|
|
| Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash (1338083) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 8 of 14 |
||
|
| (1338988) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Feb 9 10:16:14 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by AlM on Sat Feb 7 16:54:34 2015. No way you can stop at 6 mph/sec without causing major injury to standing passengers.I've been a standee on a PCC whose driver applied the track brakes. I survived. I've described the account several times, so I won't bore you with repeating it. I was thrown half a car length but the golfer who was playing his hole at Waban also survived. |
|
|
| (1338999) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Outside the Box on Mon Feb 9 11:27:32 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Feb 7 15:28:16 2015. That 3rd rail would had gone into the fuel tank, compressed air tank, engine block, electrical equipment, etc. Imagine the fireball, explosions, fires, arcing, etc. |
|
|
| (1339003) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Outside the Box on Mon Feb 9 11:51:12 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Outside the Box on Mon Feb 9 11:27:32 2015. From Wikipedia:P32AC-DM  The 3rd rail was on the left side of the northbound train. The wraparound plow might had deflected the 3rd rail chunks, but that would require a destructive test, or supercomputer simulations to confirm. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1339004) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 9 12:06:24 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Outside the Box on Mon Feb 9 11:27:32 2015. Another 16 minutes and that may well have happened. |
|
|
| (1339005) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Feb 9 12:16:50 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Feb 8 19:11:15 2015. Yup, LION has used Bullfrog Snot! |
|
|
| (1339007) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Feb 9 12:20:28 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by j trainloco on Sun Feb 8 19:57:02 2015. "However, both impacts are introduced on the occupant due to the original jerk."And she was stopped on the railroad tracks. |
|
|
| (1339013) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Mon Feb 9 13:28:36 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 8 15:58:52 2015. It'll be like the barricades by federal buildings that lift out of the ground |
|
|
| (1339014) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Feb 9 13:33:15 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 8 18:48:56 2015. In EMS, we treat accidents as though there are THREE collisions:1) Your vehicle hits the other vehicle. 2) You strike the inside of your vehicle (or, are struck by the outside of the other vehicle, or flying debris). 3) Your internal organs strike the inner walls of your body, or become separated or torn from their normal biological connections. |
|
|
| (1339035) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Mon Feb 9 15:42:41 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by j trainloco on Sun Feb 8 14:56:57 2015. Good point. Note that rail vehicles have limits on service brake jerk rates but emergency braking is not jerk limited no matter the vehicle type. The point of an emergency application is to stop as quickly as possible. Passenger safety is addressed mainly through seat and interior fitting design both of which are regulated by the FRA at least in terms of design loads and attachment arrangements. |
|
|
| (1339047) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Mon Feb 9 16:43:45 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by AlM on Sat Feb 7 16:54:34 2015. "No way you can stop at 6 mph/sec without causing major injury to standing passengers."Let's look at some details: - Emergency braking is never jerk limited. You want the train to stop as quickly as possible. - A 3.0 mphps brake rate = 0.14g, 5.0 mphps = 0.23g. - Seats and interior fittings/attachments are designed to 4 to 8g loads. This indicates how mucher higher decelerations can be in a collision and which is exactly why you want the train to stop before it gets into a collision. - For comparison a Boeing 737-700 has four brake settings: 1 = 2.7 mphps (0.124g), 2 = 3.41 mphps (0.155g), 3 = 4.91 mphps (0.224g) and Max = 8.18 mphps below 80 knots (0.373g) and 9.55 mphps (0.435g) above 80 knots. Before someone makes the inevitable comment, the B737 rates are just for information since many here may experienced these decelerations before. I'm not suggesting anything else. And yes I know there are no standees on an airplane when landing. A few other fun facts: - Emergency brake rate on FRA equipment is friction braking only, no dynamics (they're not considered to be primary). - LRV emergency rates are friction plus dynamic plus track. - LRVs have their highest emergency rates below 30 mph, they taper to these rates from higher speeds. Another disclaimer: this is not an attempt to blame the railroad or the equipment. The train and the crew operated as they should have, with what they had. |
|
|
| (1339048) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Feb 9 16:50:01 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Thu Feb 5 22:02:19 2015. Correct.I have seen many drivers stop on the tracks at 88 St. They are just lucky no train was coming or they would have been trapped. |
|
|
| (1339050) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 9 16:55:07 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Feb 9 16:50:01 2015. Is '88th Street" a little used freight line ?Perhaps this woman mistook the Harlem Line for the Maybrook Line and thought nothing of it. (We'll never know) |
|
|
| (1339051) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Feb 9 16:57:56 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by merrick1 on Fri Feb 6 20:03:02 2015. Of course not. This is receiving so much attention because it was an unusual occurrence made worse by the third rail. If no one died aboard the train and it didn't burst into flames, it would have received much less attention. |
|
|
| (1339063) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 9 17:54:37 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by j trainloco on Sun Feb 8 17:49:54 2015. Yeah. I don't often stand on the M-8's (which may be slightly different from the M-7's, but are probably similar), but when I have, they just don't seem to me to pull and push as hard as the subway cars do... totally subjective, but that would make sense to me. |
|
|
| (1339064) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 9 17:54:39 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by AlM on Sun Feb 8 18:13:07 2015. Yes, that is correct. I'm glad someone actually read my posts, which were worded very carefully for a reason. |
|
|
| (1339065) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 9 17:54:41 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by steamdriven on Sun Feb 8 18:54:48 2015. Correct. And that was exactly my point in saying specifically that I wasn't advocating passenger trains were able to brake like LRV's, or that it would be a good idea, but rather that the physics dictate it would be theoretically possible. There are lots of things that are theoretically possible that are a terrible idea. |
|
|
| (1339066) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 9 17:54:44 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Feb 8 20:47:15 2015. If you had read my posts thoroughly, like steamdriven and AIM did, you would know that I had stated the fact that it would be theoretically possible to make a heavy train accelerate and decelerate like an LRV, AND I specifically said that I wasn't advocating such a thing were actually done, nor did I know if it would even be a good idea, or practical to build and maintain such a system, hence my previous reference saying something to the effect of "while it is theoretically possible, it might not be practical outside of Pueblo". |
|
|
| (1339067) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 9 17:54:47 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Feb 9 07:35:29 2015. So true! |
|
|
| (1339070) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 9 17:54:54 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by MainR3664 on Mon Feb 9 07:25:37 2015. Yup, the ultimate answer has to be grade separation. There's a couple that they could close tomorrow, others will have to be bridged over. |
|
|
| (1339071) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 9 17:54:57 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Outside the Box on Mon Feb 9 11:51:12 2015. It punched through an M-7. It would have punched right through a P32 just about as easily. |
|
|
| (1339072) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 9 17:55:00 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Feb 9 16:57:56 2015. Exactly. There are 6 grade crossing take-outs and about 3/4 of a death per day. It's just exceedingly rare that there are deaths onboard the train.Also, there are more than 1 trespasser killed per day. |
|
|
| (1339075) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 9 18:07:34 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 9 17:54:41 2015. Dutchrailnut said no.I take his 30 years on the job experience word for it over Physics 101. |
|
|
| (1339076) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 9 18:08:51 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 9 17:54:57 2015. Question would be which 550 gallon fuel tank. (Russian Roulette) |
|
|
| (1339078) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 9 18:10:45 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 9 17:54:54 2015. I predict they will do exactly what they did on Long Island: eliminate the one that made trouble and forget the rest of them. |
|
|
| (1339080) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Feb 9 18:24:27 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 9 18:07:34 2015. I wish I had $50 bucks for every time I had to chase down a problem that everyone swore to me "it worked in the lab" |
|
|
| (1339083) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Feb 9 18:34:13 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 9 16:55:07 2015. It is a little used freight line. |
|
|
| (1339084) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Feb 9 18:35:01 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 9 17:55:00 2015. Statistically, most people have just one testicle.LION does not accept numbers at farce value. ROAR |
|
|
| (1339097) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by j trainloco on Mon Feb 9 20:12:36 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 9 18:07:34 2015. But Dutch isn't correct though when he says that top speed is the reason why deceleration rates cannot be increased. I'm not trying to malign him, and I'm sure he knows much more than I do about a lot of topics, but being a train engineer doesn't make anyone a physics expert. |
|
|
| (1339099) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 9 20:34:52 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by j trainloco on Mon Feb 9 20:12:36 2015. Top speed has nothing to do with it, but train weight and how much braking force can be transferred to track structure does.LRV track brakes are never use at higher speeds not here or in Europe. |
|
|
| (1339101) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Feb 9 20:58:52 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Feb 9 18:35:01 2015. Statistically, most people have just one testicle.A nice joke, but not a valid put-down of the value of statistics. |
|
|
| (1339116) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by j trainloco on Mon Feb 9 22:35:29 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 9 20:34:52 2015. Agree, although I will add that while mass increases the inertia of the train, it also increases fiction force as well. |
|
|
| (1339117) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by j trainloco on Mon Feb 9 22:35:58 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by j trainloco on Mon Feb 9 22:35:29 2015. ... Friction force. |
|
|
| (1339132) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Tue Feb 10 07:20:00 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 9 08:47:55 2015. That probably is the way it'll work. Eliminate the one that had the crash, while others that are just as, or even more dangerous, but are lucky, will remain.I'll say it again, even if it's becoming tiresome: Busy crossings in busy areas ALL need to go. It may take 20 years to get the job done- but the sooner it gets started, the sooner it'll be done. |
|
|
| (1339136) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Feb 10 07:23:31 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by MainR3664 on Tue Feb 10 07:20:00 2015. Who's paying for it? |
|
|
| (1339137) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 10 07:23:42 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by j trainloco on Mon Feb 9 22:35:29 2015. Fiction Farce...Draw a line with a pencil 1/2" long. That is the contact of one wheel with the rail. And that is steel on steel. Not much friction there. Besides if you wheels are sliding, you have no control. Your brakes provide better stopping when the wheel is not sliding, and the weight of the trains is not on the brakes. ROAR |
|
|
| (1339138) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 10 07:25:31 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by AlM on Mon Feb 9 20:58:52 2015. Sure it is. You can make a statistic say anything you want.Even the Obama administration has conned you into believing that employment has improved when more people are out of work than ever before. What him? Nah he isn't looking for work anymore, so we don't count him. Nice. ROAR |
|
|
| (1339139) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Tue Feb 10 07:25:44 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Feb 10 07:23:31 2015. It'll need to be part of the capital program. |
|
|
| (1339141) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 10 07:27:46 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by MainR3664 on Tue Feb 10 07:25:44 2015. NOT the Railroad's Program, that is the problem of the Highway Department.ROAR |
|
|
| (1339143) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Feb 10 07:30:17 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by MainR3664 on Tue Feb 10 07:25:44 2015. Fsck no I'm not paying for it. |
|
|
| (1339162) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Feb 10 10:51:08 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by MainR3664 on Tue Feb 10 07:25:44 2015. The capital busget is what it is. So cut back on rail improvements to pay for overpasses? When probably more lives would be saved by expanding rail and reducing the amount of driving people do?You are proposing to indirectly kill people for public relations purposes. :( All with good intentions, of course. |
|
|
| (1339237) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by j trainloco on Tue Feb 10 18:35:08 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 10 07:23:42 2015. Your brakes provide better stopping when the wheel is not sliding, and the weight of the trains is not on the brakes.Physics says different. Read this. This is the same reason why locomotives increase weight to gain tractive effort. |
|
|
| (1339247) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Feb 10 19:01:58 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 10 07:23:42 2015. You're applying the ABS reasoning from automobiles. Apples and oranges. You are wrong. You don't need control when running on rails. You only need control when on a road to avoid obstacles. ABS gives you some measure of steering control while braking by preventing the wheels from locking up. It does not necessarily decrease stopping distances in all scenarios. |
|
|
| (1339265) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 10 21:44:21 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Feb 9 18:35:01 2015. That's true, but what point are you trying to make? |
|
|
| (1339267) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 10 21:45:36 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by AlM on Tue Feb 10 10:51:08 2015. They'll find money from somewhere else up in Albany. They're going to have to after this sleeping dragon finally reared it's head after 30 years in hibernation. |
|
|
| (1339272) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 10 21:49:37 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 9 18:07:34 2015. Well DRN is wrong. The laws of physics affect everything in the universe, including DRN. |
|
|
| (1339273) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 10 21:49:39 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by j trainloco on Mon Feb 9 20:12:36 2015. Correct. DRN is just flat-out wrong. However, no one needs to be a physics expert to understand this simple concept. It's high-school level physics that anyone should understand. |
|
|
| (1339274) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 10 21:49:41 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by j trainloco on Mon Feb 9 22:35:29 2015. Correct, that's exactly the point. They scale linearly together. An M-7 train has a heck of a lot more mass than an LRV, but a heck of a lot more friction as well. |
|
|
| (1339283) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Feb 10 22:24:55 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 10 21:49:37 2015. But the laws of physics quickly go in the toilet for outcomes when additional, unplanned forces affect the equation that were not provided in the original calculation. "But it worked fine in the lab" is a frequent outcome. :) |
|
|
| (1339284) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Feb 10 22:25:32 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 10 21:49:41 2015. And leaf juice on the rails can blow that all to Hades. |
|
|
| (1339286) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by steamdriven on Tue Feb 10 22:26:42 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Feb 10 19:01:58 2015. Sliding train wheels would soon generate enough heat to soften (and likely enough to locally melt) the area in contact with the rail. That will not help your train stop, though it will generate overtime at the wheel truing shop +/or orders for new wheels. |
|
|
|
Page 8 of 14 |
||
