Fred M CainIf detectors were placed at mile intervals, yeah, it’d be expensive.
I would opine that such an action would be governed by cost/benefit analysis (remember - they have to be maintained as well) and that the "Pinto principle" would probably apply, as the cost would likely far outweigh the benefit.
As it is, defect detectors are now spaced about 20 miles apart. These generally started out as just hot box detectors, and now often include dragging equipment detectors, wheel impact detectors, high/wide/shifted load detectors, and who knows what else. Some may even include RFID readers, which could identify the offending car.
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...
Fred M CainAnother question, instead of being forced to spend billions installing PTC, would it have perhaps been a better investment to install dragging equipment detectors every mile apart? An interesting thought, there.
The kind of dragging-equipment detector I'm familiar with is the type used on PRR, which is like a set of flat rubber loops bolted to a layshaft rigged in a tie crib. Anything that bangs the loops over in either direction torques the shaft, which actuates a switch. One problem is that trespassers may get the urge to kick the device, so to work right it would have to be interlocked with other devices that confirm presence of a train. Large numbers of these will rapidly hit 'diminishing returns' for the money needed to rig, monitor, and maintain them.
O.K. Many great comments and insights! I would like to modify this discussion just a bit here.
How many, perhaps all of you, have seen this video of a most horrifying derailment caught by chance on someone's home security camera?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDADA-w2jZI&list=PLmjlFXMZ9mhGMpjckQ3A86iVkA-5bBUo1 I don't believe that this was a so-called "monster train" but nevertheless, this looks pretty damn scary!
I tried to Google this to find more info on it and was astonished to find out that the lead truck on the second unit derailed and dragged on the ground for an astonishing SIX MILES ! You can see the sparks from it caught on the home security camera.
My question is, how far apart are dragging equipment detectors on mainline railroads in the U.S. and Canada? I cannot fathom why in the world the crew didn't catch this sooner and stop but they didn't. Not sure why perhaps they couldn't. It would seem to me that all they woulda needed to do is to look back once.
Another question, instead of being forced to spend billions installing PTC, would it have perhaps been a better investment to install dragging equipment detectors every mile apart? An interesting thought, there.
jeffhergertMaybe the drawbar was a result from the earlier knuckle.
Leading one to wonder, in these days of COVID tracing, just how often such detective work is done.
As you mention, who knows what stresses have been placed on a given part, and when. The car may have been sitting in a SIT yard for weeks, etc. Even with computer tracing, it may be hard to make the connection between the initiating event(s) and the final failure.
Interesting consideration.
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?
Euclid In the first post here, Fred Cain said: “It seems like trains have been getting longer. I was wondering, has this led to an increase in derailments?” In response here, it has been said that monster trains are more likely to derail because of lack of track maintenance, equipment maintenance, and locomotive maintenance; rather than derailing because of being extra-long trains. Why would monster trains derail more frequently than traditional size trains because of a lack of track maintenance, equipment maintenance, and locomotive maintenance? In other words, what does the track care whether you run one monster train over it or four smaller trains equaling the tonnage and length of the monster train?
In the first post here, Fred Cain said: “It seems like trains have been getting longer. I was wondering, has this led to an increase in derailments?”
In response here, it has been said that monster trains are more likely to derail because of lack of track maintenance, equipment maintenance, and locomotive maintenance; rather than derailing because of being extra-long trains.
Why would monster trains derail more frequently than traditional size trains because of a lack of track maintenance, equipment maintenance, and locomotive maintenance?
In other words, what does the track care whether you run one monster train over it or four smaller trains equaling the tonnage and length of the monster train?
I don't know that the oversized trains derail more. (Although the larger the train, the more likely to have problems.) It was asked originally if larger trains have led to more derailments. Some of us have said it's more about the level of maintenance of equipment, etc rather than just the length of trains. Shorter trains derail, too.
I will say that longer trains can subject equipment to more stress. For example. a car that's been in a long train experiences some harsh slack action. That harsh slack action damages the draft gear. Not enough to fail then, but enough that it is on the way to fail at some point. It winds up in a shorter train, after being banged around a yard. It's in a shorter train when the pin holding the drawbar in finally fails, allowing the drawbar to pull out. It lands just right on the track to derail the car or the one behind it (depending which end the drawbar is on) and maybe some more cars, too.
Just tonight, a train we had just met went into emergency about 5 miles behind us. They ended up having a right end drawbar come out. Looking at the summary for this train, the previous crew had gotten a knuckle while experiencing problems with one of their DP consists. The train was 14000ft with a mid-train and rear end DP.
Maybe the drawbar was a result from the earlier knuckle.
Jeff
Lithonia OperatorRe 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?
Like anything else - it requires communication and time for the actions to become effective.
In the incident we are discussing - there wasn't time for either train to create the communication and have their reactions be effective enough to prevent what actually happened.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidIn the first post here, Fred Cain said: “It seems like trains have been getting longer. I was wondering, has this led to an increase in derailments?” In response here, it has been said that monster trains are more likely to derail because of lack of track maintenance, equipment maintenance, and locomotive maintenance; rather than derailing because of being extra-long trains. Why would monster trains derail more frequently than traditional size trains because of a lack of track maintenance, equipment maintenance, and locomotive maintenance? In other words, what does the track care whether you run one monster train over it or four smaller trains equaling the tonnage and length of the monster train?
Are YOU (as the track) more likely to physically 'give out' pressing a 100 pound weight 3 times or 300 times or 600 times - spread out over time or in rapid succession...
Euclidand 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.
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
tree68 Lithonia Operator In the video, it does not appear that the oil train even slowed down, much less tried to stop. Was the oil train's crew disciplined or fired? The accompanying text shows that they did make an emergency application, as soon as they were aware of the situation. It's notable that the grain train, doing 36 MPH, took nearly a minute to get to zero MPH after the derailment. As Balt noted, there's a lot of mass to get stopped. For another example, find the tornado video, where the train was clearly broken apart, yet the following portion ran into the locomotive with the camera.
Lithonia Operator In the video, it does not appear that the oil train even slowed down, much less tried to stop. Was the oil train's crew disciplined or fired?
The accompanying text shows that they did make an emergency application, as soon as they were aware of the situation. It's notable that the grain train, doing 36 MPH, took nearly a minute to get to zero MPH after the derailment.
As Balt noted, there's a lot of mass to get stopped.
For another example, find the tornado video, where the train was clearly broken apart, yet the following portion ran into the locomotive with the camera.
Note that the Grain Train's braking was assisted by the increased resistance to movement by the derailed car itself, so it stopped somewhat quicker than it would have with just brakes alone.
Lithonia OperatorIn the video, it does not appear that the oil train even slowed down, much less tried to stop. Was the oil train's crew disciplined or fired?
In the video, it does not appear that the oil train even slowed down, much less tried to stop. Was the oil train's crew disciplined or fired?
I had not seen that before. Quite dramatic.
Fred M CainI don't know if either of the two trains involved in this video were true "monster" trains or not. Nevertheless, this constituted a true nighmare in every sense of the word. Probably most of you have seen this anyways but just in case you want to see it again...... BNSF Railway Train Derailment and Subsequent Train Collision - YouTube The head end crew on the oil drag received a radio message from the grain train but evidently they were not able to stop in time. The derailed covered hopper was pretty far back so I would've thought they could've stopped but I guess not.
BNSF Railway Train Derailment and Subsequent Train Collision - YouTube
The head end crew on the oil drag received a radio message from the grain train but evidently they were not able to stop in time. The derailed covered hopper was pretty far back so I would've thought they could've stopped but I guess not.
Believe both trains were of the 'normal' size of about 100 cars and somewhere between 10K & 15K tons.
Start doing 'your sums' and calculate the kinetic energy that is function of each train at their speeds when the 'real' situation becomes known to each of the operators and you have your answers - as to have been 'safe' ALL that energy from BOTH TRAINS had to have been disippated to ZERO.
blue streak 1 Tree I agree with you on most times not too many cars will derail. However what about a downhill runaway ? Did CP derail most of that grain train ?
Tree I agree with you on most times not too many cars will derail. However what about a downhill runaway ? Did CP derail most of that grain train ?
Lac Megantic, for that matter. I would opine that those are outliers. Certainly not insignificant, but in a different "class" from such things as wheel failures, track issues, etc.
One of the "features" of a runaway is excessive speed, and thus momentum. Generally speaking, I think that the brake issues that accompany runaways (no/ineffective brakes) generally do not apply on a "flatland" derailment, where the breaking apart of the train causes the perfectly (?) functional brakes to apply in emergency.
Just my observation.
I don't know if either of the two trains involved in this video were true "monster" trains or not. Nevertheless, this constituted a true nighmare in every sense of the word. Probably most of you have seen this anyways but just in case you want to see it again......
blue streak 1 There are too many locations that will not be able to muster enough first responders quickly to contain a major derailment.
That would be most of the country.
Our local hazmat team would very nearly be overwhelmed with just a few cars involving an actual spill. Nowadays, volunteer departments in many parts of the country have trouble mustering a full response. Mutual aid is the word of the day.
On the other hand, even a land barge probably wouldn't derail the entire train - eventually the brakes will slow/stop the rear of the train before it became part of the pile-up. Even some of the larger derailments of late have been limited to 20 or so cars. Still enough to cause major mayhem, but not the 200+ cars in those monster trains.
An assumption. Derailments are happening at about every so many car miles. If so then average longer trains would mean more derailments per train mile.
My big worry is that some monster train will derail most of its cars and spread death and destruction over a wide area while carrying various flamables, Haz Mat, including TIH and other items to burn. There are too many locations that will not be able to muster enough first responders quickly to contain a major derailment.
SD60MAC9500Considering how dangerous some areas can be human or wildlife.. Firearms are a necessity.
We've had deer and bear on our platform (in the Adirondacks). The deer get the passengers attention, but pose no threat. The bears don't usually come around if there's people in the area. One of our trainmen had a bear walking down the platform as he was walking inside the cars. Spooked him a bit (the trainman).
SD70Dude BLS53 What's interesting to me is they run these 2 mile long trains, with a 2 person crew on the front end. Are there any other parameters monitored other than what a trackside detector provides? Seems if something goes wrong, and the conductor walking the length of the train is required, is not only impractical, but dangerous. Danger not from the train itself, but from the surroundings. Like walking an isolated country road when your car breaks down. Conductors physical conditioning, must be close to military standards to do this job. Yeah, no. The only physical tests are picking up a knuckle and carrying it one car length, and riding the side of a car for a few minutes straight. When other duties permit, train crews and other employees perform visual inspections of moving trains, on busy main routes these inspections can happen as often as those done by detectors. The safety of walking the train in remote areas or 'bad neighborhoods' in large urban centres has been raised on multiple occasions. In my area the danger comes from four-legged wildlife, and as you said walking the trains is not unlike going for a hike by yourself at night in bear country (sounds kind of dumb when I say it like that eh?). Someone suggested carrying bear spray, and the trainmaster laughed at them (some guys bought their own, despite the company's prohibition on carrying weapons). While I don't know of any documented attacks on train crews, there have been a number of hair-raising encounters with bears, wolves and cougars out here. At one point a grizzly was seen killing an elk next to a yard where we commonly walk trains to do air tests, and as is to be expected the bear hung around its food cache for about a week. Fortunately this particular bear did not seem to view trains and their crews as competition.
BLS53 What's interesting to me is they run these 2 mile long trains, with a 2 person crew on the front end. Are there any other parameters monitored other than what a trackside detector provides? Seems if something goes wrong, and the conductor walking the length of the train is required, is not only impractical, but dangerous. Danger not from the train itself, but from the surroundings. Like walking an isolated country road when your car breaks down. Conductors physical conditioning, must be close to military standards to do this job.
What's interesting to me is they run these 2 mile long trains, with a 2 person crew on the front end. Are there any other parameters monitored other than what a trackside detector provides? Seems if something goes wrong, and the conductor walking the length of the train is required, is not only impractical, but dangerous. Danger not from the train itself, but from the surroundings. Like walking an isolated country road when your car breaks down.
Conductors physical conditioning, must be close to military standards to do this job.
Yeah, no.
The only physical tests are picking up a knuckle and carrying it one car length, and riding the side of a car for a few minutes straight.
When other duties permit, train crews and other employees perform visual inspections of moving trains, on busy main routes these inspections can happen as often as those done by detectors.
The safety of walking the train in remote areas or 'bad neighborhoods' in large urban centres has been raised on multiple occasions. In my area the danger comes from four-legged wildlife, and as you said walking the trains is not unlike going for a hike by yourself at night in bear country (sounds kind of dumb when I say it like that eh?). Someone suggested carrying bear spray, and the trainmaster laughed at them (some guys bought their own, despite the company's prohibition on carrying weapons).
While I don't know of any documented attacks on train crews, there have been a number of hair-raising encounters with bears, wolves and cougars out here. At one point a grizzly was seen killing an elk next to a yard where we commonly walk trains to do air tests, and as is to be expected the bear hung around its food cache for about a week. Fortunately this particular bear did not seem to view trains and their crews as competition.
Considering how dangerous some areas can be human or wildlife.. Firearms are a necessity.
Following video is aimed at the model railroading crowd, that being said, it provides some real information about 1:1 railroading in the 21st Century.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0n_b5zNMYk
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
tree68 Fred M Cain Was that a monster train gone bad? I tried Googling for the cause but was not able to find it. Maybe I didn't look in the right place. Anybody know? Right across the river from me, but I don't recall it being big news. Definitely not a "monster train" as it was only around 84 cars. Slack action is a possibility, but I'd guess a failure of some sort. Edit - on looking at a few other images, and a news story or two, the two cars at the end of the train were loaded with paper, and there was a small rise and dip about where the cars might have been about the time you can hear the air dump in the video.
Fred M Cain Was that a monster train gone bad? I tried Googling for the cause but was not able to find it. Maybe I didn't look in the right place. Anybody know?
Right across the river from me, but I don't recall it being big news. Definitely not a "monster train" as it was only around 84 cars. Slack action is a possibility, but I'd guess a failure of some sort.
Edit - on looking at a few other images, and a news story or two, the two cars at the end of the train were loaded with paper, and there was a small rise and dip about where the cars might have been about the time you can hear the air dump in the video.
Thought I heard some slack action around the 1:20 +/- mark. Train looked to be very pedestrian in size.
It appears the TSB did not conduct an investigation into this derailment, so there is no publicly available report.
I agree that this train was not particularly long, but it was mainly composed of loaded centrebeams and boxcars and did not have a DP remote locomotive. These are the worst type of trains for slack action due to their weight and high percentage of extended cushion drawbars.
It would be unusual for slack action alone to break a knuckle or drawbar so close to the tail end of the train, usually this happens in the middle or fairly close to the head end.
I'll have a look at the Kingston Sub track profile next time I'm at work.
Euclid Somebody should do a formal study of monster trains to compare the savings in labor they yield versus the added cost of damage, delays, and wrecks.
Somebody should do a formal study of monster trains to compare the savings in labor they yield versus the added cost of damage, delays, and wrecks.
When I say somebody should do a study, I mean some neutral, objective outsider, and certainly not railroad management.
Although, I am surprised that labor unions have not made such a study. They have come out against monster trains for a variety of reasons. Since monster trains are seen by management as saving cost by reducing crew labor per ton of train, it seems like labor would be well served by a study proving that monster trains actually lose money by the wear and tear rather than save money by reducing crew size. I wonder what the investors would think of that.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.