BOB WITHORNBalt, I like the moon shot.
Can't take credit for it - found it on Google - there are dozens.
Illustrates how perspective can make you see things that don't exist in reality.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Overmod One of SD70Dude's reposted pictures from Facebook contains an interesting example: three axles kept spinning long enough to leave very deep wear in the rails, but it appears only two axles in one truck and one in another were the only ones 'slipping'. I cannot resolve the unit number of the locomotive in the background to tell if it is six-motor, but it would be interesting to see how this incident developed, and what the visible state of the trucks was afterward.
One of SD70Dude's reposted pictures from Facebook contains an interesting example: three axles kept spinning long enough to leave very deep wear in the rails, but it appears only two axles in one truck and one in another were the only ones 'slipping'. I cannot resolve the unit number of the locomotive in the background to tell if it is six-motor, but it would be interesting to see how this incident developed, and what the visible state of the trucks was afterward.
Pure speculation here, one possible cause is that the traction motor was cut out on the axle that was not spinning.
I can't read the number on that locomotive either.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
rrnut282Can we agree that rail burns are real?
There is no question that they are real; there is no question that they could easily progress to the depth and severity in these pictures. They were much more likely in the age before computer control and AC drives; a system like the EMD radar sensing for creep control makes it almost impossible to sustain the kind of pronounced wheelslip without corresponding forward motion that is involved ... when working and not overridden.
We have discussed this issue in several threads here, over the years.
Can we agree that rail burns are real?
If so, faked or not, the photo represents what happens when the wheels of a locomotive continue to turn while it does not move down the track.
There are a multitude of possible mitigating circumstances that make it appear "incorrect to the eyes."
SD70DudeHe probably meant this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Whatcouldgowrong/comments/e476qr/wcgw_if_a_locomotive_engineer_ignores_the_w
https://www.reddit.com/r/Whatcouldgowrong/comments/e476qr/wcgw_if_a_locomotive_engineer_ignores_the_w
I'm just going to make one suggestion: Look at the enlarged picture in the above link. There is a tie plate under the near burn the left edge of which is close to the center of the burn. If you place a straightedge on the the left edge of this plate, it lines up pretty close to the center of the far burn.
(Edit): The link is SD70Dude's link on previous page. This copy doesn't seem to work.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
rdamonWas there another shot from the grassy knoll?
Actually, I put my bet on George Hickey
For some reason I don't see a link to the enlarged image from the Reddit thread here. It is
https://i.redd.it/g1ufyh1t9x141.jpg
Oddly enough, I see little distortion here, and the two 'divots' roughly line up relative to the visible ties, leading me to wonder if the distortion has taken place in the 'chain of custody' between the posting on Reddit and 'Dude's finding it to link here.
Note the 'unquestioned genuine' second image in the post showing the 'rail burns'. Note the two different types of "machining scurf" that appear, showing the direction of wheel rotation: to the left, particulates scraped off the engaging face of the wheel, with a small lip built up similar to a 'burr'; to the right, thrown liquid that quickly quenches against the railhead. Debris inward of the wheel will tend to follow a resultant roughly from points on the inside face of the wheel as "sparks" would be thrown.
In the Reddit image it appears that the leading edge of the 'far' divot is not square with the axis of the railhead (as it is with the other images I see). That does not discredit the image as 'faked', but would need to be explained.
Is it possible that, as with some PRR track, the two rails are of different section or differently worn, with the effect of throwing the locomotive weight toward one side? I think I see visible flange 'forming' keeping the melt deposit restrained on one gauge side, but not the other, indicating the wheelset was 'hard over' to the restrained side, and perhaps cocked. It would be nice to see a zoomed-out view; I do not know if this is on a curve, which might explain some of the apparent geometry and effects.
Was there another shot from the grassy knoll?
Convicted One Euclid If you look at the photo in that Reddit link, you can see a very small length of the shadow of the rail head cast onto the rail web, extending out about 1-2" from the melted mass of iron. So the shadow is there, but the camera angle is too high to see it because it is covered by they rail head overhang of the web. zoomed 3x. perhaps what I am seeing (or not seeing) is an artifact of a lossy compression fomula ...but that 2" long horizontal detail (which you acknowledge) seems to fade into vertical "mouse stokes" to me. Not that any of this matters, really.
Euclid If you look at the photo in that Reddit link, you can see a very small length of the shadow of the rail head cast onto the rail web, extending out about 1-2" from the melted mass of iron. So the shadow is there, but the camera angle is too high to see it because it is covered by they rail head overhang of the web.
zoomed 3x. perhaps what I am seeing (or not seeing) is an artifact of a lossy compression fomula ...but that 2" long horizontal detail (which you acknowledge) seems to fade into vertical "mouse stokes" to me.
Not that any of this matters, really.
Well what I called a 1-2" long shadow is probably only 1" long, and it is barely discernable.
But look at the main shadow there caused by the melted steel burr. That shadow first drops down nearly vertically, but angles slightly to the right. Then it extends horizontally to the left for maybe 1/2". Then it drops downward and curves to the right. In the part where it extends horzontally to the left for 1/2", that is the dividing line between the vertical side of the head and the vertical side of the web.
Then you can see that dividing line extending a little further to the left as it fades out.
EuclidIf you look at the photo in that Reddit link, you can see a very small length of the shadow of the rail head cast onto the rail web, extending out about 1-2" from the melted mass of iron. So the shadow is there, but the camera angle is too high to see it because it is covered by they rail head overhang of the web.
Euclid Convicted One tree68 It's there - due to the camera angle, you can't see the shadow like you can on the far rail Perhaps it is....and maybe I've just spent too much time analyzing details of the photo. I might have made myself "pixel-prejudiced" But, engaging your comment about shadows, look at the mass of deformed metal under the divot on the far rail....at the left most extreme of that mass....notice the well defined shadow? And how it is complimented by the shadow under the rail you just commented on? Now take a look at the corresponding mass under the divot on the nearest rail....again a well defined shadow at the left most extreme....but the absence of any shadow whatsoever under the rail head. It's challenging to accept your explanation of camera angle being the culprit given that the mass of deformed metal on the nearer rail is creating a shadow. The downward viewing angle of the camera looking at the nearest rail is steeper than the viewing angle looking at the far rail. On both rails, the rail heads are casting a shadow down onto the rail web. Because of the steeper viewing angle to the near rail, its rail head overhanging the web is covering up the shadow. On the far rail, the shallower viewing angle can see some of that same shadow on the rail web. But on the near rail, with no shadow separating the side of the rail head with the side of the rail web, those two side surfaces have identical lighting and so they appear identical. If you look at the photo in that Reddit link, you can see a very small length of the shadow of the rail head cast onto the rail web, extending out about 1-2" from the melted mass of iron. So the shadow is there, but the camera angle is too high to see it because it is covered by they rail head overhang of the web.
Convicted One tree68 It's there - due to the camera angle, you can't see the shadow like you can on the far rail Perhaps it is....and maybe I've just spent too much time analyzing details of the photo. I might have made myself "pixel-prejudiced" But, engaging your comment about shadows, look at the mass of deformed metal under the divot on the far rail....at the left most extreme of that mass....notice the well defined shadow? And how it is complimented by the shadow under the rail you just commented on? Now take a look at the corresponding mass under the divot on the nearest rail....again a well defined shadow at the left most extreme....but the absence of any shadow whatsoever under the rail head. It's challenging to accept your explanation of camera angle being the culprit given that the mass of deformed metal on the nearer rail is creating a shadow.
tree68 It's there - due to the camera angle, you can't see the shadow like you can on the far rail
Perhaps it is....and maybe I've just spent too much time analyzing details of the photo. I might have made myself "pixel-prejudiced"
But, engaging your comment about shadows, look at the mass of deformed metal under the divot on the far rail....at the left most extreme of that mass....notice the well defined shadow? And how it is complimented by the shadow under the rail you just commented on?
Now take a look at the corresponding mass under the divot on the nearest rail....again a well defined shadow at the left most extreme....but the absence of any shadow whatsoever under the rail head.
It's challenging to accept your explanation of camera angle being the culprit given that the mass of deformed metal on the nearer rail is creating a shadow.
The downward viewing angle of the camera looking at the nearest rail is steeper than the viewing angle looking at the far rail. On both rails, the rail heads are casting a shadow down onto the rail web. Because of the steeper viewing angle to the near rail, its rail head overhanging the web is covering up the shadow. On the far rail, the shallower viewing angle can see some of that same shadow on the rail web.
But on the near rail, with no shadow separating the side of the rail head with the side of the rail web, those two side surfaces have identical lighting and so they appear identical.
If you look at the photo in that Reddit link, you can see a very small length of the shadow of the rail head cast onto the rail web, extending out about 1-2" from the melted mass of iron. So the shadow is there, but the camera angle is too high to see it because it is covered by they rail head overhang of the web.
To throw another log on the fire -
The near rail 'may be relay rail' from a curve with most of the field side of the rail worn away from the time it spent on the 'other side' of the track.
In areas of heavy curve wear - the 'normal' progression is to install new rail on both rails - when the 'high' rail gets too worn the rails get transposed - low rail goes to the high rail and the high rail goes to the low rail with both guage faces being renewed in the exchange. When the rails get too worn again, new rail gets installed on both rails.
High and Low refer to the superelevation that is built into railroad curves. The High rail is the outside of the curve, Low rail is the inside of the curve.
tree68It's there - due to the camera angle, you can't see the shadow like you can on the far rail
It almost looks to me that someone has used "smudge" and "blurr" functions on the nearer rail to try and make it appear taller. Couple that with the disparity in the results I got using the "edge detection" filter earlier, one rail versus the other...and it gives me pause to wonder.
Conversely, I have to remind myself "why would somebody fake this picture in the first place"?
It's maddening I tell you!!
Convicted One...there does not appear to be an obvious rail head on the rail in the front,...
It's there - due to the camera angle, you can't see the shadow like you can on the far rail.
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...
The more I look at this image, the more I regret having ever started. It bothers me that there does not appear to be an obvious rail head on the rail in the front, compared to the rail further away. Not exactly sure what to make of this....but it does give the entire image a dubious quality.
Measured in actuality means measuring the length of each burn as they actually physically exist; as opposed to measuring them in the flat plane of the photo.
Look at this rendition of the photo on Reddit. It is larger and clearer than the one posted dozens of times in this thread. In this photo, just slightly right of the nearest burn pocket is another tie plate that does not show up well in the photo we have been looking at here. In the Reddit photo, that newly visible tie plate gives good indication of the tie position, and it appears to cross the track and pass under nearly the identical spot of the far burn as it does under the near burn.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Whatcouldgowrong/comments/e476qr/wcgw_if_a_locomotive_engineer_ignores_the_wheel/
If you click on the image after opening, it enlarges even further.
In looking at this when getting closer to the screen, I see the two burn pockets lined up perfectly crosswise to the track. The ties likewise indicate that the pockets are aligned crosswise on a line perpendicular to the track.
For some reason, when I move back about 20" from the screen, the pockets seem to shift out of alignment with their axis shifting out of perpendicularity with the track.
There's something happening here.
What it is ain't exactly clear.
Murphy Siding For some reason, the discussion of lines and perspective made me think of the Warren report.
For some reason, the discussion of lines and perspective made me think of the Warren report.
Arlen Specter could really help us out here, but sadly he has passed away.
Convicted OneI think I might have been sick that day, I don't remember covering that.
What a slacker. I don't think you were really sick; and anyway, it was right there in the book for all to see. It's the chapter that immediately precedes Measured Hypotheticality.
For some reason, the discussion of lines and perspective made me think of the Warren report.A couple questions unrelated to drawing green and red lines on a photo-Does the wheel stoppedmelting down into the rail when the truck bottoms out on the rails?How long would it take for a locomotive to burn out the amount of rail shown in the picture?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
EuclidThe two burns are the same size in measured actuality.
I think I might have been sick that day, I don't remember covering that. But believe as you wish, I just dont think the two rails are far enough apart to account for that big of a difference in the relative appearance. That would be a mighty shallow vanishing point, IMO.
The two burns are the same size in measured actuality. The more distant one just scales shorter in the picture because it is a perspective view and things converge in the distance as the nature of a perspective.
BaltACDWheels on the same axle made both burns.
What about my post leads you to believe that I am claiming otherwise?
I'm just saying that as that "axel" spun, it could have creeped towards the camera to the extent that the nearer wheel flange climbed up on the rail....creating a larger divit due to the flange having a greater diameter
Convicted One BaltACD The individuals leg is obscuring the actual right end of the burn on the far rail, so the red line is inaccuately drawn. You know it's funny because when I drew the line I contemplated estimating where the line should be drawn to in order to account for that, but I just knew that if I did, one of this forums many critics would point out that I "fudged" the line just to make it perpendicular. So, I felt that I could stick with the tangible and still demonstrate that the divots align at the right side, and then hope to explain that the reason they do not align on the left side as well is because the divots themselves are not of equal length. Here's a thought that just occurred to me. Assume that during the burn the truck did start creeping towards the camera...out of guage to the extent that the flange itself was burning the rail in the foreground......voila you have different surfaces burning different sized divots!
BaltACD The individuals leg is obscuring the actual right end of the burn on the far rail, so the red line is inaccuately drawn.
You know it's funny because when I drew the line I contemplated estimating where the line should be drawn to in order to account for that, but I just knew that if I did, one of this forums many critics would point out that I "fudged" the line just to make it perpendicular.
So, I felt that I could stick with the tangible and still demonstrate that the divots align at the right side, and then hope to explain that the reason they do not align on the left side as well is because the divots themselves are not of equal length.
Here's a thought that just occurred to me. Assume that during the burn the truck did start creeping towards the camera...out of guage to the extent that the flange itself was burning the rail in the foreground......voila you have different surfaces burning different sized divots!
Wheels on the same axle made both burns.
Drawing lines on pictures is a inexact 'craft' dependent upon the 'mouse skill' of the drawer. Mickey is a much better line drawing Mouse than I am.
Is this the type of thing that an engineer would be fired for, assuming there were no other blemishes on his record?
BaltACDThe individuals leg is obscuring the actual right end of the burn on the far rail, so the red line is inaccuately drawn.
Lithonia Operator Convicted One Well, you posted while I was posting. Step back a bit and look at the photo as a whole. There is no way that the red line and the green line are both crossing the track at a right angle. I think that your red line comes closer, though. My green one does not. Even after accounting for perspective, there is simply no way those lines both cross at right angles. Mine clearly does not. NOW I'm done!
Convicted One Well, you posted while I was posting.
Step back a bit and look at the photo as a whole. There is no way that the red line and the green line are both crossing the track at a right angle. I think that your red line comes closer, though. My green one does not.
Even after accounting for perspective, there is simply no way those lines both cross at right angles. Mine clearly does not.
NOW I'm done!
The individuals leg is obscuring the actual right end of the burn on the far rail, so the red line is inaccuately drawn.
Angles and perspective in photography can make many things appear to be something they aren't in reality.
The picture from the Reddit link posted above by SD70Dude is larger and clearer than the others posted in this thread. Apparently that thing in the background near the truck vehicle is the wheelset with traction motor from the locomotive truck that burned the rails.
The green line and the tie are not coincident.
The tie, as indicated by the tie plate, angles about 18 degrees C.C.W. to the left of vertical in the image; and the left extents of the burns angle about 10 degrees C.C.W. to the left of vertical in the image.
The centerline axis of the burns angles about 24 degrees C.C.W. to the left.
All togethere, this indicates that the centerline axis of the burns is not actually perpendicular to the rails. But it is not out of perpendicular enough to be made by wheels of two different axles. So I would conclude, as others have, that the truck was pivoted to be misaligned with the track when it burned into the rails.
I assume the four wheels of the other two axles were derailed during this slip event. So, perhaps the four wheels of the other two axles were suspended in air, or only lightlty touching the ground as they turned. If so, those wheels may not have been damaged signficantly. So they jacked it up and re-railed it, and then moved the locomotive with the one center axle and wheels missing. That would explain why the one damaged wheel-axle-traction motor set is resting in the background of the photo.
Lithonia OperatorAm I correct in assuming that the wheelset(s) involved will also be fried, and therefore in need of replacement?
As stated, for a number of reasons.
The comment was made in the reddit thread that the wheels are made of a 'better' grade of steel, and hence don't have the same response to heat damage as the rail steel. I'm surprised no one has posted a picture of the trucks involved, for example in the picture that shows individual-axle slipping, as I'd expect significant heat-bluing of the wheels just as seen in the Duffy's Curve 'incidents'.
Expect the metallurgical structure of the chilled wheeltreads to be ruined by that much heat. The tread profile will also be ruined, and there will likely be significant web cracking (which may or may not be visible), but those are peripheral issues; the heat damage alone makes it impossible to re-turn the wheel to any wear, or "remanufacture" it rather than scrapping.
It would be interesting to learn whether the axle could be saved; I have no reference indicating either way, and don't know whether commercial NDT can establish safety cost-effectively vs. insurance-compensated scrapping. I would presume it would be pre-emptively condemned.
Yep - for multiple reasons.
Am I correct in assuming that the wheelset(s) involved will also be fried, and therefore in need of replacement?
Euclid Lithonia Operator Convicted One Well, you posted while I was posting. Step back a bit and look at the photo as a whole. There is no way that the red line and the green line are both crossing the track at a right angle. I think that your red line comes closer, though. My green one does not. Even after accounting for perspective, there is simply no way those lines both cross at right angles. Mine clearly does not. NOW I'm done! Not so fast there L.O. On what basis to you know that the lines don't cross the track at a right angle? Don't the lines follow the ties as well as the burns? Don't the ties cross the track at right angles?
Not so fast there L.O. On what basis to you know that the lines don't cross the track at a right angle?
Don't the lines follow the ties as well as the burns? Don't the ties cross the track at right angles?
The picture itself indicates it was taken at a angle to the rails, not perpendicular. At the left edge the rails are physically lower than the rails are at the right edge of the picture. Were the picture to have been taken from a perpendiculcar vantage point - the rails would be at the same height on both edges of the picture.
I think maybe my hosting site does not allow a hot link because of copyright issues. Which makes sense, since the site is primarly for pro shooters.
I'll just use links in the future.
Sheesh. There's an hour of my life I'll never get back.
Heard of a slow news night? This must be a slow train night.
Convicted One
Well, you posted while I was posting.
Here's a few more, from the comments on that Facebook post. The last one is how they all would have started out.
Lithonia OperatorEven after accounting for perspective, there is simply no way those lines both cross at right angles. Mine clearly does not.
I think that the burn out started very near my red line, or a close approximation thereof.
The deterioration of the metal in the rails did not proceed at a uniform rate, one rail vs the other. Perhaps due to "torque steer", or perhaps the spinning wheelset went out of guage slipping toward the camera? Notice that the "pool" of melted metal is much thicker on the far rail than the near, making me think that the truck came toward the camera and continued to grind away at the nearer rail longer than it did on the farther rail.
That's my best guess anyway
I agree that it's real.
I still think the photo is real, and they look aligned to me. Even if they weren't aligned that could have been caused by a derailed locomotive that was no longer inline with the track, but still continued to try to move (DP unit or beltpak yard engine, with no one around).
I did find where I got it from on Facebook, the "Canadian Trains" group. But the member who posted it there says he got it from Reddit, and it is not his either.
He probably meant this thread:
I'm actually leaning toward the radial truck concept.
If you look at the exposed end of the tie near the left side of the near burn, and assume that the ties are at right angles to the rails, you can see that the burns are skewd.
BaltACD I have taken Lithonia's picture and added outlines of the tie plates on the adjacent ties in red - the green line marking the left edge of the burns and the red lines marking the tie plates are parallel.
I have taken Lithonia's picture and added outlines of the tie plates on the adjacent ties in red - the green line marking the left edge of the burns and the red lines marking the tie plates are parallel.
Balt, I'm afraid that your red line on the left tie plate is not parallel to the edge of the plate. It skews to the right as it goes up. If a line is drawn on an object itself, it obscures what is beneath the line, and it's virtally impossible to extend a tangent from that. I've run into this in my work. This is why I let a tiny bit of snow show: it's the only way you can actually see the edge; and I did my line as parallel to that as I could.
Hey. This is not worth it to me to continue. I'm done. Sorry for the diversion. If anyone does not agree with me, fine. All I know is the divots do not look aligned to me, and I feel I have illustrated that. But I don't want any dischord about this. It's a minor point, in any event.
When I first saw the photo, I was so blown away by seeing a rail burn (something I had never heard of, much less seen) that I wasn't looking at anything else. I focused on the near one, because it is easier to see. But when Overmod said they appear not to be aligned, I looked again. And bingo, that's what I see also. No one will change my mind.
YMMV. No problem. It's all good.
I'll try regular links. Please tell me if they work.
For ease of relating, I am repeating here some of the info from before.
I drew the red lines as basically an extension of the edges of the visible tie and tie plate. Only I set them slightly outside of that, so you can see a bit of the snow, to confirm that my lines are parallel to the references. So, where the tie edge is, is just inside of the red lines. So then I drew the green line to correspond to the actual tie edge; then when I got to the rail, I went up vertically, to join the rail head at a right angle.
https://500px.com/photo/1007105814/RailBurn-by-KudzuTraveler?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=72656199
Then there is this way of looking at it. The green line connects the two left extremeties of the burns. You can see that the line does not go at a right angle across the track.
https://500px.com/photo/1007105358/RailBurn-by-KudzuTraveler?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=72656199
Lithonia Operator Convicted One Lithonia Operator I still think the one on the far rail is further to the right; but after looking at it a lot now, I think it's only about 8 ins. off of alignment, not a foot as I stated earlier. Would you mind doing me a favor? Copy the image and post it to a reliable hosting service such as imgur? I have been unable to get SD70's original image to load...and with all the discusion that it may be spurious, my curiosity is piqued! But you can see my two drawn-on versions? Ya know, technically I should not have reproduced the photo at all without the permission of SD70Dude. So maybe I sould let him make the call on this, and on whether I should take my two down. But if he says OK, sure, I will post the original on my hosting site, which is called 500px.
Convicted One Lithonia Operator I still think the one on the far rail is further to the right; but after looking at it a lot now, I think it's only about 8 ins. off of alignment, not a foot as I stated earlier. Would you mind doing me a favor? Copy the image and post it to a reliable hosting service such as imgur? I have been unable to get SD70's original image to load...and with all the discusion that it may be spurious, my curiosity is piqued!
Lithonia Operator I still think the one on the far rail is further to the right; but after looking at it a lot now, I think it's only about 8 ins. off of alignment, not a foot as I stated earlier.
Would you mind doing me a favor? Copy the image and post it to a reliable hosting service such as imgur? I have been unable to get SD70's original image to load...and with all the discusion that it may be spurious, my curiosity is piqued!
But you can see my two drawn-on versions?
Ya know, technically I should not have reproduced the photo at all without the permission of SD70Dude. So maybe I sould let him make the call on this, and on whether I should take my two down. But if he says OK, sure, I will post the original on my hosting site, which is called 500px.
It's not my photo, I got it from a Facebook group where someone else had posted it. As far as I'm concerned you guys can do whatever you want with it.
I can see the photos just fine (Windows 7, latest version of Firefox).
Okay okay, I finally waited it out and got one of Lithonia Operators images, ran a rudementary edge detection on it, and found only one adulteration. Judge for yourselves:
Semper VaporoThe two images will open in EDGE browser but not Internet Explorer... dunno about the other brands of browsers.
The original picture from SD70dude is visible as posted, hot-linked, in the latest version of Firefox running under Mac OS 10.11.6. I believe it was visible in Opera under Mac OS 10.6.8. The image can be hotlinked again by right-clicking it (in the post) and pasting into the Kalmbach tool, also in Firefox (it has a long numerical URL) -- can those of you who see a broken placeholder for the original see it also in the post where I 'quoted' it?
Conversely I don't recall even seeing a clickable URL for the 'annotated' versions of the glossy photos with the circles and arrows on the front of each one...
If you remove the people and the picture frame, there is no sense of vertical. Then the eye has no trouble believing that the two burns are coincident on a line perpendicular to the rails as would be the case if this was caused by two wheels on one axle.
The two images will open in EDGE browser but not Internet Explorer... dunno about the other brands of browsers.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Lithonia OperatorOkay, kids. I was hoping you wouldn't make me come down here. But, oh the skeptics ... I drew the red lines as basically an extension of the edges of the visible tie and tie plate. Only I set them slightly outside of that, so you non-believers can see a bit of the snow, to confirm that my lines are parallel to the references. So, where the tie edge is is just inside of the red lines. So then I drew the green line to correspond to the actual tie edge; then when I got to the rail, I went up vertically, to join the rail head at a right angle. The green line shows the difference in the left side of the far rail burn, compared to the near one. It's geometry, folks. Don't tell me about distortion. I am using the photo itself as my references. It is what it is. And the photo does not have that much distortion, anyway. The view looks to be from a 35 mm lens on a 35 mm camera; not really very wide. Significant distortion comes with lenses 28 mm and wider. The difference in burn positions is about 6 inches, I'd say. Then there is this way of looking at it. The green line connects the two left extremeties of the burns. You can see that the line does not go at a right angle across the track. As you were. Anybody want to tell me how to get the photos (not just the icons) to show up in the post.
I drew the red lines as basically an extension of the edges of the visible tie and tie plate. Only I set them slightly outside of that, so you non-believers can see a bit of the snow, to confirm that my lines are parallel to the references. So, where the tie edge is is just inside of the red lines. So then I drew the green line to correspond to the actual tie edge; then when I got to the rail, I went up vertically, to join the rail head at a right angle. The green line shows the difference in the left side of the far rail burn, compared to the near one. It's geometry, folks. Don't tell me about distortion. I am using the photo itself as my references. It is what it is. And the photo does not have that much distortion, anyway. The view looks to be from a 35 mm lens on a 35 mm camera; not really very wide. Significant distortion comes with lenses 28 mm and wider.
The difference in burn positions is about 6 inches, I'd say.
As you were.
Anybody want to tell me how to get the photos (not just the icons) to show up in the post.
Right clicking and viewing the 2nd icon in a new tab, if you follow the line that is drawn between the left ends of the rail burns and then drop you eyes down the the tie plate upon which the near rail rests upon - the drawn line and the forward edge of the tie plate are parallel to each other.
Photos need to be posted to a site that permits 'hot linking' to the photos. The site these photos are posted to doesn't.
I get the broken image icons in SD70Dudes first post, but trying to open them direct is not working either.
What I think it is, this site here loads so slowly for me the past couple days, and I don't think his host is particularly fast either, so by the time this page loads and the call goes out to his linked image, my browser is timing out and the image gets blocked.
In contrast, the image links to Balts images at imgur are loading like champs for me, but then they are not selling constrained speed the way I suspect the other two hosts are. Imgur gives it up, all up front, because their access model is not"sold" the same way as other sites.
Yeah "weasel words" I know....
Semper VaporoWhat shows for me is a slashed circle, clicking on it gets me a new tab in my browser to a web site named 500px (or something like that) and a blank page. The first time I got a slide in advert for something that I closed so quickly I don't remember what it was about. But both images in your previous post just produce a blank window.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah, what he said!
What shows for me is a slashed circle, clicking on it gets me a new tab in my browser to a web site named 500px (or something like that) and a blank page. The first time I got a slide in advert for something that I closed so quickly I don't remember what it was about. But both images in your previous post just produce a blank window.
You don't see two little photo icons? If so, click on each one and see what happens.
Lithonia OperatorBut you can see my two drawn-on versions?
LOL! I guess not....I didn't realize you had posted images yet in this thread.
Most sites I get loaded okay, such as the pix Balt has linked to......but some of the other sites that take a more indirect route to loading, my firewall rejects them.
O well.....
Euclid What is difficult to accept about rails getting fatter if they must grow longer but are restrained? The metal has to go somewhere.
What is difficult to accept about rails getting fatter if they must grow longer but are restrained? The metal has to go somewhere.
Considering the offset of the burn by about 4-6 inches. I’ll go out on a limb and assume this burn was caused by a Loco with radial trucks. I’ll also say it was the leading or trailing axle of said radial truck. As movement of the lead and trailing axles on radial trucks have limited degrees of pivot on its X axis.
I think the distortion is due to the rail burn on the near rail being wider and deeper than the rail burn on the far rail. Plausible?
Brian (IA) http://blhanel.rrpicturearchives.net.
Lithonia OperatorI still think the one on the far rail is further to the right; but after looking at it a lot now, I think it's only about 8 ins. off of alignment, not a foot as I stated earlier.
I don't come on here and try to tell experienced railroaders "how it is." I am not a railroad expert.
But I am a photography expert. All but two years of my working life was spent as a self-employed commercial photographer. I was quite succcessful. I know what I am seeing here.
Folks here say there are scenarios whereby the burns would not be aligned. That's the case in this photo. Those two burns are not aligned.
I no longer think the photo has been manipulated. I initially thought that because I had never before seen a picture of a rail burn, or even heard of one. The photo startled me when I first saw it.
Ties aren't always 100% perpendicular to the rail.
And that wheel/wheelwell is way distorted.
I don't know if the photo was photoshopped (I don't understand WHY you'd photoshop something like this), but railburns do happen. Sometimes mecahnical, sometimes human fault. And unless something is really messed up (wheel in the air or missing), there will be two.
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
Okay, kids. I was hoping you wouldn't make me come down here. But, oh the skeptics ...
jeffhergert BaltACD Electroliner 1935 WOW, and it stayed on the rail! Why did the other wheel on the axle not flaten? Only thing I can think of is that somehow the flat wheel lost the interference fit on the axle - the axle kept turning the the flat wheel did not. I would think the wheel broke at some point instead of sliding to that extent of flatness. From the condition of the remaining part, the wheel had been under a lot of stress for a while. Jeff Jeff, That makes more sense than much of what gets posted on here. Thanks
BaltACD Electroliner 1935 WOW, and it stayed on the rail! Why did the other wheel on the axle not flaten? Only thing I can think of is that somehow the flat wheel lost the interference fit on the axle - the axle kept turning the the flat wheel did not.
Electroliner 1935 WOW, and it stayed on the rail! Why did the other wheel on the axle not flaten?
Only thing I can think of is that somehow the flat wheel lost the interference fit on the axle - the axle kept turning the the flat wheel did not.
I would think the wheel broke at some point instead of sliding to that extent of flatness. From the condition of the remaining part, the wheel had been under a lot of stress for a while.
Jeff
OvermodIf we aren't careful, a certain someone will start discussing how sun kink force changes the cross-section of constrained rails
Paul of CovingtonNow let's discuss the forgability of rarely used steel ties.
I'm from Jersey -- Forgaddaboudid.
Forged knuckles anyone???
Now let's discuss the forgability of rarely used steel ties.
(Sorry about that. Just wanted to join the silliness.)
Convicted OneI agree that there is no productive gain in strength due to the deformation, but to the best I can determine by reading this thread there were no claims of any gain in strength relevant to the discussion of the rail or the ties, either.
You certainly have me there! I too can't imagine what gain there would be in 'forging' ties (either wood or metal) or in friction-heating rail.
There is a long history of destructive damage to concrete ties from even incidental flange contact, an indication that whatever strength might be gained from post-tensioning, it doesn't apply out of the plane of the tendons. There were some discussions in the ACA about exactly when to bring the tendons up to final tension in high-early-strength cure with the assumption there would be a little further compaction (and compressive strength increase) as the curing temperature rise dissipated and the final effective chemical changes in structure ran to completion ... but I don't remember which of the arguments were either correct or authoritative. Certainly after curing any attempt to 'compact' the tie further would be more likely to induce cracking or spalling.
If we aren't careful, a certain someone will start discussing how sun kink force changes the cross-section of constrained rails (now, with the added theoretical consideration that the force 'forges' them to a different metallurgical state or density). If we're really lucky, the 'someone' will get ahold of a CRC Handbook and some metallurgical references and actually produce numbers to back up the magnitude and significance.
Forgive me if I wait to make the popcorn until then.
OvermodThe compression you mention is incidental to augmented strength;
I agree that there is no productive gain in strength due to the deformation, but to the best I can determine by reading this thread there were no claims of any gain in strength relevant to the discussion of the rail or the ties, either.
Convicted OneYou're quite sure of that, are you?
I've worked with bentwood since I was in my teens. Did specialized research into it in college. Including the use of directed whipping to allow tighter compound bends. I do know how the techniques work.
The compression you mention is incidental to augmented strength; it's a consequence of the bending technique with materials of nontrivial cross-section. It is most certainly nothing comparable to forging in metals.
OvermodThere is no lateral change to compress the fibers
You're quite sure of that, are you? I suggest you take a little time to inspect a worthwhile sample size of bentwood, paying particular attention to induced deviation in grain patterns at bend points, and then get back to me.
Compression from one side of the piece compared to the other is unmistakable.
There are a few publications put out there by the usda, in PDF format that you might wish to review as well.....
Convicted OneHeat, pressure, and "shapechanging" were terms he used. Heat and pressure will in fact deform wood, and as the illustration confirms, the "shape changing" can be dramatic.
Heat and pressure will in fact deform wood, and as the illustration confirms, the "shape changing" can be dramatic.
But that is not forging, any more than friction-stir upset is forging. (And friction-stir with the applied weight on the axle(s) being the feed is the relevant 'action' in producing these divots... the amount of 'forging' or hot axial pressing going on being incidental at best, even though the amount of applied spot force started out being fairly high...)
Bentwood involves heating the composite structure of the wood until the internal 'glue' softens and melts, and then applying force to shape the fibrous portion as desired. When it cools, it re-hardens with much the same physical characteristics as the original. There is no lateral change to compress the fibers to greater integrity, which is one of the actions in forging/hot pressing.
Friction stir is a useful technique for autogenous welding, somewhat less so for producing simple upset forms (compared to resistance or external heating).
That picture is almost certainly a broken wheel, not a slid-flat. There is no evidence whatsoever of heat damage to the web or tread, which would have the same bluing damage you see in the six-divot picture (and the debris) whereas there is dramatic shelling damage to the visible tread right down to the point of "intersection" with the railhead.
A very, very good illustration, though, why three-piece trucks have been so successful in railroad service!
We had one that started out as a small flat spot due to an unreleased handbrake. We figure that as time went along the wheel started finding that spot when the brakes were applied. While it was being watched by our mechanical folks, for a long while it was more of an annoyance than anything.
I suspect that the bigger the flat spot got, the more likely it was to settle there and slide, rapidly taking the flat spot to the point were the wheel was condemned.
Electroliner 1935WOW, and it stayed on the rail! Why did the other wheel on the axle not flaten?
WOW, and it stayed on the rail! Why did the other wheel on the axle not flaten?
Euclid tree68 Euclid So a better name would be: Radial Rotary Friction Forged Upset. So flat wheels would be caused by lateral friction forged upset? I think so, especially if they flatten catastrophically and completely pass through the wheel tread like spinning wheels work through a rail. In both cases, there is a forging and upset action by causing the metal to flow in a plastic manner.
tree68 Euclid So a better name would be: Radial Rotary Friction Forged Upset. So flat wheels would be caused by lateral friction forged upset?
Euclid So a better name would be: Radial Rotary Friction Forged Upset.
So flat wheels would be caused by lateral friction forged upset?
I think so, especially if they flatten catastrophically and completely pass through the wheel tread like spinning wheels work through a rail. In both cases, there is a forging and upset action by causing the metal to flow in a plastic manner.
Euclid may call them whatever he/she/they wants.
EuclidSo a better name would be: Radial Rotary Friction Forged Upset.
Heat, pressure, and "shapechanging" were terms he used.
Bentwood is made by soaking or steaming wood and bending it to a desired shape. Forged is not the term used here.
EuclidTo the question above; wood and concrete cannot be forged. Forging uses pressure to change the shape of material. It can be done cold or it can be done by adding heat to cause the material to reach a plastic condition.
To the question above; wood and concrete cannot be forged.
Forging uses pressure to change the shape of material. It can be done cold or it can be done by adding heat to cause the material to reach a plastic condition. That would be like a blacksmith hammering red hot iron on an anvil. In changing the shape, some material can be removed by displacing it into the form of a burr and then removing the burr.
This displacement of metal is an “upset.” It is a forged upset caused by the pressure of the locomotive weight and the heat produced by the friction of the spinning wheel. The nature of the tool being a spinning wheel is a rotary action. More specifically, it is a radial rotary action as opposed to an axial rotary action. So a better name would be: Radial Rotary Friction Forged Upset. It could be referred to as an RRFFU.
I would agree that it is a form of rail burn, but way too extreme and unusual to be called that. Rail burn causes slight RRFFU damage to just the surface of the rail head due to accidental wheel slip events. Where wheels tend to slip on grades, the long stretches of rail can become marked with rail burns every few feet or less. Eventually the rails may be replaced due the burn damage, but typically, no one burn is sufficient to take the rail out of service.
However, these extreme burns that dig right down through the rail are not caused by routine wheel slip, but rather, by some unusual condition that causes prolonged and unrealized wheel slip. These extreme events require the track to be taken out of service for immediate repair.
I still think the one on the far rail is further to the right; but after looking at it a lot now, I think it's only about 8 ins. off of alignment, not a foot as I stated earlier.
There is a very large change of angle between those to lines which in reality are both perpendicular to the rails. The line related to the tie plate is aligned with the left ends of the two rotary friction forged upsets. But that line is still not appear perpendicular to the rails. This is because the photographer is standing to the left of the actual centerline axis of the two rotary friction forged upsets.
I would say that if the photographer took one or two steps to the right, he/she would coincide with the centerline axis of the two upsets; and then the visual alighment of them would fall on an axis that would appear to be perpendicular to the rails. In other words, step to the right and watch the two rotary friction forged upsets move into apparent alignment with each other.
In actuality, they are aligned with each other crosswise to the track as would be expected. And if you were standing where the photographer was, the view would look radically different than the photograph.
BaltACD Murphy Siding BaltACD Murphy Siding You can see the edge of a tie in the lower left hand corner. Hols a wide ruler in front of your screen parallel to that tie edge. You'll see that the start of the burn on the far rail is right where you'd think it should be if the axel in was parallel to the rails. Mystery solved. Scooby dooby doo! If the axle was parallel to the rails, we would be talking about tie burns, not rail burns. No Scooby snacks for you! Can we compromise and call them rotary friction tie forged upsets? Are wood or concrete (normal tie materials) forgable materials?
Murphy Siding BaltACD Murphy Siding You can see the edge of a tie in the lower left hand corner. Hols a wide ruler in front of your screen parallel to that tie edge. You'll see that the start of the burn on the far rail is right where you'd think it should be if the axel in was parallel to the rails. Mystery solved. Scooby dooby doo! If the axle was parallel to the rails, we would be talking about tie burns, not rail burns. No Scooby snacks for you! Can we compromise and call them rotary friction tie forged upsets?
BaltACD Murphy Siding You can see the edge of a tie in the lower left hand corner. Hols a wide ruler in front of your screen parallel to that tie edge. You'll see that the start of the burn on the far rail is right where you'd think it should be if the axel in was parallel to the rails. Mystery solved. Scooby dooby doo! If the axle was parallel to the rails, we would be talking about tie burns, not rail burns. No Scooby snacks for you!
Murphy Siding You can see the edge of a tie in the lower left hand corner. Hols a wide ruler in front of your screen parallel to that tie edge. You'll see that the start of the burn on the far rail is right where you'd think it should be if the axel in was parallel to the rails. Mystery solved. Scooby dooby doo!
If the axle was parallel to the rails, we would be talking about tie burns, not rail burns. No Scooby snacks for you!
Can we compromise and call them rotary friction tie forged upsets?
Are wood or concrete (normal tie materials) forgable materials?
Murphy SidingYou can see the edge of a tie in the lower left hand corner. Hols a wide ruler in front of your screen parallel to that tie edge. You'll see that the start of the burn on the far rail is right where you'd think it should be if the axel in was parallel to the rails. Mystery solved. Scooby dooby doo!
Euclid What is needed is a tie to show what is perpendicular to the rails. No tie is visible, but it just so happens that there is one tie plate showing near the left end of the nearest rotary friction forged upset. The tie plate is a fair enough indicator of the tie direction. That tie plate indicates that the centerline axis of the two rotary friction forged upsets is perpendicular to the track; even though it does not appear that way when just looking at the rails and rotary friction forged upsets. If there are other rotary friction forged upsets, they are either to the right or left, out of the picture frame. But the two rotary friction forged upsets shown were made by the two wheels of one axle.
What is needed is a tie to show what is perpendicular to the rails. No tie is visible, but it just so happens that there is one tie plate showing near the left end of the nearest rotary friction forged upset. The tie plate is a fair enough indicator of the tie direction. That tie plate indicates that the centerline axis of the two rotary friction forged upsets is perpendicular to the track; even though it does not appear that way when just looking at the rails and rotary friction forged upsets.
If there are other rotary friction forged upsets, they are either to the right or left, out of the picture frame. But the two rotary friction forged upsets shown were made by the two wheels of one axle.
Euclid BaltACD Euclid If there are other divots, they are either to the right or left, out of the picture frame. But the two divots shown were made by the two wheels of one axle. We are not on a golf course - engines don't make divots, and can't replace them either. Okay, divot is not just right, so I have renamed the wheel spin damage points; calling them rotary friction forged upsets.
BaltACD Euclid If there are other divots, they are either to the right or left, out of the picture frame. But the two divots shown were made by the two wheels of one axle. We are not on a golf course - engines don't make divots, and can't replace them either.
Euclid If there are other divots, they are either to the right or left, out of the picture frame. But the two divots shown were made by the two wheels of one axle.
We are not on a golf course - engines don't make divots, and can't replace them either.
Okay, divot is not just right, so I have renamed the wheel spin damage points; calling them rotary friction forged upsets.
Just call them what railroaders call them - rail burns.
The rail wear points in Balt's picture are approximately five ties apart, way beyond what is shown in the OP's picture (three or four ties total). If that photographer had zoomed out, you'd probably see more.
EuclidIf there are other divots, they are either to the right or left, out of the picture frame. But the two divots shown were made by the two wheels of one axle.
zugmann Euclid Should have sprung for the Z71 package.
Euclid
Should have sprung for the Z71 package.
You are cruel.
But there'd be too much inertial weight for a Posi setup, so I'm thinking it would more likely be Torsens. Very, very, very substantial Torsens... and no room with nose-suspended motors, so frame-mounted...
Euclid zugmann Euclid I don’t think the photo has been faked, but I cannot reconcile the geometry shown. I have to assume that the two divots were made by wheels on two different axles. But for that to be the case, I would expect to see all or part of another divot on the far right of the distant rail. That'd be a neat trick. The divot on the near rail is from the wheel on the near axle. The divot on the far rail is from the wheel on the center axle. Out of the photo frame to the left, there is another divot on the far rail. Out of the photo frame to the right, there is another divot on the far rail. Out of the photo frame to the right, there are two divots on the near rail. The problem is that #4 seems to show too much rail for there to be another divot out of the frame, so it must have been one of those 5-wheel trucks.
zugmann Euclid I don’t think the photo has been faked, but I cannot reconcile the geometry shown. I have to assume that the two divots were made by wheels on two different axles. But for that to be the case, I would expect to see all or part of another divot on the far right of the distant rail. That'd be a neat trick.
Euclid I don’t think the photo has been faked, but I cannot reconcile the geometry shown. I have to assume that the two divots were made by wheels on two different axles. But for that to be the case, I would expect to see all or part of another divot on the far right of the distant rail.
That'd be a neat trick.
The divot on the near rail is from the wheel on the near axle.
The divot on the far rail is from the wheel on the center axle.
Out of the photo frame to the left, there is another divot on the far rail.
Out of the photo frame to the right, there is another divot on the far rail.
Out of the photo frame to the right, there are two divots on the near rail.
The problem is that #4 seems to show too much rail for there to be another divot out of the frame, so it must have been one of those 5-wheel trucks.
Do your locomotives have independent 1/2 axle controls and location?
EuclidI think that is possible.
zugmann One of those open-differential locomotives?
One of those open-differential locomotives?
EuclidI don’t think the photo has been faked, but I cannot reconcile the geometry shown. I have to assume that the two divots were made by wheels on two different axles. But for that to be the case, I would expect to see all or part of another divot on the far right of the distant rail.
Lithonia OperatorBut chances of the rest of the train not derailing would be slim to none.
you would either grab the train from the rear, or just cut the engines away, wait, and let MOW do their thing.
Overmod Lithonia Operator If this happened as you describe, then the unknowing crew goes to depart, a derailment is assured, right? Nobody's departing with divots that deep. Did you think pulling would lift the wheels out?
Lithonia Operator If this happened as you describe, then the unknowing crew goes to depart, a derailment is assured, right?
Nobody's departing with divots that deep. Did you think pulling would lift the wheels out?
Let's say the unit that spun its wheels was the sixth unit on the train. And the offending wheel set is the most aft one in the lash-up. And the consist is light: some empties headed home; and the train is way over-powered, because four of the units are being ferried to the shop or somewhere else.
So yes, my guess is that all that power could pull that last engine's wheels out of the divots.
But chances of the rest of the train not derailing would be slim to none.
Euclid I don’t think the photo has been faked, but I cannot reconcile the geometry shown.
I don’t think the photo has been faked, but I cannot reconcile the geometry shown.
That's exactly where I am on this now, Euc.
But someone pointed out that the truck could have pivoted and gotten a bit crooked, with the far-rail wheel having moved a little further forward (assuming the engine was attempting to move from left to right). This idea assumes some amount of clearance between wheel flange and rail, to allow for such twist. I am not sure how much clearance there ordinarily is, but obviously there has to be some.
I don’t think the photo has been faked, but I cannot reconcile the geometry shown. I have to assume that the two divots were made by wheels on two different axles. But for that to be the case, I would expect to see all or part of another divot on the far right of the distant rail.
If they were on the same axle, their visual misalignment indicates severe distortion of the image, and that distortion would be apparent in the rest of the image, but it is not.
This action would surely show a lot of sparking, but actually it is not just a grinding action. To a large degree, it is a melting action of rail volume nearest the wheel contact, coupled with a hot forging action as the wheel weight compresses and deforms the rail ball and web after heating it to a plastic condition. That displaced rail material is then hot-formed into the giant burr around the contact area.
It would be interesting to see what the affected wheels look like after this.
regarding the angle of the divots, since its its only one set of divots, would it be possible that the other axles on the truck were derailed?
That would explain the misalignment and single set of divots.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
Electroliner 1935 If you line up a strait edge on the bottoms of the two burn areas, it appears to be the strait edge is perpendicular to the rails. If you put two strait edges between the two burn areas ends, you can see the taper of the field of the lens. I think the perspective makes an optical illusion that the burn areas are not in line.
If you line up a strait edge on the bottoms of the two burn areas, it appears to be the strait edge is perpendicular to the rails. If you put two strait edges between the two burn areas ends, you can see the taper of the field of the lens. I think the perspective makes an optical illusion that the burn areas are not in line.
What if you use a straight edge? What then?
Lithonia OperatorWell, you know the old saying. Burnout is in the eyes of the beholder.
Burnout is in the eyes of the beholder.
thought that was beerholder
Well, you know the old saying.
Both pictures look real enough to me and similar to images published before in Trains (Including I suspect pretty recently; Didn't they do a story about different types of rail defects within the past 12-18 months?).
maybe it was an axle off a self-steering truck?
Lithonia Operator cx500 If you expand the picture in the original post they do seem to be properly aligned; compare with the tie. Likely taken with a wide angle lens which can create some distortion. John With all due respect, I disagree. I spent 35 years as a commercial photographer. I have a very well-honed sense of proportion and perspective in photographs. Let's say we are looking basically north, and the track goes west-to-east, left-to-right in the photo. The divot on the far rail is approximately a foot (I think a bit more, actually) further east than the one on the near rail. Now, folks here tell me that could have actually happened that way in real life, so that's good enough for me. But the divots do not align.
cx500 If you expand the picture in the original post they do seem to be properly aligned; compare with the tie. Likely taken with a wide angle lens which can create some distortion. John
If you expand the picture in the original post they do seem to be properly aligned; compare with the tie. Likely taken with a wide angle lens which can create some distortion.
John
With all due respect, I disagree.
I spent 35 years as a commercial photographer. I have a very well-honed sense of proportion and perspective in photographs.
Let's say we are looking basically north, and the track goes west-to-east, left-to-right in the photo. The divot on the far rail is approximately a foot (I think a bit more, actually) further east than the one on the near rail.
Now, folks here tell me that could have actually happened that way in real life, so that's good enough for me. But the divots do not align.
I did enlarge the image as cx500 said, and at first I did see the divots lining up; but further review convinced me that indeed the divots do seem slightly off-set from each other (sorry, John).
Using a desktop: wheel still doesn't look right. Way too narrow and close to the wheel well in front. Plus the rails themselves have a bent to them (go from high to low from middle to sides).
Looking at the photo while on a smart phone held vertically, yes it is distorted. But if I turn my phone horizontal, the pic is not distorted. Part of my the side of the car's tire looks narrow is because the car is not seen directly from the side; it's facing generally towards the photographer, but about 30 degrees off.
The divots don't align.
The photo is distorted. Look at the wheel on the truck. Looks more ovalish than round.
As far as getting out, once they pull the wheels out of their initial holes, I'd imagine you could stack wood blocks in them and walk the rest of the wheels over it? (luckily I never got into a position like that)
I've seen more miracles performed by an older MOW guy with some blocks than any modern magician.
The streetcars here will occasionally have a wheel that spins out of control in relation to the other wheels as the car travels along, say King Street. You can see the shallow impressions it makes on the rail but nothing like in these photos. Hell of a noise they make too. That was mostly on the CLRVs that have all been retired.
Yeah, the sparks thrown off must have been spectacular!
Must be a sight to see if it happens at night.
"OOOOOOO!" "AHHHHHHH!"
Deggesty there is a tale of such that occurred in the GN tunnel in Washington that had three phase power. The train was heavy, and when the engine crew became worried that they were still in the tunnel, they stopped the engine, went down to the ground--and found that the wheels had ground down into the web of the rail. The account had no description of how the matter was resolved. (From The Modern Wonder Book of Trains and Railroads--I do not hve my copy here.)
there is a tale of such that occurred in the GN tunnel in Washington that had three phase power. The train was heavy, and when the engine crew became worried that they were still in the tunnel, they stopped the engine, went down to the ground--and found that the wheels had ground down into the web of the rail. The account had no description of how the matter was resolved. (From The Modern Wonder Book of Trains and Railroads--I do not hve my copy here.)
Similarly; Recalling a story (w/Photos?), that appeard in TRAINS. I do not remember the time frame, but I think it has been several years back...
It was a story of a NS crew some place in the South (Alabama, or Feorgia?); There was a trestle on fire, and the lead locomotives rolled out on the structure, and became stalled out(?).
The crew attempted to back the locomotives back off the trestle, and were unable to move the power out of damger. The tracks were damaged much in the manner reported by "Dude" in this Thread. As I recall, the Engineerr and Conductor had stayed too long on the power and were apparently trapped in the fire enveloped locomotive. The unfortunate part was that both men were seriously burned, as a result of their staying on the power. I believe they finally jumped into the water under the trestle. One did not survive, due to severe burns(?); the other was very seriously injured in jumping off the engine(?)
Part of the problem was their inability to move the power out of danger; due to the deep indents worn into the tracks by the power of the locomotives wheels.
SD70DudeThe machine in the background is a track saw, which is the perfect tool for cutting out damaged sections of rail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoYBFrJDrlI The photo was posted to one of the many railroad-related Facebook groups, but now I can't remember which one (was pretty tired when I posted that).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoYBFrJDrlI
The photo was posted to one of the many railroad-related Facebook groups, but now I can't remember which one (was pretty tired when I posted that).
Don't think shorts and flip-flops are the recommended safety gear for using the saw.
Don't think the welder is gonna save you here....
I thought that there would not be enough "slop" for one side to creep up that far. But I guess there is more space between the wheel flanges and the rail than I thought. The less slop, the less it would be able to pivot and creep.
I keep learning stuff here!
Overmod I have a problem with this. First, the burns don't align across the gauge correctly to be 'two wheels on the same wheelset' unless there'd been a significant derailment putting the truck off axis. Second, the 'grinding debris' is the wrong color (see the genuine six-wheel burn image for something more correct in this situation). It is possible that I see 'proper' flange wear in the molten "pour" in the gauge, but it doesn't seem right to me. Meanwhile, what is that in the background? Are there other pictures, or a backstory, for this?
I have a problem with this.
First, the burns don't align across the gauge correctly to be 'two wheels on the same wheelset' unless there'd been a significant derailment putting the truck off axis. Second, the 'grinding debris' is the wrong color (see the genuine six-wheel burn image for something more correct in this situation). It is possible that I see 'proper' flange wear in the molten "pour" in the gauge, but it doesn't seem right to me.
Meanwhile, what is that in the background?
Are there other pictures, or a backstory, for this?
I think the burns are aligned, especially when you consider that a wheelset spinning out of control would rock around at angles, and not continue to sit perfectly aligned with the track. The wheelset may not have been perfectly centred on the track either, due to pre-existing rail or wheel wear.
The debris looks to be a appropriate colour to me, remember, it's not just going to be ground high-strength steel. There is also going to be all the dirt, grease and other non-metal materials that are being blasted off the underside of a truck and its traction motors.
The machine in the background is a track saw, which is the perfect tool for cutting out damaged sections of rail.
zardozThe photo in SD70Dude's post shows what looks like grinding debris on the ties either side of the divots, plus on the rail head immediately adjacent to the dips, which makes me think the image is legit.
It's completely legit. We have sections of rails near our yard office that were burned down to the web.
Remotes (esp trailing engines*) have done this at a few places. They are supposed to stop if they detect wheelslip, but if the wheelslip detection sensor/card isn't working, well...
*- when you get wheelslip, it throws the speedometer up into the higher ranges, which will give a fault if it's the controlling engine.
Overmod SD70Dude I believe the technical term for this is "engine burn". I've never seen anything even close to this one: I have a problem with this. First, the burns don't align across the gauge correctly to be 'two wheels on the same wheelset' unless there'd been a significant derailment putting the truck off axis. Second, the 'grinding debris' is the wrong color (see the genuine six-wheel burn image for something more correct in this situation). It is possible that I see 'proper' flange wear in the molten "pour" in the gauge, but it doesn't seem right to me. Meanwhile, what is that in the background? Are there other pictures, or a backstory, for this?
SD70Dude I believe the technical term for this is "engine burn". I've never seen anything even close to this one:
I just don't get how the divots could be that far off of directly across from each other, in any scenario, and still be on the rails grinding away. That pic seems fishy to me.
I'm not saying SD70Dude altered the photo; I'm guessing he came to have the photo after it was altered, unknown to him.
And of course, maybe the photo IS legit.
SD70DudeI believe the technical term for this is "engine burn". I've never seen anything even close to this one:
Lithonia OperatorIf this happened as you describe, then the unknowing crew goes to depart, a derailment is assured, right?
Likely the train would be recovered from the 'reverse' direction, and any power ahead of the unit that slipped run off, then the unit jacked up and off the truck, the truck removed with a crane, then the two pieces of rail excised and new ones bolted/welded in place. Presumably a new truck would be supplied 'in place', either a replacement to be wired up or something like a three-piece freight truck of suitable rating to allow the unit to be moved to a location for easy work.
There's a video of a "6000hp" CSX locomotive receiving 'emergency' work for what I recall being a seized traction motor, and this contains many details that would be applicable to a unit with severe heat damage to its wheels and truck structure...
That incident was also described in Middleton's When the Steam Railroads Electrified. Torque from a three phase induction motor is very smooth, so there may not have been any of the usual signs of slipping that one would expect with a steam locomotive.
Johnny
Lithonia OperatorThat is an easy pic to make in Photoshop.
I wonder how hot the wheel became when spinning, and whether the wheels (especially in BaltACD's image) put on a nice light show.
I believe the technical term for this is "engine burn". I've never seen anything even close to this one:
deleted
I don't know where they came from but these pix have been posted over and over again for about 10 years. Enough.
We've got a spot on a major grade that's got a nice "rumble strip" from some train in the past spinning like that. They probably stalled on the hill.
It's not burned deeply enough to be a problem for us, but you know you've gone over it. I suspect it's been like that since at least PC days.
I recollect CSX used to have a section of burned rail, presumably used as some sort of instructional display at the REDI Center here in Atlanta. Although it only had the burn from a single wheel; it was similar to those in the photos posted above.
BaltACD Lithonia Operator Holy crow! Are you sure that's not some Photoshop trick?
Lithonia Operator Holy crow! Are you sure that's not some Photoshop trick?
Holy crow!
Are you sure that's not some Photoshop trick?
Holy mackerel.
If this happened as you describe, then the unknowing crew goes to depart, a derailment is assured, right? (At least incidents involving depressions approaching the depth of those shown in these pix.)
Rail burns are real. When discovered, track is taken out of service until the rails are replaced.
My understanding, and it could be wrong - it will most likely happen when a number of engines have been hooked up in MU and a electrical fault activates a circuit when it shouldn't. Hook up 10 engines in MU and the 9th from the leader for whatever the reason thinks it has been told to more forward or backward while the train is stopped and the commands through the MU cables should have all engines at idle and potentially the reverser centered.
With the 9th engine being over 200 yards from the leader, the sounds of it 'grinding rail' are unlikely to be heard by the crew on the leader. Trains can be held for a variety of reasons for periods of a hour or more. The train causing the burns may never know it happened until they are told about it later.
There are probably thousands of different defects, each rare, that can set up the scenario. The burns picture are especially bad, but lesser burns do happen too.
Are you serious????
An engine spinning its wheels because it can't move the load can do THAT? Man, the noise must make you feel your head's about to explode! And once the engine sinks at all into the depressions, even initially when the dips are shallow, it is NEVER getting out, right?
Are you guys putting me on? That is an easy pic to make in Photoshop.
This isn't the railroad version of a snipe hunt, is it, with all the rest of the forum members laughing at me now?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.