Trains.com

NS does it again at Horseshoe Curve

5262 views
56 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Tuesday, July 30, 2019 7:14 PM

Have a trash can?  Just skip the middleman.

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


  

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

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 2,505 posts
Posted by caldreamer on Tuesday, July 30, 2019 6:57 PM

I have a number of documents on from various official sources including the AAR on how to place freight cars in a train.  What is the email address of the NS operatind department.  I willsend them a copy.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Tuesday, July 30, 2019 6:17 PM

BaltACD
Even with the cut outs it is still putting weight up high.

Exactly.

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, July 30, 2019 5:37 PM

tree68
 
BaltACD
And what tare weight they have gives a high center of gravity with the center beam. 

 Undoubtedly why you generally see all skeleton "centerbeams" now, instead of those with a more solid construction (ie, the oval cutouts).

Even with the cut outs it is still putting weight up high.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 4,269 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Tuesday, July 30, 2019 5:21 PM

tree68
BaltACD
And what tare weight they have gives a high center of gravity with the center beam.

 Undoubtedly why you generally see all skeleton "centerbeams" now, instead of those with a more solid construction (ie, the oval cutouts).

At least they still all have the cartoon of the guy about to get squashed Laugh

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Tuesday, July 30, 2019 5:17 PM

BaltACD
And what tare weight they have gives a high center of gravity with the center beam.

 Undoubtedly why you generally see all skeleton "centerbeams" now, instead of those with a more solid construction (ie, the oval cutouts).

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 4,269 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Tuesday, July 30, 2019 5:17 PM

A few years ago CN had a bad derailment in southern Ontario that was caused by a centrebeam hunting at high speed:

http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2014/R14T0180/R14T0180.html

After this incident CN restricted empty centrebeams to 45 mph unless they were equipped with a better type of constant-contact side bearing.  The vast majority of centrebeams have since been fitted with the better CCSBs, and it's been a while since I've seen one that was speed restricted. 

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, July 30, 2019 4:58 PM

rrnut282
Loaded center-beams have fewer problems.  It's the tare weight vs. length of the empty cars returning that can be problematic.

You could argue they are the poster-child for removing too much tare weight.  

And what tare weight they have gives a high center of gravity with the center beam.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: MP CF161.6 NS's New Castle District in NE Indiana
  • 2,148 posts
Posted by rrnut282 on Tuesday, July 30, 2019 3:59 PM

Loaded center-beams have fewer problems.  It's the tare weight vs. length of the empty cars returning that can be problematic.

You could argue they are the poster-child for removing too much tare weight.  

Mike (2-8-2)
  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Tuesday, July 30, 2019 3:24 PM

Center beam cars: unsafe at any speed. 

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Tuesday, July 30, 2019 3:09 PM

jeffhergert
I always like to see the warning about unbalancing the car with the little stick figure running away from it. (Inside on the ends of the car.) Some have little dashes to show the figure running away fast.

I like his brother who gets hit on the head when the plug door falls off the boxcar.

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


  

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

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Tuesday, July 30, 2019 3:08 PM

Deggesty

 

 
Overmod

 

 
Lithonia Operator
And on this subject, what is the function of the center beam?

 

It's the primary structure that holds the car straight with low tare weight!

Think how a bridge truss provides stiffness with low material content.  You could build a car with truss construction (this is a principle with the bracing on, say, an X29 boxcar) but you'd then have to load around or through the truss structure.  By providing the equivalent of the web in a T-beam you have stiffness at the center that provides support of the load floor while allowing easy loading from either side.  (It is assumed that you reasonably balance the load between the two sides.)

 

 

 

If you examine a center beam car, you should find loading instructions on both sides; essentially, you place a layer on one side, go around and place two layers on the other side, come back and place two layers on the first side, and then place a third layer on the second side--and you unload the car in the same manner. Should you place two layers on the first side before placing any on the second side, you will have a toppled car.

 

 

I always like to see the warning about unbalancing the car with the little stick figure running away from it.  (Inside on the ends of the car.)  Some have little dashes to show the figure running away fast. 

Jeff

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Tuesday, July 30, 2019 8:11 AM

Overmod

 

 
Lithonia Operator
And on this subject, what is the function of the center beam?

 

It's the primary structure that holds the car straight with low tare weight!

Think how a bridge truss provides stiffness with low material content.  You could build a car with truss construction (this is a principle with the bracing on, say, an X29 boxcar) but you'd then have to load around or through the truss structure.  By providing the equivalent of the web in a T-beam you have stiffness at the center that provides support of the load floor while allowing easy loading from either side.  (It is assumed that you reasonably balance the load between the two sides.)

 

If you examine a center beam car, you should find loading instructions on both sides; essentially, you place a layer on one side, go around and place two layers on the other side, come back and place two layers on the first side, and then place a third layer on the second side--and you unload the car in the same manner. Should you place two layers on the first side before placing any on the second side, you will have a toppled car.

Johnny

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, July 30, 2019 7:52 AM

Lithonia Operator
Is the length the problematic thing about center-beam flats?

And on this subject, what is the function of the center beam? Is it a load-shift deterrent? Is it there for the load to be strapped to?

I don’t know if I have ever seen one in person. But I see more and more of them in the photos in Trains

Trailing tonnage is what is problematic.  In the latest incident the center-beams were the first 3 cars in what was 'primarily' a empty train - 15 loads, 207 empties.  Just because cars are empty doesn't mean they have no weight - empty cars in today's age have weights between 25 & 60 tons per car based on car type.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, July 30, 2019 7:52 AM

Lithonia Operator
And on this subject, what is the function of the center beam?

It's the primary structure that holds the car straight with low tare weight!

Think how a bridge truss provides stiffness with low material content.  You could build a car with truss construction (this is a principle with the bracing on, say, an X29 boxcar) but you'd then have to load around or through the truss structure.  By providing the equivalent of the web in a T-beam you have stiffness at the center that provides support of the load floor while allowing easy loading from either side.  (It is assumed that you reasonably balance the load between the two sides.)

  • Member since
    May 2019
  • 1,768 posts
Posted by MMLDelete on Tuesday, July 30, 2019 6:28 AM

Is the length the problematic thing about center-beam flats?

And on this subject, what is the function of the center beam? Is it a load-shift deterrent? Is it there for the load to be strapped to?

I don’t know if I have ever seen one in person. But I see more and more of them in the photos in Trains.

  • Member since
    May 2019
  • 1,768 posts
Posted by MMLDelete on Tuesday, July 30, 2019 6:21 AM

oltmannd, in the post before last, in the last paragraph, did you mean to write without helpers?

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Saturday, July 27, 2019 4:30 PM

tree68

I would opine that PSR, and the pre-blocking that is part and parcel with PSR, would definitely be a factor.  You cannot simultaneously pre-block a train and put the empties at the end.  

To do it correctly, there would have to be two blocks for each drop point, not one.

And two blocks means extra switching, a no-no for PSR...

 

This train was a solid train of Conways that originated in Enola.  You could have DPU'd the train with one unit on the rear.  That would have solved all the problems. 

I don't know how simple it would be to build a 10,000' DPU train out of Enola.  The train probably had to triple out of Enola as it was.  It think there might be enough headroom to get the train together w/o blocking the mainline west of Rockville Br., but I don't really know.

If you are going to routinely run merchandise trains with three big six axles on the head end, you need to have some sort of instruction to limit the maximum tractive effort at low speeds.  Something like "don't exceed notch 7 below 15 mph, notch 6 below 8 mph", or the like

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Saturday, July 27, 2019 4:22 PM

BaltACD

 

 
tree68
I would opine that PSR, and the pre-blocking that is part and parcel with PSR, would definitely be a factor.  You cannot simultaneously pre-block a train and put the empties at the end.  

To do it correctly, there would have to be two blocks for each drop point, not one.

And two blocks means extra switching, a no-no for PSR...

 

Don't overlook the fact that this latest derailment happened with a train that was 'primarily' empties - 15 loads and 207 empties.  I suspect that train could have been all empties and with the placement of the center beams being unchanged we would have had the same derailment.  

Trailing tonnage behind long empties - no matter if that tonnage is loaded cars or empty cars.

 

if you pop the stats from the train into the Davis Equation, you get train resistance of 370,000# at with a 10.8 mph balance speed on a 1.9% grade.

How fast was the train going?  11.1 mph (from my timing of YouTube video).  

What's the rating of a grade C knuckle?  350,000#.  You can get away with overstressing a knuckle a some number of times, but you eat away at the fatigue life like crazy.

Never mind the stringline which is a carbon copy of the last, who would even try to run this train up the mountain with helpers in the first place!?!  

 

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, July 27, 2019 12:39 PM

tree68
I would opine that PSR, and the pre-blocking that is part and parcel with PSR, would definitely be a factor.  You cannot simultaneously pre-block a train and put the empties at the end.  

To do it correctly, there would have to be two blocks for each drop point, not one.

And two blocks means extra switching, a no-no for PSR...

Don't overlook the fact that this latest derailment happened with a train that was 'primarily' empties - 15 loads and 207 empties.  I suspect that train could have been all empties and with the placement of the center beams being unchanged we would have had the same derailment.  

Trailing tonnage behind long empties - no matter if that tonnage is loaded cars or empty cars.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Saturday, July 27, 2019 12:34 PM

I would opine that PSR, and the pre-blocking that is part and parcel with PSR, would definitely be a factor.  You cannot simultaneously pre-block a train and put the empties at the end.  

To do it correctly, there would have to be two blocks for each drop point, not one.

And two blocks means extra switching, a no-no for PSR...

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • 1,686 posts
Posted by Erik_Mag on Saturday, July 27, 2019 11:54 AM

I recall a late 1960's issue of Trains with a sequence of photos showing a train derailing on Horseshoe curve. IIRC, the head end cars were empty 89' Trailer Train flat cars.

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,728 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Saturday, July 27, 2019 11:03 AM

This guy gets it, even provides a demonstration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoWKu1Z0n0s  

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, July 26, 2019 9:16 PM

https://youtu.be/FsE9mOohSB8

 

Beyond stupid. 

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,728 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Friday, July 26, 2019 8:59 PM

What was it a poster on the Forum said a while back?  (Wasn't me.)  Oh, yeah...

"Doesn't anyone know how to railroad anymore?"

Again, it wasn't me.  But then, I learned almost 60 years ago playing with my Lionels you don't put light cars on the head-end behind the engine, you put the heavy cars on the head-end and the light cars back by the caboose.  If you don't, string-line!

Just sayin', you know?

Or maybe it's God's wrath for cancelling the 21st Century Steam Program?  Lightning

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,881 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Friday, July 26, 2019 6:42 PM

Someone should send Norfolk Southern's operating department that recent issue of Trains with the story about how crucial proper train makeup was in the world of Precision Scheduled Railroading and massive trains. :)

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, July 26, 2019 5:35 PM

Virtual Railcam
Derailment of 35A was at 16:09 on Track 3 with Track 2 fouled also. Last derailment was also on Track 3. Track 1 is open for business. There were NO helpers. 15 loaded cars and 207 empties.

Three center beam flats next to the engines followed by a cut of  'hi-cube' reefers.  Classic stringline derailment.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    June 2019
  • 313 posts
NS does it again at Horseshoe Curve
Posted by Juniata Man on Friday, July 26, 2019 5:21 PM

Another derailment on HSC today with center beams on the headend.

If you roll the HSC webcam back to 16:09 you can hear it and see the reaction of the spectators.

Join our Community!

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

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

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