zugmann Euclid and locomotive maintenance? If you've ever run a train with a locomotive that had issues like suddenly dropping its load, or a bad pressure maintinaing valve, then yeah, it's not great for smooth operations.
Euclid and locomotive maintenance?
If you've ever run a train with a locomotive that had issues like suddenly dropping its load, or a bad pressure maintinaing valve, then yeah, it's not great for smooth operations.
I think the answer is yes, a longer train is more likely to derail than a shorter train because the longer train has potential for greater in-train forces than a shorter train, all other things being equal.
I think that sums it up.
Lithonia Operator I think that sums it up.
Sort of. The real argument should be, is one "longer" train more likely to derail than the TWO "shorter" trains that would be required to move the same amount of traffic?
An "expensive model collector"
Lithonia Operator Re the video. Isn't there a rule that in double-track territory if a train on one track goes into emergency then any train passing the dynamited train must slow down to 15 mph or thereabouts?
Re the video. Isn't there a rule that in double-track territory if a train on one track goes into emergency then any train passing the dynamited train must slow down to 15 mph or thereabouts?
Here is that earlier thread on the Casselton derailment that I mentioned on the previous page:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/261138.aspx?page=1
Some details:
The grain train was enveloped in blowing snow, so the approaching oil train engineer was unable to see past the head end of the grain train. He was required to be at restricted speed once he reached the grain train. Yet the speed of the oil train was too high to achieve that speed reduction in time.
And whatever speed he could have slowed to, he would have had zero visibility at the point where he reached the head end of the grain train. What is the speed allowed by “restricted speed” when it is called for by the rules and the range of vision is zero? Is it not zero speed?
Yet it was impossible for the oil train to slow to zero speed before reaching the oil train with only a service application of brakes. The only possible way of slowing the oil train enough to stop prior to reaching the grain train was by making an emergency application. An emergency application may or may not have stopped the oil train prior to the rule requirement, but it was the only chance.
Some opposed the use of an emergency application on various grounds. Some said the oil train engineer never heard the broadcast warning about the grain train UDE.
It was also claimed that you should not make an emergency application without actually seeing the obstruction.
Euclid zugmann Euclid and locomotive maintenance? If you've ever run a train with a locomotive that had issues like suddenly dropping its load, or a bad pressure maintinaing valve, then yeah, it's not great for smooth operations. I understand your point that engine problems can create in-train forces that could derail a train. For that matter, bad track and equipment problems could do the same. And a bunch of other causes can derail a train. But I am only looking at the train length factor as influencing the probability of causing a derailment. That seems to be the premise of Fred Cain’s question in his original post here. I think the answer is yes, a longer train is more likely to derail than a shorter train because the longer train has potential for greater in-train forces than a shorter train, all other things being equal.
I understand your point that engine problems can create in-train forces that could derail a train. For that matter, bad track and equipment problems could do the same. And a bunch of other causes can derail a train. But I am only looking at the train length factor as influencing the probability of causing a derailment. That seems to be the premise of Fred Cain’s question in his original post here.
Does it? Or the placement of Draft Gear vs. EOCC. Loads vs. empties? If I have a train of only 5,000' in length and place loaded coal hoppers behind a block of empty cars I believed the in-train forces can be quite great as well.
Regarding dragging equipment detectors. UP has been installing them at many block signal locations, especially where the ties are concrete. Some locations have them one to two miles apart. (If a wheel is dragged over concrete ties, they are considered broken and are replaced. That's why more DEDs in areas with concrete ties.) These detectors at signal locations are talk on defect only.
I've had a low hanging air hose on the lead engine hit the detector paddles with a loud "thunk" and not set off the detector. Other times a low air hose will set one off. I suppose, like with the heat sensing, the sensitivity of detectors can be adjusted.
Jeff
I had to look to find this in 'postable' form but it's a useful reference and cautionary tale on complex interaction of unanticipated complexity. Lac Megantic could be gainfully added if there is a 'revised version'...
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20110015770/downloads/20110015770.pdf
(Wow! the forum page reset itself 5 times while I was trying to post this! They're burning the midnight oil across the Pacific!)
I wonder if it can be applied to boiling a country in a pot of water.
Job killers.The number of condrs & engrs on pool boards have been reduced acount of this method beacuse there are fewer pool starts . My board traditionally held 45 at most and for the past three years has only topped @ 37 conductors with 33-35 being average of what the board calls for. At the start of 2020, first of yr post holiday cuts, it dipped to 26, which I learned was the lowest since the final SF days 25 yrs earlier. Should have thrown a party when turns were added when we got 30
Had an empty unit coal train this evening. Was a 3x3x0 set up with one in front and one in middle only operating power. Hard to tell actually as seems to be a 25 mph slow order here. Each section about 120 cars. all was able to observe were marked OUCX or OCUX ?. All cars either black with a few aluminun cars mixed in.
blue streak 1Had an empty unit coal train this evening. Was a 3x3x0 set up with one in front and one in middle only operating power. Hard to tell actually as seems to be a 25 mph slow order here. Each section about 120 cars. all was able to observe were marked OUCX or OCUX ?. All cars either black with a few aluminun cars mixed in.
OUCX are Orlando Utility cars - I have not heard of OCUX, but I don't have blanket access to UMLER.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Speaking of cuts and job killing. We've lost our yard vans at two, and possible three terminals in my area. These vans are the ones that transport crews to/from the yard offices and the change out points where trains stop.
So now, we have self driving crews. The conductor of the outbound gets a company vehicle (they've rented some SUV types) and drives his crew to the train. The inbound conductor drives his crew back to the yard office.
For trains where the inbound crew is dead or dying on HOS, a manager must arrange other transport. Driving a van after HOS has expired is not allowed.
If the train is tying down, being staged for later movement, or terminating in the yard where there is no outbound crew, again other transport must be arranged. If the crew is going to a tied down train, or one that originates in the yard, other transport must be arranged.
Other transport might be a utility (yard brakeman) person, who already has a company vehicle to use, or a manager. (Good luck finding the on duty manager at times.) As a last resort, they may have to call a road van for a crew.
In my areas, the conductor is the driver. A coworker with friends in Texas says the engineers are the ones there doing the driving. It may be a contract violation for TE&Y, other than utility persons, to drive themselves using company vehicles. It may also be against the law, it's not clear if a class D chauffeur's license is required in this case. The contract van drivers have to have them.
We've also been doing a lot of deadheading by train on trailing engines. We used to be able to deadhead by train only in unusual circumstances, like bad winter weather or no vans available to retrieve dead on HOS crews. This was because of the trailing units being subject to diesel exhaust. Normally, I haven't noticed this to be too much of a problem. However, when weather conditions are right exhaust will not escape upwards and away, but downward and into trailing cabs.) Now almost all terminal to terminal deadheading is by train.
This all seems to have started just about the time it was released that the operating ratio has ticked upwards last quarter. I think they're running out of places to cut.
Code 8 service by train has been the preferred method of deadheading on BNSF. this is a freebie for the railroad as a van is not being used. Of course we all know what it is like to be in a van over the road and the train is safer mode
jeffhergertSpeaking of cuts and job killing. We've lost our yard vans at two, and possible three terminals in my area. These vans are the ones that transport crews to/from the yard offices and the change out points where trains stop. So now, we have self driving crews. The conductor of the outbound gets a company vehicle (they've rented some SUV types) and drives his crew to the train. The inbound conductor drives his crew back to the yard office. For trains where the inbound crew is dead or dying on HOS, a manager must arrange other transport. Driving a van after HOS has expired is not allowed. If the train is tying down, being staged for later movement, or terminating in the yard where there is no outbound crew, again other transport must be arranged. If the crew is going to a tied down train, or one that originates in the yard, other transport must be arranged. Other transport might be a utility (yard brakeman) person, who already has a company vehicle to use, or a manager. (Good luck finding the on duty manager at times.) As a last resort, they may have to call a road van for a crew. In my areas, the conductor is the driver. A coworker with friends in Texas says the engineers are the ones there doing the driving. It may be a contract violation for TE&Y, other than utility persons, to drive themselves using company vehicles. It may also be against the law, it's not clear if a class D chauffeur's license is required in this case. The contract van drivers have to have them. We've also been doing a lot of deadheading by train on trailing engines. We used to be able to deadhead by train only in unusual circumstances, like bad winter weather or no vans available to retrieve dead on HOS crews. This was because of the trailing units being subject to diesel exhaust. Normally, I haven't noticed this to be too much of a problem. However, when weather conditions are right exhaust will not escape upwards and away, but downward and into trailing cabs.) Now almost all terminal to terminal deadheading is by train. This all seems to have started just about the time it was released that the operating ratio has ticked upwards last quarter. I think they're running out of places to cut. Jeff
Don't know the motor vehicle laws where this is taking place, however, I suspect if the commercial van drivers required Chauffeur certification to perform the work, having company employees doing the same work on the highways of the state would also require Chauffeur certification.
BaltACD Don't know the motor vehicle laws where this is taking place, however, I suspect if the commercial van drivers required Chauffeur certification to perform the work, having company employees doing the same work on the highways of the state would also require Chauffeur certification.
Overmod Essentially hidden from you is the network of sensors, some as close as 30 miles apart, that continuously monitor for hot bearings or wheels and various damaged-wheel signatures (e.g. WILD). This can find defects that no on-train vigilance could... monstrain or not.
Essentially hidden from you is the network of sensors, some as close as 30 miles apart, that continuously monitor for hot bearings or wheels and various damaged-wheel signatures (e.g. WILD). This can find defects that no on-train vigilance could... monstrain or not.
Most hot-bearing detectors on one western Class 1 are located about 25 miles apart, with hot-wheel scanners somewhat further, typically either side of a major terminal to monitor for sticking brakes or handbrakes inadvertently still tied down. Wheel-impact load detectors are spaced even further apart. Hi-wide detectors can be about 40-60 miles or so on each side of major tunnels. More numerous are dragging equipment detectors.
Hot-bearing, dragging equipment, and hi-wides sites give readouts to passing trains if a defect is found. Hot-bearing, hot-wheel, WILD and some DEDs also send data back to a central office.
rdamon BaltACD Don't know the motor vehicle laws where this is taking place, however, I suspect if the commercial van drivers required Chauffeur certification to perform the work, having company employees doing the same work on the highways of the state would also require Chauffeur certification. Van Services are "for hire" and require the chauffer cert. Employees are using company cars and may only need something beyond a basic if the GVW is too big.
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...
Larry, I think it is 'over' 26000 GVW or 15 people in the vehicle that triggers the CDL requirement -- think about the market in 15-passenger vans. The law is 15 or more passengers excepting the driver. Note that the latter also requires a "P" endorsement to a CDL.
Interestingly if you have one of the 25990# or similar rated trucks, and are towing a 9999# trailer ... no CDL required, commerce or no.
And if you have a converted articulated double-decker bus in Nee York State, all you need to drive it is an R endorsement on your regular NYS license. (But the guy who delivers it to you would need a CDL even if he'd had the R endorsement... driving for a commercial purpose, get it?)
I don't know of any vans doing crew exchange larger than 15 passenger.
Interestingly -- there has to be a story behind this -- you need a P-cert CDL to drive a stretch limo seating 8 or more pax excluding the driver.
We're talking Iowa in my case. It's not a CDL that might be required, but a Class D Chauffeur's license with an Endorsement 3. This is what the contract drivers/taxi companies would need. The E-3 is for vehicles carrying less than 16 passengers.
I think rdamon is right, that since we're talking about employees driving company provided vehicles and transporting only company employees, no special licensing requirement will be needed.
Of course, who knows what will be determined when it involves lawyers making the determination.
OvermodInterestingly -- there has to be a story behind this -- you need a P-cert CDL to drive a stretch limo seating 8 or more pax excluding the driver.
I know of at least serious incident involving stretch limos. They were pretty much illegal in most aspects of their operation.
I believe you are right about the rest of it. I was trying to illustrate that requirements vary. In pre-CDL days, my father had a Michigan chauffeurs license because he drove company vehicles for pay. That was in the 1960's.
It always tickles me to see Granny driving that big motorhome, towing a car....
The way Iowa law is written you need a class D (the $8 endorsement) to drive 14 or fewer passengers for compensation. As I can't imagine any railroader agreeing to drive a company vehicle on company business 'off the clock' ... and I'd bet company insurance wouldn't cover off-duty driving ... there you are.
See p.13
https://iowadot.gov/pubs/CDL-QuickGuide.pdf
or here
https://iowadot.gov/mvd/driverslicense/driverslicense/descriptions
tree68In pre-CDL days, my father had a Michigan chauffeurs license because he drove company vehicles for pay. That was in the 1960's.
https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1627_8669_53323---,00.html
SD60MAC9500 Euclid I think the answer is yes, a longer train is more likely to derail than a shorter train because the longer train has potential for greater in-train forces than a shorter train, all other things being equal. Does it? Or the placement of Draft Gear vs. EOCC. Loads vs. empties? If I have a train of only 5,000' in length and place loaded coal hoppers behind a block of empty cars I believed the in-train forces can be quite great as well.
Euclid I think the answer is yes, a longer train is more likely to derail than a shorter train because the longer train has potential for greater in-train forces than a shorter train, all other things being equal.
I agree that many factors can cause a derailment. They can be failures in track or equipment, and also external factors such as fires, landslides, floods, and collisions with other trains or vehicles. They can be caused by train makeup. They can be caused by operator negligence such as poor train handling or excessive speed. They can also be caused by excessive slack action with can in turn cause broken knuckles, pulled drawbars, string-lining, jackknifing, and shifting loads.
Regarding these causes, I am not comparing the probability of one cause occurring versus another cause occurring. I am only comparing the probability of derailments increasing due to increasing the train length. And with increasing the train length, I assume that the direct cause would be the greater in-train forces which are directly related to train length.
This issue requires careful definition and analysis. For instance, Even if there were no slack action, it may be that long trains derail more frequently than short trains simply because there are more cars in the longer train, and each one has the ability to cause a derailment due to factors not related to slack. For instance, because each car can cause a derailment if it has mechanical deficiencies due to lack of maintenance, the more cars in a train, the more likely it is for any one car to cause a derailment.
But again, this would be due to unique problems with rolling stock and not purely to train length. The only factor I can recognize for possibly being a directly caused by increasing train length is an increase in in-train forces caused by slack action. I also understand the point that in-train forces can be increased by train makeup and locations of empties and loads. But I focus the question only on whether derailment probability increases as train length increases. This is a key question because it points to a downside to monster trains contrasting with the benefits of reduced crew costs per ton.
This actually would seem to be a hot button issue because PSR is so controversial, and the railroad companies are defining PSR as the running of monster trains.
Even if PSR is not actually intended to mean running monster trains, both PSR and monster trains are seen as being intended to reduce labor. I recall seeing various articles by labor unions that harshly criticize the reduction of safety resulting with running monster trains.
The key question is this: Does the magnitude of slack run-in and run-out force increase as train length increases? If there is obvious evidence that monster trains experience many more broken knuckles and pulled drawbars than more “normal” sized trains, I would attribute that to an increase in slack action force being higher.
EuclidSD60MAC9500 Euclid I think the answer is yes, a longer train is more likely to derail than a shorter train because the longer train has potential for greater in-train forces than a shorter train, all other things being equal. Does it? Or the placement of Draft Gear vs. EOCC. Loads vs. empties? If I have a train of only 5,000' in length and place loaded coal hoppers behind a block of empty cars I believed the in-train forces can be quite great as well. I agree that many factors can cause a derailment. They can be failures in track or equipment, and also external factors such as fires, landslides, floods, and collisions with other trains or vehicles. They can be caused by train makeup. They can be caused by operator negligence such as poor train handling or excessive speed. They can also be caused by excessive slack action with can in turn cause broken knuckles, pulled drawbars, string-lining, jackknifing, and shifting loads. Regarding these causes, I am not comparing the probability of one cause occurring versus another cause occurring. I am only comparing the probability of derailments increasing due to increasing the train length. And with increasing the train length, I assume that the direct cause would be the greater in-train forces which are directly related to train length. This issue requires careful definition and analysis. For instance, Even if there were no slack action, it may be that long trains derail more frequently than short trains simply because there are more cars in the longer train, and each one has the ability to cause a derailment due to factors not related to slack. For instance, because each car can cause a derailment if it has mechanical deficiencies due to lack of maintenance, the more cars in a train, the more likely it is for any one car to cause a derailment. But again, this would be due to unique problems with rolling stock and not purely to train length. The only factor I can recognize for possibly being a directly caused by increasing train length is an increase in in-train forces caused by slack action. I also understand the point that in-train forces can be increased by train makeup and locations of empties and loads. But I focus the question only on whether derailment probability increases as train length increases. This is a key question because it points to a downside to monster trains contrasting with the benefits of reduced crew costs per ton. This actually would seem to be a hot button issue because PSR is so controversial, and the railroad companies are defining PSR as the running of monster trains. Even if PSR is not actually intended to mean running monster trains, both PSR and monster trains are seen as being intended to reduce labor. I recall seeing various articles by labor unions that harshly criticize the reduction of safety resulting with running monster trains. The key question is this: Does the magnitude of slack run-in and run-out force increase as train length increases? If there is obvious evidence that monster trains experience many more broken knuckles and pulled drawbars than more “normal” sized trains, I would attribute that to an increase in slack action force being higher.
Euclid I think the answer is yes, a longer train is more likely to derail than a shorter train because the longer train has potential for greater in-train forces than a shorter train, all other things being equal. Does it? Or the placement of Draft Gear vs. EOCC. Loads vs. empties? If I have a train of only 5,000' in length and place loaded coal hoppers behind a block of empty cars I believed the in-train forces can be quite great as well.
That is your opinion - not the carriers.
The carriers look at such happenings as a 'man failure incident' as the engineer did not properly control the slack in the trains.
And if they are specifically instructed to use Leader or some other mandated train-handling software, and an incident occurs?
daveklepperAnd if they are specifically instructed to use Leader or some other mandated train-handling software, and an incident occurs?
They will still find 'some way' to make it a man failure.
Discipline is 'rigged' against the employee.
Break in twos (or threes or fours - it's happened) caused by LEADER or Trip Optimizer are considered, on my road, as mechanical failures. Those systems don't follow the site specific guidelines we're issued for break in two zones. At times, especially with T O, they don't even seem to be trying to actually handle the train, control slack. Just keep the speed to what the system predicts it to be.
Some trains are built to where even if you do everything right, you may still break it in two. As long as you are doing what you're supposed to, especially where there are specific instructions in force, they haven't held engineers responsible.
jeffhergertBreak in twos (or threes or fours - it's happened) caused by LEADER or Trip Optimizer are considered, on my road, as mechanical failures. Those systems don't follow the site specific guidelines we're issued for break in two zones. At times, especially with T O, they don't even seem to be trying to actually handle the train, control slack. Just keep the speed to what the system predicts it to be. Some trains are built to where even if you do everything right, you may still break it in two. As long as you are doing what you're supposed to, especially where there are specific instructions in force, they haven't held engineers responsible. Jeff
And the download better mirror the actions you stated you took.
BaltACDAnd the download better mirror the actions you stated you took.
Then it's deemed a mechanical failure, rather than the programmer or inplemention failure it actually likely is.
Overmod BaltACD And the download better mirror the actions you stated you took. All the download had to 'mirror' was that TO or LEADER was running the train at the point of failure. Then it's deemed a mechanical failure, rather than the programmer or inplemention failure it actually likely is.
BaltACD And the download better mirror the actions you stated you took.
All the download had to 'mirror' was that TO or LEADER was running the train at the point of failure.
There are actions that the engineer takes in 'giving control' to those devices - it is not as simple as fliping a switch.
Different divisions on the same property can interpert same things differently and assess discipline differently. Needless to say, different carriers may have totally different policies.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.