243129 Euclid SD70Dude The Independent brake can be used at any time, regardless of how long a train is attached to the locomotive and whether or not the air is cut in to the cars, but applying it will cause the slack to run in, which at minimum gives a bit of a rough ride to passengers & crew and at worst can cause a train separation when the slack runs back out. So, as you say, there are drawbacks to using the independet brake to control a train. Is there any reason why the inependent brake might have been preferred in this case if the purpose of braking was just to reduce speed from 81 to 79 mph? Would this have reduced the 2 mph quicker than a service application? If so, would there be a reason to reduce by 2 mph by the quickest means possible? If so, what would that reason be? Might the reason for making the speed reduction as quickly as possible be to avoid an automatic penalty brake application by the system that generates the overspeed warning? Would such a penalty application follow the overspeed warning if action to reduce speed were not taken within a certain period of time? As I have stated previously use of the independent brake to reduce speed, no matter the increment, on a 'live' passenger train is indicative of poor train handling and lack of or poor training.
Euclid SD70Dude The Independent brake can be used at any time, regardless of how long a train is attached to the locomotive and whether or not the air is cut in to the cars, but applying it will cause the slack to run in, which at minimum gives a bit of a rough ride to passengers & crew and at worst can cause a train separation when the slack runs back out. So, as you say, there are drawbacks to using the independet brake to control a train. Is there any reason why the inependent brake might have been preferred in this case if the purpose of braking was just to reduce speed from 81 to 79 mph? Would this have reduced the 2 mph quicker than a service application? If so, would there be a reason to reduce by 2 mph by the quickest means possible? If so, what would that reason be? Might the reason for making the speed reduction as quickly as possible be to avoid an automatic penalty brake application by the system that generates the overspeed warning? Would such a penalty application follow the overspeed warning if action to reduce speed were not taken within a certain period of time?
SD70Dude The Independent brake can be used at any time, regardless of how long a train is attached to the locomotive and whether or not the air is cut in to the cars, but applying it will cause the slack to run in, which at minimum gives a bit of a rough ride to passengers & crew and at worst can cause a train separation when the slack runs back out.
So, as you say, there are drawbacks to using the independet brake to control a train. Is there any reason why the inependent brake might have been preferred in this case if the purpose of braking was just to reduce speed from 81 to 79 mph? Would this have reduced the 2 mph quicker than a service application? If so, would there be a reason to reduce by 2 mph by the quickest means possible? If so, what would that reason be?
Might the reason for making the speed reduction as quickly as possible be to avoid an automatic penalty brake application by the system that generates the overspeed warning? Would such a penalty application follow the overspeed warning if action to reduce speed were not taken within a certain period of time?
As I have stated previously use of the independent brake to reduce speed, no matter the increment, on a 'live' passenger train is indicative of poor train handling and lack of or poor training.
I agree with this, if the Engineer desires to reduce train speed while keeping the Automatic brake released it would be better to go into Dynamic braking. Most railroads have rules restricting the use of the Independent, as an example CN does not allow its use above 15 mph.
On a short passenger train a Automatic application will set quite quickly. Applying enough Independent to reduce speed right away would be akin to stomping on the brake pedal in your car, and even with the Talgo's articulated design would throw passengers around.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
BaltACDYou are not up to speed on the forum and some of it's history. The referend to 'Bucky' is a reference to one that was originally known as Bucyrus, that poster somehow got his identity locked and resurfaced at Euclid. I suspect once the Euclid ID gets locked he may return at Terex or some other manufacturer of earth moving equipment.
Balt is spot on. My post was not intended to be a personal attack on Euclid. I, and others, have, for years, without success, been asking him to show us his qualifications but all such requests have been quickly dispatched to his 'round file'.
I hold hope that some day "Bucky" will provide some, however slight, information about his qualifications. In the mean, I admit to knowing what litte only what my track foreman and signal maintainer friends have taught me.
Norm
Thanks, Dude, Volker, 243129 and Deggesty for the excellent explanations.
And, yes, I understand how dynamic brakes work, and that that’s in addition to everything else (if the engine is so equipped).
Much obliged, gents.
Still in training.
Deggesty Incidentally, I had understood that the engine brake was bailed off by a movement of the train brake handle, not by moving the independent brake control. Jeff, Larry?
Incidentally, I had understood that the engine brake was bailed off by a movement of the train brake handle, not by moving the independent brake control. Jeff, Larry?
Independent brake pressure is 'bailed off' by pushing down on the independent brake handle in the release position not by the "train brake handle".
For clarification: The term 'bail off the independent' means the brakes on the engine are released while the train brakes remain applied.
SD70DudeThe Independent brake can be used at any time, regardless of how long a train is attached to the locomotive and whether or not the air is cut in to the cars, but applying it will cause the slack to run in, which at minimum gives a bit of a rough ride to passengers & crew and at worst can cause a train separation when the slack runs back out.
A further note concerning the independent brake: it works with "straight air;" that is, it works, not by reducing the pressure in the trainline as the train brake does, but by applying pressure in the engine brake line. This is why the engine brake in the Megantic incident failed--when the pressure in the air system fell after the engine was shut off, the brake was no longer on.
Johnny
SD70DudeThe Independent brake can be used at any time, regardless of how long a train is attached to the locomotive and whether or not the air is cut in to the cars, but applying it will cause the slack to run in, which at minimum gives a bit of a rough ride to passengers & crew and at worst can cause a train separation when the slack runs back out. Proper care must be taken to avoid this.
One remark here, we don't discuss a standard American or European passenger train. The train in question is Talgo articulated train where the single cars are permanently coupled.
Each car has only one wheelset at one end. The other end rest on the wheelset of the next car. The independently suspended wheels are steerable. That is achived by rod connections to the adjacent cars. There is not much slack that can run in or out: http://web.talgoamerica.com/images/Techadv/TalgoTechnologicalPrinciplesBrochure_sized_opt.pdf
So perhaps the train handling can differ from that of a "standard" train.Regards, Volker
Edit: Here is the patent for Talgo's steerable wheels: http://www.google.com/patents/EP1323610A1?cl=en
LithoniaOperator Could someone explain this? Is the “independent brake” one that effects only the engine? If so, what is that brake’s primary normal purpose? Is it for light engine moves, and also for switching purposes when the train air lines are not connected to the engine? Is the independent brake also an air brake? I was not aware there was more than one system. (excluding hand brakes, of course)
Could someone explain this?
Is the “independent brake” one that effects only the engine? If so, what is that brake’s primary normal purpose? Is it for light engine moves, and also for switching purposes when the train air lines are not connected to the engine? Is the independent brake also an air brake?
I was not aware there was more than one system. (excluding hand brakes, of course)
The Independent brake controls the air brakes on the locomotives. The Automatic brake controls the brakes on the entire train (locomotives and cars), but the two control handles can be manipulated to set the air brakes on the cars while keeping the locomotive air brakes released, this is a far more common practice than allowing the Automatic to apply the locomotive air brakes as well, at least on freight trains.
The Independent brake can be used at any time, regardless of how long a train is attached to the locomotive and whether or not the air is cut in to the cars, but applying it will cause the slack to run in, which at minimum gives a bit of a rough ride to passengers & crew and at worst can cause a train separation when the slack runs back out. Proper care must be taken to avoid this.
If the Engineer desires to apply the brakes on the train but keep the locomotive brakes released, he moves the Automatic brake handle to the desired application position while also pressing down on the Independent brake handle. This is commonly referred to as "bailing off".
The Independent is not to be confused with Dynamic braking, where polarity is reversed to turn the traction motors into generators, which resist the movement of the train by generating electicity, which is then dissipated as heat through a bank of air-cooled resistor grids. Regenerative braking on electric locomotives works the same way, only the current is returned to the overhead wires instead of being wasted.
EuclidNot true. Nothing got locked (except for a popular thread that some people could not handle).
Well, since the real story will never be told, we can just make up our own.
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
BaltACDthat poster somehow got his identity locked
Not true. Nothing got locked (except for a popular thread that some people could not handle).
7j43k Norm's apparently addressing someone called/nicknamed Bucky. I'm guessing he's referring to someone who is either rich (big BUCKS) or a deer hunter (BUCK = deer). Perhaps both. I'm sadly neither. Especially the first one. As far as the sadness is, anyway. So, guys. Fess up if you're either rich. Or a deer hunter. Ed
Norm's apparently addressing someone called/nicknamed Bucky.
I'm guessing he's referring to someone who is either rich (big BUCKS) or a deer hunter (BUCK = deer). Perhaps both.
I'm sadly neither. Especially the first one. As far as the sadness is, anyway.
So, guys. Fess up if you're either rich. Or a deer hunter.
Ed
You are not up to speed on the forum and some of it's history. The referend to 'Bucky' is a reference to one that was originally known as Bucyrus, that poster somehow got his identity locked and resurfaced at Euclid. I suspect once the Euclid ID gets locked he may return at Terex or some other manufacturer of earth moving equipment.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
243129 Euclid 243129 The overspeed on the locomotive was set at 79mph and here the engineer displayed his lack of experience and poor training in an effort to reduce speed to 79 mph. That was my initial interpretation. But that was based on my belief that he was responding to the overspeed warning of exceeding 79 mph and unaware of the impending 30 mph limit for the curve. However, I now see that he applied the independent as they were into the curve and about to derail because they were 48 mph over the speed limit. So given that circumstance, why would he be making an effort to reduce speed by only 2-3 mph to get down to 79 mph? He was responding to the overspeed warning. At that time he had no idea he was in to the curve and about to crash or he would have made an emergency application.
Euclid 243129 The overspeed on the locomotive was set at 79mph and here the engineer displayed his lack of experience and poor training in an effort to reduce speed to 79 mph. That was my initial interpretation. But that was based on my belief that he was responding to the overspeed warning of exceeding 79 mph and unaware of the impending 30 mph limit for the curve. However, I now see that he applied the independent as they were into the curve and about to derail because they were 48 mph over the speed limit. So given that circumstance, why would he be making an effort to reduce speed by only 2-3 mph to get down to 79 mph?
243129 The overspeed on the locomotive was set at 79mph and here the engineer displayed his lack of experience and poor training in an effort to reduce speed to 79 mph.
The overspeed on the locomotive was set at 79mph and here the engineer displayed his lack of experience and poor training in an effort to reduce speed to 79 mph.
That was my initial interpretation. But that was based on my belief that he was responding to the overspeed warning of exceeding 79 mph and unaware of the impending 30 mph limit for the curve.
However, I now see that he applied the independent as they were into the curve and about to derail because they were 48 mph over the speed limit.
So given that circumstance, why would he be making an effort to reduce speed by only 2-3 mph to get down to 79 mph?
He was responding to the overspeed warning. At that time he had no idea he was in to the curve and about to crash or he would have made an emergency application.
As I mentioned, what you say above was my intitial understanding. In other words, he was not braking for the curve, but was braking for the overspeed warning. However in looking at the language of the NTSB, it places him in the curve, bracing for the derailment (or "just before" that point) when he made the brake application. I refer to these points by the NTSB:
• The engineer’s actions were consistent with the application of the locomotive’s brakes just before the recording ended. It did not appear the engineer placed the brake handle in emergency-braking mode. • The recording ended as the locomotive was tilting and the crew was bracing for impact.
Considering what I have highlighted in red, and also the fact that there were only 6 seconds for his comment about the overspeed, the independent brake application, and then sudden awareness of the impending derailment as indicated by his bracing for impact; it seems quite possible that he realized the derailment was impending before he made his independent application. If that is the case, then the use of the independent brake makes no sense.
Possibly, these pieces could have all fit together in a way that he made the independent application only intending to slow to 79 mph, and then just a second or two later, he realized he needed to slow to 30 mph; but he just froze instead of going into emergency.
Jackflash I suspect that when its stated "he applied the indenpendent brake" really what he did was make a minimun reduction with the automatic brake, to bring the train down a few MPH.
I suspect that when its stated "he applied the indenpendent brake" really what he did was make a minimun reduction with the automatic brake, to bring the train down a few MPH.
That would be the proper procedure but whether he did or not is almost inconsequential given the end result.
Bucky,
I think you are twisting thigngs to fit your agenda. The rest of us are awaiting factual information while you continue to push your opinion (and I belive yor comments have no more value other than an opioninated responce you are pushing your opininon on others. Who at at Kalmbach gives you permisson to be lord and master over the foum?
If necessary I will stop posting on the forum.
Many are tired of your incessant BS.
Man up. Showus the experience you claim you have .
Put up or shut up,
He was responding to the overspeed warning. At that time he had no idea he was in to the curve and about to crash or he would have made an emergency application. He was blissfully clueless. He never made the emergency application because he was being thrown about the cab. Like I said blissfully clueless.
The overspeed on the locomotive was set at 79mph and here the engineer displayed his lack of experience and poor training in an effort to reduce speed to 79 mph. YOU DO NOT, I repeat, YOU DO NOT apply the independent brake only on a live passenger train. That is(should be) verboten!
The released information raises a few new questions in my mind as follows. Maybe others can provide the answers:
When the recording ended as the locomotive was tilting and crew was bracing for impact; had the locomotive derailed yet? If not, then why would the recording end at that point? Does that just mean that the time frame of the part of the recording under discussion by the NTSB ends at that point -or- does it mean that the automatic recording action ends for some reason attributable to the automatic recording system? Unless the camera was sufficiently damaged, why would the automatic recording end? Why would it not continue to record video until after the locomotive had derailed, slid down the hill, and stopped on the highway?
Has there been any other reported news that further explains what is meant by the statement, “the engineer made a comment regarding an over speed condition”? How do we know what the NTSB means by “over speed condition”? Why don’t then tell us what the comment was?
Since the engineer made an application of the independent brake “just before the recording ended,” that means he made that application just as they were bracing for impact. Wherever they were at that point, we know they had already derailed or were about to. Since they were bracing for impact, it was obvious to the engineer that if they had not yet derailed, he knew they were about to. So he knew he had a much bigger problem than just exceeding the 79 mph limit by a couple mph.
Therefore, considering that the engineer realized that he was in a sharp curve, exceeding the proper speed, and about to either tip over or jump the rails; and if he had the presence mind to apply the brakes which is the only thing that can possible help as the disaster is about to unfold; then why would he only apply the weakest brake application—an independent brake application—rather than apply the strongest brake application—The emergency application?
243129What has been released so far.
There is additionally already linked the Preliminary Report of 01-04-2018:https://ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RRD18MR001-prelim.pdfRegards, Volker
7j43kWe are here to discuss the wreck. Sometimes by advancing facts. Sometime theories. Sometimes opinions. ABOUT THE WRECK AND RELATED MATTERS.
That's nice.
What has been released so far.
NTSB conducts initial review of Amtrak 501 derailment (Source: National Transportation Safety Board press release, December 22, 2017) WASHINGTON, D.C. — The National Transportation Safety Board released Friday details gathered from the locomotive event data recorder and inward- and outward-facing cameras on Amtrak Cascades passenger train 501 that derailed Monday in DuPont, Washington. The lead locomotive’s event data and video recorders were successfully downloaded with the manufacturer’s assistance and processed in the NTSB’s lab in Washington, D.C. An initial review of the final portion of the accident sequence revealed the following information, which is preliminary and subject to change as the investigation continues: • Inward-facing video with audio captured the crew’s actions and their conversations. A forward-facing video with audio captured conditions in front of the locomotive as well as external sounds. • The crew was not observed to use any personal electronic devices during the timeframe reviewed. • About six seconds prior to the derailment, the engineer made a comment regarding an over speed condition. • The engineer’s actions were consistent with the application of the locomotive’s brakes just before the recording ended. It did not appear the engineer placed the brake handle in emergency-braking mode. • The recording ended as the locomotive was tilting and the crew was bracing for impact. • The final recorded speed of the locomotive was 78 mph. A preliminary report detailing the facts and circumstances of the crash developed in this early stage of the investigation will be available on the NTSB website in the coming days. The entire investigation is expected to last 12-24 months. All media inquiries related to this accident investigation should be directed to NTSB Media Relations at 202-314-6100.
zugmann Euclid Yes the evolving NTSB has acquired all those trappings plus an annoyingly patronizing attitude. When the answer to every press question is “it’s way too early to tell,” it is time to get someone in there that can do the job without all the excuses. Hi pot, meet kettle. You already have your own conclusions - so why do you care what the NTSB does? I'm sure you'll think they are wrong no matter what. Pretty much your thing.
Euclid Yes the evolving NTSB has acquired all those trappings plus an annoyingly patronizing attitude. When the answer to every press question is “it’s way too early to tell,” it is time to get someone in there that can do the job without all the excuses.
Hi pot, meet kettle.
You already have your own conclusions - so why do you care what the NTSB does? I'm sure you'll think they are wrong no matter what. Pretty much your thing.
I'm getting that you don't like "Euclid". That happens. And I suppose you could even inform him of that by PM.
But, aside from name calling, you aren't SAYING anything. Except asserting he's wrong.
We are here to discuss the wreck. Sometimes by advancing facts. Sometime theories. Sometimes opinions. ABOUT THE WRECK AND RELATED MATTERS.
So. Please. Talk about those things.
VOLKER LANDWEHR 7j43k "The ICC investigated the Michigan collision, and on or shortly before September 29, 1945, it issued a show cause order to the Great Northern...." Was that the final report?
7j43k "The ICC investigated the Michigan collision, and on or shortly before September 29, 1945, it issued a show cause order to the Great Northern...."
Was that the final report?
The accident investigation report is dated September 20, 1945. So, yes.
Do we know what happens between NTSB and the involved parties during the investigation? I would expect that advices or orders are given when it is urgent. Regards, Volker
Do we know what happens between NTSB and the involved parties during the investigation? I would expect that advices or orders are given when it is urgent.
Regards, Volker
It appears we don't know much about the details of how NTSB conducts an accident investigation. So "what happens" is kind of up in the air.
NTSB (or DOT) may well do advices and orders. I would surely like to hear about some of their recent railroad related ones. We know such things were done in 1945.
VOLKER LANDWEHR 243129 Scroll back 16 posts for further"accusations". Do you mean your post with your two letters? These letters I mean when I say accusations. You may know the hiring and training practices at Amtrak, I don't. I'm not an easy believer. Without additional information it remains an unproofed accusation for me. 243129 Refer to the wrong way trains at Bala Cynwyd and Charlottesville then access the Frankford Junction and Chester PA tragedies and report back as to your conclusion that these are "accusations" and "jumping to conclusions". Does the term 'history' ring a bell? History is not a proof the present. Usualy you have to learn from history. I don't know how far Amtrak implemented the according NTSB recommendations. Without knowing I wouldn't transfer findings of one accident to another one. We do know that the Amtrak 501 was going about 50 mph too fast. We don't know why. Loss of situational awereness seems a reasonable explanation, but why? And I agree that the engineer might have realized that he is faster than 79 mph but still not that he was going into a 30 mph curve. Everything else going farther seems speculation to me. You might be right, but for me the NTSB investigation will have to show.Regards, Volker
243129 Scroll back 16 posts for further"accusations".
Do you mean your post with your two letters? These letters I mean when I say accusations. You may know the hiring and training practices at Amtrak, I don't. I'm not an easy believer. Without additional information it remains an unproofed accusation for me.
243129 Refer to the wrong way trains at Bala Cynwyd and Charlottesville then access the Frankford Junction and Chester PA tragedies and report back as to your conclusion that these are "accusations" and "jumping to conclusions". Does the term 'history' ring a bell?
History is not a proof the present. Usualy you have to learn from history. I don't know how far Amtrak implemented the according NTSB recommendations. Without knowing I wouldn't transfer findings of one accident to another one.
We do know that the Amtrak 501 was going about 50 mph too fast. We don't know why. Loss of situational awereness seems a reasonable explanation, but why?
And I agree that the engineer might have realized that he is faster than 79 mph but still not that he was going into a 30 mph curve.
Everything else going farther seems speculation to me.
You might be right, but for me the NTSB investigation will have to show.Regards, Volker
We are supposed to learn from history. Amtrak has not. I speak from first hand experience, I have worked with the 'results' of Amtrak's training program. Amtrak has relied on veteran employees to fill the voids in their training procedures and not let them 'sink'. We have not let them'sink' but the veteran resource is drying up and the recent debacles reflect that. In my missive I made mention of the right ingredients for a 'perfect storm'. That is now more possible to occur given that there are few if any veterans (pre Amtrak training) left. Sadly my missive was prophetic and unless oversight is instituted for Amtrak's training procedures there will be more disasters.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.