News   Dec 20, 2024
 3K     9 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 1.1K     3 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 2K     0 

General railway discussions

Safety management systems generate an awful lot of “proof of activity”, much of it paperwork, that may not connect to actual attention or action towards correction of problems. As SMS requirements are ramped up, the work tends to get hived off to specialists in the office, which may actually disconnect the effort from the hands-on workers and managers who are central to safety. The terminology and concepts of safety analysis may look good on paper but do not necessarily resonate with anyone in authority. Certainly, it’s clear from this report that CP’s use of SMS didn’t trigger corrective action on grain train air brake issues, despite these being quite visible. In this case the elephant in the room was being fed and groomed without anyone pointing to it..

It’s inevitable that corporations will lawyer up after an incident, but I agree that CP set a new low bar for denial and naysaying, and perhaps avoiding truthfulness, in a situation where by any ethical standard the emphasis should be on ensuring that the truth does out.

What was even more damning to me was the clear evidence that the trains were being operated in unacceptable condition

- when after this event CP began using “cold wheel” measurements to detect grain cars with ineffective brakes, they found 5,000 cars needing repair (page 13)…. that’s a huge number, and suggests that the condition of the fleet as a whole was poor
- the forensic examination of the wreckage established that too many cars had poor or inoperative brakes in relation to regulatory and railroad standards
- the report comments that previous incidents of poor braking condition and performance of the grain car fleet was widely known among operating employees, yet apparently overlooked by CP management
- the Engineer who died had a similar experience on their previous trip, and was in the process of reporting same when this incident happened

The investigation uncovered a number of other things that can be constructively improved (eg engineers’ air flow instrumentation, configuration of braking on DPU locomotives, training and qualifications, operating procedures) - but what’s scary to me is just how tolerant the culture was of a very apparent danger.

- Paul
So basically as long as the train can run and it makes money that's fine even if it kills people? But the government won't introduce safer rules because the railways would object? Sounds like a broken system to me.
 
I wonder if solar charged, battery, run wireless controlled, handbreak actuators would be possible.

I think fully wireless would be very hard to get right.

There would need to be a physical mechanism to indicate that the wireless device should only accept commands from Train X (the one it's connected to) while ignoring all other commands, both accidental like other trains within 1 mile and malicious from 3rd parties. You might be able to establish command authorization via NFC chips near the coupler (I'm car Y connected to Train X), then allowing broadcast control from that point on but that sounds fragile.

Probably have better luck setting up a low-speed network via the rails themselves.
 
The wifi bit seems moderately simple, if one assumes very low power and some sort of directional antenna on each end of each car. Might be a challenge to make it error free in yards, where even with directionality there could be misconnection between adjacent tracks, but a maximum range of 2-3 feet is all that’s required.

The harder part is the amount of energy required to “pull the pin” to couple or uncouple. Existing couplers can be very balky. When coupling, there is a need to align the two drawbars and ensure the pins are out and knuckles opened. Easy to do on smaller fleets with high maintenance routines, eg subway cars…. much harder on a large fleet where cars may sit in odd places and unused for months at a time.

The use of compressed air to provide power for freight car accessories is not wrong minded. It’s trying to overlay a control system on top, and then provide reliable and granular feedback to the operator, that’s the bridge too far.

A “smart” freight car network with wifi connections is quite doable even without the coupling or braking mechanics. If every car’s brake system can be monitored from the engine, a huge increase in safety is achieved. Simply being able to see each car’s brake cylinder and air reservoir status would inform operation much better. That’s a “passive” application. Adding in any control functionality would be gravy.

An engineer of my acquaintance describes each run as a “science experiment every day”…. ie no two trains brake identically, and each run requires the operator to discover and acclimatise to how the brakes are performing, with weather and temperature having their own impacts.

With hundreds of thousands of freight cars out there, even a $1000 per car enhancement generates pushback from railways. But in a world where an entire fleet of new aircraft is grounded until a deficiency is chased to the root cause and solved, the price is not wrongheaded. As @Bordercollie notes, this is about not killing people.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
Wireless, save for things like the radio control of locomotives, is a bit of a technological dead-end I suspect.

That said, one thing that has been showing promise for quite some time is "E-braking" - as well as the legacy pneumatic system, the train brakes are controlled by what is ostensibly a hardened Cat5 connection between cars which is used to control the brakes on the train. The pneumatic system remains as a fallback in case of failure, but electronically activating the brakes allows for far greater control. (For instance, all of the train's brakes will apply virtually at the same time with an electronic system. With straight air, it can take 15 to 20 seconds for the brakes to apply on the last car.)

It's already making appearances on passenger equipment, with the all of GO's CEM equipment being so-equipped. The new VIA trainsets will communicate within themselves with the Cat5 connection instead of the industry-standard 27-pin MU connection. But retrofitting hundreds of thousands of pieces of freight rolling stock is another matter altogether, despite its advantages.

Dan
 
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I thought rail car breaks operated on a negative air pressure system. If there is no air pressure, then the breaks are locked in place, it takes air pressure to release the brakes to move.
In other words if there is no air pressure, the railcar will not move. The default position is stop, and it take air pressure in the system to actually make a railcar move.
 
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I thought rail car breaks operated on a negative air pressure system. If there is no air pressure, then the breaks are locked in place, it takes air pressure to release the brakes to move.
In other words if there is no air pressure, the railcar will not move. The default position is stop, and it take air pressure in the system to actually make a railcar move.

Some systems work that way, but in North America brakes require air pressure to remain applied. The air that works the brakes is supplied from the locomotive but stored in a reservoir in each car. When that reservoir of air is used up, unless the locomotive supplies more the brakes release.

- Paul
 
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I thought rail car breaks operated on a negative air pressure system. If there is no air pressure, then the breaks are locked in place, it takes air pressure to release the brakes to move.
In other words if there is no air pressure, the railcar will not move. The default position is stop, and it take air pressure in the system to actually make a railcar move.
I know - it seems rather counterintuitive, and I find it difficult to find an explanation that brings it down to my brain level. The way I understand it - very simplified - the actual braking force is provided by compressed air from each individual cars' air tank, but the application of that air is triggered by a reduction of air pressure in the train (supply) line through a valving arrangement. An increase in trainline pressure causes the brakes to release replenishes the tanks. Or something like that. :)
 
I know - it seems rather counterintuitive, and I find it difficult to find an explanation that brings it down to my brain level. The way I understand it - very simplified - the actual braking force is provided by compressed air from each individual cars' air tank, but the application of that air is triggered by a reduction of air pressure in the train (supply) line through a valving arrangement. An increase in trainline pressure causes the brakes to release replenishes the tanks. Or something like that. :)

That sounds about right. Here is an interesting article that explains how air brakes work on trains here in North America.


Edit: Here is an even better description with pictures

 
Last edited:
Yeah, the counterintuitive part is…. what happens in the trainline does not match what goes on at each car. If the trainline pressure drops, the brake cylinder pressure rises (applying the brakes) while if the trainline pressure goes up, the brake cylinders exhaust and braking pressure drops.
The trainline pressure serves about three different functions - it’s a power supply, in that it provides air pressure that is stored in the reservoirs to power the brakes…..and it’s a control sytem, in that, the small changes in pressure controlled by the engineer tell the brakes whether to apply or release….. and it’s a fail-safe in that a sudden complete loss of pressure (eg if the train separates, or the engineer initiates a panic stop) will cause the brakes to go into emergency.
It’s ingenious, and it’s baffling, but it has quirks that create difficult scenarios, and for this reason it has become a bit arcane.

- Paul
 
Article is paywalled. Is he suggesting exported by rail?


Yes.

Non-paywalled article on same subject from the Winnipeg Sun:


From the above:

1649184912576.png
 
Of course the ground is so unstable they can barely keep the railway operating, so what could go wrong with shipping oil across the tundra as it melts due to ... burning oil? Skippy thinks it through again.
With the revenue coming in they could make improvements to the track, you can drill down to under the tundra to create a base using bedrock. You could refrigerate the tundra under the rails to keep it solid, there are tons of technologies that you can use. It just costs $$. Hopefully they can build passing sidings and increase the track speed.
 
It won't happen, because the economics don't work. There is more than enough pipeline capacity now. This is just resource extraction populism which happens to sound visionary.
 

Back
Top