jeffhergert Overmod jeffhergert If this is not set properly, the remote engine(s) will pull in the opposite direction of the head end. Well, not exactly; more precisely they may try to pull in the opposite direction, be 'overcome' by the head-end power (perhaps assisted by gravity), be damaged as a result, and then not be available for power or dynamic braking when expected. One of the famous Canadian 'stringlining' incidents (in 2005?) was attributed to precisely this. Yes, they will try and usually are overcome by the headend since normally on most trains there is only one engine in the DP position. However, if you put the "fence" up and start out with the DP only, you can tell right away which way it's going. It's happened a few times that the DP was set up incorrectly at the origin location. And travelled a couple of hundred miles before it was caught. I've had some experience in this myself. About 6 or 7 years ago, I was called to go to Council Bluffs yard and put the Proviso bound manifest together. The engine consist was already set up and the DP placed in the train. All we had to do is double (or triple more likely) the train together, do the proper air tests and depart. This we did. Nothing seemed out of order. It pulled a bit hard where trains usually pull a bit hard leaving the terminal. It was once out on the main line where I noticed the DP was loading eratically. I talked to locomotive maintenance by radio and they thought it was dirty fuel filters. It wasn't until half way through the trip it became a problem pulling. We stopped for traffic ahead on the ruling grade for the subdivision. It was a very hard pull starting, and thinking the problem was dirty fuel filters that was causing the DP to not load properly, it never occured to me that the DP might not be set up right. (At the time, there was no way to tell on the head end how the DP consist(s) are orientated. Now that option has been added to many, if not all DP operation/control screens.) A few miles away we stopped to pick up a MOP, aka elsewhere as a Road Foreman or Travelling Engineer. I told him of our experiences and what loco mtce said. It acted up and he never thought about the DP orientation being a problem either. He had the conductor, a set-back engineer, run most of the rest of the way to keep his engr's license current. Upon arrival at the end of our run, a mechanic was there to change the fuel filters on the DP. I also told the outbound engineer of our experiences. About a week later, I met him and he told me that about 50 or 60 miles into his run, he was stopped on level (or as close as it gets) ground. When he got a signal to go, for some reason he decided to start the train using the DP alone. It started going back the way it had come. They got a passing train to stop and get on the unit, and sure enough it was orientated the wrong way. After that, anytime I board a train at the originating terminal and I haven't put the engine consist together, I check on the DP orientation. Either getting on the DP, checking the DP screen or just letting the DP start the cars once the head end has been tied on. My embarrassment is tempered by the fact that it happened to 3 or 4 other veteran engineers also. One was a train coming out of Proviso and was half way across Iowa before it was caught. Jeff
Overmod jeffhergert If this is not set properly, the remote engine(s) will pull in the opposite direction of the head end. Well, not exactly; more precisely they may try to pull in the opposite direction, be 'overcome' by the head-end power (perhaps assisted by gravity), be damaged as a result, and then not be available for power or dynamic braking when expected. One of the famous Canadian 'stringlining' incidents (in 2005?) was attributed to precisely this.
jeffhergert If this is not set properly, the remote engine(s) will pull in the opposite direction of the head end.
Well, not exactly; more precisely they may try to pull in the opposite direction, be 'overcome' by the head-end power (perhaps assisted by gravity), be damaged as a result, and then not be available for power or dynamic braking when expected. One of the famous Canadian 'stringlining' incidents (in 2005?) was attributed to precisely this.
Yes, they will try and usually are overcome by the headend since normally on most trains there is only one engine in the DP position. However, if you put the "fence" up and start out with the DP only, you can tell right away which way it's going. It's happened a few times that the DP was set up incorrectly at the origin location. And travelled a couple of hundred miles before it was caught. I've had some experience in this myself.
About 6 or 7 years ago, I was called to go to Council Bluffs yard and put the Proviso bound manifest together. The engine consist was already set up and the DP placed in the train. All we had to do is double (or triple more likely) the train together, do the proper air tests and depart. This we did. Nothing seemed out of order. It pulled a bit hard where trains usually pull a bit hard leaving the terminal. It was once out on the main line where I noticed the DP was loading eratically. I talked to locomotive maintenance by radio and they thought it was dirty fuel filters.
It wasn't until half way through the trip it became a problem pulling. We stopped for traffic ahead on the ruling grade for the subdivision. It was a very hard pull starting, and thinking the problem was dirty fuel filters that was causing the DP to not load properly, it never occured to me that the DP might not be set up right. (At the time, there was no way to tell on the head end how the DP consist(s) are orientated. Now that option has been added to many, if not all DP operation/control screens.) A few miles away we stopped to pick up a MOP, aka elsewhere as a Road Foreman or Travelling Engineer. I told him of our experiences and what loco mtce said. It acted up and he never thought about the DP orientation being a problem either. He had the conductor, a set-back engineer, run most of the rest of the way to keep his engr's license current.
Upon arrival at the end of our run, a mechanic was there to change the fuel filters on the DP. I also told the outbound engineer of our experiences. About a week later, I met him and he told me that about 50 or 60 miles into his run, he was stopped on level (or as close as it gets) ground. When he got a signal to go, for some reason he decided to start the train using the DP alone. It started going back the way it had come. They got a passing train to stop and get on the unit, and sure enough it was orientated the wrong way.
After that, anytime I board a train at the originating terminal and I haven't put the engine consist together, I check on the DP orientation. Either getting on the DP, checking the DP screen or just letting the DP start the cars once the head end has been tied on. My embarrassment is tempered by the fact that it happened to 3 or 4 other veteran engineers also. One was a train coming out of Proviso and was half way across Iowa before it was caught.
Jeff
Orientated?
Regards - Steve
steve-in-kvilleDoes the diesel power the motors directly, or do they float off the battery?
Almost no diesel-electric locomotive has 'energy storage' in the actual transmission. If you google "tri-power locomotives" you will see one example (where the storage battery provided 'primary' tractive power, and the third-rail system and small diesel engine essentially acted to recharge that battery). To design a full-scale locomotive with 'that much battery' would be ridiculously expensive and difficult to maintain, to say nothing of the problems with charge/discharge in high-output operation, the thing that killed the original Green Goats. General Electric famously worked on a full-hybrid locomotive with interesting battery chemistry (which, interestingly, was fully documented but not by GE) but nothing seems to have come of it commercially.
If the diesel shuts down, how long can the motors operate?
This is not to say that you can't move the locomotive 'on battery' for hostling or other low-duty purposes. Look at the Amtrak P42 orientation video (20:27, the 'spotter' pushbutton, and 32:48, position of the EC switch to enable it) for a specific demonstration of how a modern locomotive implements this. It is highly unlikely that this would be of any particular use moving, say, a disabled train in the event of prime-mover failure, or indeed a light move for any particular distance or at any approximation of road speed.
BaltACDMost carriers have some limit on the number of locomotives that may be handled in the engine consist of a train. On CSX that number is 12.
Balt, for him you might want to be a little more specific: if you were to connect 12 locomotives in MU on a train, couplers would fail (or stringlining fun would commence) long, long before you got anywhere near the output power even at a fuel-saving throttle notch. I believe the 12 units is the limit for even a DPU consist with multiple locations (more than just EOT and one midtrain) and you might confirm exactly what limits there are on power assigned to a given train or configuration.
I have some Penn Central ETT's from 1968 and 1969 with Special Instructions that show motive power consists restricted to 24 working traction motors (do not isolate individual motor circuits).
steve-in-kvilleIf a loco is DIT, is there a way to disconnect the traction motors to avoid un-necessary wear?
On most American road locomotives, NO. The motor is 'nose-suspended' meaning that its pinion and the bull gear it drives run in a sealed case, in permanent mesh, and there is no provision to disengage this short of physically removing the motor from the truck. All you can do in case of problem is electrically isolate the motor connections and allow it to turn as 'driven' by the associated wheelset. (This is referenced in the Amtrak P42 orientation video, and if you wondered why there is specific reference to having to eyeball from the outside that 'the associated wheels are turning' it's because that if the traction motor is physically locked or otherwise incapable of turning, no 'disconnection' is possible that would allow the locomotive to move without the associated wheelset sliding. There are some times that this is unavoidable -- but you can bet there aren't many, and a great deal of permission and wailing and gnashing of teeth would be involved before it would be allowed or tried.
Some other forms of power, I believe Brown-Boveri disc drive is one, are arranged so that the traction motor can be field-disconnected from the wheelset in case it seizes. Some of the systems using body-mounted motors can have the transfer Cardan shaft or whatever taken down to allow the locomotive to move under reduced power or be towed. These usually involve high-speed passenger service and not the kind of operation I suspect is being asked about in this question.
Steve SweeneyI believe the traction motors need to be electro-magnetically engaged otherwise they will just spin — so they're kinda automatically disconnected.
I don't see that anyone has specifically addressed your questions, and perhaps this will stimulate some more discussion of them directly.
As noted, if you disconnect the 'leads' to a conventional traction motor, it will neither develop a motor field nor any 'back EMF' in the rotor from the stationary field. Therefore when 'driven' from its associated wheelset there won't be any drag more than gear and bearing resistance and a little contribution from 'windage' between the armature and the field pole structure. Since there's no way for the motor to generate electrical power (as for DB) in that configuration, it is essentially as 'freewheeling' as nose suspension can provide.
As I noted in the other post, if there is any mechanical resistance, e.g. a bad pinion bearing or the windings have started to 'birdsnest' and drag against the pole structure, you may see decreasing ability to turn the associated wheelset without skidding. At some point, the 'correct' action is to take your lumps, jack the locomotive up, and either drop the motor or block it to the point its pinion disengages from the bull gear on the axle. There was a pretty good video on YouTube showing the process on one of the 6000hp locomotives a few years ago.
AC induction motors are less likely to encounter problems being driven from the wheelset because they have only 'passive' electrical excitation; when unpowered they're basically a drum of metal with bars across it that are electrically connected to each other. Only when a changing magnetic field is applied across these bars will current flow in them by induction, and motoring torque then get exerted on that current flow by the rotating field from the inverters. You will still have gear and bearing drag from the permanent mesh between bull gear and pinion; the only effective difference is the internal motor structure.
I believe this is because there are no permanent magnets in the trucks that would cause constant wear for a locomotive that is dead in tow.
A permag traction motor doesn't have any possibility for 'constant wear' different from a normal induction motor; there is no physical contact involved with the magnets at all. They provide enhanced interaction with the rotating field with lower induction losses in the bars; there was a corollary of this with early 'home' wind turbines that involved using hard-drive magnets to vastly increase excitation of alternators being driven at low speed (and oh, brother, did that work better than expected!).
To my knowledge there is no high-speed motor that works with the permanent magnet generating a fixed field, as in model-railroad motors or even, technically, coreless motors. AC motors gain little from permanent-magnet augmentation of field strength, as they rely upon changing phase in the field itself to run, and in most any motor the field needs to be weakened with increased rotational speed to mitigate self-induced back-EMF issues. Undiscussed in most Web accounts of PM traction motors is the implicit problem with Curie point of the magnetic material when substantial power is taken out of a (DC or BLDC) motor with PM fixed field and cooling that turns out to be inadequate near the magnet pole faces; these can be both significant and increasingly 'permanent' over time, and this increasingly mitigates any advantage in size and weight for a given power that comes from using modern 'strong' magnetic materials or Welbach arrays in a high-horsepower motor to be used for, say HSR applications.
steve-in-kvilleSo if its below freezing and the locomotive needs to be drained of it water, I take its left running for days on end? Does an engineer always have the same unit? Is the unit just kept in service endlessly to avoid draining the water? Parked inside? Please do go on!
Locomotives stay running in cold weather. Generally the Class I's do not store them inside, shop space is limited and better used for repairing locomotives that have broken down. Many shortlines or industries that have a small shop do keep their locomotive(s) inside, just like a car in a garage.
Most modern locomotives have a computer program called AutoStart that monitors the locomotive and ambient temperature, and then shuts the locomotive down when permissable. It is supposed to automatically restart the engine when the oil temperature, water temperature, or air pressure levels drop too low.
Generally locomotives bounce around from train to train as needed. Some switcher assignments (usually in outlying locations) do get the same power day after day.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
This is yet another question that we've discussed (I think multiple times) in previous posts on these forums, and that is quickly and clearly covered in a Google search on the subject. It is always wise to actually research one of these questions, at least to get the RTFM-style issues out of the way first, before asking it here.
Most locomotive engines 'back in the day' used uneconomical amounts of coolant to justify spending money on Prestone-like coolant, or even antifreezing additives, when it was simple just to keep the engine running or drain-and-refill. To an extent the various designs of what in a vehicle would be called a 'block heater', specifically including the Kim Hotstart, were intended to preclude the need for expensive-to-provide and even more expensive-to-dispose-of-legally coolant material in what rapidly becomes a large gallonage if you have many locomotives.
In addition to this, some early designs did not 'do well' with additives in the cooling-jacket water. Much of this was cured in later engine designs with better manufacturing and maintenance quality control, but there are still some areas where being able to 'bar the engine over a few times' to blow out a wet cylinder is still SOP, and stuff in the coolant would cause some potential issues over time.
I believe the modern high-speed locomotive engines were designed to use glycol coolant with reasonably long life, and their usually high-performance cooling systems benefit from the better heat transfer, better pressure, and other things that a good antifreeze, anticorrosive, and 'water-wetter' chemistry can provide.
Overmod Most locomotive engines 'back in the day' used uneconomical amounts of coolant to justify spending money on Prestone-like coolant, or even antifreezing additives, when it was simple just to keep the engine running or drain-and-refill. To an extent the various designs of what in a vehicle would be called a 'block heater', specifically including the Kim Hotstart, were intended to preclude the need for expensive-to-provide and even more expensive-to-dispose-of-legally coolant material in what rapidly becomes a large gallonage if you have many locomotives. In addition to this, some early designs did not 'do well' with additives in the cooling-jacket water. Much of this was cured in later engine designs with better manufacturing and maintenance quality control, but there are still some areas where being able to 'bar the engine over a few times' to blow out a wet cylinder is still SOP, and stuff in the coolant would cause some potential issues over time.
As you know (for Steve's benefit) the early (pre-567C) EMD engines were very prone to internal water leaks contaminating the oil. Antifreeze is corrosive to bearing metal, and would destroy key internal engine parts if it got into the oil. In the age of cheap, cheap diesel fuel it was better for the railroads to run straight water and just leave the engines running 24/7.
Once the railroads establish a practice that works they are very resistant to change of any kind.
steve-in-kvilleIs time in control of the train logged like a CDL driver? Can they switch conductors after one's shift is up?
Yes. But the supervisors and dispatchers often do not pay close attention to when a crew's hours are up (they are too busy and overworked, and on a major railroad there will be dozens of crew on-duty on any given territory at any given time), so in reality it falls to the crew to keep track of their own hours and operate accordingly.
CN has tracked crew pay and hours electronically at least since the early 1990s, when our now-antiquated CATS (crew and timekeeping system) was implemented.
Having everything automatically logged electronically means it is very hard for the company to force crews to work over their HOS or hide violations.
Generally it is ideal for a new crew to arrive and 'trade off' with the previous crew before their hours are up. But if there is no new crew available or that train is not proceeding further for some time (yard congestion and planned track work are common reasons) then the inbound crew will have to secure the train, and it will sit with no one onboard, sometimes for days.
steve-in-kvilleIs time in control of the train logged like a CDL driver?
Considering what is actually involved in hours-of-service on railroads, that's like asking if a hydrogen bomb makes a loud noise.
Interestingly enough, a number of actual engineers here noted that they don't keep a written log of their hours, let alone "need" one in the sense that the Feds might cause legal hassles for them in spot inspections. I believe at one point we discussed whether dispatchers were responsible for 'tracking' when people were going to go afoul of the HOS laws and coordinate trains accordingly, and whether engineers needed to remind 'others' perhaps repeatedly, that they were about to 'die on the law' and would need either special permission or a van roll to continue -- I think people like BaltACD with full experience of crew management are best qualified to discuss these things.
I see where you're going with that 'switch conductors' -- you were reading about corridor tenders in Britain, right? The answer is that it's nominally possible... but you'd need to be paying BOTH conductors the whole time they're on the engine, while still observing the details about cumulative rest time and home-terminal return and so forth for the conductor employees over time, so there really, really isn't any money for the railroad in doing this as more than an emergency practice.
There were, as I recall, some discussions about changing the law and the union position on it back in the days that GE was proposing the MATE concept (which, for the youth here, involved cabless 'road slug' diesels with large fuel tanks instead of engines to increase flexibility of high-horsepower but low-weight units like U36Bs as horsepower increased still further, as of course it would do not too long after). One of the ideas being bandied around was to run an 'iron ocean' power consist much like a Mississippi towboat, where the crew would be assigned to an extended dormitory facility atop the fuel tanks or whatever in 'their' consist, and switch responsibilities for 'watches' and whatnot just as an inland ship's crew would. It is not difficult to guess where this would go legally and politically, and indeed one finds little adoption of the extended opportunities MATEs or equipment implementation like them would 'offer'. But for the sake of completeness, much of the follow-up questioning you're likely to produce after the 'two conductors' thought is covered by that relatively ancient history, and I invite you to look there as you think about any idea of on-board extended crew utilization.
Can they switch conductors after one's shift is up?
They do, of course, and they do it by law, physically bringing the replacement to the train (and hopefully taking away the now-on-the-law crew). It would be nice if PSR were actually employed as it should be, to ensure that a train reaches a fixed crew-change point instead of stopping at some surprise location, say near a Shaker's out on a wintry prairie, and waiting for the van to arrive. But we all know how expedience goes.
Note that you do NOT want either conductor 'engaged to be waiting', either the one coming off shift (who gets money for 'deadheading' if not at an agreed location) or the one going on (who gets money for his van ride and any waiting time for the train). I'm sure very complicated Chinese-puzzle algorithms for doing this have been developed, at doubtless high consulting expense, for some of the Class I railroads. I will leave it up to people who actually have used them to comment on how effectively they work. (But be sure you have salve for blistered ears ready, just sayin')
We run all vintage locomotives, EMDs and ALCOs.
In summer, we shut them down at the end of the day.
Starting a 4 cycle ALCO is pretty easy - prime the fuel and crank it over.
If an EMD has been sitting (and especially if it's rained), the first thing to do is open all the cylinder valves and crank the engine for a turn or two. That will usually take car of any moisture in the cylinders. Then close up the cylinder valves, prime, and crank.
As was pointed out, when fuel was $.25 a gallon, locos were just left running.
These days, if we're going to be more than about 45 minutes before departure, we shut the loco down.
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...
tdmidget jeffhergert Overmod jeffhergert If this is not set properly, the remote engine(s) will pull in the opposite direction of the head end. Well, not exactly; more precisely they may try to pull in the opposite direction, be 'overcome' by the head-end power (perhaps assisted by gravity), be damaged as a result, and then not be available for power or dynamic braking when expected. One of the famous Canadian 'stringlining' incidents (in 2005?) was attributed to precisely this. Yes, they will try and usually are overcome by the headend since normally on most trains there is only one engine in the DP position. However, if you put the "fence" up and start out with the DP only, you can tell right away which way it's going. It's happened a few times that the DP was set up incorrectly at the origin location. And travelled a couple of hundred miles before it was caught. I've had some experience in this myself. About 6 or 7 years ago, I was called to go to Council Bluffs yard and put the Proviso bound manifest together. The engine consist was already set up and the DP placed in the train. All we had to do is double (or triple more likely) the train together, do the proper air tests and depart. This we did. Nothing seemed out of order. It pulled a bit hard where trains usually pull a bit hard leaving the terminal. It was once out on the main line where I noticed the DP was loading eratically. I talked to locomotive maintenance by radio and they thought it was dirty fuel filters. It wasn't until half way through the trip it became a problem pulling. We stopped for traffic ahead on the ruling grade for the subdivision. It was a very hard pull starting, and thinking the problem was dirty fuel filters that was causing the DP to not load properly, it never occured to me that the DP might not be set up right. (At the time, there was no way to tell on the head end how the DP consist(s) are orientated. Now that option has been added to many, if not all DP operation/control screens.) A few miles away we stopped to pick up a MOP, aka elsewhere as a Road Foreman or Travelling Engineer. I told him of our experiences and what loco mtce said. It acted up and he never thought about the DP orientation being a problem either. He had the conductor, a set-back engineer, run most of the rest of the way to keep his engr's license current. Upon arrival at the end of our run, a mechanic was there to change the fuel filters on the DP. I also told the outbound engineer of our experiences. About a week later, I met him and he told me that about 50 or 60 miles into his run, he was stopped on level (or as close as it gets) ground. When he got a signal to go, for some reason he decided to start the train using the DP alone. It started going back the way it had come. They got a passing train to stop and get on the unit, and sure enough it was orientated the wrong way. After that, anytime I board a train at the originating terminal and I haven't put the engine consist together, I check on the DP orientation. Either getting on the DP, checking the DP screen or just letting the DP start the cars once the head end has been tied on. My embarrassment is tempered by the fact that it happened to 3 or 4 other veteran engineers also. One was a train coming out of Proviso and was half way across Iowa before it was caught. Jeff Orientated?
When setting up the DP consist(s) there is a computer key "Same as lead/Opposite of lead" that must be chosen during the process. If the train is headed west, and the lead engine (that will control all consists) is pointed west, and the DP lead engine is pointed east, "Opposite of lead" would be chosen. If "same as lead" is chosen, when the reverser on the lead engine is set to forward, the DP will also pull forward in relation to itself.
If both the lead engine and DP engine were both pointed west on our westbound example, then "same as lead" would be appropriate.
Overmod steve-in-kville Is time in control of the train logged like a CDL driver? Considering what is actually involved in hours-of-service on railroads, that's like asking if a hydrogen bomb makes a loud noise. Interestingly enough, a number of actual engineers here noted that they don't keep a written log of their hours, let alone "need" one in the sense that the Feds might cause legal hassles for them in spot inspections. I believe at one point we discussed whether dispatchers were responsible for 'tracking' when people were going to go afoul of the HOS laws and coordinate trains accordingly, and whether engineers needed to remind 'others' perhaps repeatedly, that they were about to 'die on the law' and would need either special permission or a van roll to continue -- I think people like BaltACD with full experience of crew management are best qualified to discuss these things. I see where you're going with that 'switch conductors' -- you were reading about corridor tenders in Britain, right? The answer is that it's nominally possible... but you'd need to be paying BOTH conductors the whole time they're on the engine, while still observing the details about cumulative rest time and home-terminal return and so forth for the conductor employees over time, so there really, really isn't any money for the railroad in doing this as more than an emergency practice. There were, as I recall, some discussions about changing the law and the union position on it back in the days that GE was proposing the MATE concept (which, for the youth here, involved cabless 'road slug' diesels with large fuel tanks instead of engines to increase flexibility of high-horsepower but low-weight units like U36Bs as horsepower increased still further, as of course it would do not too long after). One of the ideas being bandied around was to run an 'iron ocean' power consist much like a Mississippi towboat, where the crew would be assigned to an extended dormitory facility atop the fuel tanks or whatever in 'their' consist, and switch responsibilities for 'watches' and whatnot just as an inland ship's crew would. It is not difficult to guess where this would go legally and politically, and indeed one finds little adoption of the extended opportunities MATEs or equipment implementation like them would 'offer'. But for the sake of completeness, much of the follow-up questioning you're likely to produce after the 'two conductors' thought is covered by that relatively ancient history, and I invite you to look there as you think about any idea of on-board extended crew utilization. Can they switch conductors after one's shift is up? They do, of course, and they do it by law, physically bringing the replacement to the train (and hopefully taking away the now-on-the-law crew). It would be nice if PSR were actually employed as it should be, to ensure that a train reaches a fixed crew-change point instead of stopping at some surprise location, say near a Shaker's out on a wintry prairie, and waiting for the van to arrive. But we all know how expedience goes. Note that you do NOT want either conductor 'engaged to be waiting', either the one coming off shift (who gets money for 'deadheading' if not at an agreed location) or the one going on (who gets money for his van ride and any waiting time for the train). I'm sure very complicated Chinese-puzzle algorithms for doing this have been developed, at doubtless high consulting expense, for some of the Class I railroads. I will leave it up to people who actually have used them to comment on how effectively they work. (But be sure you have salve for blistered ears ready, just sayin')
steve-in-kville Is time in control of the train logged like a CDL driver?
On our road, the dispatcher's computer display shows the symbols for each train. The train symbol starts to flash (to draw attention) when the crew's time reaches a certain point. I don't remember exactly, but it's more than 2 hours. Another display available to the dispatchers is the On Duty Train Sheet. It lists the crew, start time, remaining time and train stats. At 6 hours on duty, the entire train entry gets shaded in yellow. At 4 hours it turns red. Even with this, rules require the train crew reminding the dispatcher at 2hrs before dying on the law. It's when they don't say they have a dog catch crew called that you know you're in trouble.
In emergency situations, such as a bad snow storm with roads closed and no way to have a relief crew reach the train, they can order the crew to violate the hours of service. The railroad takes responsibility and can be fined by the (talking about the US here) Government. If it really is an emergency, the fines may be waived or reduced. (It's when it really isn't an emergency and fines are reduced or waived that FRA starts to mean "Friends of Railroad Administrators".)
Deadheading to or from work is not paid extra. Although it could lead to receiving overtime for the trip. Only if a crew has to go outside of the limits of their bulletined assignment is extra pay, in the form of a penalty, possible. That usually only happens when a crew falls short of the normal crew change terminal's limits.
That land barge crewing goes back at least to the 1970s. I remember the late John Ingram, president of the RI talking about it as part of his "farm rail" plan. I don't believe any laws would need to be changed, unless they wanted to free up the physical qualification requirement for crews. (JI's plan was for unit grain trains shuttling between the midwest and gulf coast. Crews changing when the maximum of hours on duty was reached.) To say it met resistance from the work force is an understatement. If the roads following PSR thought it would save money, you can bet they would be pushing for it.
SD70Dude Generally it is ideal for a new crew to arrive and 'trade off' with the previous crew before their hours are up. But if there is no new crew available or that train is not proceeding further for some time (yard congestion and planned track work are common reasons) then the inbound crew will have to secure the train, and it will sit with no one onboard, sometimes for days.
We are instructed that if a relief crew is on duty and enroute, we are not to tie the train down before we are dead on the law. The railroad has the FRA's blessing to do this, so they say. That time sitting on an unsecured train waiting for the relief crew is not considered performing service and not considered violating the hours of service. (I don't know anyone in the ranks who agrees with this ruling.)
Now once in a while the dispatchers think a relief crew is enroute and tell you don't tie it down. Your HOS expires. The van shows up without a relief crew, or any other people besides the driver. Now what. For you to tie down, you'll need to be instructed to violate. (If not instructed to violate, you open yourself up to the civil fines that can be imposed.) If possible, maybe another train is coming by and they can be stopped and that crew can secure your train. Maybe even give you a ride into the terminal if they're going the right way.
Stuff like this actually happens.
jeffhergertWe are instructed that if a relief crew is on duty and enroute, we are not to tie the train down before we are dead on the law. The railroad has the FRA's blessing to do this, so they say. That time sitting on an unsecured train waiting for the relief crew is not considered performing service and not considered violating the hours of service. (I don't know anyone in the ranks who agrees with this ruling.) Now once in a while the dispatchers think a relief crew is enroute and tell you don't tie it down. Your HOS expires. The van shows up without a relief crew, or any other people besides the driver. Now what. For you to tie down, you'll need to be instructed to violate. (If not instructed to violate, you open yourself up to the civil fines that can be imposed.) If possible, maybe another train is coming by and they can be stopped and that crew can secure your train. Maybe even give you a ride into the terminal if they're going the right way. Stuff like this actually happens.
jeffhergert SD70Dude Generally it is ideal for a new crew to arrive and 'trade off' with the previous crew before their hours are up. But if there is no new crew available or that train is not proceeding further for some time (yard congestion and planned track work are common reasons) then the inbound crew will have to secure the train, and it will sit with no one onboard, sometimes for days. We are instructed that if a relief crew is on duty and enroute, we are not to tie the train down before we are dead on the law. The railroad has the FRA's blessing to do this, so they say. That time sitting on an unsecured train waiting for the relief crew is not considered performing service and not considered violating the hours of service. (I don't know anyone in the ranks who agrees with this ruling.) Now once in a while the dispatchers think a relief crew is enroute and tell you don't tie it down. Your HOS expires. The van shows up without a relief crew, or any other people besides the driver. Now what. For you to tie down, you'll need to be instructed to violate. (If not instructed to violate, you open yourself up to the civil fines that can be imposed.) If possible, maybe another train is coming by and they can be stopped and that crew can secure your train. Maybe even give you a ride into the terminal if they're going the right way. Stuff like this actually happens. Jeff
The understanding the FRA Inspectors communicated to our Dispatching Office when I was working - Protecting PUBLIC SAFETY was not a 'prosecutable' violation of the HOS. Actions deemed as protecting PUBLIC SAFETY were the acts of cutting trains at highway road crossing and securing the train with hand brakes. To not protect the PUBLIC SAFETY would be prosecutable.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Although my active railroading experience was just for one winter 67 years ago, I do have my two-bits to add: In addition to gear-wear and wheel-wear, dc-motored locomotives do have commutator and brush wear while in dead-tow. AC-motored locomotives don't have commutators or brushes, somewhat like diesels not having spark-plugs or carborators.
Real AC motors, for railroad service, possible only with the advance of reliable computer technology, are are real advance for diesel-electrics and straight-electrics and electrically powered transit vehicles of all types.
Earlier AC-motored straight electrics, were usually commutator AC motors or constant-speed motors, both having dissadvantages.
zardoz jeffhergert We are instructed that if a relief crew is on duty and enroute, we are not to tie the train down before we are dead on the law. The railroad has the FRA's blessing to do this, so they say. That time sitting on an unsecured train waiting for the relief crew is not considered performing service and not considered violating the hours of service. (I don't know anyone in the ranks who agrees with this ruling.) Now once in a while the dispatchers think a relief crew is enroute and tell you don't tie it down. Your HOS expires. The van shows up without a relief crew, or any other people besides the driver. Now what. For you to tie down, you'll need to be instructed to violate. (If not instructed to violate, you open yourself up to the civil fines that can be imposed.) If possible, maybe another train is coming by and they can be stopped and that crew can secure your train. Maybe even give you a ride into the terminal if they're going the right way. Stuff like this actually happens. Jeff, this may seem like an absurd question, but the way the regulations are enforced these days (since I retired), I can't assume anything: if you were sitting on your unsecured train, your hours having already expired, awaiting the relief crew which subsequently did not show up in the van, and the train starts moving on its own, do you have to ask for permission to act? And would not using the radio also constitute 'acting'?
jeffhergert We are instructed that if a relief crew is on duty and enroute, we are not to tie the train down before we are dead on the law. The railroad has the FRA's blessing to do this, so they say. That time sitting on an unsecured train waiting for the relief crew is not considered performing service and not considered violating the hours of service. (I don't know anyone in the ranks who agrees with this ruling.) Now once in a while the dispatchers think a relief crew is enroute and tell you don't tie it down. Your HOS expires. The van shows up without a relief crew, or any other people besides the driver. Now what. For you to tie down, you'll need to be instructed to violate. (If not instructed to violate, you open yourself up to the civil fines that can be imposed.) If possible, maybe another train is coming by and they can be stopped and that crew can secure your train. Maybe even give you a ride into the terminal if they're going the right way. Stuff like this actually happens.
Jeff, this may seem like an absurd question, but the way the regulations are enforced these days (since I retired), I can't assume anything: if you were sitting on your unsecured train, your hours having already expired, awaiting the relief crew which subsequently did not show up in the van, and the train starts moving on its own, do you have to ask for permission to act? And would not using the radio also constitute 'acting'?
I've wondered that myself. You can't let the thing roll away. If the train experienced an undesired release, I'd just put the thing in emergency. Anything beyond that? Who knows. I don't think using the radio to report the situation and ask for instruction would be a violation.
It's probably like anything else on the railroad. Ask different people in charge, or different FRA inspectors, what the proper interpretations are and get different answers. I know of instances where the FRA field inspectors have been overruled by their superiors.
Thanks, Dave, for mentioning the commutator issues.
daveklepperReal AC motors, for railroad service, possible only with the advance of reliable computer technology, are are real advance for diesel-electrics and straight-electrics and electrically powered transit vehicles of all types.
Not ignoring your subsequent comment, I think you need to say 'real variable-speed AC motors', as a 3-phase induction motor in traction service is a very real motor which, as long as you care to run at an achievable 'slipped' synchronous speed, is among the best designs of traction motor.
Note that it is also perfectly possible to achieve a variable-speed drive by changing the speed of the driving alternator that supplies three-phase to a given train ... if there is only the one train, and you have some way of knowing how fast it is desired to go. No, I don't know of any plant built that way, and there are some pretty good reasons why it would be less than optimal in many circumstances, but it would have the advantage of producing high torque while accelerating the load...
One other 'intermediate' arrangement, used well into the diesel era, involved the 'motor-generator' locomotive, in which a big synchronous motor running at line speed turned a big DC generator "as if being turned at constant speed by a prime mover" (think the 700rpm of a U34CH connected via HEP to a train) which then could be excited, etc. to supply more-or-less conventional DC traction motors, with all their typical DC traction-motor limitations. In the age before practical high-power gated switching, not to mention practical AC waveform synthesis for best power or torque, this was a reasonable way to address the issues of overhead power supply at long distances and very high voltages.
Earlier AC-motored straight electrics, were usually commutator AC motors or constant-speed motors, both having disadvantages.
We've discussed 'universal' motors a couple of times here (as used, for example, on New Haven power that had to run on 11kV AC and NYC-style third rail without the benefit of sophisticated changeover circuitry, and then carried over to the GG1 which famously never needed the DC capability but had it in principle) and it is a fascinating subject for those interested in practical motor theory.
guetem1stop calling me Shirley!!!!
Is that a line from the movie "Railplane!"? I wanted to play the role of William Bushnell Stout but never got a callback ... glad to see the film finally got made.
Overmod This is yet another question that we've discussed (I think multiple times) in previous posts on these forums, and that is quickly and clearly covered in a Google search on the subject. It is always wise to actually research one of these questions, at least to get the RTFM-style issues out of the way first, before asking it here.
Sorry, but I do google most of this first. Maybe the popular questions should be stickied or condensed into one thread.
Case in point: stringlining. I thought I knew what it meant but after reading through some threads here, I'm still not sure.
And it's not like we aren't going to answer all the questions anyway.
We started a thread way back in antiquity called something like Stupid Railroad Questions and it fairly quickly developed there were very few 'stupid' questions that didn't have some insight that made them 'worth asking'.
Then of course there are the 'stupid' questions that get answered, ahem, wrong by the 'pundits'. This is assuredly in the research-it-yourself category as I do have residual pride. Thankfully the community corrects these wisely and well.
OvermodWe started a thread way back in antiquity called something like Stupid Railroad Questions and it fairly quickly developed there were very few 'stupid' questions that didn't have some insight that made them 'worth asking'.
Started by a young lady with an interest in getting into railroading. She was actually driving a crew van, so there was context. Tried out for conductor but couldn't pass the "hanging off the side of a car" test. I think she's still working for the railroad somewhere, though.
The name of the thread was changed, so it'll be hard to find.
Stephanie, wasn't it?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.