Imagine Euclid's train on your bridge, but a curved bridge, with the derailment at a center car, stringing, drawbars insead of couplers, and the one car pulling the entire train off the bridge. What is below? A highway? Houses? A river?
zugmannI always shudder at the use of the term "smart" for something that adds a lot of extra steps, sensors, and software to what should be an immediate and direct response, IMO. Open the brake pipe, (KAPOW!), and you come screeching to a halt. You want to add that stuff to regular applications? I'm cool with that... but seriously, with an emergency application, keep it simple. If I need an emergency stop, I want the stuff to stop for a very important reason.
I know what you mean about the term, smart. It is actually a green buzzword that I find annoying, but I use it to tweak the green movement as pushback against their agenda that is attached to this oil train fireball crisis. You could call this a Smart Oil Train.
But as far as keeping it simple by going right into emergency, my system is intended to prevent the train from going into emergency. I don’t want the train to come to a screeching halt. You get that automatically, whether you want it or not, in the case of a derailment with conventional air brakes. In many cases, that emergency braking exacerbates the derailment damage and promotes a pileup.
Dave Klepper is advocating that the key to reducing derailment damage is to stop the train as fast as possible. I disagree with that.
daveklepperNoe that the front section staying on the rail will be noted on the engineer's computer display, because all cars have derail sensors, not just the car that derailed behind the break-in-two.
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.
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 daveklepperIf there is a break-in-two. then the engnineer should have the option of immediately releasing the emergency appllication on the front section only and handling this section as suites the particular circumstances, including, in some case, allowing the emergency brakes on the front section to continiue. But if a train breaks in two, you are assuming the front half is staying on the rail. There may be derailed cars that will only be seen by an inspection (barring some sort of derailment detecting device that bucky euclid alludes to - curious how that will work). So you release the emergency application, take off, and promptly toss a derailed oil tank car off a bridge, or down an embankment on top of someone's car? If something happens that breaks a train in two, you don't just want to keep going and hope everything is ok. And loading these cars up with computers, sensors, and microschips - that is going to add a lot of work to car inspector/maintainer jobs.
daveklepperIf there is a break-in-two. then the engnineer should have the option of immediately releasing the emergency appllication on the front section only and handling this section as suites the particular circumstances, including, in some case, allowing the emergency brakes on the front section to continiue.
But if a train breaks in two, you are assuming the front half is staying on the rail. There may be derailed cars that will only be seen by an inspection (barring some sort of derailment detecting device that bucky euclid alludes to - curious how that will work).
So you release the emergency application, take off, and promptly toss a derailed oil tank car off a bridge, or down an embankment on top of someone's car? If something happens that breaks a train in two, you don't just want to keep going and hope everything is ok.
And loading these cars up with computers, sensors, and microschips - that is going to add a lot of work to car inspector/maintainer jobs.
That is exactly why I want the train to automatically stop as unifromly and as quickly as possible. If the engineer presses the override button to get out of place fast, he must have a very very good reason to do so, and be able to know that his or her doing so is going to reduce property and human life damage. That is why I do not want differntial braking automatically or anything automatically except stopping the train as quickly, uniformly, and safely as possible. Euclid wants to trust a computer to make such decisions, but I prrefer an engineers who can look back at the train, read all the information at the time of the emergency, and usually let the train brake to a stop, doing something different only when he is reasonably cerain it is the best thing to do. Noe that the front section staying on the rail will be noted on the engineer's computer display, because all cars have derail sensors, not just the car that derailed behind the break-in-two.
Euclid 6) A controller that initiates a “smart emergency” automatic response upon detection of a derailment by the derailment sensors. This response applies less braking on the cars ahead of the derailment than it does on the cars behind the derailment. The system varies these brake applications according to train tonnage, train speed, location of the derailment in the train, and location of the train on the line.
I always shudder at the use of the term "smart" for something that adds a lot of extra steps, sensors, and software to what should be an immediate and direct response, IMO. Open the brake pipe, (KAPOW!), and you come screeching to a halt. You want to add that stuff to regular applications? I'm cool with that... but seriously, with an emergency application, keep it simple. If I need an emergency stop, I want the stuff to stop for a very important reason.
I think a reasonable compromise could be found where the magnetic track brakes would contribute usefully to stopping power For starters i would use models used on transit vehicles without trying to increase their power to account for the added weight of a loaded tank car. Based on my experience with transit use, I doubt the harm you mention would occur -- unless there was repeated use in the same spot .
Euclid should learn that not all railroad is on straight track. A derailment on a curve can often result in stringing, and differential braking as Euclid proposes would make it a certainty. Fast and uniform braking would reduce this tendincy.
daveklepper There are sitiuations where differential braking will cause more problems than solve, such as derailmenet on a bridge, where the differential may create additinal strain.
There are sitiuations where differential braking will cause more problems than solve, such as derailmenet on a bridge, where the differential may create additinal strain.
I would opine that the magnetic braking might fall into the same category.
The track structure is intended to keep the rails in guage - ie, limit side-to-side movement. Lengthwise, the rails are allowed to move.
Trying to stop a heavy train almost instaneously from 30+ MPH would likely cause the rails to slide in their anchors, until they found a weak spot in the structure. That might be a switch or a curve, or even just a rail joint. At that point, it's gonna look like a sun kink on steroids and cars that might have otherwise stayed on the rails are going to be on the ground.
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...
Nice proposal without a lot of specifics, why doesn't this proposal include some real engineering to support it
I have restated my original premise from the beginning of this thread to eliminate some of the features and add clarity.
THE EUCLID SYSTEM OF DERAILMENT DAMAGE MITIGATION FOR OIL TRAINS
BASIC ELEMENTS:
1) Cars semi-permanently coupled with extra strength solid drawbars; either in full trains, or in multiple car-sets which are separated by standard knuckle couplers and separable air hoses.
2) Truck anti-pivot safety chains.
3) Electronically controlled pneumatic brakes (ECP brakes).
4) Cars equipped with sensors to monitor temperature of running components, vibration, sound, motion, etc.
5) Cars equipped with derailment sensors to detect a derailment the instant it begins.
6) A controller that initiates a “smart emergency” automatic response upon detection of a derailment by the derailment sensors. This response applies less braking on the cars ahead of the derailment than it does on the cars behind the derailment. The system varies these brake applications according to train tonnage, train speed, location of the derailment in the train, and location of the train on the line.
The purpose is to keep tension on the cars ahead of the derailment and on the cars that have derailed in order to keep the derailed cars in line with the track as much as possible.
< ------~~~------ >
I srill say if there is no break-in-two, then stopping the whole train as quickly as posible in the event of a derailment is uniformly the safest procedure. This assumes no jacknifing and thus electrically-appllied brakes with all brakes acting unifromly. If there is a break-in-two. then the engnineer should have the option of immediately releasing the emergency appllication on the front section only and handling this section as suites the particular circumstances, including, in some case, allowing the emergency brakes on the front section to continiue. If the derailment occurs in the middle of a fire, then obviously he is going want to get-the-h__l out of the place as quickly as possible. If whatever danger caused the derailment back in the train is minor compared to a danger a half mile down the line, he may wish to allow the emergency brake application to continue.
And I want the test train to be equiped with indivdiual couiplers for each car to have the train suite the applciiation exactly - as well as minimizing ovefall effects of any car sbad-ordered for any reason.
I think differentially applied brakes can create more problems and be far less safe than stopping as quickly as possible, safely and uniformly.
The trick, is to build a better mouse trap without reinventing the wheel.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
tree68So it appears that we're all in agreement that differential braking won't work. Semi-permanent drawbars won't make a difference because they still have to have enough play for the train to go through turnouts and around fairly sharp curves. The play necessary to do so will allow a car to skew if the forces pushing on it from behind are great enough - and probably enough to force it off the rails and into an accordian if the cars ahead of it have stopped fairly abruptly. Most, if not all, hazmat tank cars already have shelf couplers, which have the same effect as the suggested drawbars. Thing is, the only thing keeping the trucks on the cars is gravity. I'd say the whole idea is "busted," as they say on Mythbusters.
Semi-permanent drawbars won't make a difference because they still have to have enough play for the train to go through turnouts and around fairly sharp curves. The play necessary to do so will allow a car to skew if the forces pushing on it from behind are great enough - and probably enough to force it off the rails and into an accordian if the cars ahead of it have stopped fairly abruptly.
Most, if not all, hazmat tank cars already have shelf couplers, which have the same effect as the suggested drawbars. Thing is, the only thing keeping the trucks on the cars is gravity.
I'd say the whole idea is "busted," as they say on Mythbusters.
You know what they always say: “Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door with a list of reasons why it won’t work.”
The stronger drawbars are not intended to directly prevent jackknifing or accordion action. Those effects are prevented by pulling on the train to keep it stretched tight. The stronger drawbars are necessary to withstand that pull.
The pull on the cars comes from differentiating the braking so the cars behind the derailment have more braking than the car ahead of it.
It is not rocket science. It won’t prevent derailments. It won’t prevent all damage. But it will help to limit the damage; just like shelf couplers and head shields do.
.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Some replies don't seem to refer to what I actually wrote. Any derailment will immediately apply both the normal airbrakes and the magnetic track brakes. If the engineer wishes to press an override button for an immediate release, he may do so. With well-maintained uniform equipment, there should be very little slack action, and depending on what the derailed car encounters, there can be littlle or zero accordianing. Or stringing.
Track structure. I did have one personal experience on a PCC car coming to an emergency stop on very weed-grown undermaintained lightweight track. There was no track damage. After a bunch of passengers lifted the offending vehicle that the PCC would not have cleared off to the side, we started up and proceeded as if nothing happened. Admitadly, a PCC is way way lighter than a 100-car loaded oil train, but the trackj structure was also way way lighter. After any cleanup, obviously the entire track structure from the point of rear-car first brake application should be inspected, but whatever damage is suffered is small change compared meeting a train on an opposing track, heading into buildings, or whatever. I probably exaggerated when I said stopping distance like a private automobile, and more realistic would be halving the current stopping distance, still very worthwhile. There would be no brakes not contolled by electricity in an emergency, except possibly those on the lead locomotives. In normal operation the engineer would and should be given the option of using or not using electric control, the options primarily to control slack action.
I think with respect to Lac Megantic, the brakes applying thte moment one car left the rails, this would have averted the disaster. Of course! But we also know that if any brakes on all cars had been applied at any time before or up to the derailment, the disaster would not have occured. What is true is that if the string of tankcars had been left alone with a dead locomotive, all without any airbrakes, the air in all airtanks having leaked off, and the train started rolling, at least the magnetic track brakes would have applied on all cars once there was a derailment, and the disaster would have been avoided or sharply mitigated. The electfically controlled airbrakes would have "applied", but without any air-pressue from the airtanks, they would have been ineffective, and only the magnetic trackbrakes would have applied. Remember, each tankcar does have a battery and two axle-driven alternator-generators which double as sensors for derailment detection.
Murphy Siding If you have 100 tank cars screeching to a halt, isn't that enough transfer of forces to simply peel up the track...and derail the train?
If you have 100 tank cars screeching to a halt, isn't that enough transfer of forces to simply peel up the track...and derail the train?
Murph,
The formula I found for kinetic energy is somewhat above my pay grade, but a quick run through of one 286,000 lb car at 60 MPH found that energy to be, pardon the pun, in TONS; many of them. The braking force necessary to stop just one car in a short distance far exceeds the capabilities of both air and magnetic brakes. The latter would simply rip uo the rails.
Norm
tree68So it appears that we're all in agreement that differential braking won't work.
Speak for yourself. I see no showstopping reason why differential braking, EITHER with ECP or with some type of electromagnetic track brake, is not possible; I think there are good reasons to investigate its utility... particularly considering the relative lack of other approaches that will deal with an evolving 'derailment event.'
If we accept the argument about 'play' in the drawbars leading to skew and then accordioning, then the immediate sensible conclusion that follows is that "the cars ahead of it must NOT stop fairly abruptly" ... which again is something involving controlled braking.
The shelf couplers only have the effect of preventing vertical disengagement of the knuckles (and exposure of a 'naked' knuckle to punch through an adjacent tank). This still leaves relatively small components to take loads like -- well, like the skew loads that were just mentioned; I'd be surprised if a pair of knuckle pins close to the effective center of the 'bar' being bent would survive better than whatever arrangement prevails at the outer ends of a drawbar connection. (I also wonder whether the prismatic contour of a type F makes it a better 'penetrator' in off-axis contact... but that's probably a minor point.)
I repeat that I think it was something of a mistake for Euclid to defend the heavy drawbar-and-underframe idea so protractedly early on, as it detracted from the better argument that his solution depends highly on differential braking to keep the derailed cars from skewing. The 'other stuff' is basically just the Miller coupler arguments with more mass and longer consists involved (neither of which is trivial, of course, but the basic idea of keeping the train together and unskewed at all costs is still inherent.)
Problem is that you can't predict how any particular event is going to evolve. In the Lac Megantic wreck, I don't see how any system of 'keeping cars together' would have helped with the outcome, Dave's brake would either have prevented it early or been of no practical use, and an ECP brake not equipped with remote modulation would have been of little or no help either. The anecdotal Miller coupler results all ippeared to involve situations where the connected consist could run off the track in a fairly straight line until it stopped, with the avoidance of telescoping being the primary 'end'. Derailing a long heavy consist, on an excessively sharp curve near the middle of town, with both ends now being pulled toward the point of derailment, isn't going to end well no matter how the cars are connected together...
On the other hand, wrecks that involve casual contact between derailed cars and adjacent consists may be very well addressed by a system that holds the cars in line and prevents them from torquing over to the point their structure is 'compromised' (charming expression!) by collision with something else. Now, I confess that if I were the mad inventor, I'd be thinking about shields at the top of the car that would protect against oblique impact at the upper ends, and 'self-restore' the car to upright position as far as possible after contact, as there is likely no arrangement of drawbars capable of going around curves that will be assured of holding the car fully upright in a derailment event... a topic that has not so far been given much play.
Why don't we like slack or knuckles? Sometimes I wonder how many broken knuckles would have turned into a major derailment (or car torn in half) if it wasn't for the broken knuckle?
So it appears that we're all in agreement that differential braking won't work.
daveklepperStopping all the cars as a unit behind any car that has derailed is what I mean, and as quickly as possible. Do you understand that? With all cars identacle, electric control of brakes, and magnetic track brakes supplementing the usual tread brakes.
So, with the system you are proposing, all of the cars in the train would have magnetic track brakes, and some form of electrically controlled air brakes. Then when a derailment is sensed, all of the track brakes behind the point of derailment apply automatically to a maximum application force; and all of the electrically controlled air brakes remain released. And all of the magnetic track brakes ahead of the derailment remain released.
Then, as you say, the engineer manually controls the electrically controlled air brakes only on the cars ahead of the point of derailment. I don’t know anything about magnetic track brakes, but I assume they are a supplementary brake system for quick emergency stops, and are either fully applied or fully released.
In any case, I wonder about this: Say a sensor detects a wheel on the ties about the middle of a 100 car train, and it applies the magnetic brakes fully on the 50 cars behind the point of derailment. If the stopping force is anything like what you say it is, this would be like a conventional emergency application on steroids.
When this happens, the first 50 cars will be running with brakes fully released. With 50 cars running out against 50 cars that are suddenly thrown into super braking, won’t that conflict of forces instantly pull a drawbar or break a knuckle somewhere close to the dividing line between the free running cars and the cars that are in full magnetic track brake application? I don’t see how the engineer could possibly react fast enough to avoid that outcome even if he instantly made a full emergency application on the leading 50 cars.
And I also wonder about this: When a derailment is sensed, I assume that the electrically controlled air brake system will be automatically cut out behind the point of derailment. It cannot remain active throughout the derailing cars because as they derail, they may part and put the entire electrically controlled air brake system into emergency, and thus prevent the engineer from exercising any manual control over that system on the 50 cars ahead of the derailment.
And also: When the conflict of force occurs between the 50 cars with magnetic track brakes applied and the 50 cars with all brakes released; and it breaks the train in two near that dividing line, that beak may not be in the 50 cars behind the derailment. It may be very well be close to the derailment, as expected, but in the cars right ahead of the derailment. When that happens, the engineer will again face an automatic emergency application of the first 50 cars, and thus lose manual control of braking them. This would happen despite the fact that the automatic response system has cut off the electrically controlled air brake system behind the point of derailment.
Do you agree with my conclusions?
dehusman daveklepper It is not the weight of the car that causes the friction, but the magnetic attraction. Stopping like an automobile may be an exaggeration considering the greater weight of a loaded tankcar compared with an interurban or light rail car or streetcar. But it will certainly be a very great improvement over disk or tread brakes alone. Do you have any information on how the track structure will stand up to absorbing the force of stopping 100 286k tank cars in 200 ft? Will the ballast and tie structure be able to handle that amount of loading? Will it shove the rails out of alignment in a curve? The conventional system puts a lot of the energy into heat either burning the brake shoes or burning flat spots in the wheels. Even at that the rail at the bottom of a hill can be shoved out of alignment by heavy braking. With magnetic systems there will be a lot more force transferred to the rails (and thus ties and ballast). Stopping an oil train is several orders of magnitude higher than stopping a trolley car. Will a stop by a magnetic system load up forces in the rails that may result in a subsequent train derailing if it stops in the same area?
daveklepper It is not the weight of the car that causes the friction, but the magnetic attraction. Stopping like an automobile may be an exaggeration considering the greater weight of a loaded tankcar compared with an interurban or light rail car or streetcar. But it will certainly be a very great improvement over disk or tread brakes alone.
It is not the weight of the car that causes the friction, but the magnetic attraction. Stopping like an automobile may be an exaggeration considering the greater weight of a loaded tankcar compared with an interurban or light rail car or streetcar. But it will certainly be a very great improvement over disk or tread brakes alone.
Stopping all the cars as a unit behind any car that has derailed is what I mean, and as quickly as possible. Do you understand that? With all cars identacle, electric control of brakes, and magnetic track brakes supplementing the usual tread brakes.
I do NOT agree with Euclid's idea of trying to guess what the derailed car is going to do and modifying the braking accordingly. This is an impossible task for any computer system. The handling of the train forward of the break-in-two and derailment should be left up to the engineer. with an override button that can release the brakes if he so chooses.
Euclid MurrayWhy did Bucky change his name? Euclid is the name; father of geometry is the game.
MurrayWhy did Bucky change his name?
Euclid is the name; father of geometry is the game.
BuckyAs I have mentioned, onboard detectors or sensors will be a key component of the oil train concept that I am proposing.
When you have sold one of your trains, let us know how it works. Good luck selling it.
tree68 EuclidBut I don't think anybody has proposed the effect of controlling that I am suggesting. There may be a reason for that...
EuclidBut I don't think anybody has proposed the effect of controlling that I am suggesting.
There may be a reason for that...
Indeed......
I can only imagine.......
Dave Klepper,
As I mentioned earlier, I wanted to ask you for some clarification on your idea using magnetic brakes. If I recall correctly, you mentioned that your idea will prevent derailments as opposed to only mitigating their destructive effects as I am proposing. However, I can’t locate the post in which you said that, so maybe I am confusing it with someone else’s point. However, if you did say that, how will your idea prevent derailments?
daveklepperBut I am assuming that the whole train acts as a unit, and under those circumstances, stoping the entire train behind the point of accident is certainly by far the safest procedure. For the portion of the train forward of the accident (assuming there is break-in-two at the accident), the override button will provide the engineer to judge this situation and do what is necessary to minimze any damage first to people and then to property.
In this quotation of one of your earlier comments, what do you mean when you refer to stopping the entire train behind the point of the accident?
Murray Norm48327 BaltACD Good idea Balt. I'll bring the butter and salt. This thread is going nowhere but in Bucky's usual circles. Why did Bucky change his name?
Norm48327 BaltACD Good idea Balt. I'll bring the butter and salt. This thread is going nowhere but in Bucky's usual circles.
BaltACD
Good idea Balt.
I'll bring the butter and salt.
This thread is going nowhere but in Bucky's usual circles.
Why did Bucky change his name?
Long, drawn out story behind that.
For this discussion perhaps you should consider "Newton" and the laws of physics.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.