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?
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
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The locomotives on the MMA were not new or maintained properly.
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 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
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.
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]
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 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...]
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
Wizlish What I was saying is that an acceleration corresponding to 178g, as measured in Acela testing, ....
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).
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.]
BuslistSure 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
171 pages of engineering speak far above my abilities to fully comprehend
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.
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.
Actually the report has it even higher @ 189g I'll pass this along and see what they say. Thanks.
dakotafred 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.
You really only have to do one or the other.
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.
EuclidThe only reason I brought up the defective locomotive handbrake is in response to the comment by Andrew Falconer about the condition of the equipment playing a role in the Lac Megantic runaway. He said this (my emphasis in red): “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.”
[In case the Forum software loses the color attribute in quotes, the highlighted words were "well-maintained"]
We have to distinguish a couple of things. First, in what sense does Andrew think 'the braking power of distributed locomotives is better'? Second, it's immaterial to speculate whether a DPU-equipped locomotive would have the necessary valve or control to apply the train brakes if the brakepipe pressure fell below an effective level -- so in any relevant scenario, the trailing independent would slowly release just as the head-end independent did. Third -- how would you propose a tired engineer, so tired he couldn't get more than a few cars back in his train, is going to set handbrakes on the distributed power? (We might also look at whether the DPU locomotive would have been shut down as the other locomotives were, for economy reasons, or how MMA would justify the added costs to put DPU on its trains, but I don't think all that speculation is germane to the issue at hand.)
This is nothing more than a red herring anyway. One of the reports mentions the blued wheels on the locomotives with applied handbrakes. The only thing controlling the early acceleration of the train at Lac Megantic downhill was the remaining retardation due to the independent application; as that bled down further (at the rate determined by the examiners) you observe rapid acceleration, and as we know from accidents like those on Cranberry Grade once you get above the 23-25 mph range ablation from composition shoes makes their retarding force insufficient regardless of how powerfully they are applied by the power-brake equipment (let alone some manual pump-up or ratchet mechanism.
It's a truism that if any one of a number of stupid maintenance or operational decisions had not been made, the incident would not have occurred. All of us Monday-morning quarterbacks have been commenting on this for many months. The point here, however, is limited to one particular issue: that the single axle unbraked by the QRB valve malfunction had nothing to do with the outcome of the Lac Megantic accident.* I continue to stand by that statement, and all the available hard evidence and science backs me up in making it.
[* Edit -- either in terms of the accident starting, with the train running away, or in terms of the severity of the derailment and subsequent damage and fire.]
In this context, I'm not concerned about the railroads (they have their own issues). I'm more concerned about the clueless & "out of touch with reality" folks trying to dictate terms outside their level of expertise with unfunded mandates.
Wizlish The point here, however, is limited to one particular issue: that the single axle unbraked by the QRB valve malfunction had nothing to do with the outcome of the Lac Megantic accident. I continue to stand by that statement, and all the available hard evidence and science backs me up in making it.
EuclidCertainly you are the only one who asserts that the defective handbrake made no difference.
What I meant is that the defective handbrake made no MEANINGFUL difference. By the time the oil cars were derailing in downtown Lac Megantic, it didn't really matter whether one axle's worth of additional locomotive handbraking would have kept the train a couple of mph slower, when the speed at the point of accident was well over the critical speed that produced the derailment, generated the momentum that tore the cars open, and started the fires. It's a bit like dropping an egg from 17 feet instead of 16 feet; there's a difference in the shock, but the egg is terminally damaged either way.
Don't limit yourself to the science in the reports. Do the math yourself -- calculate the range of adhesion limits for wheel-to-rail and wheel-to-brake-shoe for the locomotive in question. Calculate the resultant of train weight giving gravitational acceleration on the reported grade. See how many braked axles would be required to keep the train at a balancing speed going downgrade (someone has already calculated what would have been necessary to keep the train from moving, and IIRC at what independent pressure the train started moving). If you can't or won't do the calculations, ask someone knowledgeable like MC to do them or approximate them. And then to explain them if you find that to be necessary.
Wizlish said: The point here, however, is limited to one particular issue: that the single axle unbraked by the QRB valve malfunction had nothing to do with the outcome of the Lac Megantic accident. I continue to stand by that statement, and all the available hard evidence and science backs me up in making it.
Euclid said: Certainly you are the only one who asserts that the defective handbrake made no difference.
Wizlish: You're paraphrasing badly again. Stop that. What I said is that the defective handbrake made no MEANINGFUL difference.
Putting aside the merits of the technical discussion, in term of clear syntax I fail to see where Euclid misrepresented your statement, since you had not used the term "meaningful" prior to your last in a series of rather snarky putdowns.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.