Suggest you knee jerkers read the NTSB Preliminary Report before commenting further.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Documents/RRD23MR005%20East%20Palestine%20OH%20Prelim.pdf?fbclid=IwAR32DHLAjqacuNtaabYznHEuK85sIYMsxTs2tv1cwMBWjyVRjBAgXU_R2b8
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
And perhaps the railroads-are-never-to-blame kneejerkers need to read as well.
charlie hebdoAnd perhaps the railroads-are-never-to-blame kneejerkers need to read as well.
None of us railroaders are holding NS blameless - there is more than enough blame to go around among a number for parties.
charlie hebdo And perhaps the railroads-are-never-to-blame kneejerkers need to read as well.
Not one person has said the NS is blameless here. Typical from you.
An "expensive model collector"
Convicted One Convicted One I interpret the finger pointing at "PSR " as recognizing the corporate culture where operating ratio trumps operational best practices. That sort of thing. BEAUSABRE Prove that it does Whelp, the unions are starting to lean that way... Union officials say cost cutting led to significant derailment rate increase
Convicted One I interpret the finger pointing at "PSR " as recognizing the corporate culture where operating ratio trumps operational best practices. That sort of thing.
BEAUSABRE Prove that it does
Whelp, the unions are starting to lean that way...
Never let a disaster go to waste. Just ask the ALPA in using a plane crash to make getting a commercial airline job harder, even if the new regulations wouldn't have prevented the plane crash they used.
For those who wonder about a failed journal
BaltACD For those who wonder about a failed journal
tree68 Fred M Cain One thought I had: although we know that there was a problem 20 miles away since it just happened to get caught on a non-railroad security camera, is it not possible that this thing had been going on much longer? Perhaps even 30 or 40 miles or even further? The interim report says the train passed three defect detectors prior to the wreck, with each reporting a higher axle temperature.
Fred M Cain One thought I had: although we know that there was a problem 20 miles away since it just happened to get caught on a non-railroad security camera, is it not possible that this thing had been going on much longer? Perhaps even 30 or 40 miles or even further?
The interim report says the train passed three defect detectors prior to the wreck, with each reporting a higher axle temperature.
For comparison, here's some bearing testing done by the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (page 10 is of the most interest):
https://www.utrgv.edu/railwaysafety/_files/documents/presentations/jrc2016-5816.pdf
The first detector showed 38°F above ambient, actually lower than you would expect at 50 mph, but the report doesn't say how fast the train was going at that point so it may have been giong slower. The second detector showed 103° above ambient, elevated, but still well below the alarm threshold (170°). So there was no reason for the train crew to suspect a problem until the third detector, at which point it was too late.
Did you read it? I'm not a "railroads-are-never-to-blame kneejerker," but I didn't see anything in the report that suggeted the railroad did anything wrong.
But wouldn't a rising trend be a significant anomaly that would cause concern? What caused the temperature to rise from 38 degrees to 103 degrees? Wouldn't this sort of temperature rise precede every bearing failure?
When bearing temperature is rising, what is the temperature that calls for action to prevent a total beaing failure?
EuclidBut wouldn't a rising trend be a significant anomaly that would cause concern? What caused the temperature to rise from 38 degrees to 103 degrees? Wouldn't this sort of temperature rise precede every bearing failure? When bearing temperature is rising, what is the temperature that calls for action to prevent a total beaing failure?
When you start your car up, if your instruments allow, check the Oil Temperature - presuming the car has set overnight, the temperature will be near ambient. Fire up the car and drive a mile when the ambient is below freezing - and the oil will heat up some - maybe 20 degrees. Drive 5 miles getting both the water and oil temperatures to their near normal values and both will be in the neighborhood of 200 degrees F.
I don't know what the 'normal' operating temperature for fully loaded railroad bearing is! But there is a temperature. On CSX, when a train is stopped because of a Hot Box Indication from a Defect Detector and the Conductors are inspecting their train they use a 'Temp-L-stick' that will liquify when touched to a overheated bearing, it WILL NOT MELT when the bearing is within normal operating temperatures.
When a hot box is found, and in the estimation of the Conductor the car is safe to move - it can be moved to the nearest set out location, under the supervision of the Conductor, at a speed of no more than 4 MPH. If the Conductor views the car as unsafe to more, the Car Dept is notified to respond with their 'over the road' repair truck and manpower.
Euclid But wouldn't a rising trend be a significant anomaly that would cause concern? What caused the temperature to rise from 38 degrees to 103 degrees? Wouldn't this sort of temperature rise precede every bearing failure? When bearing temperature is rising, what is the temperature that calls for action to prevent a total beaing failure?
Read the NTSB report! 170F to stop and inspect. 115F difference between bearings on the same axle to stop and inspect. 200F to set the car out.
It has been reported that all detectors involved in this incident have been inspected and confirmed to be working correctly.
One other factoid that may (or may not) end up having some relevence. Based on the news reports, the defective car was a tank car. If so, its probably not an NS car. Railroads typically don't supply tank cars. They are usually owned by a car leasing company and leased to the shipper (or receiver), or owned by the shipper/receiver.
Falcon48 One other factoid that may (or may not) end up having some relevence. Based on the news reports, the defective car was a tank car. If so, its probably not an NS car. Railroads typically don't supply tank cars. They are usually owned by a car leasing company and leased to the shipper (or receiver), or owned by the shipper/receiver.
No, the deffective car was a covered hopper.
EuclidBut wouldn't a rising trend be a significant anomaly that would cause concern?
EuclidWhat caused the temperature to rise from 38 degrees to 103 degrees?
Even if the temperature rise is out of ordinary and could be indicative of an impending bearing failure, I'm pretty sure the hotbox detectors don't compare their readings down the line. Maybe they should, but that would get pretty complicated. Any set outs or pick ups between detectors would effect the axle count, so that would have to be taken into account.
EuclidWhen bearing temperature is rising, what is the temperature that calls for action to prevent a total beaing failure?
My question is woud have a detector at ~~ MP 59 have spotted the problem?
.
BigJim Euclid But wouldn't a rising trend be a significant anomaly that would cause concern? What caused the temperature to rise from 38 degrees to 103 degrees? Wouldn't this sort of temperature rise precede every bearing failure? When bearing temperature is rising, what is the temperature that calls for action to prevent a total beaing failure? Do you people ever actually give any thought to what you are writing...hmmm? Think about it people, as written above 103° is cooler than the hot water coming out of your kitchen spigot! Add in the outside temperature and you still haven't scalded you hand! Seems to me that "kneejerk" is being kind!
Euclid BigJim Euclid But wouldn't a rising trend be a significant anomaly that would cause concern? What caused the temperature to rise from 38 degrees to 103 degrees? Wouldn't this sort of temperature rise precede every bearing failure? When bearing temperature is rising, what is the temperature that calls for action to prevent a total beaing failure? Do you people ever actually give any thought to what you are writing...hmmm? Think about it people, as written above 103° is cooler than the hot water coming out of your kitchen spigot! Add in the outside temperature and you still haven't scalded you hand! Seems to me that "kneejerk" is being kind! My comment has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether 103 degrees means the bearing is failing. I was only asking about the trend pattern of there being a temperature rise and how that should be interpreted. I assume a trend up or down could be caused by a variety of normal operational factors, and not be a symptom of the start of bearing failure development. But it would also follow that every bearing failure is accompanied by a trend of rising temperature starting from what would be considered normal operting temperature. So any upward temperature trend above normal operating temperature would be an anomaly that would have to include the possibility of the very start of bearing overheat and eventual total failure. My impression was that the detectors assimilate and evaluate trends in temperature change as well as definte overheated condtions where bearing failure is likely. After all the whole idea is to catch a problem as early as possible, before it causes a disaster.
My comment has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether 103 degrees means the bearing is failing. I was only asking about the trend pattern of there being a temperature rise and how that should be interpreted.
I assume a trend up or down could be caused by a variety of normal operational factors, and not be a symptom of the start of bearing failure development. But it would also follow that every bearing failure is accompanied by a trend of rising temperature starting from what would be considered normal operting temperature.
So any upward temperature trend above normal operating temperature would be an anomaly that would have to include the possibility of the very start of bearing overheat and eventual total failure.
My impression was that the detectors assimilate and evaluate trends in temperature change as well as definte overheated condtions where bearing failure is likely. After all the whole idea is to catch a problem as early as possible, before it causes a disaster.
Perhaps Big Jim should read the preliminary report, instead of snide responses.
The hotbox detectors infer problems from reading the temperature of bearings. A better and cheap solution using available more modern technology (defect detectors date back to the 60s, maybe even 40s!!) might be to also use something akin to inexpensive doorbell camera devices to actually see problems regardless of temperature, including dragging, sparking metal.
Euclid The disaster was caused by flaw in the detectors and in the interpretation of their data.
Not arguing with your reasoning, but I wonder if the disaster was caused by a bearing failing too quickly. And thus not getting "snagged" by the detectors.
Roller bearings on freight cars have been around about forever, by now. There must be some data about how long it takes for a bearing to go from start to finish of a failure. Do "ALL" roller bearings fail this quickly?
I am wondering if this problem was caused by a bearing that was defective on manufacture--maybe something like improper heat treatment or improper assembly.
If this was a typical bearing, that would imply it was a typical failure. Is it? Are all bearing failures this close to the edge of disaster?
By the way, ALL of the derailed cars were private-owner cars. NONE were railroad owned.
Ed
CSX Robert charlie hebdo And perhaps the railroads-are-never-to-blame kneejerkers need to read as well. Did you read it? I'm not a "railroads-are-never-to-blame kneejerker," but I didn't see anything in the report that suggeted the railroad did anything wrong.
It blames the setup of the hotbox detectors which are owned by the NS. Obviously they failed to warn the crew to stop the train in time. That is clear cut.
EuclidThe NTSB has concluded exactly what I have explained above. That is that the heat rising trend should have been a concern, but was disregarded. Referring to three separate increased temperature readings before the disaster, they cite the trend of temperature increase as being a warning that was not heeded. The popular notion here on the forum is that none of the reading were high enough to mean a bearing was failing. But as I tried to indicate, it was not the actual temperatures of the individual readings that were predictive. Instead, it was the rising trend of the readings. The disaster was caused by flaw in the detectors and in the interpretation of their data. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C4Hos8UK7c
Wow! She must have a different report than the rest of us, because nothing she said at the beginning is in the report that came out yesterday that I've seen! The report never said it was preventable or that there were several warning signs.
38 degrees above outside temperature is not an "increased temperature reading." Wheel bearings do not operate at outside temperature and that is well within normal operating parameters. The second temperature reading is elevated but still within normal operating temperatures. There was no indication from the hotboxes that there was an issue until the one in East Palestine, which was too late.
charlie hebdoIt blames the setup of the hotbox detectors which are owned by the NS.
Where, because I don't see that anywhere in the report.
charlie hebdoObviously they failed to warn the crew to stop the train in time.
Obviously. Becauase the hotbox detectors didn't see a bearing hot enough to imply a possible failure until it was too late.
My understanding is the FRA mandates hotbox detectors every 40 miles and the railroads typical have them every 20 miles so if one malfunctions they can take it out of service without shutting down the line. If up until now everyone has agreed that 40 miles is an accepted interval, how is it the fault of Norfolk Southern's hotbox setup because in this particular case even 20 miles was too far.
7j43k Euclid The disaster was caused by flaw in the detectors and in the interpretation of their data. Not arguing with your reasoning, but I wonder if the disaster was caused by a bearing failing too quickly. And thus not getting "snagged" by the detectors. Roller bearings on freight cars have been around about forever, by now. There must be some data about how long it takes for a bearing to go from start to finish of a failure. Do "ALL" roller bearings fail this quickly? I am wondering if this problem was caused by a bearing that was defective on manufacture--maybe something like improper heat treatment or improper assembly. If this was a typical bearing, that would imply it was a typical failure. Is it? Are all bearing failures this close to the edge of disaster? By the way, ALL of the derailed cars were private-owner cars. NONE were railroad owned. Ed
My personal experience with bearing failures (non-railroad) is that the fail from a range of different causes - some causes allow the bearing to 'limp' along for a long period of time, some causes will generate catastrophic failure almost immediatly.
Extrapolating, I suspect the same wide variety of failure modes affect railroad bearings. I feature a bearing can run low on internal grease and run 'slightly warmer' than a fully greased and functional bearing for likely thousands of miles. By the same turn there can be a metalurigal flaw in a individual roller or one of the bearing races that can cause catastrophic failure in very short order.
I don't know what kind of system NS has with their Hot Box Detectors.
On CSX when I retired, the HBD's radioed the results of the inspection directly to the passing train. The results were either GO or NO GO. I do not know what kind of observed temperatures were the deciding factor in the G/NG decision.
The various Wheel Impact Load Detetors the CSX had would send their results to the Mechanical Help Desk in Jacksonville, those detectors used RFID to ID the specific car and wheel that triggered the impact for the crew to be notified to inspect. This notice was sent to both the Train Dispatcher and Chief Train Dispatcher on the territory the train was operating on - in near real time; the notices were sent in a manner that required each party to take actions that indicated that they acknowledged the notice. Both notices required the train to be stopped and inspected, The Level 4 notice required the car to be set out if it was safe to move. The Level 3 notice allowed the car to be moved to destination at 30 MPH. Both Level 3 and 4 were required to have the offending wheel set(s) changed out.
It's not the set-up of the individual detectors that's the problem. None indicated an actionable problem by itself. The problem seems to be that they are not networked in a way that would allow the real-time analysis ADKRR64 suggests (corrections gladly accepted). It's one thing to look at the readouts after the fact and compare them. It's another thing to analyze them in real time and be able to recognize a potential problem. Since the readings are transmitted to a central point, that is where the analysis needs to take place.
Something else to consider is that any defect detectors I'm aware of simply indicate to the crew that there is an actionable problem X axles from the end of the train - they don't have RFID readers at each detector. This would be necessary for any specific ID of a problem car/axle. The RFID tags are already in place on the cars.
charlie hebdoObviously they failed to warn the crew to stop the train in time. That is clear cut.
Until the defect reached the East Palestine detector, the detectors operated as designed. When the crew got an actionable warning at East Palestine, they started action to stop the train, which was interrupted by the derailment. At that point it was too late - they were doing 47 MPH, meaning even an emergency application would not have helped.
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...
CSX Robert posted: "The first detector showed 38°F above ambient, actually lower than you would expect at 50 mph, but the report doesn't say how fast the train was going at that point so it may have been giong slower. The second detector showed 103° above ambient, elevated, but still well below the alarm threshold (170°)"
I would expect to see some kind of emergency order from the FRA that (in the future) all trains carrying cars placarded hazardous will stop and inspect for journal readings that are, say, 10-15° above ambient temperature. It could be a higher temperature threshold, I just picked those numbers out-of-the-air for a starting point.
Note the part of my prediction that includes "trains carrying cars placarded hazardous". Trains without hazardous cars would be excluded from the new regs.
So... what can the RR's do? In that case, they could segregate all hazardous cars into special hazardous trains (on Conrail they used to be called "HAZ") which would be inspected and run over the line with a "stricter level of scrutiny" than are regular trains. Perhaps at slightly lower speeds -- this, too, might be placed into regulation by the FRA. I would guess 35-40mph.
And, a maximum "car limit" on such HAZ trains. I reckon 40-60 cars. A shorter train like this can be "gotten clear of the main" to let the faster ones by if need be. Also, if an [en route] walking inspection is required, it can be accomplished much quicker with a shorter train.
One thing seems to be certain: the status quo (for handling hazardous cars) is not going to continue -- new regulations, perhaps significantly more restrictive and intrusive -- are on the horizon.
(Hey, did I ever tell you about the time I had a CR HAZ train of 40 cars of sulfuric acid, with NO properly working brakes? [kicker] Got it from Pt. Jervis to Oak Island without using the air at all...!)
OldEnginemanNote the part of my prediction that includes "trains carrying cars placarded hazardous". Trains without hazardous cars would be excluded from the new regs.
If the train had derailed a quarter mile or so earlier, it would have taken out part of downtown East Palestine...
As it was, the derailment was right next to an oil dealer. I don't think said dealer's facility was involved (early reports seemed to indicate it was, but later images didn't seem to support that).
Just sayin'...
tree68As it was, the derailment was right next to an oil dealer.
Yep, "Leake" oil. It's a good thing they wern't leaking at the time.
What is the purpose of the HBD network? To detect overheated journals and prevent subsequent fires and/or derailments.
The way they appear to be used on NS failed to detect and warn the train crew until it was too late. That is a system design failure.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.