This fireball crisis is more of a marketing problem for the railroads and oil industry than it is an engineering problem.
It is interesting to note that, although this problem applies to the oil industry as well as the railroads, the main media thrust focuses on the culpability of the railroads for their derailing trains. The media seems to dismiss the Bakken oil volatility and the mislabeling by the shippers.
If it were just an engineering problem, the railroads could take comfort because much of that problem is beyond their control. But since it is a marketing problem, the problem can be anything that the media says it is.
You can say that it is not a problem because the media does not know what they are talking about—that they exaggerate the danger of oil while ignoring the more dangerous materials that are shipped by rail. But it does not make any difference. If the media says the problem is oil-by-rail, then that is the problem. You can’t end the problem by disproving the media. You can’t defeat the power of the press by scoffing at it.
A Senate hearing on this rail safety problem had been scheduled for last Thursday, but was cancelled due to snow. The marketing problem will be on full display once this hearing is under way. Senators will expect the railroads to ensure the safety of people living along the rail lines because the premise of the problem is that the railroad companies are placing these people at risk for death and injury every day now with the rising oil traffic.
“Ensure the safety” does not mean that it is enough to create the probability that fewer people will be killed or injured. There is also the implication that Senators expect a very quick solution to the problem because they refer to the problem as being critical.
Against this backdrop, the industry will tell the Senators that the problem is being exaggerated; that the media is wrong; and that rail is the safest form of transportation. And then the industry will offer a purely engineering based solution to the problem that will take several years to achieve. The Senators will want to know if the industry’s solution will ensure the safety of people along the rail lines, and the industry will tell the Senators that “nothing is 100% certain.”
edblysard In fact, several people, myself included, stated outright that the shipper will likely have to pay more in fees, insurance and such and most likely will have to placard the cars as a class 2 flammable.
In fact, several people, myself included, stated outright that the shipper will likely have to pay more in fees, insurance and such and most likely will have to placard the cars as a class 2 flammable.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
daveklepper It may very well be that there is not room for magentic track brakes between the bottom of the regular three piece freightcar truck and the top of the rail . If the normal light rail type track brake won;'t fit...
It may very well be that there is not room for magentic track brakes between the bottom of the regular three piece freightcar truck and the top of the rail . If the normal light rail type track brake won;'t fit...
The thing is that the normal type of 'transit' track brake isn't going to have the structure to 'tie into' that it would need to achieve the desired deceleration rate for a loaded car's mass.
But this brings up a slightly different potential scenario: if the magnetic brakes are not 'fully' capable of decelerating the train, they can certainly implement some degree of differential braking independent of the modulation of the air-brake system itself. And that, in and of itself, might make even a 'discontinuous' system of magnetic brakes on some of the cars a worthwhile project to consider for some circumstances...
When I looked into the idea of magnetic brakes many years ago, I assumed that they would have to be mounted on a 'sled' of some sort, running on its own small carrier or even guide wheels, and connected to the centersill of the car with some sort of linkage capable of taking the full braking moment without putting the wrong kind of thrust on the car. Now one idea of this was that if a truck were to derail, the sled (and the electromagnetic bar and 'shoe') would still largely be aligned with the rail for a perhaps significant time, during which the magnetics might tend to hold the car more 'centered' in the available clearance gage than might otherwise be the case.
(Just in case anyone misses it -- one reason I gave up on this is the derailments that would occur if any part of the 'sled' or its linkage wound up where it shouldn't be... so don't anyone start up threads on a third bold new method of arresting oil trains in their tracks... ;-} )
I think the rest of my proposal, electric brake control, uniform braking, and derailment detection though use of locomotive wheel-slip technology, measuring the rotation of the front and rear axles of each car and comparing the front and rear axles of each car...
Except that we will already have a much better derailment detector in the little RFID module glued on each sideframe end, above the bearing carrier, that is recording and transmitting shock information from wheel flats or out-of-roundness. The first sign of a derailment isn't going to be differential wheel rotation nearly as soon as it's significant shock, no? Then all you need is a small encoder on the bolster that measures absolute truck swing, and the necessary PAN-scale connectivity and small transmitter needed to signal 'derailment' to the PTC system that will ... well, modulate what braking method or other special systems are involved in stopping the train as safely as possible. Cheap, easy, ACTUALLY robust in an engineering sense... and synergistic in what it provides operating and maintenance people.
Not that I disagree with encoders on the wheelsets, but there's so much more maintenance and potential failure points/modes involved with that. If you do, I'd engrave Hall-effect-suitable 'teeth' on the wheelset rims, and let a periodic pass through retarders keep 'em faced and trued... and put the sensor carriage on the brake-shoe assembly somewhere...
It may very well be that there is not room for magentic track brakes between the bottom of the regular three piece freightcar truck and the top of the rail . If the normal light rail type track brake won;'t fit, I think the resto of my proposal, electric brake control, uniform braking, and derailment detection though use of locomotive wheel-slip technology, measuring the rotation of the front and rear axles of each car and comparing the front and rear axles of each car. will be a marked improvement of the existing situation, and simpler to implement that Euclid's non-uniform approach. Note that in many cases it will stop the train faster, which may prevent a disaster in a fraction of these cases.
I did not intend to propose special track brakes for the first test train. Simply to determine what existing track brakes will do, what if any problems there are in their use in emergencies, and whether it is worhtwhile pursuing this portion of the project.
Norm,
I am moving your post over here.
You now have moderator privileges and can move or delete posts at will?
Norm
Posted by Norm48327
onFri, Feb 14 2014 6:52 PM
I am moving your post over here. My idea is indeed to prevent cars from piling up in the event of a derail, as you point out. But I can’t promise that it will work every time.
That kinetic energy that you mention does have to go somewhere, but not necessarily to piling up the cars. It can be dissipated in the dragging of the derailed cars, and the braking of the cars still on the rails. Nothing has to stop on a dime. That would be impossible, as you say. Stopping a typical oil train might require ¾ mile. If one car derailed, but did not begin to tear up the track, the following cars might stay on the rails. Then that one car might drag that entire ¾ mile. It would add to the stopping power of the train, but not much.
If the first car did start tearing up track, then one car after another might derail at the same point. If it took the train ¾ mile to stop, you would have ¾ mile of tank cars dragging on the ground by the time the train stopped. The more cars that derail, the greater they will resist forward movement. If they resist too much, the cars behind might push into them and jacknife them. But if the cars ahead are pulling on the derailed cars, it will help overcome that excess resistance that would get them jacknifed by the cars behind.
But if the resistance of the derailed cars is too great, the pull of the cars ahead might break a drawbar. When that happens, the dragging resistance of the derailed cars will go way up, and the trailing cars will push into them and jacknife them if their braking cannot keep up with sudden added resistance of the derailed cars.
At this point, the system will have failed. The first of the detached derailed cars will skew and begin a jacknife process. However, by that time, the train may have slowed from 40 mph down to 20 mph. So the destructive jacknifing begins at 20 rather than at 40. That is less kinetic energy to push into the pileup. Also a factor in the mitigation is the fact that by the time the jacknifing begins at 20 mph with a sizeable number of cars on the ground, the number of cars on the rails behind the derailment has been reduced as cars have derailed. That reduction in the number of cars on the rails behind the derailment reduces the kinetic energy of those cars just as the reduction of speed does.
So, by the time the cars start to jacknife, maybe only a few of them do so before the train comes to a stop. Without this mitigation process, a derailment at 40 mph might have accordioned 30 cars into a tightly compacted heap.
So it is a balancing act with a lot of offsetting factors at play. But so is an air bag in a vehicle a balancing act. Trains have been known to derail and rerail on the fly after running on the ground for some distance. That too is a balancing act
Just ECP brakes alone would go a long way toward this mitigation effect because of their simultaneous application. Experts have cited this benefit in preventing derailments caused by UDE events. ECP brakes also produce fewer UDE events. So all I am proposing is to go just a little deeper into the basic advantage of ECP brakes, and extend it from just preventing derailments to controlling them once they begin. I am only proposing the addition of just a little bitty extra control feature that blends right into the ECP system. It is a natural extension.
schlimm blue streak 1 CN is now charging more for older DOT-111 cars. http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/management/cbr-cn-charging-more-for-pre-cpc-1232-tank-cars.html?channel=44 Another example of the kind of constructive changes that the some rail careerists said were impossible too costly or illegal.
blue streak 1 CN is now charging more for older DOT-111 cars. http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/management/cbr-cn-charging-more-for-pre-cpc-1232-tank-cars.html?channel=44
CN is now charging more for older DOT-111 cars.
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/management/cbr-cn-charging-more-for-pre-cpc-1232-tank-cars.html?channel=44
Who among us said impossible?
23 17 46 11
IF!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
dehusmanI assume that the magnetic brakes will be attached to the trucks.
As a very quick note: no, they would not be. They'll be conventional three-piece trucks, so very little area for the brake between the wheels, and no good place to hang them. (For the same reason tender-style locating chains would be of comparatively little value... the 'chains' would have to be applied against something like spring pressure to keep the bolster orthogonal to the underframe.)
Bolsters can easily be pinned to kingpins; it's keeping the sideframes out of skew and the bearing carriers located in the sideframes that's the main fun in a derailment. Aren't the old Car Builder's Cyclopedias full of patent devices to keep the sideframes aligned with the bolster during shocks or accident?
Skew bracing of the 'usual sort' may or may not help in a derailment. I'd be concerned that if you bent part of a skew brace, it would then act with enhanced leverage to misalign the sideframes rather than hold things steady albeit a bit whopperjobbed...
Ask Dave Klepper how long his brakeshoes are, and how wide the magnets need to be, to give effective braking on a loaded car. They sure won't be suspended from the carframe!
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I agree with safety chains on trucks. And I agree your system would work. But the computer technology to make it work, and it may tolerate more dissimilar cars, is more complicated and the control is more complicated. Simpler to insure all cars identacle and use my simpler and more off-the-shelf components system. If a heavier car than normal does show up, simply insure it is directly behind the lead locomotives. If a lighter car does show up, simply insure it is the very last car on the train. But all cars must be equipped for the system.
Dave Klepper,
I think both of our concepts are basically trying to accomplish the same goal. That is to prevent the cars behind the derailment from pushing into the derailment and forcing the derailing cars to jackknife and pile up in an accordion heap.
Both concepts depend on the train not breaking in two due to the chaos of the derailment or too much braking force on the cars behind the derailment compared to the cars ahead of the derailment. In your system, you intend that braking force to be equal. In my system, I intend it to be unequal, but not to the point where it pulls the train in two. And also not to the point where it stringlines the train on a curve.
In your system, if equal braking could maintain the distance of the zone occupied by the derailed cars at a constant length; that would keep the derailed cars in line because, if they were to jackknife, the length of that derailment zone would have to get shorter. Therefore, maintaining that zone at a constant length due to uniform braking would prevent jackknifing of the derailed cars. So I can see the point of your objective.
In my system, I also want to maintain that derailment zone length, but I also want to add a little tension to make sure it does not begin to close up during the derailment. This tension is certainly not the full extent of what would be possible if the trailing brakes were all set fully and the leading brakes were all released. Not only would that stringline any curve, but it would pull the train in two in a heartbeat.
I mentioned that my system would have a controller that would account for factors such as speed and tonnage. One other factor it would account for is location of the train on the line. This would tell it whether the train was rounding a curve or not.
Curves do limit the potential of this system because it must limit the tension on the cars ahead of the derailment in order to prevent stringlining. But even when the tension is limited somewhat, it will still offer benefit over trains without this system. Trains generally spend a lot more time on tangents than on curves. Some curves are sharper than others. So compromising somewhat for sharper curves is not a showstopper by any means. In any case, the tension must be very limited in order to prevent the train from being pulled in two. Many curves are not sharp enough to require tension to be further reduced from that amount.
In my system, if the derailment were actually occurring in a curve, the controller would not add any tension at all. It would keep both braking zones identical in braking force. Therefore, overall, I do not expect this system to ever result in stringlining a curve.
I think that both of our systems would benefit from safety chains on the trucks like those that were used on steam locomotive tenders. I have been thinking about those and suddenly realize the full operational intent of those.
You are correct. But one a car and a follower with a problem are a lot different than the whole train with the problem, the current case. If the couplers hold, the braking of the following cars will slow the derailed car even without trucks. If the first derailed car breaks free, without the coupler holding, than at least the following cars are braking to a stop. Assuming the situtation you describe.
In many derailments the train remains coupled, and the situation you describe does not exist, or when a break-in-two occurs, the body remains attached to the trucks, not leaving the roadbed.
Adding measures to keep the trucks in position with more than gravity is a good question.
Also note that fast braking may in some cases avoid an accident that otherwise would occur.
The cars both of you are forgetting about are the derailed cars which will NOT have a uniform or controlled deceleration.
I assume that the magnetic brakes will be attached to the trucks. Since your plan requires a deceleration rate higher than emergency (shorter stopping distance), how have you made sure the cars do not come off the trucks? All that keeps the cars on the trucks is gravity and a roughly 2" lip on the center bowl. How do you keep the momentum of the car from shoving the car off the rapidly decelerating truck?
Uniform braking is essential to my proposal and is achievable. If it can be obtained on a 11 car train of Flushing Line subway cars, it can also be obtained on a 100-car freight train, provided all cars and their loading are identacle. (Note that the people loading of the subway train is not uniform, but the slight differences do not result in the bucking and banging between cars that was typical when the IRT ran trailers as well as motors in trains, that is typical in a normal manafest freight train braking to a stop, anf that could even be heard between cars on short interuban trains, such as use of old equipment for ffan trips on the Liberty Bell Line.). Uniform braking will avoid pile-ups
I also agree that your differential braking system will reduce if not eliminate pile-ups, without uniform braking. However, it willl definitely cause stringing when derailmens occur on curves, and this can be as serious in some cases.
dehusmandaveklepperAgain, the only reason for the USUAL pile-up in an emergency brake application is non-uniform braking. With uniform braking no pile-up will occur because of the braking. Really? Do you have any actual data to support that statement (since it seems foundational to all the proposals here)? So if I have a uniform train of very similar cars loaded in a similar fashion with very similar brake systems and the train goes in emergency, they won't pile up?
daveklepperAgain, the only reason for the USUAL pile-up in an emergency brake application is non-uniform braking. With uniform braking no pile-up will occur because of the braking.
Really? Do you have any actual data to support that statement (since it seems foundational to all the proposals here)?
So if I have a uniform train of very similar cars loaded in a similar fashion with very similar brake systems and the train goes in emergency, they won't pile up?
The statement you quoted from Dave Klepper is not foundational to all proposals here, as you say.
Uniform braking is a basic component of Dave Klepper’s proposal, but not of my proposal. I could have uniform braking if it were needed because ECP brakes permit it, but my concept relies fundamentally on differentiated braking in two distinct zones. For the most part, the braking would be uniform within each of those zones.
Regarding you example of a uniform train of very similar cars loaded in a similar fashion with very similar brake systems:
If those similar brake systems are conventional air brake systems; and if the train goes into emergency; there will not be uniform braking, as your example assumes. Dave Klepper's comment about the USUAL pile-up assumes the conventional air brake systems where emergency braking is not uniform in its application throughout the train.
daveklepper Again, the only reason for the USUAL pile-up in an emergency brake application is non-uniform braking. With uniform braking no pile-up will occur because of the braking.
Again, the only reason for the USUAL pile-up in an emergency brake application is non-uniform braking. With uniform braking no pile-up will occur because of the braking.
(hint search Google images for "coal train wrecks")
All electronics should have 100% redundancy, check each other continually, and warn if there are discrepencies.
Tree68. With you completely on that score. With the battery, head-end-power connection, and two axle generators, there is zero problem in powering the speciallized computer.
Euclid ...only the derailment sensors plus a variety of other sensors.
I think you'll find that this means that there will be a computer on each car.
If each car sends data for every single sensor, that digital trainline will get pretty busy. Having a computer on each car means that the car can track the sensors and only send data when something is amiss, or periodically as a "keepalive" signal ("I'm still here!").
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...
Again, the only reason for the USUAL pile-up in an emergency brake application is non-uniform braking. With uniform braking no pile-up will occur because of the braking. And Euclid's differential braking system is certain to cause stringing on curves (if there is a derailment), which will result in additlional cars being derailed.
Eucllid may respond with "my seonsors will sense the curve and remove the differential braking." But if this is a safe stop on a curve, then it will also be safe on straight track and the differentiall ffeature is not necesary anyway!
zugmannEuclidIn many cases, that emergency braking exacerbates the derailment damage and promotes a pileup. so your system will differentiate from a UDE (undesired emergency application) and the "oh ----" application (or desired emergency application?) So my point being, when I pull the big red handle int he cab, am I at the mercy of sensors, computers and software? Or do I just make a direct 90lb reduction? I know, I know, newer engines already have electronic air brakes, but that's one computer as opposed to 80+ on an oil train.
EuclidIn many cases, that emergency braking exacerbates the derailment damage and promotes a pileup.
so your system will differentiate from a UDE (undesired emergency application) and the "oh ----" application (or desired emergency application?)
So my point being, when I pull the big red handle int he cab, am I at the mercy of sensors, computers and software? Or do I just make a direct 90lb reduction? I know, I know, newer engines already have electronic air brakes, but that's one computer as opposed to 80+ on an oil train.
My system will not react to either the UDE or an intentional emergency application. It only reacts to a derailment the instant it begins. It does that by detecting a derailment by a derailment sensor on each car that can distinguish one end of the car from the other. There are no computers on the cars; only the derailment sensors plus a variety of other sensors.
Those other sensors monitor the performance of the ECP brakes and perform other supplementary monitoring functions such as bearing temperature. Those other sensors are not a fundamental necessity for my system, but they are simply added protection. The only computer for all of this is on the engine.
The differential braking feature of this system activates automatically upon detection of a derailment, but it can be manually overridden if the engineer suddenly finds a need to stop faster than the stop provided by the system.
Incidentally, with ECP brakes and far fewer air hose couplings, there will be fewer UDEs with this system.
I dicussed this thoroughly. It is off-the-shelf technology differently applied. The front and rear axles on each tankcar would have alternator-generators, keeping the car's battery charged via rectifiers, although in normal operation head-end power would do the job. The second purpose of these alternators is to allow the usual EMD or GE locomotive slip-protection control to yell to the locomotives display and to activate the braking system if big enough differences exist between between the front and rear axles of the car, which I assure you always happens in a derailment.
Maybe I missed it somewhere in this thread, but how will these derailment sensors detect a derailment?
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
How would these work?
Also, after an emergency application, you do have to recharge the airline and reservoirs on the cars. Unless the system re-figures how the airbrakes are set up. This is some heavy stuff we're getting into. Way above my paygrade.
Euclid, it produces a pileup only because the braking isn't uniform, but startsat front with the rear keeping moving. You are throwing what is called a red herring, something not applicable to electric control of braking. It will not produce a pileup with electric braking and uniform braking, whether or not magnetic track brakes supplement the electrically controled air brakes.
CSSHEGEWISCHNice proposal without a lot of specifics, why doesn't this proposal include some real engineering to support it
Thanks. I understand that this proposal needs to be verified by engineering, but that comes later. The first task is to simply explain it clearly in terms of the objective and how it will be accomplished. It is that age-old problem. Everybody needs details to understand something, but brevity is the most understandable.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.