Author Topic: Is 9,000' 18,000 tons to much in mountain grade territory?  (Read 2064 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hawghead

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 791
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +325
Is 9,000' 18,000 tons to much in mountain grade territory?
« on: December 17, 2020, 12:11:08 AM »
+1
I'm gonna go with yeah.



A couple of days ago one of my fellow engineers on the East pool was called for a soda ash train out of Hinkle.  Looking at the BU before he came on duty it showed the train 9,000' long.  When he got to the terminal, his paper work showed the train 4200'.  Thinking out loud, he said to his conductor "I wonder what happened to the rest of the train?"  One of the Lagrande crews overheard him and remarked "They left the rest of it up on the mountain."  Why did they do that my friend asked, at which point the LaGrande conductor showed him this picture.

I have to say that in 17 years of railroading I've seen knuckles break and even whole draw bars pulled out, but I've never seen a car ripped into two pieces.

Scott
There's a prototype for everything.
If you can't make it perfect, make it adjustable.
DCC is not plug-n-play.

Point353

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3351
  • Respect: +778
Re: Is 9,000' 18,000 tons to much in mountain grade territory?
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2020, 12:39:11 AM »
0
Some of the YouTube hobo videos show those characters riding on the end of a covered hopper.
Imagine being onboard when that incident occurred.
 

CRL

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2332
  • Needs More Dirt.
  • Respect: +636
Re: Is 9,000' 18,000 tons to much in mountain grade territory?
« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2020, 12:44:41 AM »
0
There’s your next modeling diorama challenge.

Missaberoad

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3569
  • Gender: Male
  • Ryan in Alberta
  • Respect: +1170
Re: Is 9,000' 18,000 tons to much in mountain grade territory?
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2020, 01:07:10 AM »
0
One of our engineers ripped a hopper in half very similar to that last winter...

Makes you wonder that something must be flawed with the cars construction or materials. You would think you would break a knuckle first...
The Railwire is not your personal army.  :trollface:

peteski

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 32963
  • Gender: Male
  • Honorary Resident Curmudgeon
  • Respect: +5343
    • Coming (not so) soon...
Re: Is 9,000' 18,000 tons to much in mountain grade territory?
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2020, 01:38:21 AM »
0
One of our engineers ripped a hopper in half very similar to that last winter...

Makes you wonder that something must be flawed with the cars construction or materials. You would think you would break a knuckle first...

Maybe internal corrosion weakened the structure?
« Last Edit: December 17, 2020, 02:32:53 AM by peteski »
. . . 42 . . .

nkalanaga

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 9898
  • Respect: +1446
Re: Is 9,000' 18,000 tons to much in mountain grade territory?
« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2020, 02:15:28 AM »
0
If that's one of the ACF Center Flow cars, they didn't have a center sill.  The pulling stress was transferred from the draft gear to the side sills, and it looks like the side sills broke at the bolster, where the stress would probably be greatest.  I have seen a few pictures of those with the ends pulled off.

Isn't this what "Distributed Power", or old-fashioned helpers, are supposed to prevent?
N Kalanaga
Be well

ednadolski

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4815
  • Respect: +1757
Re: Is 9,000' 18,000 tons to much in mountain grade territory?
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2020, 07:55:28 AM »
0
I thought the FRED had some kind of radio telemetry on trainline air pressure or such, which would be lost when the train separated for any reason.

Ed

Mark5

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11036
  • Always with the negative waves Moriarty ...
  • Respect: +608
Re: Is 9,000' 18,000 tons to much in mountain grade territory?
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2020, 08:13:33 AM »
0
Interesting. N&W once ran a 48,584 ton train - the worst thing was a broken knuckle, but these were coal cars. Interesting point on the Center Flow frame.


CRL

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2332
  • Needs More Dirt.
  • Respect: +636
Re: Is 9,000' 18,000 tons to much in mountain grade territory?
« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2020, 09:49:39 AM »
0
Sure, but they still had to drag the remnants back to the yard. They’d have to retrieve the rest of the train from the other direction.

Englewood

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 812
  • Respect: +292
Re: Is 9,000' 18,000 tons to much in mountain grade territory?
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2020, 11:17:39 AM »
0
Precision railroading at it's finest! We seem to have quit running some of the 14,000 foot monsters lately. Maybe someone figured out that they're more trouble than they're worth.

Hawghead

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 791
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +325
Re: Is 9,000' 18,000 tons to much in mountain grade territory?
« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2020, 11:48:56 AM »
+1
Quote
Isn't this what "Distributed Power", or old-fashioned helpers, are supposed to prevent?

These trains come over the mountain with two or three head end units, four or five mid-train dpu's and one or two rear dpu's.  I believe this happened behind the mid-train dpu's.  I'm sure the frame of the car failed and the weight of the train transferred to the car body which is obviously not designed to take it.

Quote
Interesting. N&W once ran a 48,584 ton train - the worst thing was a broken knuckle, but these were coal cars. Interesting point on the Center Flow frame.

The tonnage of the train is not the problem if you have enough power distributed throughout the train to not exceed the strength of the knuckles.  The problem comes, when operating in other than level territory, is controlling the slack, which the longer the train, the more difficult it becomes.

Quote
I thought the FRED had some kind of radio telemetry on trainline air pressure or such, which would be lost when the train separated for any reason.

Trains with a dpu or helper on the rear don't use a FRED.  The FRED provides three functions. 1. To monitor train line air pressure on the rear of the train.  2. Provide a means to place the train in emergency from the rear of the train. 3. Provide a high visibility marker on the end of the train.  A dpu on the rear of the train provides all three capabilities.  Any rapid loss of train line air pressure with result in the train going into emergency even without a FRED equipped.  This is a function of the brake valves on each car.

Scott




There's a prototype for everything.
If you can't make it perfect, make it adjustable.
DCC is not plug-n-play.

Mark5

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11036
  • Always with the negative waves Moriarty ...
  • Respect: +608
Re: Is 9,000' 18,000 tons to much in mountain grade territory?
« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2020, 12:31:28 PM »
0
The tonnage of the train is not the problem if you have enough power distributed throughout the train to not exceed the strength of the knuckles.  The problem comes, when operating in other than level territory, is controlling the slack, which the longer the train, the more difficult it becomes.

Scott

Definitely! The N&W train was in coal country However, the train was mainly running downgrade.  :lol: Slack was about 12 car lengths (per N&W).


C855B

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 10873
  • Respect: +2421
Re: Is 9,000' 18,000 tons to much in mountain grade territory?
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2020, 12:39:55 PM »
0
These trains come over the mountain with two or three head end units, four or five mid-train dpu's and one or two rear dpu's.  I believe this happened behind the mid-train dpu's.  I'm sure the frame of the car failed and the weight of the train transferred to the car body which is obviously not designed to take it.

I'll bet control continuity was lost between the mid-trains and the rear DPUs. In that case the "lost" units go to idle and become so much dead weight to pull. Just because the control is digital now doesn't fix the physics of UHF radio communications in mountainous terrain.
...mike

http://www.gibboncozadandwestern.com

Note: Images linked in my postings are on an HTTP server, not HTTPS. Enable "mixed content" in your browser to view.

There are over 1000 images on this server. Not changing anytime soon.

Lenny53

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2185
  • Respect: +1702
Re: Is 9,000' 18,000 tons to much in mountain grade territory?
« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2020, 01:01:01 PM »
0
I'll bet control continuity was lost between the mid-trains and the rear DPUs. In that case the "lost" units go to idle and become so much dead weight to pull. Just because the control is digital now doesn't fix the physics of UHF radio communications in mountainous terrain.

Are the rear DPUs controlled from a mid-train DPU and not the lead loco?
« Last Edit: December 17, 2020, 03:29:32 PM by Lenny53 »

C855B

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 10873
  • Respect: +2421
Re: Is 9,000' 18,000 tons to much in mountain grade territory?
« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2020, 01:04:32 PM »
0
Are the rear DPUs controll from a mid-train DPU and not the lead loco?

The mid-trains act as a repeater.
...mike

http://www.gibboncozadandwestern.com

Note: Images linked in my postings are on an HTTP server, not HTTPS. Enable "mixed content" in your browser to view.

There are over 1000 images on this server. Not changing anytime soon.