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?
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!
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Am I correct in assuming that the wheelset(s) involved will also be fried, and therefore in need of replacement?
Yep - for multiple reasons.
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.
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.
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.
BaltACDThe 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!
Is this the type of thing that an engineer would be fired for, assuming there were no other blemishes on his record?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
tree68It'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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Was there another shot from the grassy knoll?
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.
rdamonWas there another shot from the grassy knoll?
Actually, I put my bet on George Hickey
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
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."
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.
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.
We have discussed this issue in several threads here, over the years.
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.
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.