It was called the Locomotive Testing Laboratory and Reservoir. I think it and the lab at Purdue developed a lot of useful research. As to Cornell, that academic institution trained the father of Superpower, William Woodard. Specialization in training and research found in academia seem undervalued by some on here.
charlie hebdoAs to Cornell, that academic institution trained the father of Superpower, William Woodard.
Another notable Cornell product was Walter Cisler, who I happen to think was immensely smart and innovative, certainly in Woodard's league, but much more dangerous in his approaches to his chosen field...
The often quoted saying 'Those that can, DO; Those that can't teach'.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDThe often quoted saying 'Those that can, DO; Those that can't teach'.
Not quite the same thing in tech as in 'science' on the German model, but you still have to convince the experienced engineers that you know the ropes to join their ranks. You won't do that with a transcript, but it helps to know what was in the coursework. Knowledge is one thing, wisdom something deeper, and experience often justly recognized as the 'best' teacher of the three. But in my opinion, both a good formal engineering education (not just schooling) is important, and so is a lot of academic research and results ... especially when not funded by interests with some axe to grind.Those who can' do, teach; those who can't teach, consult; those who can't consult, legislate; those who can't legislate, lobby. And those who can't do any of those things become bankers, and own.
charlie hebdo I guess those locomotive dynometers and other railroad testing facilities at UofI and Purdue were pointless?
I guess those locomotive dynometers and other railroad testing facilities at UofI and Purdue were pointless?
Locomotive Dynamometers are the province of Mechannical Engineers, while ASCE and AREMA are composed of Civil Engineers. One of the disagreements between ASCE and AREA/AREMA was the design of rail sections, with ASCE's section falling out of favor.
The diesel locomotive greatly reduced the importance of test stands as testing could be done on the subsystem level (i.e. engine, traction generator/alternator and traction motors) and the performance of the locomotive could be estimated fairly accurately. One very important exception was adhesion.
FWIW, my youngest son will be starting his sophomore year at Purdue tomorrow, working on a degree in Civil Engineering.
There are academic contributions to civil, too. One recent thesis (Southampton University, in 2015) has a careful and, on quick first reading at least, exhaustive analysis on ballast design and practical maintenance. Not only is this carefully conducted, and reasonably vetted both for methodology and fact checking, it is likly more rigorous and complete than a for-profit engineering analysis would be (remember the "First Law of Engineering" that got me so angry freshman year...) and could be devoted more time with very likely readier access to source material.
Another potential benefit is access to reasonably qualified people and departmental resources in other disciplines. Work that may affect thinking or practice in particular areas of railroading may be affected or augmented by work -- academic or practical -- done in other departments. A work in economics, like MCCullough's TRB paper in 1996, is greatly facilitated when sensible data are easily obtained from people interested in obtaining them and 'academically trained' to impart the knowledge quickly, effectively, and professionally. In addition, a wider range of critical analysis both in formulating and potentially redacting the paper will likely come out of 'peer review' in academic contexts than merely the engineering community involved.
Overmod There are academic contributions to civil, too.
There are academic contributions to civil, too.
No argument from me on that. There's a great benefit to having groups doing basic research as was done on soil mechanics between the world wars. One example was optimum moisture content for compaction.
Erik_Mag Overmod There are academic contributions to civil, too. No argument from me on that. There's a great benefit to having groups doing basic research as was done on soil mechanics between the world wars. One example was optimum moisture content for compaction.
Academics have advanced the world in quantum steps, with that being said, the information that gets found and understood under the academic disciplines still have to be integrated into the real world of life.
Academics advance their knowledge by using controlled conditions to come to the understanding of what actions they are actually creating and observing, which is necessary from the academic point of view - the real world of reality is far from the controlled conditions that academics perform their observations and understandings.
Like Mike Tyson has said - 'Everybody has a plan - until the first punch is thrown'. Academics that exist only in the academic world do themselves and the world a disfavor.
Those in the real world that discount the peer reviewed data and information of academics do so at their own peril. Academics and Reality must exist in concert with each other.
Sorry but your statement is only partially true about academic research. It is not necessarily under controlled conditions. There are many research designs specifically for non-laboratory applications.
charlie hebdoThere are many research designs specifically for non-laboratory applications.
I wonder if old-head up-through-the-ranks engineers would have invented things like cable-suspended construction or tracklaying systems? And nearly the whole of the LGV was an Ecole Polytechnique project.
charlie hebdoSorry but your statement is only partially true about academic research. It is not necessarily under controlled conditions. There are many research designs specifically for non-laboratory applications.
Absolute control is not always possible, I understand. The more uncontrolled the 'test enviornment' is the fewer cause/effect statements can be deduced. They may be alluded to by the observations but not necessarily 'proved'.
Many of the theories that were postulated by Galeaio, Pasteur, Einstein etc. etc were just theories in their own times because the definitive methods to prove those theories had yet to be developed.
Academics and Realists have to work in concert with each other. Ivory Tower academics need to get their hand dirty as reality is far from neat and clean.
The two things that stick out in my mind from what I've been taught or read over the years were the failure of the ASCE rail designs (insufficient support of the ball of rail in the 85# and 110# sections with not big enough fillet curves...they could deform/wobble under traffic) and the Searles Spiral issues causing adoption of the more rigorous Talbot spiral. There were other flaps over drainage calculations, bridge design and foundation standards IIRC. The big beef was lack of service testing and how rigorous the checks of the test calculations were. (but the individual railroad design standards had their own quirks, some that took decades to correct. )
AREMA and ASCE still growl at each other, politely. Usually where transit issues overlap.
BaltACD Many of the theories that were postulated by Galeaio, Pasteur, Einstein etc. etc were just theories in their own times because the definitive methods to prove those theories had yet to be developed.
Returning to topic: I was doing a little railfanning last night. The ex-Frisco crossing at Rozelle St. just south of South Parkway has been improved with continuous strips evidently inserted into the multipiece precast crossing after its sections were installed and aligned. These are made of heavy black plastic material; it feels like some variant of HDPE or high-density polypropylene, and it appears to be installed to wedge in the opening and to be pressed down, assuming a shallow V shape that wedges it further against lifting, by casual flange contact in traffic.
Interestingly, some of the strips are thinly and only shallowly deformed, almost flat, while others are markedly deformed and gouged.
In my opinion the depth of the closed flangeways, while dramatically less than the self-draining LIRR crossing at the west end of East Hampton station, is still a 'trap and spill' hazard for many road bicycles and might still allow a typical scooter caster wheel to drop in far enough to wedge against the motors' ability to cam it out.
My memory may be wrong (that is, what memory I have left in my declining years). But I believe a significant problem with flange fillers (at least the ones tried in the past) is that they tended to freeze up in cold and/or icy weather, thus creating a serious derailment hazard.
Falcon48 My memory may be wrong (that is, what memory I have left in my declining years). But I believe a significant problem with flange fillers (at least the ones tried in the past) is that they tended to freeze up in cold and/or icy weather, thus creating a serious derailment hazard.
This happens even without the added obstruction of flangeway fillers.
Dirt and mud can do the same thing, even if you are in a warmer climate.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Well, my memory isn't as bad as I thought. I recalled that the rail industry had participated in an DOT ADA rulemaking years ago which, among other things, covered flangeway gaps, since the industry regarded the original proposal as unworkable. The final rule permits a gap of 2.5 inches for new construction (Standard 810.10). I would have to do some further research to be sure, but my recollection is that this was consistent with the industry's position.
With respect to other things that can obstruct a flangeway (ice, dirt, mud, etc) there's a critical difference between the "other things" and a purpose built gap filler. When a railroad removes the "other things", they typically do so in a manner which destroys or violently displaces whatever is obstructing the flangeway. These techniques can't be used with obstructed or frozen gap fillers because they would destroy the fillers.
Some reading on the topic:
https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2016/r16m0026/R16M0026.pdf
Note that this incident involved a flaw in the paving, not the flangeway, but flangeways are discussed.
This one deals with trolleys mostly:
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-016-3242-3
And this one deals with skewed crossings:
https://trid.trb.org/view/878657
Knock yourself out.
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...
Falcon48 Well, my memory isn't as bad as I thought. I recalled that the rail industry had participated in an DOT ADA rulemaking years ago which, among other things, covered flangeway gaps, since the industry regarded the original proposal as unworkable. The final rule permits a gap of 2.5 inches for new construction (Standard 810.10). I would have to do some further research to be sure, but my recollection is that this was consistent with the industry's position. With respect to other things that can obstruct a flangeway (ice, dirt, mud, etc) there's a critical difference between the "other things" and a purpose built gap filler. When a railroad removes the "other things", they typically do so in a manner which destroys or violently displaces whatever is obstructing the flangeway. These techniques can't be used with obstructed or frozen gap fillers because they would destroy the fillers.
The key point is that the gap filler itself eliminates the need to remove “other things” by violent destruction, as is necessary and typical without the use of a gap filler.
With a “gap filler,” there is only a minimum size flangeway where ice and snow can accumulate. As it accumulates, it begins to pose an obstruction to the flanges, and the flanges thus immediately begin to break up and disperse the obstruction.
This breakup is aided because the flangeways are elastic, so not only do the flanges exert breaking pressure onto the ice, but also, the elastic flangeway bottom is pressed downward and this helps break the bond between the ice buildup and the corresponding surfaces of the flangeway.
So, this ice breaking goes into action when the ice is only about ¼-inch thick. And at that small thickness, the force-focusing shape of the flange cross section, and the flexible nature of the flangeway vessel provide for the easy fracturing and expelling of the ice layer. So for snow and ice, the flangeways of the filler device are fundamentally self-cleaning.
There would also be a similar effect for cleaning out mud, however, a problem with mud filling indicates that there is a defect in the crossing drainage that should be corrected. But if the mud happens to freeze solid, it too would be easily broken up and expelled just like water ice is.
Euclid Falcon48 Well, my memory isn't as bad as I thought. I recalled that the rail industry had participated in an DOT ADA rulemaking years ago which, among other things, covered flangeway gaps, since the industry regarded the original proposal as unworkable. The final rule permits a gap of 2.5 inches for new construction (Standard 810.10). I would have to do some further research to be sure, but my recollection is that this was consistent with the industry's position. With respect to other things that can obstruct a flangeway (ice, dirt, mud, etc) there's a critical difference between the "other things" and a purpose built gap filler. When a railroad removes the "other things", they typically do so in a manner which destroys or violently displaces whatever is obstructing the flangeway. These techniques can't be used with obstructed or frozen gap fillers because they would destroy the fillers. The key point is that the gap filler itself eliminates the need to remove “other things” by violent destruction, as is necessary and typical without the use of a gap filler. With a “gap filler,” there is only a minimum size flangeway where ice and snow can accumulate. As it accumulates, it begins to pose an obstruction to the flanges, and the flanges thus immediately begin to break up and disperse the obstruction. This breakup is aided because the flangeways are elastic, so not only do the flanges exert breaking pressure onto the ice, but also, the elastic flangeway bottom is pressed downward and this helps break the bond between the ice buildup and the corresponding surfaces of the flangeway. So, this ice breaking goes into action when the ice is only about ¼-inch thick. And at that small thickness, the force-focusing shape of the flange cross section, and the flexible nature of the flangeway vessel provide for the easy fracturing and expelling of the ice layer. So for snow and ice, the flangeways of the filler device are fundamentally self-cleaning. There would also be a similar effect for cleaning out mud, however, a problem with mud filling indicates that there is a defect in the crossing drainage that should be corrected. But if the mud happens to freeze solid, it too would be easily broken up and expelled just like water ice is.
Seems to me we just had a thread about a Canadian derailment caused by 'snow jacking' the rail off the tie plate - at least that is what TSN said it was. Nature, given half a chance will defeat man's best efforts.
If only they would have a automatic means to fill the 'track way' until the train actually arrives we would not have this problem.....
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2020/10/23/woman-shoved-onto-subway-tracks-in-unprovoked-attack-at-times-square-station/?fbclid=IwAR1nvaZ7QV3p6XV5RYrDPpP5UHKrpuj9Fb1HYH2TOmbewYIeF4n8awDuy0E
I'm assuming that your reply is strictly tongue-in-cheek since there is no practical way to come up with such a concept unless Bucky has something.
CSSHEGEWISCHI'm assuming that your reply is strictly tongue-in-cheek since there is no practical way to come up with such a concept unless Bucky has something.
I am certain Bucky has a solution. I mean this is a much bigger problem than the occasional wheel chair wheel.
CSSHEGEWISCH I'm assuming that your reply is strictly tongue-in-cheek since there is no practical way to come up with such a concept unless Bucky has something.
An approach that extends gap-filler panels across the track could be built; so could an inflatable system similar in structure to the storm gates put in the subway after Sandy. Perhaps a better approach would be to dust off the rich literature concerning 'life-savers' and 'fenders' for interurban cars to make it safe for people who actually wind up in the path of a train...
The issue isn't whether a solution is possible, it's whether it's cost-effective and at least reasonably reliable in service. Certainly many crackpot schemes that are 'workable' don't provide nearly the benefit their implementation 'promises' ... even before you look at the risks and drawbacks they would introduce.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.