EuclidI assume this requires replacing the standard manually powered handbrake mechanism with something that is either electrically or pneumatically powered ... I would think this would add considerable cost to the conversion of freight cars to ECP braking ...
A previous poster (one of the professional railroaders) actually provided the link to the technology as used on locomotives, and if I have time I will find it (anyone who remembers, including the original poster, please post it here in the meantime). Application to cars is a bit more 'involved' as it is probably difficult to make compatible with a wheel-based manual actuation as opposed to pump, and it has to 'fail safe' with respect to both manual activation and deactivation in ways that are not immediately obvious.
It would of course add additional cost to the conversion, but perhaps not 'double' it, and there are other reasons, some "legitimately" affecting safety or perceived safety, to adopt remote handbraking even for cars that have received the 'valve-plate' conversion but aren't operating in full ECP mode. It's an interesting topic, although I suspect you could predict most of the industry 'discussion' simply via where-you-stand-is-where-you-sit logic.
In the editorial comments by John Risch, he says ECP can be modified to apply handbrakes to railcars. He says this:
9. ECP brakes can be modified to apply hand brakes to a railcar automatically from the locomotive, allowing the crew to apply a hand brake on every car in the train in seconds. Conventional brakes must be applied by hand and it can take an hour or more to properly secure a train.
I assume this requires replacing the standard manually powered handbrake mechanism with something that is either electrically or pneumatically powered. Then the ECP would supply the handbrake mechanism with either electricity or compressed air, and control the handbrake setting and release by electronic signals through the electric cable.
However, I would think this would add considerable cost to the conversion of freight cars to ECP braking, perhaps at the very least, doubling the cost of each car conversion.
Here is an editorial endorsement of ECP brakes from John Risch in which he lists several advantages of ECP.
https://smart-union.org/news/editorial-rail-safetys-sake-ecp-brake-technology-must/
EDITORIAL: ‘FOR RAIL SAFETY’S SAKE: ECP BRAKE TECHNOLOGY A MUST’ BY JOHN RISCH, NATL. LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, SMART TD
I must clarify that when I used the term "damage reduction," I am only meaning the general expectation for improvement as in the FRA predicting that fewer cars would derail with ECP brakes. There may actually have been a quantified expectation that needed to be met in order to have passed the tests. If there is I am not aware of that specification.
Overmod,
In response to your request for some reference to the ECP advantage, here is what was posted by M636C a few days ago. I thought I would copy and paste his entire post along with the table, as his comments are interesting as well.
******************************************************
Posted by M636C on Tuesday, October 17, 2017 8:07 PM
While at Raiway Age, I checked their evaluation of the NAS/TRB ECP study.
I don't think this table appeared in any of the summaries, only the average number of derailed cars...
ECPOverlay
DP orEOT
Conventional
Average
21.0
23.1
25.5
Minimum
12
14
8
Maximum
28
39
45
Range
16
25
37
Standarddeviation
4.4
5.6
7.2
So while the averages are similar, and allow the conclusion that ECP doesn't help in a derailment, the minimum and maximum number of derailed cars is significant.
Not surprisingly, ECP worked more consistently in the eighteen tests that each system underwent. The possible range of the number of derailed cars for ECP was less than HALF that for conventional brakes.
So if your train had ECP brakes in an accident with the conditions simulated, the maximum number of cars derailed would be 28 compared to 45 for conventional brakes and 39 for DP operation.
What is surprising is that for conventional front end initiated Westinghouse operation, the minimum number was only 8 cars derailed, compared to 12 for ECP and 14 for DP.
This clearly shows a wide variation in the effectiveness of operation of air brakes in emergency mode. Emergency is at the "edge of the envelope" and can sometimes work very well but at other times (presumably with exactly the same consist) not very well at all.
To quote
Railway Age asked noted rail industry technical expert Steven R. Ditmeyer, who has a long history with ECP brakes and PTC, among other technologies, to review and comment on the NAS/TRB report:
in which he concluded...
“I believe that the silly argument going on between FRA and the AAR on how much of a safety improvement ECP brakes will provide by reducing the number of tank cars derailed and punctured in an oil train derailment is preventing the railroad industry from implementing a technology that can also provide it with significant operating and maintenance savings. The TRB committee report provided no guidance or encouragement to bringing this about.”
I myself am struck by the old adage about, "lies, bad lies and statistics".
If the maxima and minima had been quoted in the main body of the press release, fewer people would have felt happy with the conclusion that ECP doesn't help in a derailment.
Peter
Overmod Euclid It appears me that the ECP brake/tank car derailment tests actually did show the expected advantage of ECP over other systems in reducing the number of derailed cars and tank car punctures as had been claimed prior to the tests. Please show me this, preferably with some reference to the statistical analysis, in written results or links. I have not (yet) seen any such thing, but I've seen a number of analyses that indicate the contrary.
Euclid It appears me that the ECP brake/tank car derailment tests actually did show the expected advantage of ECP over other systems in reducing the number of derailed cars and tank car punctures as had been claimed prior to the tests.
Please show me this, preferably with some reference to the statistical analysis, in written results or links. I have not (yet) seen any such thing, but I've seen a number of analyses that indicate the contrary.
+1
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
EuclidIt appears me that the ECP brake/tank car derailment tests actually did show the expected advantage of ECP over other systems in reducing the number of derailed cars and tank car punctures as had been claimed prior to the tests.
DeggestyBigJim, I gather that you have gotten enough new pairs of shoes and new belts from this thread?
No, he's disappointed because the leather was so long dead it was rotted when he tried to use it.
It appears me that the ECP brake/tank car derailment tests actually did show the damage reduction advantage of ECP over other systems that has been predicted by the FRA and others over the last few years. The tests did show a reduction of the number of derailed cars and tank car punctures. Nobody ever claimed that ECP would thoroughly eliminate the dangers, so there is no failure in that regard.
But now, the problem that has been revealed is with the testing itself. While it showed the anticipated benefits of ECP, the sampling was not large enough to derive a reliable statistic. So we are left to wonder if the limited test results showing favor were just the luck of the draw so to speak.
But how ironic it is that we discover that the testing itself was flawed in a way that leaves a result that must be interpreted with hunch and intuition; the very things that the tests were intended to replace. Other testing methodology has been challenged as well. So, overall, what the tests proved is that the testing was flawed.
Normally, this revelation would result in redoing the tests. But instead, it appears that DOT will simply surrender and withdraw the mandate. And as the mandate collapses, the testing will not be blamed as the cause. Instead ECP will be blamed as though to drive a stake through its heart, so it is dead once and for all.
We will hear that the test worked just fine and proved that ECP offers zero safety advantage. This of course is the part than needs to be killed because it is always safety that drives mandates. And safety is hard to measure and dispute as part of the benefit in a cost/benefit analysis.
Even with all of this dynamic, DOT is not considering dropping the mandate because the tests were flawed. They are certainly not conceding that ECP offers no additional safety. No, the reason they give for considering dropping the mandate is that the benefit of the cost/benefit analysis has fallen due to a decline in oil traffic. What an incredibly easy way out. I conclude that these decisions to impose and withdraw mandates have nothing to do with safety and testing for it. I think they are based solely on the will to regulate, and that will shifts with the political makeup of the people in charge. The mandate came and went with these shifts.
Quoting BigJim: "I think it is best that I leave this thread and let y'all beat yourselves up. Bye!"
BigJim, I gather that you have gotten enough new pairs of shoes and new belts from this thread?
Johnny
EuclidWouldn't that have been a win option?
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...
tree68 Euclid What do you mean by a lose-lose situation? Given the circumstances, the crew was going to lose the train no matter which course of action they took. Think of it this way - you are carrying two large antique vases (very valuable - think Ming Dynasty or something like that). You trip. You can catch yourself, but you'll have to drop one of the vases (breaking it) in the process. Or, you can simply fall, and both vases will likely break. You are in a lose-lose situation. No matter what you do, once you've tripped, you're going to break at least one vase. For the crew in question to have a win option, it would appear that something would have to have changed, like adding a helper.
Euclid What do you mean by a lose-lose situation?
Given the circumstances, the crew was going to lose the train no matter which course of action they took.
Think of it this way - you are carrying two large antique vases (very valuable - think Ming Dynasty or something like that). You trip. You can catch yourself, but you'll have to drop one of the vases (breaking it) in the process. Or, you can simply fall, and both vases will likely break.
You are in a lose-lose situation. No matter what you do, once you've tripped, you're going to break at least one vase.
For the crew in question to have a win option, it would appear that something would have to have changed, like adding a helper.
How about if something changed like making a light service application, having the independent set, releasing the handbrakes, releasing the independent, and pulling on the train to start it with the service application set? Wouldn't that have been a win option?
tree68 BigJim Actually Tree68, that is basically how it should have been done, just as Randy said. I agree. However, there was this previous statement by Bucky: Then the engineer releases the automatic air brakes on the entire train. He must go to full release to begin moving even though some degree of set will immediately be needed after the full release. When the air brakes througout the train fully release, the train starts rolling.
BigJim
I agree. However, there was this previous statement by Bucky:
Then the engineer releases the automatic air brakes on the entire train. He must go to full release to begin moving even though some degree of set will immediately be needed after the full release. When the air brakes througout the train fully release, the train starts rolling.
.
EuclidWhat do you mean by a lose-lose situation?
BigJim Actually Tree68, that is basically how it should have been done, just as Randy said.
Post quoted from previous page:
Euclid said:
"As the conductor releases the handbrakes, wouldn't the train be held by the automatic air brakes throughout the train, thus allowing the conductor time to get the handbrakes released and board the locomotive?"
Larry said:
"Sure - but then there wouldn't be enough air in the reservoirs on the cars for another application, which would be needed almost immediately. You'd be amazed at how fast a train of that size can get rolling in no time at all, on a grade like that.
Engineers who make repeated sets without letting the entire train recharge are said to be "pissing away their air." Pardon the vernacular. This has been a common cause of runaways for years. In this case, starting from a set would have put the engineer at an immediate disadvantage due to the reduced pressure left in the service reservoirs.
As Balt notes - this was a lose-lose situation under the circumstances."
******************************************
Well going back to this point in the discussion which I have manually quoted above, I was trying to find a way to not leave the conductor behind when the train starts to roll as he released the handbrakes. I was responding to Balt ACD, and everything I said was in the form of a question to him. My list of steps is asking him for his confirmation of the process since he outlined a problem of restarting the train in quite a bit of detail. I was not making assertions in that list as you have now implied by taking one point of the list out of context and presenting it as an assertion which you can claim is incorrect.
And since that time of presenting my list of steps as a question to Balt, others have said that the proper procedure would be to leave the air set and restart by pulling against the air rather than releasing the air. Fine. That answers my question to Balt about that aspect of the restarting. But Balt did not offer the solution of restarting with a service application, and neither did you. You did not suggest restarting without releasing the air, as Big Jim and Randy later said. You said it was a lose-lose situation, which was the same way that Balt categorized it. What do you mean by a lose-lose situation?
Larry,
Once again Bucky shows his ignorance of reality,
Norm
BigJimActually Tree68, that is basically how it should have been done, just as Randy said.
EuclidThen the engineer releases the automatic air brakes on the entire train. He must go to full release to begin moving even though some degree of set will immediately be needed after the full release. When the air brakes througout the train fully release, the train starts rolling.
tree68 Euclid As the conductor releases the handbrakes, wouldn't the train be held by the automatic air brakes throughout the train, thus allowing the conductor time to get the handbrakes released and board the locomotive? Sure - but then there wouldn't be enough air in the reservoirs on the cars for another application, which would be needed almost immediately. You'd be amazed at how fast a train of that size can get rolling in no time at all, on a grade like that. Engineers who make repeated sets without letting the entire train recharge are said to be "pissing away their air." Pardon the vernacular. This has been a common cause of runaways for years. In this case, starting from a set would have put the engineer at an immediate disadvantage due to the reduced pressure left in the service reservoirs. As Balt notes - this was a lose-lose situation under the circumstances.
Euclid
Sure - but then there wouldn't be enough air in the reservoirs on the cars for another application, which would be needed almost immediately. You'd be amazed at how fast a train of that size can get rolling in no time at all, on a grade like that.
As Balt notes - this was a lose-lose situation under the circumstances.
I worked heavy grade territory. I would back into the train to bunch the slack, made a 10 lb set before I kicked off the handbrakes. I usually started the train in full dynamics. Usually the weight of the engines running out was enough to get things moving. If that didn't work I'd drag it down the hill.
I would have advised that crew to take the train down in a couple of pieces....
Randy
Thanks Jeff. That does help explain things.
I don't work heavy grade territory. The worst I deal with is a couple of short 1 to 1.25 % grades.
What Euclid said about starting out (setting air, releasing hand brakes then releasing air, etc) is how we would start out. But we don't have miles of heavy grade to traverse. Actually, we routinely stop on one of these grades with heavy trains. The only time hand brakes are applied is if there was a UDE. Once you release, you are going to move. The independent isn't going to hold. I start out in dynamics and it keeps one slow enough to get a good, but not fully recharge of the brakes. Especially with a DP in the train.
Normally, releasing the air brake while stopped isn't considered a running release. Without knowing the details of the TT/SI in effect at that location, I'm thinking CSX may not allow any release of the air brakes when on the grade. Although I'm not sure if the timeline is correct, I note before starting the engineer made a minimum reduction of the automatic brake. Then started pulling the train with a minimum set and some hand brakes applied.
Balt is may be correct that the engine brakes and a minimum set alone might not allow all hand brakes to be released without movement. A heavier set, enough to hold might not allow the engines to pull, even downgrade. I don't know CSX rules but we are allowed when having an AC engine consist to shove back into the train to hold it. It's frowned upon with DC engines because it's hard on the traction motors.
I guess what I would do, and it might be wrong-as I said I don't work territory like that, but would make the minimum set. If that and the engine's independent wasn't enough to hold, then shove back enough to hold the train, even if I had DC engines in the consist, to allow the condr to release the hand brakes and get back on the engines. When ready to move, get out of power shoving back and go into dynamics going forward and release the independent. Once moving if dynamics and the minimum set aren't enough to hold the proper speed, you could squeeze off a couple more pounds of air. Just use enough air so that modulating dynamic braking controls speed. If the grade lessens or levels out, you might have to go into power and pull the train in spots. It sounds like the engineer did this a few times. That's the trick, using just the right amount of air. If you use to much air, you'll have to stop and go through the whole process again to release and recharge.
If the crew had any doubts, a supervisor should have been consulted. Oh wait, EHH got rid of the Road Foremen.
Jeff
BaltACDA 'running release' on this territory is prohibited by TTSI. What you are outlining constitutes a running release of the air brakes.
Balt,
While I'm by no means totally familiar with the air brake system I seek to learn more than what little I know.
I believe normal trainline pressure on freights is 90 PI. If it starts from a fully charged state, and after a 20 PSI reduction to 'service application that Euclid suggested' the train line will now be 70 PSI and it can't be recharged while in service application but only after the brake handle is returned to the 'release' position hence not having enough air to make a further set without going into emergency. I'm assuming (Yeah, I know) that the reservoirs on the cars will drop to 70 the same as the trainline will. Where does that leave the emergency reservoirs? I would think they would still have full pressure.
So, what reserve air does that 20 PSI reduction leave on each car's normal brake reservoir to be effective for more braking power should the engineer decide he needs another 10 PSI reduction? Will there be enough pressure in those car reservoirs to make that reduction effective?
I'm not faulting the crew for their actions but wonder if they had communicated their problem to a Road Foreman who may have given them bad advice. It's still in my mind that additional power could have helped mitigate the situation by adding additional braking on either the lead ot the rear of the train.
Rules be damned at times that call for them to be worked around. Would have parking the train till assistance arrived have prevented the problem?
EuclidSo far, there is no issue of P-ing away the air. The system is fully charged, the [hand] brakes are fully released, the conductor is on board, and the train has started to roll.
Please explain how the system is fully charged immediately after the automatic brakes are released.
I don't run 100 car trains - mine are rarely over 4 or 5 (except Polar Express - that's a dozen cars). But it still takes 15-20 seconds or better for the air flow indicator to settle down, indicating that the train is fully charged.
As for the independent brakes holding that train on that grade - ain't happening.
And as for the dynamics - I slipped the dynamics the other day with an eight car train, two locomotives in dynamics on about a 1.5% downgrade.
In case anyone needs a refresher: http://www.railway-technical.com/trains/rolling-stock-index-l/train-equipment/brakes/north-american-freight.html
I am watching this with some interest as to what the detailed procedure is going to be, both 'in general' and in the case of the special CSX 'rule' permitting handbraking on power downhill moves.
In the present case, we should remember that according to the NTSB the crew did not trust that the automatic air brake was working correctly -- detail of the actual problem precipitating the incident, and what the crew thought the problem was, not yet fully provided as far as I can see. As I understand it the 'workaround' being followed was to keep sufficient non-automatic-brake-related resistance on the consist to require the addition of locomotive power to gravity to physically move the train down even the steepest part of the grade. I would further presume, perhaps quite wrongly, that this precluded any use of dynamics, or a release and recharge while the train was thoroughly secured on the grade (with handbrakes and independent) followed by some reasonable graduated application, perhaps in stages, sufficient to assure control of the train during the time the crew is progressively releasing all the set handbrakes.
(I would think you'd keep the independent on until after all the handbrakes were released, and the crew all safely returned to the train, and then bail off the independent (perhaps with the power quickly in dynamic to assist in control) to start the train moving with the automatic in set, applying a little more air as needed to control acceleration and achieved speed just as for a running descent that didn't involve a stop on the grade.)
Now, obviously, if you don't trust that the automatic brake will take and hold the required partial application ... that method either won't work or won't be safe enough, particularly on a part of the railroad, if I remember correctly, where it has been conclusively established that at achieved speeds higher than about 23mph no brake shoes (applied by air or hand) will hold the train from uncontrolled acceleration. Under that circumstance, and given whatever circumstances do not allow full repair and testing of the automatic brake system before attempting to move the train, it would seem to make sense to hold the train with 'something other than the automatic brake' to get it down the grade; you could do part of that with dynamics but (a) it's a Federal offense to use dynamics alone to hold such a train on such a grade; and (b) if the dynamics fail or prove inadequate there are going to be problems in very short order if the automatic doesn't set on almost any part of the consist as expected.
Therefore you have the CSX 'expedient', which if I understand it correctly says that if you have an automatic that is unreliable in graduated application (or prone to unexpected release) and you are stopped on a steep downgrade, about the only thing you can do is substitute some number of handbrakes for the capability of the automatic air brake, and proceed with using the independent (together with the set handbrakes) to hold the train when the automatic is released; the 'catch' being that because you can't adjust the set of the handbrakes while the train is in motion the only 'safe' expedient will be to set more brakes than you need and 'power' the train down to where the brake system can be remediated, defective cars cut out, etc. etc. etc.
Which is what this crew appeared to be trying, except that some large number of the brakes they were using turned out to be on unloaded cars -- contrary to CSX emergency procedure as well as normal railroad-rule common sense -- with resulting skidding, tread buildup, and ultimately it would seem wheelset derailment.
Balt ACD,
In regard to your previous post, how is it a running release? The automatic air brakes are released before the train begins moving. Then once the train begins to move, a service application is made to limit the train's acceleration down the grade. Where is the running release that you refer to? Please explain.
Note: For clarification, I did edit the second to last sentence of my previous post to indicate the word "brakes" to mean handbrakes.
BaltACD Euclid Okay, let me follow this sequence: The train is being held by handbrakes while the reservoirs are being recharged. Once they are recharged, all the air brakes on the cars will have released during the recharge, but the train is still being held by the handbrakes. Then the engineer makes a service application that is sufficient to hold the train without handbrakes. Then the concuctor walks the train, releases the handbrakes, and gets back on the engine. Then the engineer releases the automatic air brakes on the entire train. He must go to full release to begin moving even though some degree of set will immediately be needed after the full release. When the air brakes througout the train fully release, the train starts rolling. So far, there is no issue of P-ing away the air. The system is fully charged, the brakes are fully released, the conductor is on board, and the train has started to roll. So then what does the engineer do next? A 'running release' on this territory is prohibited by TTSI. What you are outlining constitutes a running release of the air brakes.
Euclid Okay, let me follow this sequence: The train is being held by handbrakes while the reservoirs are being recharged. Once they are recharged, all the air brakes on the cars will have released during the recharge, but the train is still being held by the handbrakes. Then the engineer makes a service application that is sufficient to hold the train without handbrakes. Then the concuctor walks the train, releases the handbrakes, and gets back on the engine. Then the engineer releases the automatic air brakes on the entire train. He must go to full release to begin moving even though some degree of set will immediately be needed after the full release. When the air brakes througout the train fully release, the train starts rolling. So far, there is no issue of P-ing away the air. The system is fully charged, the brakes are fully released, the conductor is on board, and the train has started to roll. So then what does the engineer do next?
The train is being held by handbrakes while the reservoirs are being recharged. Once they are recharged, all the air brakes on the cars will have released during the recharge, but the train is still being held by the handbrakes.
Then the engineer makes a service application that is sufficient to hold the train without handbrakes.
Then the concuctor walks the train, releases the handbrakes, and gets back on the engine.
So far, there is no issue of P-ing away the air. The system is fully charged, the brakes are fully released, the conductor is on board, and the train has started to roll.
So then what does the engineer do next?
A 'running release' on this territory is prohibited by TTSI. What you are outlining constitutes a running release of the air brakes.
Ok, so what is the allowed procedure?
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
EuclidOkay, let me follow this sequence: The train is being held by handbrakes while the reservoirs are being recharged. Once they are recharged, all the air brakes on the cars will have released during the recharge, but the train is still being held by the handbrakes. Then the engineer makes a service application that is sufficient to hold the train without handbrakes. Then the concuctor walks the train, releases the handbrakes, and gets back on the engine. Then the engineer releases the automatic air brakes on the entire train. He must go to full release to begin moving even though some degree of set will immediately be needed after the full release. When the air brakes througout the train fully release, the train starts rolling. So far, there is no issue of P-ing away the air. The system is fully charged, the brakes are fully released, the conductor is on board, and the train has started to roll. So then what does the engineer do next?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Okay, let me follow this sequence:
So far, there is no issue of P-ing away the air. The system is fully charged, the [hand] brakes are fully released, the conductor is on board, and the train has started to roll.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.