erikemKelvin comes up rather frequently in the electronics biz
And in the color of light dealing with light bulbs and photography.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Miningman and CX500 are right about Canada's staged conversion to metric, and the continuing use of Imperial measurements by the railways.
I cannot speak for CP, but CN measures temperature in Celsius, not Fahrenheit. All our line side Hot Box Detectors broadcast readings in Celsius, and hot & cold weather restrictions are measured in Celsius too.
The only Fahrenheit reading am familiar with is the human body temperature of 98.6. I could not tell you offhand what it is in Celsius.
Otherwise I can think in both systems, owing to my metric schooling and employment on a railroad. But Celsius always has seemed more logical for temperature, 0 and 100 both being significant points for a universal substance we all encounter every day.
I know that 100°F was originally supposed to be the human body temperature, but what does 0°F stand for?
The United States is the only major country left still using the Fahrenheit system, everyone else has converted to Celsius.
I could always make everyone unhappy and start giving readings in Kelvin instead...
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Back on topic:
VerMontanan What would be the (ultimate) destination of this coal? Prince Rupert? And given that the train was only 5369 tons, a midget in CN terms, would this cut of cars eventually be put together with others to form a much longer train?
What would be the (ultimate) destination of this coal? Prince Rupert? And given that the train was only 5369 tons, a midget in CN terms, would this cut of cars eventually be put together with others to form a much longer train?
The coal is destined to either Prince Rupert or Vancouver for export. The Luscar mine mainly produces steelmaking coal.
The weight listed in the Transport Canada release I posted works out to a gross weight of around 94 tons per car. I believe this is inaccurate as the mines normally load very close to the 286,000 lb limit.
As for train operations and switching, the grades, curves and track layout at Luscar limit trains to a maximum of 58 cars. A full train from that mine is run at either 116 or 174 cars on the mainline and split into 2 or 3 cuts for loading. There are staging yards near Edson and Cadomin to leave the rest of the train in. Loading at the other Coal Branch mine (Coal Valley) works in a similar fashion, but with 2 longer cuts of up to 112 cars each due to the longer track layout there.
I am told that the trainset involved in the runaway had a total of 116 cars and had previously been in service to the Tumbler Ridge, BC mines northeast of Prince George. It had not been to Alberta for a significant amount of time (if ever).
I hope the crew of the runaway had a clean pair of underwear handy. Going 53 MPH doen a 3 percent grade with all of those curves would make me mess my pants.
Thank You, Sir.
selector Knowing next to nothing about such things (so it's not a risible question), could some of the brakes have been weakened or inoperable in such conditions? What would be the one, two, or three most likely causes of this mishap?
Knowing next to nothing about such things (so it's not a risible question), could some of the brakes have been weakened or inoperable in such conditions? What would be the one, two, or three most likely causes of this mishap?
I do not know any specific facts yet, and have only briefly spoken to my two friends who were onboard. Keeping in mind what they had gone through I did not pry too much; CN, Transport Canada and the TSB will all be questioning them thoroughly in the course of the investigation.
They are both well experienced in mountain railroading, and the Engineer has run trains out of Luscar in every weather condition imaginable. I would be ASTOUNDED if they did anything wrong. So I would put "operator error" at the very bottom of the list of possible causes.
They had 3 GE locomotives, two ES44AC's (the 2870 and 2888) and a C44-9W (IC 2718). The dynamic braking system was not working on the 2718 but this by itself would not cause a runaway. Many trains have been run there with less dynamic braking capability than the two ES44AC's are capable of. Many others have been power braked down the hill without using dynamics at all. The 2888 was leading, and the ES44AC's are all in pretty good shape and quite reliable, so "locomotive problems" is not a likely cause.
The cold weather was likely a contributing factor, but again this by itself would not cause a runaway. Trains are run there year-round, sometimes in the worst cold imagineable, Luscar being halfway up a mountain.
If the track had not been plowed and snow was built up over the rail this would have severely impeded braking ability. But the Engineering forces are supposed to plow the track before a train departs to Luscar, and in the past crews (including this particular Engineer) have refused to leave the mine if the hill was not properly plowed. So I would also put "track condition" near the bottom of the possibility list.
I would say the most likely cause of this runaway is that something went wrong with the cars' air brakes. There are numerous possibilities, including:
- A complete or partial blockage of the brake pipe (snow/ice/dirt buildup, closed angle cock, etc) could mean that not all the brakes would apply when the Engineer set the air. But he would still have been able to put the train into emergency from the tail end, by using the EOT. The investigators should be able to tell from the black box download whether this was a factor or not.
- A unintentional release of the air brakes occurred. This can happen without warning if a car starts leaking back into the brake pipe after the air brakes are set, or for several other reasons, and may not be immediately apparent to the Engineer until the train starts accelerating unexpectedly. Again, the investigators should be able to tell if this happened from the download.
- The load/empty adjustment feature on the cars were not working properly, which could have caused the cars to only apply a light brake that would not skid wheels on empties, when in reality they were loaded. This was a major cause of the other major runaway that happened on the Luscar spur, that train got up to 52 mph in 2008.
- The cars' brakes were working properly, but something else impeded braking. The de-icing and latex sprays this mine applies to the inside of the cars (and again to the top of the coal load) come to mind, if the spray bar is not turned off between cars the wheels will become coated in the slippery liquid. But they spray every train, so this should not be the sole cause.
Or something else went wrong with the cars' control valves, and these cars were simply not capable of providing enough braking force to hold the train back on a 3% grade. I am not a carman so cannot speak to all the detailed possibilities.
NDG Too many runaways.
Too many runaways.
Another runaway on the Coal Branch comes to mind, this one happened around 1980, with Inland Cement's Cadomin rock train. The train still runs today, hauling limestone from a quarry just south of Cadomin to the big cement plant on the west end of Edmonton. The quarry is located on a 2% grade, and Inland personnel load the train themselves, rolling it downhill one car length at a time with their own air system. They have been operating like this ever since the quarry opened around 1960.
The Cadomin area is known for its odd weather, in addition to the horribly strong winds the can be quick, massive temperature changes when a Chinook blows over the mountain. I have seen it go from -30°C (-22°F ) to above freezing in less than a day, and the temperature can vary by just as much between valleys, this being the edge of the Rocky Mountains.
To cope with the cold the quarry uses antifreeze in their air system. At the time they were using what was found to be a substandard type (can't recall the name offhand), which would freeze sooner than it should have. On this day a Chinook was blowing in, and at the quarry it was fairly warm. Like always, during the process of loading the train quite a bit of this "antifreeze" ended up in the cars' brake systems.
The crew picked up the train and departed the quarry, the train behaving normally and no problems apparent. The proceeded away from Cadomin, and like always the Engineer set the air properly to descend the next 2% grade. But by this time they had re-entered the deep freeze, and the so-called antifreeze gummed up and stuck the cars' control valves, preventing the brakes from applying.
The train proceeded to run away down the grade, and derailed at 50+ mph on two tight curves with a wooden trestle between them. Miraculously no one was badly hurt, as the locomotives, last car and caboose did not derail. Everything else piled up in the bush and destroyed the trestle.
After that the quarry started buying better air brake antifreeze, I believe the stuff they use now is rated to something like -50°C (-58°F).
The trestle was never rebuilt, the line was rerouted over a big fill instead, which also eliminated several tight curves. The wreck happened here:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Yellowhead+County,+AB,+Canada/@53.0720842,-117.2544114,16z/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x53a284349804c243:0x395535572dde608?force=lite
Thank You.
I have a copy of "Oh, the Coal Branch" at home, it is an excellent read. Not just for the railroad parts, it gives real insight into what life was like in all the remote, small towns back then.
But I did especially enjoy the photos of the steam engine on its side in the McLeod River, and of the burning caboose.
Cassiar suffered the same fate as Mountain Park, Cadomin, Luscar and so many other formerly booming mining towns. And for all the money the province poured in, rails never did reach Dease Lake or Cassiar.
Retainers are still used every day on the Cadomin rock train, but only while the mine is loading it. Going "over the top" is long since in the past (thank goodness).
Still waiting for more details to emerge about this latest runaway, but I can confirm that the crew did everything right.
Thank You Again, Sir, for the update.
"Stay with her Wes". He sure did. What a wild ride, thank goodness the engines just skidded to a stop on their sides and were not crushed.
Some facts are slowly starting to filter out about the Luscar runaway, such as the history of the train involved. This trainset (composed of CITX 500000 series cars) had first arrived in Western Canada in early December, as part of CN's search for additional cars to handle increased coal traffic out here. It had previously been in service in the Southern U.S, based out of Memphis. It made one trip in mild weather to Coal Valley (the other Alberta Coal Branch mine, not Luscar) and was then placed in service to Tumbler Ridge, that line has a maximum descending grade of 1.5%. Steep, but not killing.
The incident trip was this trainset's first time on a 3% grade, and in -25°C weather to boot. It seems that the cars' brakes simply did not work as well as they should have, and this was made worse by the cold. The cars were extensively examined by Mechanical personnel before being brought down the rest of the Coal Branch, and I am told even after that the train required heavier than normal brake applications to bring it safely back to the mainline.
After being unloaded this trainset is to be sent back to the Southern U.S, away from cold weather.
More to come.
Eerie reminder of the earlier runaway, with more tragic results, caused by very similar neglect of parts of the brake system on a trainset that, I believe, was also brought up from the United States.
Interesting that they say this set (and presumably others to cover the original 'lane') was based out of Memphis; I thought I was fairly familiar with the coal trains on BNSF (ex-Frisco) and NS (ex-Southern, some of which exchange off ex-IC CN going south to east) but didn't know of anything based here either for maintenance or storage for Citirail or anyone else. Will have to look into this. Someone who knows, please give me details.
I am not hearing the information first-hand, but the references to this particular trainset seem to indicate that "it came up from Memphis" and that it "will be sent back to Memphis". Perhaps Memphis is just the interchange point, and the cars have a different final destination.
I am not very familiar with current operations on the ex-IC lines, but I do know that a substantial amount of coal moves from Illinois mines to ports on or near the Gulf coast. Memphis is the largest yard on CN south of Chicago, perhaps it is the maintenance base (home shop) for trainsets handling this traffic?
The 2008 Luscar runaway also involved a trainset that was recently imported from down south, and that set was also sent back to where it came from, never to return to Western Canada.
SD70DudeI am not hearing the information first-hand, but the references to this particular trainset seem to indicate that "it came up from Memphis" and that it "will be sent back to Memphis". Perhaps Memphis is just the interchange point, and the cars have a different final destination. I am not very familiar with current operations on the ex-IC lines, but I do know that a substantial amount of coal moves from Illinois mines to ports on or near the Gulf coast. Memphis is the largest yard on CN south of Chicago, perhaps it is the maintenance base (home shop) for trainsets handling this traffic? The 2008 Luscar runaway also involved a trainset that was recently imported from down south, and that set was also sent back to where it came from, never to return to Western Canada.
Do the cars used in Western Canada have any 'SPECIAL' construction or air brake differences from cars that are AAR legal? Are the cars used in the area of these runaways given any SPECIAL maintenance beyond what is necessary to keep the equipment operating 'legally'?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Do the cars used in Western Canada have any 'SPECIAL' construction or air brake differences from cars that are AAR legal? Are the cars used in the area of these runaways given any SPECIAL maintenance beyond what is necessary to keep the equipment operating 'legally'?
One would have to ask Mechanical personnel about that, I am not sure. But the coal sets out here are generally considered to brake quite well compared to other trains, and are inspected by Mechanical personnel once per round trip (normally when the empty trainset arrives in Kamloops or Prince George, BC). I would not know if anything special is done beyond the standard No. 1 air brake test.
CN does not use any technology like the CP automatic retainer/straight air system NDG mentioned, but for a time after the 2008 runaway crews were instructed to charge trains to 110 PSI instead of 90 prior to departing Luscar, to give additional braking effort. By the time I began working there that practice had been discontinued.
Both this runaway and the 2008 one involved trainsets recently imported from a warmer region, and both took place in extremely cold temperatures. Such conditions can expose and magnify pre-existing problems (minor air leaks become major, etc) that would not otherwise have been noticeable.
I should be hearing more details of the runaway in the next few days.
SD70DudeSuch conditions can expose and magnify pre-existing problems (minor air leaks become major, etc) that would not otherwise have been noticeable.
I would suggest that may be a strong factor. It's not unusual for our Polar Express trains to operate in temperatures ranging from the 50's to near zero fahrenheight, sometimes within the span of a week.
They aren't 50 car coal or ore trains, but in my experience there is never any real difference. Snow and ice can be factors, but the cold by itself not so much.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 SD70Dude Such conditions can expose and magnify pre-existing problems (minor air leaks become major, etc) that would not otherwise have been noticeable. I would suggest that may be a strong factor. It's not unusual for our Polar Express trains to operate in temperatures ranging from the 50's to near zero fahrenheight, sometimes within the span of a week. They aren't 50 car coal or ore trains, but in my experience there is never any real difference. Snow and ice can be factors, but the cold by itself not so much.
SD70Dude Such conditions can expose and magnify pre-existing problems (minor air leaks become major, etc) that would not otherwise have been noticeable.
Not to belittle your operation tree - but you aren't handling 30 - 50 - 100 car or more trains. Extreme cold at the very least makes air hose gaskets hard and brittle and subject to more leakage than at more temperate times. Metal in the trainlines, connectisons and air brake valves will also shrink in the cold and if any connections are the least bit loose also become points of leakage.
Back in the day, alcahol was added at the locomotive air compressor to act as anti-freeze for the trainline. In today's railroads that practice has been outlawed. The air compressors on today's locomotives take the process of drying the air they compress seriously so as to remove virtually any moisture in the braking trainline and thus minimize the potential of moisture freezing in the trainline or brake valves.
Balt we routinely have trailers that have been in warmer areas come north in the winter and end up with frozen brake valves the rigging freezes the shoes freeze right to the drums at times. It isn't just the moisture in the air that can be a problem the stuff that's on the parts can be worse. Also greases have different solid points. We switch to what we call our winter grease in September. It stays flexible to -30 Fahrenheit. Our summer stuff is a brick at zero degrees. It makes a difference.
BaltACDNot to belittle your operation tree...
No offense taken. I know there will be problems with cold, and the bigger the train, the bigger the potential for problems.
Our Polar trains are 12 cars with a locomotive at each end - still the biggest trains we routinely run, and the only ones that encounter true winter weather.
But the cars all spend all there time in the same area, and are captive on our line, so are not as likely to have the problems that were mentioned. As Shadow noted, things are done differently in areas that are normally moderate than in areas where extremes occur.
98.6 F = 37 C
Faranheit set up his scale who knows why 32 F = freezing and 180 degrees higher 212 F is boiling temp at a standard atmosphere of 29.92 inches. ( 1013.2 mill bars )
0 F = ~ -17.6 C
blue streak 1Faranheit set up his scale who knows why 32 F = freezing
Erikem mentioned this on page one. He made zero the freezing point of saturated salt water--apparently the coldest common substance he could think of.
Miningman Canada converted to Metric April 1 1975..Cold Turkey too!, ...just like that. The great unwashed mumbled a lot but to no avail. It is done and for a considerable amount of time now. No one talks Deg. F any longer. SD70Dude is a younger chap, probably not even born yet in 1975. He grew up and was taught in school Deg C always. Surely Norm you can do the conversion yourself. Another suggestion would be to put a simple auto conversion calculator on your desktop..just plug in a number and bingo. As Overmod states, and have I in the past several times, -25 is just damn cold C or F. Also, as Overmod alluded to, at -40 C and F are the same. Travelling through the USA last summer all the weather temperatures were in deg F. It was like going back in time for me and I found myself converting to C just to see if we come close to that at home. Of course the humidity was way off, we do not get that thick stuff in Saskatchewan but they do in Toronto and Southern Ontario. The humidity was the real difference. How on earth do you breath in that stuff?
Canada converted to Metric April 1 1975..Cold Turkey too!, ...just like that. The great unwashed mumbled a lot but to no avail. It is done and for a considerable amount of time now. No one talks Deg. F any longer.
SD70Dude is a younger chap, probably not even born yet in 1975. He grew up and was taught in school Deg C always.
Surely Norm you can do the conversion yourself. Another suggestion would be to put a simple auto conversion calculator on your desktop..just plug in a number and bingo.
As Overmod states, and have I in the past several times, -25 is just damn cold C or F. Also, as Overmod alluded to, at -40 C and F are the same.
Travelling through the USA last summer all the weather temperatures were in deg F. It was like going back in time for me and I found myself converting to C just to see if we come close to that at home. Of course the humidity was way off, we do not get that thick stuff in Saskatchewan but they do in Toronto and Southern Ontario.
The humidity was the real difference. How on earth do you breath in that stuff?
I believe Norm has made previous mention he has an aviation background. If this is the case, I find it strange he's uncomfortable dealing with Celcius temps.
BLS53I believe Norm has made previous mention he has an aviation background. If this is the case, I find it strange he's uncomfortable dealing with Celcius temps.
I'm close enough to the border that I can (and do) often listen to Canadian radio stations. I've learned that +10C is about +50F, and +20C is +68F. +30C is around +90F, and just too danged hot.
A +70F day with near 100% relative humidity is perfectly livable, while +90F with 100% humidity is intolerable. OTOH, in the winter, when humidity in the house drops down to near single digits, many folks run a humidifier - and that can help raise the perceived temperature in the house.
I'm not uncomfortable with Celsius, I just find the scale too crude for judging human comfort.
Norm
The saga continues.
The latest trainset to run up to Luscar (this one is composed of cars from CN's Western Canada coal fleet, and I believe it has been in service to the Alberta Coal Branch for quite some time) has also experienced severe braking issues.
The first section of the train was operated by one of CN's most experienced Engineers, a man with 40+ years of service. Upon departing the mine he did not feel the train was braking properly, immediately set a heavy application and managed to bring it to a stop on the hill. The Conductor then applied a number of handbrakes, and they proceeded down the hill with a full service air brake application on the train, in addition to the handbrakes. This is far more braking effort than should ever be needed, and I believe their prompt actions prevented another runaway.
The second section operated in quite reasonable weather conditions, with the temperature around -15°C. This train also did not brake well, and required a full service air brake application and full dynamic braking effort to hold it back.
Both crews reported this behaviour to the proper authorities, and our head ESO (Engine Service Officer, CN-ese for Road Foreman of Engines) went to Luscar yesterday to ride the third and final section of this train. I have not yet heard how that trip went, but believe they made it down the hill safely.
I am sure the TSB investigators will be quite interested in this train too.
A final note, when the crew of the January 10 runaway were interviewed by the TSB they mentioned the 2008 runaway in passing. The investigators really perked up at that, and their next words were "what runaway!?".
Guess CN never bothered to report that incident.
SD70DudeA final note, when the crew of the January 10 runaway were interviewed by the TSB they mentioned the 2008 runaway in passing. The investigators really perked up at that, and their next words were "what runaway!?". Guess CN never bothered to report that incident.
2008 - Wasn't EHH the top dog on CN then? Dead men tell no tales.
BaltACD 2008 - Wasn't EHH the top dog on CN then? Dead men tell no tales.
That is correct.
While these runaways have fortunately not resulted in any fatalities (yet), other incidents under EHH's tenure did, which made them harder to cover up. These two were both directly caused by his cuts:
http://tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2003/r03v0083/r03v0083.asp
http://tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2006/r06v0136/r06v0136.asp
SD70Dude BaltACD 2008 - Wasn't EHH the top dog on CN then? Dead men tell no tales. That is correct. While these runaways have fortunately not resulted in any fatalities (yet), other incidents under EHH's tenure did, which made them harder to cover up. These two were both directly caused by his cuts: http://tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2003/r03v0083/r03v0083.asp http://tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2006/r06v0136/r06v0136.asp
In the second pdf, at 1.14.4, they mention the missing sensor plate on the empty/load sensor on the derailed car, but state that this did not affect the sensor's performance. Are they saying that the car was loaded enough to contact the frame anyway, or that the sensor was adjusted to the proper gap from the frame to sense the load? Apparently, missing plates were fairly common. It seems to me that the main problem with missing plates might be risking damage or wear to the sensor arm from the rough surface of the frame.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.