That is why I want a "Pullman of Freight Transportation, Key Transportation," with a sexy name and evocation of the really unexcelled safety of Pullman passenger transportation --once they made steel cars universal. Note that oil trucks these days no longer have round tanks, they are oval. Possibly with the desire for increased capacity, the newest and safest tankcars will also have oval tanks, but long dimension vertical to take advantage of clearances available even on the more restricted existing freight routes.
Don,
Thanks for your comments and perspective. I am working on a response to what Dave said, and some of it will also address your comments and concerns about drawbars, energy dissipation, etc.
I agree that this will cost a lot of money, but a lot is at stake in losing the oil traffic business. I believe this oil train problem is a huge challenge, and it calls for a proportionate response. Part of that response must be to convince the public that the industry is working hard to solve the problem. That part is actually a marketing endeavor. I think that is the missing ingredient in the response to strengthen tank cars. That alone is an engineering response, but I don’t think it is going to satisfy the public outcry, and ultimately, the public is in the driver’s seat.
To incorporate the marketing component of the industry response, what is needed is a sexy new train. It would be a “smart oil train”. It should look different, look advanced, have lots of electronics and computer control. It should look good, have an exceptionally nice color scheme, and style. It should look like clean energy rather than crude oil.
It should be unveiled and presented to the public as though it were a brand new sports car. Then it should be explained in detail. Even before it is perfected it could be mocked up and presented as a concept train that will make everybody safe.
It's nice to see some thought about this problem. I have some comments...
Euclid1) Cars semi-permanently coupled with extra strength solid drawbars and continuous extra heavy car center sills.
This is a tough one. The tank cars don't have center sills now, just stub sills weld to each end. The tank itself is the center sill. Are you proposing adding a center sill to increase buff/draft strenght? This adds weight at the expense of lading
Euclid2) Revised tank car design for puncture resistance, stronger center sill elements, stronger drawbar connections, and limited pivot trucks with safety chains.
Are we talking about drawbars in lieu of couplers? The existing shelf couplers do a pretty good job of staying with each other during a wreck. If beef up the draft arrangement, what's the next weakest link? Center sill/tank buckling? The energy has to go somewhere. (BTW solid drawbars tend to cause derailments from track cross-level variations. It's why those double 89' flat cars have couplers and not solid drawbars)
Euclid3) Car buffer system integrated with the drawbars that resist car jackknifing leading to an accordion pileup.
If the train can't "accordion" where does the energy go? The zig-zag pile-up might not be a bad thing from a derailment energy management system point of view.
Euclid4) Electronically Controlled Pneumatic brakes (ECP) with a “smart emergency” feature that can detect a derailment and react to the derailment in a way that mitigates the risk of an accordion or similar pileup of cars.
Euclid5) Cars equipped with sensors to monitor temperature of running components, vibration, sound, motion, etc., and connected permanently by continuous electrical cabling to transmit the data to a control center in the locomotive.
Like this, but bring money! I think we are headed there, but not for a few decades. I doubt a wired data trainline is the way, though.
There is just so much energy in a mainline, track speed derailment the trick is to figure out what stuff gets broken and how it breaks to dissipate the energy. Secondly, while this is going on, how do you protect the lading? Thirdly, if the tanks are breached, how to you prevent a BLEVE?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Unless one is a structural engineer with experience in tank design, I would leave it to people who have studied the problem in depth, visited the sites of some of the recent "incidents," have the state-of-the-art computer facilities to get meaningful results from measured data, have have the intelligence to know when measured data is false because of an equipment malfunction or when computer results are a screwy, and then produce the safe tankcar. I think this is what is in progress, and I think this is what I expect to increase safety in the time required to replace the present non-complying tankcar fleeet.
You wondered how they might increase capacity. Possibly a circular cross-section is not the safest, and somethin else can increase both safety and capacity?
Euclid In the concept that I am describing, even though there would be a lot of control directed to the derailment process, there would still be plenty of opportunity for chaos. But the hope would be that the drawbars hold it all together and keep it stretched out. But even in that arrangement, there would still be rails flying around, cars hopping over trucks, etc. Cars could upset by all of the chaos going on underneath them.
In the concept that I am describing, even though there would be a lot of control directed to the derailment process, there would still be plenty of opportunity for chaos. But the hope would be that the drawbars hold it all together and keep it stretched out. But even in that arrangement, there would still be rails flying around, cars hopping over trucks, etc. Cars could upset by all of the chaos going on underneath them.
A lot of this seems to assume that that the derailed cars will continue upright and parallel in line. What happens when the first cars derails, digs in and stops with 8000 tons of train behind it still moving? In a conventional train the cars accordion with each car absorbing part of the energy and burning off the momentum of the train. With the drawbars preventing that ALL of the energy will be focused onto the first derailed car. That first car is going to pop or the cars behind it are going to start catastrophically failing. The bolts holding the draft gear in will start shearing off the drawbars will rip the pins out of the housings the center sills will collapse and bust the tanks of the center sill. Something's going to give. Metal has shear and tensile strengths and if you exceed it, it breaks. So you are designing it, what part do you want to break? If you leave the choice up to the derailment, you won't be happy with the outcome.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Dave,
I had not considered your point about the drawbars being able to transmit upset from one car to the next. Somehow that would have to be addressed. I recall that there was a tank train derailment maybe ten years ago in western Minnesota. As I recall, all or nearly all of the train tipped over. And apparently it was not moving very fast because all the cars were laid out in a perfectly straight line, on their sides along the track.
I am not sure how all of the control system and the brains should be set up. There would be plenty of engineering to do to get that developed.
One has to figure where the "brains' of this proposal will reside. With PTC the engines need to know the location of the train and its tonnage and length. The consist (standing order of the cars) would also need to be know to the train (not required for PTC). If the brains is in the engine then you keep the information central and have to communicate the commands to the cars. If the brains are in the cars you have to communicate (and remember) the train and position information to the cars and be able to designate one car to be the leader and command the rest of the brake system. With small air powered turbine generators (same thing that's in EOT's), powering all the electronics could be feasible. The question is can the system figure all this out quick enough and communicate it soon enough to make a difference.
Also since PTC is not universal, what do you do outside of PTC when the consist, location and train characteristics are not necessarily available?
One question on all these high strength drawbars. If several cars derail and turnover (broken rail on a fill), what keeps the drawbars from rolling the rest of the train over?
WSOR 3801,
The air won’t dump on this train. It does not have to because no quick action feature of air is needed to propagate the response through the length of the train. The EPC control will set all brakes simultaneously. The oil in the tanks will simply swell to the front of all tanks simultaneously in proportion to the brake force. It won’t run in like slack. The engines may or may not go to idle depending on what the automatic system needs to best mitigate the derailment process.
There will still be slack action in loaded trains. Liquids have slosh. If all the drawbars are solid, the engine might get a real good wallop if they have to stop quick.
When the air dumps on a train, the PCS cuts power at the locomotive as well. The engines go to idle. At that point, you bail off and enjoy the ride.
Wireless controls have issues of their own. Maybe use it as a backup to the wired ECP brake system.
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
Euclid Maybe somebody can post a link to a reference showing exactly what it planned to be improved with the new tank car safety standards. I would like to know how much safer they will be. For instance, I would like to know it this: In the case of the Casselton wreck, if that train was made up of the new and safer generation of tank cars, would there have been a fire? This is an engineering question, and reinforcing the tank cars is an engineering project, so the answer to my question about how the improved tank cars would have performed in the Casselton wreck ought to have a specific answer. It is an obvious question in the context of the Casselton wreck and the proposal to prevent such an occurrence in the future.
Maybe somebody can post a link to a reference showing exactly what it planned to be improved with the new tank car safety standards. I would like to know how much safer they will be. For instance, I would like to know it this: In the case of the Casselton wreck, if that train was made up of the new and safer generation of tank cars, would there have been a fire? This is an engineering question, and reinforcing the tank cars is an engineering project, so the answer to my question about how the improved tank cars would have performed in the Casselton wreck ought to have a specific answer. It is an obvious question in the context of the Casselton wreck and the proposal to prevent such an occurrence in the future.
I believe the improvements include increased shell thickness and shields built into the ends, similar to what is standard now for flammable gas cars. In addition there would be shields for the bottom outlets and dome valves to reduce shearing.
As far as whether they would have been punctured, that would take a lot more information on what the speeds were, what the angle of impact was, what parts of which cars struck what part of the tank cars. For example a hopper or tank car shell striking the tank car shell, probably no. A coupler striking the lower end probably no. A couple striking the side of a tank car, possibly.
TIH/PIH cars are arguably the heaviest car designs out there and even they get punctured under the right circumstances (the UP, AAR and chemical shippers are in the final stages of testing the next generation TIH/PIH car, its been in the works for a while).
The chances would be lower in the Casselton incident, Lac Megantic would have breached less, but still would have breached some (even battleship armor can be pierced by a piece of metal with enough weight and velocity).
Deva vu all over again.
Norm
EuclidI doubt that anybody has ever considered this idea before. I think that derailments are regarded as something that just happens. You do all that is possible to prevent them, but I have never heard of trying to control them once they begin. Controlling them would seem to be impossible.
Yes, Bucky, I'm sure people have considered the idea already. Especially in the age of ECP.
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
The really unique aspect of this proposal as outlined in the original post is a specialized braking system that does NOT go into emergency when the first air hoses separate at the beginning of a derailment.
I doubt that anybody has ever considered this idea before. I think that derailments are regarded as something that just happens. You do all that is possible to prevent them, but I have never heard of trying to control them once they begin. Controlling them would seem to be impossible.
Controlling derailments after they begin, as I am proposing, would only be possible with the advent of ECP brakes, and even with that, the idea that I am proposing would not be obvious. It would be a whole new category of braking phase instead of the traditional “emergency” phase that is triggered during a derailment. It could be called the “derailment” phase of braking. It would be fully automatic just like the airbag system in cars is automatic.
The derailment phase brake system would sense a derailment by proximity detectors and motion analyzers. It would detect a truck derailing the instant it happens, and begin a braking protocol based on train weight, distribution of the weight, number of cars, speed, location of derailment site in the train, and the location of the train on the line. Then it would control braking independently to the cars ahead of the derailment and the cars behind it.
It would apply brakes on the cars in each section at exactly the same time. There would be no sequential propagation of braking through the length of the train. With the solid drawbars, there would be no slack run-in or run-out to interfere with the control of the derailing train. The control would have to be wireless in case the cables get broken during the derailing process.
Anything made by man can break - rail, wheel, coupler, knuckle, drawbar, side sheet, truck side frame, roller bearing.
Anything formed by Nature can be reformed by Nature, generally with catastrophic immediate results.
Without the commodities carried by all the forms of transportation all the NIMBY BANANA's would die of starvation and freeze to death.
Safety has never been absolute in the history of humanity, and never will be.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Randy, Overmod, and BaltACD:
Regarding your comments about excessive car weight on page 1, I don’t expect this proposal to result in excessively heavy tank cars. The point of the solid drawbars is to keep the cars coupled during a derailment as they are placed under tension by selective braking and power application to prevent them from jackknifing and piling up. That is a two-part objective.
The larger part of that objective is accomplished by eliminating the knuckles and related features that can break and disengage from twisting and bending as well as pure pulling stress. There will be a lot of that twisting and bending coupler stress because the cars will be running on the ground, tearing up track and plowing ballast, so what is needed is coupler integrity that goes beyond the abilities of tightlock or shelf couplers.
The second part of the objective is the capability of the drawbars to handle the tensile pull of the selective braking and power application from the moment the derailment begins to when the train stops moving. I don’t know whether that would subject couplers to a higher than usual tensile pull. If it does, it would require heavier drawbars and possibly more weight added to reinforce the tank. When I mentioned center sills, I am not necessarily suggesting full, independent center sills with the tank sitting on top of them. I am only referring to the structural features integrated with the tank that reinforces the pulling line of the car. It may only be a thickening of steel along the bottom. They simply replicate the purpose of a center sill.
But, as I say, this may or may not be necessary, and in any case, I don’t expect it to add so much weight that it makes the car too heavy to be practical. The strengthening that the regulators are planning will also add weight to the cars, so heavier cars are inevitable. Somewhere I read that they are planning to increase the capacity to offset the weight penalty. It would be interesting to hear how they will accomplish that.
But these extra strong drawbars are just one feature of a system of features that are intended to work together. Probably the least important feature is item #3 in my opening description. If the selective braking and power application do their job of keeping the derailing cars stretched, there would be no need for drawbars and buffers working together to resist jackknifing. And the buffer structure would also add considerable weight. So, I would say that item #3 might be omitted from the list of features.
Overmod,
Like you, I am interested in learning exactly how the new tank cars will be made safer, and how safe they will be. Seat belts made cars safer, but air bags make them even safer. Is this proposed tank car improvement intended to solve the problem or just be an incremental improvement?
Randy StahlHere's the killer to your plan, The "unbreakable" drawbar means that you must also have an unbreakable car. While I'm sure this is possible what you will end up with is a car that weighs 80-90 tons EMPTY.
Randy,
I don’t expect this proposal to require excessively heavy tank cars. The point of the solid drawbars is to keep the cars coupled during a derailment as they are placed under tension by selective braking and power application to prevent them from jackknifing and piling up. That is a two-part objective. The larger part of that objective is accomplished by eliminating the knuckles and related features that can break and disengage from twisting and bending as well as pure pulling stress. There will be a lot of that twisting and bending coupler stress because the cars will be running on the ground, tearing up track and plowing ballast, so what is needed is coupler integrity that goes beyond the abilities of tightlock or shelf couplers.
Thanks for your comments. Like you, I am interested in learning exactly how the new tank cars will be made safer, and how safe they will be. Seat belts made cars safer, but air bags make them even safer. Is this proposed tank car improvement intended to solve the problem or just be an incremental improvement?
Regarding the other proposal to prevent fouling collisions between passing trains: Certainly that type of collision has the greatest potential for violence because of the combined speed of the two trains, so it would help. However, the potential for it only exists during the passing phase, and that will be a very small percentage of the entire route traveled. So stopping one train during a passing meet will add safety during that time, but the entire rest of the route will provide constant opportunity for derailments. And any derailment, although being perhaps less violent than a fouling collision, will nevertheless provide plenty of opportunity for tank breaching and a resulting fire.
schlimm It wasn't an insult. It was sarcasm. i guess I should have labeled it as such to avoid confusion.
It wasn't an insult. It was sarcasm. i guess I should have labeled it as such to avoid confusion.
SO, no on topic response.
Thank you and have a wonderful night, Professor.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm zugmann since I believe in the idea of equivalent exchange Alchemy and Minecraft? How about a conceptual framework from D&D?
zugmann since I believe in the idea of equivalent exchange
Alchemy and Minecraft? How about a conceptual framework from D&D?
Never played minecraft. Have watched plenty of Fullmetal Alchemist.
But seriously professor, if that was some lame attempt at an insult, it needs work. I actually feel sorry for your lack of insulting skills. You will never be as cool as us without more work.
PS. since your insults were a failure, any response to what I said in my earlier post? You know, something on topic for a change?
tree68 Mookie I am hesitant to post this: I watch Dutch trains a lot. You don't see or hear of problems being addressed here. Anyone care to tell me why they can and we can't? Just forum conversation not an argument. I am curious. We don't know that they don't have problems. I don't believe their track structure is all that different from ours, and equipment failures happen. Then, again, in the numerous times I've watched that railcam, I don't recall seeing an equivalent to our unit tank trains. That doesn't mean they don't run them, just that I don't recall seeing any.
Mookie I am hesitant to post this: I watch Dutch trains a lot. You don't see or hear of problems being addressed here. Anyone care to tell me why they can and we can't? Just forum conversation not an argument. I am curious.
I am hesitant to post this:
I watch Dutch trains a lot. You don't see or hear of problems being addressed here.
Anyone care to tell me why they can and we can't?
Just forum conversation not an argument. I am curious.
We don't know that they don't have problems. I don't believe their track structure is all that different from ours, and equipment failures happen.
Then, again, in the numerous times I've watched that railcam, I don't recall seeing an equivalent to our unit tank trains. That doesn't mean they don't run them, just that I don't recall seeing any.
I am always intrigued that they run fast, granted, short trains. But passenger and freight on 2 mains. The pedestrians always obey the lights and gates ( no going around there) and the traffic on the rails is only down for the times that they either rail grind or repair the road bed. Just seems to me a very efficient way to do business while ours seems to be almost cumbersome and slow.
Appreciate your response.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
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...
Uncle JakeWhy not build semi-permanantly coupled sets of 3 or 5 like intermodal well cars?
zugmannWhat's interesting in this whole thing are the parallels to arguments about passenger trains.
... very effective parallels. Handle the pax improperly and they will complain. So will the Bakken crude -- just in a different language with considerably more heat release. Where there is less of a parallel is, perhaps interestingly, concerning speed. I don't see a particular need for high-speed lightweight oil trains, even if equipment utilization is improved, tare-weight benefits are observed, [insert Kneiling advantage(s) here]. Conversely i see little point in armoring everything -- engineering is the art of PROPORTIONAL design for maximal system strength, not the art of economical compromise (regardless of what might have been taught in freshman engineering!) it's going to be interesting to see the theoretical design of euclid's system 'fleshed out' with numbers, and some measure of risk reduction (whether or not measured in a politically-charged metric like 'lives' as well as dollars).
But not at all the typical 'freight' thinking -- ramp up the HAL to the max, desuperelevate to minimize wear, call the insurance company if something is damaged on the road. i actually see some openings for six-sigma-style quality methodologies here... let's hope they are applied sensibly, rather than pedantically.
Murphy Siding Welcome back bycyrus.
Welcome back bycyrus.
I was thinking the same.
rockymidlandrr One thing to consider in these 90 or so permanently connected drawbared trains, what happens of you have a hotbox enroute, a defect on one car that will prevent the entire train from moving. Normally if you get a hotbox, its 4mph car until it is set out.
One thing to consider in these 90 or so permanently connected drawbared trains, what happens of you have a hotbox enroute, a defect on one car that will prevent the entire train from moving. Normally if you get a hotbox, its 4mph car until it is set out.
The car department personnel so love rewheeling a car on the main track at o'dark 30. Train Dispatchers love having a Main (or the only Main) tied up for 6 to 8 hours while the car gets rewheeled and the recrew gets to the train as well as having all mains in the area shut down while the car department actually performs the wheel set replacement..
Developing a stronger connection to stop jack-knifing and the accordion pileup sounds good in theory, and perhaps might be useful in at least some derailments. But like many proposed safety improvements, all factors must be considered before jumping blindly.
The jack-knifing that produces sensational pictures is actually a very effective energy absorption mechanism, in some respects rather like the crumple zones on a modern car. 10,000 tons moving at 60mph are brought to a stop with the cars frequently remaining within or very close to the railroad right-of-way in a compact mass. Unfortunately when fire and explosions result, of course, the flames can go much further.
If that same 10,000 tons of train derails but has the full weight continuing to push hard, expect an equally spectacular result as the missile heads for the hills, or business district at speed.
In fact tight-lock couplers, and shelf couplers, are designed to reduce the risk of tanks being punctured in derailments. They have been quite successful in this regard, but the energies involved are sometimes overwhelming. And they will overwhelm anything that can reasonably be designed and built.
Wandering off topic, last week in Nova Scotia a highway tanker loaded with diesel fuel crashed and burned on a rural highway, with very little left of the truck or pavement. But the press happily reported that very little fuel was spilled because it all burnt up! No sensational fear mongering; just another mundane traffic accident which probably only got mentioned because of a slow news day.
John
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Many of the suggestions by the Original Poster, Randy, and others echo those of John G. Kneiling (Trains's "Professional Iconoclast") as set forth in his 1969 Kalmbach Publishing Co. book Integral Train Systems, and several columns and articles in the 1965 - 1975 time frame about the railroads should attempt to compete to get the oil move itself, instead of just "How Do We Route The Pipe?" (the title of one such column).
- Paul North.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.