity
• NR: Non-Revenue - made-up code for cabooses, plows, cranes, etc
• P: Intermodal Platform - code contains type (flat, spine, well), loading (containers, trailers, all), number of platforms, and length or max trailer/container length per platform
• R: Reefer - code contains specialized type, and length
• T: Tank - code contains commodity, and capacity (gallons)
• U: Container - code contains length
• V: Vehicle Rack - code contains open/enclosed type, number of levels, and length
• Y: Passenger - made-up code contains car type, number of levels, and length
• Z: Trailer - code contains trailer length (also includes RoadRailers)

Here is a selection of some of my current codes:

Depending on what the operator is doing they may only be interested in part of the car code.  For instance, the conductor of a through train may only need to look at the first letter when comparing the switch list against the cars.  But a yard crew may need the full description when scanning several tracks of BN Green cars for that specific 50 foot double sliding door boxcar.

The extra information in the car types also helps with JMRI and operations rules.  We wouldn't want to use a Corn Syrup tank car for Chlorine loading...

Craig

CC & WB

Just curious. If you are modeling an era in the computer age why CC & WB that fits in better for those modeling pre-1985? There is a whole blog I did on this for using paperwork based on prototype practices that includes the AAR codes.

Modern railroads rely on the UMLER system AAR codes to identify specific car types. Most Railroad conductors don’t know or really care what the entire AAR code means but rather just goes by the first letter. Example A - cushion underframe boxcar, B - rigid underframe boxcar. C - covered hopper, D - diesel electric locomotive and so forth.

Good luck with your endeavors!

TG

loads

I'm not too concerned about commodity limits.

By the late '70s, "the next load, any road slogan" on Railbox cars was there because so many cars were tied to one pool or another.  We have enough cars on our railroad that they rotate in and out of operation.

Canpotex cars in the northwest are never loaded with grain. trough-loading gravity dump cars with reporting marks like CAGX  were rarely loaded with phosphate, covered hoppers with individual hatches and pneumatic outlets were almost always in a dedicated service.

Other times, other patterns.

But I'm willing to be shown I'm wrong.

Reminds me of the story about a prairie railroad clerk who made plea to get a new typewriter.  Five weeks later a company box car showed up, consigned to his station agency, with a typewriter strapped to a pallet in the center of an otherwise empty box car.   But I would not label that an XMT.

Why CC&WB?

Maybe because that's what the original poster and his crews are familiar with?   The less retraining the better?

Like I said, my system was developed to label slides and digital image files to make research easier.  When you have as many images as I have that's important.  I try to stick to the correct AAR Mechanical Designation code as much as possible for the first letters.  I don't use the AAR Car Type Code system for a couple reasons.  First, it's not intuitive.  Some of the letters are but others aren't.  There is nothing intuitive about the three numbers that come after the letter, and they don't always mean the same thing within a single car type.  Lastly, while it does appear in the printed Official Railway Equipment Register (aka the ORER) and in UMLER (Universal Machine Language Equipment Register), it very rarely appears on an actual car.  Until 1989 the AAR Mechanical Designation code was required as part of the stencilling, and many car owners continued to use it until recently.  Yes, it counts as "read the fine print," but on most of our models it's there.

I have no problem with using CC&WB or computerized switchlists.  For years my planning for the "next layout" involved through trains and yards and interchanges.  The layout I'm building now is a terminal operation.  Only one way in and one way out.  Lends itself to a switchlist.

Scott Chatfield

Yard lists

@Craig

@Tim

These are tied together.  The first comment is the answer to the second comment.  From what I have seen in most computer switch list systems, yard lists aren't structured like the prototype.  Therefore the methodology the crews use, how they structure their work, how they execute their work, the mindset of how they do their work is very different from how a real crew would approach it.

Many people say they use a computer generated list because real crews carry a piece of paper not car cards.  It just depends on whether you want the crew to feel "prototypical" because the paperwork is appropriate or whether you wan the crew to feel "prototypical" because they will approach the work the same.

Just what you want to emphasize, owner's choice.  If you want computer driven lists, I would definitely suggest looking at JMRI Operations, so I am not saying not to use JMRI.  The industry switch lists for trains spotting cars are pretty close to prototype.  The yard lists are not as close.

If you really want a prototypical list system, a combination of car cards and waybills, and handwritten lists is virtually 100% prototypical and applicable to railroads from WW1 to the 1970's or 80's.  The methodology is applicable to any era, even today.

A real yard crew isn't going to "scan" several tracks looking for a car.  They will get the track list and go specifically to that car in that track or if the track isn't "PICL'd" (pronounced pickled), they will pull each track out, by the conductor, and he will read each car number, until he finds the car in the tracks.

Typewriter

I can go one better.  A car that is completely empty can be considered a load.

There is a movement called a "revenue empty" (that is the commodity name), an empty car that has a revenue movement empty waybill against it.  For example a new car moving from the car builder to the owner, or an owner shifting cars between plants or sending cars to or from a car shop for repairs.  Since it has a revenue waybill against it, its not an "empty".  In that case the car itself is the "load".  Its just a reeeeeaaaallllly light load.