Norm48327 Euclid 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. Are there statistics to back up those statements?
Euclid 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.
Are there statistics to back up those statements?
Sloshing effect does have a reaction on weight transfer on stopping and starting. Truck tanks have baffles with holes in them to slow the effect of movement when stopping as well as starting. I had to watch to stay back from a car because the slosh would lighten the trailer wheels and bunch up the springs on the truck, if the stop was completefor a bit the weight would on the truck would transfer back to the trailer. If the stop was just a hard slow down the rig would spring forward due to the slosh effect. Kinetic energy is a fasinating event , I would guess the same principals apply with rail tankers multiplyed by number of cars. So the book of physics states on kinetic theory.
Respectfully, Cannonball & Rattler
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
Euclid1) 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.
Norm
Electroliner 1935 Posters have discussed the effect of the twist strength of a cylinder as a factor with no specific evidence. As an Electrical Engineer, I was taught to keep an open mind and follow the facts.
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.
zugmann The "always the victim" schtick is worn out.
Why do I have this gut feeling we'll all be hearing from Angela on Monday morning?
Place your bets folks.
Murphy Siding schlimm Murphy Siding Euclid While you are at it, tell us exactly which railroaders I drove off of the forum by disagreeing with them. I'm not Norm, but I'll give you the straight up answer: Mark W. Hemphill. That was Mark Hemphill's choice. "Driven off" indeed, as though he were a child! And now I can expect more personal vitriol from the former moderator Mr. Siding, as he usually does? Now, let's be honest here. If you start disecting the meaning of *driven off*, soon you will be saying it depends on what the definition of *is* is. He left the forum. I asked him why. He told me why. Spin that any way you way, and have a nice day.
schlimm Murphy Siding Euclid While you are at it, tell us exactly which railroaders I drove off of the forum by disagreeing with them. I'm not Norm, but I'll give you the straight up answer: Mark W. Hemphill. That was Mark Hemphill's choice. "Driven off" indeed, as though he were a child! And now I can expect more personal vitriol from the former moderator Mr. Siding, as he usually does?
Murphy Siding Euclid While you are at it, tell us exactly which railroaders I drove off of the forum by disagreeing with them. I'm not Norm, but I'll give you the straight up answer: Mark W. Hemphill.
Euclid While you are at it, tell us exactly which railroaders I drove off of the forum by disagreeing with them.
I'm not Norm, but I'll give you the straight up answer: Mark W. Hemphill.
That was Mark Hemphill's choice. "Driven off" indeed, as though he were a child!
And now I can expect more personal vitriol from the former moderator Mr. Siding, as he usually does?
Now, let's be honest here. If you start disecting the meaning of *driven off*, soon you will be saying it depends on what the definition of *is* is. He left the forum. I asked him why. He told me why. Spin that any way you way, and have a nice day.
Mark W. Hemphill (don't recall his postings or his departure) was a former editor of Trains, from 2000-2004 and before and since worked at many different jobs involved with or directly in railroading. If he or any one left the forum because of Bucyrus (who almsost never made a personal attack on anyone), perhaps he needs a thicker skin. You also overlook several other non-railroaders who made a number of posts, but left because of the vitriolic personal attacks from several of the professional railroaders. I was told on good authority that Kalmbach gave the railroaders more latitude in their postings because they wanted to retain them. Examples included making fun of folks who died or were maimed by encounters with trains, which was excused as gallows humor.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
EuclidI think what I will do from now on when someone disagrees with me is to force the moderators to simply re-write their post to make it agree with me.
Why? you're already pretty good at misinterpereting people's posts to support you no matter what. The "always the victim" schtick is worn out.
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
Murphy Siding Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid While you are at it, tell us exactly which railroaders I drove off of the forum by disagreeing with them. I'm not Norm, but I'll give you the straight up answer: Mark W. Hemphill. Well that is certainly news to me. I don’t recall any forum discussion with Mark Hemphill. What did I say that caused Mark Hemphill to be driven off of the forum? You asked. I answered. Good day.
Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid While you are at it, tell us exactly which railroaders I drove off of the forum by disagreeing with them. I'm not Norm, but I'll give you the straight up answer: Mark W. Hemphill. Well that is certainly news to me. I don’t recall any forum discussion with Mark Hemphill. What did I say that caused Mark Hemphill to be driven off of the forum?
Well that is certainly news to me. I don’t recall any forum discussion with Mark Hemphill. What did I say that caused Mark Hemphill to be driven off of the forum?
You asked. I answered. Good day.
schlimmNorm: Your bias is showing. Yes, a more detailed explanation would be desirable. However, they have far more data and expertise at their service than you do. To regard the TSB statement as tentative is sensible; to say it "holds no water" suggests you need a plumber.
Perhaps "plunger" would be more appropiate. Gotta keep that stuff flowing ya know.
In my industry we deal with facts not speculation. If you want to know why an airplane fell out of the sky, don't watch the local news. Chances are high they will say "the engine stalled" and not the plane "aerodynamically stalled". There's a huge difference. TSB should avoid tentative statements. They lead people to the wrong conclusions.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
You do have to admit, this forum is nowhere as active as it once was. And most of the active posters have been here a long time. No new blood at all. I don't know how long Kalmbach is going to support this dinosaur of a forum, nor do I really care. But the battles that went on weren't all one-sided (I seem to recall a Bucyrus that stormed off and handed in his user name. Then came back). And it's pretty apparent there were backroom deals or orders. Whatver.
And yeah, I never noticed any sloshing with oil trains. But get a block of corn syrup cars...
Funny , I've run 80 car oil trains and don't really remember getting the engine hit with the sloshing effect. I've also hauled 45 car acid trains that were brutal. The acid trains would relentlessly hammer the engines no matter what I did.
Randy
Norm48327 schlimm “Petroleum crude oil unit trains transporting heavily loaded tank cars will tend to impart higher than usual forces to the track infrastructure during their operation,” the safety board said in a report this year. Lacking an explanation of the 'higher than usual forces' that statement holds no water.
schlimm “Petroleum crude oil unit trains transporting heavily loaded tank cars will tend to impart higher than usual forces to the track infrastructure during their operation,” the safety board said in a report this year.
Lacking an explanation of the 'higher than usual forces' that statement holds no water.
I wouldn't say it "doesn't hold water", but it certainly requires more informationbefore i would agree with it. and being a skeptic isn't saying that the TSB is wrong, it just means that I haven't seen where they have fully explained or presented their findings (probably because they don't have findings yet.)
There would be questions on what are the "usual forces". Is that an average of all trains? Unit trains? Loaded unit trains? Tank cars of oil vs tank cars of corn syrup? Are they looking at it on a per car level or a train dynamics level?
Lots of questions. Depending on how they determine "usual" they can prove just about anything they want. If they compare loaded oil trains to an average of all trains, then sure that's a no brainer, loaded oil trains will impart higher forces than an averge of all trains. But if they compare loaded oil trains to loaded ethanol trains, maybe, maybe not. Most of the DOT111 cars I've looked at are 263k cap. If they compare a oil train to a train of 286k cap cars that would be an interesting challenge.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Norm: Your bias is showing. Yes, a more detailed explanation would be desirable. However, they have far more data and expertise at their service than you do. To regard the TSB statement as tentative is sensible; to say it "holds no water" suggests you need a plumber.
schlimm“Petroleum crude oil unit trains transporting heavily loaded tank cars will tend to impart higher than usual forces to the track infrastructure during their operation,” the safety board said in a report this year.
tree68Somehow, though, I usually have trouble letting something that is patently wrong go unanswered...
X 10.
cx500 While I can't be bothered to hunt through to the actual TSB statement, I felt at the time that it was identifying an unknown but possible influence. That is not a hypothesis or theory, merely identifying something that had never been studied, or not with the level of rigor to dismiss the possibility outright. If the liquid motion does have any measurable affect on the track for rail tank cars, I would expect it to be a noticeable problem for the truckers hauling tanks of liquids. We have some on this forum familiar with the commercial trucking industry; perhaps they could provide some input.
While I can't be bothered to hunt through to the actual TSB statement, I felt at the time that it was identifying an unknown but possible influence. That is not a hypothesis or theory, merely identifying something that had never been studied, or not with the level of rigor to dismiss the possibility outright.
If the liquid motion does have any measurable affect on the track for rail tank cars, I would expect it to be a noticeable problem for the truckers hauling tanks of liquids. We have some on this forum familiar with the commercial trucking industry; perhaps they could provide some input.
Nothing specifically quoted from the TSB quote in article about liquid motion.
Investigators at Safety Transportation Board Canada, which is investigating the eight accidents that have occurred in that country, are beginning to suspect that the oil trains are causing unusual track damage.
“Petroleum crude oil unit trains transporting heavily loaded tank cars will tend to impart higher than usual forces to the track infrastructure during their operation,” the safety board said in a report this year. “These higher forces expose any weaknesses that may be present in the track structure, making the track more susceptible to failure.”
schlimmAs I said many times back then and will say again now, if you don't like the thread, ignore it.
Somehow, though, I usually have trouble letting something that is patently wrong go unanswered...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Electroliner 1935I believe that that is the subject of the discussion but I don't think it has been determined to be fact. Just a theory at this time. More testing needs to be done. It may or may not prove to be true. So far we have broken rails, picked switches, bad bearings, bad wheels, and while there is speculation that the contents of the cars may influence the forces on the rail-wheel interface, we don't have conclusive evidence to prove it.
The difference between posters, even those with degrees in engineering, and the TSB/NTSB is that they have access to far more data, understandably. And a you know, there is a big difference between even informed speculation and a theory generated from empirical data. No, the TSB hypotheses have not yet been conclusively shown to be significant. However, the trend is certainly pointing in that direction. As more data comes in this winter (hopefully without a disaster) the results will be clearer (cold weather seems to be a factor).
Euclid Norm48327 Putting it point blank, he is the reason some railroaders have left the forum thereby depriving it of a dose of reality. BTW, he was doing the same under the nom-de-plume "Bucyrus". Difference back then is that volunteer moderators were told to delete posts that disagreed with him. That order came from a Kalmbach employee whom I shall not name. Norm, That is a bald face lie. No moderators were ever told to delete posts that disagreed with me. Why on earth would anybody tell the moderators to do that? Do you really believe that the editors or moderators want everyone to agree with me? Get real man. What really happened is that several people got their pants in a bunch because they wanted the thread to end. They trotted out their usual dead horse routine. Then they mobbed the thread with dozens of snarky, pointless, insulting posts just to disrupt the thread, which the moderators had found no reason to lock for them. You and I both know who those people were and what they were up to. Their posts were not disagreeing with me on the topic. They were off-topic. They were insulting gibberish. They were made in pure spite. The moderator removed those posts because that is what moderators do. They want threads to stay on topic, and they don’t want insults or personal attacks. Not one single on-topic post was, no matter whether it agreed with me or not. After removing those 3-4 pages of snotty posts, the moderator warned the perpetrators to not do it again. Most of them came right back and repeated the same routine with a new round of snotty posts. So, the moderator placed them on special status requiring their future posts to be approved before going live. Then they cried like babies in a new thread dedicated to how it was all my fault. So, nice try Norm. I suggest that rather than outright lie about it, you find the points of contention that you are talking about and post them here to bolster your case. Everything said is still here and accessible for reference. The forum is the perfect transcript. While you are at it, tell us exactly which railroaders I drove off of the forum by disagreeing with them.
Norm48327 Putting it point blank, he is the reason some railroaders have left the forum thereby depriving it of a dose of reality. BTW, he was doing the same under the nom-de-plume "Bucyrus". Difference back then is that volunteer moderators were told to delete posts that disagreed with him. That order came from a Kalmbach employee whom I shall not name.
I'm not entirely sure what the complete story is on that as it was several years ago, but AFAIRecall, Euclid's version is pretty accurate. As to a transcript, many of the juvenile posts were deleted. Several members were warned, then moderated. Several left, one with great fanfare forever, deleting many of his posts as he left, though later he returned. Moderators were heavy handed, but probably had no choice, since the offending members had used that routine to shut down threads they disagreed with (usually with Bucyus/Euclid) frequently. Yes, Euclid does obsessively go around in circles sometimes, but that is no reason to throw a tantrum. As I said many times back then and will say again now, if you don't like the thread, ignore it.
The topic that from the get go seemed be guaranteed to enrage some folks was criticism of rail crossing accidents (Amtrak-Nevada), often posted by myself. To set the record straight, i came in for some pretty nasty comments as well as being acused of being Euclid's defender/friend/advocate, none of which were/are true. Ridiculous. [paragraph added]
I do think Euclid should not call your opinion a lie, however. That is overstepping the boundries of civil discourse.
schlimmAnd based on Euclid's last post, you divine that folks on here have done something deleterious to euclid's well-being? What? Based on what? In a simple declarative sentence, please.
It's going to take me a while to answer this properly, with no guarantee that I can do it the justice it deserves.
EuclidEuclid wrote the following post 6 hours ago: So, 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.
I believe that that is the subject of the discussion but I don't think it has been determined to be fact. Just a theory at this time. More testing needs to be done. It may or may not prove to be true. So far we have broken rails, picked switches, bad bearings, bad wheels, and while there is speculation that the contents of the cars may influence the forces on the rail-wheel interface, we don't have conclusive evidence to prove it. Posters have discussed the effect of the twist strength of a cylinder as a factor with no specific evidence. As an Electrical Engineer, I was taught to keep an open mind and follow the facts. I don't think we have all of then yet. There are theories postulated but I don't think there is a proof yet. I suspect that liquids could be a factor but can't quantify it. While I would like to rule out the suggestion that tank cars are stiffer that a loaded coal car and thus a factor, I can't. I used to see piggyback loads go down the old Pennsy jointed track rocking and rolling and wondering why they didn't tip over or derail more frequently. Now I see these 100+ car oil trians roll smoothly by on the BNSF racetrack into Chicago and wonder what dynamic could cause these derailments. And, of course, what would happen to me if that occurred, could this be my day to find out if there is a maker to be met. But then, I always stand behind the yellow line. If a freight come by with loose stapping swinging off a load, I won't sue but my heirs might. Meanwhile, I love life.
EuclidNorm, That is a bald face lie. No moderators were ever told to delete posts that disagreed with me. Why on earth would anybody tell the moderators to do that? Do you really believe that the editors or moderators want everyone to agree with me? Get real man. What really happened is that several people got their pants in a bunch because they wanted the thread to end. They trotted out their usual dead horse routine. Then they mobbed the thread with dozens of snarky, pointless, insulting posts just to disrupt the thread, which the moderators had found no reason to lock for them. You and I both know who those people were and what they were up to. Their posts were not disagreeing with me on the topic. They were off-topic. They were insulting gibberish. They were made in pure spite. The moderator removed those posts because that is what moderators do. They want threads to stay on topic, and they don’t want insults or personal attacks. Not one single on-topic post was, no matter whether it agreed with me or not. After removing those 3-4 pages of snotty posts, the moderator warned the perpetrators to not do it again. Most of them came right back and repeated the same routine with a new round of snotty posts. So, the moderator placed them on special status requiring their future posts to be approved before going live. Then they cried like babies in a new thread dedicated to how it was all my fault. So, nice try Norm. I suggest that rather than outright lie about it, you find the points of contention that you are talking about and post them here to bolster your case. Everything said is still here and accessible for reference. The forum is the perfect transcript. While you are at it, tell us exactly which railroaders I drove off of the forum by disagreeing with them.
And so it goes. Thanks for your side of the story. I'm sure others who were forum participants at the time know the truth, and it isn't what you are claiming.
The problem has been covered up long enough and it's time to air the dirty laundry so others can see what you're doing.
BTW, I don't appreciate being called a liar but I will not report the post to the mods.
Wizlish Euclid So, 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. 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.
Euclid So, 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.
And based on Euclid's last post, you divine that folks on here have done something deleterious to euclid's well-being? What? Based on what? In a simple declarative sentence, please.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.