Buslist Euclid Buslist Euclid Buslist Euclid Buslist, So you have tank cars that derail on track irregularities more than any other type of freight car, and your solution is to get rid of track irregularities. That’s rich. No it's called cost effective, understand the concept? Over and out, you just don't get it! Cost effective? Who gets to decide what cost is too high and what cost is just right when oil trains are endangering the public? . Another example of how you just don't get it! Buslist, My premise is that if tank cars are unusually prone to derail on track irregularities; and prone to cause track irregularities; it would be cost effective to change tank cars so they are not unusually prone to these problems. You are the one who tells me that tank car flexibility/rigidity is accounted for in programs used to design the truck suspension. If the relatively higher rigidity of tank cars is accounted for in the design of truck suspension, why are tank cars still more prone to derail? Like I said over and out, have better things to do with my time than to try to educate someone that doesn't want to be educated.
Euclid Buslist Euclid Buslist Euclid Buslist, So you have tank cars that derail on track irregularities more than any other type of freight car, and your solution is to get rid of track irregularities. That’s rich. No it's called cost effective, understand the concept? Over and out, you just don't get it! Cost effective? Who gets to decide what cost is too high and what cost is just right when oil trains are endangering the public? . Another example of how you just don't get it! Buslist, My premise is that if tank cars are unusually prone to derail on track irregularities; and prone to cause track irregularities; it would be cost effective to change tank cars so they are not unusually prone to these problems. You are the one who tells me that tank car flexibility/rigidity is accounted for in programs used to design the truck suspension. If the relatively higher rigidity of tank cars is accounted for in the design of truck suspension, why are tank cars still more prone to derail?
Buslist Euclid Buslist Euclid Buslist, So you have tank cars that derail on track irregularities more than any other type of freight car, and your solution is to get rid of track irregularities. That’s rich. No it's called cost effective, understand the concept? Over and out, you just don't get it! Cost effective? Who gets to decide what cost is too high and what cost is just right when oil trains are endangering the public? . Another example of how you just don't get it!
Euclid Buslist Euclid Buslist, So you have tank cars that derail on track irregularities more than any other type of freight car, and your solution is to get rid of track irregularities. That’s rich. No it's called cost effective, understand the concept? Over and out, you just don't get it! Cost effective? Who gets to decide what cost is too high and what cost is just right when oil trains are endangering the public?
Buslist Euclid Buslist, So you have tank cars that derail on track irregularities more than any other type of freight car, and your solution is to get rid of track irregularities. That’s rich. No it's called cost effective, understand the concept? Over and out, you just don't get it!
Euclid Buslist, So you have tank cars that derail on track irregularities more than any other type of freight car, and your solution is to get rid of track irregularities. That’s rich.
No it's called cost effective, understand the concept?
Over and out, you just don't get it!
. Another example of how you just don't get it!
Like I said over and out, have better things to do with my time than to try to educate someone that doesn't want to be educated.
Euclid Buslist Euclid Buslist Euclid Buslist Euclid Buslist, So you have tank cars that derail on track irregularities more than any other type of freight car, and your solution is to get rid of track irregularities. That’s rich. No it's called cost effective, understand the concept? Over and out, you just don't get it! Cost effective? Who gets to decide what cost is too high and what cost is just right when oil trains are endangering the public? . Another example of how you just don't get it! Buslist, My premise is that if tank cars are unusually prone to derail on track irregularities; and prone to cause track irregularities; it would be cost effective to change tank cars so they are not unusually prone to these problems. You are the one who tells me that tank car flexibility/rigidity is accounted for in programs used to design the truck suspension. If the relatively higher rigidity of tank cars is accounted for in the design of truck suspension, why are tank cars still more prone to derail? Like I said over and out, have better things to do with my time than to try to educate someone that doesn't want to be educated. Buslist, I ask you a reasonable question, but you say you are too busy. Maybe someone else will chime in with the answer. I do thank you for clarifying that that the TSB is correct in their assertion that tank cars cause more track damage, and derail easier on track defects than any other type of rolling stock. Prior to this information, the consensus here on the forum was that the TSB was wrong in their assertion.
Once again you have it wrong tank cars are show to cause more damage but are more prone to issues with certain types of irregularities! Will you ever learn to listen?
The railroads get to decide, sometimes with the regulatory authorities looking over their shoulder, and do it on the basis of real knowedge and experience. Given two choices, replace xx thousand tank cars or worry about perhaps a few miles of track on each railroad, the economic decision is clear. The track problem is easily manageable by simple and well understood options. Fix a very specific and localized geometry, or require a speed restriction, or use a different track (or route).
Tank cars are not the only type of freight cars that have been known to interact poorly with specific track conditions, sometimes within specific speed ranges. Short ore cars are one, and empty bulkhead flats have also had some problems. Once the problem was recognized, appropriate operating procedures were modified and eliminated the risk.
John
Buslist Euclid Buslist Euclid Buslist Euclid Buslist Euclid Buslist, So you have tank cars that derail on track irregularities more than any other type of freight car, and your solution is to get rid of track irregularities. That’s rich. No it's called cost effective, understand the concept? Over and out, you just don't get it! Cost effective? Who gets to decide what cost is too high and what cost is just right when oil trains are endangering the public? . Another example of how you just don't get it! Buslist, My premise is that if tank cars are unusually prone to derail on track irregularities; and prone to cause track irregularities; it would be cost effective to change tank cars so they are not unusually prone to these problems. You are the one who tells me that tank car flexibility/rigidity is accounted for in programs used to design the truck suspension. If the relatively higher rigidity of tank cars is accounted for in the design of truck suspension, why are tank cars still more prone to derail? Like I said over and out, have better things to do with my time than to try to educate someone that doesn't want to be educated. Buslist, I ask you a reasonable question, but you say you are too busy. Maybe someone else will chime in with the answer. I do thank you for clarifying that that the TSB is correct in their assertion that tank cars cause more track damage, and derail easier on track defects than any other type of rolling stock. Prior to this information, the consensus here on the forum was that the TSB was wrong in their assertion. Once again you have it wrong tank cars are show to cause more damage but are more prone to issues with certain types of irregularities! Will you ever learn to listen?
This is exciting, I think we are about to find out what the maximum number of nested quotes is possible in this forum's software. I say it will only be one more after this since that would squeeze the original quote down to about one character wide, making it virtually unreadable, possibly the kindest thing that could happen to the thread.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/canadian_national/news/Canadas-TSB-CN-derailment-caused-by-poor-wheel-set-performance--46372?email=drtrack@ymail.com&utm_medium=email&utm_source=prdailynews&utm_campaign=prdailynews11/06/2015
Oh my goodness now we find the TSB partially blaming a derailment on a car that didn't have enough torsional stiffness!
Another recall?
[/quote]
cx500 Euclid Buslist Euclid Buslist, So you have tank cars that derail on track irregularities more than any other type of freight car, and your solution is to get rid of track irregularities. That’s rich. No it's called cost effective, understand the concept? Over and out, you just don't get it! Cost effective? Who gets to decide what cost is too high and what cost is just right when oil trains are endangering the public? The railroads get to decide, sometimes with the regulatory authorities looking over their shoulder, and do it on the basis of real knowedge and experience. Given two choices, replace xx thousand tank cars or worry about perhaps a few miles of track on each railroad, the economic decision is clear.
The railroads get to decide, sometimes with the regulatory authorities looking over their shoulder, and do it on the basis of real knowedge and experience. Given two choices, replace xx thousand tank cars or worry about perhaps a few miles of track on each railroad, the economic decision is clear.
Buslist http://www.progressiverailroading.com/canadian_national/news/Canadas-TSB-CN-derailment-caused-by-poor-wheel-set-performance--46372?email=drtrack@ymail.com&utm_medium=email&utm_source=prdailynews&utm_campaign=prdailynews11/06/2015 Oh my goodness now we find the TSB partially blaming a derailment on a car that didn't have enough torsional stiffness! Another recall?
dehusman Buslist Euclid Buslist Euclid Buslist Euclid Buslist Euclid Buslist, So you have tank cars that derail on track irregularities more than any other type of freight car, and your solution is to get rid of track irregularities. That’s rich. No it's called cost effective, understand the concept? Over and out, you just don't get it! Cost effective? Who gets to decide what cost is too high and what cost is just right when oil trains are endangering the public? . Another example of how you just don't get it! Buslist, My premise is that if tank cars are unusually prone to derail on track irregularities; and prone to cause track irregularities; it would be cost effective to change tank cars so they are not unusually prone to these problems. You are the one who tells me that tank car flexibility/rigidity is accounted for in programs used to design the truck suspension. If the relatively higher rigidity of tank cars is accounted for in the design of truck suspension, why are tank cars still more prone to derail? Like I said over and out, have better things to do with my time than to try to educate someone that doesn't want to be educated. Buslist, I ask you a reasonable question, but you say you are too busy. Maybe someone else will chime in with the answer. I do thank you for clarifying that that the TSB is correct in their assertion that tank cars cause more track damage, and derail easier on track defects than any other type of rolling stock. Prior to this information, the consensus here on the forum was that the TSB was wrong in their assertion. Once again you have it wrong tank cars are show to cause more damage but are more prone to issues with certain types of irregularities! Will you ever learn to listen? This is exciting, I think we are about to find out what the maximum number of nested quotes is possible in this forum's software. I say it will only be one more after this since that would squeeze the original quote down to about one character wide, making it virtually unreadable, possibly the kindest thing that could happen to the thread.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding dehusman Buslist Euclid Buslist Euclid Buslist Euclid Buslist Euclid Buslist, So you have tank cars that derail on track irregularities more than any other type of freight car, and your solution is to get rid of track irregularities. That’s rich. No it's called cost effective, understand the concept? Over and out, you just don't get it! Cost effective? Who gets to decide what cost is too high and what cost is just right when oil trains are endangering the public? . Another example of how you just don't get it! Buslist, My premise is that if tank cars are unusually prone to derail on track irregularities; and prone to cause track irregularities; it would be cost effective to change tank cars so they are not unusually prone to these problems. You are the one who tells me that tank car flexibility/rigidity is accounted for in programs used to design the truck suspension. If the relatively higher rigidity of tank cars is accounted for in the design of truck suspension, why are tank cars still more prone to derail? Like I said over and out, have better things to do with my time than to try to educate someone that doesn't want to be educated. Buslist, I ask you a reasonable question, but you say you are too busy. Maybe someone else will chime in with the answer. I do thank you for clarifying that that the TSB is correct in their assertion that tank cars cause more track damage, and derail easier on track defects than any other type of rolling stock. Prior to this information, the consensus here on the forum was that the TSB was wrong in their assertion. Once again you have it wrong tank cars are show to cause more damage but are more prone to issues with certain types of irregularities! Will you ever learn to listen? This is exciting, I think we are about to find out what the maximum number of nested quotes is possible in this forum's software. I say it will only be one more after this since that would squeeze the original quote down to about one character wide, making it virtually unreadable, possibly the kindest thing that could happen to the thread. We'll find out.
We'll find out.
Hey Bucky,
You gonna tell us your qualifications or not? We're all ears. One can't help but think that because you ignore the question that you have no qualifications to offer. That leaves your "experience" and opinions on a subject open to suspicion.
Norm
Open to suspicion? Oh, Norm, say it isn't so!
Norm48327 Euclid that tank cars are inherently more prone to derailments than any other type of rolling stock. But you have been saying that all along, together with the position that oil tank cars cause track damage that causes derailments. You once claimed that I have no knowledge of your experience or expertise in railroading. You are right on that score, and judging from your repeated "yes but" expertise on your part is lacking. Would it be too much to ask for some credentials rather than simply listening to your inane and uninformed rants.?
Euclid that tank cars are inherently more prone to derailments than any other type of rolling stock.
But you have been saying that all along, together with the position that oil tank cars cause track damage that causes derailments.
You once claimed that I have no knowledge of your experience or expertise in railroading. You are right on that score, and judging from your repeated "yes but" expertise on your part is lacking. Would it be too much to ask for some credentials rather than simply listening to your inane and uninformed rants.?
EuclidWhy worry about my credentials? If you don’t have the expertise to know whether I am right or wrong, I can’t see you accepting it on faith, based on what I claim as credentials. Just a little common sense goes a long way in judging what people say.
Your refusal to answer leaves only one conclusion; that you have no qualifications. Therefore your posts have no credibility. You are blowing smoke and other posters have no reason to believe you know of what you speak.
EuclidI have NOT been saying all along that tank cars are inherently more prone to derailments than any other type of rolling stock.
I suggest you go back and reread your own posts. You keep saying wrong things and then deny that. You are in need of some reality checks. Yes, some of us think you are nothing more than a troll.
Norm48327 I suggest you go back and reread your own posts. You keep saying wrong things and then deny that. You are in need of some reality checks. Yes, some of us think you are nothing more than a troll.
Euclid Norm48327 I suggest you go back and reread your own posts. You keep saying wrong things and then deny that. You are in need of some reality checks. Yes, some of us think you are nothing more than a troll. Norm, I suggest you seek some anger management counseling.
It has nothing to do with anger Bucky. I'm not the only one who is fed up with your inane ramblings. If you can show us some qualifications and experience we may take you seriously.
Amid all the shouting, one thing seems clear: none of the usual suspects on this forum have the self-stated credentials or expertise to be in a position to go beyond or dispute what actual experts at the TSB and NTSB have said in the various reports. And that means myself, Euclid, PDN, Dave Husman, Norm, buslist, wizlish or any others I have overlooked.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Norm48327 If you can show us some qualifications and experience we may take you seriously.
If you can show us some qualifications and experience we may take you seriously.
schlimm Amid all the shouting, one thing seems clear: none of the usual suspects on this forum have the self-stated credentials or expertise to be in a position to go beyond or dispute what actual experts at the TSB and NTSB have said in the various reports. And that means myself, Euclid, PDN, Dave Husman, Norm, wizlish or any others I have overlooked.
Amid all the shouting, one thing seems clear: none of the usual suspects on this forum have the self-stated credentials or expertise to be in a position to go beyond or dispute what actual experts at the TSB and NTSB have said in the various reports. And that means myself, Euclid, PDN, Dave Husman, Norm, wizlish or any others I have overlooked.
Schlimm,
My credentials are that of an aircraft mechanic (Airframe & Powerplant with Inspection Authorization). Everything I know about railroading, which, in reality, is little, I have learned from a few friends who are actually employed by railroads.
I participate here with the hope of learning more about the art and science of the rails; not to be fed tons of uninformed speculation. The real railroaders have given up and left the forum because one poster says they don't know what they are talking about. Quality information is lost and replaced qith uninformed opinion.
Norm48327The real railroaders have given up and left the forum because one poster says they don't know what they are talking about.
I think there are more than a few "real railroaders" on here quite regularly: Don Oltmann, BaltACD, Jeff Hergert, Larry (Tree), Ed Blysard, to mention just a few.
I don't remember who said what or who claimed that who said what any more in this thread, but I'm getting a kick out of it.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington I don't remember who said what or who claimed that who said what any more in this thread, but I'm getting a kick out of it.
schlimm Amid all the shouting, one thing seems clear: none of the usual suspects on this forum have the self-stated credentials or expertise to be in a position to go beyond or dispute what actual experts at the TSB and NTSB have said in the various reports. And that means myself, Euclid, PDN, Dave Husman, Norm, buslist, wizlish or any others I have overlooked.
Shlimm, I am also a career railroader. I have worked in most of the operating departments and I have a degree in electrical engineering (high power) . I do not claim to be an expert on this topic but I have some experiences that qualify me to make educated guesses including operating loaded oil trains.
Anyhow, the point I wanted to make is that even though I have some credentials, I still learn from the posts made by yourself and others here. At the very least they make make me rethink things that I thought I already know about. Many times a post here will start a discussion among the other rail professionals that I know. So even Bucky , although his posts can be tedious sometimes have causes some very interesting conversations at work.
As for the topic , I still haven't seen enough good evidence to support the TSB theory. All trains damage the track, thats why we have MOW departments.
I think all of my replies on this topic have been along the same line of thinking, I have an open mind just show me some real evidence!
schlimm Norm48327 The real railroaders have given up and left the forum because one poster says they don't know what they are talking about. I think there are more than a few "real railroaders" on here quite regularly: Don Oltmann, BaltACD, Jeff Hergert, Larry (Tree), Ed Blysard, to mention just a few.
Norm48327 The real railroaders have given up and left the forum because one poster says they don't know what they are talking about.
I've said I work for a railroad many times. I'll let you dig through the 8000+ posts to find it.
1) Oil unit trains do cause more track damage than all other types of trains.
2) Oil unit trains are more prone to derail than all other types of trains.
Murphy Siding Paul of Covington I don't remember who said what or who claimed that who said what any more in this thread, but I'm getting a kick out of it. Didn't you say that earlier?
Didn't you say that earlier?
Murphy, why are you claiming that I said that, and what are your credentials for saying so?
dehusmanI've said I work for a railroad many times. I'll let you dig through the 8000+ posts to find it.
Dave,
To clarify; my statement was in reference to those who threw up their hands in disgust and have left the forum. As I recall, there were several.
EuclidThis conclusion has been confirmed by the TSB of Canada, and nobody participating in this thread discussion disagrees with it.
Then it would seem logical that there is no need for further posts in this thread, but I'm certain you will clarify your position.
Euclid has spoken! So shall it be written!
EuclidSo, to answer the question posed in the title of this thread, the final conclusion of this thread is as follows: 1) Oil unit trains do cause more track damage than all other types of trains. 2) Oil unit trains are more prone to derail than all other types of trains. The reason for these facts is that tank cars lack the flexibility needed to supplement the wheel load equalization that occurs with all other types of freight cars. Therefore tank cars have insufficient wheel load equalization. Insufficiently loaded wheels cause the remaining wheels to be overloaded, and this causes track damage, defects, and irregularities. Insufficiently loaded wheels are more prone to derailment than are properly loaded wheels when passing over track damage, defects, and irregularities. This conclusion has been confirmed by the TSB of Canada, and nobody participating in this thread discussion disagrees with it.
The reason for these facts is that tank cars lack the flexibility needed to supplement the wheel load equalization that occurs with all other types of freight cars. Therefore tank cars have insufficient wheel load equalization. Insufficiently loaded wheels cause the remaining wheels to be overloaded, and this causes track damage, defects, and irregularities. Insufficiently loaded wheels are more prone to derailment than are properly loaded wheels when passing over track damage, defects, and irregularities. This conclusion has been confirmed by the TSB of Canada, and nobody participating in this thread discussion disagrees with it.
I hope you all are proud of what you have done to poor Euclid. Looking back I am surprised at how often he had made quite cogent requests for clarification, mostly to be met by a combination of hectoring disdain and perhaps intentional misunderstanding of what he actually needs to understand the answers. The red herring about qualifications or credentials hasn't helped the discussion at all,except perhaps to drive away anyone who has technical competence and a respect for civility at the same time.
The issue with 'torsional rigidity' of tank cars supposedly causing an increased propensity for actual derailments ought to be easily-enough checked, as the code for it is already in programs like NUCARS, Vampire, ADAMS and so forth. It should be possible for someone here who works with these programs and understands software to tell us exactly what the magnitude and type of the 'corrections' for stiffness, fundamental frequencies, etc. are, and then determine whether this is of sufficient magnitude (personally, I think it is not, but take that as no more significant as starting a scientific inquiry with the null hypothesis) to produce sufficient wheel (not axle, not truck frame, not spring) unloading ... or other forces in the car/truck dynamical system, perhaps induction of hunting or lozenging? ... that would produce a statistically-significant increase in the observed propensity to derail.
There's a very common parallel to this in dynamic augment in steam locomotives. Because the axle load is so substantial on most American road power, even high levels of reciprocating imbalance do not produce 'bouncing' of the drivers, or even unloading of the axle sufficient to produce uncontrollable wheelslip (we can leave duplex-drives aside for now). I cannot believe that anyone with even a smidgen of engineering experience would equate the added torsional stiffness of a tank car over a typical closed car like a covered hopper with the wheel loading that the weight of the car imposes -- through the springs and the longitudinal equalizing action of the sideframes -- on the wheeltreads. But as I keep saying, it doesn't matter what I think, it matters what the math says. And fortunately the math works whether or not the person using it has a BSeng degree or PE cert.
To Norm in particular,and to those who work regularly with vehicle-dynamics software: yes, your credentials may apply in the present context. There were people who thought Chapelon was unqualified to discuss steam because his degree was in EE. There's not much to be said for that. It is certain to me, however, that an aircraft powerplant mechanic is likely to be far more qualified to understand an engineering issue than, say, someone with a medical degree.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.