This message was self-deleted by its author

[Hiawatha Pete]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Hiawatha Pete) on Fri Feb 24, 2023, 07:04 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[OAITW r.2.0]

1. You obviously know more about the train braking technology than I do.

So explain how the Palestine derailment happened.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

2. It's right there in the NTSB report.

[Hiawatha Pete]

3. Not my job. I'm retired.

[WarGamer]

6. wheel bearing/bushing failure.

[OAITW r.2.0]

10. Most likely.

But why? No MTBF analysis? Faulty Timken { a revered Ohio company} tapered roller bearings? Or zippo oversight by the companies that run the trains?

[WarGamer]

11. IMHO... shit maintenance practices by the owner of the car...

I learned the other day that most cars are NOT owned by the Railroad... Monsanto, DOW and Exxon own their own cars.

[OAITW r.2.0]

14. Interesting....a cutout to take rhe heat when a major fuckup happens.

Too bad we don't have a House in Washington, DC to really investigate this problem. The current clowns are too busy trying to get dirt on Democrats to care.

[OAITW r.2.0]

25. Good for him.

I think Norfolk Southern owns this problem totally and they can explain why it was "an act of God". I am so sick of these problems caused by private rails with private trains. They get to screw this country by not investing in their rail system.

[OAITW r.2.0]

33. Hey Pete. Can I call you Pete?

We've nationalized air traffic control in the US....and the world followed. So we should nationalixw our railroad infrastructure. You want to run? Follow the rules. The goal is not to kill individual communities in the US.

[Hiawatha Pete]

41. "The goal is not to kill individual communities in the US" - Glad we agree on something.

Last edited Fri Feb 24, 2023, 09:42 AM - Edit history (1)

It makes no difference to me whatsoever if NS were to be nationalized or not.

I noticed you speak to others about having an 'investment' in the discussion.

My own 'investment' - as some would put it - is my pride in my profession and the fact that I take exception to when people who know nothing about the subject matter they are speaking of call something "antiquated". That's it.

You do you, but I really would suggest having more faith in your own NTSB. Good night.

[OAITW r.2.0]

42. Pete, I have no dog in this fight.

Not yet anyway. But, maybe it is time to nationalize our railway infrastructure? And let companies like Southern Norfolk focus on getting product from point A to point B?

[Disaffected]

9. The specific cause/effect leading to the actual derailment

was not explicitly, for some reason, discussed. It is implied that the hotbox was implicated but, whether or not the hotbox caused the derailment or, was coincidental to the derailment, is not stated as far as I could see.

So then, could a hotbox cause a derailment? If the bearing seized I suppose the two wheels connected to the ends of the associated axle might stop rotating and skid on the track. I dunno if that in itself could lead to a derailment. If the bearing seized and came apart, perhaps detaching the near wheel from the axle, or, maybe tearing the axle from the car's undercarriage, yeah, it would not be hard to imagine how that would cause the car to derail and take other cars with it.

Hopefully the upcoming analysis of the bearing and equipment attached to it will reveal the answer.

[OAITW r.2.0]

12. I would bet seized wheel bearing is the root cause.

And the question is why did this happen. Premature bearing failure or poor maintenance? That seems to be the question.

[Disaffected]

15. Yes, that's got to be the most probable reason.

The hotbox was on car 23 and car 23 was apparently the first car in the derailment.

As to why the bearing failed, I don't know if newer bearing are sealed but in the old days, the bearing were bathed in oil and were regularly inspected (via a liftable cover on the bearing assembly) to check the oil level (sort of like checking the oil level in an engine but without a dipstick). IIRC, the guy who walked along the track checking these levels was called an "oiler". Maybe though, as you say, the bearing itself was defective or, it was not maintained properly.

[OAITW r.2.0]

16. Here's the thing.

You have a wheel bearing failure on one wheel in a 200 plus car train. Why isn't there technology to immediately stop the train? It does exist....why isn't it on trains?

[Disaffected]

18. I imagine because

a sensor(s) and transmitter would then be required on each bearing & car. Such, especially in the tough environment trains operate in, would be v costly to install & maintain and not necessarily very reliable as well as being susceptible to false alarms. You would also have to provide some means of powering the devices.

[OAITW r.2.0]

19. So...we kill a community instead.

Because it's too expensive to put on each wheel.

[Disaffected]

20. I also mentioned it might be impractical.

Additionally, I'm not sure such a system would have resulted in any significant improvement in braking reaction time (at least in populated areas where the track-side sensors are likely concentrated).

[OAITW r.2.0]

22. Best not to try then.

If it happens, say, once every 10 years, fuck it. Communities are a dime a dozen.

[Disaffected]

24. You're being quite silly now so

I'll have no more to say.

[OAITW r.2.0]

26. You've done your job supporting the current rail system.

Your job on this thread is done.

[Disaffected]

27. Now you are being

silly and nonsensical. Enough.

[OAITW r.2.0]

28. OK....because it's important to label my argument as "silly".

Because this is hardly ever done by folks that ever have an investment in the conversation,

[NowISeetheLight]

5. Know Nothing

I know nothing about train brakes. Honestly, except for the Denzel Ashington movie Unstoppable, I’ve never heard of “dynamic braking”. This is a good question though. European standards with train systems are probably better than ours, given their railway systems. I’d be interested to know too.

[GP6971]

7. They can't is the simple answer.

I suspect few are actual "experts".

[Effete Snob]

13. A bus using air brakes is one vehicle

And not a daisy chain of brakes in each car.

I don’t know the dynamics of this incident. However the discussion around braking systems has nothing to do with using engine braking in the locomotive to slow the train.

The problem is when one wants to suddenly stop the train. These trains can be hundreds of cars long. They are not braked to a stop by the locomotive. They are braked to a stop by all of the cars’ brakes being activated. If there are tens of milliseconds delay in the pneumatic braking among successive cars, then the cumulative time delay in activating the brakes means that the forward car brakes are fully activated seconds before the rearward car brakes. That time delay increases the risk of derailment of these immensely long trains.

As I understand it, the regulation was directed at requiring an electronically controlled braking system - in each car - so that the brakes in all the cars can be simultaneously applied in an emergency, instead of mechanically activated in sequence.

I mean, golly, a school bus is not two miles from the brake pedal to the rear brakes, so I don’t get the relevance.

Again, I have no idea if the electronic braking control requirement would or would not have been relevant to this incident, but the above is what I understand to be the point.

[Takket]

29. here are some questions I'd ask as part of a "what can we do different in the future" exercise

"NS has established the following HBD alarm thresholds (above ambient temperature) and criteria for bearings"

So, NS is Northfolk Southern......... does the NTSB have its own criteria? Should they? What should it be? A safety standard should be set by a regulatory board, not the discretion of the rail company, unless of course their own standards EXCEED those of the NTSB.

"At MP 79.9, the suspect bearing from the 23rd car had a
recorded temperature of 38°F above ambient temperature. When train 32N passed
the next HBD, at MP 69.01, the bearing’s recorded temperature was 103°F above
ambient. The third HBD, at MP 49.81, recorded the suspect bearing’s temperature at
253°F above ambient."

So, the first two recorded temps, is it normal to see variations like that during operation, or should the temps be relatively steady, especially for a train that is not currently braking?

I ask because if the temps should be steady, should there be a warning generated for high temperature differential that says "hey, temps aren't critical, but they did go up 103-38 = 65F for no apparent reason. Might want to look at that." You could easily compare the differential for one wheel to those of all the other wheels to see if one is an outlier. But I have no idea if a 65F temp rise is normal or not, which is why I'm asking.

[Hiawatha Pete]

31. Bearing temp is function of speed-A 100F above ambient reading could well be norm for a 50mph train

I'm sure NTSB is looking at everything including any speed changes. They really do a good job and it's surprising how little faith people seem to have in them.

[OAITW r.2.0]

34. You seem very invested in this discussion, Hiawatha Pete.

Why is that? Hardly see you posting anywhere else, but trains....you have a lot to say. Fascinating.

[Hiawatha Pete]

35. See the 2nd last sentence in my OP. Full disclosure right there. n/t

[OAITW r.2.0]

36. Cool....as an engineer you have to know there are technologies that would not have allowed

East Palestine to get destroyed. So, as a tech engineer, tell us how Southern Norfolk could have prevented this,

[Hiawatha Pete]

38. I asked first, see my OP.

And read the NTSB report.

[OAITW r.2.0]

39. Gotcha.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

45. The tech seems fine. From what I saw on TV, ...

... the truck axle bearing fire was detected and reported. And then ignored.

The problem may be between the ears of the engineer and crew.

Hey, only one bearing is burning, we got hundreds more that are not burning. Carry on.