Wont make news since no haz hat involved. This afternoon @ Mayfield, KS., 18 cars in the ditch, mostly autos in a 8900 ft, 14000 ton non-DP slingshot KCKBEL. Both MT blocked.Two separate blocks of auto racks within--one for Albuquerque and the other Phoenix. Not sure of which block decided to take the side trip. Estimated opening around noonish M1, 3:00 M2 tomorrow
blue streak 1Can someone verify this. Doesn FEC have a wild at JAX that it uses to keep flat wheel interchange cars coming from NS and CSX? Vaguley remember FEC would reject a whole train if a flat wheel detected? Does FEC have other WILDs? Would expect it might especially on the new Brightline section. It would be interesting to know FEC's damaged rail rate compared to other RRs.
FEC's interchange traffic with CSX & NS is nominally 'lightweight' traffic - auto racks and intermodal.
Rail damaging impacts are generated by cars loaded to the maximum of 286K pounds wherein the flat spots create a 'bigger hammer'.
During the time Jacksonville and interchange to/from FEC was a part of my territory I never heard of FEC rejecting interchange on account of flat spots.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Can someone verify this. Doesn FEC have a wild at JAX that it uses to keep flat wheel interchange cars coming from NS and CSX? Vaguley remember FEC would reject a whole train if a flat wheel detected? Does FEC have other WILDs? Would expect it might especially on the new Brightline section. It would be interesting to know FEC's damaged rail rate compared to other RRs.
Does FEC do more wheel & brake maintenance on its many cars that never stray off FEC?.
charlie hebdo I agree with you both. Along the UP main near me, freight wheels sound louder, often with what sounds like wheels out of true. Engines often sound like they need work.
I agree with you both. Along the UP main near me, freight wheels sound louder, often with what sounds like wheels out of true. Engines often sound like they need work.
Can you elaborate on this? Especially the "Engines often sound like they need work."?
BaltACD FRA stepping up enforcement for WILD Detectors https://www.railwayage.com/safety/fra-high-impact-wheels-causing-damage-to-rails-track-structures/
FRA stepping up enforcement for WILD Detectors
https://www.railwayage.com/safety/fra-high-impact-wheels-causing-damage-to-rails-track-structures/
Last I heard - and I'm open to correction - FRA doesn't have anything to enforce when it comes to WILDs. FRA has standards that say, for instance, what the maximum allowable flat spot is on a wheel tread, but nothing on allowable WILD readings. AAR interchange rules define when a handling carrier is allowed to replace a wheel at the car owner's expense based on WILD readings, but it's up to railroads where to install WILDs and what to do with the data.
Instead, the FRA is "advising" (suggesting) that railroads install WILDs and condemn wheels when allowed by the interchange rules. This is basically a rehash of what they advised in 2015 - over a decade after the industry had developed and deployed the technology. The real point is to publicize what happened in the case of this one derailment and exhort people to do better.
Generally railroads are motivated to do be as strict as the interchange rules allow, because high-impact wheels have an outsized influence on the life of track components. So rather than allow them to run around damaging the track, why not change them out (usually at someone else's expense)? In this case, for whatever reason, that didn't happen, and it got so bad that the wheel impact actually managed to break a joint bar and cause a derailment.
Dan
Two of the Divisions of CSX that I worked on had WILD detectors. The Atlanta Division had a WILD detector near Cartersville, GA. The Baltimore Division had a WILD at Sleepy Creek, WV near Martinsburg.
Whenever I was informed of a WILD activation on the one at Cartersville, no matter if the cars were level 3 or level 4 they were set out at Cartersville rather than being allowed to continue on to Atlanta and effectively shut that terminal down in trying to set out cars.
The WILD's measure and report their findings to each cars record on the Car & Train Data Base. The cars are identified by RFID tags on the cars, the same tags that are used to check trains into and out of terminals. At the time I was working there were Four levels that were reported to the data base. Level 1 is not a very limited level of impact. Level 2 was measurable but not sufficient to cause damage. Level 3 were to be changed out at destination and continue to destination at no more than 30 MPH. Level 4 were to be set out at the first available opportunity and not exceed 10 MPH between the inspection location and the set out location.
When WILD activation happened at Sleepy Creek, the level 4 cars would be set off in the Frog Hollow Industrial Track, where the Car Department's "Over the Road" truck would come out an rewheel the offending car(s). The level 3 cars would continue to Baltimore where after being made empty they would to to the Curtis Bay Car Shop to have the offending wheel sets changed out.
The WILD's on CSX were set up to cover the movements of loaded coal trains, as coal cars would be loaded to the maximum 286K pound load limit, making a flat spot into a 36K hammer against the rail with every revolution of the wheel set. Atlanta was not a destination for coal trains, just a crew change location and not configured to be able to set cars out in the middle of trains without totally tying up the terminal.
I have no idea what use other railroads are making of WILD's.
Some cars are worse than others - probably because some cars are more likely than others to get moved with a brake set.
Which sounds like a management problem to me - ie, yard/industry workers aren't diligent in making sure all brakes are released. I wouldn't be surprised to find that some facilities generate more flat wheels than others.
I've heard trains pass where all you could hear with the normal "singing" of the wheel/rail interface. Auto racks are usually in that class.
OTOH, I've heard trains that sounded like the percussion section of a heavy metal band - banging along merrily.
I've been told that the rule of thumb is that if you can hear the banging from seven cars away, the wheels need attention.
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 But more recently (in fact, this only reached my conscious recognition only a few weeks ago) trains on the railroads near me are beginning to sound louder again, in some of the same old ways...
But more recently (in fact, this only reached my conscious recognition only a few weeks ago) trains on the railroads near me are beginning to sound louder again, in some of the same old ways...
If your nearby railroads are tring to save money by reducing maintenance, methinks they will be in for rude awakening (but note the emphasis on"if"). This would be in line with the attitudes of many of the hedge funds, i.e. maximize profits today and sell out before the problems of deferred maintenance come home to roost. (Again, remember the emphasis on "if" and it is not my intent to say OM is imagning what he hears).
I remember RWM's comments about the Australian practice of intensive maintenance wof wheel and rail profiles resulting in very quiet trains along with significantly extended rail life that more than paid for the intensive maintenance.
azrail I wonder if the cause is increasingly defective bearings, made in a certain Asian country (even though they have the SKF label on them).
I wonder if the cause is increasingly defective bearings, made in a certain Asian country (even though they have the SKF label on them).
While there are ample precedents, some well-founded, for China-bashing, I see no immediate need to extend it to railroad roller bearings. Instead, let's look at the response we might have if some AP bearings might indeed be 'unexpectedly substandard' -- a response that might already be becoming necessary in the slightly different context, but very different 'country quality implications', of certain wheelsets on certain Canadian-built railroad cars.
The immediate approach would be to impose an aerospace-type tracking system on 'crucial safety components' -- something the post-Lee UP steam heritage organization, with its QC-oriented vice president, has more or less successfully implemented in recent years. If a firm and easily-traced audit trail right back to the heat and chemistry information for roller and race material is available, we can more readily assure that a particular bearing is predictably free from unanticipated catastrophic disassembly... with the associated costs passed along to the supply chain and thence the Wall-Street-dominated PSR cliques as appropriate. Backshop and his brother might have distinctive competence in determining exactly what should be required and how it should be imposed and if necessary enforced.
Something else that might be involved here is accelerated addressing of track-quality issues, wheel flatting detection and repair, etc. in this brave new world of derailment protection that we are being thrust into. I have noticed over time that the sound of the freight trains of my youth were being reduced, not just by systematic grinding and better geometry maintenance but by organized attention to wheel profile, to the point that loaded coal and stack trains of very high axle loading moved nearly silently. But more recently (in fact, this only reached my conscious recognition only a few weeks ago) trains on the railroads near me are beginning to sound louder again, in some of the same old ways...
I wonder if the cause is increasingly defective bearings, made in a certain Asian country (even though they have the SKF label on them). This from personal experience with replacing disinegrated bearings on lawn equipment.
tree68 Erie Limited What makes a derailment reportable and when would it not be reportable? $11,500 https://railroads.dot.gov/safety-data/forms-guides-publications/guides/monetary-threshold-notice#:~:text=The%20threshold%20remains%20%2411%2C300%20through%20December%2031%2C%202022.&text=Senya%20Waas%2C%20Trial%20Attorney%20%E2%80%93%20Office,(202)%20875%2D4158.
Erie Limited What makes a derailment reportable and when would it not be reportable?
$11,500
https://railroads.dot.gov/safety-data/forms-guides-publications/guides/monetary-threshold-notice#:~:text=The%20threshold%20remains%20%2411%2C300%20through%20December%2031%2C%202022.&text=Senya%20Waas%2C%20Trial%20Attorney%20%E2%80%93%20Office,(202)%20875%2D4158.
While that is the figure - those the show up to 'estimate' the damages have a number of ways to manipulate the numbers to, in many cases, keep under that number. Those normally involved in the damage estimates are the Car Department for equipment damage, MofW for track damage, Signals for damage to signal equipment. Operations management places a hand in the calculation of the sums.
Erie LimitedWhat makes a derailment reportable and when would it not be reportable?
OvermodI am becoming more and more suspicious that the 'professional consensus' that flat wheels or high track-induced shock forces don't damage AP bearings is mistaken, and perhaps in cases abject BS.
What is the basis of the consensus that you refer to? I have never heard about it. But, in the wake of this East Palestine bearing failure, I have encountered references that do say bearing life is degraded by rail and track-induced impacts that transfer to the bearings.
Overmod In my opinion, it makes little sense to have 'only one type' of detector at some locations -- there should be a 'standardized' installation with thermal-imaging, WILD, and acoustic detectors, and as quickly as possible each location should be 'upgraded' to this capability. This should also simplify the necessary tracking of information between locations. I am becoming more and more suspicious that the 'professional consensus' that flat wheels or high track-induced shock forces don't damage AP bearings is mistaken, and perhaps in cases abject BS.
In my opinion, it makes little sense to have 'only one type' of detector at some locations -- there should be a 'standardized' installation with thermal-imaging, WILD, and acoustic detectors, and as quickly as possible each location should be 'upgraded' to this capability. This should also simplify the necessary tracking of information between locations.
I am becoming more and more suspicious that the 'professional consensus' that flat wheels or high track-induced shock forces don't damage AP bearings is mistaken, and perhaps in cases abject BS.
And some sort of video capability. Visual evidence almost always helps to put sensor data into perspective. It most definitely would have led to a different outcome at East Palestine.
ChuckCobleigh jeffhergert They have the capability to change out wheelsets on the main track. I've seen it done a few times myself. There wheel trucks are fully equipped for this. If I recall, there is a wheel truck full time at North Platte and I recall some time in the past watching one work on the North Platte webcam. They've got it down pretty pat, at least in the yard.
jeffhergert They have the capability to change out wheelsets on the main track. I've seen it done a few times myself. There wheel trucks are fully equipped for this.
If I recall, there is a wheel truck full time at North Platte and I recall some time in the past watching one work on the North Platte webcam. They've got it down pretty pat, at least in the yard.
If you have the proper equipment, a freight car wheel change out is a simple undertaking. The key is having the proper equipment.
Please pause a moment for a very basic question. I see references to "reportable" derailments. But nowhere have I seen a definition of reportable. What makes a derailment reportable and when would it not be reportable?
jeffhergertThey have the capability to change out wheelsets on the main track. I've seen it done a few times myself. There wheel trucks are fully equipped for this.
Overmod BaltACD That is the thing that has amazed me about Defect Detector locations - in many cases the only available setout location is 20 or 30 miles from the detector. This is a key point about reducing detector spacing to 10 miles that is missing from the proposed legislation. In my opinion there would NEED to be language in there that discusses how railroads respond to a trending alert, or a detected catastrophic degradation. There are going to be many places where road access is difficult. How will that be accommodated? "Superconductor" response in trucks with buckshots and 12" lift? You might be able to get a new cohort of highly-motivated new employees if you let them drive those 'work trucks' home, or go mudding on time off... On the other hand, you'd need jacks, a crane, and the ability to handle at least an 'emergency temporary' wheelset or more likely dolly to move the car. That might require a heavier chassis and running gear... hmmmm, perhaps with treads suitable for running over track structure? Safety didn't end with a penalty-brake application, and it doesn't end when you fix issues with defect detection.
BaltACD That is the thing that has amazed me about Defect Detector locations - in many cases the only available setout location is 20 or 30 miles from the detector.
This is a key point about reducing detector spacing to 10 miles that is missing from the proposed legislation. In my opinion there would NEED to be language in there that discusses how railroads respond to a trending alert, or a detected catastrophic degradation.
There are going to be many places where road access is difficult. How will that be accommodated? "Superconductor" response in trucks with buckshots and 12" lift? You might be able to get a new cohort of highly-motivated new employees if you let them drive those 'work trucks' home, or go mudding on time off...
On the other hand, you'd need jacks, a crane, and the ability to handle at least an 'emergency temporary' wheelset or more likely dolly to move the car. That might require a heavier chassis and running gear... hmmmm, perhaps with treads suitable for running over track structure?
Safety didn't end with a penalty-brake application, and it doesn't end when you fix issues with defect detection.
They have the capability to change out wheelsets on the main track. I've seen it done a few times myself. There wheel trucks are fully equipped for this.
There will of course be problem areas where a vehicle can't get to easily. Or a nearby road crossing to pull the car up, if it can even be moved. In those cases, the rest of the train would have to be moved and allow the wheel truck to hy-rail in. Even that will be a big pain in some locations.
PTC has brought about the demise of some of our old set out tracks. This is because of the cost to "wire in" the hand throw switches into the PTC system. Cheaper and easier to clamp the switch and straight rail the frog.
Jeff
After doing some reading, instead of more heat detecting type detectors they need to mandate more of the acoustic bearing detectors, which have been mentioned previously on the forums.
From what I read, they wouldn't need to have them every 10 to 30 miles. They seem to catch a bearing in the early stages of failure, before heat starts to build. Of course there would have to also be a mandate to replace the wheelset when an acoustic detector finds something, not "It's OK for another 500 miles." type thinking.
I would also say that the acoustic detector should be used in conjunction with regular detectors.
BaltACDThat is the thing that has amazed me about Defect Detector locations - in many cases the only available setout location is 20 or 30 miles from the detector.
jeffhergert... I've read some of our recrew reports and noted on some with detector alamrs that the bearing was found to be leaking grease. They were then instructed to move it at 5 or 10 mph (depending on mechancial dept inspection) to the next available set out point. Sometimes they will have the wheel truck come out and change out the wheel set. (Especially when the next set out point is 15 or 20 miles away.) Jeff
I've read some of our recrew reports and noted on some with detector alamrs that the bearing was found to be leaking grease. They were then instructed to move it at 5 or 10 mph (depending on mechancial dept inspection) to the next available set out point. Sometimes they will have the wheel truck come out and change out the wheel set. (Especially when the next set out point is 15 or 20 miles away.)
That is the thing that has amazed me about Defect Detector locations - in many cases the only available set out location is 20 or 30 miles from the detector.
The carriers (at least CSX) pull up an industrial spur switch as soon as the industry stops getting rail traffic with no concern if that spur may have an emergency benefit to the operation.
That bearings have burned off within a few miles of passing a detector is not new. I know of a few that have happened on my territory.
In those cases, I would wager that the bearing was already failing before the last detector, but other factors may have decieved the detector as to heat build up. As I've said before, it's possible to fool a detector. I think that might be part of the reason we, and others, have a "hot bearing" desk to review detector data that is questionable, even though it doesn't set off the crew warning alarm.
Instead of more detectors, maybe there threshold, whether determined by the detector itself or by a human at some central point alterted that heat is building, needs to be more uniform and maybe lowered to issue a stop and inspect alarm.
charlie hebdoAu contraire, Meister.
More of the minimizing the underlying structural problem, i.e., "the big picture." The series of accidents on various railroads, some catastrophic, others less so, suggests that there is something terribly wrong with the way rails are being run. There is simply too much weight placed in maximizing profits, whether by PSR or some other form of cost (corner) cutting, and insufficient emphasis on service and safety.
My chief concern at this point is to ensure that the 'right' steps toward safety can be taken, both in the long and short run, since (whether or not the fix is in regarding legislation) this is a golden opportunity to hold the PSR-ridden industry's feet to the fire regarding specific safety issues regarding rolling-element bearings.
I think we will get a mandate for 10-mile spacing of detector stations, and ideally this will involve at least 'new' installations getting a sensor-fused suite of detection and not just dumb heat detection -- an AAR-standard sensor-fused detector standard is something that I think ought to be developed, with the specific intent of allowing different equipment manufacturers to develop easily-installed and readily-maintained kits and installation means. And yes, I think government needs to provide some assistance in making this important safety concern 'happen'... but something other than threats, unfunded mandates, and general mocking of various capitalist tools.
There is going to be a bridge to continuous onboard monitoring, and in my opinion that's going to come via a somewhat unexpected mandate. To make onboard monitoring work at all, there has to be a reliable voltage source along with fairly high-data-rate communications on the car. Now, remember that the Canadians mandated those automatic handbrake replacements? Those are going to be electric, and are going to require data exchange to work correctly... and one ideal thing to power them is the already-well-documented trainline part of ECP, the nominal 220V trainline with hardened connectors. If the design of the power parking brakes is done correctly, a great deal of the onboard instrumentation needed for continuous bearing and geometry tracking becomes very inexpensive and amenable to standardized/OTS components.
Then when we take up the issue of 'correct' ECP conversion via kits, in a few years, much of the necessary infrastructure investment will have been made 'by other means', and costed-down, and the necessary experience for redesign and 'midcourse correction' of design and development can be done effectively rather than the typical behind-the-curve reactionary dealing with unfunded mandates. One potential claim is that ECP service promises to make wheel skidding and flatting a much less likely concern, so if the literature that dismisses flat wheels and shock as a cause of bearing damage turns out to be poor science, there might be an actual science-based logic for implementing it over time.
I suspect that more proactive management of bearing integrity can actually be done within a PSR framework, if certain optimizations of test and inspection equipment can be worked out (probably via contract management like Hulcher). That would involve more frequent changeout of truck wheelsets, followed by testing and inspection of the bearings, NDT of the axles and wheel plates, etc. and reconditioning of the treads, followed by reinstallation.
BaltACD zugmann Even if they make 4 runs a day - that's only 68 miles a day loaded. That doesn't seem like a lot. I know coal train sets go from Pittsburgh area to Consol, get unloaded usually within 24 hours, then head back, and return in a day or 2. They probably go a couple hundred miles a day, average. Day after day the mileage ads up. At a 300 mile one way trip, interchange cars would be loaded for 600 miles in the month based on two round trips per month. 68 loaded miles per day is 680 miles each 10 days or 2040 miles on a extrapolated 30 day period. I might add that the Consol operation at Baltimore, both NS and CSX are delivering carriers - in many cases Consol trains may wait a day or more for a track slot at the Consol facility.
zugmann Even if they make 4 runs a day - that's only 68 miles a day loaded. That doesn't seem like a lot. I know coal train sets go from Pittsburgh area to Consol, get unloaded usually within 24 hours, then head back, and return in a day or 2. They probably go a couple hundred miles a day, average.
That doesn't seem like a lot. I know coal train sets go from Pittsburgh area to Consol, get unloaded usually within 24 hours, then head back, and return in a day or 2. They probably go a couple hundred miles a day, average.
Day after day the mileage ads up. At a 300 mile one way trip, interchange cars would be loaded for 600 miles in the month based on two round trips per month.
68 loaded miles per day is 680 miles each 10 days or 2040 miles on a extrapolated 30 day period.
I might add that the Consol operation at Baltimore, both NS and CSX are delivering carriers - in many cases Consol trains may wait a day or more for a track slot at the Consol facility.
Doesn't really matter if a car goes 10 miles a day or 1,000 miles a day, if a bearing can go from "fine" to derailing the car in 6.5 miles, it can do that in either case and is a problem.
BaltACDI might add that the Consol operation at Baltimore, both NS and CSX are delivering carriers - in many cases Consol trains may wait a day or more for a track slot at the Consol facility.
Not unless they are shut down. They're pretty consistent at unloading within a day. Now they're running double sets there.
And 2 round trips a month? I'm just looking at Pitts to Consol, but some of these trainsets make that in a week, easy.
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.