Trains.com

How WRI friendships grease squeaky wheels

Posted by Steve Sweeney
on Thursday, May 9, 2013

CHICAGO - You could describe the 2013 Wheel/Rail Interaction conference here in Chicago by highlighting the bright minds gathered in one room at one time or by the scope of knowledge each presenter offers to the audience.

Yet the connections forged during the four-day conference might be the most important of all.

Gordon Bachinsky, the electrical engineer at the heart of WRI seminars says as much almost as a mantra throughout the daily sessions.

"We want to develop those relationships and tear down some barriers," Bachinsky says, noting that other than in the seminars at WRI, the first time most track supervisors meet with car maintainers or wheel designers is when something goes wrong, as in a derailment.

"What our goal is, is to build these relationships so that people are willing to talk to each other in a more user-friendly manner."

There's evidence that his efforts are having an effect. Roadmasters from Norfolk Southern or CSX Transportation can, and do, talk with experts in rail fatigue, who happen to also be Federal Railroad Administration and National Research Council of Canada researchers. At other times, questions such as, "How often is rolling contact fatigue the cause of a rail break?" and "How long can you extend the life of a wheel by truing? Better to grind or use a lathe?" are topics addressed as much with a beer in hand as with a laser pointer on a projector screen.

And nearly all participants vied to meet one of BNSF Railway's new friction managers, whose job it is to, well, manage friction between BNSF train wheels and BNSF track. Nothing more, nothing less.

Other relationships are being built too, the kind made by suppliers and railroad purchasers and the ones made between a slick railroad recruiter and budding mechanical and civil engineers who are at WRI because they are top talent in the first place.

But this is also the conference where attendees commiserate while they learn.

Take, for instance, the stories told by an engineer who worked for a California light rail system in the late 1990s. Laced between coefficient of friction terms and premature gauge-face wear, were other equally hard facts: residents along the rail agency's northern line harassed track workers, threw rocks at them and called by the hour to complain about noisy transit cars. The transit system did not respond to requests for comment, so its name and the engineer's name are withheld here. Suffice it to say, the noise problems were bad. According to the engineer, the agency first tried wetting the tracks, then started greasing the inside of rails with paintbrushes to reduce the noise.

"It was inconsistent. The cost of labor to do it made it ineffective. It was dangerous," the engineer said of transit workers that lingered near live tracks during revenue hours.

What it took was system-wide track lubricators spreading a special blend of Teflon-like grease on the inside of rails to make squealing residents and wheels, go away.

Audience members' smiles and nodding heads signaled their understanding following the presentation. They followed this pause with still more questions:  "Were you able to gauge the spread of the grease over the entire distance?"

Yes.

"Did you have problems with lubricant on the rail surface?"

No, it didn't migrate, but we also use this as a friction modifier in top-of-rail applications. So it would be unlikely to make a difference.

And so on... for three receptions and four days of sessions: seven for transit, 16 for heavy haul, and nine for foundational principles.

It's heavy material, made light by participants' shared desire to learn how to improve their railroads.

Comments
To leave a comment you must be a member of our community.
Login to your account now, or register for an account to start participating.
No one has commented yet.