Friends, I have a suggestion: since the horse has not only been beaten but flayed, let us leave it alone.
Johnny
Norm
tree68 Euclid So, why don’t you guys go and start your own thread about everything that is wrong with me instead of hijacking this one? Because at this point there is no further reason to continue the discussion. Your ideas have been aired, folks have pointed out potential shortcomings of same, and you simply reply by restating the same things over and over again. As we've seen many times, you simply won't take "no" for an answer, regardless of what others may offer.
Euclid So, why don’t you guys go and start your own thread about everything that is wrong with me instead of hijacking this one?
Because at this point there is no further reason to continue the discussion. Your ideas have been aired, folks have pointed out potential shortcomings of same, and you simply reply by restating the same things over and over again.
As we've seen many times, you simply won't take "no" for an answer, regardless of what others may offer.
I like Euclid and miss him when he disappears. He’s very thinkful of pertainments to public safety.
I have been looking at this thread. I can only reply that all of the safety devices on the MMA engines were functionaing normally... normally that is for a manned train.
I am certain that there is no one that wants safe oil transport more than I.
I don't have the answers beyond hiring more and better mechanical inspectors and more and better track inspections. To be honest I don't think there as a technology answer to the probem , I see it more as an engineering issue. At the time of the Megantic wreck I was surprised that there was a volitile mixture of oxygen and fuel in the cars and that the void wasn't filled with inert gas..
I don't think that oil trains derail more than other un-newsworthy trains.
Randy
No one is hijacking your thread.
Why after the feedback you have received on your "theories" can't you simply let is go and move on?
Why has this forum been subjected to 17 pages of your "yes but?"
Its time to give this a rest already!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U2zJOryHKQ
Murray Euclid So, why don’t you guys go and start your own thread about everything that is wrong with me instead of hijacking this one No one is hijacking your thread.
Euclid So, why don’t you guys go and start your own thread about everything that is wrong with me instead of hijacking this one
And I suppose all these recent critical posts and comments concern oil trains?
I have a little Youtube clip of my own to add.
If y'all think this is a dead horse thread, ignore it. If you think Euclid isn't taking the criticism or comments as wholly as you'd like, either just don't post, or if you just can't stand it, keep criticizing or educating ... but stop insulting. In case you hadn't noticed, this was his thread from the start, and nobody appointed any of us as thread police to shut it up, whether we like all the 'yes but' action and obtuse justification or not.
There are fairly firm Forum policies about ad hominem attacks and ridicule. I for one would greatly prefer it if we all respected them, and moved on.
You and Bucky are free to take your discourse here:
http://www.trainorders.com
Bucky - I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. I'm saying (as does Murray) that you've aired your thoughts, which is fine - what you haven't been getting is buy-in from much of anyone, and what you have been getting a goodly amount of "that doesn't square with reality."
I, for one, can't stand to see incorrect information posted here - I feel it necessary to debunk such claims, and I do. As has been noted here by many folks, you've posted stuff here that is little more than speculation while implying that it's fact. And when you're called on it, you come back with "yes, but..."
You also can't seem to accept it when someone points out some fallacy in your reasoning.
What may seem perfectly obvious to you oftimes doesn't bear the scrutiny of folks who have experience in the field.
I'm not always right - but at least if someone points it out to me, I'll take them at their word.
'Nuf said.
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...
MurrayYou and Bucky are free to take your discourse here: http://www.trainorders.com
I'll consider myself free to take my discourse anywhere I please. And I will abide by Forum principle when I do.
I happen to agree that much of the discussion in this thread is in fact tiresome and repetitive, and that some of the comments Euclid has made are unjustified in tone and dismissive both of other people's knowledge and of some of those people's honest attempts to help him see better perspectives on this hobby-horse issue. However, I find it interesting that, although Dave Husman has been one of the more relentless critics of the idea and of the technical methods Euclid has been discussing, and has been the recipient of some of the most virulent 'yes, but' kinds of reply, he has not joined in the mockery and dismissal that have typified the last few posts. If one of Euclid's ideas seems like a whopper, discuss it -- the idea -- as such. But the best thing to do, if you think the thread is pointless, is either ignore it or let it die in the usual course of these things; once it falls off the first page of active threads, it will disappear just like the earlier ones did.
Personally - I think Euclid needed to be at the TIGER grant summit a week ago to get his proposal organized, filed, and in the hands of proper review. That, not some Internet forum, is the sort of place he should be making his claims, defining his ideas, and gaining support for whatever practical system might eventually develop. I am deeply concerned that he is just 'sputin with folks on this and perhaps other forums, changing his detail back and forth in critical areas, without ever defining the set of ideas he's proposing and then coming up with practical details to implement them. Until he gets further than that, it's just Shari Lewis time...
Wizlish If one of Euclid's ideas seems like a whopper, discuss it -- the idea -- as such.
If one of Euclid's ideas seems like a whopper, discuss it -- the idea -- as such.
That's been tried, over and over. Bucky's refusal to see the viewpoint of others is the fly in the pointment.
That said, I agree he has a right to post whatever he thinks but so do the others have a right to correct his misinformation. His unwillingness to accept that is what provokes other posters.
Norm48327I agree he has a right to post whatever he thinks but so do the others have a right to correct his misinformation
Thoroughly agreed ... as long as correcting misinformation is the activity, and not just making fun of him or baiting him. Yes, it's infuriating when he keeps on going with some wack perspective or seems to be intentionally misunderstanding what someone is trying to tell him. I myself have lost patience with a couple of his assertions, so I'm not trying to pretend I'm less atreous.
I do think it's a bad precedent to try to run someone out of their own thread, though. I much preferred the gentle use of certain forms of off-topic post (root beer and candy being two notable 'hints') if for some reason the thread couldn't be left to die a natural death.
Wizlish Until he gets further than that, it's just Shari Lewis time...
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
One thing all these 'inovative solutions' overlook is the maintenance required to keep them operating as intended. The maintenance required is far in excess of what is presently used to keep equipment in good repair and operating within it's designed parameters.
Increased maintenance is increased cost. Who supplies the man power and picks up the tab?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Euclid I am just somebody who sees a rising problem of exploding oil trains growing with the fast rise in crude oil traffic. So I suggest ways to solve that problem. I think solving the problem will require changing something.
Your solutions are too far out on the timeline - even if all hands were on deck - to be of any practical value to the situation at hand.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
BaltACDOne thing all these 'innovative solutions' overlook is the maintenance required to keep them operating as intended. The maintenance required is far in excess of what is presently used to keep equipment in good repair and operating within its designed parameters.
Most of the stuff my father was working on is specifically designed for maintenance, and the various costs are defined or at least estimated in the system design. One of the reasons for going a bit overboard with 'connectivity' is to make it as easy as possible to maintain the system in good running condition, and to ensure what I think is called 'graceful degrade' if any parts of it break or become disabled. If the various components are monitored (or monitor themselves) and the system can 'phone home' if anything about it starts going wrong - with a detailed account of what's happening, how to fix it, and what components will be needed where - the real expense of maintenance (the emergency dispatch of manpower and equipment to distant locations, for example) can probably be avoided.
Yes, that increases the design and first costs, and puts additional complexity in the system. In the absence of some (relatively low-level) artificial intelligence this might create too many complex interactions to be safe. That's an issue to be discussed under a separate thread from ongoing maintenance and support.
Increased maintenance is increased cost. Who supplies the manpower and picks up the tab?
I think we are all agreed that the marginal cost of operating any 'safe oil train' system should eventually fall on the shippers (who may require some contribution from producers, etc.). Some percentage of the cost 'ought' to devolve on the Government, especially if safety equipment or procedures are 'mandated' with very high cost that can't be recovered reasonably from, say, surcharges on oil shipments. (My guess is that grants will cover most of the 'special' equipment involved in any dedicated oil-train safety stuff, specifically including the brake-specific parts of Euclid's plan if adopted. I'm waiting with some interest to see if, or perhaps when, we see if the new tank-car spec involves "ECP" as the Government considers it -- a magic bullet solution like PTC...)
To the extent that railroads are left 'holding the bag' for high maintenance, at a minimum they should request, and be granted, full deduction of those costs from the taxes they would otherwise be expected to pay. That's a delayed recovery, but in some cases it may provide subsidized benefits to the industry as a whole, for example if it allows 'shakedown' of different systems and components of ECP over time, or costing-down of 'conversion' kits for one-pipe cars and the like.
There's a lot more to this issue, and I look forward to seeing some of the different points of view and opinions.
Wizlish (My guess is that grants will cover most of the 'special' equipment involved in any dedicated oil-train safety stuff, specifically including the brake-specific parts of Euclid's plan if adopted. I'm waiting with some interest to see if, or perhaps when, we see if the new tank-car spec involves "ECP" as the Government considers it -- a magic bullet solution like PTC...) To the extent that railroads are left 'holding the bag' for high maintenance, at a minimum they should request, and be granted, full deduction of those costs from the taxes they would otherwise be expected to pay.
(My guess is that grants will cover most of the 'special' equipment involved in any dedicated oil-train safety stuff, specifically including the brake-specific parts of Euclid's plan if adopted. I'm waiting with some interest to see if, or perhaps when, we see if the new tank-car spec involves "ECP" as the Government considers it -- a magic bullet solution like PTC...)
To the extent that railroads are left 'holding the bag' for high maintenance, at a minimum they should request, and be granted, full deduction of those costs from the taxes they would otherwise be expected to pay.
I don't see any of that happening. The Government has not given any grants for PTC, all of the equipment, all of the installation and all of the maintenance is paid for by the railroads themselves, not the government. I see even less of an incentive for the government to get involved with oil train enhancements like ECP etc from a financial standpoint since its an even stickier wicket than PTC (more players).
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
WizlishThere's a lot more to this issue, and I look forward to seeing some of the different points of view and opinions.
Indeed - although the thread has been running now for some five weeks...
As has been suggested, this is still really early in the game. PTC became law in late 2008 and the end (full implementation) is still too far out to see from here.
PTC "cured" a problem that was largely non-existant. In the 20 years prior to Chatsworth, only two major loss-of-life incidents had occured that would have been prevented by PTC. The causes were later dealt with by rules changes.
The same can be said of many of the freight incidents. Many railroads use the SPAF (switch position awareness form). This is almost completely because of the incident in Graniteville.
There was no groundbreaking technology in that "fix." Just a simple change in procedure.
Barring a knee-jerk reaction by law makers (see PTC...), this issue is going to sort itself out. New standards and procedures will come forth and be implemented. But it's going to take time. A five week discussion on an on-line forum isn't going to solve the problem. None of us here (that I know of) have the connections or ability to implement anything of that magnitude. And any proposed solution will need to be evaluated.
So I, too, welcome some different points of view. A continuous rehashing of the same ideas, not so much.
dehusmanI don't see any of that happening. The Government has not given any grants for PTC, all of the equipment, all of the installation and all of the maintenance is paid for by the railroads themselves, not the government.
Not to say "yes, but..." in the wrong way -- but a great deal of the 'hard' part of PTC design and enablement was Government-underwritten, or at least assisted. The Meteorcomm SBRs are one example... would that technology have been developed if it had to be commercialized and standardized and marketed to railroads? This is the level I thought Government 'contribution' would be appropriate for oil-train 'safety systems'.
Meanwhile, I am tempted to say 'the government got what was coming to it' by mandating PTC without a corresponding Polaris/PERT-level technology organization and coordination effort -- which it could easily have engaged in. Pity.
I see even less of an incentive for the government to get involved with oil train enhancements like ECP etc from a financial standpoint since its an even stickier wicket than PTC (more players).
I think you are right, but it might be possible for a properly-designed system, presented 'right' to the right people in the right timeframe, to become adopted. So far, I haven't seen a train-control system or advanced brake system that wasn't designed by the kind of engineering effort that produced the SPV-2000. That's not to say either one can't be developed for the 'sandbox' environment that Bakken/Eagle Ford crude trains offers. Personally, I am hoping that the Government does mandate "ECP" for oil trains, because I'd like to see if anyone who steps up to the plate will 'get it'. Even if the result doesn't make sense to roll out across the full range of interchange cars, it can't be bad to have defined standards for 'national ECP' rather than just a continuation of the half-baked adaptations we seem to have had so far.
blue streak 1Any idea if the required replacement of the tank car valves noted in today's newswire has anything to do with explosions ?
Summarize what the story said (I don't get the Newswire) and perhaps I can tell.
Wizlish dehusman I don't see any of that happening. The Government has not given any grants for PTC, all of the equipment, all of the installation and all of the maintenance is paid for by the railroads themselves, not the government. Not to say "yes, but..." in the wrong way -- but a great deal of the 'hard' part of PTC design and enablement was Government-underwritten, or at least assisted. The Meteorcomm SBRs are one example... would that technology have been developed if it had to be commercialized and standardized and marketed to railroads? This is the level I thought Government 'contribution' would be appropriate for oil-train 'safety systems'. Meanwhile, I am tempted to say 'the government got what was coming to it' by mandating PTC without a corresponding Polaris/PERT-level technology organization and coordination effort -- which it could easily have engaged in. Pity. I see even less of an incentive for the government to get involved with oil train enhancements like ECP etc from a financial standpoint since its an even stickier wicket than PTC (more players). I think you are right, but it might be possible for a properly-designed system, presented 'right' to the right people in the right timeframe, to become adopted. So far, I haven't seen a train-control system or advanced brake system that wasn't designed by the kind of engineering effort that produced the SPV-2000. That's not to say either one can't be developed for the 'sandbox' environment that Bakken/Eagle Ford crude trains offers. Personally, I am hoping that the Government does mandate "ECP" for oil trains, because I'd like to see if anyone who steps up to the plate will 'get it'. Even if the result doesn't make sense to roll out across the full range of interchange cars, it can't be bad to have defined standards for 'national ECP' rather than just a continuation of the half-baked adaptations we seem to have had so far.
dehusman I don't see any of that happening. The Government has not given any grants for PTC, all of the equipment, all of the installation and all of the maintenance is paid for by the railroads themselves, not the government.
Why exactly are AAR Standards S-4200, 4210, 4220 and 4230 "half baked"?
There are trains running in North America, Oz, and South Africa using those specs. In fact the entire Fortiscue Metals Group ore car fleet is so equipped.
Buslist Why exactly are AAR Standards S-4200, 4210, 4220 and 4230 "half baked"? There are trains running in North America, Oz, and South Africa using those specs. In fact the entire Fortiscue Metals Group ore car fleet is so equipped.
Fortiscue is not a network of loose cars operating on multiple privately owned and operated railroads. Test enviornmnets and day in day out railroading in the US are two different worlds.
BaltACD Buslist Why exactly are AAR Standards S-4200, 4210, 4220 and 4230 "half baked"? There are trains running in North America, Oz, and South Africa using those specs. In fact the entire Fortiscue Metals Group ore car fleet is so equipped. Fortiscue is not a network of loose cars operating on multiple privately owned and operated railroads. Test enviornmnets and day in day out railroading in the US are two different worlds.
Of course that's true but it doesn't address the "half baked" comment. The network of loose cars and the lack of backward compatibility issue are the reasons ECP has not been adapted here, not a "half baked" spec issue. The lack of a migration path is the primary reason for lack of implementation. And I wouldn't call the Southern Companies PRB coal service a "test" enviorement.
Buslist Of course that's true but it doesn't address the "half baked" comment.
He addressed that to me, and I wasn't questioning the standards, onlly the operational result that has been built and tested in the United States so far. It's the result, not the planning and engineering, that I was commenting on, and only in the sense that the instantiations aren't quite seen as ready 'enough' to be valuable in current railroad service (at least, not cost-effectively).
What I'd like to see is an architecture that provides 'legacy' one-pipe compatibility with simple (or even automatic) adaptation to two-pipe where that can be provided in blocks or unit consists, and have that adopted as the 'mandated' standard the Government winds up using for its safety ECP. If that can be done within the framework of the 42xx standards, so much the better.
I certainly did not mean to belittle the AAR or its standards!
Wizlish Murray Euclid So, why don’t you guys go and start your own thread about everything that is wrong with me instead of hijacking this one No one is hijacking your thread. And I suppose all these recent critical posts and comments concern oil trains? I have a little Youtube clip of my own to add. If y'all think this is a dead horse thread, ignore it. If you think Euclid isn't taking the criticism or comments as wholly as you'd like, either just don't post, or if you just can't stand it, keep criticizing or educating ... but stop insulting. In case you hadn't noticed, this was his thread from the start, and nobody appointed any of us as thread police to shut it up, whether we like all the 'yes but' action and obtuse justification or not. There are fairly firm Forum policies about ad hominem attacks and ridicule. I for one would greatly prefer it if we all respected them, and moved on.
+1 "Atreous" indeed!!!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
A voice in the wilderness
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/david-schanoes/dot-suggests%E2%80%9D-and-fra-recommends%E2%80%9D.html?channel=
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.