CSX Chicago Line Derailment

[ericsp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mvlandsw




"In news beyond Rochester, two passing trains were involved in a derailment east of Syracuse on Saturday morning.

25 cars reportedly jumped the tracks in the village of Little Falls.

A CSX spokesperson says the accident happened after a car lost its grip on the track and took additional cars from that train with it.

A single tanker in one of the trains had residue from a chlorine-based material, but it was not leaking.

No one was hurt.

The derailment forced Amtrak to cancel two trips through the area. The rails will be closed for at least 24 hours".

"Lost its grip on the track" ???? Maybe the railroads should license the use of Magna Traction from Lionel.

I think it should have said "The reporter lost his (or her) grip on reality."

[mvlandsw]

"In news beyond Rochester, two passing trains were involved in a derailment east of Syracuse on Saturday morning.

25 cars reportedly jumped the tracks in the village of Little Falls.

A CSX spokesperson says the accident happened after a car lost its grip on the track and took additional cars from that train with it.

A single tanker in one of the trains had residue from a chlorine-based material, but it was not leaking.

No one was hurt.

The derailment forced Amtrak to cancel two trips through the area. The rails will be closed for at least 24 hours".

"Lost its grip on the track" ???? Maybe the railroads should license the use of Magna Traction from Lionel.

[mvlandsw]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

Engine engine number nine,
going down the Chicago Line.
If the train should jump the track,
do you want your money back?

Mark, I don't know if you've heard that one before given your age. It's kind of like eenie, meenie, miney, moe. The person you land on then says yes, no, or maybe, then you count around. Very scientific!!!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.[swg]

I always wanted to have CSX 9 on the Chicago line so I could answer the dispatcher or the detectors with that little jingle.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Moving trains aren't generally susceptable to wind, as far as being tipped over. Stationary cars can be moved by wind if the brakes aren't set.

Modern covered auto racks might be light enough to be affected, but they are designed with all of those little holes in the panels just for that reason.

Are you thinking of that train of roadrailers that tipped over on a superelevated curve? That accident had nothing to do with wind. The problem was that the trailers were so light, and the train was stopped on the curve. When it started, the force wanted to pull the train straight, not around the curve that it was sitting on. The engineer was unable to get the back end of the train rolling, and cars in the middle began to tip.

This is an easy experiment that you can recreate at home on a model railroad. I've done it many times. Just build a long train, for good measure, put heavy cars at the back end. Stop on a curve, then try to start the train. Light cars in the middle will want to go straight, not following the track around the curve. Wheels on the outside of the curve will start to leave the rail. Pull a little harder, and over they go.

[Junctionfan]

Ah, thankyou gentlemen. I stand corrected.

I was just wondering if covering the super-elevation would shield the train from the winds. Maybe I should call it a windshed.

[Overmod]

Andrew, imho the correct word for what you're describing is 'superelevation' directly, which refers to the banking of the track. I do not know whether that section of line ever had the very high superelevation that parts of the Water Level Route south of Harmon did, or if so, it would have remained at that high degree during subsequent rebuildings (presumably freight-optimized).

Snow sheds are not a phenomenon in the Northeast -- although anyone familiar with lake-effect snows might cheerfully approve their being in areas susceptible to them, at times! There's no direct relationship with superelevation (except that, because speed in the sheds would likely be restricted, for a variety of reasons, there would be comparatively little need for any degree of superelevation that would contribute to derailment. I also doubt there could be sufficient meaningful crosswind through a shed structure to derail a car...

I do seem to remember that windbreaks have been used on some track sections and bridges -- I think that's only peripherally involved with high elevations; more due to the effect of wind, katabatic compression, etc. due to the shape of mountains. Mark: aren't there some interesting anti-wind arrangements in Europe and North Africa?

Junc -- are you talking about bridges like through trusses, as opposed to deck girder, plate girder, bowstring etc. bridges that have no load-bearing structure above the rails? If so, I assume you're familiar with the truss as a means of load-bearing construction. A truss doesn't really care if it's loaded on the top or bottom, so depending on conditions (and costs) you can run the track on top of the truss, or on the bottom (in which case the metal structure above the tracks is what holds the bridge up). In some cases, the Forth Bridge in Britain being an example, you have structure both above and below the track.

A covered bridge is a more interesting case: most of these are NOT monococque stressed-skin designs, but are conventional frames that have been fitted with sheathing against the weather. In the 'old days', iron and steel were expensive, but large wood timbers were easily available. You might, therefore, frame a bridge with arches and trusses, but these would be susceptible to rain, freeze damage, insect damage, etc. So you essentially built a long, thin barn over the bridgework to keep the worst of the weather off it. I think you are correct in thinking this would also prevent some crosswind danger, but on very long, high spans the added drag of full siding may cause trouble in two respects: it increases side pressure which can cause the span or its bearings to fail, and it can induce vortex shedding (cf. the Tacoma Narrows Bridge story) which can cause other forms of failure.

If this doesn't answer your questions, rephrase them in one place and we'll address 'em again...

[Junctionfan]

Sorry guys if I didn't explain myself properly. In a thread awhile ago, a train was going on a high-elevation curve and it derailed. It was determined that it was because it was because the elevation was too high on both sides.

I was wondering if maybe because it was out in the open like it would be in on a high bridge, would covering it reduce hunting from winds blowing at the sides?

That is why I was asking about a snowshed like thing for covering the embankment or covering a bridge.

[Junctionfan]

Why are some bridges enclosed in steel frame?

[Anonymous]

http://www.rnews.com/Story.cfm?ID=22156&rnews_story_type=18

See it while you can. I don't know how long this link will last.

[oskar]

that's sucks but I dont get any trains that come from there





kevin

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dougal

I've gotten word that CSX had ANOTHER train jump the tracks in upstate NY on the Chicago Line. Ttrains are being detoured on NS and other CSX lines.

So what's new dougal? How have you been?

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Sounds like hunting due to high embankments; kind of like what happened in Canada. I think it was Nova Scotia.

On a related note, does covering a bridge or section "snow shed" reduced the problem of derailment due to elevation? Does it have to due with winds from increased height?

(I know we had this discussion but maybe someone could add this to hear as a side note.)

This derailment sounds like a mechanical problem on a car. One goes, the rest follow. The engine made it past the point of the derailment, suggesting that the track was OK. That's not fact, just what it looks like given the information in the story.

Snow sheds are just that, they are intended to keep the snow off the tracks. If you can find a copy of "Battle For Donner Pass" you would understand snow sheds. I have that on video, and it is amazing what they do to keep those tracks open. Many of the snow sheds have open sides, wind is not the problem.

Often the sheds are in areas that are avalanche prone. They protect the track frrom being completely wiped off the side of the mountain, by diverting the snow over the top.

One big problem is the freeze thaw cycle tends to cause ice to form. In the video they demonstrate the use of primer cord for clearing flangeways, dynamite for large ice flows or chunks, and the use of shotguns for bringing down huge icicles. They also show the use of rotery plows.

[Junctionfan]

Sounds like hunting due to high embankments; kind of like what happened in Canada. I think it was Nova Scotia.

On a related note, does covering a bridge or section "snow shed" reduced the problem of derailment due to elevation? Does it have to due with winds from increased height?

(I know we had this discussion but maybe someone could add this to hear as a side note.)

[garthcoder]

Here is a link from a newspaper:

http://www.littlefallstimes.com/articles/2004/10/30/news/news01.txt

A few weeks ago another train derailed on a bridge between Utica and Herkimer, about 10 miles west of where this one occurred. I'm beginning to think Upstate New York is a bad place for trains. :-)

[Big_Boy_4005]

Engine engine number nine,
going down the Chicago Line.
If the train should jump the track,
do you want your money back?

Mark, I don't know if you've heard that one before given your age. It's kind of like eenie, meenie, miney, moe. The person you land on then says yes, no, or maybe, then you count around. Very scientific!!!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.[swg]

[Anonymous]

I've gotten word that CSX had ANOTHER train jump the tracks in upstate NY on the Chicago Line. Ttrains are being detoured on NS and other CSX lines.