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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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.
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.
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.....
You don't see two little photo icons? If so, click on each one and see what happens.
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.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
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!
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....
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.
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.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The two images will open in EDGE browser but not Internet Explorer... dunno about the other brands of browsers.
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.
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...
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:
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.
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).
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
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'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
https://500px.com/photo/1007105358/RailBurn-by-KudzuTraveler?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=72656199
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.
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'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.
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...
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!
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:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Whatcouldgowrong/comments/e476qr/wcgw_if_a_locomotive_engineer_ignores_the_wheel/
I agree that it's real.
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
Here's a few more, from the comments on that Facebook post. The last one is how they all would have started out.
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?
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.