Trains.com

Train does burnout. (Pics)

7114 views
5 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 297 posts
Train does burnout. (Pics)
Posted by Zwingle on Friday, July 29, 2011 7:08 PM
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 24,860 posts
Posted by tree68 on Friday, July 29, 2011 7:59 PM

I've seen similar pictures in the past.

I did find the comments on the "from here" link extremely amusing, though...

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: US
  • 1,103 posts
Posted by ValleyX on Friday, July 29, 2011 9:41 PM

I wonder if that's from the set of pictures that were taken from a CSX malfunction a number of years ago.  Those pics made the rounds a good while back.  Someone had a lot of explaining to do.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 24,931 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, July 29, 2011 10:21 PM

Rail burns do happen from time to time .... in the pictures that open this thread it would appear that one engine remained under power.  If this occurred on a single engine train then the Engineman is totally at fault, however, looking at the territory it would appear to be mountainous and single engine trains are rarely operated.  It is not unheard of for one engine in a consist to accurately respond to the commands from the lead locomotive....most likely due to a defective MU cable where one or more circuits within the cable do not transmit the intended control command.  In the pictured incident, it would appear that the train stopped (stalled) and one 6-axle locomotive continued operating as if the train were still moving...with up to 12 units being allowed in a locomotive consist, the engine that did the damage could have been almost 1000 feet from the lead locomotive and might not have been heard operating in a manner that was inconsistent with all the other locomotives in the consist.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Saturday, July 30, 2011 6:22 AM

BaltACD

Rail burns do happen from time to time .... in the pictures that open this thread it would appear that one engine remained under power.  If this occurred on a single engine train then the Engineman is totally at fault, however, looking at the territory it would appear to be mountainous and single engine trains are rarely operated.  It is not unheard of for one engine in a consist to accurately respond to the commands from the lead locomotive....most likely due to a defective MU cable where one or more circuits within the cable do not transmit the intended control command.  In the pictured incident, it would appear that the train stopped (stalled) and one 6-axle locomotive continued operating as if the train were still moving...with up to 12 units being allowed in a locomotive consist, the engine that did the damage could have been almost 1000 feet from the lead locomotive and might not have been heard operating in a manner that was inconsistent with all the other locomotives in the consist.

Or it could have been a DP unit that went berserk.

Maybe it's the railroad version of a speed bump.

  • Member since
    September 2009
  • From: california
  • 45 posts
Posted by BNSF_Conductor11 on Saturday, July 30, 2011 7:04 PM

this could also be from a remote control unit, especially if no one was on the engine while it was trying to move a long cut of cars.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy