On that subject...and since I don't know...
Would there be any place or situation where stick rail has any advantage over CWR? Where, why and what if yes? Do you treat subgrade and ballast any differently?
Dan
Ok, so why not use a short section of stick rail near key or critical infrastructure (bridges, etc)?
Dan,
The stress accumulates in long stretches of CWR, so one or a few rail joints would not be enough to relieve the pressue. I takes the many joints of stick rail with each joint absorbing the movement in each stick to help avoid the problem.
That's been done - mainly on open-deck bridges and trestles - but it isn't always effective, either, and in the meantime the maintenance effort and expense is greatly increased anyway.
Current August 2012 issue of Trains has (yet another) lengthy answer on this same general subject by Kathi Kube, in the "ASK TRAINS" section on pg. 60, cols. 1 & 2.
- Paul North.
Are there merits to adding expansion joints like in this photo or is it more of a hassle?
http://irfca.org/~apub/beasts/sej.jpg
So what is an "average derailment"? I don't think I've ever had the good fortune to work an "average" derailment, but then again, I just do this kind of stuff for a living.
"Graceful ballooning'? Amazing. When when we're out there repairing a track buckle we always marvel at how graceful it is. Geez...
Please save the expert commentary for a field you're actually familiar with.
PigFarmer1 So what is an "average derailment"? I don't think I've ever had the good fortune to work an "average" derailment, but then again, I just do this kind of stuff for a living. "Graceful ballooning'? Amazing. When when we're out there repairing a track buckle we always marvel at how graceful it is. Geez... Please save the expert commentary for a field you're actually familiar with.
All I meant by “average derailment” was to draw a distinction between the appearance of most derailments as they happen, and the appearance of a train moving through a sun kink prior to derailing.
If the train moving though a sun kink were observed ahead of the derailment, you could reasonably assume that the derailment was caused by the sun kink. But if the only thing that was seen was a derailment on top of a bridge, I think it would be difficult to rule out bridge failure as the first cause from 2000-4000 feet away.
An average derailment is one that I don't have to deal with . If I'm onsite it is an exceptional derailment, a terrible derailment is one that I caused .
Randy
TERRIBLE = CAREER THREATENING; WHAT ELSE CAN I DO FOR A LIVING (?)
You had some Broake and Howe boys working for you......
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Bucyrus PigFarmer1: So what is an "average derailment"? I don't think I've ever had the good fortune to work an "average" derailment, but then again, I just do this kind of stuff for a living. "Graceful ballooning'? Amazing. When when we're out there repairing a track buckle we always marvel at how graceful it is. Geez... Please save the expert commentary for a field you're actually familiar with. All I meant by “average derailment” was to draw a distinction between the appearance of most derailments as they happen, and the appearance of a train moving through a sun kink prior to derailing. If the train moving though a sun kink were observed ahead of the derailment, you could reasonably assume that the derailment was caused by the sun kink. But if the only thing that was seen was a derailment on top of a bridge, I think it would be difficult to rule out bridge failure as the first cause from 2000-4000 feet away.
PigFarmer1: So what is an "average derailment"? I don't think I've ever had the good fortune to work an "average" derailment, but then again, I just do this kind of stuff for a living. "Graceful ballooning'? Amazing. When when we're out there repairing a track buckle we always marvel at how graceful it is. Geez... Please save the expert commentary for a field you're actually familiar with.
You forget - the on the ground experts locate the initial point of derailment in their investigation - reading the marks on the rail (and derailments do leave marks on the rail - even when track cars derail). In making the statement that the derailment happened at a point prior to the bridge they are stating that from the marks on the rail as well as any visual observations or pictorial records.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The Monday meeting:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/glenview/chi-union-pacific-officialsglenview-residents-meet-over-fatal-train-derailment-20120716,0,7136265.story
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Thanks for that link Schlimm.
FTA:"David Connell, Union Pacific’s vice president of engineering, told the audience that string of hot weather caused the steel rails to expand, leading to a kink in the rails. That kink, Connell said, forced the rail cars to jackknife like “an accordian,” collapsing the bridge in the process."
...and...
"They’re beating around the bush,” Glenview business owner Steve Vago said. “Those train cars wobbled constantly. If it’s heat, why isn’t it happening everywhere else?”
Ok it was a kink (according to UP). Would the kinks only happen at joints between sections of CWR? Or can they happen "anywhere"?
According to the meeting, U.P. signal maintainer observed “something that did not look right on the track” and reported it to the company track inspector. Is that new information in this story?
I assume that means that the sun kink was visible to some extent before the train even arrived. I would think that there was adequate time to communicate and confirm the problem before a train derailed. However, it was not said how much time elapsed between the signal maintainer seeing the problem, and the arrival of the train. Was it a matter of a few minutes or was it some hours?
If I were at the meeting, I would have asked what the thing that “did not look right” looked like.
If the "something that does not look right on the track" looked like a misalignment, and it being 100 degrees with a slow order in effect for the possibility of sun kinks; I would think the discovery by any employee should have been a major red flag issue.
If that is all there is to the story, it seems like the problem was not handled correctly unless the there was simply no time to stop the train because the problem was discovered too late.
Perhaps an internal delay or misunderstanding of what was seen & reported happened. Similar in principle to the delay in IL where the washout & explosion/fire happened?
I assume a signal maintainer is not responsible for track. And maybe signal maintainers are not expected to know anything about track. But this one knew enough about track to surmise, “something did not look right about the track.” Talk about a non-committal statement! Is that what he actually reported, or is that a watered down rendition created by management for media consumption?
I find no reporting of the time interval between the discovery of a track problem and the arrival of the coal train. The closest hint is that the problem was discovered in the morning and the train derailed in the afternoon.
I would say that U.P. has a big credibility problem on their hands with such a lackadaisical and untimely response to a reported problem that ultimately killed two people.
And this fatally slow response occurred on a day when the company was on alert for sun kinks, and therefore inspecting the tracks twice a day.
Most of the maintainers I've know are intelligent enough to know a sun-kink. The ones I worked with would be turning in broken rails, etc., fairly regularly at our end of the yard. He said he saw "something". No detail.
Now, if what he had seen had been a sun-kink, it would/should have shown up on the camera in the lead unit. They have that available...at least they said they did.
If a maintainer could have seen "something", what about the head-end crew? They'd have no reason to hide that. I doubt that what they saw (if anything) would have allowed them time to stop short. Has anyone talked to them? Did they even feel anything?
A signal maintainer has the authority to take a track out of service if he sees something that he feels warrants it. But he just said "something" didn't look right.
To me, "something" doesn't sound right.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
CShaveRRTo me, "something" doesn't sound right.
Yes, I think "something" is being left out of the story.
On the mainline, most broken rails are first spotted by signal maintainers. They find them when hunting down a track light (block occupancy) on the dispatcher's board or a false crossing signal activation.
What the latest article doesen't say is whether the signal maintainer called the dispatcher or the track inspector directly. Normally when something unusual concerning track is reported to the dispatcher, they put out an order, "Do not exceed restricted speed not exceeding 10mph until rear of train clears the restricted area." Then they call MOW to check it out.
It could be that the "something" that was seen was not at that time something that would immediately cause problems. It could also be something unrelated, but the railroad doesn't want it coming out later that an employee saw something, thus avoiding complaints about a big cover-up.
Ed, I see signal maintainers in signal boxes at crossings, signal installations and defect detector locations a lot. It doesn't always mean there is a problem.
Jeff
I think those internal communications & timestamps associated with them will be critical to both sides.
I can say that I have called in to CN's 1-800 number to report "conditions affecting the immediate safety of trains" and have actually spoken to dispatchers so they could clarify what and where I saw what I did. Within a minute of me hanging up I've heard them relaying that info to trains in the area. Maybe CN learned their lesson after the derailment in IL that killed the civillians in their cars.
Perhaps this incident is UP's turn, thoguh I'd hope that one RR might learn from the tribulations others go through.
Sun kinks happen anywhere, not just at the weld between CWR sections, in fact the weld is stronger than the rest of the rail, you will break the rail long before you could break the weld.
And it isn't just CWR, jointed rail can expand beyond the ability of the expansion joint, and it will kink just as quickly as CWR.
Extreme heat will do really weird things to rail, and do it quickly.
BNSF Hi Rails the main line here by my house(FW&D) twice daily, once in the early morning looking for pull aparts, and in the afternoon, around 3 ish, before the outbound rush begins, looking for kinks.
23 17 46 11
Most signal guys have been around the track guys long enough to recognize a problem and some come to signal out of the track forces.
I'm wondering if the signal guy saw the rail up in the plates and saw the washboard effect of just barely restrained rail. Being down at ground level, he'd see it better than the folks up at 10+ feet.
Some more info ...
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8739025
"Union Pacific Vice President of Engineering David Connell told dozens of Glenview and Northbrook residents at an informal meeting Monday that the employee, a signalman, did not think it was of big enough concern to order the freight train to stop. Instead, the employee, who was not qualified to judge the safety of the track, called in an off-duty inspector, but the derailment occurred before the expert arrived."
I wonder if the signal maintainer had the ability to take a picture of what didn't look right to him and send / email it to the track inspector who he called in?
The Chicago Tribune is now reporting that the UP is changing the timeline on when the track inspection took place.
mmmm...my wife just told me that at one time she saw, behind her parents home in Thamesford ON, and after a particularly brutal heat wave, the CP rail had to go and replace several sections of rail because the rail expanded together then popped up...anyone ever hear of that happening?
Bucyrus Some have suggested [including U.P.] that the 31 derailed cars piled up on the bridge, and then the extreme weight of all those cars collapsed the bridge. In the scenario of 31 cars piling up on the bridge and collapsing it by their weight, I don’t see it very likely that 31 cars would pile up in compact heap on top of the standing bridge. With the bridge being up in the air, derailing cars would have tended to fall away and spread out more. So my guess is that the beginning of the derailment knocked down the bridge and then the following 25-30 cars fell into the hole where they were confined, and thus could be compacted tightly together by the momentum of the following cars that did not derail.
That is a quote from my post on 7/16. As it turns out, my guess was correct, and that is what did occur according to this story:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/glenview/ct-met-derailment-version-20120718,0,2991695.story
Quote from the story:
“Instead of the bridge failing and collapsing onto the Lindners' car below because of the weight of the derailed freight cars, the bridge spans were "displaced," or knocked off their foundations, when the derailed rail cars struck the bridge abutment, consultant Donald Sorgenfrei of the engineering firm Modjeski and Masters wrote in a report dated July 12. Union Pacific officials said they stand corrected and agree with the expert's evaluation.”
“Instead of the bridge failing and collapsing onto the Lindners' car below because of the weight of the derailed freight cars, the bridge spans were "displaced," or knocked off their foundations, when the derailed rail cars struck the bridge abutment, consultant Donald Sorgenfrei of the engineering firm Modjeski and Masters wrote in a report dated July 12.
Union Pacific officials said they stand corrected and agree with the expert's evaluation.”
Chris30 I wonder if the signal maintainer had the ability to take a picture of what didn't look right to him and send / email it to the track inspector who he called in?
The use of PRIVATE electronic devices while on duty is prohibited, this currently applies to all personnel that operate in or on the track - Train & Engine personnel, Signal Maintainers and Track workers. While I don't know the UP's exact procedure, I doubt that the signal maintainer would have called the track inspector directly - especially with it being a holiday and each craft having next to no knowledge of who is handling calls in another craft over the holiday period.
(1) Anyone who is interpretting Don Sorgenfrei''s comments as saying the bridge was defective is clueless. He is describing the result and not the cause.
(2) A picture is not going to show in 2D where there is a problem normally. You can blow up the image all you want and it won't show.
(3) BOC - what you describe is basically the rail being "up in the plates", with lateral restraint being somewhat better than the vertical. (part of why tie plates have "shoulders" along with the spike holes.
mudchicken(1) Anyone who is interpretting Don Sorgenfrei''s comments as saying the bridge was defective is clueless. He is describing the result and not the cause.
I agree. But just to be clear, I am not saying or suggesting that the bridge was defective, nor have I heard anyone claim that. I do realize exactly what Don Sorgenfrei is saying.
My point was that he is confirming my earlier speculation, which conflicted with the original conclusion by U.P.
The CTA in Chicago has increased its inspections and is running water trains to prevent sun kinks.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-cta-runs-water-trains-to-prevent-sun-kinks-as-buses-l-get-heat-stress-20120718,0,2942109.story
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.