Trains.com

Oil Train

50741 views
1088 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    August 2006
  • From: South Dakota
  • 1,592 posts
Posted by Dakguy201 on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 7:58 AM

Ms. Quarterman's argument for better brakes is something of a reach.  Say a given accident results in a pile of 12 oil tankers on fire.  If we equip the train with ECP brakes, perhaps the result is only 8 cars in the pile and on fire.  The better brakes did not materially change the result of the accident.  

There may be many reasons to require a brake change, but I don't think the problem with oil trains is solved by better brakes. 

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: roundhouse
  • 2,747 posts
Posted by Randy Stahl on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 7:43 AM

She's wrong. all opinion and baseless guessing on her part. There is no evidence to support her claims as to the behavior of a derailing freight train with ECP brakes. The saddest part is that she got to the press with this.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 7:19 AM
It seems to me that the tide is turning away from solving the oil train problem with stronger tank cars, and toward a solution by the use of ECP brakes.  Both solutions are advocated by the USDOT, but the industry is strongly opposed to ECP brakes to make oil trains safer.
There is also opposition to increasing the tank car wall to over 9/16”.  But since that number has demonstrated to be inadequate, the quest for a solution is moving to ECP brakes.  Unlike increasing the wall thickness, ECP brakes do not reduce the payload of the tank cars, but the direct cost of ECP brakes is objectionable to the industry.
I speculate that part of that objection may lie in worry that an ECP mandate for oil trains may eventually be extended to all railroad equipment to universally replace conventional pneumatically controlled brakes. 
Quotes from the link: 
But a former Obama administration official who played a key role in writing the U.S. proposals says that for all the talk about increasing the thickness and durability of tank cars, the more vital consideration may be putting better brakes on those trains.
"The more I think about it, the more I think that the ECP brakes may be more important than the tank car itself, because it would stop the pileup of the cars when there's a derailment or when there's a need to brake in a very quick fashion," Cynthia Quarterman, who stepped down last year as the head of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), told me the other day.
 
"When I was in government and today I continue to say that the question is more complicated than just the tank car," said Quarterman, who at PHMSA, which is part of DOT, oversaw development of the pending government policy. "It really needs a multifaceted solution."
The DOT rulemaking took such a broad approach, proposing tanker cars with thicker shells to resist puncture, new fittings to stop valves from leaking, lower speed limits for oil trains and advance notice for local safety officials when the trains are headed for their communities.
But Quarterman says she's increasingly convinced that better braking is the key to the solution.
"These brakes help stop each car individually," she said. "The big cause for these incidents when they happen is you get the pileup, all the cars run into each other, and crash one upon the other upon the other. These new ECP brakes will have control of each tank car so you won't have that kind of pileup."
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Monday, March 23, 2015 7:11 PM

BaltACD
All I know is that several hundred miles of railroad are being severly congested with oil trains - both loaded and empty.

A loaded oil train sat on the Mohawk, Adirondack & Northern at Utica for almost a week, apparently waiting its turn to be emptied.  Putting it there involved a 2+ mile push move, so they must have been desperate.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Monday, March 23, 2015 6:34 PM

Some of these 'advances' - mainly drawbars, on intermodal cars, and maybe some coal hoppers - have been in use for almost 25 - 30 years now, and the industry has adapted to and even embraced them. 

Others are still in the embryonic stage - e.g., ECP brakes.

I'd be more convinced that some 'improvements' are impractical if a development and test program - such as at the AAR's (former name, I can't remember the current version) test track at Pueblo, Colorado, or an FRA-sponsored program on a Class 1, or even a Class 1's own efforts - after 5 or 10 years of genuine and honest effort was to conclude that it's "not ready for prime time", or uneconomic generally, or only in certain specific conditions, etc.  For example, BNSF's PTC test program on a branch line that ran for 10 years or so, starting in the 1990's.  Another example that has been adopted are the "jump" frogs / OWLS crossing frogs, etc. - I'd have given that concept the proverbial 'snowball's chance', but they seem to have won over a decent portion of the industry.

As an EMD guy once said (I recall that it was Dick Dilworth): "One test is worth a thousand opinions."  Back in the day, EMD was all about being a "disrupter' (to use the current vernacular) and imposing "It can't be done !" change on the industry from the outside. 

- Paul North.   

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Monday, March 23, 2015 6:24 PM

The Buckeye Albany Terminal (NY) off of the CSX Kenwood branch routinely empties 96+/- 'normal' tank cars of ethanol by gravity (only) in an 8 - 10 hour daytime shift, and no one seems to be in a big hurry during that operation, either.

- Paul North. 

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Monday, March 23, 2015 6:06 PM

My understanding was that the SP's Tank Train was 40 cars long?  What was it's unloading time?

The oil terminal on my territory is emptying 3 100 car trains per 24 hour period.  I have not viewed their equipment or procedure.  All I know is that several hundred miles of railroad are being severly congested with oil trains - both loaded and empty.

What, if any, operational improvements my carrier will make to handle this business more efficiently is as yet unknown.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, March 23, 2015 5:58 PM
Solid drawbars might be part of a solution that would require lots of other changes in how things are done.  Solid drawbars would be an example of a radical change.  So would ECP brakes; or an entirely different tank car design; or improved tank car suspension. 
You don’t just drop these radical changes into a business as usual model.  Business as usual would have a hundred reasons why the radical change couldn’t be done.  So a radical change would need to be part of a whole system of changes that all reinforce the possibility of each other and make each other possible.  It would be a whole system of changes that would each reduce the probability of a derailment to some extent.    
If the oil train problem is just a lot made up hype, I don’t know if any solution is needed.  But I get the feeling that a solution will be required even if the problem is just hype.  Whatever solution that ends up being, I would think it will need to be seen as catching up with the problem. 
At ten oil train wrecks per year, I don’t see how strengthening tank cars is going to catch up with the problem.  Increasing the tank wall gets contentious above 9/16”, and that has suddenly been deemed insufficient.  Nobody knows what DOT will require or when they will require it.   Maybe inspection and detection could catch up, but I have no idea if it could.  If not, maybe a radical change might be the only solution.   
  • Member since
    September 2010
  • 2,515 posts
Posted by Electroliner 1935 on Monday, March 23, 2015 5:10 PM

If you look at "UNIT" Coal trains for utility generating stations, one frequently sees "foreign" cars in their consist. This is as stated above, you cut a Bad Order car out and substitute another car. Train cycle continues with the ordered amount of coal. If you had to tie up a large block of drawbar connected cars for one bad axle, it becomes less efficient. And adds delays. Agreed that it requires more couplers and brake hoses etc. But that choice has been make by intelligent bean counters who made valid studies. There was an oil train that ran in captive service on the SP with intercar hoses that let the train be loaded and unloaded from one end. Remember seeing pictures in Trains back in the fifties I think. I think that train had coupled cars. 

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, March 23, 2015 3:58 PM

There is less demand for specialized long-throw "cushioned" draft gear today because normal draft gear has been greatly improved and has much of thle characteristics of the specialized draft gear.  Both improved design and improved materials.

Chains and buffers would not be an improvement and would be less safe in coupling and uncoupling.

Tags: couplers
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 23, 2015 1:40 PM

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Monday, March 23, 2015 1:34 PM

Euclid
I do not want to get into a p-contest over credentials. Once you start down that road, it becomes a contest over who has the most credentials. It is a sideshow that goes nowhere. All of you with experience are in a position to evaluate what I say, so what more do you need?

 

It would not be a peeing contest unless someone made it one.  But with the amount that you participate, it would be nice to know a baseline of your understandings and experiences.   That is all. 

Now back to semi-permanently coupled trainsets.  They are fine for refineries that unload (or places that load) railcars one trainload at a time all together.  For example, a refinery with a loop track.  But not all refineries have such a track, and not all trains are unloaded all coupled up.  At some places the unit trains do have to be broken up every time.   So a transit-type coupler would have to account for that, and be able to be coupled and uncoupled in a timely fashion. 

 

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, March 23, 2015 1:01 PM

Euclid

See what I mean?  You are doing exactly what I described. 

 

  Laugh  Suggesting that you're afraid to say that you don't have any?

     I'm saying that I don't have any railroad credentials, and am willing to believe what those in the business tell me because they would know.  You're saying that you don't need the railroad credentials, because your version of logic shouldn't be contradicted by those in the know. Sigh

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Monday, March 23, 2015 12:51 PM

dehusman
Paul_D_North_Jr
Oil trains are essentially "dedicated consists" - the owners / lessees would scream like mad if the cars were diverted to any other shipper or service. 

Many other types of traffic are frequently similar cars in solid consists blocks or entire trains.  I saw a grain train on Friday, plus 2 intermodals and a multi-level (auto-rack) in just a few minutes up at Cresson, PA (the summit above Horseshoe Curve).  So why must obvious progress take so long ?

One of the misunderstandings about unit trains in general (and oil trains by extension) is that the consist is fixed. The same cars travel in a set with the same other cars trip after trip after trip. Experience and reality would paint a different picture. The most consistent consists are the specialty trains (Georgetown RR slot trains) and coal trains. Other unit trains not so much.

While the same set of cars is together on an entire single trip (in most cases), the train size of successive trips for the same car may vary. The ABCX123456 might travel in oil trains for a year, but it could be in different size trains on successive trips, with trains ranging in size between 90 to 110 cars. If the train size varies between trips then that means the consist is changing, some cars are being added and some cars are being deleted from the consists between trips. Why? Bad orders, delays unloading cars, diversion to other origin-destination pairs, lots of different reasons.

When the idea is floated out for fixed drawbar equipment in "dedicated consists", just remember that the current operation does not support that concept fully, you can't just drop in a set of drawbar connected equipment and expect exactly the same operation. In order to make fixed drawbar systems work, you will have to figure out why the cars are being swapped out, how the fixed drawbar system will accommodate or mitigate those barriers, and what the cost is of that accommodation or mitigation. Most of the people on this list operate in a "cost is no object" world, but real railroads in the real world don't have that luxury. I suspect that with oil trains the empties are turned back out with whatever cars are unloaded, less bad orders. If 500 cars go into the plant, the first 100 cars, regardless of inbound train symbol, are gathered up for the empty outbound.

 

 

Not exactly correct.  In most case a 100 car (or whatever other size) operates from the loading point to the unloading point (unless something gets shopped along the way); after unloading, if some car(s) are shopped, them balance of the train goes back to the origin, without waiting for the shops to be repaired.  The shops, after repair, may either be added to another empty train being returned to the original origin, or moved in mixed freight service to the original origin.  This happens in all bulk commodity movements - coal, oil, grain, ore, steel slabs etc. etc.  The main portion of the train will not be delayed because individual cars get shopped. 

Were the shopped car to be a drawbar connected vehicle, then all the vehicle that are connected to the individual shop by drawbar connections are also shopped.  If the drawbar connected vehicle has 5 cars connected - all 5 are shopped and required 5 cars of track space to be handled.  The 'normal' intermodal car is 89 feet long.  The '5 pack' intermodal car is 300 feet long.

The cars used by one shipper at one location normally remain under the control of that shipper - in some cases the shipper, as the actual owner, will arrange for the periodic maintenance that is required for a trainset of cars.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Monday, March 23, 2015 12:40 PM

Euclid

See what I mean?  You are doing exactly what I described.

 

You don't think his lumber yard credentials are worthy? Then I guess that having been in aviation for thirty-some years neither are mine. The sum total of my railroad knowledge (not much) is what I have learned from friends in the industry and the professionals I interact with on line. It still don't amount to a hill of beans compared to those who ply the trade. I consider those interactions a learning experience and I surely won't tell them how to run their business.

I'm not saying outsiders ideas are worthless. There are times an outside opinion can be very valuable. There's always the facepalm moment of "Why didn't I think of that". They simply need to be within the realm of practicality.

Norm


  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: Calgary
  • 2,047 posts
Posted by cx500 on Monday, March 23, 2015 12:17 PM

Euclid

See what I mean?  You are doing exactly what I described.

 

We don't see. 

True experts in any field are more than willing to accept new ideas, and we have a number of railroaders that participate in this forum.  The experts may be crippled in implementing new ideas by hidebound managers but if the idea has merit the experts will keep those ideas available for more opportune times.

With expertise and broad background also comes knowledge of what is likely to be a viable innovation.  An enthusiastic amateur may be able to reinvent the wheel but the unfortunate reality is that most suggestions have already been proven impracticable, either from a physical or economic standpoint.  That may disappoint the amateur, but criticising the experts as a result is childish.

That behaviour is what caused another poster to ask about your credentials.  You were in effect denigrating theirs, despite the fact theat they have not hidden their railroad experience in the real world.

John

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,621 posts
Posted by dehusman on Monday, March 23, 2015 12:16 PM

Paul_D_North_Jr
Oil trains are essentially "dedicated consists" - the owners / lessees would scream like mad if the cars were diverted to any other shipper or service. 

Many other types of traffic are frequently similar cars in solid consists blocks or entire trains.  I saw a grain train on Friday, plus 2 intermodals and a multi-level (auto-rack) in just a few minutes up at Cresson, PA (the summit above Horseshoe Curve).  So why must obvious progress take so long ?

One of the misunderstandings about unit trains in general (and oil trains by extension) is that the consist is fixed. The same cars travel in a set with the same other cars trip after trip after trip. Experience and reality would paint a different picture. The most consistent consists are the specialty trains (Georgetown RR slot trains) and coal trains. Other unit trains not so much.

While the same set of cars is together on an entire single trip (in most cases), the train size of successive trips for the same car may vary. The ABCX123456 might travel in oil trains for a year, but it could be in different size trains on successive trips, with trains ranging in size between 90 to 110 cars. If the train size varies between trips then that means the consist is changing, some cars are being added and some cars are being deleted from the consists between trips. Why? Bad orders, delays unloading cars, diversion to other origin-destination pairs, lots of different reasons.

When the idea is floated out for fixed drawbar equipment in "dedicated consists", just remember that the current operation does not support that concept fully, you can't just drop in a set of drawbar connected equipment and expect exactly the same operation. In order to make fixed drawbar systems work, you will have to figure out why the cars are being swapped out, how the fixed drawbar system will accommodate or mitigate those barriers, and what the cost is of that accommodation or mitigation. Most of the people on this list operate in a "cost is no object" world, but real railroads in the real world don't have that luxury. I suspect that with oil trains the empties are turned back out with whatever cars are unloaded, less bad orders. If 500 cars go into the plant, the first 100 cars, regardless of inbound train symbol, are gathered up for the empty outbound.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Monday, March 23, 2015 11:49 AM

So!  Your Sideshow Bob?

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, March 23, 2015 11:13 AM

See what I mean?  You are doing exactly what I described.

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, March 23, 2015 10:55 AM

Euclid
 
zugmann
 
Euclid
The one thing we cannot do on this forum is force the professional experts to do things they do not agree with. So I don’t see any reason for those experts to get into a huff over us discussing new ideas.

 

 

It would be nice to know your expereinces.  Just for curiosity's sake.  

 

Most on here are pretty willing to share where they are coming from.  You always seem to avoid answering.

 

 

 

 

I do not want to get into a p-contest over credentials.  Once you start down that road, it becomes a contest over who has the most credentials.  It is a sideshow that goes nowhere.  All of you with experience are in a position to evaluate what I say, so what more do you need?
I find that people who will not accept an idea on its substance often demand credentials so they can claim that the person proposing the idea is unqualified to do so.  They are certainly not asking for credentials as idle curiosity.  In fact I usually interpret an expert’s demand for credentials as validation of my idea because it shows that the expert is unable to disqualify the idea on its substance. 
 

   Or any credentials?  I manage a lumberyard, so I'm not afraid to say I don't have any railroad credentials.  I also wouldn't get all defensive if someone asked me about said lack of credentials. 

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, March 23, 2015 10:26 AM
zugmann
 
Euclid
The one thing we cannot do on this forum is force the professional experts to do things they do not agree with. So I don’t see any reason for those experts to get into a huff over us discussing new ideas.

 

 

It would be nice to know your expereinces.  Just for curiosity's sake.  

 

Most on here are pretty willing to share where they are coming from.  You always seem to avoid answering.

 

 

 

I do not want to get into a p-contest over credentials.  Once you start down that road, it becomes a contest over who has the most credentials.  It is a sideshow that goes nowhere.  All of you with experience are in a position to evaluate what I say, so what more do you need?
I find that people who will not accept an idea on its substance often demand credentials so they can claim that the person proposing the idea is unqualified to do so.  They are certainly not asking for credentials as idle curiosity.  In fact I usually interpret an expert’s demand for credentials as validation of my idea because it shows that the expert is unable to disqualify the idea on its substance. 
  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, March 23, 2015 10:22 AM
 
  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Monday, March 23, 2015 10:05 AM

daveklepper

He had all the practical experience he needed.   I knew him.

Solid drawbars are zero problem because the draft gear remains, and can even be cushioned, long-throw draft gear if desired.  Any real expert knows most slack is in draft-gear travel and NOT the looseness of the coupler pocket  and knuckle mating.

Euclid
Paul,
I remember Kneiling ruffling feathers with his ideas back in that timeframe.  I never did buy his book, but I think I will now.  I want to find out how he expected to get trains started with those solid drawbars eliminating the slack.
 

He had  all the practcal experience he needed.   I knew him.

Draw bars still use draft gear, and long-throw cushioned draft gear can be used if wanted.  Most slack is in draft-gear travel, not the looseness of the coupler knuckle-pocket joint.

 

beecause he had no practical experience on railroad operations!

 

 

[/quote]

I'd like to interject  questions about "Slack Action".

I get the part about the importance of Draft Gear in the Coupling process,  with starting a long train... Loaded or Empty.  

     Is it not necessary for a loaded train on level track, to utilize the draft gear movement [Slack Action] to get the train started?  And is that not a product of the locomotive's adhesion?

[Growing up in Memphis, I saw many times at the SR's Forrest Yard; a set of road power cut off from their train, and often a single 'SW'-type switch engine hooked up to their train, then push in the slack; then proceed to pull that train out of the yard to the West ( on a slight grade from East to West). It would then proceed to push that same train back to the East, to be cut and classified in the yard. Utilizing the slack acton to get the train of cars moving and to help classify the train.] 

Then back in the late 1950's SP RR came out with their 'Hydra-Cushion' equipment, to protect freight by utilizing a cushion draft gear system: See @ http://www.carrtracks.com/sphc01.htm  It seems to then 'disappear' over time.  Why?

     Would not solid draw bars creat more of a problem than they would resolve in dedicated trains; particularly, when it came time for maintenance or remove of a bad order or damaged car?

     Would not the European System of Buffers and Chain  couplings not ba an advantage to control slack within trains?

 

 

 

 

 


 

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Monday, March 23, 2015 9:37 AM

I've started trains that may or may not be oil trains without slack.  But it really depends on grade and how good your power is.

 

And by rule you can only have so many axles online, so  "just keep adding power" is not going to work without a major rules change.  And there isn't enough power floating around just in case you may need to start on a grade.

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: North Dakota
  • 9,592 posts
Posted by BroadwayLion on Monday, March 23, 2015 9:36 AM

Buslist

Just add enough locomotives. It will go! : )

 

 
Euclid
I think oil trains could start without slack. 
 

 

 

 

Based on what experien?

 

The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.

Here there be cats.                                LIONS with CAMERAS

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Monday, March 23, 2015 9:34 AM

Euclid
The one thing we cannot do on this forum is force the professional experts to do things they do not agree with. So I don’t see any reason for those experts to get into a huff over us discussing new ideas.

 

It would be nice to know your expereinces.  Just for curiosity's sake.  

 

Most on here are pretty willing to share where they are coming from.  You always seem to avoid answering.

 

 

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, March 23, 2015 9:18 AM

He had all the practical experience he needed.   I knew him.

Solid drawbars are zero problem because the draft gear remains, and can even be cushioned, long-throw draft gear if desired.  Any real expert knows most slack is in draft-gear travel and NOT the looseness of the coupler pocket  and knuckle mating.

Euclid
Paul,
I remember Kneiling ruffling feathers with his ideas back in that timeframe.  I never did buy his book, but I think I will now.  I want to find out how he expected to get trains started with those solid drawbars eliminating the slack.
 

He had  all the practcal experience he needed.   I knew him.

Draw bars still use draft gear, and long-throw cushioned draft gear can be used if wanted.  Most slack is in draft-gear travel, not the looseness of the coupler knuckle-pocket joint.

 

beecause he had no practical experience on railroad operations!

 

[/quote]

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, March 23, 2015 9:03 AM
Buslist,
Regarding your comments above about belittling the experts and acting like the experts are stupid:
I have nothing against experts, as long as they are willing to listen to new ideas, as real experts usually are.  I would be amazed if true experts would think I am insulting them or belittling them (as you say) for the ideas that I have suggested on this forum.  Generally, I find that the more defensive experts are, the less I am convinced they are really experts.   
I do not conclude that Kneiling was wrong in questioning the status quo just because it may have rankled the so-called “experts.”  Indeed, I would have expected experts to reject Kneiling’s ideas simply because they were new thinking coming from outside of the expert bureaucracy. 
True innovation requires new thinking that is not immediately squelched by experts defending the status quo.  Large companies realize this, so they set up little satellite groups and give them the freedom to explore new thinking.  They call it thinking outside of the box. 
Now it is true that a lot of this new thinking can be impractical or useless, but big companies know that inside the box is a universal mindset that says everything is as perfect as it can be, otherwise we would not be doing it this way.         
The one thing we cannot do on this forum is force the professional experts to do things they do not agree with.  So I don’t see any reason for those experts to get into a huff over us discussing new ideas. 
  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 1,097 posts
Posted by Buslist on Sunday, March 22, 2015 10:10 PM

schlimm

 

 
Buslist
Thank you getting so tired of folks that are not railroaders acting like the industry is stupid and they, the posters, have all the answeres. The AAR through is research program spends $20 M + each year on its research/accident reduction program. Guess they should save that money and just listen to what folks here tell them what is the way to go. They have all the solutions the experts should be fired!

 

A technical analysis of derailments by experts:  http://railtec.illinois.edu/CEE/pdf/Conference%20Proceedings/2005/Anderson%20and%20Barkan%202005.pdf

 

And some technical improvements that could help:

Brigham McCown, a former head of the federal agency that regulates rail transport of hazardous materials, said an array of new technologies patented within the last decade can warn of defects and identify trouble spots before accidents happen.

For example, sensors can be put on the lead locomotive to measure rail thickness, detect deformities and alert engineers, he said. Sensors can also be placed under track or next to rail ties to detect movement in track beds, or on cars to detect a broken wheel, he said.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-so-many-oil-trains-have-derailed-this-year-2015-3#ixzz3VAqaPHV4

 

 

Yes they are a great group, mostly funded by the AAR, they were selected as an Affiliated laboratories by the AAR  by an elite group of AAR Research staff.

And the UofI has a great group of Amuni dating from the WWHay days.  A couple of his PhDs have become famous in the industry.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, March 22, 2015 9:42 PM

Buslist
Thank you getting so tired of folks that are not railroaders acting like the industry is stupid and they, the posters, have all the answeres. The AAR through is research program spends $20 M + each year on its research/accident reduction program. Guess they should save that money and just listen to what folks here tell them what is the way to go. They have all the solutions the experts should be fired!

A technical analysis of derailments by experts:  http://railtec.illinois.edu/CEE/pdf/Conference%20Proceedings/2005/Anderson%20and%20Barkan%202005.pdf

 

And some technical improvements that could help:

Brigham McCown, a former head of the federal agency that regulates rail transport of hazardous materials, said an array of new technologies patented within the last decade can warn of defects and identify trouble spots before accidents happen.

For example, sensors can be put on the lead locomotive to measure rail thickness, detect deformities and alert engineers, he said. Sensors can also be placed under track or next to rail ties to detect movement in track beds, or on cars to detect a broken wheel, he said.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-so-many-oil-trains-have-derailed-this-year-2015-3#ixzz3VAqaPHV4

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy