OvermodI'm still thinking you will have to perform an air test ... which involves inspecting the full length of the consist, supposedly on both sides, twice (once to verify the brakes go on, and once to verify they release properly) -- every time one of your cuts is attached. And these consists are how long, with what kind of access back along the train?
Picking up a a solid block of cars previously tested and not off air for longer than 4 hours? Should need only a class III continuity test.
It's the handbrake rules, charging rules, and shoving rules that are going to eat all your time.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
In my opinion, even for regular locomotives, as long as there is at least one active air compressor in the consist already tied to the train, keeping trainline pressure up, if you add more locomotives to the consist and MU connect them, doing the 'lashing up' won't interfere with the standing condition of the automatic brake -- trainline not interfered with, and therefore no legal need for an air test.
The interlocomotive "MU" air hoses are for the independent brake and reservoir equalization. Connecting or disengaging those shouldn't affect the automatic directly (and the automatic 'Westinghouse' is the subject of Power Brake Law issues)
RDCs have a different MU system, and if I recall correctly their 'native' brake system is different. Some were used in 'trailer' operation behind passenger consists, but I don't remember what was done to make them suitable; I also do not remember them being able to 'control' the brakes of such a train from the control cab directly a la monkeytail. But it would be interesting to find out whether that could be done.
EMUs might have something like Tomlinson or Scharfenberg couplers, where the air connections are made automatically when coupled or uncoupled and each part keeps its air pumped up. But the idea you might have a 15,000' train of EMUs is a little peculiar ... who has ADA-compliant platforms that long?
[quote user="daveklepper"]
[quote user="BaltACD"] Um I loved Model Railroaders "Switching Puzzels" in the 1980s...anybody have dates of when that ran?
zugmann BaltACD If Passenger Conductors feel that double deck cars are too much work, they can go back and be a freight conductor - they will only climb on and off the locomotive when they walk their 9000 to 15000 foot trains (each way) when trouble happens. The will only have to set 10% or more hand brakes (depending on territory) when securing their train for a pick up or set off, of course to leave they will have to release the hand brakes they set. Or they could get a job in the dispatch office. Walk 9 feet to the coffee machine and back.
BaltACD If Passenger Conductors feel that double deck cars are too much work, they can go back and be a freight conductor - they will only climb on and off the locomotive when they walk their 9000 to 15000 foot trains (each way) when trouble happens. The will only have to set 10% or more hand brakes (depending on territory) when securing their train for a pick up or set off, of course to leave they will have to release the hand brakes they set.
If Passenger Conductors feel that double deck cars are too much work, they can go back and be a freight conductor - they will only climb on and off the locomotive when they walk their 9000 to 15000 foot trains (each way) when trouble happens. The will only have to set 10% or more hand brakes (depending on territory) when securing their train for a pick up or set off, of course to leave they will have to release the hand brakes they set.
Or they could get a job in the dispatch office. Walk 9 feet to the coffee machine and back.
And devise a plan to meet opposing 15K foot trains with existing 10K foot sidings.
[/quote]
Remember you are talking about 15,000 ft trains. And not a sidewalk to walk on. It takes a long time to walk three miles on gravel. And this meet is how far from the crews starting point? The hog law will end this stupidty I expect. As stated earlier, the 1950's shorter trains had four (or five) crewmen plus the men were on each end. The HOS limit was much greater than today. I wonder how much money the CSX saved by running the extended length train that stringlined at Fostoria and then lost on the derailment. The expression "Penny wise, pound foolish" comes to mind.
Note that with the last addition, there would be no need to walk the length, even the half length, of the trains. The trains themselves, usually the B train locomotive, would do the job of ferrying the crewmen. Still would take three or four hours because of the walks necessary to set and release handbrakes, time to set and release handbrakes, times to pump up air. No-one today would recommend this as rebular operating pracitce, and you are entirely correct in this matter. The sawby with long trains is probably in use very seldom, oly in emergencies that resulted from some errors.
In my 1952-1953 Boston and Maine days, the saw-by usually occured with short transfer and peddler runs, sometimes as short as ten cars, with sidings that were not meant for passing tracks but for local delivaryand pick-up, often stub-end sidings. Yes, a saw-by is even possible with a stub-end siding, but I wil let someone else have the spleasure of explaining how.
I had neglected to note all the stops, mostly made by train B, to pick-up and drop off its and train A's second man to position them for couplinig, uncoupling, and hand-brake tie-down, so they do not need to walk the length or half-lenth of the train. Also, both trains at some point need to back up to restore the seonc crewman to the enginer from a position half-way back, done after both trains have cleared the siding.
Iam going to start a new thread on General Discussion on long trains with short sidings.
CandOforprogress2 Many conducters that i know are complaing that they have to walk up and down sets of stairs to collect tickets and since many are older and heaver this is causing back problems. Look in future for a POP system on NJ Transit and MARC trains with these new cars.
Many conducters that i know are complaing that they have to walk up and down sets of stairs to collect tickets and since many are older and heaver this is causing back problems. Look in future for a POP system on NJ Transit and MARC trains with these new cars.
I think the real question is why conductors and trainmen are still lifting tickets on commuter trains. Lots of places in the world use automated fare collection systems. ...even South Africa.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
But even 22yeaars ago on a typ;icak gallery-car Chicago commuter train, a conductor or trainman could go through several cars withoiut lifting any tickets, just noting the monthly tickets clipped for him or her to view as proceeding down the ailse, because all the pssengers in these cars had monthlies and not individujal tickets. So it is not quite as obsolete a system as you might think.
oltmannd CandOforprogress2 Many conducters that i know are complaing that they have to walk up and down sets of stairs to collect tickets and since many are older and heaver this is causing back problems. Look in future for a POP system on NJ Transit and MARC trains with these new cars. I think the real question is why conductors and trainmen are still lifting tickets on commuter trains. Lots of places in the world use automated fare collection systems. ...even South Africa.
Yes. Far more efficient, especially for non-regular riders.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmYes. Far more efficient, especially for non-regular riders.
Here, here..........I third that sentiment. I like the Dallas TRE approach. Ticket kiosks at every station with a validator built in..........only spot checks on the train. Mostly the honor system.
I think your going to find with Chicago though it's because the system is run by multi-decade tenured railroaders that were taught by or learned their jobs from the former Privately run railroad railroaders......where every penny and nickel was counted. In the days of taxpayer supported service, if you don't get them at the farebox.......they are going to pay via taxes.
One of the problems with the honor system with spot checks is that most people assume that there are going to be a fair number of freeloaders with such a system and that the taxpaying public will pick up the slack.
In Chicago, except for the IC Electric, trains board from low-level platforms, making it difficult to control access. Many stations are open only during morning rush, which means that ticket-vending machines would have to be built to withstand the elements, making them more expensive. I'm also not sure how much money would be saved since adjusting crew requirements would require renegotiation of existing labor contracts.
Commuter trains have way too many conducters and assistant conducters to take tickets. a POP system where you validate your ticket before you sit down would work and a system that sences who is sitting where would help too.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.