BigJim oltmannd An 80' centerbeam car Can you prove to me that there was actually an EIGHTY FOOT centerbeam car in the consist? I've never seen one that long and I definately am not seeing one in the published videos.There was a stringline derailment like this years ago on the Hagerstown Dist. without any long cars involved. If I am not mistaken, it was due to an undesired emergency brake application back near the rear of the train.
oltmannd An 80' centerbeam car
Can you prove to me that there was actually an EIGHTY FOOT centerbeam car in the consist? I've never seen one that long and I definately am not seeing one in the published videos.There was a stringline derailment like this years ago on the Hagerstown Dist. without any long cars involved. If I am not mistaken, it was due to an undesired emergency brake application back near the rear of the train.
The UDE in the rear of the train exponentially increased the trailing tonnage by setting the brakes on the rear before the application could propagate to the head end.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
caldreamer I ran some calculations for the tractive effort algorythm. It is pretty close for DC engines, but is way off (too low) for AC engines.
Why would the tractive effort of a DC locomotive be different than that of an AC locomotive?
oltmanndAn 80' centerbeam car
.
day 1 in training we were told the rules were written in somebodys blood, true. also train restrictions usually are written after a accident such as derailments, srtinglining. i know of 1 good example, managment tried to eliminate a crew start, they put a fully loaded rail train ahead of 6000 trailing tons, on a major grade, the locomotives slipped on a greaser, a kunkle broke within the rail train, bad enough, managment had crew shove back to hitch train back together after nuckle changeout, crew did as ordered, laurl and hardey couldn't have done better, use your imignation what happened, new rule, no trailing tonage on loaded rail trains.
caldreamerBaltACD: You are correct. I checked and the only trailing tonnage restrictions over the Horsehoe Curve are for intermodal cars.
You are correct. I checked and the only trailing tonnage restrictions over the Horsehoe Curve are for intermodal cars.
My understanding from acquaintances still employed by CSX are that a number for Train Handling Restrictions were eliminated by EHH with his implementation of PSR. CSX has paid the price several times.
Those restrictions were not just 'grabbed out of the air' - they were formulated after recurring incidents indicated that those things that were now being restricted had caused the prior derailments. Of course one of the first acts of PSR, as EHH implemented it on CSX, was to eliminate all institutional historical knowledge by terminating numerous (if not all) Operating Officials on most if not all territories.
BaltACD:
oltmanndA three unit consist of SD70ACes operating in notch 8 at 10 mph makes about 400,000# TE. (you can get the speed by timing the Virtual Railroading youtube video and TE = HP x 308/speed)
Actually, it was two 70aces and one 70m-2. Still a lot of TE, but a little less than 3 ACs.
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
oltmannd jeffhergert If a train meets a railroad's established standards for train make up, they'll tell you to take it as is. I think those "standards" in this case, have been lost. Nobody should be pulling a merchandise train up Horsehoe with 3 AC units in run 8 at 10 mph. It's a wonder they didn't pull a knuckle first. Conrail had a tonnage limit for trains w/o helpers. NS apparently, has lost it.
jeffhergert If a train meets a railroad's established standards for train make up, they'll tell you to take it as is.
I think those "standards" in this case, have been lost. Nobody should be pulling a merchandise train up Horsehoe with 3 AC units in run 8 at 10 mph. It's a wonder they didn't pull a knuckle first.
Conrail had a tonnage limit for trains w/o helpers. NS apparently, has lost it.
I suspect PSR has eliminated it.
jeffhergertIf a train meets a railroad's established standards for train make up, they'll tell you to take it as is.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
JPS1 oltmannd Over she goes! Just plain stupid railroading. Thanks for the explanation. On another thread participants have laid blame for the incident on various people. Who do you think is ultimately reponsible for the accident? If the engine crew had pointed out the problem in Altoona, do you think it is probable that management would have over ruled them?
oltmannd Over she goes! Just plain stupid railroading.
Thanks for the explanation.
On another thread participants have laid blame for the incident on various people. Who do you think is ultimately reponsible for the accident?
If the engine crew had pointed out the problem in Altoona, do you think it is probable that management would have over ruled them?
There should be rules in the ETT and airbrake instructions on this kind of thing.
It's likely the train crew was apprehensive, asked the dispatcher who checked with the power desk, who checked the tonnage ratings for the consist and said "okay", so no helpers.
The churn and reduction of managment over the past decade or so has left the door open for lots of things like this.
I'm waiting for an improperly handled long DPU train to scatter over the landscape because of poor training/poor train consist/poor train handling. NS is moving outside it's envolope of experience in places with the new plan and I don't think there is much simulator training going on these days.
I know nothing about the physics and mathmatics of the problem. I simply looked at the picture and said "I bet I know what caused this!".
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Euclid JPS1 oltmannd Over she goes! Just plain stupid railroading. Thanks for the explanation. On another thread participants have laid blame for the incident on various people. Who do you think is ultimately reponsible for the accident? If the engine crew had pointed out the problem in Altoona, do you think it is probable that management would have over rulled them? I do not think it is probable that management would have overruled the train crew and commanded that they run the defective train. That's a fine narrative to show how stupid management is, but where is the proof that it actually happened? The more likely scenario is that an error was made in the train makeup, and it just ran that way with nobody realizing the problem until it stringlined.
JPS1 oltmannd Over she goes! Just plain stupid railroading. Thanks for the explanation. On another thread participants have laid blame for the incident on various people. Who do you think is ultimately reponsible for the accident? If the engine crew had pointed out the problem in Altoona, do you think it is probable that management would have over rulled them?
If the engine crew had pointed out the problem in Altoona, do you think it is probable that management would have over rulled them?
I do not think it is probable that management would have overruled the train crew and commanded that they run the defective train. That's a fine narrative to show how stupid management is, but where is the proof that it actually happened?
The more likely scenario is that an error was made in the train makeup, and it just ran that way with nobody realizing the problem until it stringlined.
If a train meets a railroad's established standards for train make up, they'll tell you to take it as is. Even if a train's make up meets the standard, there can be potential problems. Some people may see it, some don't. If there is minor deviations, they may give you initials of the okaying manager to take it as is. For us, that decision to deviate can't be made by a local manager. It has to come from someone higher up the food chain.
A lot of those managers aren't necessarily stupid, but it's becoming commonplace for them to have very limited, if any, real-world field experience. When all you have to go by is the "book", that's what you'll go by. Plus the fact, that they too, are under the gun to be more effecient and productive. Maybe more so because they can be replaced easier than agreement people.
Jeff
I ran some calculations for the tractive effort algorythm. It is pretty close for DC engines, but is way off (too low) for AC engines.
Caldreamer
Bucky on this one I think you are correct. The simplest explanation is often the true one.
NS train 34A derailed on the Horseshoe curve. It was a guaranteed derailment.
A ten minute calculation shows the head car will tip over every time.
A three unit consist of SD70ACes operating in notch 8 at 10 mph makes about 400,000# TE. (you can get the speed by timing the Virtual Railroading youtube video and TE = HP x 308/speed)
An 80' centerbeam car operating on a 9 degree curve has a portion of that force trying to tip the car over. 400,000# x sin(4) x 33/12 (coupler height) =76,700 lb-ft.
The weight of the car trying to keep the car upright = 62,000# (lt wt)/2 x 56"/2/12 (distance of car centerline to rail) = 72,300 lb-ft.
(https://www.bnsf.com/ship-with-bnsf/ways-of-shipping/equipment/pdf/73Centerbeam.pdf)
Over she goes!
Just plain stupid railroading.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.