Rail Shipment of Large Transformers

[Semper Vaporo]

Electroliner 1935

 

Semper Vaporo

Look a little closer... that is an "M" not an "H".

 

 

You are correct. My eyesight ism't what it was. Suspected after an accident like that, someone had played a joke

 

The only reason I could point it out to you is that I had the same reaction and had to do a double-take on it.  (You are not alone!)

[Electroliner 1935]

Semper Vaporo

Look a little closer... that is an "M" not an "H".

You are correct. My eyesight ism't what it was. Suspected after an accident like that, someone had played a joke

[SD70Dude]

Smit is a Dutch heavy industrial company, most famous for their high-profile marine salvage operations (they were part of the consortium that raised the Kursk nuclear submarine from the seafloor).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smit_International

[Semper Vaporo]

Look a little closer... that is an "M" not an "H".

[Electroliner 1935]

OK, Who put the sign, ROYAL S**T on the transformer?

[SD70Dude]

For those who can't find the original thread, here's the video I originally posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-JV9kgqKI8

And another video showing trains running over the bridge while the transformer was stuck under it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vRVg5oPVYU

[CShaveRR]

I submit that there are times when railroads--or embloyees of said railroads--would try to hide the damage by not reporting an incident.  We had a monster load (not necessarily a transformer, though it could have been) come up on the hump lead in the middle of a cut from a connecting line.  We were shoving it to one of the lower retarders (where it would be held until another job came to handle it).  I was the first to notice the damage on a very thick structural member of this thing...there was no way that nobody didn't feel that one!  I reported it, and later was told (both in person and in a letter) that I had saved the UP a considerable amount of money due to my keen observation, etc., etc...

[SD70Dude]

Euclid

zugmann

Euclid

So the people taking that video may have produced the only direct evidence of the conditions of fouling that caused this large financial loss.  It would be interesting to learn what the impact recorder registered upon contact with the bridge.

You are delusional. 

You really think the RR is goign to try to "hide" damage like that?  What are they supposed to do?  Let air out of the tires?  Lift the bridge? 

I never suggested they were trying to hide the damage.  Obviously that would not be possible.  For all I know, the recovery method used was ordered from the top people, and maybe even approved by the transformer shipping company.

Uh, actually, you kind of did.  See this quote from your previous post:

 

"But still, this kind of panic recovery move is typical when people in denial want it to quickly seem like the problem never happened. "

 

As I said, the intial impact most likely caused irreparable damage and/or made the transformer a write off.  As long as NS pays for a new one, I don't think the manufacturer and shipper really care what now happens to this one.

[Euclid]

zugmann

 

Euclid

So the people taking that video may have produced the only direct evidence of the conditions of fouling that caused this large financial loss.  It would be interesting to learn what the impact recorder registered upon contact with the bridge.

 

 

You are delusional. 

You really think the RR is goign to try to "hide" damage like that?  What are they supposed to do?  Let air out of the tires?  Lift the bridge? 

 

I never suggested they were trying to hide the damage.  Obviously that would not be possible.  For all I know, the recovery method used was ordered from the top people, and maybe even approved by the transformer shipping company.

[BaltACD]

Half a century ago the B&O mishandled a hi-wi transformer between Willard and Cleveland.  Clearance Bureau awakwardly worded the clearance to make it seem that the car should move on the CL&W Main Track between Lake Jct. and Lester instead of the Medina Sub between the same two points.  The Main Track had the AC&Y Main passing overhead on a thru girder bridge - on the Medina Sub the same AC&Y Main was crossed at grade.

Cleveland 294 with the transformer hit the AC&Y bridge at the authorized 30 MPH and moved the AC&Y bridge about a foot off is abutments and raked the top off the transformer.  Crew stopped when train went into emergency, the momentum of the balance of the train pushed the load completely through the overhead bridge.

As I recall - every one that had a hand in the movement of the car and train ended up getting discipline from the incident - Clearance Bureau Clerk, Train Dispatcher, Yardmaster, Yard Clerk and Train & Engine Crew.  Had anyone of those involved actual READ the Clearance wire to the point of understanding the wording the incident could have been prevented.

[cx500]

Much of what you say is correct, but human error can happen when the documents are prepared.  Two I have heard about, from reliable sources. 

In one case the clearance bureau may not have been given the entire route, or forgot about the initial few 10 miles of local trackage prior to the main yards, so the paperwork did not mention a low bridge.

In a second case, the dimensional shipment was described as a W-4, which size generally has few restrictions.  The crew lifting it at the interchange immediately realised it was far bigger, and called in by radio to report the fact, only to be told by the manager to take it because the paperwork "was correct".  Fortunately the crew was dedicated enough to stop before entering the bridge across the Niagara River, multiple through truss spans.  They confirmed it was not going to fit.  Malicious compliance likely would have collapsed at least one of the spans.

John

traisessive1

On CN any dimensional shipment must have a dimensional transit waybill with it. Multi-levels and double stacks cary a generic one for example, but a load like this will have its own. The routing of the car will be on bill. The crew is responsible for ensuring they don't go where it doesn't fit or onto a subdivision not listed on that bill. 

I am not throwing the crew under the train here, but, to me, not knowing the rules of NS, it would be rather stupid for the crew not to be in possession of such a document. 

 

[BaltACD]

SD70Dude

 

Euclid

Almost as surprising as this blunder is the act of immediately coupling onto the load and yanking it out of its stuck condition.  Whatever the damage is from striking the bridge, you know that the damage will increase by impatiently yanking it back out.  It may not matter because the first damage may have destoyed the transformer.  But still, this kind of panic recovery move is typical when people in denial want it to quickly seem like the problem never happened.  

How would you get it out?  From the video it looks like it was really stuck.  That SD60E was reefing on it in what sounded like notch 6 and it wouldn't budge.

Based on what I know of a similar incident many years ago, it was likely irreparably damaged by the initial impact.  At minimum it will have to be sent back to the factory to be rebuilt.  And as with automobiles, the mere fact that it was involved in an incident likely renders it unserviceable and a write off.

The stuck transformer was blocking a main entrance to a major yard.  In any such situation the railroad's first priority is clearing the track and resuming normal operations.  The cost of not doing so is very high, as trains start to stack up behind the blockage.

Euc would let the air out of the tires!  When the load struck the bridge the carrier 'bought' the entire device - no matter if the device received additional damage from the extraction efforts or not.  Subsequent to the impact, the fastest means of extraction becomes the most cost effective solution to the situation.

[SD70Dude]

Euclid

Almost as surprising as this blunder is the act of immediately coupling onto the load and yanking it out of its stuck condition.  Whatever the damage is from striking the bridge, you know that the damage will increase by impatiently yanking it back out.  It may not matter because the first damage may have destoyed the transformer.  But still, this kind of panic recovery move is typical when people in denial want it to quickly seem like the problem never happened. 

How would you get it out?  From the video it looks like it was really stuck.  That SD60E was reefing on it in what sounded like notch 6 and it wouldn't budge.

Based on what I know of a similar incident many years ago, it was likely irreparably damaged by the initial impact.  At minimum it will have to be sent back to the factory to be rebuilt.  And as with automobiles, the mere fact that it was involved in an incident likely renders it unserviceable and a write off.

The stuck transformer was blocking a main entrance to a major yard.  In any such situation the railroad's first priority is clearing the track and resuming normal operations.  The cost of not doing so is very high, as trains start to stack up behind the blockage.

[zugmann]

Euclid

So the people taking that video may have produced the only direct evidence of the conditions of fouling that caused this large financial loss.  It would be interesting to learn what the impact recorder registered upon contact with the bridge.

You are delusional. 

You really think the RR is goign to try to "hide" damage like that?  What are they supposed to do?  Let air out of the tires?  Lift the bridge? 

[Euclid]

traisessive1

On CN any dimensional shipment must have a dimensional transit waybill with it. Multi-levels and double stacks cary a generic one for example, but a load like this will have it's own. The routing of the car will be on bill. The crew is responsible for ensuring they don't go where it doesn't fit or onto a subdivision not listed on that bill. 

I am not throwing the crew under the train here, but, to me, not knowing the rules of NS, it would be rather stupid for the crew not to be in possession of such a document. 

 

I agree that the routing of such a rare and important load would be laid out as clear as a bell.  Everybody knows that the load is high, and the bridge is low.  How does this disaster happen?

Almost as surprising as this blunder is the act of immediately coupling onto the load and yanking it out of its stuck condition.  Whatever the damage is from striking the bridge, you know that the damage will increase by impatiently yanking it back out.  It may not matter because the first damage may have destoyed the transformer.  But still, this kind of panic recovery move is typical when people in denial want it to quickly seem like the problem never happened. 

So the people taking that video may have produced the only direct evidence of the conditions of fouling that caused this large financial loss. 

It would be interesting to learn what the impact recorder registered upon contact with the bridge.

[Euclid]

blue streak 1

It appears that transformers can be rather vulnerable.  Are there continuing measurements on transformers especially in earthquake contry ? 

 

Both of the links I posted are published by makers of impact detectors, and they go into a lot of detail about impact forces encountered in different modes of transportation and what types of damages are caused by various degrees of impact.  They certainly are highly vulnerable to impact damage in amounts that don't even show damage on the exterior. 

But I don't know how or if this is addressed with impact recorders as part of the permanent installation where earthquake shocks would routinely occur.  I would think they would equip the transformers with permanent impact recorders that would record all shock waves. 

[blue streak 1]

It appears that transformers can be rather vulnerable.  Are there continuing measurements on transformers especially in earthquake contry ? 

[Erik_Mag]

Solar events and nuke induced EMP are two different beasts. The former causes damage to the transformer by inducing almost DC currents to flow through the windings, thus saturating the magnetic material in the core and turning the winding into a line frequency short. The latter is a high voltage spike with a very fast rise time (think lightning on steroids) that causes damage from flashover.

[Overmod]

As I recall the issue was not so much the polychlorinated biphenyls as the small but extremely consequential dioxin contaminants.  I also recall some specialty transformers, such as the multiple-tap type in GG1s, only being practical to build because of the introduction of PCB dielectric...

It was my understanding that very large above-ground transformer oil can be spectacularly flammable when continuously heated and 'arced'.  You would not want the equivalent of a railgun-initiated FAE in the confined space of a vault.

incidentally the quiet story of how so much of the large-transformer inventory in the USA was modified or replaced to eliminate the danger from solar and 'certain other types' of EMP will likely make interesting reading, and I suspect Electroliner1935 may have firsthand knowledge and experience of the problem and its solution.  There was a Forstchen/Gingrich book (One Second After) that was written to sensationalize the problem and the likely effects... I was interested to see EPRI note, in passing, that the danger had been entirely re-engineered, a few years ago now. 

[Electroliner 1935]

ChuckCobleigh

Failure in a 40 MVA device could be a spectacular event, eh? Not to mention a major mess if PCBs were involved.

PCBs were mostly in networked transformers that were the type used in vaults under the sidewalk or in buildings which and were not more than 3,000 kVA. PCB's were developed to reduce fire hazard of flamable oil in buildings. PCB's were also in the capacitors. Silicon oils are now used. 

120/208V vaults are ok but 277/480V vaults scare me. 120/208V faults will burn clear and the arc will extinguish but 480V will maintain the arcing fault and cremate those who can't get out quickly

[ChuckCobleigh]

Electroliner 1935

I was always happy when that occured and I had no failures. 

Failure in a 40 MVA device could be a spectacular event, eh? Not to mention a major mess if PCBs were involved.

[Electroliner 1935]

Part of my career as an Engineer at an electric utility was overseeing the installation of some large 138,000 volt 40,000,000 VA (Watts) transformers. These transformers when in service are filled with a dielectic oil to insulate and transfer the heat from the internal coils to the radiators. While in transit they are filled with nitrogen. Upon arrival at the substation, the nitrogen is evacuated and they are inspected visually. Then a pump is applied to pull a vacuum and oil is admitted until filled. The vacuum is used to pull the oil into the coils so that there are no voids. Then and this is one of the tasks I worked on was to verify the transformer could not have any leakage current when energized at over 138,000 volts. Think of a boiler pressure test. There are many more tests but that is critical. Of course, the moment of truth is when the unit is energized, holds the voltage and then is put under load. I was always happy when that occured and I had no failures. 

[traisessive1]

On CN any dimensional shipment must have a dimensional transit waybill with it. Multi-levels and double stacks cary a generic one for example, but a load like this will have its own. The routing of the car will be on bill. The crew is responsible for ensuring they don't go where it doesn't fit or onto a subdivision not listed on that bill. 

I am not throwing the crew under the train here, but, to me, not knowing the rules of NS, it would be rather stupid for the crew not to be in possession of such a document. 

[Euclid]

Large power transformers are relatively high value, high weight, oversize, top-heavy, and extremely fragile.  Shipping requires well planned routing that often includes multiple modes of transportation, while being supervised by specialists along the way.    

I have looked at the case of the NS jamming a special oversize transformer load under an overpass that is the subject of another thread here. In this case, I would assume (with risk) that this damaged load is a total loss, and may be scrapped after a full settlement for its value.  I also roughly estimate that the value of loss exceeds 2-million dollars.  The transformer alone is not necessarily the only loss.  There is also the loss of the transport cycle, which can be extremely complex and expensive, and involving different modes of transport and extra-long, convoluted routes.  Here is an interesting report on such shipping concerns:

https://www.tilt-import.eu/images/Documentation/white-papers-spotsee/enregistreur_de_choc_transformateur_electrique.PDF

 

Here is another good reference to the handling of large transformers during shipping.  I see what appear to be fragile appearing equipment enclosures on the top of this transformer that was jammed under the low bridge.  They appear to possibly be made of molded plastic.  The bridge contact has damaged the transformer enclosure as well as this fragile appearing equipment.  I wonder if that equipment is impact recorders to monitor impact during shipping.  I understand that this is important because impact can cause internal damage that cannot be seen from the exterior.  

http://www.sensebig.com/blogs/transformer-logistics-monitoring-shock-and-impact-recorder

 

Impact recorders are attached to a transformer shipping load to monitor and record all impact events to assure that they do not exceed certain force values.  Even excess impact that does not cause visible damage can damage a transformer, thus causing an immediate or future failure to operate.