Oil Train

[zugmann]

ruderunner

I'm just getting frustrated by the old school thinking of that's not how we do it or was tried 50 years ago and didn't work so it will never work etc etc etc.

Fair enough.  But there's also some of us that get frustrated at new school thinking that we must take this "whiz-bang electronic, computerized untested and unproven theoretical device" to modify the most basics of train operations (like brakes).  Also adds much expense and will make the cars that much harder to repair/maintain.

I wonder if the lack of ECP development isn't in due part to newer AC power with extended-range dynamic brakes that can grind just about any train to a halt on all but severe grades?

 

[ruderunner]

Dhuesman I realize that none of this is cheap or easy. But we have to start somewhere. I'm just getting frustrated by the old school thinking of  that's not how we do it or was tried 50 years ago and didn't work so it will never work etc etc etc.

Instead of putting the ideas down, I'd like to see some ow could we make it work feedback.

As someone in the auto industry, I can recall when computer controls started. At first they were troublesome but became more refined and reliable. The early systems in the late 50s only controlled fuel and disappeared quickly, next came ignition control, then a combination. Now there isn't much in a car that isn't compute controlled.

Someone somewhere developed manufacturing processesthat allowed for those improvements 

In the railroad world individual roads or other companies are developing their own systems apparently without much thought to interoperability amongst the national network. I'd like to see the roads try to develop something as a team. Preferably before the government steps in with another mandate like PTC.

[Euclid]

Dave,

You have mentioned several times the flammable gas cars as being a model for the more crash resistance oil cars.  But you have never made it clear what the connection is.  I don’t feel like doing deep research to connect the dots on how the flammable gas car standards are going to be applied to oil cars. 

If the flammable gas car standards are going to fix the problem with oil cars, why aren’t they being applied now?  Why have we not heard what they will entail?  Why did the industry decided on building 1232 cars as the solution to the problem?  Why did the industry miscalculate on the performance of the 1232 cars? 

What is the range of load weights for a railcar load of flammable gas?  My guess is that it is a lot lighter than a load of crude oil.  So is it possible that the flammable gas cars can be strengthened adequately without compromising their load capacity whereas oil cars cannot?

I did propose a safe oil train concept, as you say, but it never included “a heavily armored car” as you say.  My concept is in lieu of strengthening tank cars, as opposed to including that approach.  I also never said "big things were coming" in the oil train standards in reference to my proposal.  I only proposed it as a solution, but never predicted that it would be adopted.  Of course it won’t be adopted.  It is too much too soon for such a massive bureaucracy, which is generally too big and too standardized to accept sweeping change.  It took the industry over 60 years to solve the “waste grab” problem in journal boxes by using a woven pad instead of loose cotton waste.  And by then, waste lubrication was obsolete due to roller bearings.  If anything is changed in oil train practice, it will be by government mandate.

I agree with your points about the practical problems with ECP brakes.  Because of those problems, I do not believe that the universal conversion will ever happen.  So when it comes to ECP brakes on oil trains, if follows that it must be limited only to oil trains.  Once that is accepted, it opens the door to further refinements such as empty/loaded sensors, derailment sensors, differential braking, etc. 

Here is my prediction:  The industry will not voluntarily adopt ECP brakes for oil trains.  That alone is too much.  However, ECP brakes for oil trains will be mandated by the government as part of the impending new tank car rules.  So ECP will be added to oil trains as the “overlay” option that offers the flexibility of either brake system, leaving the cars compatible with non-ECP equipped cars.  Oil trains will continue to operate loose cars, so the ECP connectors will be retained.  They may have to be made more reliable, but even though the oil trains will be loose cars, the ECP connectors may be disconnected and reconnected relatively infrequently.  So, I assume they can be made reliable enough.      

[dehusman]

ruderunner

So I've been following this thread and see all the complaints about Euclid not letting up on his ideas. All the railroaders seem to be stuck in their ways and pooh pooh his ideas. I'd like to point out that the same reactions were spouted about steam engines an flanged wheels.

There are a lot of things that Euclid brings up that would be really cool to have.  The problem is that there is a degree of difficulty in establishing them that Euclid doesn't seem to understand.  So many of his ideas take off on wild tangents with things he doesn't understand or physical actions he ignores or refuses to accept.

Remember Euclid said that "big things were coming" in the oil train standards and it would incluld a heavily armored car and ECP and new couplers, etc, etc, etc.  The professional railroaders said that the new car standards would be an evolution of the standards for flammable gas cars.  Have you read the recommendations?  They are an evolution of the flammable gas cars.

I see that Euclid s ideas do add up and can make a tremendous improvement in train handling, not just derailments. But it's not something that will happen soon. Given time for ecp to mature, and for it to be added to the fleet pushes his complete system out at least 10 years.

It will take 10 years at a cost of billions or trillions of dollars.  You should really read some of the literature.  Here's an interesting statistic from a Federal report.  If you converted 98% of all the rail cars in the US to ECP, the chances of having a 100 car train with all ECP is less than 40%.  How many short lines and small shippers will you put out of business or drive away from rail because its not economical to spend a million dollars on upgrading their car fleet?  Abstract questions to railfans, real problems to real railroaders.

But first some questions, can a FRED dynamite the brakes?  Do they have valves that can?  How difficult would it be to enable such a feature and have it be cab controlled?

You are a couple decades late to the party, EOT's that can initiate an emergency application have been around for a long time and have been required on trains operating on substantial grades for years.

 

One thing all the studies seem to ignore and there has been very little discussion about is DPU.  It can also intitiate an emergency application.  It also mimics all the the brake activity (sets, releases) that the head end engine does.  DPU cuts the reaction time by the factor of at least how many DPU sets there are (one rear DPU cuts the application time in half, mid and rear cuts it about a quarter to third).

 If the engineer senses a derailment (meaning wheels offtrack but not to the point of jacknife) he can start the braking from the rear and keep power applied up front to stretch the train.

And how to you think he can sense the derailment? If he's dragging a car he might feel the drag increase a bit but that's about it.  Chances are the first time he knows its derailed is when it goes in emergency.

The way I see it modified FFREDs and programming to support such a feature is small potatoes in cost and certainly worth trying.

So did the railroads, that's why they did that 10-20 years ago.

And why aren't load/empty valves standard? Many pickup trucks had them prior to ABS brakes and they worked. Its a proven technology that wouldn't be hard to adapt to the fleet when cars are in the shop.

And that's the trap.  "Proven" technology is not necessarily reliable technology.  Most ECP applications have been in unit trains.  You make all the electrical connections and they stay together for months.  What happens when you put them in general freight service and couple and uncouple them a dozen times each loaded trip?  What happens when you uncouple them and leave the connections exposed to the elements for a month, two months, a year, then try and use them.  The trials the railroads have had haven't been that favorable.  If the railroads have a good system that will work 99.9999% of the time and better system that works 98% of the time they will go with the good system.  The operating costs associated with the extra one or two percent less reliability would be millions or billions of dollars in  delay costs.

I see these 2 systems being easy enough and inexpensive enough to add to trains especially unit trains with their dedicatd routes and consists.

That's because you don't see the additonal operating costs (bad orders, cars used in other than unit service, cars used in other service, interchange, etc).

So what about on board power and wireless communication?  The transmitters need not be powerful a range of 100 feet would be adequate if the transmitters could also repeat the signal and send it down the length of the train. This should be weak enough that the FCC shouldn't have too much trouble accepting it.

If that happens then the failure of one car would immobilize the entire train.  You now have to rely on  150+ power supplies, 150+ transmitters and 150+ recievers to work.  Impossible?  No.  Jacks up the degree of difficulty?  Yes.  The railroad environment is harsher than possibly any environment except the military.  The equipment has to function at 120 degr, -50 degr, bone dry desert,  monsoon rains.  They have to be able to sit for 6 months then fire up immediately and work flawlessly non-stop for years.  No updating the software once a week, no running dianostics, no boot errors, no software crashes.

Power supply could be in the form of an axle mounted generator and battery. But again nothing huge like needed on passenger equipment. Automotive sized components should be adequate and inexpensive.

Now you will need to replace batteries every couple years, so now you need stores of batteries at every repair location.  What happens when a car doesn't get used for 6 months (not uncommon) and the battery dies/loses it charge/goes bad during that time?  How do you move the car (or cars since there are thousands of cars that fall into this category)?  If a wheel goes bad, if its the one with the axle mounted generator, what happens if the repair point doesn't have that type of wheel set?  what happens if the wheel goes bad out in the middle of nowhere?

(Technically I'm just jerking your chain, they would probably use an air operated turbine-generator set like they have been using on EOT's for the last decade or so, as soon as the train gets air on it, it has power, it just needs a battery for very short periods of time.  But that illustrates why we get frustrated, 75% of the "innovations" are really old news, been there, tried that. )

 

[ruderunner]

So I've been following this thread and see all the complaints about Euclid not letting up on his ideas. All the railroaders seem to be stuck in their ways and pooh pooh his ideas. I'd like to point out that the same reactions were spouted about steam engines an flanged wheels.

I see that Euclid s ideas do add up and can make a tremendous improvement in train handling, not just derailments. But it's not something that will happen soon. Given time for ecp to mature, and for it to be added to the fleet pushes his complete system out at least 10 years.

That said how about a simpler approach?  But first some questions, can a FRED dynamite the brakes?  Do they have valves that can?  How difficult would it be to enable such a feature and have it be cab controlled?

I'm seeing this as a spinoff of the differential braking idea that Euclid has. If the engineer senses a derailment (meaning wheels offtrack but not to the point of jacknife) he can start the braking from the rear and keep power applied up front to stretch the train.

Iirc cabooses had such a valve that the conductor could activate.

The way I see it modified FFREDs and programming to support such a feature is small potatoes in cost and certainly worth trying.

And why aren't load/empty valves standard? Many pickup trucks had them prior to ABS brakes and they worked. Its a proven technology that wouldn't be hard to adapt to the fleet when cars are in the shop.

I see these 2 systems being easy enough and inexpensive enough to add to trains especially unit trains with their dedicatd routes and consists.

Re ECP and derailmentsenfutureleaving costs out of the discussion since we already know they are expensive to implement, it seems the 2 biggest problems to solve would be power supply and communication. Its been stated that adding the necessary wiring would be frought with connection troubles between cars. I agree. So what about on board power and wireless communication?  The transmitters need not be powerful a range of 100 feet would be adequate if the transmitters could also repeat the signal and send it down the length of the train. This should be weak enough that the FCC shouldn't have too much trouble accepting it.

Power supply could be in the form of an axle mounted generator and battery. But again nothing huge like needed on passenger equipment. Automotive sized components should be adequate and inexpensive.

Like I said this isn't in the near future but I believe it is coming...

[tree68]

So, how fast was the Lynchburg train going when the derailment occurred? (It's probably been stated, but to review...)

Euclid

Therefore, if the trailing cars were to shove against the derailing cars, where would the resistance strong enough to cause jackknifing come from? 

That force would come from the first car that jacknifed going from X MPH to Zero MPH in about two seconds flat (or less).  The reason for the jacknife in the first place would be because the car dug into the ballast.  The faster it's going, the harder it's going to dig in.

The head end stopped when it did because the coefficient of friction between the cars and the ballast was much higher than what the brakes would have provided.  

1200 feet is less than a quarter mile - peanuts when you're talking about a loaded, 100 car (more or less) train.  

Once again - go back and look at the tornado derailment.  About six cars were blown off the track, amounting to some 300 feet.  I would opine that it's unlikely that even if there were 1200 feet between the locomotive and the cars still on the rail at the point that the derailed cars were clear of the rail, that the cars still on the rail would have stopped in time.  A derailment detector would have done nothing in that incident.

The remaining cars would clearly have been in emergency (or at least beginning the application), yet look at the speed with which the trailing cars collided with the locomotive.

Had that been an oil train, there would likely have been spills and a fire.

[Euclid]

Dave,

I agree that the train might have jackknifed before parting, as you say.

I am not necessarily assuming that what prevented jackknifing for a time was the pull of the engines, although that is one possibility.  But it also might have been partly or entirely pulled by the kinetic energy of the train portion ahead of the derailment pulling against the mounting resistance of the derailing and dragging cars.  In any case, the derailing cars would be like brakes applying to cars in the middle of a train.

If that mounting resistance of the derailing cars began to significantly decelerate the train, it may very well be that the cars behind the derailing cars shoved into them with their own kinetic energy and shoved hard enough to buckle the train and begin the jackknifing.  In that case, the jackknifing occurred, and was immediately followed by the parting between the first car to jackknife and the car ahead of it, as you suggest. 

However, I tend to think that is unlikely for this reason:  Every car ahead of that jackknifing would have been slack-stretched, including the eight derailed cars and all the cars still on the rails ahead of them.  Therefore, if the trailing cars were to shove against the derailing cars, where would the resistance strong enough to cause jackknifing come from? 

I suppose the trailing cars could have momentarily bunched the slack in the derailed cars (and cars ahead of them) and created enough resistance in them to cause the jackknifing which in turn caused the parting.  And then after the parting, the slack ran back out in the derailed cars as they continued dragging.

That would explain the scenario that you describe where the jackknifing occurs before the parting.  In my scenario, the parting occurs before the jackknifing.  In your scenario, the jackknifing occurs due to buff force in the un-parted train, and then causes the parting.  In my scenario, the parting occurs due to the track reaching a sufficient degree of destruction, and then causes the jackknifing. 

In either scenario, the parting and start of jackknifing are nearly simultaneous. And no matter which scenario is true, it does not affect the main point I am making about the derailment.  That point is that eight cars derailed and did not get involved in a pileup.  As such, those eight cars did not breach or burn.  By the time those eight derailed cars stopped, the lead derailed car had moved 1,200 feet past the point of derailment, and did so before the jackknifing began and before an emergency brake application began.  That is a lot of lost time in reacting to the derailment with a brake application.

Had this train been equipped with derailment sensors, a brake application would have begun before cars #2-8 derailed and began dragging, with their lead car traveling 1,200 feet past the point of derailment.

The beneficial effect of dragging the first eight derailed cars to safety ahead of the ensuing pileup, in this case, was happenstance.  With ECP differential braking, the same effect would occur by design.  And in that case, there would have been immediate braking behind the point of derailment which would have begun reducing the ability of the trailing cars to shove into the derailing cars and buckle the train.  With derailment sensors and ECP differential braking, this derailment might have ended with no pileup, no breaching, and no fire.

You say that the “train parted and the head end had nothing to do with the jackknifing.”  I agree with that.  But the head end had everything to do with dragging eight cars clear of the jackknifing.  That is the point that I am making.  

The counterpoint that others have made here is that once the first wheel leaves the rail, it begins a chaotic process that is completely out of control.  I disagree with that.   

[dehusman]

You assume that the force that was keeping the train from jacknifing was the pull of the engines on the front.  The train derailed, the train parted and the lack of pulling allowed the train to jacknife.

I believe the events happened in a different order.  The train derailed, the train jacknifed, the train parted and the head end had nothing to do with the jacknifing.

[Euclid]

In studying this drone video, I have developed the following analysis of the oil train derailment in Lynchburg, VA last year.

Refer to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8kONLIWlBs

 

LYNCHBURG, VA OIL TRAIN DERAILMENT MAY 2, 2014

 

Prior to the emergency brake application, and prior to any separation of the train; the train derailed at least eight cars in succession with each derailing at the initial point of derailment for the first derailed car. 

By the time these eight derailed cars stopped, the first car to derail was approximately 1,200 feet past the point of derailment.         

The eight cars remained coupled together, mostly upright, and in line with the track bed, despite the fact that they destroyed the track and lost all of their trucks in the dragging process.

Derailment Sequence of events:

1)    First car (GTCX 742045) derails, establishes point of derailment (P.O.D.), and begins dragging and damaging track.  First car is designated as car #1 in this analysis.

 

2)    Car #2, following car #1, derails at P.O.D. due to the track damage cause by car #1.

 

3)    Cars #3-8 derail in succession at P.O.D. with each dragging car increasing the track damage.

 

4)    Cars #1-8 are all dragging in line with the track bed while the entire train is still coupled together, and no emergency brake application has been initiated.

 

5)    Car #9 derails at P.O.D. and the train separates between cars #8 and #9.

 

6)    Upon separation, the air hoses between cars #8 and #9 separate, causing the entire train to initiate an emergency brake application.

 

7)    As the brakes begin to apply, the portions of the train ahead of and behind the separation continue moving with more events unfolding within both portions of the separated train.

 

8)    The portion ahead of the separation of cars #8 and #9 continues to drag derailed cars #1-8.

 

9)    After car #8 moves approximately 200 feet past the P.O.D., the forward portion of the train separates between dragging cars #5 and #6.

 

10)The portion ahead of the separation of cars #5 and #6 continues to drag cars #1-5.

 

11)After car #5 moves approximately 60 feet past the separation of cars #5 and #6, the forward portion of the train separates between dragging cars #1 and #2.

 

12)The portion ahead of the separation of cars #1 and #2 continues to drag car #1.

 

13)After car #1 moves approximately 1,200 feet past the P.O.D., the forward portion of the train stops with car #1 still coupled to the car ahead of it.  Note: The trailing truck of the car ahead of car #1 also derailed at some point in this dragging process.

 

14)As the train separates at the P.O.D, between cars #8 and #9, and the emergency brake application begins, the portion behind the P.O.D. continues moving forward, led by the derailed car #9.

 

15)Because derailed car #9 has lost the pull of the cars ahead of it upon separation, and because it is being shoved ahead by the cars behind it, car #9 has no guidance whatsoever.  So it makes an angular excursion from the track line.

 

16)As a reaction to car #9 making an angular excursion, the car immediately behind it makes an angular excursion from the track line in the opposite direction, thus beginning a jackknifing progression that involves the next eight cars including car #9.

 

17)Rear portion of train stops.

[oltmannd]

Euclid

Incidentally, I did try to call New York Air Brake to ask if empty/loaded sensors are being applied to new tank cars as a matter of course.  But, although you can pick up the phone and call them, you can’t expect anyone to answer.  I have not seen any photographs of tank cars where the load sensors are evident. 

Probably not equipped since they have relatively low load/tare ratio and can keep the loaded braking ratio high enough without it.

[oltmannd]

jeffhergert

I do think that given the choice between PTC or ECP, I would rather have seen the adoption of ECP.  I think it would deliver more benefit than PTC. 

Given an either/or... I agree.  But, both together are more than the sum of the parts.  For perspective, the $10.2B NS and CSX paid for CR could have equipped the entire NA frt car fleet with ECP at $10k/car.

 

[Euclid]

Jeff,

Thanks for posting that ECP and related equipment.  It is interesting to see such an array of off-the- shelf components.  Even without understanding the fine points, I can see that this equipment is robust and built for reliable service. 

While I advocate these advanced ideas for oil trains, I do not favor government mandates to force their implementation.  I have said that I expect an ECP mandate for oil trains as part of the forthcoming USDOT rules for tank car construction.  But even that may still be only tentative at this point.  The wild card is the mere chance of oil train wrecks going forward.  If oil by rail falls off due to our current falling economy, and due to warmer weather, we might not experience another fireball wreck for another year or two.  But still, I think the country is presently in more fertile territory for regulations than at any time in its history.

I also expect that there is at least a 50:50 chance that USDOT will not release its new tank car rules in May as expected.  I would not be surprised if the new rules are delayed until after this year.  After the experience with the new 1232 cars, I don’t think that the industry is in the mood to gamble on further tank car improvements without new rules.  So delaying the rules would serve the rule makers as well as making the rules more stringent.     

Incidentally, I did try to call New York Air Brake to ask if empty/loaded sensors are being applied to new tank cars as a matter of course.  But, although you can pick up the phone and call them, you can’t expect anyone to answer.  I have not seen any photographs of tank cars where the load sensors are evident.    

[jeffhergert]

EP-60 from New York Air Brake.

http://www.nyab.com/en/products/ep60/featuresbenefits/featuresbenefits_10.jsp

The link below goes to the page before the one above.  It has a pdf of the brochure, which has a diagram of where the parts go.

http://www.nyab.com/en/products/ep60/ep60_1.jsp

Now please don't think I'm endorsing Euclid's ideas about oil trains.  Or that I think the railroads should be required to use ECP.  I do think that given the choice between PTC or ECP, I would rather have seen the adoption of ECP.  I think it would deliver more benefit than PTC. 

Jeff   

 

[zugmann]

Euclid

Each one of these would add to the solution. Of those four, only #4 is my idea. The first three are under development have proven merit. They all cost money, but so does losing the oil business.

 

The oil business will be lost when it is too expensive to extract/ship (kind of happening now anyhow).  Forcing these additions will just hasten the process.

[Euclid]

Norm48327

 

zugmann

Electronics, differential brakes, load/MTY electrono sensors, etc....

 

Way too many components that will need proper maintenace to function properly.  Sorry, but that doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.  Not all brakes are created equal.  Trying to add more electronics to that seems a lesson in futility.  Sometimes you can have a train and throw 10lbs and it grinds to a stop (damnit. Hold on conductor, I have to release and start again!).  Other times, you may have a similar train and need 15-20#s before it grabs (c'mon... any day now!)

 

 

 

 

One poster here thinks it's the only answer and no one can change his mind.

 

Norm,

Just because the industry will not adopt the suggested approach to solving a problem does not mean that the suggested approach is wrong.  Of course they will never adopt any of these ideas.  They are fighting over the radical change of making tank cars walls 1/8” thicker.  The ONLY way they will ever go farther is if the government mandates it.

But if nobody ever developed new ideas simply because the industry will reject them, there would be no new ideas to mandate when the time for them has arrived. 

I have suggested a combination of ideas to solve the oil train problem or substantially reduce it.  They are:

1)    ECP brakes

2)    Empty/loaded sensors

3)    Derailment sensors

4)    Differential ECP braking

 

Each one of these would add to the solution.  Of those four, only #4 is my idea.  The first three are under development have proven merit.  They all cost money, but so does losing the oil business.

[BaltACD]

Railway Age expands upon the NTSB's Good Friday present.

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/regulatory/ntsb-wants-all-tanks-in-a-blanket.html?channel=40

[Norm48327]

zugmann

Electronics, differential brakes, load/MTY electrono sensors, etc....

 

Way too many components that will need proper maintenace to function properly.  Sorry, but that doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.  Not all brakes are created equal.  Trying to add more electronics to that seems a lesson in futility.  Sometimes you can have a train and throw 10lbs and it grinds to a stop (damnit. Hold on conductor, I have to release and start again!).  Other times, you may have a similar train and need 15-20#s before it grabs (c'mon... any day now!)

 

One poster here thinks it's the only answer and no one can change his mind.

[zugmann]

Electronics, differential brakes, load/MTY electrono sensors, etc....

 

Way too many components that will need proper maintenace to function properly.  Sorry, but that doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.  Not all brakes are created equal.  Trying to add more electronics to that seems a lesson in futility.  Sometimes you can have a train and throw 10lbs and it grinds to a stop (damnit. Hold on conductor, I have to release and start again!).  Other times, you may have a similar train and need 15-20#s before it grabs (c'mon... any day now!)

[BaltACD]

Before there is operative ECP - there must be a AAR defined standard for ECP.  To date there is none.  Without a industry wide standard ECP is just a toy to be experimented with.

[oltmannd]

We are a long ways away from having a reliable, ECP system that could be applied fleet-wide.  We don't even have reasonable implemention path.

I find discussing all the "what-else?" features that could be added to ECP, like derailment avoidance and mitigation interesting, but really too far "out there" to be of any practical value solving exisitng problems with oil trains.

[oltmannd]

jeffhergert

The way I understand it, for the forseeable future ECP cars will be equipped to operate either in ECP or conventionally.  A car could move in unit train service in ECP mode or in general service with conventional air brakes.  (A lot more flexible than specialized couplers.) I think some cars, like covered or open hoppers, that can find themselves in either unit train or general service are being manufactured with some ECP compatible components.  They aren't fully equipped, but will be easier to equip if ECP is adopted. Jeff  

Going the "dual - equipped" route is a tough one.  Really adds to the cost. But, the path forward for "loose car" ECP sure is foggy.  

I'd guess the "pre-equipping" is having a manifold that an ECP brake valve can bolt up to.

[Euclid]

dehusman

 

Euclid

Here is a great illustration of the effect of my proposal for differential braking that I have previously described.  

Refer to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8kONLIWlBs

 

The point of my differential braking proposal is to stretch the train ahead of the derailment for the purpose of preventing the cars from jackknifing and starting the pileup process. 

 

 

 

And I don't see how this illustrates the advantage of your "differential braking".

The head end WAS STRETCHED.  The cars still derailed, the cars still left the track structure, the derailed cars slowed faster than either the head end or the rear end, the cars jacknifed, the rear of the train ran into the derailed cars.

 

Critics might say that nothing can prevent the jackknifing once the cars derail because total chaos will ensue and the cars will go every which way as they jam their trucks, tear up the track, and break their couplings.

 

 

Critics or any reasonable person who looks at the video.  The cars did derail.  They did tear up the track.  the trucks and cars did dig into the roadbed, the cars did jacknife, they did go in different directions, they did break their couplings.  It all happened just the way it has ben said it happens.  Facts.  Visual evidence.

 

Yet this video shows that eight cars ahead of the pileup were dragged, thus keeping them in line and on the track bed.  The derailed car furthest from the pileup was the first to derail back where the pileup ultimately occurred.  When it derailed, it began tearing up the track, causing the next car behind it to derail.  The cars derailed in succession as they arrived at the track damage until eight cars were derailed and were being dragged forward.  As those eight cars dragged, they destroyed the track, and tore their trucks off. 

 

 

Exactly and so how is doing this intentionally supposed to STOP trains from jacknifing, pileing up and causing a release since they did stretch the head end and the train STILL jacknifed, piled up and caused a release. 

If anything this is a perfect example of why differential braking doesn't work.  All the stuff you say differential braking is supposed to prevent still happened. 

 

Yet, they stayed coupled together, in line, and generally upright.  They were being dragged by the kinetic energy of the cars ahead of them and/or by the continued pull of the engine.  They surely would have jackknifed if they were not being pulled ahead. 

 

 

Yeah the head end cars did, the did you notice the jacknifed pile of smouldering cars behind the head end cars.

 

 

I think I have made it quite clear in past explanations that differential braking is not intended to prevent cars from derailing. It is intended to prevent them from jackknifing.  I think I have also made it quite clear that differential braking not expected to be infallible.  It may not work at all in some derailments.  In other derailments, it might prevent considerable jackknifing and possibly all breaching and fire that might have occurred without this system.  The fewer cars that jackknife, the lower the chance of breaching.

In this case, there was jackknifing and fire, but the system I am referring to did not exist on this train.  Nevertheless, the dynamics of that system did occur to some extent in this derailment.  It illustrates that the pulling on the derailing cars can indeed keep them in line and even upright despite totally destroying the track and tearing the trucks off of the cars.  THAT is the point. 

There is no guarantee that the pulling on these cars would always occur in such a derailment.  Had it not occurred by circumstance in this derailment, the eight cars that stayed in line and did not breach may have jackknifed, breached, and been added to the others that did jackknife and burn. 

On the other hand, had this train been equipped with the system I have described, it is possible that no cars would have jackknifed, breached, or burned. 

Clearly, this train jackknifed immediately behind the first point of separation, as one would expect.  I can’t say why it separated there.  It may be that the eight dragging cars had so disrupted the track by that point that it caused the coupler to break.  The high fill in the close proximity to the riverbank might have contributed. 

But the point I want to make is that eight cars stayed out of that pileup, and those eight cars were all dragging on the ground and being led by the first car to derail.  Had the train not eventually separated, there would have been no force available to cause jackknifing.  The train may have stopped without any jackknifing and without any breaching or fire.        

  

[dehusman]

Euclid

Here is a great illustration of the effect of my proposal for differential braking that I have previously described.  

Refer to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8kONLIWlBs

 

The point of my differential braking proposal is to stretch the train ahead of the derailment for the purpose of preventing the cars from jackknifing and starting the pileup process. 

And I don't see how this illustrates the advantage of your "differential braking".

The head end WAS STRETCHED.  The cars still derailed, the cars still left the track structure, the derailed cars slowed faster than either the head end or the rear end, the cars jacknifed, the rear of the train ran into the derailed cars.

Critics might say that nothing can prevent the jackknifing once the cars derail because total chaos will ensue and the cars will go every which way as they jam their trucks, tear up the track, and break their couplings.

Critics or any reasonable person who looks at the video.  The cars did derail.  They did tear up the track.  the trucks and cars did dig into the roadbed, the cars did jacknife, they did go in different directions, they did break their couplings.  It all happened just the way it has ben said it happens.  Facts.  Visual evidence.

Yet this video shows that eight cars ahead of the pileup were dragged, thus keeping them in line and on the track bed.  The derailed car furthest from the pileup was the first to derail back where the pileup ultimately occurred.  When it derailed, it began tearing up the track, causing the next car behind it to derail.  The cars derailed in succession as they arrived at the track damage until eight cars were derailed and were being dragged forward.  As those eight cars dragged, they destroyed the track, and tore their trucks off. 

Exactly and so how is doing this intentionally supposed to STOP trains from jacknifing, pileing up and causing a release since they did stretch the head end and the train STILL jacknifed, piled up and caused a release. 

If anything this is a perfect example of why differential braking doesn't work.  All the stuff you say differential braking is supposed to prevent still happened. 

Yet, they stayed coupled together, in line, and generally upright.  They were being dragged by the kinetic energy of the cars ahead of them and/or by the continued pull of the engine.  They surely would have jackknifed if they were not being pulled ahead. 

Yeah the head end cars did, the did you notice the jacknifed pile of smouldering cars behind the head end cars.

 

[Euclid]

Here is a great illustration of the effect of my proposal for differential braking that I have previously described.  

Refer to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8kONLIWlBs

 

The point of my differential braking proposal is to stretch the train ahead of the derailment for the purpose of preventing the cars from jackknifing and starting the pileup process. 

Critics might say that nothing can prevent the jackknifing once the cars derail because total chaos will ensue and the cars will go every which way as they jam their trucks, tear up the track, and break their couplings.

Yet this video shows that eight cars ahead of the pileup were dragged, thus keeping them in line and on the track bed.  The derailed car furthest from the pileup was the first to derail back where the pileup ultimately occurred.  When it derailed, it began tearing up the track, causing the next car behind it to derail.  The cars derailed in succession as they arrived at the track damage until eight cars were derailed and were being dragged forward.  As those eight cars dragged, they destroyed the track, and tore their trucks off. 

Yet, they stayed coupled together, in line, and generally upright.  They were being dragged by the kinetic energy of the cars ahead of them and/or by the continued pull of the engine.  They surely would have jackknifed if they were not being pulled ahead. 

All of this happened before the pileup began, and up to this point, the entire train was still coupled together.  But as the string of dragging cars grew in number, they progressively added to the track and roadbed destruction.  You can see the progressing level of track destruction growing as the eight cars passed over it.

Eventually, the ninth car derailed in the area of maximum track destruction, and it jackknifed there, separating from the eighth car, and dynamiting the brakes.  More cars jackknifed behind the ninth car, breached, and caught fire.

Prior to that pileup starting with the ninth car, as each of the eight cars derailed at the same spot, each car added more dragging resistance.  The dragging resistance also rose as the speed dropped.  After the train parted between the eighth and ninth car, the first eight dragging cars continued. 

As the speed of the eight dragging cars dropped their dragging resistance rose so high that it caused the dragging cars to pull apart, leaving three cars, and continuing to drag five cars.  As the dragging resistance continued rising due to the speed drop, the string of five dragging cars again pulled apart, leaving four cars and continuing to drag one car.  That one derailed car still attached to all of the head end cars still on the rail was the first car to derail in this wreck.

[Euclid]

.

[jeffhergert]

oltmannd

 

Euclid

So it raises again the question of applying ECP only to dedicated trains.

 

 

I understand what you are saying, but just applying ECP to oil trains is quite a bit more logistically difficult than it may seem.  

Do the train sets stay in the same lanes?  Not as much as one would hope.

Is it practial to keep equipped locomotives with the train sets?  No.  You'd need a good fraction of the fleet equipped to cover oil trains.

How do I handle cars entering and exiting unit train service?  How do they move?

How many mechanical folk need to be trained to handle ECP? Nearly all.

How many places to I have to keep the electrical jumpers?  Spare brake valves, etc. Everywhere.

How do I move disabled trains?

How do I cover trains that need RR specific cab signalling as a leader?

etc. etc.

 

I'm not saying it isn't a good idea to move toward ECP.  I just believe it's ability to reduce risk on oil trains is not worth the overall risk and cost to the network.  It would be a bad idea to mandate it.

 

 

 

The way I understand it, for the forseeable future ECP cars will be equipped to operate either in ECP or conventionally.  A car could move in unit train service in ECP mode or in general service with conventional air brakes.  (A lot more flexible than specialized couplers.)

I think some cars, like covered or open hoppers, that can find themselves in either unit train or general service are being manufactured with some ECP compatible components.  They aren't fully equipped, but will be easier to equip if ECP is adopted.

Jeff  

[Euclid]

Paul_D_North_Jr

What about putting the following on the FRED - right now, transmits to the cab, so no upgrade of any cars required:

• Derailment sensor
• Video camera view to the rear, to be able to check for track damage, etc. if a derailment (or leak, etc.) is suspected.

- Paul North. 

 

Paul,

[blue streak 1]

Paul_D_North_Jr

What about putting the following on the FRED - right now, transmits to the cab, so no upgrade of any cars required:

• Derailment sensor
• Video camera view to the rear, to be able to check for track damage, etc. if a derailment (or leak, etc.) is suspected.

- Paul North. 

And Paul if a DPU on rear with nose facing to the back that could be an immediate feed.

 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

What about putting the following on the FRED - right now, transmits to the cab, so no upgrade of any cars required:

• Derailment sensor
• Video camera view to the rear, to be able to check for track damage, etc. if a derailment (or leak, etc.) is suspected.

- Paul North. 

[Euclid]

I am not excluding those causes when I refer to derailments.  I agree that in some cases a derailment will immediately snag something and immediately throw the derailed car off of the track, maybe turn it sideways, roll it over, destroy it, etc.  So there is no way to prevent the onset of a pileup in such cases. 

But there are also derailments from broken wheels, broken axles, etc. that begin dragging the derailed car without immediately commencing a pileup, and without causing a brake application.  That type of derailment presents the opportunity for the derailment sensor to intervene and help forestall or even prevent the pileup.