I have always understood that train brakes going into emergency can derail the train from the effect on slack run-in, run-out, pulling drawbars, stringlining curves, etc.
Does anyone know of a pileup that was officially attributed to an emergency application of the brakes?
I guess the only way to determine that had happened would be if the engineer made an emergency application, and then a derailment occurred.
It would be interesting to know how many times a day, in the U.S., freight train brakes are intentionally placed into emergency versus how many times a day they go into emergency without actuation by the engineer or other crewmember.
Are there statistical records of this?
Something like this happened right in front of me 25 years ago, a train was pulling out of Bloomington Yard on what was then ICG, the diesel house foreman, who was generally not respected (he reportedly had been reassigned from Paducah after killing someone there) saw something on a passing flatcar loaded with company equipment he didn't like and ordered the engineer to stop, the engineer thought it was an emergency and stopped fast. All the switch ties on the frogs on the yard lead were bad because after the merger ICG didn't want to do maintenance on the old GM&O, and so when the slack bunched several cars went on the ground. This was in the winter and it was dark by then so no one noticed. When the foreman was satisfied with the flatcar he let the train leave and several loaded hopper cars turned over, it tied up the yard for a week, they called in what they called "the Kline truck" from East St. Louis to pick up the cars but it took weeks to patch the yard lead back together.
And it would not be just an engineer dumping the air but also a passenger or trainman; or a broken air hose, an uncoupling, or any other damage to a brake line.
My Ride With Me Henry Group were in the last of eight cars of NJT/MNRR's Port Jervis bound train 51 a week or so ago through Ramsey, NJ at speed when the engineer dumped the air and brought the train to a quick and smooth stop; the conductor got on the intercom and explained that an automobile had nosed out onto a grade crossing in front of us causing the engineer to so react.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
DwightBranch All the switch ties on the frogs on the yard lead were bad because after the merger ICG didn't want to do maintenance on the old GM&O,
All the switch ties on the frogs on the yard lead were bad because after the merger ICG didn't want to do maintenance on the old GM&O,
I worked for the ICG at railroad HQ in Chicago from 1976 forward and this statement is just flat out false.
Does anyone know of a derailment caused by.....?.
The railroads themselves know, or;
Why would rules require that after an emergency application caused stop, that the entire train be inspected on both sides to insure that loads haven't shifted, couplings are intact and that all the wheels are on the rails?
Beside derailments caused by slack action, during run-ins and run-outs, a break-in-two could leave couplers, knuckles, even the end of a car between the rails for the remaining portion of the train to surmount and then, like a ski-jumper, you can picture it.
Emergency applications bring many factors into train handling.
The haz-mat cars when derailed could blow up, poison or incinerate the town you're going thru.
A pile-up, 3 or 4 deep, could destroy a (fill in the blank)
People in the car, van, bus truck are going to be in a meat grinder (or not, depending on timiing which you, the engr, can do little to affect at a grade-crossing,
A trainee said that no matter what the risk to his crew, we had cabooses then, or other employes or to a metropolis or campground, he would big-hole (effect an emergency application stop) if there was any doubt that a vehicle would clear a crossing ahead of his train, no matter what because his religion said Thou Salt not Kill......
greyhounds DwightBranch All the switch ties on the frogs on the yard lead were bad because after the merger ICG didn't want to do maintenance on the old GM&O, I worked for the ICG at railroad HQ in Chicago from 1976 forward and this statement is just flat out false.
To quote Groucho Marx, what am I supposed to believe, you or my lying eyes? I spent every weekday in that yard from 1987-8, the track was worse than the old Rock Island the year it shut down, I saw rotten ties in mudholes under frogs, yard tracks with their switches spiked shut. A hopper car turned over while sitting still once. Or should I not trust the word of of the former yardmaster, the yard foreman (both of whom I can still name) or numerous maintenance of way employees, all of whom told me that inadequate maintenance had been performed on the line since 1972? When the line was sold to Venango Bros. in early 1988 they all shook their head because the main line needed ties so badly and the new guys wouldn't have the cash to replace them, sure enough they were bankrupt by the end of the year.
DwightBranch greyhounds DwightBranch All the switch ties on the frogs on the yard lead were bad because after the merger ICG didn't want to do maintenance on the old GM&O, I worked for the ICG at railroad HQ in Chicago from 1976 forward and this statement is just flat out false. To quote Groucho Marx, what am I supposed to believe, you or my lying eyes? I spent every weekday in that yard from 1987-8, the track was worse than the old Rock Island the year it shut down, I saw rotten ties in mudholes under frogs, yard tracks with their switches spiked shut. A hopper car turned over while sitting still once. Or should I not trust the word of of the former yardmaster, the yard foreman (both of whom I can still name) or numerous maintenance of way employees, all of whom told me that inadequate maintenance had been performed on the line since 1972? When the line was sold to Venango Bros. in early 1988 they all shook their head because the main line needed ties so badly and the new guys wouldn't have the cash to replace them, sure enough they were bankrupt by the end of the year.
I have no idea how good your eyes are, but your knowledge of the situation leaves a lot to be desired.
The ICG couldn't maintain its track to proper standarrds. That wasn't because no one "wanted" to do the maintenance, it was because there was no money to do the maintenance. All over the railroad, not just the old GM&O parts, there was deffered maintenance. I remember being in the lead unit of CM-1 and bottoming out on the springs at 25 MPH on the Bluford District. That was the "Main Line of Mid-America" and it was in very poor repair.
They tried to sell the railroad. The Southern took a look and made a negative offer. That is, they would take the ICG if, and only if, they were paid to do so. After a lot of constrination it was decided to sell it off piecemeal. The results were railroads such as the Chicago Central, Chicago, Missouri and Western (The old Alton Route), The Midsouth (now the "Meridian Speedway"), The Paducah & Louisville, etc. The conclusion had been reached that the ICG could not possibly be operated as an ongoing concern. It bled money.
Hunter Harrison was brought in (after I left) to take over what was left and he made it a good earning property. He even bought the Iowa line back. Harrison did have the advantage of improved union work rules.
You, with your own prejudice, turn this into something about "not wanting to do maintenance". No, it wasn't about "wanting". The railroad simply didn't have the money to do the maintenance. Deal in reality, not emotion.
I recall a conversation I had with one of our financial guys while we were waiting for a meeting. He told me that union work rules, such as those that required the use of 12-15 crew members to get a train from Chicago to the Ohio River, bled the railroad to the tune of around $80 million per year. That was over 10% of our gross revenue and it precluded a lot of track maintenance. We were literally paying people to ride trains.
greyhounds DwightBranch greyhounds DwightBranch All the switch ties on the frogs on the yard lead were bad because after the merger ICG didn't want to do maintenance on the old GM&O, I worked for the ICG at railroad HQ in Chicago from 1976 forward and this statement is just flat out false. To quote Groucho Marx, what am I supposed to believe, you or my lying eyes? I spent every weekday in that yard from 1987-8, the track was worse than the old Rock Island the year it shut down, I saw rotten ties in mudholes under frogs, yard tracks with their switches spiked shut. A hopper car turned over while sitting still once. Or should I not trust the word of of the former yardmaster, the yard foreman (both of whom I can still name) or numerous maintenance of way employees, all of whom told me that inadequate maintenance had been performed on the line since 1972? When the line was sold to Venango Bros. in early 1988 they all shook their head because the main line needed ties so badly and the new guys wouldn't have the cash to replace them, sure enough they were bankrupt by the end of the year. I have no idea how good your eyes are, but your knowledge of the situation leaves a lot to be desired. The ICG couldn't maintain its track to proper standarrds. That wasn't because no one "wanted" to do the maintenance, it was because there was no money to do the maintenance. All over the railroad, not just the old GM&O parts, there was deffered maintenance. I remember being in the lead unit of CM-1 and bottoming out on the springs at 25 MPH on the Bluford District. That was the "Main Line of Mid-America" and it was in very poor repair. They tried to sell the railroad. The Southern took a look and made a negative offer. That is, they would take the ICG if, and only if, they were paid to do so. After a lot of constrination it was decided to sell it off piecemeal. The results were railroads such as the Chicago Central, Chicago, Missouri and Western (The old Alton Route), The Midsouth (now the "Meridian Speedway"), The Paducah & Louisville, etc. The conclusion had been reached that the ICG could not possibly be operated as an ongoing concern. It bled money. Hunter Harrison was brought in (after I left) to take over what was left and he made it a good earning property. He even bought the Iowa line back. Harrison did have the advantage of improved union work rules. You, with your own prejudice, turn this into something about "not wanting to do maintenance". No, it wasn't about "wanting". The railroad simply didn't have the money to do the maintenance. Deal in reality, not emotion. I recall a conversation I had with one of our financial guys while we were waiting for a meeting. He told me that union work rules, such as those that required the use of 12-15 crew members to get a train from Chicago to the Ohio River, bled the railroad to the tune of around $80 million per year. That was over 10% of our gross revenue and it precluded a lot of track maintenance. We were literally paying people to ride trains.
No railroad maintains track that they want to sell or abandon to the same standards as track they will keep, and by 1990 or so the only ex-GM&O track IC still operated was several disconnected sections, the longest of which is north of Glenn Yard near Chicago. The entire IC main line from Chicago to the Gulf, on the other hand, is still intact . They may have cut back on maintenance all over the system, but the GM&O received virtually nothing for the 15 years they ran it. As for the crews, Ike Tigrett made the IC agree to lifetime employment for all GM&O employees as a condition of supporting the merger, if they didn't like it they shouldn't have paid to eliminate a competitor.
I am thinking of freight trains derailing and piling up at speed where maybe 25-50 cars are piled in heap. I can’t recall ever hearing of one of those types of wrecks that was said to have been caused by the engineer dumping the air, although, I suppose it must happen. It is just that I have never heard of it happening, so I wonder how often it happens.
I would think that that cause would be very easy to determine. All you need is for the wreck to follow an intentional emergency application. It does not seem very likely that the derailment could be unrelated to the brake application where the two events just happen to occur about the same time.
I know that the SP did not want the engineers to put the commuter trains on the San Francisco to San Jose line into emergency, especially the bi-level cars because of the possiblity of deraiing them. We hit two vehicles while I was in the cab. One just north of Santa Clara and the other in San Mateo. Both times we were doing 80 MPH. Both drivers did not survie After we hit the vehicles we went into full brake, Not emergency and stopped quickly. No member of the crew or any of the passengers were ever injured.
I can think of a couple in the Conrail era. One on the Buffalo line going downgrade on a curve involving multilevels. Another on the Port Road where a train was filled out with a block of coal on the hind end. There were more, for sure.
Anytime such a derailment would occur, it would be computer simulated in order to see if some improvement in train consist restrictions and/or operating practice could be made. The simulation programs were pretty accurate, but very tedious to use.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Don,
So you are saying that those two derailments were an immediate response to the engineer making an emgency application? Do you recall what the brake application was for?
Bucyrus Don, So you are saying that those two derailments were an immediate response to the engineer making an emgency application? Do you recall what the brake application was for?
I don't recall. In fact, they may have been train initiated emergencies
oltmanndI don't recall. In fact, they may have been train initiated emergencies
I wonder how the crew would learn that a train-initiated emergency application caused a derailment. The only scenario I can think of would be if the crew found a broken air hose, broken trainline, or a break-in-two in one part of the train and a pileup in another part.
That would be the "smoking gun."
Does it suffice to declare that an emergency brake application by itself will not cause a derailment; it's what happens to the train before and after.
All, but one, or two, scenarios provide for desired emergency function.
air hose separation, broken brake pipe or knuckle, coupler failure, derailment, eng crew in fear of getting killed in a collision, trespasser uncoupling a stopped train----all desired emergency apps.
After any of the above there is no control, except for the obvious "OH SHI..." application, of the brakes and thus stopping or securing the cars when stopped. Gotta' have the emergency app.
What caused any of the above caused the app, and then track profile, train make-up and train handling good or bad luck caused the derailment.
un-Desired emergencies....here are three:
After coupling to a train and the air's been cut-in the pre-charged trainline, got to change ends. When in the cab at the other end of the engine consist, the brakes have been charged by the car's brake valves emergency release function. If the engr's brake valve is cut in before the equalizing reservoir pressure matches or exceeds the brake pipe pressure......bloooey.
Another......After doubling over a big cut to a joint, the (explitive deserved but deleted) train or yard crewman opens the brake pipe's angle cock too quickley causing a brake pipe pressure reduction rapid enough to trip an emerg, app.
Most common real UDE was a car brake valve that mechanically hung-up during the (relatively slow) brake pipe pressure drop initiating a train brake app. and after a substantial pressure drop moved causing an emergency app. rate of brake pipe pressure reduction enough to trip emerg. actuation there and then transmit a train length emerg. app.
.Let' not mention the broke-in-two trains stopped a few car length's from a STOP signal...."broke in two 'cause of a UDE.
efftenxrfeMost common real UDE was a car brake valve that mechanically hung-up during the (relatively slow) brake pipe pressure drop initiating a train brake app. and after a substantial pressure drop moved causing an emergency app. rate of brake pipe pressure reduction enough to trip emerg. actuation there and then transmit a train length emerg. app.
Would you call that a kicker or dynamiter?
Bucyrus I have always understood that train brakes going into emergency can derail the train from the effect on slack run-in, run-out, pulling drawbars, stringlining curves, etc. Does anyone know of a pileup that was officially attributed to an emergency application of the brakes? I guess the only way to determine that had happened would be if the engineer made an emergency application, and then a derailment occurred. It would be interesting to know how many times a day, in the U.S., freight train brakes are intentionally placed into emergency versus how many times a day they go into emergency without actuation by the engineer or other crewmember. Are there statistical records of this?
I think that a good example may be the wreck of the New York Central's Lake Shore Limited on Death Curve in Little Falls, New York, in 1940.
What I remember hearing is that the engineer was speeding into the curve, slammed on the brakes to slow the train, and it, in turn, caused the cars to bunch up and a few to "telescope"other cars. I don't remember many details about the wreck, but that is pretty much what happened in a nutshell (a real small one).
I know that the procedures for slowing and stopping a train involve applying the brakes (not slamming them) and "bailing" the locomotives brakes so that the train drags the engines to a stop.
The Lehigh Valley Railroad, the Route of the Black Diamond Express, John Wilkes and Maple Leaf.
-Jake, modeling the Barclay, Towanda & Susquehanna.
There was an Emergency Braking induced derailment at Ellicott City, MD yesterday. The Engineer of a CSX coal train initiated an Emergency Braking application when he saw trespassers on the tracks, 21 coal cars derailed, unfortunately the two trespassers were killed. Train crew was unhurt, but shaken up.
Thanks Beaulieu. That is exactly the kind of example I was looking for.
Given track/train dynamics, an emergency brake application should not cause a derailment. I would expect there to have been some other condition that the braking forces found and made worse which could lead to a derailment. Will be interesting to see what the NTSB comes up with, in a year or so.
Lehigh Valley 2089 Bucyrus I have always understood that train brakes going into emergency can derail the train from the effect on slack run-in, run-out, pulling drawbars, stringlining curves, etc. Does anyone know of a pileup that was officially attributed to an emergency application of the brakes? I guess the only way to determine that had happened would be if the engineer made an emergency application, and then a derailment occurred. It would be interesting to know how many times a day, in the U.S., freight train brakes are intentionally placed into emergency versus how many times a day they go into emergency without actuation by the engineer or other crewmember. Are there statistical records of this? I think that a good example may be the wreck of the New York Central's Lake Shore Limited on Death Curve in Little Falls, New York, in 1940. What I remember hearing is that the engineer was speeding into the curve, slammed on the brakes to slow the train, and it, in turn, caused the cars to bunch up and a few to "telescope"other cars. I don't remember many details about the wreck, but that is pretty much what happened in a nutshell (a real small one).
The Gulf Curve Disaster.
According to the book on the incident, it occurred not because of a brake application, but because the engineer closed the throttle coming into the curve. As a result, the train pushed the locomotive and tender, turning them off the tracks. Everything else piled up behind them.
Reportedly, the engineer realized his mistake immediately, but by then it was too late to do anything about it. He survived the crash but died before they could extricate him from the wreckage.
In no small part as a result of the incident, NYC rebuilt the curve, relocating the Mohawk River in the process.
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...
Here is my general conclusion to this question:
Emergency applications are much more frequent due to inadvertent causes than they are to an intentional response to an actual emergency event.
I would divide emergency brake applications into three categories of cause:
1) Intentional response to emergency situation.
2) Unintentional with cause known.
3) Unintentional with cause unknown.
I suspect that item #2 is the most common, #3 second most common, and #1 least common.
Emergency applications occur at all speeds as well as when stopped.
I suspect that the most common damage done by an emergency application while moving is a broken knuckle.
A whole range of other types of damage could be caused by an emergency application.
During emergency applications when moving, for any of the three categories of cause, I suspect that only a very small percentage of them cause any damage.
Within the range of damage possibilities, some damage events would be capable of causing an emergency application had not an emergency application caused the damage event. For instance, an engineer dumping the air because a car is stuck on a crossing could derail the train. The derailment could part an air hose, which would cause an emergency application but for the fact that the engineer had already initiated one.
What intrigues me most is an occurrence of cause item #3 that does happen to cause damage that includes the parting of an air hose. That scenario presents a puzzle because it certainly must happen, but it can never be proven to have happened.
So what I mean is that dynamiters or kickers must cause pileups, but it can never be proven.
"What intrigues me most is an occurrence of cause item #3 that does happen to cause damage that includes the parting of an air hose. That scenario presents a puzzle because it certainly must happen, but it can never be proven to have happened.
So what I mean is that dynamiters or kickers must cause pileups, but it can never be proven".
I would say it could be proven. If the engineer makes a service brake application, a UDE occurs ("dynamiter"), and there is then a derailment it seems the cause is obvious.
As a note, the UDE or dynamiter term refers to an emergency brake application which occurs after the engineer makes a service brake pipe reduction. This differs from an emergency application caused by parted air hoses.
Kurt Hayek
Kurt,
Thanks for that information. Does a dynamiter only occur when preceded by a service application?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6YOD1gC00LQ
watch this for what happens....you hear the train big hole, the brakes set.
The brake valves on the cars are set to prevent the wheels from locking...it wet, cold and ice.snow, but the emergency application works just like it was designed to.
23 17 46 11
That train seemed to stop much faster than trains I have seen go into emergency. I wonder how much air temperature affects brakeshoe friction on the wheels. On ones I have seen at about 40 mph, from the moment the you hear the air dump, it seems to take 10-15 seconds before there is any indication that the train is starting to slow.
That CSX train stopped in 15 seconds.
Here's one just the opposite, reviewed by the Interstate Commerce Commission several years ago. A train was running on main line trackage east of New Orleans. The engineer made several brake pipe reductions (aka brake applications), enough that it depleted both main and equalizing reservoirs below a safe level. When brakes were needed to reduce speed for a curve, not much happened, Even big-holing didn't get the train slowed sufficiently and the train exited the rails quickly for the inevitable pile up that resulted.
I wonder if either the NTSB and/ or FRA (or the TSB in Canada) in recent years - or the ICC in years gone by when it did the US rail accident investigations - ever investigated and reported in depth and detail on a derailment caused by this ? Such a report would be interesting to review, I expect.
Now the story about those two girls getting killed in Maryland posted above by Beaulieu sounds like the derailment might not have been induced by an emergency application, as was apparenly first thought. They are saying that the engineer did not dump the air to avoid hitting the girls. The girls were very close to the train while sitting on a bridge, but they were in the clear and not directely struck. They were killed by the pileup of cars. So they are looking for the cause of the derailment.
" Here's one just the opposite, reviewed by the Interstate Commerce Commission several years ago. A train was running on main line trackage east of New Orleans. The engineer made several brake pipe reductions (aka brake applications), enough that it depleted both main and equalizing reservoirs below a safe level. When brakes were needed to reduce speed for a curve, not much happened, Even big-holing didn't get the train slowed sufficiently and the train exited the rails quickly for the inevitable pile up that resulted."
reckon a link to that would be useful?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.