NS serious derailment late feb 3 ( ~2100 )

[Euclid]

tree68

 

 

Euclid

Right after the Springfield wreck

 

 

How does the likelihood of an out-of-guage wheelset factor in to your conclusions?

 

If there actually was an out of gage wheelset, whether the gage was over or under, it could have changed the way that the two cars would react to excess buff force in the train caused by excess dynamic braking. 

 

If the wheelset gage were undersize, the flanges would have been further from the rail head than normal.  If it was oversize, the flanges would have been closer to the rail than normal.

 

In either case, the excess buff force would have reacted (deflected) into a buckling force at the couplers.  The flanges would then attempt to resist the flange lateral shift caused by the buckling.  If the gage were too narrow, the buckling would progress further than if the gage were correct.  Then the further the buckling progresses, the more the lateral force of the flanges against the side of the rail head increases. 

 

The greater the flange-to-rail pressure becomes, they greater the tendency for the flange to climb the rail becomes.  You might actually get the same effect if the wheelset gage were too wide.  That would bring the flanges to bear on the rail head side sooner than would be normal (but perhaps with less force).  So, I think it is possible that either the gage being too wide or two narrow could have exacerbated the risk of buckling the train if the buff force was too high. 

 

But whatever the gage condition of the wheelsets was, I think the primary action initiating the derailment was the convergence of the lightness of the empty coil cars, the suddenly uplift of the crossing deck reducing the rail loading (and thus the flange tracking ability), and the hard slack run in from the brake application which was reported to have been made.

 

In the video, I don’t see anything that indicates there was an out of gage wheelset, but I definitely see a hard surge of uplift with coincident bucking of the two coil cars.  I also hear slack and loud draft gear sounds a few seconds before the two coil cars hit the crossing.  

[tree68]

Euclid

If there actually was an out of gage wheelset,

Which, apparently, there was - given the furor about the new coil cars and the concern with loose wheels.

[Euclid]

tree68

 

 

Euclid

If there actually was an out of gage wheelset,

 

 

Which, apparently, there was - given the furor about the new coil cars and the concern with loose wheels.

 

I would not rule it out, but in the furor about loose wheels on the new coil cars, there were no details given.  The timing of the announcement and the Springfield wreck was simultaneous.  But it was not clear to me that they had found this defect in the wreck, or whether the only connection was the defect on the new coil cars, and there being some of those cars in the Springfield train.

 

In any case, I stand by my conclusions about the excess buff and consequent buckling as being the primary cause, even if it was exacerbated by out of gage wheelsets.  I explained that clearly in my post at the top of this page. 

[tree68]

Euclid

The timing of the announcement and the Springfield wreck was simultaneous.

Well, no. The announcement was the result of the derailment.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/10/us/springfield-derailment-norfolk-southern-safety-issue/index.html

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/aar-urges-railroads-to-sideline-new-cars-that-may-have-caused-ns-derailment-in-springfield-ohio/

The car company has since said "ain't so."

[Euclid]

BaltACD

 

 

Another view

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPno1IVTkFY

 

He is correct that rail is the safest way to transport dangerous industrial chemicals such as vinyl chloride.  However, the practice is far from being as safe as it should be in a technically savvy society.   While nothing can be perfectly safe, rail transport of relatively dangerous materials can be made much safer. 

 

In the case of the East Palestine wreck, the weakest link in the chain of safety was the hotbox detectors.  Obviously, they failed to do their job.  They are fundamentally flawed with an ability to fail to produce a warning---or to produce a false warning due to misinterpretation of trends and effects of ambient temperature, or heat from train braking.  

 

Because of the high financial stakes of delaying a large train with a false warning, the industry has instituted a means of overriding all but the most robust warnings.  This is accomplished by human review that has the authority to disqualify a warning.  This implies a threat of discipline for failure to dismiss a warning that subsequently proves unlikely to have caused a derailment.  Ironically, this can defeat the very purpose of having a machine warning system that does not rely on human eyes to watch out for signs of overheating bearings.  

 

Another weak link was the failure to be prepared to fight the fire.  We have known about the danger of chemicals ignited by derailments for at least 50 years.  Every rail line carrying this type of hazmat needs to be protected by a quick response team with the best possible technology, expertise, manpower, and most rapid response possible.  

 

Still another weak link was not having the most safety-ideal system of train consists, braking, motive power, railcars, and monitoring technology.  That would include breach-proof tank cars, relatively short trains for exclusive use with hazmat, and ECP brakes.

 

Breach proof tank cars would have a higher empty weight because of having more structural mass caused by thicker tank walls.  The cars would reduce capacity because their empty weight is relatively higher. The cars should also be streamlined to slip past each other in the conflicts of a derailment. 

 

It is well known that the industry abhors ECP brakes.  The last time the issue emerged was with the mandate for ECP braking on certain hazmat cars.  The industry boiled down their objections by stating that only the tiniest fraction of collisions are caused by poor braking, and so the better braking ECP brakes were not necessary.  So this leads to the knee jerk reaction saying ECP would have made no difference in the East Palestine wreck.

 

On the contrary, I think ECP would have prevented the derailment.  It may be true that the majority of train accidents are not caused by insufficient braking, but ECP is far more beneficial than just reducing stopping distance.  And with trains, braking is about more than just the shortest stopping distance.  One could argue that is the least important feature.  Trains are notoriously hard to stop no matter what type of brake is used.  But where ECP shines is its ability to apply simultaneously, not for stopping fast, but rather to stop or slow down with no slack action.  

 

That helps to prevent or reduce derailments caused by the in-train forces such as slack action, buckling, stringlinging, and break-in-twos.  Moreover, these dangers are enhanced with the monster train trend currently underway.

 

It was widely reported that the East Palestine train derailed before it was able to finish stopping.  Then some say that shows that ECP might have prevented the derailment by stopping faster; and thus stopping before the train derailed.  This makes it seem like the derailment just happened to occur as the train was in the process of stopping.  So the derailment would have been averted with ECP speeding up the stopping process ahead of the derailment which just happened to have begun for its own independent reasons. 

 

I don’t think that is what happened.   The news reported that the train was using dynamic braking to slow down as it entered East Palestine.  As it was slowing, the train received a warning ordering the train to stop immediately due to the hot bearing found by the hotbox detector.  In response to hearing the warning, the engineer increased the dynamic braking, and the train immediately started to derail.   

 

While this does not prove anything, I think it strongly implies that the increase of dynamic braking caused an increase in buff force, which caused the train to buckle and commence derailing.  Who knows what effect occurred on the engineer’s judgement to add more braking in response to a hot bearing emergency that could cause the train to derail at any second?   How would the engineer allocate his focus in evaluating the risk of hot bearing derailment versus risk of derailment caused by too much buff force from braking? 

 

If the derailment was caused by excess dynamic braking, it would not have happened if the train had been equipped with ECP brakes.  This is because train would not have been using dynamic braking, and the ECP braking system would not have produced any in-train forces, including any amount of slack run-in.  ECP would have stopped the train without producing any buff forces at all.

[BaltACD]

Euclid

...

If the derailment was caused to excess dynamic braking, it would not have happened if the train had been equipped with ECP brakes.  This is because train would not have been using dynamic braking, and the ECP braking system would not have produced any in-train forces, including any amount of slack run-in.  ECP would have stopped the train without producing any buff forces at all.

ECP braking would have brought brake shoes against the wheel treads and introduced forces to dislocate the hot axle off center and thus derailing the car.  ECP would not have prevented this incident, it may have had it happen several hundred yards West of the location that it did happen but it would not have prevented it.

[Euclid]

BaltACD

 

 

Euclid

...

If the derailment was caused to excess dynamic braking, it would not have happened if the train had been equipped with ECP brakes.  This is because train would not have been using dynamic braking, and the ECP braking system would not have produced any in-train forces, including any amount of slack run-in.  ECP would have stopped the train without producing any buff forces at all.

 

 

ECP braking would have brought brake shoes against the wheel treads and introduced forces to dislocate the hot axle off center and thus derailing the car.  ECP would not have prevented this incident, it may have had it happen several hundred yards West of the location that it did happen but it would not have prevented it.

 

I don’t think it was inevitable that an air brake application would have caused the derailment by pushing the axle off center.  I doubt that the shift in axle position would have caused a derailment.  It might have if the axle shift was long enough to break away all support of the bearing or the truck to the extent that the wheelset were able to completely separate from the truck; or if the detached wheelset kind of pole-vaulted under the truck, so as to lift the truck completely clear of the track.  With that Maryville, Tennessee incident about 8 years ago, CSX dragged a car with one truck derailed for 9 miles.  I have seen firsthand, incidents where trains dragged cars with a derailed truck plowing up the ballast and breaking every tie for several miles without any train accordion, buckling, or pileup.  

 

I would guess that by the time this train derailed, everyone was convinced that the derailment was the result of the hot bearing since it had passed three different detectors showing a heating trend.  I hope the NTSB can sort this out. 

 

But there is also this point:  I am not concluding that the buff force from dynamic braking was enough to perturb the truck into breaking up because of its weakening condition caused by the hot bearing. 

 

I don’t know what condition the truck was actually in.  I don’t know if the overheating bearing was the direct cause of the derailment.  It may be that the dynamic braking buff force alone caused the derailment.  In that case, if the buff force had been prevented by ECP braking, the train may have stopped without derailing. 

[Charley]

hello, tree68 i am working on a project on the Glenfield Western RR and i read you had some logging photos. i was wondering if you could message me in reguards to them. im having trouble figuring out the messager.

[BaltACD]

Euclid

 

BaltACD 

Euclid

...

If the derailment was caused to excess dynamic braking, it would not have happened if the train had been equipped with ECP brakes.  This is because train would not have been using dynamic braking, and the ECP braking system would not have produced any in-train forces, including any amount of slack run-in.  ECP would have stopped the train without producing any buff forces at all. 

ECP braking would have brought brake shoes against the wheel treads and introduced forces to dislocate the hot axle off center and thus derailing the car.  ECP would not have prevented this incident, it may have had it happen several hundred yards West of the location that it did happen but it would not have prevented it. 

I don’t think it was inevitable that an air brake application would have caused the derailment by pushing the axle off center.  I doubt that the shift in axle position would have caused a derailment.  It might have if the axle shift was long enough to break away all support of the bearing or the truck to the extent that the wheelset were able to completely separate from the truck; or if the detached wheelset kind of pole-vaulted under the truck, so as to lift the truck completely clear of the track.  With that Maryville, Tennessee incident about 8 years ago, CSX dragged a car with one truck derailed for 9 miles.  I have seen firsthand, incidents where trains dragged cars with a derailed truck plowing up the ballast and breaking every tie for several miles without any train accordion, buckling, or pileup.  

 

I would guess that by the time this train derailed, everyone was convinced that the derailment was the result of the hot bearing since it had passed three different detectors showing a heating trend.  I hope the NTSB can sort this out. 

 

But there is also this point:  I am not concluding that the buff force from dynamic braking was enough to perturb the truck into breaking up because of its weakening condition caused by the hot bearing. 

 

I don’t know what condition the truck was actually in.  I don’t know if the overheating bearing was the direct cause of the derailment.  It may be that the dynamic braking buff force alone caused the derailment.  In that case, if the buff force had been prevented by ECP braking, the train may have stopped without derailing. 

Your lack of knowledge of truck dynamics is showing.  Quit while you are behind.

[Euclid]

tree68

 

 

Euclid

The timing of the announcement and the Springfield wreck was simultaneous.

 

 

Well, no. The announcement was the result of the derailment.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/10/us/springfield-derailment-norfolk-southern-safety-issue/index.html

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/aar-urges-railroads-to-sideline-new-cars-that-may-have-caused-ns-derailment-in-springfield-ohio/

The car company has since said "ain't so."

 

I am interested in your last comment above:  The car company has since said "ain't so."

 

Did they publically announce that there are no issues of wheel-to-axle fit on the coil cars that NS has announced as having the fit too loose?  If there is a reference to that, I sure would like to see it. 

 

I don’t know what NS meant by “loose wheels,” but any measurement indication that the wheels are out of gage location would be a very big problem, even if the wheels seemed to be as tight as usual. 

 

So the public claim by NS that they have found loose wheels that they believe caused the Springfield derailment would be an importent issue for the manufacturer of the wheelsets. 

 

 

 

[Euclid]

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/national-steel-car-says-its-wheel-sets-for-rail-cars-are-ok-to-use

 

 

 

The manufacturer has gotten the AAR to remove the national alert on the problem, and they say that the wheels were never out of spec on the press fit.  But they were subject to extremely high forces during the derailment, and THAT is what moved the wheels, leading NS to conclude that the wheels were not positioned on the axles with sufficient tightness. 

[Overmod]

Euclid

The manufacturer has gotten the AAR to remove the national alert on the problem, and they say that the wheels were never out of spec on the press fit.

"Laser scan data"?  I would need to see what they scanned, what their methodology was, how they concluded it was 'enormous lateral impact' that moved the wheels.

If that is the case, we should expect considerable data on other suppliers' wheelsets experiencing the same problem in similar derailments.  Three in one incident (and in a derailment not seemingly marked by high lateral force or excursion -- as Euclid noted, much of it appeared to be related to buff run-in, which is both longitudinal and upward) would indicate that analysis of wheelset gauge displacement across a range of more severe incidents ought to show a comparable or perhaps greater displacement.

Where is the analysis of lateral direct test pressure against the fit in a sample of these wheelsets, including the three in question here?

I'm not saying anything other than that I need more objective proof than what was put into the Freightwaves story.

[Euclid]

I have not seen or read of any evidence presented by NS that indicates this alleged defect ever existed.  Yet they did report in the news that they found what they referred to as “loose wheels” on new coil cars in the recent derailment at Springfield, OH. 

 

I assume that the wheelsets are inspected after assembly to test for the amount of pressure needed to shift the wheel.  But I don’t know exactly how that test would be conducted.  I suspect there is a threshold that must withstand a certain amount of wheel force without wheel moving on the axle.  And that threshold would be set considerably higher than they highest operating force encountered by any operational event such as guardrails forcing the railcar to shift position transversely.

 

I would like to know how often it is discovered that wheels have been caused to shift on their axles due to the collision forces produced during a derailment.  I would also like to know how often it has been discovered that wheels have been caused to shift on their axles due to defectively loose fit of the wheel to the axle. 

 

In this case, I assume NS did the following:  The took photos showing evidence of the wheels having been shifted out of their proper location.  Then they took full notes and measurements on all wheelsets with this defect, and tested one wheelset themselves to confirm that the wheels were too loose on the axle.  Maybe they would have tested a group of these new coil cars that had not been involved in the Springfield wreck, and noted the findings for that test. 

 

I don’t find that Freight Waves had taken any position on the claim of loose wheels by NS or the rejection of that claim by National Wheel. What I find shocking is that NS would have gone public with this sensitive information. 

[Overmod]

Springfield was part of the attempted dogpile to brand NS as having a somehow defective safety culture, and a rapid and positive defense against that perception was likely what would lead to a decision for a 'sensitive' release.

On the other hand, if there were the least possibility that a series of current Canadian wheelsets was prone to shift gauge -- and three in just one comparatively low-speed derailments is an awful lot of sample size -- there should be no other decision than to call attention to the situation, have the potentially-affected wheelsets inspected and tested, and alert car owners and suppliers to the issue.

Something that keeps bothering me is that enormous force precisely orthogonal to the plane of the wheel ought to be necessary to shift it on a true good fit.  Not a cocked or angled impact.  Three-piece trucks are physically incapable of causing such an impact: the bearing carriers would come out of the sideframe, or the construction would lozenge, long before any such impact could be communicated.

 

[Euclid]

Either the NS or National Steel Car has the ability to prove why the wheels moved, yet we hear nothing.  I think the greatest probability is that the wheels never moved on the axles.

[blue streak 1]

2 items

1. Both WAMATA and HART have had wheel movement. 

2.  Why have axels not had an inside collar to prevent movement closing the wheel gauge?

[tree68]

Euclid

Either the NS or National Steel Car has the ability to prove why the wheels moved, yet we hear nothing.  I think the greatest probability is that the wheels never moved on the axles.

When faced with potential lawsuits, you say nothing...  

[Euclid]

tree68

 

 

Euclid

Either the NS or National Steel Car has the ability to prove why the wheels moved, yet we hear nothing.  I think the greatest probability is that the wheels never moved on the axles.

 

 

When faced with potential lawsuits, you say nothing...  

 

That’s my point, and saying nothing is understandable.  But they said plenty right after the wreck.  Why would they do that?  Why go public with something that the public would never know; and do that with something that would make you look bad if the public ever found out?  I think the answer to that question is obvious.  The public did not have any way of knowing about loose wheels, but they sure new that NS derailed another very large train.  And blaming it on National Steel Car completely backfired on them.

 

In my opinion, the derailment was caused by high buff force from hard slack run in at the moment the light coil cars hit the slightly elevated crossing deck and were tossed upward.  The upward lift further lightened the empty cars, reducing their ability to hold their tracking by resisting lateral force.  At the same moment, the surge in buff force was exerting unusually high lateral pressure as a reaction to the buff force. 

 

So at that moment, as the flanges were losing their track holding, the high lateral force caused the flanges to climb the rails and allow the cars to buckle at the joint.  The video appears to show this clearly. 

[BaltACD]

Euclid

 

tree68 

Euclid

Either the NS or National Steel Car has the ability to prove why the wheels moved, yet we hear nothing.  I think the greatest probability is that the wheels never moved on the axles. 

When faced with potential lawsuits, you say nothing...   

That’s my point, and saying nothing is understandable.  But they said plenty right after the wreck.  Why would they do that?  Why go public with something that the public would never know; and do that with something that would make you look bad if the public ever found out?  I think the answer to that question is obvious.  The public did not have any way of knowing about loose wheels, but they sure new that NS derailed another very large train.  And blaming it on National Steel Car completely backfired on them.

 

In my opinion, the derailment was caused by high buff force from hard slack run in at the moment the light coil cars hit the slightly elevated crossing deck and were tossed upward.  The upward lift further lightened the empty cars, reducing their ability to hold their tracking by resisting lateral force.  At the same moment, the surge in buff force was exerting unusually high lateral pressure as a reaction to the buff force.  

So at that moment, as the flanges were losing their track holding, the high lateral force caused the flanges to climb the rails and allow the cars to buckle at the joint.  The video appears to show this clearly. 

Do you know that the coil cars were empty?

Loaded coil cars are not light, empty coil cars aren't all that light either.

[Euclid]

BaltACD

 

 

Euclid

 

tree68 

Euclid

Either the NS or National Steel Car has the ability to prove why the wheels moved, yet we hear nothing.  I think the greatest probability is that the wheels never moved on the axles. 

When faced with potential lawsuits, you say nothing...   

That’s my point, and saying nothing is understandable.  But they said plenty right after the wreck.  Why would they do that?  Why go public with something that the public would never know; and do that with something that would make you look bad if the public ever found out?  I think the answer to that question is obvious.  The public did not have any way of knowing about loose wheels, but they sure new that NS derailed another very large train.  And blaming it on National Steel Car completely backfired on them.

 

In my opinion, the derailment was caused by high buff force from hard slack run in at the moment the light coil cars hit the slightly elevated crossing deck and were tossed upward.  The upward lift further lightened the empty cars, reducing their ability to hold their tracking by resisting lateral force.  At the same moment, the surge in buff force was exerting unusually high lateral pressure as a reaction to the buff force.  

So at that moment, as the flanges were losing their track holding, the high lateral force caused the flanges to climb the rails and allow the cars to buckle at the joint.  The video appears to show this clearly. 

 

 

Do you know that the coil cars were empty?

Loaded coil cars are not light, empty coil cars aren't all that light either.

 

I read that they were empty, but cannot confirm that.  In any case, the therory I descibe would not require the cars to be empty.  The critial components are the slack run-in buff force and the upward lift (bounce) of the cars as they hit the crossing deck.  But I will remove my use of the terms "light" and "empty" from my comment as follows:

That’s my point, and saying nothing is understandable.  But they said plenty right after the wreck.  Why would they do that?  Why go public with something that the public would never know; and do that with something that would make you look bad if the public ever found out?  I think the answer to that question is obvious.  The public did not have any way of knowing about loose wheels, but they sure new that NS derailed another very large train.  And blaming it on National Steel Car completely backfired on them.

 

In my opinion, the derailment was caused by high buff force from hard slack run in at the moment the light coil cars hit the slightly elevated crossing deck and were tossed upward.  The upward lift further lightened the empty cars, reducing their ability to hold their tracking by resisting lateral force.  At the same moment, the surge in buff force was exerting unusually high lateral pressure as a reaction to the buff force. 

 

So at that moment the flanges were losing their track holding, the high lateral force caused the flanges to climb the rails and allow the cars to buckle at the joint.  The video appears to show this clearly. 

[blue streak 1]

blue streak 1

2 items

1. Both WAMATA and HART have had wheel movement. 

2.  Why have axels not had an inside collar to prevent movement closing the wheel gauge?

 

 

It appears that Stadler puts collars on their axels.  From Stadler thread look at time stamp 0:09.

 

Modern European Trains Built Right in North America! | Stadler Factory Tour - YouTube

[Overmod]

I can't search properly, but where was that low-speed accident where buff ran in and jacked the centerbeams up into the overhead bridge?  Someone posted the video here and we had some discussion.  

[Euclid]

blue streak 1

 

 

blue streak 1

2 items

1. Both WAMATA and HART have had wheel movement. 

2.  Why have axels not had an inside collar to prevent movement closing the wheel gauge?

 

 

 

 

It appears that Stadler puts collars on their axels.  From Stadler thread look at time stamp 0:09.

 

Modern European Trains Built Right in North America! | Stadler Factory Tour - YouTube

 

I don’t know what is showing in the video of wheels in the Stadler factory.  It looks like the wheelsets have disc brakes.  There does appear to be a collar feature around the axle inboard of the wheel. 

 

It would be possible for axle to be made with a shoulder inboard of each wheel.  Then that would be the stop point for the press fit of the wheel.  So if the press fit should fail, the stop shoulder would prevent wheels from shifting inward and narrowing the gage.  But that leaves the wheel to move outward if the press fit fails.  You could have a stop shoulder, and then after the wheel is pressed up to the shoulder, you would press a separate ring onto the axle and up tight against the outside of the wheel hub. 

 

However, there would then be two press fits; one for the wheel and one for the separate collar.  Are two wheel-retaining feature better than one?  Even if the separate collar took over the function of preventing the wheel from sliding outward on the axle, a press fit of the wheel bore onto the axle would still be necessary. This is because the wheel needs to be tight enough to maintain its perpendicularity to the axis of the axle. 

 

If there are any documented cases of where a wheel press fit onto the axle has loosened up in service and allowed wheels to drift out of gage, the cause needs to be found and explained.  It would never be merely left as something that happened, but should not have happened. 

 

I suspect that every derailment is inspected to check the gage of every wheelset.  I wonder to what extent that field checking is subject to human error.  I would expect that gage dimension to be held within plus/minus .005”  I wonder what the tolerance is for field check of gage with a hand held measuring fixture. 

[tree68]

Overmod

I can't search properly, but where was that low-speed accident where buff ran in and jacked the centerbeams up into the overhead bridge?  Someone posted the video here and we had some discussion.  

Kansas City.

[Euclid]

Here it is:

 

Santa Fe Junction, Kansas City, MO.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFLJvpwm52Q

[BaltACD]

Euclid

Here it is:

 

Santa Fe Junction, Kansas City, MO.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFLJvpwm52Q

Long 'light' cars with a high center of gravity can't negotiate a high degree of curvature when being handled with high in train forces - buff or draft.  With the buff forces the center beam cars went to the outside of the curve, had there been high draft forces the cars would have derailed to the inside of the curve.

[rdamon]

BaltACD

 

 

Euclid

Here it is:

 

Santa Fe Junction, Kansas City, MO.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFLJvpwm52Q

 

 

Long 'light' cars with a high center of gravity can't negotiate a high degree of curvature when being handled with high in train forces - buff or draft.  With the buff forces the center beam cars went to the outside of the curve, had there been high draft forces the cars would have derailed to the inside of the curve.

 

Is that the opposite of String-Lining?  Is there a cool term for that?

[Euclid]

BaltACD

 

 

Euclid

Here it is:

 

Santa Fe Junction, Kansas City, MO.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFLJvpwm52Q

 

 

Long 'light' cars with a high center of gravity can't negotiate a high degree of curvature when being handled with high in train forces - buff or draft.  With the buff forces the center beam cars went to the outside of the curve, had there been high draft forces the cars would have derailed to the inside of the curve.

 

I just mentioned it because Overmod had asked about how to find it.  But, yes, it does show the same dynamics of the Springfield, OH derailment a month or so ago.  In this Santa Fe Juction derailment, the high buff force pushes the centerbeam cars to the outside of the curve.  As the outer wheels have their flanges come up aginst the outside rail, the flanges take that load without climbing the rail head.  But the outward force of the buff reaction pushes so hard that it begins to tip the cars over as their flanges come up against the hard stop of the rail.  Then as the cars tip, their flanges are lifted up with the pivot of the tipping.  As they lift high enough, the flanges finally lose their grip on the railhead, and the cars slide off of the track.  

[Euclid]

rdamon

 

 

BaltACD

 

 

Euclid

Here it is:

 

Santa Fe Junction, Kansas City, MO.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFLJvpwm52Q

 

 

Long 'light' cars with a high center of gravity can't negotiate a high degree of curvature when being handled with high in train forces - buff or draft.  With the buff forces the center beam cars went to the outside of the curve, had there been high draft forces the cars would have derailed to the inside of the curve.

 

 

 

 

Is that the opposite of String-Lining?  Is there a cool term for that?

 

The term for cars being pushed off the track to the outside of curves from high buff force is:  buckling, jacknifing, or accordian.  It is the opposite of stringlining.  

[Gramp]

blue streak 1

More than 70 cars derailed into an oil tank.  Fire departments pulled out .  Unknown haz mat .  Mabe some vinal chloride ?  evacuation zone  and stay inside orders.

Train derailment, fire, evacuation in East Palestine - WFMJ.com 

 

NS reports it's taking a $387 million charge in the first quarter because of the derailment.