Euclid Paul Milenkovic I would not make a rule that the fire department cannot press the fuel cutoff button to put out a fire on an aging General Electric locomotive. Again, the burden should be on the locomotive design to not release brakes under those circumstances. Why would you want a locomotive to start rolling if it quit? There was no such rule. As I recall, there was a rule telling the firemen to use the emergency fuel cutoff as the first move, and that it what they did. It immediately shut off the engine and stopped the fire, which was mostly in the exhaust manifold. A worker from MM&A was there on scene with the firemen to act as their representative for the railroad. All of the information about the fire, including the effort to extinguish it, and the fact that the one locomotive that had initially been left running and was on fire; and had been left shut down after the fire was put out— all of that information was conveyed to the two MM&A supervisors before the firemen and the company rep left the scene. The burden, as you say, is not on the locomotive design, but rather, it is on the car hand brakes. Setting adequate hand brakes is the only allowable means of securing a train. Any securement reliance on air brakes, either independent or automatic, is strictly forbidden by rules and laws. If that requirement had been followed, there would have been no problem in shutting down the engine and losing air pressure. The issue of technological deficiency is the manual hand brake on railcars. Its concept dates back to the 1800s. Securing a big train on a steep grade can require setting 50-75 hand brakes by people walking the train. Ideally, there would be one button you could push that would set all those hand brakes automatically with a controlled power source.
Paul Milenkovic I would not make a rule that the fire department cannot press the fuel cutoff button to put out a fire on an aging General Electric locomotive. Again, the burden should be on the locomotive design to not release brakes under those circumstances. Why would you want a locomotive to start rolling if it quit?
There was no such rule. As I recall, there was a rule telling the firemen to use the emergency fuel cutoff as the first move, and that it what they did. It immediately shut off the engine and stopped the fire, which was mostly in the exhaust manifold. A worker from MM&A was there on scene with the firemen to act as their representative for the railroad.
All of the information about the fire, including the effort to extinguish it, and the fact that the one locomotive that had initially been left running and was on fire; and had been left shut down after the fire was put out— all of that information was conveyed to the two MM&A supervisors before the firemen and the company rep left the scene.
The burden, as you say, is not on the locomotive design, but rather, it is on the car hand brakes. Setting adequate hand brakes is the only allowable means of securing a train. Any securement reliance on air brakes, either independent or automatic, is strictly forbidden by rules and laws. If that requirement had been followed, there would have been no problem in shutting down the engine and losing air pressure.
The issue of technological deficiency is the manual hand brake on railcars. Its concept dates back to the 1800s. Securing a big train on a steep grade can require setting 50-75 hand brakes by people walking the train. Ideally, there would be one button you could push that would set all those hand brakes automatically with a controlled power source.
"There was no such rule."
Don't you think I know that? There was indeed no such rule, but that didn't stop railroad management from pointing fingers at the fire fighters.
"I would not make a rule." So what plausibly, could a person infer that I meant by that? There is at present no such rule, and I would not support making a rule to prevent fire fighters from pressing the emergency fuel cutoff. Fire fighters should not have to know about the technical details of train braking systems. Press the cutoff and put out the fire, already.
Note that I don't call them firemen. I am not being politically correct, here, when a "fireman" historically is a railroad crew member. To call the non-railroad-employee fire fighters "firemen" is creating confusion as to roles of the different people involved.
So why am I taking about rules I would make and rules I would not make? I am looking towards preventing the next disaster.
"Setting adequate hand brakes is the only allowable means of securing a train. Any securement reliance on air brakes, either independent or automatic, is strictly forbidden by rules and laws. If that requirement had been followed, there would have been no problem in shutting down the engine and losing air pressure."
OK, I get that. Air brakes are not a parking brake. To use an aviation analogy, the ramp crew puts chocks under the wheels of the airliner.
"Securing a big train on a steep grade can require setting 50-75 hand brakes by people walking the train."
To continue the aviation analogy, do the airlines park their planes on steep inclines and secure them with chocks under those conditions?
"Ideally, there would be one button you could push that would set all those hand brakes automatically with a controlled power source."
Isn't that a form of power brake, which is against the rules to secure a train? Why are these power-actuated "hand brakes" OK, but it is not OK to consider design changes to make the air brakes systems reliable?
Setting 50-75 hand brakes by "people" walking the train? There was only one crew member on that train. How long does setting 50-75 hand brakes take? One hour? Two hours?
This accident suggests that the use of railroads to transport crude oil is from a safety standpoint Boeing 737 Max-level of broken. Rules and rules, what are rules? The whole technology and the whole rulebook needs to be rewritten if the lapse of the single train crew member can result in such an outcome.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Let's pose the question this way.
This was not the first trip made by this train? Where was it parked during previous crew changes? How is that train habitually secured? Was the train secured with an adequate number of hand brakes on all of those occasions, or was it blind luck that this train didn't crash until that fateful night?
tree68 Euclid So I am working on a little project to unpack the wheel of 18 factors provided by the TSB, and will post it soon. When you do, post it as a new thread, lest folks think there's further information about the incident in Tamaqua.
Euclid So I am working on a little project to unpack the wheel of 18 factors provided by the TSB, and will post it soon.
When you do, post it as a new thread, lest folks think there's further information about the incident in Tamaqua.
Yes, that would be the plan.
Paul Milenkovic Euclid Paul Milenkovic I would not make a rule that the fire department cannot press the fuel cutoff button to put out a fire on an aging General Electric locomotive. Again, the burden should be on the locomotive design to not release brakes under those circumstances. Why would you want a locomotive to start rolling if it quit? There was no such rule. As I recall, there was a rule telling the firemen to use the emergency fuel cutoff as the first move, and that it what they did. It immediately shut off the engine and stopped the fire, which was mostly in the exhaust manifold. A worker from MM&A was there on scene with the firemen to act as their representative for the railroad. All of the information about the fire, including the effort to extinguish it, and the fact that the one locomotive that had initially been left running and was on fire; and had been left shut down after the fire was put out— all of that information was conveyed to the two MM&A supervisors before the firemen and the company rep left the scene. The burden, as you say, is not on the locomotive design, but rather, it is on the car hand brakes. Setting adequate hand brakes is the only allowable means of securing a train. Any securement reliance on air brakes, either independent or automatic, is strictly forbidden by rules and laws. If that requirement had been followed, there would have been no problem in shutting down the engine and losing air pressure. The issue of technological deficiency is the manual hand brake on railcars. Its concept dates back to the 1800s. Securing a big train on a steep grade can require setting 50-75 hand brakes by people walking the train. Ideally, there would be one button you could push that would set all those hand brakes automatically with a controlled power source. "There was no such rule." Don't you think I know that? There was indeed no such rule, but that didn't stop railroad management from pointing fingers at the fire fighters. "I would not make a rule." So what plausibly, could a person infer that I meant by that? There is at present no such rule, and I would not support making a rule to prevent fire fighters from pressing the emergency fuel cutoff. Fire fighters should not have to know about the technical details of train braking systems. Press the cutoff and put out the fire, already. Note that I don't call them firemen. I am not being politically correct, here, when a "fireman" historically is a railroad crew member. To call the non-railroad-employee fire fighters "firemen" is creating confusion as to roles of the different people involved. So why am I taking about rules I would make and rules I would not make? I am looking towards preventing the next disaster. "Setting adequate hand brakes is the only allowable means of securing a train. Any securement reliance on air brakes, either independent or automatic, is strictly forbidden by rules and laws. If that requirement had been followed, there would have been no problem in shutting down the engine and losing air pressure." OK, I get that. Air brakes are not a parking brake. To use an aviation analogy, the ramp crew puts chocks under the wheels of the airliner. "Securing a big train on a steep grade can require setting 50-75 hand brakes by people walking the train." To continue the aviation analogy, do the airlines park their planes on steep inclines and secure them with chocks under those conditions? "Ideally, there would be one button you could push that would set all those hand brakes automatically with a controlled power source." Isn't that a form of power brake, which is against the rules to secure a train? Why are these power-actuated "hand brakes" OK, but it is not OK to consider design changes to make the air brakes systems reliable? Setting 50-75 hand brakes by "people" walking the train? There was only one crew member on that train. How long does setting 50-75 hand brakes take? One hour? Two hours? This accident suggests that the use of railroads to transport crude oil is from a safety standpoint Boeing 737 Max-level of broken. Rules and rules, what are rules? The whole technology and the whole rulebook needs to be rewritten if the lapse of the single train crew member can result in such an outcome.
The issue is of securement reliability is not whether brakes are powered or manual.
Air brakes are not supposed to be used for securement because of the fact that they can lose air for a number of reasons, and that makes them unreliable. Hand brakes are considered to be reliable because they are mechanical and will not release on their own like air brakes can if the air leaks off. But hand brakes can be released by vandals, so they are not infallible if someone is determined to release them.
However, for securement purposes, air brakes could be made with mechanical locks that are held in release with air pressure, and then the locks could be set by the release of that air pressure that holds the mechanical locks in release.
This would leave cars secured by brakes set and held by mechanical locks, which could not be released by vandals or release on their own like current air brakes can.
EuclidHowever, for securement purposes, air brakes could be made with mechanical locks that are held in release with air pressure, and then the locks could be set by the release of that air pressure that holds the mechanical locks in release. This would leave cars secured by brakes set and held by mechanical locks, which could not be released by vandals or release on their own like current air brakes can.
The reason air brakes cannot be used as securement is ancient: they have no positive action. We can go back before the advent of the Loughridge chain brake to see the difference; it is similar to the issue with trailer surge braking vs. spring brakes. When the pressure in the system is lost, there is no brake effort, and the original Power Brake Law recognized this.
What is required is a mechanical brake, acting on the foundation as a 'motorized' brake wheel would, with an appropriate mechanical release that does not require great force (like that you may have needed to get a steering-column lock in your car to release if you've parked on a hill with your wheels turned!) to get started. If you're concerned with vandalism this could be locked, or coded, at least beyond the meddling powers of nondetermined vandals. In Euclid's 'parking brake' system a couple of years ago, he made this a motorized release as well as application ... and zug recognized that locomotive equipment of just this kind is currently marketed, and probably adapted to this purpose.
Note that no form of 'spring brake', as used on trailers, has adequate strength to keep railroad cars secured without at the same time posing dramatic risks if actuated at the wrong time, e.g. when moving at speed in a train.
Likewise, no system using 'fluid power' to apply the brake shoes or pads is suitable, as pressure leaks produce the same problem low air in cylinders does. What is needed is not positive locking of fluid-power valves, it is positive locking of shoes in contact with wheels or other contact surfaces, and that implies a mechanism.
The problem of course is that to install such a system, assuming it could be designed with reasonable robustness and longevity, together with the necessary trainline or radio equipment plus power for the motors and telltale system, would cost a reasonable percentage of ECP conversion, which has far more benefits for train-handling than automatic blind securement would. In addition, after application a 'single crewman' would still have to walk the train to verify the mechanical securement, and probably again to verify an automatic release as even one dragging brake may lead to "consequences" and the effect of power brakes on a given car's foundation may have to be determined after all 'handbrake' systems are thoroughly released...
EuclidHowever, for securement purposes, air brakes could be made with mechanical locks that are held in release with air pressure, and then the locks could be set by the release of that air pressure that holds the mechanical locks in release.
Can I still kick cars?
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
zugmannCan I still kick cars?
On a more "proper" system, the premise would be that (as in the locomotive system you found) it would be possible to engage 'parking brakes' on the mechanical foundation of cars or locomotives with some reasonable command, and then release them under power (with the inherent characteristic that they then stay reliably locked off -- as with other kinds of properly-designed parking brake).
Presumably a cut of cars that is going to be used to pull cars for 'kicking' would have its securement handled 'appropriately' when yarded. In the absence of individual 'parking-brake release' a crew would simply wind off the manual brake handle and then klck as appropriate (now with the ability to use the battery reserve to re-apply the securement once the car is positioned, if wanted, or have it apply 'automagically' as the cable is connected between cars or radio link is verified or whatever)
A sensible system will have some kind of telltale on the car that a switching crew could use to determine whether the securement is applied or released without having to physically get on the car to confirm it. I at least think the telltale for mechanical engagement shouldn't be the same as that for having handbrakes wound on. Euclid may of course differ.
Flintlock76 Um, does anyone remember the RBMN Tamaqua derailment? Anyone know what caused it? I think we know enough about Lac-Megantic by now.
Um, does anyone remember the RBMN Tamaqua derailment?
Anyone know what caused it? I think we know enough about Lac-Megantic by now.
This.
Here is the thread for Lac-Megantic,
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/218974.aspx?page=15#2422042
The topic was beaten to death on it, by a poster who changed their screen name. I see while he may have changed his/her name, they have not change their style.
An "expensive model collector"
Paul MilenkovicLet's pose the question this way. This was not the first trip made by this train? Where was it parked during previous crew changes? How is that train habitually secured? Was the train secured with an adequate number of hand brakes on all of those occasions, or was it blind luck that this train didn't crash until that fateful night?
I SUSPECT -
Prior trips by the Engineer of this trip were handled in the same manner as the fateful trip. All the Swiss Cheese Holes that lined up from his failures to properly secure the train had lined up EXCEPT for the locomotive catching fire and being shut down by the responding Fire Department.
Othere Engineers handling these shipments MAY have properly secured their trains, or they may have done the same thing as the Engineer of the fateful trip - WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING. Prior trips, to our knowledge, were all done successfully without a run-a-way.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Another one of these "holes" is operating practices versus FRA rule. FRA rules and safety rules are usually a reaction to an incident or series of incidents.
Most railroads would see trains regularly tied down on the main in the same place as a call for the location of a siding, preferably with no crossings and a sag -or- draped over a hill like here. Nothing on that in the FRA rules. The Arriba CO tragedy had a siding, but no derails (CRIP operating practice for passing sidings - there are derails there now) .... Not as cut and dried as some want to think on this forum.
mudchickenAnother one of these "holes" is operating practices versus FRA rule. FRA rules and safety rules are usually a reaction to an incident or series of incidents.
Have to change FRA to whatever the Canadian equivalent is, but otherwise spot-on.
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...
Overmod zugmann Can I still kick cars? Theoretically, in his system, you could 'override' the automatic engagement by winding off the 'mechanical engagement' -- obviously it won't be a spring brake of any kind, for reasons we've beaten to death, and if it's a mechanical lock holding air pressure you could 'selectively' bleed or bail that off before kicking. On a more "proper" system, the premise would be that (as in the locomotive system you found) it would be possible to engage 'parking brakes' on the mechanical foundation of cars or locomotives with some reasonable command, and then release them under power (with the inherent characteristic that they then stay reliably locked off -- as with other kinds of properly-designed parking brake). Presumably a cut of cars that is going to be used to pull cars for 'kicking' would have its securement handled 'appropriately' when yarded. In the absence of individual 'parking-brake release' a crew would simply wind off the manual brake handle and then klck as appropriate (now with the ability to use the battery reserve to re-apply the securement once the car is positioned, if wanted, or have it apply 'automagically' as the cable is connected between cars or radio link is verified or whatever) A sensible system will have some kind of telltale on the car that a switching crew could use to determine whether the securement is applied or released without having to physically get on the car to confirm it. I at least think the telltale for mechanical engagement shouldn't be the same as that for having handbrakes wound on. Euclid may of course differ.
zugmann Can I still kick cars?
Theoretically, in his system, you could 'override' the automatic engagement by winding off the 'mechanical engagement' -- obviously it won't be a spring brake of any kind, for reasons we've beaten to death, and if it's a mechanical lock holding air pressure you could 'selectively' bleed or bail that off before kicking.
What I was proposing in our last discussion of my securement brake a while back was not a motorized brake, a spring brake, or a hydraulic brake. It is the basic conventional car air brake with the same cylinder, and valve. But there are some modifications and additions to the rigging. It does not change the basic pneumatic power of the brake existing system.
The reservoir can be bled as usual, leaving the brakes released without air, and switched without air as usual. The added features are in the same sort of loose fitting steel rods, levers, and pneumatic cylinder art of conventional car brake systems. However, it does require a second trainline, although of a smaller diameter.
With this system, an engineer parking a train on a grade would set the automatic air, and then bleed the straight air locking cylinders back to the locomotive cab through the second trainline. The locks would set by spring force just as the conventional pneumatic power brake cylinder releases by spring force.
So all the brakes on the train would be locked as securely as with handbrakes, but unlike the ease of vandals releasing handbrakes, this locked feature of conventional air brakes could only be released by recharging it along with recharging the regular trainline.
So the entire train securement on a grade could be applied to all cars in the train from the cab within a few minutes. And the release would also be made from the cab in an equally short time.
But it is highly unlikely that the need for a second trainline to pneumatically charge and release the lock would be accepted by the industry. This gets into the same issue as with ECP brakes or new fully automatic couplers. They too are unlikely to adopted due to the loose car system that makes the conversion non-standard and thus requiring a dual system during the conversion cycle.
However, if this brake locking feature were combined with ECP brakes, it opens the door to the basic ECP brake trainline for air being also used for the charging function of releasing the brake locks. This would be feasible because the ECP air brake trainline is not used for pneumatic control like the current conventional trainline is.
So this could eliminate the need for a second trainline to support this brake lock system if it were executed with current fully pneumatic brakes.
Bucky apparently does not believe in the KISS method. This seems like an overly complicated and maintenance-intensive system to replace setting handbrakes manually.
CSSHEGEWISCHBucky apparently does not believe in the KISS method. This seems like an overly complicated and maintenance-intensive system to replace setting handbrakes manually.
Bucky's 'labor saving' plans are the Rube Goldberg machines of the railroad industry.
BaltACDBucky's 'labor saving' plans are the Rube Goldberg machines of the railroad industry.
Heh!™
CSSHEGEWISCH Bucky apparently does not believe in the KISS method. This seems like an overly complicated and maintenance-intensive system to replace setting handbrakes manually.
KISS is relative to the complexity of the task. Just look at the engine room of a modern ship and tell me how simple it should be. Do you think the average person would tour that engine room and be impressed with how simple it is?
The current method of walking car to car and winding up a hand winch dates back to the beginning of the railroad industry when trains were only a few cars long. Now they are 200 cars long and securing them on a grade can require dozens if not over 100 handbrakes to be set by climbing ladders and winding up winches. Is that simple enough? If you looked around for the most outdated practice in the railroad industry, that would be it.
It is the low hanging fruit begging for improvement. But it has been that way forever, and continues today because the industry hides behind the KISS mantra. No solution has been simple enough, so good for them. Meanwhile trains continue to run away causing death and destruction like they always have due to the shortcomings of the current manual hand brake. But at least it is simple.
There are lots of engineering ideas for power handbrakes that bring the securement feature under the direct power control of the crew just like every other facet of train operation. Many of them use electric winches, gear boxes, power source, switching, relays, and control information feedback. They seem a whole lot more complicated than what I propose. They seem like they would be a $10-15,000 parking brake by the time they were perfected for railroad application.
So, to be fair, if a replacement for the railcar handbrake is needed, show me a proposal that is simpler than what I have described.
EuclidSo, to be fair, if a replacement for the railcar handbrake is needed, show me a proposal that is simpler than what I have described.
What we already have is pretty simple.
Euclid CSSHEGEWISCH Bucky apparently does not believe in the KISS method. This seems like an overly complicated and maintenance-intensive system to replace setting handbrakes manually. KISS is relative to the complexity of the task. Just look at the engine room of a modern ship and tell me how simple it should be. Do you think the average person would tour that engine room and be impressed with how simple it is? The current method of walking car to car and winding up a hand winch dates back to the beginning of the railroad industry when trains were only a few cars long. Now they are 200 cars long and securing them on a grade can require dozens if not over 100 handbrakes to be set by climbing ladders and winding up winches. Is that simple enough? If you looked around for the most outdated practice in the railroad industry, that would be it. It is the low hanging fruit begging for improvement. But it has been that way forever, and continues today because the industry hides behind the KISS mantra. No solution has been simple enough, so good for them. Meanwhile trains continue to run away causing death and destruction like they always have due to the shortcomings of the current manual hand brake. But at least it is simple. There are lots of engineering ideas for power handbrakes that bring the securement feature under the direct power control of the crew just like every other facet of train operation. Many of them use electric winches, gear boxes, power source, switching, relays, and control information feedback. They seem a whole lot more complicated than what I propose. They seem like they would be a $10-15,000 parking brake by the time they were perfected for railroad application. So, to be fair, if a replacement for the railcar handbrake is needed, show me a proposal that is simpler than what I have described.
When you mention POWER, unnecessary complexity follows. There is nothing simpler than manual labor. Applying handbrakes require manual labor. Brakemen/Conductors are reasonably well paid for their efforts that are required by the Book of Rules and Timetable Special Instructions.
I often avoid conversations about Megantic for obvious reasons. I often remember that day. I remember checking and rechecking my phone to see if I had missed any calls. None of us were out of hand that night. I wasn't doing anything at all. In fact I was well known for always answering my phone. It is almost a certainty that if I had been called that night there is an excellent chance that wreck would not have happened and 47 people would still be alive. But no one called me until it was too late.
I wonder how many experts here blame me ?
Randy,
No expert worthy of the name would place any blame on you.
Once again, thank you for participating in the past discussions on this forum, and for continuing to check in.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
I got to asking several of the mechanics at the shop here how they could solve the issue that the railroads have with handbrakes and then when air bleeds off. One went have they not heard of the R12 valve we use in the OTR industry. It is a pressure sensing valve used as standard equipment on our trailers that if air pressure gets to low automatically will apply the 30/30 chambers on the trailers. I asked him how he would rig it up to work on a railroad car that needs to be switched. He went put the parking brake spring into the cylinder use the R12 as the sensor with a seperate pressure chamber where if it gets to low it could override the brakes and keep them applied. For switching he would use the brake bleed off rods to capture the spring that applies the brakes or closes a valve that feeds the R12 line the pressure reading. That way the car could be moved for switching in yards. The failsafe comes in when it is dropped and dynamited even if someone tried to use the bleed off if the brakes where set before the rod was pulled that car will not move. So even a vandal could not get it to move. Also in an emergency situation where a train was forced to stop on a hill due to loss of air the brakes would not release until all air pressure is recovered from an emergency application preventing runaways like the one that hit the CP last year and for what happened in LaMagnetic this system would have literally applied every brake on the train from the EOT slowly draining the air tanks and kept it from moving an inch.
He thinks the cost per car would be around 5 to 6 hundered bucks for parts then the labor for the installs. The mechanic in question is an ASE master been here for 25 years knows more about air brakes than I want to know can literally rebuild anything brake related in our fleet and was the driving force for us to switch to disk instead of drum brakes on the entire fleet including retrofitting the older trailers. So if he says this would work I would take him at his word he literally just redid the brakes on a truck for an Owner Operator that the dealership said was going to cost that person 4 grand in parts and he found the problem and fixed it for less than 2 grand for everything.
BaltACDWhen you mention POWER, unnecessary complexity follows. There is nothing simpler than manual labor. Applying handbrakes require manual labor. Brakemen/Conductors are reasonably well paid for their efforts that are required by the Book of Rules and Timetable Special Instructions.
All machinery is complex compared to no machinery. But complexity alone does not mean that it is more complicated than necessary. KISS means to eliminate complexity that is unnecessary to do the job. If getting the job done pays for necessary complex machinery, the complexity is justified.
We need more like him. The problem as I see it is overcoming the inertia caused by the bean counters needing a clear economic case that shows a positive number for doing what needs to be done. The costs of many hours of men setting and releasing hand brakes, coupling air hoses and how many deaths and cleanup costs for accidents against the costs to retrofit all of the existing equipment. If it could be shown that the existing equipment can not be operated in severe weather safely, (I don't know how many run away trains it takes to make that case) then it might give more justification. And since the holes in the swiss cheese don't line up very often, it will take a long time to make the case.
Randy StahlI wonder how many experts here blame me ?
The only thing I blame you for, is not posting here often enough.
As far as the expertise of internet "experts" goes, I hope you don't let that bother you much.
Frequently, when you see people disagreeing with others, it's just a mechanism for them to inject "hey, I know stuff too" into a conversation.
Shadow the Cats owner So if he says this would work I would take him at his word he literally just redid the brakes on a truck for an Owner Operator that the dealership said was going to cost that person 4 grand in parts and he found the problem and fixed it for less than 2 grand for everything.
Honest question - Does he have any experience in the railroad side of things?
If we're going to start redoing brake systems - I think we should just go full ECP. But that's my opinion...
Shadow the Cats ownerOne went have they not heard of the R12 valve we use in the OTR industry. It is a pressure sensing valve used as standard equipment on our trailers that if air pressure gets to low automatically will apply the 30/30 chambers on the trailers. I asked him how he would rig it up to work on a railroad car that needs to be switched. He went put the parking brake spring into the cylinder use the R12 as the sensor with a seperate pressure chamber where if it gets to low it could override the brakes and keep them applied.
I gather that the 30/30 chambers you mention are the equivalent of the brake application cylinders on railcars. It sounds like the R12 valve senses low reservoir pressure and there is a second or emergency reservoir from which the R12 valve feeds air into the 30/30 chambers if the main reservoir is sensed by the R12 valve to be too in pressure.
Ask your mechanic how he would overcome the problem of the 30/30 chambers having defective seals that allow their activation charge to leak off as it is applied. I would guess that his answer would be that you must inspect and maintain the 30/30 chambers to prevent them from leaking.
Correspondingly, if railcar brake cylinders have worn out cylinder packing, they will leak when charged for air brake application. They may hold enough air to stop the train, but then leak down enough to release. Then the stopped train runs away.
As railcar cylinder packing wears out, it first becomes evident at the coldest temperatures because the packing material naturally loses its resiliancy as temperature drops.
We use a synthic rubber packing between the spring chamber and the main brake chamber. Then if the that membrane fails or the packing breaks the spring itself breaks due to the construction of it. Which causes a leak. The r12 can sense from any pressure chamber that is plumbed into it. The railroads could feed both the Emergnecy and main brake res pressure chambers into it. We also have leaking brake chambers all the time that show up. For us a leaking brake chamber is no problem. We can fix it in less than 20 mins normally. But then we do tend to maintain things better than railroads it seems. Most of my bosses trailers see the shop at least 1 time every 2 months. Most of our trucks are in the shop every 2-3 weeks for at least a grease job. If they get written up we fix them.
Shadow the Cats owner We use a synthic rubber packing between the spring chamber and the main brake chamber. Then if the that membrane fails or the packing breaks the spring itself breaks due to the construction of it. Which causes a leak. The r12 can sense from any pressure chamber that is plumbed into it. The railroads could feed both the Emergnecy and main brake res pressure chambers into it. We also have leaking brake chambers all the time that show up. For us a leaking brake chamber is no problem. We can fix it in less than 20 mins normally. But then we do tend to maintain things better than railroads it seems. Most of my bosses trailers see the shop at least 1 time every 2 months. Most of our trucks are in the shop every 2-3 weeks for at least a grease job. If they get written up we fix them.
I've got a couple questions, regarding standard procedure.
If you were leaving a cut of say 40 cars on a siding for an as yet undetermined length of time, how many handbrakes are you expected to set? Not all of them right? (at least that is what I thought to be the case)
So, if you are setting only a portion determined by some formula, is there any prescribed method to determine which cars get their brakes set, to fulfill the requirement?
And, more particular to my curiosity, how does the next person to work with these cars go about determining which brakes must be released? Do they have to physically test each handbrake, or is there a readily visible indicator of some sort that flags which cars have their handbrakes set?
If that spring breaks even if the pressure is lost the emergency brake function is lost on that one chamber and it starts to vent the air pressure out the top of the chamber. It literally fails in a way that causes it to allow safe operation so the drivers can get to a repair shop but alerts them there is a problem to get it fixed. The leak it creates is less than 2 lbs of air an hour going down the road. So even the small air compressors we have on the trucks can handle the air loss.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.