Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Derailments Caused By Emergency Braking?

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Mr. Hilton’s article on slack covers not only slack, but also the issue of switching impact and the overlap of the function of devices to control both causes of impact.  Switching impact damages lading, while slack impact creates dangerous train dynamics. Here is his comment about the functional necessity of slack for starting trains: “A contemporary lashup of diesels may exert a tractive effort of over 300,000 pounds, triple what a big articulated steam locomotive could put out.  Roller bearings have reduced rolling friction.  All of this has reduced the significance of the original function of slack:  allowing cars to be started one at a time.  In fact, slack generally has been eliminated from passenger trains, and some engineers think the same could be accomplished with freights, even given the existing technology of locomotives and separate, unpowered cars.” Interestingly, Hilton says the probability of a derailment of a train rises more than proportionately to the length of a train.  The longer the train is, the higher is the probability of its having a dynamiter in the consist, the greater will be the force of cars striking one another in braking, and the higher is the probability of having extremely unstable cars in the consist.  He cites statistics showing that the probability of derailing from equipment-related causes is five times higher for a 200-car train as it is for a 100-car train. Train separations are 1 out of 6 for trains of 250 cars; and 1 out of 136 for trains under 100 cars. In an average derailment, trains of 100 cars have 4.6 cars derailing; and trains of 250 cars have 7.1 cars derailing.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag