I worked heavy grade territory. I would back into the train to bunch the slack, made a 10 lb set before I kicked off the handbrakes. I usually started the train in full dynamics. Usually the weight of the engines running out was enough to get things moving. If that didn't work I'd drag it down the hill.
I would have advised that crew to take the train down in a couple of pieces....
Randy
tree68 Euclid As the conductor releases the handbrakes, wouldn't the train be held by the automatic air brakes throughout the train, thus allowing the conductor time to get the handbrakes released and board the locomotive? Sure - but then there wouldn't be enough air in the reservoirs on the cars for another application, which would be needed almost immediately. You'd be amazed at how fast a train of that size can get rolling in no time at all, on a grade like that. Engineers who make repeated sets without letting the entire train recharge are said to be "pissing away their air." Pardon the vernacular. This has been a common cause of runaways for years. In this case, starting from a set would have put the engineer at an immediate disadvantage due to the reduced pressure left in the service reservoirs. As Balt notes - this was a lose-lose situation under the circumstances.
Euclid
Sure - but then there wouldn't be enough air in the reservoirs on the cars for another application, which would be needed almost immediately. You'd be amazed at how fast a train of that size can get rolling in no time at all, on a grade like that.
Engineers who make repeated sets without letting the entire train recharge are said to be "pissing away their air." Pardon the vernacular. This has been a common cause of runaways for years. In this case, starting from a set would have put the engineer at an immediate disadvantage due to the reduced pressure left in the service reservoirs.
As Balt notes - this was a lose-lose situation under the circumstances.
.
EuclidThen the engineer releases the automatic air brakes on the entire train. He must go to full release to begin moving even though some degree of set will immediately be needed after the full release. When the air brakes througout the train fully release, the train starts rolling.
BigJimActually Tree68, that is basically how it should have been done, just as Randy said.
I agree. However, there was this previous statement by Bucky:
Then the engineer releases the automatic air brakes on the entire train. He must go to full release to begin moving even though some degree of set will immediately be needed after the full release. When the air brakes througout the train fully release, the train starts rolling.
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...
Larry,
Once again Bucky shows his ignorance of reality,
Norm
tree68 BigJim Actually Tree68, that is basically how it should have been done, just as Randy said. I agree. However, there was this previous statement by Bucky: Then the engineer releases the automatic air brakes on the entire train. He must go to full release to begin moving even though some degree of set will immediately be needed after the full release. When the air brakes througout the train fully release, the train starts rolling.
BigJim Actually Tree68, that is basically how it should have been done, just as Randy said.
Post quoted from previous page:
Euclid said:
"As the conductor releases the handbrakes, wouldn't the train be held by the automatic air brakes throughout the train, thus allowing the conductor time to get the handbrakes released and board the locomotive?"
Larry said:
"Sure - but then there wouldn't be enough air in the reservoirs on the cars for another application, which would be needed almost immediately. You'd be amazed at how fast a train of that size can get rolling in no time at all, on a grade like that.
As Balt notes - this was a lose-lose situation under the circumstances."
******************************************
Well going back to this point in the discussion which I have manually quoted above, I was trying to find a way to not leave the conductor behind when the train starts to roll as he released the handbrakes. I was responding to Balt ACD, and everything I said was in the form of a question to him. My list of steps is asking him for his confirmation of the process since he outlined a problem of restarting the train in quite a bit of detail. I was not making assertions in that list as you have now implied by taking one point of the list out of context and presenting it as an assertion which you can claim is incorrect.
And since that time of presenting my list of steps as a question to Balt, others have said that the proper procedure would be to leave the air set and restart by pulling against the air rather than releasing the air. Fine. That answers my question to Balt about that aspect of the restarting. But Balt did not offer the solution of restarting with a service application, and neither did you. You did not suggest restarting without releasing the air, as Big Jim and Randy later said. You said it was a lose-lose situation, which was the same way that Balt categorized it. What do you mean by a lose-lose situation?
EuclidWhat do you mean by a lose-lose situation?
Given the circumstances, the crew was going to lose the train no matter which course of action they took.
Think of it this way - you are carrying two large antique vases (very valuable - think Ming Dynasty or something like that). You trip. You can catch yourself, but you'll have to drop one of the vases (breaking it) in the process. Or, you can simply fall, and both vases will likely break.
You are in a lose-lose situation. No matter what you do, once you've tripped, you're going to break at least one vase.
For the crew in question to have a win option, it would appear that something would have to have changed, like adding a helper.
BigJim
tree68 Euclid What do you mean by a lose-lose situation? Given the circumstances, the crew was going to lose the train no matter which course of action they took. Think of it this way - you are carrying two large antique vases (very valuable - think Ming Dynasty or something like that). You trip. You can catch yourself, but you'll have to drop one of the vases (breaking it) in the process. Or, you can simply fall, and both vases will likely break. You are in a lose-lose situation. No matter what you do, once you've tripped, you're going to break at least one vase. For the crew in question to have a win option, it would appear that something would have to have changed, like adding a helper.
Euclid What do you mean by a lose-lose situation?
How about if something changed like making a light service application, having the independent set, releasing the handbrakes, releasing the independent, and pulling on the train to start it with the service application set? Wouldn't that have been a win option?
EuclidWouldn't that have been a win option?
Quoting BigJim: "I think it is best that I leave this thread and let y'all beat yourselves up. Bye!"
BigJim, I gather that you have gotten enough new pairs of shoes and new belts from this thread?
Johnny
It appears me that the ECP brake/tank car derailment tests actually did show the damage reduction advantage of ECP over other systems that has been predicted by the FRA and others over the last few years. The tests did show a reduction of the number of derailed cars and tank car punctures. Nobody ever claimed that ECP would thoroughly eliminate the dangers, so there is no failure in that regard.
But now, the problem that has been revealed is with the testing itself. While it showed the anticipated benefits of ECP, the sampling was not large enough to derive a reliable statistic. So we are left to wonder if the limited test results showing favor were just the luck of the draw so to speak.
But how ironic it is that we discover that the testing itself was flawed in a way that leaves a result that must be interpreted with hunch and intuition; the very things that the tests were intended to replace. Other testing methodology has been challenged as well. So, overall, what the tests proved is that the testing was flawed.
Normally, this revelation would result in redoing the tests. But instead, it appears that DOT will simply surrender and withdraw the mandate. And as the mandate collapses, the testing will not be blamed as the cause. Instead ECP will be blamed as though to drive a stake through its heart, so it is dead once and for all.
We will hear that the test worked just fine and proved that ECP offers zero safety advantage. This of course is the part than needs to be killed because it is always safety that drives mandates. And safety is hard to measure and dispute as part of the benefit in a cost/benefit analysis.
Even with all of this dynamic, DOT is not considering dropping the mandate because the tests were flawed. They are certainly not conceding that ECP offers no additional safety. No, the reason they give for considering dropping the mandate is that the benefit of the cost/benefit analysis has fallen due to a decline in oil traffic. What an incredibly easy way out. I conclude that these decisions to impose and withdraw mandates have nothing to do with safety and testing for it. I think they are based solely on the will to regulate, and that will shifts with the political makeup of the people in charge. The mandate came and went with these shifts.
DeggestyBigJim, I gather that you have gotten enough new pairs of shoes and new belts from this thread?
No, he's disappointed because the leather was so long dead it was rotted when he tried to use it.
EuclidIt appears me that the ECP brake/tank car derailment tests actually did show the expected advantage of ECP over other systems in reducing the number of derailed cars and tank car punctures as had been claimed prior to the tests.
Please show me this, preferably with some reference to the statistical analysis, in written results or links. I have not (yet) seen any such thing, but I've seen a number of analyses that indicate the contrary.
Overmod Euclid It appears me that the ECP brake/tank car derailment tests actually did show the expected advantage of ECP over other systems in reducing the number of derailed cars and tank car punctures as had been claimed prior to the tests. Please show me this, preferably with some reference to the statistical analysis, in written results or links. I have not (yet) seen any such thing, but I've seen a number of analyses that indicate the contrary.
Euclid It appears me that the ECP brake/tank car derailment tests actually did show the expected advantage of ECP over other systems in reducing the number of derailed cars and tank car punctures as had been claimed prior to the tests.
+1
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Overmod,
In response to your request for some reference to the ECP advantage, here is what was posted by M636C a few days ago. I thought I would copy and paste his entire post along with the table, as his comments are interesting as well.
******************************************************
Posted by M636C on Tuesday, October 17, 2017 8:07 PM
While at Raiway Age, I checked their evaluation of the NAS/TRB ECP study.
I don't think this table appeared in any of the summaries, only the average number of derailed cars...
ECPOverlay
DP orEOT
Conventional
Average
21.0
23.1
25.5
Minimum
12
14
8
Maximum
28
39
45
Range
16
25
37
Standarddeviation
4.4
5.6
7.2
So while the averages are similar, and allow the conclusion that ECP doesn't help in a derailment, the minimum and maximum number of derailed cars is significant.
Not surprisingly, ECP worked more consistently in the eighteen tests that each system underwent. The possible range of the number of derailed cars for ECP was less than HALF that for conventional brakes.
So if your train had ECP brakes in an accident with the conditions simulated, the maximum number of cars derailed would be 28 compared to 45 for conventional brakes and 39 for DP operation.
What is surprising is that for conventional front end initiated Westinghouse operation, the minimum number was only 8 cars derailed, compared to 12 for ECP and 14 for DP.
This clearly shows a wide variation in the effectiveness of operation of air brakes in emergency mode. Emergency is at the "edge of the envelope" and can sometimes work very well but at other times (presumably with exactly the same consist) not very well at all.
To quote
Railway Age asked noted rail industry technical expert Steven R. Ditmeyer, who has a long history with ECP brakes and PTC, among other technologies, to review and comment on the NAS/TRB report:
in which he concluded...
“I believe that the silly argument going on between FRA and the AAR on how much of a safety improvement ECP brakes will provide by reducing the number of tank cars derailed and punctured in an oil train derailment is preventing the railroad industry from implementing a technology that can also provide it with significant operating and maintenance savings. The TRB committee report provided no guidance or encouragement to bringing this about.”
I myself am struck by the old adage about, "lies, bad lies and statistics".
If the maxima and minima had been quoted in the main body of the press release, fewer people would have felt happy with the conclusion that ECP doesn't help in a derailment.
Peter
I must clarify that when I used the term "damage reduction," I am only meaning the general expectation for improvement as in the FRA predicting that fewer cars would derail with ECP brakes. There may actually have been a quantified expectation that needed to be met in order to have passed the tests. If there is I am not aware of that specification.
Here is an editorial endorsement of ECP brakes from John Risch in which he lists several advantages of ECP.
https://smart-union.org/news/editorial-rail-safetys-sake-ecp-brake-technology-must/
EDITORIAL: ‘FOR RAIL SAFETY’S SAKE: ECP BRAKE TECHNOLOGY A MUST’ BY JOHN RISCH, NATL. LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, SMART TD
In the editorial comments by John Risch, he says ECP can be modified to apply handbrakes to railcars. He says this:
9. ECP brakes can be modified to apply hand brakes to a railcar automatically from the locomotive, allowing the crew to apply a hand brake on every car in the train in seconds. Conventional brakes must be applied by hand and it can take an hour or more to properly secure a train.
I assume this requires replacing the standard manually powered handbrake mechanism with something that is either electrically or pneumatically powered. Then the ECP would supply the handbrake mechanism with either electricity or compressed air, and control the handbrake setting and release by electronic signals through the electric cable.
However, I would think this would add considerable cost to the conversion of freight cars to ECP braking, perhaps at the very least, doubling the cost of each car conversion.
EuclidI assume this requires replacing the standard manually powered handbrake mechanism with something that is either electrically or pneumatically powered ... I would think this would add considerable cost to the conversion of freight cars to ECP braking ...
A previous poster (one of the professional railroaders) actually provided the link to the technology as used on locomotives, and if I have time I will find it (anyone who remembers, including the original poster, please post it here in the meantime). Application to cars is a bit more 'involved' as it is probably difficult to make compatible with a wheel-based manual actuation as opposed to pump, and it has to 'fail safe' with respect to both manual activation and deactivation in ways that are not immediately obvious.
It would of course add additional cost to the conversion, but perhaps not 'double' it, and there are other reasons, some "legitimately" affecting safety or perceived safety, to adopt remote handbraking even for cars that have received the 'valve-plate' conversion but aren't operating in full ECP mode. It's an interesting topic, although I suspect you could predict most of the industry 'discussion' simply via where-you-stand-is-where-you-sit logic.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.