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).
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
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.
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).
maybe it was an axle off a self-steering truck?
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?).
Well, you know the old saying.
Burnout is in the eyes of the beholder.
Lithonia OperatorWell, you know the old saying. Burnout is in the eyes of the beholder.
thought that was beerholder
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
What if you use a straight edge? What then?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That'd be a neat trick.
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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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.
One of those open-differential locomotives?
zugmann One of those open-differential locomotives?
EuclidI think that is possible.
Should have sprung for the Z71 package.
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.
Do your locomotives have independent 1/2 axle controls and location?
zugmann Euclid Should have sprung for the Z71 package.
Euclid
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...
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.
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.
We are not on a golf course - engines don't make divots, and can't replace them either.
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.
Okay, divot is not just right, so I have renamed the wheel spin damage points; calling them rotary friction forged upsets.
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.
Brian (IA) http://blhanel.rrpicturearchives.net.
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.
Just call them what railroaders call them - rail burns.
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.
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!
If the axle was parallel to the rails, we would be talking about tie burns, not rail burns. No Scooby snacks for you!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.