Trains.com

CO2 in tunnels?

3416 views
10 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Allen, TX
  • 1,320 posts
CO2 in tunnels?
Posted by cefinkjr on Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:07 PM

I downloaded FDR's Wartime Train Travels from the Classic Trains web site and ran across this in a sidebar describing B&O 1401, a combine pressed into service as a communications car :

... the AAR faulted [the White House Signal Detachment] for placing a gasoline tank below the frame of the car.  AAR people directed that a double-walled tank with CO2 be used between the walls.  This created its own problems, for each time the train neared a tunnel, it would have to stop so the CO2 tank could be emptied, and upon exiting, it would halt again so the tank could be refilled.

Why did the CO2 tank have to be empty while going through a tunnel (other than "because the AAR said so")?

 

Chuck
Allen, TX

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Sunday, March 9, 2014 11:42 AM

As CO2 is an inert gas I can see no good reason for emptying the tanks prior to going through tunnels.

Unless they were using the gas to recharge the seltzer bottles in the Presidents car!

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, March 9, 2014 12:18 PM

One thing that comes to mind is that some tunnels -- the Holland and Lincoln tunnels being specific examples -- have a blanket prohibition against 'compressed gases'.  There isn't any exception for INERT compressed gases, and I believe this is intentional (the pressure bottles become shrapnel bombs in a fire).

Why such a premise would apply to railroad tunnels isn't clear; perhaps there are people on here familiar with specific railroad policies who know.  Wouldn't surprise me to find a prohibition against pressurized gases on passenger cars, though...

Now, to call an inert-gas blanket a 'pressure vessel' in this context is right up there with calling a superheater with front-end throttle a 'separately-fired' pressure vessel.  But those who were there at the time might have recognized something more significant, and I don't want to second-guess them.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Monday, March 10, 2014 12:43 PM

The history of human civilization - it takes a long time for science to replace superstition.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 13,892 posts
Posted by wjstix on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 11:44 AM

My guess would be a fear of a derailment or other accident that could trap the car in a tunnel already choking with coal smoke. Adding CO2 from a leaking tank caused by the derailment, to a tunnel already short of breathable air, wouldn't be a good idea.

Stix
  • Member since
    August 2006
  • From: Southern Highlands, New South Wales
  • 26 posts
Posted by shunter on Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:10 PM

Good Question Chuck,

Just how it would be refilled is another query, I would ask?

Something doesn't read correctly with the original paragraph, I suspect.

CO2 of course being an axphysiant, the AAR may have had issues with it's use in tunnels.

I wonder if subsequent issues of 'Trains' back then corrected the statement? - Could be worth checking.

Ozzie Wombat

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Friday, March 21, 2014 10:01 AM
The restrictions on commpressed gases in tunnels only applies to flammable materials IIRC. And that prohibition has been since the 1970's.
The asphyxiating effect with CO2 should only a problem with large quantities I would think. I'm talking about in excess of 1000lbs.

By the way did the car baggage car have a generator to provide electrical power? If it did the generator fuel tank may have been the problem not CO2.

Rgds IGN
  • Member since
    September 2010
  • 339 posts
Posted by efftenxrfe on Saturday, March 22, 2014 8:16 PM

Was that excerpt from an April Fool's edition?

If:

Carbon Dioxide was the problem, people breathing would have to be prevented.

Compressed CO2 was the problem, there'd be know way operate a seltzer water bottle, or to carry the replacement gas for the fuel tank blanket at the end of the tunnel.

Compressed flammable gas was the problem, what exempted SP's many passenger car's generators powered  by Waukesha engines fueled with propane? 'never did like the smell of the exhaust from them.

It's much less of a mystery than the fate of the 239 on board Flt. 370, but for mysterious quality....some equality.

Flt. 370....239 Souls On Board....Don't abbreviate using the word's first letter's.....I almost did.

Digression alert!!

No 51, San Joaquin Daylight, rollin' on fast track from Fresno, Sunny and warm, highs near 103 F....Waukeshas conditioning air in the train...Boiler Failure alarms. Why?

Hot water to wash and sanitize dining car "stuff" and heat the "H" water in the lavatories.

Go back in the units and work on a cantankerous heat producer the boiler,, engines at Run 8, the sound and temperature eases your mood.....no!

The technical and electronic parameters facing today's operating employees greatly exceed what we were faced with 40 years ago.




















  










  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,449 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Sunday, March 23, 2014 9:55 PM

People breathing in a ventilated area is not a problem, but breathing in a confined area with a large release from a pressurized CO2 tank could be a problem.  The human body has a narrow tolerance range for oxygen levels.  Air is about 21% oxygen, but when the level gets down to about 19% it's life threatening.

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Allen, TX
  • 1,320 posts
Posted by cefinkjr on Sunday, March 23, 2014 11:12 PM

shunter

Just how it would be refilled is another query, I would ask?

Ozzie Wombat

That's a great question.  I hadn't thought of that.  I wonder if any of FDR's staff thought of it.

Chuck
Allen, TX

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Allen, TX
  • 1,320 posts
Posted by cefinkjr on Sunday, March 23, 2014 11:12 PM

MidlandMike

Air is about 21% oxygen, but when the level gets down to about 19% it's life threatening.

Not as life threatening as the fire the CO2 was meant to suppress.

Chuck
Allen, TX

SUBSCRIBER & MEMBER LOGIN

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

FREE NEWSLETTER SIGNUP

Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter