The rails have been plenty innovative. It doesn't require further innovation to not be a cheapskate, wooden-axle short line that parks a bomb unattended for hours, with insufficient brakes, on a hill above a town.
Crew your damn trains and set the brakes, as railroads were smart enough to do 100 years ago, and nobody will reproach you with insufficient technology.
wccobb Works for railroads too. KISS Make it so them running the trains can keep the trains running. This would suggest a second airline for the "parking brake" and a new, double chambered air brake cylinder (similar in function to that used by trucks) where one chamber applies the "service brakes" (today's air brake system) and a second system uses the "parking brake chamber" to set the "parking brakes" ... Once set, (air exhausted from the brake chamber) the spring in the parking brake chamber holds the brakes on until the engineer pumps them off. Total fail-safe and on the whole train.
More spring brakes. Spring brakes capable of keeping a loaded car arrested on any conceivable grade, but that 'can't' become accidentally applied. A whole second circuit just for the parking brake, I assume with intercar connections that can be field-serviced with simple tools... and if any one of those connections goes bad, the brakes 'fail safe' by springing on, and 'the guys runnin' the trains' have to get out and get under to gag every single applied spring brake, or play 'let's find the leak' in the dark and the rain. And this is supposed to be railroad-sensible KISS?
If you are going to apply a second air line to dedicated consists or unit trains, add some simple wiring and antennae and make it full-proportional ECP. If you want a dedicated parking brake, you could do worse than use some of the parking-brake systems discussed in the earlier (occasionally ad nauseam) threads on that subject in these forums -- most of which were specifically designed NOT to apply strong and irreversible brake force to cars in the train unexpectedly.
If I remember correctly, Ralph Nader had what he considered an illustrative example of your cited 'over-design' in Unsafe at Any Speed -- it was a throttle linkage with a bunch of levers and springs, which Mr. Nader noted did a job expensively that could be handled much more cheaply with a simple lever and spring. What got lost in the argument was what the extra levers and springs did -- for example, ensure that the throttle failed safe by closing under anomalous failure conditions. I have not forgotten Mr. Feynman's point about the relative stupidity of using O-rings with the wrong glass-transition temperature, either.Part of KISS is knowing when simplicity is stupidity. Spring brakes on railroad cars are just stupid, in my opinion. Ask most any guy who actually runs trains and I'd expect you'll get a similar opinion.
Wizlish What I was using was this FRA report (.pdf download. I was presuming that the numbers quoted here had been reviewed before the report was published, and effects of 'shock' taken into account.
What I was using was this FRA report (.pdf download. I was presuming that the numbers quoted here had been reviewed before the report was published, and effects of 'shock' taken into account.
171 pages of engineering speak far above my abilities to fully comprehend
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Wizlish Buslist Sure would like to see a reference to that 178g measurement as would some folks at Amtrak. IIRC it was published in the report on the brake-disc spoke cracking. I wouldn't have mentioned it if I hadn't read it in what I considered a definitive reference. I don't have it ready to hand, but I will check and provide the reference when I have found it. Will have more comments then.
Buslist Sure would like to see a reference to that 178g measurement as would some folks at Amtrak.
IIRC it was published in the report on the brake-disc spoke cracking. I wouldn't have mentioned it if I hadn't read it in what I considered a definitive reference.
I don't have it ready to hand, but I will check and provide the reference when I have found it. Will have more comments then.
If this 83 year old dinosaur can butt in ... I just skimmed thru a condensed report (Canadian) on the Lac Megantic Accident Report. The conclusion: not enough brakes set. The report contains a recommendation for some kind of auxiliary brake system.
This discussion contains several very workable suggestions so please allow me to approach this from a different direction. Its gotta be workable by the guys runnin' the trains.
I was not there at a certain Society of Automobile Engineers Annual Convention which was held shortly after WII. The guest speaker was a high-ranking U.S. Army General who had directed logistics in that war. He spoke of a design situation where a rod was connected to the end of a lever. German engineering would develop an exotic system which allowed extreme pre-tensioning of this connection, but, should it break down, the machine was out of action until a factory-trained mechanic could be found and brought to make the needed adjustments. The American design for the same connection was to drill a small cross hole near the end of the rod and install a cotter pin. Then any farm kid could keep the machine running. In the words of the general, that's how we won the war !!!
Works for railroads too. KISS Make it so them running the trains can keep the trains running. This would suggest a second airline for the "parking brake" and a new, double chambered air brake cylinder (similar in function to that used by trucks) where one chamber applies the "service brakes" (today's air brake system) and a second system uses the "parking brake chamber" to set the "parking brakes" (Same brake rods, brake levers, brake shoes, wheels, etc.) Tie this new system to a new valve on the locomotive similar to the straight (independent) air valve and & the knowledge of how to use it are already there. Best yet, this "parking brake" can't leak off. Once set, (air exhausted from the brake chamber) the spring in the parking brake chamber holds the brakes on until the engineer pumps them off. Total fail-safe and on the whole train.
{True, the electronic blue-tooth stuff with solar panels probably could be made to work, but how does it work when the car's air reservoir is empty? Not my first choice !!}
This old dinoraur remembers when unit coal trains begn to roll, to be unloaded at rotary dumpers. This took special cars with special rotary knuckles & a small change in the location of an air hose. It all got done. Similar for moving the crude oil safely. The second line for the parking brake need only be added to those cars moving crude oil and the locomotives dedicate to this sevice. And it all can be done, I'm guessing, at the lowest cost of the various proposals.
Buslist Wizlish What I was saying is that an acceleration corresponding to 178g, as measured in Acela testing, .... Sure would like to see a reference to that 178g measurement as would some folks at Amtrak.
Wizlish What I was saying is that an acceleration corresponding to 178g, as measured in Acela testing, ....
Sure would like to see a reference to that 178g measurement as would some folks at Amtrak.
The FRA final report on the Acela brake cracking (Volume I) says this on p. 100:
"The highest vertical acceleration observed on the WABTEC/SAB-WABCO test axle during Phase 3 testing was 189 g, measured on the left end of the axle on June 17 near MP 56 of the Metro-North Rail Road while the test train was traveling at 48 mph. At this same location, the Knorr test axle experienced its highest vertical impact on the northbound trip, 172 g. During the southbound test conducted on June 18, the Knorr test axle experienced its highest vertical impact of the test, a 178 g impact on the left end of the axle in the vicinity of Transfer Interlocking near MP AB 218.5 while traveling at 131 mph."
OMG, the things that get said by WABCO and ENSCO people that seem to escape some Amtrak people...!
Nobody is saying or implying that any such measurement would be recorded on the far side of the secondary suspension, "in the vehicle body" -- of course it wouldn't, for a host of rather obvious reasons. I'd be surprised to see any high-G acceleration make it past the primary suspension to the truck frame. But to imply that someone is off the wall for quoting a reference of 178G acceleration, when it has been substantiated in the literature, appears to be rather plainly mistaken.
Wizlish Euclid I don’t think it nonsensical at all. We do NOT know what amount of securement braking would have been necessary to hold the train. All we know is that it was not enough. This just gets sillier and sillier. Do you just not understand physics, or common sense, or engineering, or anything people are trying to point out to you? The reason the acceleration is significant is that it indicates a massive lack of retarding power, occurring fairly early in the train's acceleration downgrade. Calculate the adhesion limit of one (1) axle taken right up to the point the wheeltread skids, then tell me that would materially change the acceleration. Engineers have calculated how many wheelsets would have to have been braked to secure a consist of that weight on that grade. If they were so inclined, they could easily provide numbers to achieve given speeds at the bottom of the grade, or figure out (roughly) how many brakes would have kept terminal speed below that causing the massive derailment. There was, and is, little point in such an exercise, however. I took mention of the 'one brake that did not work' to be intended for quite a different purpose than the straw that broke the camel's back. It establishes part of a demonstration of MMA's alleged negligence to safety items, perhaps with an eye toward shifting civil action off the Canadians involved, and for you to be obsessing over it indicates to me that it has at least partially succeeded. In short, if you want to assert 'maybe' in the sense of plausible denial, the denial has to be actually plausible.
Euclid I don’t think it nonsensical at all. We do NOT know what amount of securement braking would have been necessary to hold the train. All we know is that it was not enough.
This just gets sillier and sillier. Do you just not understand physics, or common sense, or engineering, or anything people are trying to point out to you?
The reason the acceleration is significant is that it indicates a massive lack of retarding power, occurring fairly early in the train's acceleration downgrade. Calculate the adhesion limit of one (1) axle taken right up to the point the wheeltread skids, then tell me that would materially change the acceleration.
Engineers have calculated how many wheelsets would have to have been braked to secure a consist of that weight on that grade. If they were so inclined, they could easily provide numbers to achieve given speeds at the bottom of the grade, or figure out (roughly) how many brakes would have kept terminal speed below that causing the massive derailment. There was, and is, little point in such an exercise, however.
I took mention of the 'one brake that did not work' to be intended for quite a different purpose than the straw that broke the camel's back. It establishes part of a demonstration of MMA's alleged negligence to safety items, perhaps with an eye toward shifting civil action off the Canadians involved, and for you to be obsessing over it indicates to me that it has at least partially succeeded.
In short, if you want to assert 'maybe' in the sense of plausible denial, the denial has to be actually plausible.
Norm
BuslistSure would like to see a reference to that 178g measurement as would some folks at Amtrak.
EuclidI don’t think it nonsensical at all. We do NOT know what amount of securement braking would have been necessary to hold the train. All we know is that it was not enough.
[Edited 1.1.2015 to remove exasperated comments that did not contribute to the discussion, and for a bit more on-point clarity. Original is still visible quoted in Norm's subsequent post.]
The reason the acceleration is significant is that it indicates a massive lack of retarding power, [demonstrated no later than by a fairly early point] in the train's acceleration downgrade. Calculate the adhesion limit of one (1) axle taken right up to the point the wheeltread skids, then tell me that would materially change the acceleration [...]
Engineers have calculated how many wheelsets would have to have been braked to secure a consist of that weight on that grade. If they were so inclined, they could [also] easily provide numbers to achieve given speeds at the bottom of the grade, or figure out (roughly) how many brakes would have kept terminal speed below that causing the massive derailment. There was, and is, little point in such an exercise, however.
I took mention of the 'one brake that did not work' to be intended for quite a different purpose than the straw that broke the camel's back [to allow the train to start rolling]. It establishes part of a demonstration of MMA's alleged negligence to safety items, perhaps with an eye toward shifting civil action off the Canadians involved, and for you to be [claiming the partial inactivation of that axle's handbrake application to be a significant contributory factor] indicates to me that the Canadian attempt has at least partially succeeded.
In short, if you want to assert 'maybe' in the sense of plausible denial, the denial has to be actually plausible. [I don't think that plausibility has been established, and I would need to see harder evidence than an assertation of implied 'possibility' before accepting that it has.]
What I was saying is that an acceleration corresponding to 178g, as measured in Acela testing, ....
Sure would like to see a reference to that 178g measurement as would some folks at Amtrak. Here's a comment from one of Amtrak's test engineers that has been involved if not directed, most every load environment test with the Acelas (recognizing that Amtrak contracts out these tests, usually to TTCI but could be NRC or Ensco as well). The measurement might also have come from the builders consortium (but with TTCI's IWS).
Wizlish Euclid Perhaps that one additional handbrake would have prevented the train from rolling away Of all the nonsensical things that have been said about that accident, this comment ranks at the top. You have a train that runs away to 50 mph, and you think that ONE AXLE (on a locomotive that did not derail, to boot) would have made the difference in its starting to run away? I think it was mentioned in one of the reports that a minimum of 17 'handbrakes' (four braked axles apiece, unless they were counting one brake per end of the tank cars) would have been required to keep that train from moving. Seven were applied. That is the singular reason the train ran away...
Euclid Perhaps that one additional handbrake would have prevented the train from rolling away
Of all the nonsensical things that have been said about that accident, this comment ranks at the top.
You have a train that runs away to 50 mph, and you think that ONE AXLE (on a locomotive that did not derail, to boot) would have made the difference in its starting to run away?
I think it was mentioned in one of the reports that a minimum of 17 'handbrakes' (four braked axles apiece, unless they were counting one brake per end of the tank cars) would have been required to keep that train from moving. Seven were applied. That is the singular reason the train ran away...
zugmann trains577 The trucking company figured this out years ago, and if the air does leak down, it won't release the brakes, but if it does it will take a little bit longer to build the air back up, when they need to move the train, this has been in affect for over 30 years now in the trucking industries I've never seen a hump yard for trailers though. Nor trailers getting kicked. there are many times and places you don't want brakes to set up on a car.
trains577 The trucking company figured this out years ago, and if the air does leak down, it won't release the brakes, but if it does it will take a little bit longer to build the air back up, when they need to move the train, this has been in affect for over 30 years now in the trucking industries
The trucking company figured this out years ago, and if the air does leak down, it won't release the brakes, but if it does it will take a little bit longer to build the air back up, when they need to move the train, this has been in affect for over 30 years now in the trucking industries
I've never seen a hump yard for trailers though. Nor trailers getting kicked. there are many times and places you don't want brakes to set up on a car.
One of these days those that point to what the truckers do will realize what has been pointed out in this thread several times is that there is a need to move rail cars "off air" so all those "what the trailers have" responses aren't relevant.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
EuclidPerhaps that one additional handbrake would have prevented the train from rolling away
[Edited to remove unnecessary snarkiness that did not contribute to the discussion]
I think it was mentioned in one of the reports that a minimum of 17 'handbrakes' (four braked axles apiece, unless they were counting one brake per end of the tank cars) would have been required to keep that train from moving. Seven were applied. That is the singular reason the train ran away after the independent leaked down (ironically enough, IIRC, largely due to the turbine loss in the train's FRED). There is little need to rehash what I now see is a whole herd beaten to death in past threads.
[Note that this original post addresses the train starting to move, not its behavior once started, contrary to later assertions in posts to this thread...]
tdmidget Absolutely nothing to do with it. The man failed to secure his train. That is the cause of everything. It does not matter if the power was the newest thing from the factory floor or the Best Friend of Charleston. If he had done his job properly that train would not have moved.
Absolutely nothing to do with it. The man failed to secure his train. That is the cause of everything. It does not matter if the power was the newest thing from the factory floor or the Best Friend of Charleston. If he had done his job properly that train would not have moved.
The locomotives on the MMA were not new or maintained properly.
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Andrew Falconer If they could have used more modern, well-maintained locomotives and have had these modern locomotives distributed at each end of the tank car train, then the train would have been much less likely to roll away because the braking power of distributed locomotives is better.
If they could have used more modern, well-maintained locomotives and have had these modern locomotives distributed at each end of the tank car train, then the train would have been much less likely to roll away because the braking power of distributed locomotives is better.
Yes, but....
If the Train Operator had actually secured his train it would still have been there when the next crew came on duty for it. Distributed power had nothing to do with the Train Operators failure to secure the train. Especially since the Train operator did not understand that locomotive hand brakes do not have the same braking power as freight car hand brakes and he did not set enough of either kind of hand brakes.
gardendance How about quantifying that. How much damage do solar panels get from vandalism? And although we've heard a post or two here that they might be a bit too fragile to be cost effective on rolling stock, how likely is it that a vandal will want to try to throw rocks up from the ground onto the top of a boxcar where they won't be able to see the damage they cause?
How about quantifying that. How much damage do solar panels get from vandalism? And although we've heard a post or two here that they might be a bit too fragile to be cost effective on rolling stock, how likely is it that a vandal will want to try to throw rocks up from the ground onto the top of a boxcar where they won't be able to see the damage they cause?
It's not throwing things up on top of a car - it's throwing things down from an overpass or a cut.
That's one reason why they put roofs on auto carrier cars.
If the solar panels were to be covered with a relatively impervious material (like the 229 glass specified for locomotives), it would certainly help, but even that might not be enough to counter a cinder block dropped (or thrown down) from overhead.
That apparently hasn't been an issue in fixed installations, so far.
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...
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
That's exactly what happened at Lac Megantic.Engineer flipped a switch, (valve actually) to apply trainline and independent brakes.
IF he had gone back and set the hand brakes he would have KNOWN not ASSUMED that the brakes would work. What better system could there be?
But then there's sport. Some around here get a kick out of shooting them or throwing things at them from a moving car.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
I don't think theft of solar panels will be an issue until their value reaches the point where they can be used as currency (think copper pipe). As it stands now, you may well have to pay to have one disposed of, and making use of one involves more than just plugging it into the wall. That makes it nearly useless to the average opportunist/thief.
Like everything else, though, there are those who might consider acquiring their "living off the grid" materiel at no cost (unless they're caught).
Too, most solar panels are installed in locations where simply carting them off isn't an easy proposition. Getting a relatively fragile 100+ pound panel off a roof ain't easy.
BuslistActually the industry has been quite successful at using solar panels to power the electric friction modifier (the currently preferred technical term amoung tribologists for lubricant) way side pumps, particularly those in the Portec line. I recall seeing one in London, at Waterloo East IIRC, powered by a small windmill, what else to do in that climate?
Stop signs and other warning signs are more and more often equipped with a surround of (LED) lights that flash and are powered by a battery and solar panel on top. Theft does not seem to be an issue.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
gardendance corwinda Those solar panels would be an easy target for thieves any time the car is sitting in a relatively secluded spot; especially at night. Why would they be an easier target for thieves than any of the solar panels that are already on lots of structures, railroad related or not, which use solar panels specifically because those structures sit in relatively secluded spots? Does anybody have statistics on existing solar panel vandalism and theft? Why would they be an easier target for thieves than the railcars' cargo?
corwinda Those solar panels would be an easy target for thieves any time the car is sitting in a relatively secluded spot; especially at night.
Those solar panels would be an easy target for thieves any time the car is sitting in a relatively secluded spot; especially at night.
Actually the industry has been quite successful at using solar panels to power the electric friction modifier (the currently preferred technical term amoung tribologists for lubricant) way side pumps, particularly those in the Portec line. I recall seeing one in London, at Waterloo East IIRC, powered by a small windmill, what else to do in that climate?
"G-force" can be translated via F = ma. "g" itself is the acceleration due to 'standard' Earth gravity, 32 fpsps or metric equivalent. What I was saying is that an acceleration corresponding to 178g, as measured in Acela testing, is necessarily of very short duration, and is perhaps best considered as a datum for calculating the peak force (and rate of change of the force).
In order for the lading to move, something either had to kick the car hard enough to move it relative to the inertia of the lading, or to get enough energy into the lading that its subsequent momentum, decelerated only by what it's packed in or what it collides with, causes damage. In either case, unless the "coupling" between the lading and the applied force is perfect (which almost certainly won't be the case!) there has to be more force exerted on the car than winds up moving the lading.
Hi Wizlish
Maybe I am mistaken, but I always thought g-forces were a measure of acceleration.
Also, I don't understand how are the longitudinal accelerations on the car are greater than those imposed on the lading, exluding the effects of damping created by packing materials surrounding the lading.
Thanks
AnthonyV
Euclid As I understand this, you would transmit ECP control data wireless. Then you would carry a battery on each car, and generate the battery charge on each car. This electrical power would transmit the data; and also, power the solenoid valves on each car that would control the air functions. This way, there would be no electric/electronic cable to connect and maintain. I suspect that the power needed to transmit data is very small compared to the power needed to operate all of brake solenoids on each car throughout the train. Having each car generating its power and storing it in a battery seems overly fussy for a railcar. But I suppose anything can be done.
The carrot with the wireless ECP was a reasonable migration path. The plan was with the car being power self sufficient the electronic valve could function in two different modes. If the car was initialized into a train network it would function in ECP mode. If however air pressure was applied in the train line without initialization, it would function like your favorite triple valve. This way cars so equipped could be gradually introduced into the system, and if a BO was set out on line of road, it could be brought home by the local. IIRC they had a test train equipped on the QCM. But alas GE Harris was never able to get the system to perform "as advertised" And threw in the towel. Nobody else has picked up the effort.
What is the preferred way of handling this data/power function in today’s thinking about ECP?
Unless something has changed recently the common power/data bus continues to be the preferred choice but there is no clear migration path to get the fleet equipped. Air Brake Committee is content with the system and has been for a decade, now its up to the operating and investment types to decide if the benefits are sufficient, but they are somewhat otherwise occupied.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.