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
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U2zJOryHKQ
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?
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!
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
I like Euclid and miss him when he disappears. He’s very thinkful of pertainments to public safety.
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.
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.
Norm
Friends, I have a suggestion: since the horse has not only been beaten but flayed, let us leave it alone.
Johnny
EuclidSo, why don’t you guys go and start your own thread about everything that is wrong with me instead of hijacking this one?
You insist on restating your claims over and over, perhaps in hope that if you say them often enough, people will start to believe you. So far, that hasn't happened. You should take something from that other than "people won't listen."
Einstein wisely noted, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
And so it goes with you - you throw your ideas and theories out there again and again, and again, and again.
Of course, that makes the rest of us a little crazy, as we've tried over and over to show you the fallacies in what you present, to no avail.
And one last note on the original topic - the feds foisted a technology on the railroads that couldn't even be implemented because so many parts were missing. What makes you think that they wouldn't have mandated established technologies with regard to oil trains?
Don't answer that. Just kick back and take a little vacation.
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...
Bucky,
I see no need for further discussion of the matter. You abjectly refuse to admit you may be wrong or others may have a valid point.
This discussion, however, needed to be done in the open forum so that you could see there are many folks here who disagree with you.
Over and out!
Yes, but.....
EuclidYou and Dave are saying that since you are not seeing my ideas adopted, that has to mean that some hypothetical expert has proven that my ideas are not viable.
As opposed to the hypothetical expert who is insisting that they are.
I've got an idea. Rather than defend your ideas against all evidence to the contrary, why not give it a rest for say, a year. Then if any of your ideas are adopted you can come back and say "I told you so."
Of course, if they aren't, you are completely welcome to come back and admit failure, too.
Standing by for "yes, but..."
Norm48327 Euclid What you seem to be saying is the old fallacy that if a new idea was worthwhile it would have already been invented. That is not what he is saying at all. Perhaps some of your ideas have already been tried and found to be unworkable without further refinement or new technology.
Euclid What you seem to be saying is the old fallacy that if a new idea was worthwhile it would have already been invented.
That is not what he is saying at all. Perhaps some of your ideas have already been tried and found to be unworkable without further refinement or new technology.
WilliamKiesel Prevention must be zero tolerance, absolute; given the nature of Bakken crude oil.Bakken crude oil is a stratified multi constituent liquid. Its weight is such that something like 28,000 gallons are the weight limit for a 30,000 gallon tank car. Visualize the 2000 gallons as about 36 drums of 55 gallon capacity. That's quite a bit of empty space inside a tank car. It is about 269 cubic feet. What is the factor of cargo sloshing in the tank cars? What are the fluid dynamics for a stratified liquid such as Bakken crude? How does the distributed inertia and viscosity of Bakken crude contribute to unstable vehicle dynamics and rail/ wheel interaction? Might skin friction result in the tank due to sloshing creating localized heating, stress and failure? Are boiling liquid expanding vapor events (BLEVE) causing the derailments?Are the braking dynamics of ordinary air brakes contributing to slosh and a series of events leading to failure? Is there an optimal speed of operation for Bakken crude? Is there a maximum number of tank cars not to be exceeded? Is the draft gear and energy absorption of the tank cars adequate for handling Bakken crude.These are the questions must be examined. The inherent problem with railroad tank cars is that they are stupid. That is, there are no sensors on the tank cars to identify what the cargo is doing and how it affects vehicle dynamics. Knowing what is going on n the tank is first and foremost needed. FRA PHMSA announcement simplly dela with stupid vehicles, rail tank cars. Given the potential and reality for catastrophe smart railroad cars need to part of the problem solving.
Prevention must be zero tolerance, absolute; given the nature of Bakken crude oil.Bakken crude oil is a stratified multi constituent liquid. Its weight is such that something like 28,000 gallons are the weight limit for a 30,000 gallon tank car. Visualize the 2000 gallons as about 36 drums of 55 gallon capacity. That's quite a bit of empty space inside a tank car. It is about 269 cubic feet. What is the factor of cargo sloshing in the tank cars? What are the fluid dynamics for a stratified liquid such as Bakken crude? How does the distributed inertia and viscosity of Bakken crude contribute to unstable vehicle dynamics and rail/ wheel interaction? Might skin friction result in the tank due to sloshing creating localized heating, stress and failure? Are boiling liquid expanding vapor events (BLEVE) causing the derailments?Are the braking dynamics of ordinary air brakes contributing to slosh and a series of events leading to failure? Is there an optimal speed of operation for Bakken crude? Is there a maximum number of tank cars not to be exceeded? Is the draft gear and energy absorption of the tank cars adequate for handling Bakken crude.These are the questions must be examined.
The inherent problem with railroad tank cars is that they are stupid. That is, there are no sensors on the tank cars to identify what the cargo is doing and how it affects vehicle dynamics. Knowing what is going on n the tank is first and foremost needed.
FRA PHMSA announcement simplly dela with stupid vehicles, rail tank cars. Given the potential and reality for catastrophe smart railroad cars need to part of the problem solving.
Great post of some good, fact-based questions.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
You are ignoring everything that has been posted in response to you; "Two track railroad, one track mind" syndrome. It's time for you to acknowledge that others have valid arguments. Until you can do that your posts are nothing more than trolling. Adiscussion involves both sides. You're not listening to the other side.
dehusmanWhat that should tell you is there are barriers, downsides, consequences to those "solutions" that make them unattractive. Those are off the shelf "solutions", until something mitigates the barriers, downsides and consequences, those "solutions" will continue to be passed over.
Bingo!!!
Cue the "yes, but..."
I don’t know if you realize this, but the collection of ideas that I am proposing are not just unproven concepts that I have come up with in a vacuum. ECP brakes, empty/loaded sensors, derailment sensors, and solid drawbars are all well-established concepts in practical use with proven merit.
The question you haven't asked, or have accepted a simplistic answer for, is if all these technologies have been around for decades and have been tried at various times in various places around the world, why haven't they been adopted by more (any) railroads or car manufacturers on a regular basis? If professional people in the industry who have access to more data and can actually research these alternatives have not adopted them there must be a reason. Railroads have adopted lots of new technology over the last 3 or 4 decades (fiber optics, solid state, new detection systems, DPU, shelf couplers, head shields, energy management systems, new truck designs, new track standards, CWR, etc., etc.) but for some reason (or reasons) have not adopted your favorite "solutions". What that should tell you is there are barriers, downsides, consequences to those "solutions" that make them unattractive. Those are off the shelf "solutions", until something mitigates the barriers, downsides and consequences, those "solutions" will continue to be passed over.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Norm48327 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. Perhaps it does, but continuous hammering away at the same subject over and over without offering any practical and affordable solutions accomplishes nothing. If you had some genuine railroad credentials you would realize that. Most of your posts have been simply rewording of the previous one and looking for a different outcome. It doesn't work that way. Do you not think the powers that be would like to have zero derailments and accidents? They surely would, but they realize there is no such thing as perfection in any endeavor. They take safety very seriously, both for employees and the public.
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.
Perhaps it does, but continuous hammering away at the same subject over and over without offering any practical and affordable solutions accomplishes nothing. If you had some genuine railroad credentials you would realize that. Most of your posts have been simply rewording of the previous one and looking for a different outcome. It doesn't work that way.
Do you not think the powers that be would like to have zero derailments and accidents? They surely would, but they realize there is no such thing as perfection in any endeavor. They take safety very seriously, both for employees and the public.
+1
It appears that Bucky (or whatever he calls himself) is a philosophical cousin of the unlamented futuremodal, who absolutely insisted that dual-powers, Roadrailers and open access would save American railroading.
tree68 Let's face if folks - Bucky's solutions are going to save the day, and it's the railroads' fault if they don't immediately embrace and implement those solutions.
Let's face if folks - Bucky's solutions are going to save the day, and it's the railroads' fault if they don't immediately embrace and implement those solutions.
If I had a dime for every self-proclaimed expert like Bucky who supposedly save the day, I would be rich.
Norm48327 tree68 Let's face if folks - Bucky's solutions are going to save the day, and it's the railroads' fault if they don't immediately embrace and implement those solutions. The world should be beating a path to his door. He will be rich and famous.
The world should be beating a path to his door. He will be rich and famous.
And then we can say we know someone famous.........
What truly amazes me is that the NTSB has failed to recognize the raw and apparently untapped talent Bucky has of simply looking at an video of a derailment, and without every having set foot at the wreck site, can, from far away, describe in exacting detail the movement of every car involved, and explain with such total detail the how and why each car ended up where it did, even though he has collected no evidence from the site, made no measurements, was not involved in the original investigation, or examined any of the cars involved in person.
Why they don't simply close the agency and just send videos directly to him to both explain what and how any accident happened, and to give the proper and precise solution to prevent such accident from ever happening again is beyond me.....save the government a lot of money that way.
23 17 46 11
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.