Managing slack on grades and curves...

[al-in-chgo]

One post in this thread refered to a Junker locomotive. Tell me, why would a engineer consider a choo choo junk? Im ignorant about these things you see...

Does it count as a "Junker" locomotive if it stays in the eastern part of Germany and is used to transport minor royalty and large landowners who support Kaiser Wilhelm?  - al

While not everyone will get your joke, some of us do!

I thought Junkers fly. Ya know the planes. =)

Looks like someone just outscooped me!  - al

[wabash1]

     wabash1:    That was an excellent explanation.  Thanks!

     In your example, you note the different type of cars, and how they affect train handling.  Is the engineer given a list of cars and loads in his train, so he can study(?) it, before taking off?

     It's obvious, from your example, that the engineer has to know his train and the territory.  How do railroads familiarize their engineers with the territory?  Are there training runs, riding with engineers familiar with the territory?

    

the conductor is given a wheel report and tonnage profile , the tonnage profile is a list of the cars and the weight in a line graph form, Now when i decide to look at the tonnage profile ( you know from exsperance which to look at) i treat it like a girl,  if the lines go to the right on the paper  the car is heavy stays on the left boarder  light. small example

ns 2600   xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ns 2601   xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

rbox 12    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

rbox 13    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ns 21       xxxx

ns 22       xxxx

csxt 1      xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

csxt  2     xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

short train just use imagination, now there are 3 types of trains ( remeber girls figures) if all the long lines are top of page and get thiner toward bottom  top heavy girl fun to run no challenge.  then you come to the fun figure girl hour glass design great top slim middle then fill out on the rear, this train wiil run good then as the middle gets out of trouble here comes the rear with just enough momentum to let you know its there, this train can give you trouble but just take care of the middle and the rest will take care of you. then there is the last one heavy on the rear,( like most aging girls ) these will get you in trouble ( i like big butts)  this train will sit down on you every chance i gets, you haft to coax it along sometimes and sometimes force it to go, then it gets mad( creast the hill ) and shoves the heck out of you, you must pamper these trains as they will tare apart. And like some girls they will throw their weight around, a good engineer ( or man ) will man handle these keeping them in line..

serius these are the three types of trains heavy rear trains will wear a engineer out, just like a short train. short trains will work a man to death sorta like having 4 grand kids over, after a few hours i just go by a new house and furniture and move. the running of a train is easy after you learn the territory its stopping a train that can be very difficult, but the best advise i give new guys is you controll the train never let the train controll you, if the train controlls you you have a runaway. and all this comes with time and exsperance.

[wabash1]

Personally I would love the drive a train. Once. That's it. Trucking I can show you lots.

I feel a monkey can be trained to DO anything with equiptment but it is the experience, understanding of dangers and availible options combined with the flipping of the right switches makes it all happen safely.

I am somewhat consider myself A+ in mountain driving as I prefer this driving over all others. But I cannot stand to think of many cars attached together in a train hanging over one hill while running off another or worse trying to roll backwards off a third. Yeesh.

One post in this thread refered to a Junker locomotive. Tell me, why would a engineer consider a choo choo junk? Im ignorant about these things you see...

Im sorry but you will never drive a train, im a engineer and ive never driven a train.  and i called dash 9 junk because it wont load fast enough ( your smoke will beat you up hill) where you get a emd and get your train across the road.  I have had some ge engines that load fair but i think the factory recalled them to make them operate like the others.

[dekemd]

Wabash1,

Why is a short train hard to run?

 

[Anonymous]

Wabash1,

Why is a short train hard to run?

 

Not Wabash, but I'll help out with the answers.

 

A short heavy train will react to changes in grade much faster than a long heavy train. A long train has the tail end holding you back as you crest a grade and start down, while a short train will get more than half the train over the top in a hurry and away she goes. The weight of the train will help pull you over the top.

 

Also, a short train will react to short grades where a long one will not gain near as much as the whole train is not on the hill.

 

A good example is a loaded sulfur train. Around 10,000 tons and 3200 feet long. You are in and out on the throttle on these things all the time. Since AC4400's react so slowly to the throttle I end up using the air a lot on these things. Most every downgrade of any length at all and the brakes get set. Being just 3200 feet long, you only need to be about 1500 feet past the crest of the grade and the train starts pulling you over and away it goes.

[zardoz]

  I have had some ge engines that load fair but i think the factory recalled them to make them operate like the others.

Wabash1,

Is the load regulator on the new units computer-controlled?  The reason I ask, is that, years ago, with the old load regulators, they could be tuned by the shop forces to load either quicker or slower, depending on the preference.  Our suburban locomotives were set up such that even with the throttle in 'idle', the load regulator remained in 'maximum field'.  When we cracked the throttle open, we'd better have the independent fully set, otherwise everyone standing instantly found a place to sit (whether they wanted to or not).  We'd get an near-instant 1500 amps.  Sure got us out of town quick, though.  Which was the reason for setting them up that way.  We'd make 20 station stops in less than 40 miles.  I always thought that loading that quick would be tough on the traction motors, but those F7s and E8s just kept on working.  Maybe because they started out in "series" it wasn't so bad for the motors.

[wabash1]

Wabash1,

Why is a short train hard to run?

 

Xlspecial  did a great job on the answer, yes by the time you get out of the throttle your over the hill and rolling, its either air to controll speed or out of throttle early and into dynamic quick, fly down the hill and hold the train  then by the time it starts loading again your going to slow ( my standard) and crawling up the next hill.  a long train you can let the terrain help controll the speed just by moving the throttle. on a short train your always doing something. and yes on a short heavy train air is your best friend.

[wabash1]

  I have had some ge engines that load fair but i think the factory recalled them to make them operate like the others.

Wabash1,

Is the load regulator on the new units computer-controlled?  The reason I ask, is that, years ago, with the old load regulators, they could be tuned by the shop forces to load either quicker or slower, depending on the preference.  Our suburban locomotives were set up such that even with the throttle in 'idle', the load regulator remained in 'maximum field'.  When we cracked the throttle open, we'd better have the independent fully set, otherwise everyone standing instantly found a place to sit (whether they wanted to or not).  We'd get an near-instant 1500 amps.  Sure got us out of town quick, though.  Which was the reason for setting them up that way.  We'd make 20 station stops in less than 40 miles.  I always thought that loading that quick would be tough on the traction motors, but those F7s and E8s just kept on working.  Maybe because they started out in "series" it wasn't so bad for the motors.

It was a joke  I did have these engines once and they loaded up quick but ive never seen them again so i jokingly said they must have been recalled and yes they are electronic and the railroad does set them up, and they are slow!!!!!!!  60 mph in 30 min and the 1/4 mile time is 31mph in 12min 35sec.

[Anonymous]

Heh. Sounds like the derating of horsepower and choking down the engines with governer settings. There is a diagnostic unit availible that one could uh, optimize the engine away from the company specs... sadly they regulated those little gizmos. But a friendly laptop computer and a serial connection took care of that. Evidence? C:\ format. heeee. That is how I caught one company setting thier trucks at 63 and displaying 65 on the speedometer.

Hauling a trailer that is rear end heavy is worse than one heavy on the 5th wheel. But taking into account center of gravity, a load of salt on 24 pallets 4 feet high is much fun to drive than a 50,000 pound 8 foot high, 20 foot long steel coil bellyloaded in the middle.

[dekemd]

Wabash1,

Why is a short train hard to run?

 

Not Wabash, but I'll help out with the answers.

 

A short heavy train will react to changes in grade much faster than a long heavy train. A long train has the tail end holding you back as you crest a grade and start down, while a short train will get more than half the train over the top in a hurry and away she goes. The weight of the train will help pull you over the top.

 

Also, a short train will react to short grades where a long one will not gain near as much as the whole train is not on the hill.

 

A good example is a loaded sulfur train. Around 10,000 tons and 3200 feet long. You are in and out on the throttle on these things all the time. Since AC4400's react so slowly to the throttle I end up using the air a lot on these things. Most every downgrade of any length at all and the brakes get set. Being just 3200 feet long, you only need to be about 1500 feet past the crest of the grade and the train starts pulling you over and away it goes.

 

 

xlspecial,

 Thanks for the great answer.  Makes a lot sense once it's explained.

[Murphy Siding]

Also i mentioned auto racks on the head end for a reason a train of auto racks (75 cars) will give you 2 1/2 auto racks of slack these should be streached stopped, they will roll out and could cause a problem, and they do magnify the forces either slack in ( the slam that send yo to the windshield) or slack out ( ouch my hemmoroids) and it is something that cant be exsplained only felt to understand.

I'm still not quite understanding why slack run in will throw the engineer forward, and not backward, like when your car is rear ended?

I would like to say thanks to the railroaders who explained things on this thread so well.  It's always satisfying, when someone can explain to us bystanders, all those things that make us go "hmmm".

[mvlandsw]

   A run in of slack will push you back in the seat. A run out will throw you foward. This is if the train is being pulled by the engine and you are seated facing foward. I know two people who never returned to work after banging their head on the windshield in a run out. If you are shoving the train the effect is reversed.         Mark

[dima]

   A run in of slack will push you back in the seat. A run out will throw you foward. This is if the train is being pulled by the engine and you are seated facing foward. I know two people who never returned to work after banging their head on the windshield in a run out. If you are shoving the train the effect is reversed.         Mark

If that's the case, would it make sense to have seatbelts on the locomotives?

[wabash1]

   A run in of slack will push you back in the seat. A run out will throw you foward. This is if the train is being pulled by the engine and you are seated facing foward. I know two people who never returned to work after banging their head on the windshield in a run out. If you are shoving the train the effect is reversed.         Mark

If that's the case, would it make sense to have seatbelts on the locomotives?

why would you? your not going to crash , i rather be thrown from a locomotive than stay with it, and slack is not that much a problem to need one. most engineers run so smooth they wont even spill coffee or wake the conductor

[jeaton]

wabash1

Nice job explaining the handling of a train in undulating territory. 

Not to throw this too far OT, I have read the Booze Allen report on ECP brakes as well as some other articles on the subject and it is my view that they will be useful for mitigating slack action.  As you probably know, the two key features of ECP are that a braking application will apply simultaneously to all cars and partial releases can be made. 

I don't mean to suggest that ECP brakes will make it a "nothing to it" deal, but it seems to me that a good engineer knowing the terrain and the dynamics of his consist will use ECP brakes to slow run in and run out when throttle settings and the use of the dynamics can't quite get it done.

Your thoughts, and those of any of the other engineers on the forum are welcome.

[Murphy Siding]

   A run in of slack will push you back in the seat. A run out will throw you foward. This is if the train is being pulled by the engine and you are seated facing foward. I know two people who never returned to work after banging their head on the windshield in a run out. If you are shoving the train the effect is reversed.         Mark

If that's the case, would it make sense to have seatbelts on the locomotives?

why would you? your not going to crash , i rather be thrown from a locomotive than stay with it, and slack is not that much a problem to need one. most engineers run so smooth they wont even spill coffee or wake the conductor

Has this gotten better over time?  I've seen cabooses in museums that had seatbelts for the conductor.  Do the engineers run smoother trains now, or was it that the conductor in the caboose never knew the slack surprise was coming?

[BigJim]

But a friendly laptop computer and a serial connection took care of that. Evidence? C:\ format. heeee. That is how I caught one company setting thier trucks at 63 and displaying 65 on the speedometer.

That's the expensive way to do it. It only took me and my $29.95 Timex to find that out.

I've seen cabooses in museums that had seatbelts for the conductor. 

Must have been one of those old NKP pieces of crap (the 557 series with a cupola) where the cushion part of the seat was too short for a persons butt and the seat across was so far away you couldn't touch it with your feet to brace yourself!

[wabash1]

   A run in of slack will push you back in the seat. A run out will throw you foward. This is if the train is being pulled by the engine and you are seated facing foward. I know two people who never returned to work after banging their head on the windshield in a run out. If you are shoving the train the effect is reversed.         Mark

If that's the case, would it make sense to have seatbelts on the locomotives?

why would you? your not going to crash , i rather be thrown from a locomotive than stay with it, and slack is not that much a problem to need one. most engineers run so smooth they wont even spill coffee or wake the conductor

Has this gotten better over time?  I've seen cabooses in museums that had seatbelts for the conductor.  Do the engineers run smoother trains now, or was it that the conductor in the caboose never knew the slack surprise was coming?

In the real world yo wont get all the slack out of a train, and on the rear you will feel it. if you have a engineer who is rough on equipment the guy in the caboose would feel it, hard at times. but on the head end you wont feel much, then sometimes the way a train is built that no matter what you do you cant be smooth,the nature of the beast, seat belts are not the answer to the engine maybe the caboose. also air is for stopping not slack action control. unless you want the conductor walking the train then get some air, adjust the slack.

[Anonymous]

But a friendly laptop computer and a serial connection took care of that. Evidence? C:\ format. heeee. That is how I caught one company setting thier trucks at 63 and displaying 65 on the speedometer.

That's the expensive way to do it. It only took me and my $29.95 Timex to find that out.

I've seen cabooses in museums that had seatbelts for the conductor. 

Must have been one of those old NKP pieces of crap (the 557 series with a cupola) where the cushion part of the seat was too short for a persons butt and the seat across was so far away you couldn't touch it with your feet to brace yourself!

Ah yes. But when the Safety Department is presented with a trip recording in real time during a evaluation ride of the tractor every 5 seconds accurate to 40 feet... it is a pretty hard proof. I was asking the shop to recalibrate the "Busted" speedometer unaware of the real company policy that is kept quiet regarding speed.

Yes that Laptop is expensive but when combined with Telephone directories, mapping and contacts from all of the commercial businesses in the USA we were free from Headquarters and reliance on thier information. At 5 in the morning trying to reach a warehouse traffic manager using his direct number and by passing voicemail is CHEEAP.

ESpecially if that kind of phone number is not given out to "DRIVERS..." derrr. Usually what amuses me is the first question... "HOW THE &^% DID YOU GET THIS NUMBER!? Drivers DONT GET THIS &*^&%^ NUMBER!!! WHO GAVE... [rant continues]

At between 65-75 mph I expect a mile post to go by around 47 to 51 seconds on average. Just couldnt do it at 62-63.. Hard to keep a schedule that way.

[BigJim]

At between 65-75 mph I expect a mile post to go by around 47 to 51 seconds on average. Just couldnt do it at 62-63.. Hard to keep a schedule that way.

What you may not know is that a train crew is required to check the accuracy of the speedometer through a "test mile". With my little $29.95 Timex, I have checked my speedometer and know how fast, slow or "right on the money" it is. By knowing this, I will therefore take you over the road "on the advertised"!

At between 65-75 mph I expect a mile post to go by around 47 to 51 seconds...

BTW, it should have been written like this;
At between 65-75 mph I expect a mile post to go by around 55 to 48 seconds on average...

55 sec. = 65.45 mph
48 sec. = 75 mph "right on the money'

[ValleyX]

I never saw a caboose with seatbelts.  Not one.  I was on a good number of cabooses from the time I started until they did away with them, including what Big Jim is referring to as a NKP "piece of crap", which, if I recall correctly, would have been the short coupola cabooses that I believe might have originated with the Wheeling and Lake Erie, but I could be wrong.

At any rate, you had to expect slack occasionally on the caboose, most engineers did a good job and everyone knew who the ones were who didn't.  Sometimes, things happened that were unavoidable, too, I once saw a conductor, who was up wandering around when he shouldn't have been (slow speed, not a good time) go from one end of a caboose to the other. 

The best cabooses I ever rode were the UP cabooses and the worst cabooses ever, bar none, were those that came from the Southern.  Terrible.

[BigJim]

I once saw a conductor, who was up wandering around when he shouldn't have been (slow speed, not a good time) go from one end of a caboose to the other. 

Yep, going slow, under 10mph, is the worst time for slack action! I know from first head...er hand experiance!!! Deadheading home, I got slammed against a wall and did a complete flip in the air. My conductor laying on a bunk across from me commented that he thought that I was trying to throw some Kung Fu on him.  Oddly, it didn't hurt me a bit.