train handling

[Anonymous]

Say what?????? Is this a goofy response?

[Anonymous]

There are already lots of videos and presentations through Operation Lifesaver for this purpose. Some are more graphic than others depending on the audience. Most of these presentations are given to schools, civic groups and professional drivers. Never have seen it offered on internet.

[wabash1]

all it says in the rule book is bring it to a safe stop and then notify the dispatcher or the control operator for permission to proceed. i wont do emergency then. a banner is another thing. i do it just to tear it up. so they quit those stupid rule checks.

[sooblue]

Go on.

[sooblue]

Thanks for the lesson. What your saying is prevention and some sort of fail safe crossing protection would be better than quicker stopping.
It's really too bad that the general public can't ride in the cab on occasion I'm sure it would make an impression. Barring that, maybe videos could be circulated through the internet. Something true to life and unedited, with an active crew doing the narration.

[Anonymous]

On Amtrak train handling is not permited.

[Anonymous]

I was also talking about a signal going from green to red. An engineer has to keep a cool head, a signal dropping does not always call for an emergency application. Of course if you see a problem close or you can't see around a curve you have no other choice.

[Anonymous]

Right, but I was talking about one that drops right in your face from clear to stop!

[Anonymous]

If I could see a reasonable distance I would not put a train in emergency on a signal that dropped in my face. I would grab full service and keep my hand on the handle. A service reduction gets the shoes against the wheels and if you put it emergency afterwards the stop will be almost as quick and a lot less likely to pile the train into the ditch.

[Anonymous]

I agree with "j" in his 5:48 am post. I would not place my train in emergency unless I thought or knew I had hit something. Also, "j" is correct that, when fuel or propane trucks are involved, a slow speed incident is far and away more hazardous to the train crew than one at speed. You're almost guaranteed to stop in the middle of the mess, thereby placing yourself and others in great danger of injury from fire. There is a much lower probablity that such a collision will derail you. It's possible, of course, but you're much better off away from the fire. I also would not place a train in emergency for a pedestrian, unless I thought or knew I hit them. One afternoon, I thought I hit a lady who had a grocery cart that had it's wheels stuck between the rail and crossing timber. She was trying to move the out of the way and actually disappeared from my view (on a low-nose yet). I had already made a first service application because I saw her at a distance and the train was stretched across five or six other crossings. That's when I went to emergency. I looked away and heard the train hit the cart. We stopped about 7 car lengths away. My conductor and I went back looking and were joined by a police officer. We never found the lady, but we did unstick her grocery cart. She must have jumped at the very last minute and didn't hand around.
I would make an immediate emergency brake application in order to avoid going by an unanticipated stop signal. They will drop on you from time to time, or, heaven forbid, the approach was missed. Making a desired emergency brake application is a tricky thing to do. No engineer likes to do that...it'll really get your heart rate going!

[wabash1]

the only quick stop is an emergency application. and i never place my train in emergency until i hit the car or trespasser. it would be useless to make an emergency application becouse someone is playing chicken with you. if you placed your train in emergency every time someone decided to see how close you could get to them or they try beating you at a crossing then you never get down the road. and if its a gas truck i hit i rather get clear of them anyways than be sitting in the fire ball. the braking systems on trains today are good. as far as life or death well i hit a trespasser that didnt get out of the way they lived but i bet they wont do that again. and the angel on there shoulder that day wish it had a differant assignment to.

[sooblue]

Quick stops do happen though don't they?
When you say it takes a train 1.5 miles to stop is that a normal controled stop or a emergency stop?
What possable improvement would give the engineer an edge in a quick stop.
How about a braking system that works on the rails rather than on the wheels, that would tend to slide if locked up? It would be one time use than you would have to replace the shoes but it would have been a life and death event so it would be worth it.

[wabash1]

if you are slowing down that fast you dont have any buisness running a train anyways. applying the brakes from the rear is worthless in train handling. as it would couse more trains to be torn up. the terrain is more usefull in controlling speed and making planned stops.

[Anonymous]

If you are slowing down that fast it would be wise to worry about weather your engines were going on the ground also.

[sooblue]

If you were stoping fast the cars would slide on the rail anyway wouldn't they?
The way to stop the slack would be with air cylinders stiffining the knuckles and...Is it called draft gear? or beam that cushions the car on impact.
on truck pintle hitches there is a small air cylinder with a shoe that keeps the hitch tight until the trailer is unhooked.
Would there be any reason why that would not work on a larger scale?
It might even help to reduce cars getting popped out of the train in hard deceloration.

[oltmannd]

You really wouldn't want your braking performance based on the existance of HEP. If the HEP went out and you were relying on it for you braking performance, you might not get stopped at the next stop signal! You could (and they did) rely on a battery in each car. In the "old days", passenger car electrical systems ran on batteries that were changed by an axle-powered generator on each car.

[oltmannd]

With electronic brakes, all brakes apply or release simultaneoulsy. That's because you no longer have to use a brake pipe reduction to tell each brake valve what to do - you send an electrical signal. The brake pipe exists only to supply air to power the brake cylinders.

[Anonymous]

Maybe with electronic brakes it could be arranged to start set up at the rear of the train. The advantage gained would be minimal because with electronic brakes there is not supposed to be much of a time lag between the front and rear of a train. With air brakes the air goes in and out through the engine the brakes set on each car as the air reduction gets to each car in a serial manner. To increase the speed of the brakes setting in the train air is also exhausted locally at each of the rail cars. Still the air is taken out of the first car and the first car sets first.

[sooblue]

I would be fairly simple to have anti-lock braking on a passenger train set as each car has power running through it from the head end.
Freight would be tougher and so more expensive.
Would there be any value in being able to apply the brakes from either the front or the back as the engineer thought it best?
From the front and you bunch up, from the rear you stretch out the cars.
mike

[oltmannd]

There are some passenger and transit braking systems with anti-slide capability. In fact, some of the technology dates back to the 30s. It may be possible to do anti-slide on frt cars if electronic braking comes to pass. Doubtful this will happen soon as RRs spent all their money on mergers and have little left for major initiatives.

[wabash1]

if you are using engine brake ( independent) to control slack at what speeds are you doing this.

[sooblue]

Thanks,
minimum reduction puts just enough pressure on the brakes to cause a slowing of the wheels which would bunch up the cars except that the engine is still pulling at a rate that keeps the cars tought. It doesn't sound to me that you are going to slow the train down doing that. You negate the slowing of the cars in order the keep them streached out. No wonder it takes so long to stop a train. I think it would be better to have the trains brakes apply from the rear with a minimum reduction and than after the slack is out the real stopping can take place. OH WELL this is why I'm not an engineer.
I guess I need to some how experiance this first hand to really understand.
Mike

[Anonymous]

No, the train brakes do not set at the same time. They set from front to rear (car by car) as the air goes through the train line. If the air was set from the rear there would be more drawheads and knuckles than you can shake a stick at! In order to keep the train stretched out, the engineer sets his minimum reduction (5-9 lbs) and normally keeps the throttle in notch 4. This notch is the optimum LOWEST position (so to speak) for stretch braking in order to have the slack stretched in the train. Once the speed comes down then the engineer can reduce his throttle. If he so chooses, after the minimum is set, the engineer can go for more air, while increasing the throttle, if the speed needs to come down faster. If that's the case the engineer needs to watch his amp meter at the same time. It's important for an engineer to know his territory so that he can minimize the buff/draft forces within his train. Passenger equipment is a different story, I can't help you on that.
As far as anti-lock brakes on trains - Don't we wish. Does the rear emergency from and EOT count? I don't know.
The Caboose - If we had the brakeman still and also had to walk the train. It would be a lot faster getting down the road after being stopped for a defect detector. They're still out there, only used as shoving platforms on class one's.

[sooblue]

Ok,
now we have to go into some basic mechanical instruction.
Does the entire trains brakes set at the same time? or does it set car by car.
My thought was that if the brakes were set from the rear end than each cars brakes would set one at a time from the rear keeping the cars streched out.
One other thought. are anti-lock braking systems in use on trains today?
Maybe one other thing. How many train crews miss the caboose?

[Anonymous]

Fred is the name of the rear end device. This forum won't let me say what the F stands for but the R is rear E is end D is device.

[Modelcar]

...Well, that sounds innovative, I didn't know FRED was capable of doing that. Thanks.

QM

[wabash1]

who is fred???

[Anonymous]

The only set you can do with a rear end device is an emergency application. I really don't see much advantage to setting the air at the end of the train.

[Anonymous]

Fred feels the jolt and sends a train is moving signal to the head end device.