Oil Train

[Randy Stahl]

Yes it is possible, just flip the isolation switch. Not a good idea though unless you are ready to change some contactors.

[Wizlish]

Euclid

So, my only other question is whether it is electrically possible to instantly, fully release dynamics from their maximum braking level. If not, how quickly could they be fully released?

Is there some reason we keep answering this and you keep right on asking it again?

Technically you can release dynamics quickly -- as quickly as you can safely interrupt high currents with significant amounts of inductive magnetic-field energy storage.  I would assume, to be safe, that this would be in the 2 to 5 second range, might be a bit longer.

But I don't think there are many cases in practical train handling where you'd cut the dynamic instantly to zero rather than modulate it under control (remember that the dynamic works as graduated release).  Just as you would seldom try to go directly from Run 8 to idle ... or vice versa without a computer interceding for you.

There are two effects here, and in the range of mass and inertia represented by trains, they may seem paradoxical.  With the mass of locomotives and cars, the rate of acceleration (let alone jerk) will usually be relatively slow.  But the force represented by that acceleration builds up to very large levels quickly.  That means that even a little differential acceleration, over even a short distance, can result in very severe force when contacting something, especially something with high inertia, moving at a different speed or stopped. 

So, in train handling, you want to avoid fast or hard control 'inputs'  -- from the throttle and brake, from the flange contact, from vertical curves or track components.  i think most everyone here that has extensive experience running locomotives will agree, if you ask them, that it would be better in almost any circumstance to adjust the dynamic slowly.

Paradoxically, you may have the one instance where quick reduction of dynamic would be appropriate: if differential braking during a derailment were required and the front end of the train were decelerating under DB with slack actively running in.  But that's going to be something of an unusual situation - and anyone who gets in an accident and has to say on the witness stand that they abruptly cut the dynamic brake while the train brakes were only partially applied is likely to be given a hard time, even if they think they can prove it was the safest alternative. 

[Euclid]

Wizlish,

On the previous page, I asked two questions related to the effect of releasing dynamic brakes instantly.  One question focused on the train handling effect, and the other question related to the electrical effect. 

Based on what you and Jeff said, I have my answer to the part of the question related to the train handling effect.  I acknowledged that in my last comment on the previous page.  You did address the electrical effect, referring to high current interruption, etc.  Randy Stahl also addressed this. 

I understand that current practice requires graduated release to address both the train handling and the electrical effect.  But I am considering this instant release as part of a new proposal which would require instantly releasing the dynamics in order for the proposal to work.  So I want to find out if instant release is possible with this new proposal.

The only part of the question that I am re-asking pertains to the electrical effect.  The reason for re-asking it is to clarify if the electrical problems from instant release when using existing equipment could be overcome with a design change in the switching and control apparatus.  I will assume that the answer to that is yes.  So I have the answers to my two-part question.  I will follow up with a description of the new proposal.     

[BaltACD]

Euclid

 

I understand that current practice requires graduated release to address both the train handling and the electrical effect.  But I am considering this instant release as part of a new proposal which would require instantly releasing the dynamics in order for the proposal to work.  So I want to find out if instant release is possible with this new proposal.

Everybody loves a technological catastrophy [/sarcasm]- any proposal to 'instantly' eliminate dynamic braking from a train that is operating with dynamics applied is a recepie for a train handling disaster on top of any other situations that may be taking place.

[Electroliner 1935]

The plumbing analogy is suddenly closing a faucet while the water is flowing. They install anti-hammer stubs on the pipes as shock absorbers but in some cases pipes have burst from the hammer effect. Old DC locomotives had "blow out coils" on the contactors to handle the arcs that occured when opening a circuit with heavy current flows.

[Euclid]

Dynamic Braking and Derailments:

I have been thinking about dynamic braking and mid-train derailments that do not involve collisions. As I understand it, dynamic braking potential of a train must be limited according to the number of axles, etc. because too much dynamic braking buff (compressive) force will jackknife cars or pop them out of the train. 

So with enough dynamic braking on line, the buff force can be as high as possible without causing the train to derail.  Other than a hard slack run-in, I would conclude that the typical buff force generated by conventional air braking is not nearly as high as it is with the maximum degree of dynamic braking that is commonly used. 

Derailments begin with the first wheelset leaving the rails.  From there, they often progress to a massive pileup of cars.  Yet, as seen in the recent Marytown, TN derailment, the derailment never progressed beyond the first wheelset leaving the rails, which is relatively unusual.  This tank car had its leading truck derailed at one axle.  Apparently the second axle of that truck was still carrying the load and guiding it too.  

I conclude that many, perhaps most, high speed derailments have some amount of time/distance between the first wheelset leaving the rails and start of a pileup.  It may only be 50 feet.  It could be 500 feet.  It could be miles.  In the case of a rail breaking on a curve, the derailment might instantly start a pileup with practically no derailed-dragging phase. Some derailments drag for some distance and then re-rail themselves.  It would be interesting to know the actual statistical distribution of the occurrence of the various derailed-dragging events associated with high-speed derailments.

A derailed-dragging event can go on for a long distance, such as over five miles.  It either ends by the onset of a pileup or by the stopping of the train.  The derailed-dragging phase is a delicate process that can easily be perturbed, thus causing the onset of a pileup. This can be triggered by just entering a curve, or snagging something like a switch or crossing; or it could be just caused by the gradual disintegration of the derailed truck due to the dragging friction.  The pileup can also be suddenly triggered by changes slack condition due to power increase or braking.

I conclude that a high buff force of a train in dynamic braking would pose the greatest potential disruption to the stability that allows a derailed car to drag without causing a pileup.  Conventional air braking would also pose a disruption, but not as severe as dynamic braking.  By the same token, being under power with no braking and slack stretched would pose the least threat of disrupting the delicate derailed-dragging phase. 

[Wizlish]

Euclid

I have been thinking about dynamic braking and mid-train derailments that do not involve collisions. As I understand it, dynamic braking potential of a train must be limited according to the number of axles, etc. because too much dynamic braking buff (compressive) force will jackknife cars or pop them out of the train.

It is restricted according to the number of axles on the power because there is only so much train weight you can run through a given number of braking locomotive wheelsets before you risk starting to slide them.

There is a limit on how much dynamic you want to apply to a short train, but that's an issue for an engineer's train handling skill, not a technological limitation.

 

So with enough dynamic braking on line, the buff force can be as high as possible without causing the train to derail.

The 'buff force' can only be as high as the countertorque on the locomotive wheels can deal with.  And as you have already noted, it is only 'high' as a function of deceleration unless the train weight is grossly in excess of the dynamic capability (as on the overloaded train in one of the Duffy's Curve wrecks).  Again, good train handling involves modulating the dynamic to minimize any 'peaks' in buff force as the train passes into a 'steeper' downgrade section.

 

Other than a hard slack run-in, I would conclude that the typical buff force generated by conventional air braking is not nearly as high as it is with the maximum degree of dynamic braking that is commonly used. [/quote]

Of course it isn't.  Conventional braking is distributed through the train, so as the brakes go on progressively, the maximum observed buff force location moves aft in the consist and will depend on the inertia of the (decreasing) consist that is still relatively unbraked.  On the other hand, dynamic when used with the air not set will cause buff at the rear of the locomotive consist to be the highest of any measurable buff force in the train, and this will change first when more (or less) dynamic is provided.

[rdamon]

Buffett may benefit as train lobby bids to weaken safety rule

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/14/us-usa-train-regulations-insight-idUSKCN0PO0A320150714?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews

 

Reads like one of our threads ... :)

[Euclid]

That is a very interesting development.  Here’s my question:  What does the crude-by-rail industry mean when they say that ECP brakes could “potentially jeopardize safety,” as the article says?      

[rdamon]

Looks like part of the case to say they need more testing ...

BNSF lobbies the government on a range of issues, and crude-by-rail represents a small part of those efforts, spokesman Michael Trevino said. He also said the company supports the study and testing of ECP brake technology before implementation.  

On another note ..

Judge OK’s $430-million settlement fund for Lac-Megantic victims and creditors

http://medicinehatnews.com/business/2015/07/13/judge-oks-430million-settlement-fund-for-lacmegantic-victims-and-creditors/

[Euclid]

Based on the above linked article from Reuters:

Apparently, the only basis for the AAR saying that ECP brakes jeopardize safety is their own claim that ECP brakes are unreliable.  I think that is going to be a weak argument.  Generally, ECP brakes add safety.   But the AAR claim means that ECP brakes are less safe than conventional air brakes.  Maybe there are some reliability issues such as the well-known connector problem.  But, I don’t think there is a net loss of safety with ECP compared to conventional.  In other words, ECP brakes are not unreliable enough to jeopardize safety. 

The AAR says that the FRA never made the case for ECP increasing safety.  I don’t think the AAR has made the case for ECP decreasing safety, as they claim. 

Actually, and ironically, one of the two ECP manufacturers has made a clearer case against ECP brakes than the AAR has.

Here is a quote from the article by the NEW YORK AIR BRAKE Co.:

“While a New York Air Brake official said ECP technology is reliable, the company has said that ECP brakes aren't a solution for oil trains because most derailments are caused by a broken track, wheel or axle, and ECP brakes can’t stop an accident once a train starts to derail.”

 

I find it very strange that New York Air Brake takes the same position as the AAR, and even goes so far as to misrepresent a fundamental truth about ECP brakes.  Why would NYAB shoot themselves in the foot when presented with the blessed fruit of a federal mandate requiring the use of their products?

The company says that their ECP brakes cannot stop an accident once a train starts to derail. That is somewhat true in that you can’t stop a derailment the instant a train derails by applying the ECP brakes.  Obviously, you cannot totally prevent a derailment after it begins.  But that red herring only part of the story. 

First of all, there are some derailments that ECP would actually prevent by their better control of slack action and their aid to train handling precision.  But, set that aside and consider the following aspect of their comment.   

NYAB is right that ECP cannot stop a derailment from starting, if that is what they mean. But ECP brakes do stop an accident from continuing once a trains starts to derail.  They do that by stopping the train.  And they do that quicker than conventional air brakes.  Granted it may not be that much quicker, but seconds count in the progress of a high speed derailment.  The quicker the train stops, the fewer the number of cars that will derail, and the less the number of gallons of oil that will spill.

It is amazing that neither side of this high stakes ECP mandate have a clear grasp of the technical details.  I don’t think it will be decided on the technical details. 

[cx500]

Shifting the focus over to pipelines, take a look at this report.  No fires but lots of volume spilled.

< http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/alberta-pipelines-6-major-oil-spills-in-recent-history-1.3156604 >

[BaltACD]

cx500

Shifting the focus over to pipelines, take a look at this report.  No fires but lots of volume spilled.

< http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/alberta-pipelines-6-major-oil-spills-in-recent-history-1.3156604 >

Moving anything, anywhere by any method has risks.

Moving yourself from one side of the living room to the other involves the risks of slip, trip and fall.

[Euclid]

7/14/15 BNSF Derailment at Fort Kipp, Montana:

Here is an example of a recent derailment that might have been mitigated by derailment sensors on the cars.  It began with a derailed-dragging event that apparently persisted for 3-4 miles before the train stopped.  It is reported that about ½ mile of track was completely destroyed.  Nine cars were derailed.  It is unclear how the derailment progressed from one car to nine cars over the 3-4 miles.  Also unclear is whether any of the cars ultimately piled up, or if they all stayed in line until the train stopped. 

If nine cars derailed sequentially at the point of first derailment, it seems unlikely that they would have continued for miles without derailing all the cars behind them at the point of first derailment.  Although, that would be possible if first car to derail was ninth from the hind end.

http://www.kfyrtv.com/home/headlines/Train-Derails-Near-Wolfpoint-Montana--315237641.html

[Wizlish]

I think we may need to wait for another report to find out any technical information; the story says nine boxcars derailed, three of them loaded with ethanol and four with petroleum.  That doesn't bode well as an indicator of their distinctive competence in railway-technology reporting...

[wanswheel]

Articles about the other Montana derailment

https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dTcIiipcd2dAhBMWufDfBdvaafn0M&q=BNSF+crude+oil+culbertson&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQqgIwAGoVChMIt8fn0Y3lxgIVBMk-Ch0G7AG9

[Wizlish]

wanswheel

Articles about the other Montana derailment

https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dTcIiipcd2dAhBMWufDfBdvaafn0M&q=BNSF+crude+oil+culbertson&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQqgIwAGoVChMIt8fn0Y3lxgIVBMk-Ch0G7AG9

 

Thanks for the list of references!

 

For some reason it is difficult to figure out from the reporting where in the train the Culbertson derailment occurred, but I deduced it was fairly far back in the train (there is a picture of a substantial number of 'underailed cars' said to be moving westbound, and the original train was routed westbound).  I would suspect either a progressive derailment or stringline.  Cars are apparently 1232s, which seem to have done the job against explosions despite three of them leaking.  The usual quotes trying to drum up FUD about 'big orange glow' and “We’re real lucky it didn’t go bang"...

 

My initial suspicion/speculation is that here, too, is a case that might have been helped with prompt sensing and recognition of midtrain derailment.

[dehusman]

Euclid

I find it very strange that New York Air Brake takes the same position as the AAR, and even goes so far as to misrepresent a fundamental truth about ECP brakes.

Why would you think that the people who design, build and test air brakes would have a different opiinion from the people who are their customers and helped them design and test the air brakes?

 

Why would NYAB shoot themselves in the foot when presented with the blessed fruit of a federal mandate requiring the use of their products?

If the railroads buy ECP they can buy a NYAB product.  If the railroads buy conventional brakes, they can buy a NYAB product.  Where have they lost?

The company says that their ECP brakes cannot stop an accident once a train starts to derail. That is somewhat true in that you can’t stop a derailment the instant a train derails by applying the ECP brakes.

No that's 100% true. 

 First of all, there are some derailments that ECP would actually prevent by their better control of slack action and their aid to train handling precision.

Please site specifically which OIL TRAIN derailments were cause by slack action or "lack of train handling precision".  I'll save you the trouble, the answer is none.

Slack action problems will be in trains of mixed car types, in mixed loads and empties.  Those problems are not found in unit trains like oil trains.  Your bringing up "slack action" as a cause is the red herring.

  It is amazing that neither side of this high stakes ECP mandate have a clear grasp of the technical details. 

They do.  Its just that it conflicts with your concepts, so you dismiss them as wrong or flawed or unclear.  Even though they have designed the brake systems, they build the brake systems, they test the brake systems, they sell the brake systems, they have a hundred years of actual experience with actual brake systems (they didn't just Google a bunch of reports), since they don't conform to your preconcieved notions of how things "are", they must be wrong and you are infallibly right.

[Euclid]

dehusman

 

Euclid

 

It is amazing that neither side of this high stakes ECP mandate have a clear grasp of the technical details. 

 

 

They do.  Its just that it conflicts with your concepts, so you dismiss them as wrong or flawed or unclear.  Even though they have designed the brake systems, they build the brake systems, they test the brake systems, they sell the brake systems, they have a hundred years of actual experience with actual brake systems (they didn't just Google a bunch of reports), since they don't conform to your preconcieved notions of how things "are", they must be wrong and you are infallibly right.

 

 

Than is nonsense.  I am not talking about whether either side agrees with my ideas.  I am talking about the AAR and the USDOT disagreeing with each other.  If they were the infallible experts that you insist they are, then why do they disagree on this matter?  They are diametrically opposed, so they both can’t be right.  That is my point. 

 

[BaltACD]

Euclid

I am talking about the AAR and the USDOT disagreeing with each other.  If they were the infallible experts that you insist they are, then why do they disagree on this matter?  They are diametrically opposed, so they both can’t be right.  That is my point.

Democrats & Republicans both believe they are right - yet are for the most part diametrically opposed - It's human nature to disagree and defend one's viewpoint as the ONLY RIGHT way.

[edblysard]

Euclid

I find it very strange that New York Air Brake takes the same position as the AAR, and even goes so far as to misrepresent a fundamental truth about ECP brakes. 

 

What "fundamental truth" are you referring to?

 

 Why would NYAB shoot themselves in the foot when presented with the blessed fruit of a federal mandate requiring the use of their products?

 

Because their product is being represented in the press as a save all single solution to a problem that has more causes than the product can prevent.

 

 First of all, there are some derailments that ECP would actually prevent by their better control of slack action and their aid to train handling precision.

 

You know this how?

By first hand experience? The company that makes the product disagrees with your statement, and they would be in a much better position to know.

 

  It is amazing that neither side of this high stakes ECP mandate have a clear grasp of the technical details. 

 

Which "sides" are you referring to?

If you mean the AAR, they are not a "side", they are a trade group whose primary purpose is to promote things that make railroading safer and more profitable.

If the other side you mention is NYAB, I would imagine they have a much deeper and more precise grasp of the "details" of their system than you do.

If you mean the politicians that created the mandate, they are simply trying to get re-elected, and would "mandate" anything that would help accomplish that.

I find it almost stunning arrogance that you claim to have a better grasp of the details of a brake system than the CEO of the company that produces said brakes, considering you have zero experience in designing such products and zero experience in the use of train brakes, or any actual hands on experience in railroading for that matter. 

 

[Norm48327]

edblysard

I find it almost stunning arrogance that you claim to have a better grasp of the details of a brake system than the CEO of the company that produces said brakes, considering you have zero experience in designing such products and zero experience in the use of train brakes, or any actual hands on experience in railroading for that matter.

Hear, hear!

[Euclid]

edblysard

Euclid

I find it very strange that New York Air Brake takes the same position as the AAR, and even goes so far as to misrepresent a fundamental truth about ECP brakes. 

 

What "fundamental truth" are you referring to?

 

 Why would NYAB shoot themselves in the foot when presented with the blessed fruit of a federal mandate requiring the use of their products?

 

Because their product is being represented in the press as a save all single solution to a problem that has more causes than the product can prevent.

 

 First of all, there are some derailments that ECP would actually prevent by their better control of slack action and their aid to train handling precision.

 

You know this how?

By first hand experience? The company that makes the product disagrees with your statement, and they would be in a much better position to know.

 

  It is amazing that neither side of this high stakes ECP mandate have a clear grasp of the technical details. 

 

Which "sides" are you referring to?

If you mean the AAR, they are not a "side", they are a trade group whose primary purpose is to promote things that make railroading safer and more profitable.

If the other side you mention is NYAB, I would imagine they have a much deeper and more precise grasp of the "details" of their system than you do.

If you mean the politicians that created the mandate, they are simply trying to get re-elected, and would "mandate" anything that would help accomplish that.

I find it almost stunning arrogance that you claim to have a better grasp of the details of a brake system than the CEO of the company that produces said brakes, considering you have zero experience in designing such products and zero experience in the use of train brakes, or any actual hands on experience in railroading for that matter. 

 

 

Ed,

What I said about NYAB had nothing to do with my knowledge, experience, and opinions; and nothing to with comparing my views to the views of NYAB, or me debating their views.  However, Dave’s comments above sure try to make it seem that way.  You are both jumping to that conclusion.      

My ONLY point I was making is that I find it strange that a company producing the most sophisticated air brake products would downplay the benefits of that product at the same time their industry promotes those benefits to the markets. 

I said this: “I find it very strange that New York Air Brake takes the same position as the AAR, and even goes so far as to misrepresent a fundamental truth about ECP brakes.”

I find it strange because it is strange that NYAB would say that, while I conclude that Wabtec would not say that.  When I have talked to someone at Wabtec, he seemed to be promoting all the usual claims of better safety from easier train handling, shorter stopping distance, reduced slack, etc.

The two sides I was referring to is the AAR and USDOT/FRA.  I call them “sides’ because they are in disagreement over the results of using ECP brakes.  So they are two sides of a debate.  Clearly the two sides are not two groups of experts agreeing with each other as Dave asserts above.

The “fundamental truth” that I said NYAB is denying is the truth that ECP brakes reduce slack action, and slack action can cause derailments.  I did not say how often ECP brakes would prevent a derailment in that way.  But it can happen. The AAR and NYAB seem to be saying that it can never happen.   

As I mentioned earlier, I am not sure I understand the exact points NYAB is making.  NYAB says “ECP can’t stop an accident once a train starts to derail.”  Who has ever claimed that it can?  ECP is only claimed to be able to prevent a derailment from occurring.  I think that NYAB comment is ambiguous at least.  What exactly does “stop and accident” even mean?  Does it mean prevent an accident or put an end to one after it begins?  If it means prevent an accident, it makes no sense to qualify it with “after it begins.” 

NYAB also seems to be dismissing ECP because it will not be the total solution for the problem; when he says “it’s the wrong solution for the problem,” or when they say ECP brakes “aren’t a solution.”  This has been the position of the AAR as well.  That is, that ECP will not solve the whole problem as if anyone expects a single measure that will end oil train derailments 100%.  It is a way of discrediting any partial solution because it is only partial.  Common sense says that solving a complex problem will often require several partial solutions to do the whole job. 

So I am not sure what is behind the NYAB comments, but I find them strange.  I mean strange in content and structure.

[tree68]

Still waiting to hear what that fundamental truth is.  I'm sure NYAB and WABTEC would be interested, too.  I'd be willing to bet that the WABTEC person you talked to was a PR flack who was reading from the product description.

Your confusion over NYAB's statement stems from assuming that just because a solution may be beneficial to users (as NYAB says ECP is), it is beneficial to all users.  Aspirin is an excellent pain reliever with a long and safe history, but it's not the pain reliever of choice for someone using blood thinners or with ulcers.  And NYAB is saying the ECP is not the solution to the tanker issue.  

 

[Euclid]

tree68

Still waiting to hear what that fundamental truth is.  I'm sure NYAB and WABTEC would be interested, too.  I'd be willing to bet that the WABTEC person you talked to was a PR flack who was reading from the product description.

Your confusion over NYAB's statement stems from assuming that just because a solution may be beneficial to users (as NYAB says ECP is), it is beneficial to all users.  Aspirin is an excellent pain reliever with a long and safe history, but it's not the pain reliever of choice for someone using blood thinners or with ulcers.  And NYAB is saying the ECP is not the solution to the tanker issue.  

 

 

I already explained what “fundamental truth” I was talking about in an earlier comment.  Read it in my next post above.

Actually I am not taking any position on the ECP mandate.  You are all just jumping to that conclusion.  I have ideas that require ECP brakes, but they are way outside of the application of basic ECP as defined by the mandate.  Here, I am only talking about the debate about the mandate and what each side is saying. 

I am not taking sides on the mandate itself because I don’t have any stake in it either practically or as an advocate.  I have criticized both sides for what they have said in the debate.  For instance earlier in this thread, I posted the content of a message I received from the FRA that explained in considerable detail why they believe ECP will make oil trains safer.  Then I carefully explained why I disagree with much of their points. 

Incidentally, the person I spoke to at Wabtec is most assuredly not a public relations flack. 

I conclude that the AAR opposes the mandate because they don’t believe the advantages justify the cost.  They may be right.  I certainly don’t think ECP alone is a panacea.  If it only prevents a couple oil train derailments in a decade; or if it only reduces the number of derailed tank cars in a wreck by an average of 5%, maybe that is not worth the cost.

But in their zeal to say that ECP benefit does not justify the cost, the AAR seems to have got a running start by saying or implying that there is no benefit.  I think they do themselves a disservice in taking that exaggerated position because it makes it easier for the FRA to claim they are wrong.         

I don’t understand your point about ECP not being beneficial to all users.  You say that NYAB says that ECP is beneficial to users, but not all users.  Where do they say that?  If their position is the ECP is beneficial to some users but not others, why is that?  Why is better train handling, graduated release, fewer UDEs, less slack action, and quicker stopping not beneficial to all users?   

[Buslist]

I'm wondering if we can create a crowd funding site to sponsor Euclic to one of Gary Wolf's train handling and derailment classes so he will fially get it all? And quit wasting all our time?

[tree68]

Euclid

I already explained what “fundamental truth” I was talking about in an earlier comment.  Read it in my next post above.

By golly, you're right.  But this thread is about oil trains, and it's been pointed out that slack action derailments are not the problem with oil trains - that's an issue for mixed consists.

Hence NYAB's contention that ECP is not the solution for THIS problem.  It may be a solution for mixed consists, but not for oil trains.  Thus mandating ECP for oil trains is essentially useless.

As I recall, what you said that WABTEC said about ECP basically parallels what NYAB says for general consists.  While the person you spoke with may not be a flack, you can bet what he told you will hold up in a court of law, as it was necessarily non-commital.

You say that NYAB says that ECP is beneficial to users, but not all users.  Where do they say that? 

From your post of July 16:

“While a New York Air Brake official said ECP technology is reliable, the company has said that ECP brakes aren't a solution for oil trains because most derailments are caused by a broken track, wheel or axle, and ECP brakes can’t stop an accident once a train starts to derail.”

From this I infer that ECP is useful/beneficial for most applications, but not for oil train incidents.

There's more to train handling than preventing derailments.  Broken knuckles, damage to lading, and fuel considerations come to mind.  In fact, preventing derailments is probably down the list a ways.

Wikipedia (I know...) lists the following as benefits:

Greater intervals between brake tests are also likely because of the ability of ECP brakes to self-diagnose which should generate large cost savings that will help pay for the system to be installed.

The benefits are better control of braking, less equipment wear from pushing and pulling between cars, shorter stopping distance and improved headways.

Note that these are economic benefits.  Prevention of derailments is not on the list.

This article:  http://www.railway-technical.com/brake3.shtml from what appears to be an independent organization, mentions "significant forces" regarding conventional braking, but does not mention derailments.

So what we're looking for is a way to mitigate oil train derailments - and ECP does not appear to be any more than a very small part of that solution.

[Euclid]

tree68

 

Note that these are economic benefits.  Prevention of derailments is not on the list.

This article:  http://www.railway-technical.com/brake3.shtml from what appears to be an independent organization, mentions "significant forces" regarding conventional braking, but does not mention derailments.

So what we're looking for is a way to mitigate oil train derailments - and ECP does not appear to be any more than a very small part of that solution.

 

You cited the link as quoted above and say that it does not mention preventing derailments.  From the link you cited (my emphasis added in red):

“With the new responsiveness of ECP braking, braking distances will be reduced. A range of 30 - 70% reduction has been quoted. This will allow shorter stopping distances and will, in turn, allow higher speeds. The improved train handling will reduce slack action, breakaways and derailments and will lead to a reduction in draft gear maintenance.”

 

This quote is from Wabtec:

“Unlike traditional pneumatic brakes, which are initiated from the locomotive and applied to one freight car at a time in a domino-like sequence, ECP uses microprocessor and networking technologies to apply the brakes to each car in the train simultaneously. In this way, ECP eliminates the pushing and pulling of cars against each other during the braking process, which ultimately causes equipment wear and failures, and derailments.”

http://www.wabtec.com/railroad/ecpb.asp

 

Here is a quote from New York Air Brake regarding their ECP product.  It sounds much different than what their president said about ECP not being a solution:

“EP-60 has proven itself in the harsh climate of Northern Canada over years of revenue service on QCM iron ore trains, where very high reliability service continues to be demonstrated. The improved train handling significantly decreased fuel consumption, dramatically increased brake shoe life, and greatly decreased coupler and knuckle failures. It completely eliminated UDEs. EP-60 reduces in-train forces, prolongs wheel life, and safely permits higher operating speeds and shorter stop distances. The result is a proven technology that delivers a high return on investment, increased safety, and improved operation.”

*****************************************

 

These QMC trains are unit trains like the oil trains.  You say that slack is not a problem with unit trains, but only with mixed consist trains.  If ECP brakes have greatly decreased the coupler and knuckle failures on QMC, what was causing those failures in the first place?

 

[Euclid]

.

[tdmidget]

It's called  "honesty"