Euclid I would start out with dedicated consists having solid, semi-permanently connected drawbars and ECP brakes. From there I would add derailment sensors. At the very least, the sensors could set the brakes as early as possible in the derailment process.
Oil trains are essentially "dedicated consists" - the owners / lessees would scream like mad if the cars were diverted to any other shipper or service.
Many other types of traffic are frequently similar cars in solid consists blocks or entire trains. I saw a grain train on Friday, plus 2 intermodals and a multi-level (auto-rack) in just a few minutes up at Cresson, PA (the summit above Horseshoe Curve). So why must obvious progress take so long ?
- Paul North.
dehusmanSearch for NYCT images and LOOK at the track. Really LOOK at the track. Then search for pictures of railroad track. Really LOOK at the track. What is different? NYCT track is for the most part on bridge structures, on concrete pads or steel ties.
It hlso has very tight curves and a LIVE third rail within inches of workers and equipment. But they get the job done, nonetheless. All MOW equipment is limited to 9' wide and 50' long so that it can access the IRT division. The MOW equipment is built with third rail and tunnel clearances in mind.
The CWR cars are old passenger cars with the storm doors removed and the rails pass right through a half dozen of them.
The Signal Dolly: No Hi-Rails down here, all work on signals is done from trains like this:
The Vacuum Train: Aka the Super Sucker...
The RAT... aka The Rail Adhesion Car
Welding Cars:
Rail Inspection Cars:
And Yes, We even have TANK CARS!
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
BroadwayLiondehusman Search for NYCT images and LOOK at the track. Really LOOK at the track. Then search for pictures of railroad track. Really LOOK at the track. What is different? NYCT track is for the most part on bridge structures, on concrete pads or steel ties. It hlso has very tight curves and a LIVE third rail within inches of workers and equipment. But they get the job done, nonetheless. All MOW equipment is limited to 9' wide and 50' long so that it can access the IRT division. The MOW equipment is built with third rail and tunnel clearances in mind. The CWR cars are old passenger cars with the storm doors removed and the rails pass right through a half dozen of them. The Signal Dolly: No Hi-Rails down here, all work on signals is done from trains like this: The Vacuum Train: Aka the Super Sucker... The RAT... aka The Rail Adhesion Car Welding Cars: Rail Inspection Cars: And Yes, We even have TANK CARS! ROAR
Search for NYCT images and LOOK at the track. Really LOOK at the track. Then search for pictures of railroad track. Really LOOK at the track. What is different? NYCT track is for the most part on bridge structures, on concrete pads or steel ties.
Rail Grinder?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDRail Grinder?
Euclid Paul, I remember Kneiling ruffling feathers with his ideas back in that timeframe. I never did buy his book, but I think I will now. I want to find out how he expected to get trains started with those solid drawbars eliminating the slack.
beecause he had no practical experience on railroad operations!
schlimm edblysard I am currently trying to find out more about the underground railroad in Chicago that connected all the downtown stores. True. Not much about it. Before I went back to grad school, I was with Marshall Field & Co. on the buying staff. In the 2nd sub-basement ((among other things such as the large room where the gunsmiths test fired weapons) was Field's entrance to the underground railroad, sealed off by a locked heavy steel door. I always wanted to take a look, but opening it was taboo because it was supposed to be infested with water and rats and we didn't want that problem. The Budget Floor entrance to the State Street subway (Englewood-Howard, now Red line) was problematic enough.
edblysard I am currently trying to find out more about the underground railroad in Chicago that connected all the downtown stores.
True. Not much about it. Before I went back to grad school, I was with Marshall Field & Co. on the buying staff. In the 2nd sub-basement ((among other things such as the large room where the gunsmiths test fired weapons) was Field's entrance to the underground railroad, sealed off by a locked heavy steel door. I always wanted to take a look, but opening it was taboo because it was supposed to be infested with water and rats and we didn't want that problem. The Budget Floor entrance to the State Street subway (Englewood-Howard, now Red line) was problematic enough.
The book "Fourty Feet Under" Covers it all, i'm sure Amason can get you a copy!
Yes he ruffled feathers for belittling folks for not doing things they knew wouldn't work and won't even now, ring a bell?
Euclid I think oil trains could start without slack.
Based on what experien?
edblysard BroadwayLion dehusman The type of road crossing has no impact on the speed of the railroad. A dirt crossing can be on 70 mph track the same as a concrete panel crossing. The railroads don't really want "quiet zones". In most cases they would prefer not to have them. There tend to be more accidents in quiet zones. Quiet zones are favored by the cities and the cities pay for them. Better crossings are favored by teh cities and the cities pay for them. You have it pretty much backwards. Yup. The LION knows nothing. But now him knows more than before. And it makes such an interesting conversation, don't you think? If I do not post my ideas, who will give me new ideas. Besides, I still like my ideas. There is better monitoring of the lading, of the wheel sets, and better more uniform braking. NYCT has guard rails and timbers all over the place and seem to have no trouble inspecting them. The Chicago Transit Authority, not so. They got problems with thier inspections. ROAR BroadwayLion dehusman The type of road crossing has no impact on the speed of the railroad. A dirt crossing can be on 70 mph track the same as a concrete panel crossing. The railroads don't really want "quiet zones". In most cases they would prefer not to have them. There tend to be more accidents in quiet zones. Quiet zones are favored by the cities and the cities pay for them. Better crossings are favored by teh cities and the cities pay for them. You have it pretty much backwards. Yup. The LION knows nothing. But now him knows more than before. And it makes such an interesting conversation, don't you think? If I do not post my ideas, who will give me new ideas. Besides, I still like my ideas. There is better monitoring of the lading, of the wheel sets, and better more uniform braking. NYCT has guard rails and timbers all over the place and seem to have no trouble inspecting them. The Chicago Transit Authority, not so. They got problems with thier inspections. ROAR Brother , If I was looking for an informed, detailed answer to a theological question, or wanted to understand life in a monastery, or wanted to engage in a discussion on the relevance of religion in modern societies, I would seek out an expert on such matters, one such as you, who lives the life and has first hand, real life time experience...makes sense to ask the guy with hands on time, right? What startles me is that in this and other threads, experienced guys who do this for a living have tried to explain, several times over and in many way, why you have to have some slack in a freight train. There is Jeff, a UP engineer who does this every day, Paul North and MC, who design and build railroad s for a living, Zugman, who is now a engineer and was a conductor, (experience both on the ground and on the seatbox), Balt, who is management at CSX, D huesman who is also in mid management, and myself, who not only runs loaded oil trains every week, but flat switches all kinds of freight every day...all of us are in one way or another saying the same thing. Transit equipment and passenger equipment do have slack, but most of that is negated by the draft bumpers the cars are equipped with, and the cars all have suspension designed to offer a smooth ride for the contents, namely delicate easily damaged humans. Freight cars do not have to offer such care, because the contents really don't care if the ride is super smooth or not. There has to be some vertical movement between the coupler faces to compensate for small track defects, high frog points, batter rail ends and small roadbed defects...there has to be slack in between the faces to allow the car to negotiate curves, both mainline and in yards, and there has to be a wide gathering swing to the couplers to allow for switching....cars are humped or flat switched, it is totally uneconomical to shove each car to a coupling, it would increase dwell times to the point you couldn't run trains. Tightlock or shelf couplers were designed to keep cars locked together in the event of a derailment, the vertical movement is handled by springs under and above the coupler shank, the coupler has it's own suspension system to allow for the above mentioned small track defects...these couplers were mandated for all hazardous tank cars years ago, with retrofit programs and mandates for new construction. Another concern for me is the attitude both you and Euclid seem to hint at in most of your postings, that being that railroad management is made up of Neanderthals, robber barons whose only concern is "raping" the public for every dime they can and resist change simply because it is part of their DNA...that and the patronizing attitude that most railroaders are somewhat mentally slow slightly moronic blue collar dolts who couldn't pick their noses without someone "smarter" than themselves giving them instructions, nothing could be farther from the truth, but of course, without a villain the whole "us versus the evil company and it's minions" thing doesn't work, right? You both fail to understand that the carriers have to accept the cars offered, by law we can't refuse the cars if the placard matches the paperwork, and the cars passes a normal FRA defect inspection, then we move it...period. Railroads don't own many cars, shippers and banks do, we don't build them either, and while the carriers, through the AAR do have some input with design and specifications, we don't have much control over that aspect either. That said, we do have the ability to charge for handling cars we would prefer not to, take BNSF's current $1000.00 surcharge on crude in DOT111 cars, and I expect UP, KCS, CSX and NS to follow suite. The issue is not with the cars...at 45 mph, if a loaded tank car runs into anything stationary, like another railcar, or a house or building, a tree or just the ground, something is going to break. If you don't believe anything else, understand and believe this...once the flanges are on the outside of the rails, whatever else happens is purely a crapshoot. Next derailment, a broken rail might rip the sides out of five or six cars, or it might just fold back out of the way. A busted tie can send any tank car, no matter how it is designed or equipped, end over end, or sideways, or have no impact on the car at all...pretty much anything goes. The only reasons the cars are under scrutiny is because the media, or press if you will, understands that sensational stories sell, and that's what they are in business to do, sell news, (and advertising spots)...the politicians are jumping on this is because they understand and want their names sold in the news too...it is a win win for them no matter what. In one of the threads here, in one of the reports from the NTSB or the FRA, the author has the best, most safest and economical solution already...list all such crude, all tar sand and shale crudes as class 2 flammable gases, let railroads run the unit trains as Key trains on dedicated routes( which the railroads already maintain better than you realize for that very reason)...the shipper pays more for the movement, still less than building an entire new fleet of cars, the carrier already has the routes, crews and all than in place, and you price the movement in such a manner as to create the smallest impact on the cost passed on to the end user. Its not an equipment issue, or a track issue, it is an operational issue. What really amazes me more is that there are commodities out there that make this crude look like a puddle of lighter fuel next to a tank of Liquid oxygen..put a match to one, you get a little poof...the other goes boom...big badda boom! You even notice chlorine cars in any of the trains by your monastery? You do understand that what is inside that car is 100% chlorine, not the stuff in your laundry bleach, which is 3% chlorine and 97% distilled water? Here is a easy experiment for you...go into the laundry, pour a 1/4 cup of laundry bleach into a measuring cup, take that into your bathroom, close the door and windows, and pour the bleach out onto the tile floor....if you can stay in that room more than 30 seconds, you need to join an Ironman competition. That's a mild 3% solution...the tank car is 100%....yet we, (railroads) have managed to haul this stuff over a century and still not killed half the population of the US....and trust me, if you bang a hole in a chlorine car, what leaks out will kill everything within a hundred yards. The grass, the trees, the roaches, birds and people, it all dies....yet no one seems to care we haul stuff like that, and other stuff that makes even chlorine look tame. All this uproar over oil that burns....really? Oil burns? Go figure...
BroadwayLion dehusman The type of road crossing has no impact on the speed of the railroad. A dirt crossing can be on 70 mph track the same as a concrete panel crossing. The railroads don't really want "quiet zones". In most cases they would prefer not to have them. There tend to be more accidents in quiet zones. Quiet zones are favored by the cities and the cities pay for them. Better crossings are favored by teh cities and the cities pay for them. You have it pretty much backwards. Yup. The LION knows nothing. But now him knows more than before. And it makes such an interesting conversation, don't you think? If I do not post my ideas, who will give me new ideas. Besides, I still like my ideas. There is better monitoring of the lading, of the wheel sets, and better more uniform braking. NYCT has guard rails and timbers all over the place and seem to have no trouble inspecting them. The Chicago Transit Authority, not so. They got problems with thier inspections. ROAR
dehusman The type of road crossing has no impact on the speed of the railroad. A dirt crossing can be on 70 mph track the same as a concrete panel crossing. The railroads don't really want "quiet zones". In most cases they would prefer not to have them. There tend to be more accidents in quiet zones. Quiet zones are favored by the cities and the cities pay for them. Better crossings are favored by teh cities and the cities pay for them. You have it pretty much backwards.
Yup. The LION knows nothing. But now him knows more than before. And it makes such an interesting conversation, don't you think?
If I do not post my ideas, who will give me new ideas.
Besides, I still like my ideas. There is better monitoring of the lading, of the wheel sets, and better more uniform braking.
NYCT has guard rails and timbers all over the place and seem to have no trouble inspecting them. The Chicago Transit Authority, not so. They got problems with thier inspections.
Brother ,
If I was looking for an informed, detailed answer to a theological question, or wanted to understand life in a monastery, or wanted to engage in a discussion on the relevance of religion in modern societies, I would seek out an expert on such matters, one such as you, who lives the life and has first hand, real life time experience...makes sense to ask the guy with hands on time, right?
What startles me is that in this and other threads, experienced guys who do this for a living have tried to explain, several times over and in many way, why you have to have some slack in a freight train.
There is Jeff, a UP engineer who does this every day, Paul North and MC, who design and build railroad s for a living, Zugman, who is now a engineer and was a conductor, (experience both on the ground and on the seatbox), Balt, who is management at CSX, D huesman who is also in mid management, and myself, who not only runs loaded oil trains every week, but flat switches all kinds of freight every day...all of us are in one way or another saying the same thing.
Transit equipment and passenger equipment do have slack, but most of that is negated by the draft bumpers the cars are equipped with, and the cars all have suspension designed to offer a smooth ride for the contents, namely delicate easily damaged humans.
Freight cars do not have to offer such care, because the contents really don't care if the ride is super smooth or not.
There has to be some vertical movement between the coupler faces to compensate for small track defects, high frog points, batter rail ends and small roadbed defects...there has to be slack in between the faces to allow the car to negotiate curves, both mainline and in yards, and there has to be a wide gathering swing to the couplers to allow for switching....cars are humped or flat switched, it is totally uneconomical to shove each car to a coupling, it would increase dwell times to the point you couldn't run trains.
Tightlock or shelf couplers were designed to keep cars locked together in the event of a derailment, the vertical movement is handled by springs under and above the coupler shank, the coupler has it's own suspension system to allow for the above mentioned small track defects...these couplers were mandated for all hazardous tank cars years ago, with retrofit programs and mandates for new construction.
Another concern for me is the attitude both you and Euclid seem to hint at in most of your postings, that being that railroad management is made up of Neanderthals, robber barons whose only concern is "raping" the public for every dime they can and resist change simply because it is part of their DNA...that and the patronizing attitude that most railroaders are somewhat mentally slow slightly moronic blue collar dolts who couldn't pick their noses without someone "smarter" than themselves giving them instructions, nothing could be farther from the truth, but of course, without a villain the whole "us versus the evil company and it's minions" thing doesn't work, right?
You both fail to understand that the carriers have to accept the cars offered, by law we can't refuse the cars if the placard matches the paperwork, and the cars passes a normal FRA defect inspection, then we move it...period.
Railroads don't own many cars, shippers and banks do, we don't build them either, and while the carriers, through the AAR do have some input with design and specifications, we don't have much control over that aspect either.
That said, we do have the ability to charge for handling cars we would prefer not to, take BNSF's current $1000.00 surcharge on crude in DOT111 cars, and I expect UP, KCS, CSX and NS to follow suite.
The issue is not with the cars...at 45 mph, if a loaded tank car runs into anything stationary, like another railcar, or a house or building, a tree or just the ground, something is going to break.
If you don't believe anything else, understand and believe this...once the flanges are on the outside of the rails, whatever else happens is purely a crapshoot.
Next derailment, a broken rail might rip the sides out of five or six cars, or it might just fold back out of the way.
A busted tie can send any tank car, no matter how it is designed or equipped, end over end, or sideways, or have no impact on the car at all...pretty much anything goes.
The only reasons the cars are under scrutiny is because the media, or press if you will, understands that sensational stories sell, and that's what they are in business to do, sell news, (and advertising spots)...the politicians are jumping on this is because they understand and want their names sold in the news too...it is a win win for them no matter what.
In one of the threads here, in one of the reports from the NTSB or the FRA, the author has the best, most safest and economical solution already...list all such crude, all tar sand and shale crudes as class 2 flammable gases, let railroads run the unit trains as Key trains on dedicated routes( which the railroads already maintain better than you realize for that very reason)...the shipper pays more for the movement, still less than building an entire new fleet of cars, the carrier already has the routes, crews and all than in place, and you price the movement in such a manner as to create the smallest impact on the cost passed on to the end user.
Its not an equipment issue, or a track issue, it is an operational issue.
What really amazes me more is that there are commodities out there that make this crude look like a puddle of lighter fuel next to a tank of Liquid oxygen..put a match to one, you get a little poof...the other goes boom...big badda boom!
You even notice chlorine cars in any of the trains by your monastery?
You do understand that what is inside that car is 100% chlorine, not the stuff in your laundry bleach, which is 3% chlorine and 97% distilled water?
Here is a easy experiment for you...go into the laundry, pour a 1/4 cup of laundry bleach into a measuring cup, take that into your bathroom, close the door and windows, and pour the bleach out onto the tile floor....if you can stay in that room more than 30 seconds, you need to join an Ironman competition.
That's a mild 3% solution...the tank car is 100%....yet we, (railroads) have managed to haul this stuff over a century and still not killed half the population of the US....and trust me, if you bang a hole in a chlorine car, what leaks out will kill everything within a hundred yards.
The grass, the trees, the roaches, birds and people, it all dies....yet no one seems to care we haul stuff like that, and other stuff that makes even chlorine look tame.
All this uproar over oil that burns....really? Oil burns?
Go figure...
Thank you getting so tired of folks that are not railroaders acting like the industry is stupid and they, the posters, have all the answeres. The AAR through is research program spends $20 M + each year on its research/accident reduction program. Guess they should save that money and just listen to what folks here tell them what is the way to go. They have all the solutions the experts should be fired!
BuslistThank you getting so tired of folks that are not railroaders acting like the industry is stupid and they, the posters, have all the answeres. The AAR through is research program spends $20 M + each year on its research/accident reduction program. Guess they should save that money and just listen to what folks here tell them what is the way to go. They have all the solutions the experts should be fired!
A technical analysis of derailments by experts: http://railtec.illinois.edu/CEE/pdf/Conference%20Proceedings/2005/Anderson%20and%20Barkan%202005.pdf
And some technical improvements that could help:
Brigham McCown, a former head of the federal agency that regulates rail transport of hazardous materials, said an array of new technologies patented within the last decade can warn of defects and identify trouble spots before accidents happen.
For example, sensors can be put on the lead locomotive to measure rail thickness, detect deformities and alert engineers, he said. Sensors can also be placed under track or next to rail ties to detect movement in track beds, or on cars to detect a broken wheel, he said.
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-so-many-oil-trains-have-derailed-this-year-2015-3#ixzz3VAqaPHV4
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Buslist Thank you getting so tired of folks that are not railroaders acting like the industry is stupid and they, the posters, have all the answeres. The AAR through is research program spends $20 M + each year on its research/accident reduction program. Guess they should save that money and just listen to what folks here tell them what is the way to go. They have all the solutions the experts should be fired! A technical analysis of derailments by experts: http://railtec.illinois.edu/CEE/pdf/Conference%20Proceedings/2005/Anderson%20and%20Barkan%202005.pdf And some technical improvements that could help: Brigham McCown, a former head of the federal agency that regulates rail transport of hazardous materials, said an array of new technologies patented within the last decade can warn of defects and identify trouble spots before accidents happen. For example, sensors can be put on the lead locomotive to measure rail thickness, detect deformities and alert engineers, he said. Sensors can also be placed under track or next to rail ties to detect movement in track beds, or on cars to detect a broken wheel, he said. http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-so-many-oil-trains-have-derailed-this-year-2015-3#ixzz3VAqaPHV4
Buslist Thank you getting so tired of folks that are not railroaders acting like the industry is stupid and they, the posters, have all the answeres. The AAR through is research program spends $20 M + each year on its research/accident reduction program. Guess they should save that money and just listen to what folks here tell them what is the way to go. They have all the solutions the experts should be fired!
Yes they are a great group, mostly funded by the AAR, they were selected as an Affiliated laboratories by the AAR by an elite group of AAR Research staff.
And the UofI has a great group of Amuni dating from the WWHay days. A couple of his PhDs have become famous in the industry.
He had all the practical experience he needed. I knew him.
Solid drawbars are zero problem because the draft gear remains, and can even be cushioned, long-throw draft gear if desired. Any real expert knows most slack is in draft-gear travel and NOT the looseness of the coupler pocket and knuckle mating.
Euclid Paul, I remember Kneiling ruffling feathers with his ideas back in that timeframe. I never did buy his book, but I think I will now. I want to find out how he expected to get trains started with those solid drawbars eliminating the slack. He had all the practcal experience he needed. I knew him. Draw bars still use draft gear, and long-throw cushioned draft gear can be used if wanted. Most slack is in draft-gear travel, not the looseness of the coupler knuckle-pocket joint.
He had all the practcal experience he needed. I knew him.
Draw bars still use draft gear, and long-throw cushioned draft gear can be used if wanted. Most slack is in draft-gear travel, not the looseness of the coupler knuckle-pocket joint.
[/quote]
EuclidThe one thing we cannot do on this forum is force the professional experts to do things they do not agree with. So I don’t see any reason for those experts to get into a huff over us discussing new ideas.
It would be nice to know your expereinces. Just for curiosity's sake.
Most on here are pretty willing to share where they are coming from. You always seem to avoid answering.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Buslist Just add enough locomotives. It will go! : ) Euclid I think oil trains could start without slack. Based on what experien?
Just add enough locomotives. It will go! : )
I've started trains that may or may not be oil trains without slack. But it really depends on grade and how good your power is.
And by rule you can only have so many axles online, so "just keep adding power" is not going to work without a major rules change. And there isn't enough power floating around just in case you may need to start on a grade.
daveklepper He had all the practical experience he needed. I knew him. Solid drawbars are zero problem because the draft gear remains, and can even be cushioned, long-throw draft gear if desired. Any real expert knows most slack is in draft-gear travel and NOT the looseness of the coupler pocket and knuckle mating. Euclid Paul, I remember Kneiling ruffling feathers with his ideas back in that timeframe. I never did buy his book, but I think I will now. I want to find out how he expected to get trains started with those solid drawbars eliminating the slack. He had all the practcal experience he needed. I knew him. Draw bars still use draft gear, and long-throw cushioned draft gear can be used if wanted. Most slack is in draft-gear travel, not the looseness of the coupler knuckle-pocket joint. beecause he had no practical experience on railroad operations!
I'd like to interject questions about "Slack Action".
I get the part about the importance of Draft Gear in the Coupling process, with starting a long train... Loaded or Empty.
Is it not necessary for a loaded train on level track, to utilize the draft gear movement [Slack Action] to get the train started? And is that not a product of the locomotive's adhesion?
[Growing up in Memphis, I saw many times at the SR's Forrest Yard; a set of road power cut off from their train, and often a single 'SW'-type switch engine hooked up to their train, then push in the slack; then proceed to pull that train out of the yard to the West ( on a slight grade from East to West). It would then proceed to push that same train back to the East, to be cut and classified in the yard. Utilizing the slack acton to get the train of cars moving and to help classify the train.]
Then back in the late 1950's SP RR came out with their 'Hydra-Cushion' equipment, to protect freight by utilizing a cushion draft gear system: See @ http://www.carrtracks.com/sphc01.htm It seems to then 'disappear' over time. Why?
Would not solid draw bars creat more of a problem than they would resolve in dedicated trains; particularly, when it came time for maintenance or remove of a bad order or damaged car?
Would not the European System of Buffers and Chain couplings not ba an advantage to control slack within trains?
zugmann Euclid The one thing we cannot do on this forum is force the professional experts to do things they do not agree with. So I don’t see any reason for those experts to get into a huff over us discussing new ideas. It would be nice to know your expereinces. Just for curiosity's sake. Most on here are pretty willing to share where they are coming from. You always seem to avoid answering.
Euclid The one thing we cannot do on this forum is force the professional experts to do things they do not agree with. So I don’t see any reason for those experts to get into a huff over us discussing new ideas.
Euclid zugmann Euclid The one thing we cannot do on this forum is force the professional experts to do things they do not agree with. So I don’t see any reason for those experts to get into a huff over us discussing new ideas. It would be nice to know your expereinces. Just for curiosity's sake. Most on here are pretty willing to share where they are coming from. You always seem to avoid answering. I do not want to get into a p-contest over credentials. Once you start down that road, it becomes a contest over who has the most credentials. It is a sideshow that goes nowhere. All of you with experience are in a position to evaluate what I say, so what more do you need? I find that people who will not accept an idea on its substance often demand credentials so they can claim that the person proposing the idea is unqualified to do so. They are certainly not asking for credentials as idle curiosity. In fact I usually interpret an expert’s demand for credentials as validation of my idea because it shows that the expert is unable to disqualify the idea on its substance.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
See what I mean? You are doing exactly what I described.
So! Your Sideshow Bob?
Paul_D_North_Jr Oil trains are essentially "dedicated consists" - the owners / lessees would scream like mad if the cars were diverted to any other shipper or service. Many other types of traffic are frequently similar cars in solid consists blocks or entire trains. I saw a grain train on Friday, plus 2 intermodals and a multi-level (auto-rack) in just a few minutes up at Cresson, PA (the summit above Horseshoe Curve). So why must obvious progress take so long ?
One of the misunderstandings about unit trains in general (and oil trains by extension) is that the consist is fixed. The same cars travel in a set with the same other cars trip after trip after trip. Experience and reality would paint a different picture. The most consistent consists are the specialty trains (Georgetown RR slot trains) and coal trains. Other unit trains not so much.
While the same set of cars is together on an entire single trip (in most cases), the train size of successive trips for the same car may vary. The ABCX123456 might travel in oil trains for a year, but it could be in different size trains on successive trips, with trains ranging in size between 90 to 110 cars. If the train size varies between trips then that means the consist is changing, some cars are being added and some cars are being deleted from the consists between trips. Why? Bad orders, delays unloading cars, diversion to other origin-destination pairs, lots of different reasons.
When the idea is floated out for fixed drawbar equipment in "dedicated consists", just remember that the current operation does not support that concept fully, you can't just drop in a set of drawbar connected equipment and expect exactly the same operation. In order to make fixed drawbar systems work, you will have to figure out why the cars are being swapped out, how the fixed drawbar system will accommodate or mitigate those barriers, and what the cost is of that accommodation or mitigation. Most of the people on this list operate in a "cost is no object" world, but real railroads in the real world don't have that luxury. I suspect that with oil trains the empties are turned back out with whatever cars are unloaded, less bad orders. If 500 cars go into the plant, the first 100 cars, regardless of inbound train symbol, are gathered up for the empty outbound.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Euclid See what I mean? You are doing exactly what I described.
We don't see.
True experts in any field are more than willing to accept new ideas, and we have a number of railroaders that participate in this forum. The experts may be crippled in implementing new ideas by hidebound managers but if the idea has merit the experts will keep those ideas available for more opportune times.
With expertise and broad background also comes knowledge of what is likely to be a viable innovation. An enthusiastic amateur may be able to reinvent the wheel but the unfortunate reality is that most suggestions have already been proven impracticable, either from a physical or economic standpoint. That may disappoint the amateur, but criticising the experts as a result is childish.
That behaviour is what caused another poster to ask about your credentials. You were in effect denigrating theirs, despite the fact theat they have not hidden their railroad experience in the real world.
John
You don't think his lumber yard credentials are worthy? Then I guess that having been in aviation for thirty-some years neither are mine. The sum total of my railroad knowledge (not much) is what I have learned from friends in the industry and the professionals I interact with on line. It still don't amount to a hill of beans compared to those who ply the trade. I consider those interactions a learning experience and I surely won't tell them how to run their business.
I'm not saying outsiders ideas are worthless. There are times an outside opinion can be very valuable. There's always the facepalm moment of "Why didn't I think of that". They simply need to be within the realm of practicality.
Norm
dehusman Paul_D_North_Jr Oil trains are essentially "dedicated consists" - the owners / lessees would scream like mad if the cars were diverted to any other shipper or service. Many other types of traffic are frequently similar cars in solid consists blocks or entire trains. I saw a grain train on Friday, plus 2 intermodals and a multi-level (auto-rack) in just a few minutes up at Cresson, PA (the summit above Horseshoe Curve). So why must obvious progress take so long ? One of the misunderstandings about unit trains in general (and oil trains by extension) is that the consist is fixed. The same cars travel in a set with the same other cars trip after trip after trip. Experience and reality would paint a different picture. The most consistent consists are the specialty trains (Georgetown RR slot trains) and coal trains. Other unit trains not so much. While the same set of cars is together on an entire single trip (in most cases), the train size of successive trips for the same car may vary. The ABCX123456 might travel in oil trains for a year, but it could be in different size trains on successive trips, with trains ranging in size between 90 to 110 cars. If the train size varies between trips then that means the consist is changing, some cars are being added and some cars are being deleted from the consists between trips. Why? Bad orders, delays unloading cars, diversion to other origin-destination pairs, lots of different reasons. When the idea is floated out for fixed drawbar equipment in "dedicated consists", just remember that the current operation does not support that concept fully, you can't just drop in a set of drawbar connected equipment and expect exactly the same operation. In order to make fixed drawbar systems work, you will have to figure out why the cars are being swapped out, how the fixed drawbar system will accommodate or mitigate those barriers, and what the cost is of that accommodation or mitigation. Most of the people on this list operate in a "cost is no object" world, but real railroads in the real world don't have that luxury. I suspect that with oil trains the empties are turned back out with whatever cars are unloaded, less bad orders. If 500 cars go into the plant, the first 100 cars, regardless of inbound train symbol, are gathered up for the empty outbound.
Not exactly correct. In most case a 100 car (or whatever other size) operates from the loading point to the unloading point (unless something gets shopped along the way); after unloading, if some car(s) are shopped, them balance of the train goes back to the origin, without waiting for the shops to be repaired. The shops, after repair, may either be added to another empty train being returned to the original origin, or moved in mixed freight service to the original origin. This happens in all bulk commodity movements - coal, oil, grain, ore, steel slabs etc. etc. The main portion of the train will not be delayed because individual cars get shopped. Were the shopped car to be a drawbar connected vehicle, then all the vehicle that are connected to the individual shop by drawbar connections are also shopped. If the drawbar connected vehicle has 5 cars connected - all 5 are shopped and required 5 cars of track space to be handled. The 'normal' intermodal car is 89 feet long. The '5 pack' intermodal car is 300 feet long.
The cars used by one shipper at one location normally remain under the control of that shipper - in some cases the shipper, as the actual owner, will arrange for the periodic maintenance that is required for a trainset of cars.
EuclidI do not want to get into a p-contest over credentials. Once you start down that road, it becomes a contest over who has the most credentials. It is a sideshow that goes nowhere. All of you with experience are in a position to evaluate what I say, so what more do you need?
It would not be a peeing contest unless someone made it one. But with the amount that you participate, it would be nice to know a baseline of your understandings and experiences. That is all.
Now back to semi-permanently coupled trainsets. They are fine for refineries that unload (or places that load) railcars one trainload at a time all together. For example, a refinery with a loop track. But not all refineries have such a track, and not all trains are unloaded all coupled up. At some places the unit trains do have to be broken up every time. So a transit-type coupler would have to account for that, and be able to be coupled and uncoupled in a timely fashion.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.