tree68but CSX has apparently determined that there are times when it may be necessary.
.
Euclid, have you ever done anything that was against the rules and was succesful and thought the rule didn't provide you with a means to achive what you needed to do without violating it? It's like being asked "HAVE YOU STOPPED BEATING YOUR WIFE? YES OR NO"
So you have stated that the rule says don't apply hand brakes on empty cars and run in a train. And that hand brakes must be applied to secure a train on a grade when there is insuffient air to maintain a train on a grade. And that hand brakes can not be released on a moving train. And that releasing hand brakes on a stopped train with insufficient motive power to keep the train from rolling after a number of hand brakes are released is a receipe for problems, What do you suggest a crew is to do?
I don't know why hand brakes were left applied on an empty car but it appears that occurred. It has not been determined that that was the cause of the derailment. Should the train been put out on the rails as it was.I think not. I think it was an accident waiting to happen and it did. I also suspect that many times, trains like it have succesfully gotten over the road and so the practice of sending high tunnage trains down grades continues. If you watch the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IABM8UPplY
of the Southern RR's Saluda Grade, you will see what they did and how they treated it. It can be done but they used retainers as well as dynmic brakes. They also respect the hill. I an not saying that CSX people don't but obviously, the crew was put into a situation that they couldn't handle. Time in service. The train had to be recrewed. Why? Should they have been required to start down the grade with OOS running out? I don't think EHH's precision operating plan had anything to do with this but the RR's drive to maximize train length might.
BaltACD There are many things that should not be done and are against various rules as a matter of routine. That being said - there are times and situations where only the 'rules violation' action will permit the train to move with any degree of safety. Such actions are never undertaken 'lightly'. Rightfully or wrongfully, when such actions are specified as permissible in Timetable Special Instructions - those actions have been reviewed and approved by the 'brain trust' at the highest levels of the company - levels well beyond the local Trainmaster or top Division officer.
There are many things that should not be done and are against various rules as a matter of routine. That being said - there are times and situations where only the 'rules violation' action will permit the train to move with any degree of safety. Such actions are never undertaken 'lightly'.
Rightfully or wrongfully, when such actions are specified as permissible in Timetable Special Instructions - those actions have been reviewed and approved by the 'brain trust' at the highest levels of the company - levels well beyond the local Trainmaster or top Division officer.
If it happens to be totally unsafe and unaceptable except for some very special, rare, and exotic circumstances; well then it still agrees with what I said in post #1. So I have no disagreement with anybody here on this point except for Big Jim. That is why I asked him what he meant.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidHow can it sometimes be necessary, as you say.
You'd have to ask CSX.
And you just repeated the question (that you asked) that I answered.
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 Euclid So which way is it? Obviously, both. It's not a desired practice, as many have already pointed out, but CSX has apparently determined that there are times when it may be necessary. I realize that does not square well with your black and white world, but that's the way it is. Cue the incredulity.
Euclid So which way is it?
Obviously, both. It's not a desired practice, as many have already pointed out, but CSX has apparently determined that there are times when it may be necessary.
I realize that does not square well with your black and white world, but that's the way it is.
Cue the incredulity.
I think your argument is with Big Jim, not me. I was the one that said it can be done and sometimes is done, as in the example the Big Jim quoted from my original post here. Big Jim said: "The use of hand brakes to controll the movement of a train over the road is totally unsafe and unacceptable!" If he is right, it is not true that sometimes it is used and sometimes it is not, as you are saying above.
According to Big Jim, running with handbrakes set is never done. He said it is unacceptable. If it is unacceptable, how can it sometimes be acceptable? How can it sometimes be necessary, as you say.
EuclidSo which way is it?
BigJimFor those of you who have come here seeking knowledge...Beware! The quote above is total BS and shows that the OP has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. If I remember correctly, we had gone over this myth a long time ago in a previous thread, yet he persists on perpetuating this crap! I am sorry to have had to open this can of worms this far into the discussion, but, it needed to be said in order to belay any wild rumors it may have started in the minds of unknowing readers. The use of hand brakes to controll the movement of a train over the road is totally unsafe and unacceptable!
Big Jim,
Those of us who have perused the forum for a few years know who is posting fact and who is blowing smoke.
Bucky claims to have experience but when asked what that is all you hear is crickets. I would guess that by Bucky's standards I could compare my experience doing brain surgery to that of Dr. Ben Carson.
Norm
BigJim Euclid One way of taking the risk out of re-starting is to use a number of handbrakes set to hold the train back somewhat at the starting upon release of the air brakes. Ideally, the handbrakes would be released once the train is rolling under control of air brakes and dynamic brakes. But there is no way to release the hand brakes once the train is moving. One option would be to set the handbrakes so lightly that they could just drag without sliding wheels. But for proceeding with handbrakes set for supplementing air brakes, the handbrakes were probably set too tightly because they had been set originally for the purpose of securement. So reducing their set would have required the task of releasing each handbrake and re-setting them to a lighter application. CSX guidance on re-starting with handbrakes set was posted in one of the previous threads about this derailment, but it did not stipulate how tightly the handbrakes were to be set if used in this manner. It did stipulate that no handbrakes be set on empties. As I understand it, handbrakes were set on empties, which was okay for securement, but not for re-starting with handbrakes set. We have not been told what role the set handbrakes played in this derailment, but it is possible that they directly caused the derailment by causing wheels to slide. In any case, the use of handbrakes to aid in re-starting would have been unnecessary had the train been equipped with ECP brakes. For those of you who have come here seeking knowledge...Beware! The quote above is total BS and shows that the OP has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. If I remember correctly, we had gone over this myth a long time ago in a previous thread, yet he persists on perpetuating this crap!I am sorry to have had to open this can of worms this far into the discussion, but, it needed to be said in order to belay any wild rumors it may have started in the minds of unknowing readers. The use of hand brakes to controll the movement of a train over the road is totally unsafe and unacceptable!
Euclid One way of taking the risk out of re-starting is to use a number of handbrakes set to hold the train back somewhat at the starting upon release of the air brakes. Ideally, the handbrakes would be released once the train is rolling under control of air brakes and dynamic brakes. But there is no way to release the hand brakes once the train is moving. One option would be to set the handbrakes so lightly that they could just drag without sliding wheels. But for proceeding with handbrakes set for supplementing air brakes, the handbrakes were probably set too tightly because they had been set originally for the purpose of securement. So reducing their set would have required the task of releasing each handbrake and re-setting them to a lighter application. CSX guidance on re-starting with handbrakes set was posted in one of the previous threads about this derailment, but it did not stipulate how tightly the handbrakes were to be set if used in this manner. It did stipulate that no handbrakes be set on empties. As I understand it, handbrakes were set on empties, which was okay for securement, but not for re-starting with handbrakes set. We have not been told what role the set handbrakes played in this derailment, but it is possible that they directly caused the derailment by causing wheels to slide. In any case, the use of handbrakes to aid in re-starting would have been unnecessary had the train been equipped with ECP brakes.
For those of you who have come here seeking knowledge...Beware! The quote above is total BS and shows that the OP has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. If I remember correctly, we had gone over this myth a long time ago in a previous thread, yet he persists on perpetuating this crap!I am sorry to have had to open this can of worms this far into the discussion, but, it needed to be said in order to belay any wild rumors it may have started in the minds of unknowing readers. The use of hand brakes to controll the movement of a train over the road is totally unsafe and unacceptable!
If you were really worried that unknowing readers were going to have their minds warped by me starting wild rumors, then you would explain why the train came down the grade at Hyndman with many handbrakes left set after the train had been stopped for an airbrake problem earlier. In the thread about that, some people did post that this was totally unsafe and unacceptable. However, BaltACD posted CSX instructions that permitted moving a train with hand brakes set after they had been originally set for securement. So which way is it?
EuclidOne way of taking the risk out of re-starting is to use a number of handbrakes set to hold the train back somewhat at the starting upon release of the air brakes. Ideally, the handbrakes would be released once the train is rolling under control of air brakes and dynamic brakes. But there is no way to release the hand brakes once the train is moving. One option would be to set the handbrakes so lightly that they could just drag without sliding wheels. But for proceeding with handbrakes set for supplementing air brakes, the handbrakes were probably set too tightly because they had been set originally for the purpose of securement. So reducing their set would have required the task of releasing each handbrake and re-setting them to a lighter application. CSX guidance on re-starting with handbrakes set was posted in one of the previous threads about this derailment, but it did not stipulate how tightly the handbrakes were to be set if used in this manner. It did stipulate that no handbrakes be set on empties. As I understand it, handbrakes were set on empties, which was okay for securement, but not for re-starting with handbrakes set. We have not been told what role the set handbrakes played in this derailment, but it is possible that they directly caused the derailment by causing wheels to slide. In any case, the use of handbrakes to aid in re-starting would have been unnecessary had the train been equipped with ECP brakes.
The reason dynamic braking is preferred is because it is more fuel efficient. To get the most out of ECP for train handling you are going to be doing more power/stretchbraking. Whether they have thought that far out, I don't know.
Maybe it's the cynic in me, but I think the reason you aren't seeing more developement of ECP by the railroads is economic. Not technical. They don't want to spend the money for something that doesn't have a quick or substancial pay off. I can't blame them for that.
Jeff
The prefered braking method on my former carrier is use of extended range dynamic brakes. In specific locations the use of stretch air braking is permitted. Obviously, Emergency is never the prefered method. The reason dynamic braking is perferred is that there is little to no likelyhood of having a 'kicker' place the train in emergency as is possible when using air brakes at a service rate.
M636CThe feature of ECP that isn't discussed enough is: can a full service application of ECP braking stop a train clear of an obstacle or other problem that would otherwise require the use of Emergency with Westinghouse brakes. This has the potential to stop a train in a controlled manner causing no damage compared to the "all or nothing" capability of Emergency braking which will often result in flat wheels and broken couplers. If the 70% improvement in stopping distance for service applications is true, there must be examples where a full service ECP application will stop a train in an orderly manner where the only option with Westinghouse is Emergency.
If the 70% improvement in stopping distance for service applications is true, there must be examples where a full service ECP application will stop a train in an orderly manner where the only option with Westinghouse is Emergency.
That is a good point. With a service application of ECP, I suspect you can send air into the cylinders immediately without taking time to draw down the train line. You just connect the reservoirs to the brake cylinders by an electronic command that connects every cylinder to air at the same time.
With a service application with Westinghouse brakes, not only is there a requirement to draw down the train line in order to begin charging the cylinders, but also that draw-down must proceed gradually enough to avoid triggering an emergency application.
It leads me to wonder what the practical difference is between a maximum service application of ECP, and an emergency application with ECP. Both are quick acting, unlike Westinghouse in which only the emergency application is quick acting.
If we take the simulations at face value, we have four tank cars penetrated instead of five and a similarly smaller number derailed with the use of ECP brakes.
However, the cost of the ECP brakes is quite high and the AAR suggest that around twice as many cars as the FRA suggest will need to be converted.
Present operating practices mean that all the tank cars will need to be fitted with both Westinghouse and ECP braking. This will increase the cost further and if my interpretation of the GAO Report discussions is correct, wil substantially decrease the reliability of the the combined brake system to below that of either single system.
So even if the mandate was enforced, the railroads would convert as slowly as they could an empasise the additional failures of the combined system, so that the costs will increase and the benefits fall even further.
If on the other hand, the railroads were willing to accept new DOT-117 tank cars fitted only with ECP braking and run them as dedicated unit trains, I think the perceived reliability problems would disappear at the expense of operational flexibility. My question is: "Can the loss of flexibility by using only ECP equipped cars be justified by greater reliability and availability, but in a more restricted range of operation?
From the experience in Australia, I believe that would work, because that is how it worked in Australia.
People have indicated that use of emergency braking in the Westinghouse system gives an application time not significantly different from ECP braking in the same conditions.
My question is: do you ever want to use the emergency function in Westinghouse braking? I've described elsewhere that the only train I've been on when Emergency was used broke in five places, on a straight relatively gentle descending grade. If your train wasn't derailed before the Emergency application, there is a good chance that it would be afterwards, if any curves are involved. For a heavy train, the forces are huge. Ironically, that train had transducers for measuring force and draft gear travel, but the system had been turned of as we were approaching the yard at the end of the journey.
The feature of ECP that isn't discussed enough is: can a full service application of ECP braking stop a train clear of an obstacle or other problem that would otherwise require the use of Emergency with Westinghouse brakes. This has the potential to stop a train in a controlled manner causing no damage compared to the "all or nothing" capability of Emergency braking which will often result in flat wheels and broken couplers.
This I think is the point being missed by people who indicate how fast an emergency application can propagate. The emergency application is effectively uncontrolled except in initiation and the cure could be worse than the disease.
Peter
Euclideven though the trains and conditions are very similar.
A fair portion of the discussion here of late concerns how different the two are.
Climate is a major factor in North America. Cold and snow in the north, humidity in the south. The American west appears to be the closest to what they are operating with in Australia. I could be wrong.
And they are chiefly using ECP in unit trains. A significant portion of North American railroading is still loose car operations, and that looks to be where the issues will come with ECP.
The connectors may work well in unit trains (as has been noted), but not so much where they have to be regularly broken apart and reconnected. Railroaders can break pretty much anything...
One of the Booz Allen studies concerned PRB trains, where they found about a 3:1 cost benefit ratio. I would submit that short of a mandate, the railroads are going to have to see something closer to a 1:1 ratio before they get excited.
If ECP is going to be adopted, I think it should be strictly voluntary. Let the free market decide. I definitely oppose this being forced as a mandate. Not only is it likely to be driven by emotion, but it also greatly distorts the market. The mandate alone will force the cost much higher than need be. Also, if it weren’t for the mandate, railroads would not feel so defensive and feel the need to ward it off at all costs. Without the mandate, maybe something good could come of it. I believe it is the mandate that explains the apparent disconnect between ECP working in Australia, yet being unable to work here, even though the trains and conditions are very similar.
The FRA found in 2007 that the cost would be $432 million to convert all locomotives and cars used for PRB coal and spelled out $170 millon in benefits. (http://www.transportation.northwestern.edu/docs/2007/2007.11.08.Murphy.Presentation.pdf)
The railroads say the cost would be more like $3 billion. The FRA estimate in the following article (2016) was $493 million.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/railroads-regulators-clash-over-braking-system-for-trains-carrying-flammable-liquids/2016/12/19/68071650-9ad4-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html?utm_term=.b7d5a47a3f78
Another 2006 estimate by Booz Allen put the total cost of conversion (all locomotives and cars in US) at $7.5 Billion. I can't find the specific article with the 10:1 ratio, but did encounter another that cited a 9:1 ratio of cost to benefit.
Either way, the idea is to have a positive cost benefit ratio, not a negative one.
Just as Westinghouse brakes were a progression from cranking on the brake wheel, ECP will be a progression from Westinghouse. Short of a mandate (which would have major impacts on the industry), it's probably going to be quite a few years before it gains widespread acceptance. The connector is just one roadblock.
On those impacts, one must remember that a significant number of the cars running on US rails are owned not by the railroads, but by companies that lease them to users. One must consider the effect on railroading if a major leaser decided to pull out of railroading instead of equipping all their cars...
I don't doubt that the cost will be sky high. I don't know about ten times the return, but I would not be surpised if it is ten times the estimate. As far as the return goes, I see the industry not wanting to spend the money no matter what the return is. Not only are they reluctant to spend the money needed for the tank car mandate, but they are probably very aprehensive over the possibility of that mandate opening to door to a full system mandate. I have been reading everything I can find on the performance return on ECP, and it truely is a debate of positions diametrically opposed on every conceivable point. I think both sides have a strong argument. Basically, the industry seems to be arguing that ECP is completely worthless as it stands.
A lot of the context of this argument is like a political debate. But in the end, the argument is technical, and thus it is likely to become settled in the favor of one side or the other. So I may be a little risky to become firmly entrenched in one position.
EuclidI don’t follow your point about the tornado wreck. The oncoming cars are in emergency and they still keep moving until they hit the engine. What does that prove? Nobody is claiming that ECP stops the train instantly just because it gets the train into emergency faster.
It speaks to M636C's point that for non-brake related derailments, ECP is of limited additional value. You asked why he drew that conclusion - this is one possibility. As you say - ECP would not have prevented that outcome.
I read one document (can't remember where) that stated that the cost to install ECP is something more that ten times it's return. Not much of an incentive. Little wonder the railroads haven't embraced the technology.
tree68 Euclid But ECP also applies simultaneously whereas conventional air brakes apply sequentially car by car. The simultaneous application prevents derailments by limiting slack force. You've never seen an emergency application. As soon as a car detects an emergency application, it, too, dumps the brakes. It's so close to instantaneous as you can get without actually being instantaneous. And you can't forget momentum. Once again we go back to the video tape (the tornado video) where it's quite obvious that the train line has parted (thus the car's brakes are in emergency), yet the remaining cars run smack into the locomotive with the camera. And I suspect that is why M636 sees limited value in ECP for track-caused derailments. If the track structure fails, the cars are derailing regardless of what the brakes do. At that point, the only value of brakes is to perhaps prevent some of the succeeding cars from becoming part of the pile. And since ECP is only marginally better than conventional brakes in an emergency application, that simply means that the number of cars in the pile will be marginally less.
Euclid But ECP also applies simultaneously whereas conventional air brakes apply sequentially car by car. The simultaneous application prevents derailments by limiting slack force.
You've never seen an emergency application.
As soon as a car detects an emergency application, it, too, dumps the brakes. It's so close to instantaneous as you can get without actually being instantaneous.
And you can't forget momentum. Once again we go back to the video tape (the tornado video) where it's quite obvious that the train line has parted (thus the car's brakes are in emergency), yet the remaining cars run smack into the locomotive with the camera.
And I suspect that is why M636 sees limited value in ECP for track-caused derailments. If the track structure fails, the cars are derailing regardless of what the brakes do. At that point, the only value of brakes is to perhaps prevent some of the succeeding cars from becoming part of the pile. And since ECP is only marginally better than conventional brakes in an emergency application, that simply means that the number of cars in the pile will be marginally less.
I have seen many emergency applications, and they do propagate quite fast. All I said is emergency stopping is a little faster with ECP although not as much faster as service application stopping is. You seem to be saying that they are equal when you say conventional air brake application is as close to simultaneous as you can get. It is close to simultaneous, but close to simultaneous is not simultaneous. What I said is entirely accurate. I said ECP applies simultaneously whereas conventional air brakes apply sequentially car by car.
I don’t follow your point about the tornado wreck. The oncoming cars are in emergency and they still keep moving until they hit the engine. What does that prove? Nobody is claiming that ECP stops the train instantly just because it gets the train into emergency faster.
EuclidBut ECP also applies simultaneously whereas conventional air brakes apply sequentially car by car. The simultaneous application prevents derailments by limiting slack force.
Euclid tree68 Euclid M636C I think that fitting ECP brakes to unit tank car trains would be a good idea, but not in order to reduce the effect of a derailment caused by track conditions or other causes than braking itself. Why would you not want to include the objective of reducing the effect of a derailment? Has it not been found that emergency braking with ECP offers little advantage over conventional air? Emergency stopping is a little faster with ECP although not as much faster as service application stopping is. But ECP also applies simultaneously whereas conventional air brakes apply sequentially car by car. The simultaneous application prevents derailments by limiting slack force. But, I am not sure I understand the comment by M636C. I would like to know exactly what conditions he is talking about, whether he believes ECP would prevent those conditions, and if so, why he would not want to include those conditions as part of the justification for ECP.
tree68 Euclid M636C I think that fitting ECP brakes to unit tank car trains would be a good idea, but not in order to reduce the effect of a derailment caused by track conditions or other causes than braking itself. Why would you not want to include the objective of reducing the effect of a derailment? Has it not been found that emergency braking with ECP offers little advantage over conventional air?
Euclid M636C I think that fitting ECP brakes to unit tank car trains would be a good idea, but not in order to reduce the effect of a derailment caused by track conditions or other causes than braking itself. Why would you not want to include the objective of reducing the effect of a derailment?
M636C I think that fitting ECP brakes to unit tank car trains would be a good idea, but not in order to reduce the effect of a derailment caused by track conditions or other causes than braking itself.
Why would you not want to include the objective of reducing the effect of a derailment?
Has it not been found that emergency braking with ECP offers little advantage over conventional air?
Emergency stopping is a little faster with ECP although not as much faster as service application stopping is. But ECP also applies simultaneously whereas conventional air brakes apply sequentially car by car. The simultaneous application prevents derailments by limiting slack force.
But, I am not sure I understand the comment by M636C. I would like to know exactly what conditions he is talking about, whether he believes ECP would prevent those conditions, and if so, why he would not want to include those conditions as part of the justification for ECP.
You are overlooking the fact that 2-way EOT's are the norm these days. When the locomotive detects a desired or undesired emergency brake application, a radio signal is sent to the EOT that initiates emergency braking from the rear end forward. Where Distributed Power is in use, I suspect, but don't know that a emergency application will be initiated from the DPU also.
BaltACDIn the US air brakes on each car must be 'shop' inspected and tested every 5 years. The date and location of the testing gets stencilled on the car. (Not being a carman, I don't know all the procedures that are used in doing this testing and inspection.)
I'm not a carman either, but I did hang around with some for a few months, once upon a time....
The test is a "single car test". You hook the car up to a test device - a manifold with valves and what-not. You basically put the car's brake valves through it's paces, testing that each portion functions as intended. Will it react to a minimum reduction? Will it react to emergency, etc.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
There is over one million freight cars in the North American fleet. Not every one may need conversion, but those that do will require a dual capability. (I don't think you will be able to have a train with mixed equipment. It will have to be in one mode or the other.) As long as cars exist with only conventional equipment, all new equipment will still have to have a dual mode capability. Once the number of old cars gets low enough, you could mandate (like has been done before) the phase out of conventional brake equipment. Then you could have all ECP equipment in service.
Besides freight cars, locomotives are going to need to be converted. All the new ones (that I have seen) now have electronic brake valves that are compatible for ECP. Older ones, and there are probably more of them out there then the new, would need more extensive modifications.
All that leads to spending money. A lot of money. So far, it seems the railroads don't see enough of a benefit, that is a savings or return on the money spent, to go whole hog on ECP. Especially with the money they are spending on PTC. Which, IMO, without the Federal mandate would not be getting installed for the same reason. A lot of money for not much return.
M636CI think that fitting ECP brakes to unit tank car trains would be a good idea, but not in order to reduce the effect of a derailment caused by track conditions or other causes than braking itself.
In the US air brakes on each car must be 'shop' inspected and tested every 5 years. The date and location of the testing gets stencilled on the car.
I think the same period applies in Australia.
In fact, Rio Tinto and BHP iron ore cars arrive from the factory in China with a brake test date stencilled on the body which is never updated, since both operations rely on computer records but it provides an excellent reference to the car's delivery date.
I really can't understand why ECP equipment built to a given standard woks so well in Australia and causes problems in the USA.
We are grateful to the AAR for their excellent standards which have provided a significant productivity improvement to Australian rail operations. In fact, a significant proportion of Australia's exports by value are carried by unit trains with ECP brakes.
I think that fitting ECP brakes to unit tank car trains would be a good idea, but not in order to reduce the effect of a derailment caused by track conditions or other causes than braking itself.
Having looked at the GAO report again, I'm bemused by the discussion of brake applications caused by "crosstalk". I've seen two loaded ECP trains side by side climbing a steep grade while a third empty ECP train descended under dynamic braking. None was affected by the others, so crosstalk can't be a major problem in Australia. A normal ECP coal train in the Hunter Valley would pass maybe forty other trains with ECP brakes in a normal return run. In the Pilbara each train might pass another twenty trains on a normal return trip.
At least Australian operators have been able to make good use of the advantages provided by ECP brakes.
In the US air brakes on each car must be 'shop' inspected and tested every 5 years. The date and location of the testing gets stencilled on the car. (Not being a carman, I don't know all the procedures that are used in doing this testing and inspection.) In many cases for private owner unit trains, these inspections are performed on a train basis at a facility of the owners choosing (which may be the consignees plant). Railroad owned cars are normally inspected at the owners facilities.
All trains have a Class 1 Initial Terminal Brake test done before departure.
The Class 1 brake test can be done with locomotive or with ground air. After the test is completed, the cars tested must remain on air to keep the test 'current'. If the train or cars, are off air for more than Four Hours, the test must be performed again for the cars that were off air. A 'brake slip' is issued to the train or cut of cars and must be in the possession of the crew that is handling the cars.
Current FRA regulations require trains to have a 1000 mile brake test - these get scheduled for terminals that have Car Department personnel on duty to perform the test (and make any repairs that may be necessary [replace brake shoes, adjust piston travel, etc.])
BaltACD What are the regular air brake inspection intervals in Australia? Are there separate inspection intervals for ECP equipment? What are the repair intervals and costs for ECP equipment in Australia?
What are the regular air brake inspection intervals in Australia? Are there separate inspection intervals for ECP equipment? What are the repair intervals and costs for ECP equipment in Australia?
The Australian operators are private companies and operating cost data is regarded as commercial in confidence.
I'm not sure what you mean by inspection:
RISSB state the following:
A Static Brake Test shall be conducted prior to the departure of an ECP braked Train from its point of origin, just as for conventionally braked Trains. An in-service Static Brake Test conducted on a Train shall establish whether its Brake System will function and perform as specified when placed in service.
The Driver can verify the number and sequence of Vehicles on the Train and the status of their CCDs. Refer AAR Standard S-4200 for the procedure to sequence Train and the procedure for seeing the status of ECP equipment in the train.
Other relevant data might be found in the RISSB document.
The Australian trains, with only one exception, are all-ECP trains without conventional Westinghouse equipment. RISSB state:
Where Vehicles with an Overlay Brake System are operated in a Train, Operators should be prepared to demonstrate that Service Brake applications of the electronic brake on a wagon do not actuate the pneumatic brakes on this or adjacent wagons by causing a localised drop in Brake Pipe Pressure, and that any resultant risk of dragging brakes is managed.
For Vehicles fitted with an Emulator CCD, Operators should be prepared to demonstrate that the communications protocols and functionality of the Vehicles are compatible with the other equipment used in Trains when operated on a Network.
This might indicate where the differences in reliability occur between Australian regular operation and tests in the USA. By retaining the Westinghouse equipment on unit trains using ECP brake, you are adding more opportunity for failure, both of the Westinghouse equipment and inadvertent operation due to interference between the ECP and conventional systems.
Wikipedia, quoting the GAO report states:
Federal rules limit normal air brake inspection to once every 1600 kilometers, but with ECP this increases to 5600 kilometres, allowing a coast-to-coast return trip on a single inspection at home base.
I assume that Australian operators would follow that, as they do with the AAR standards and recommendations.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.