Train splits

[NW Mailing List]

PC's Video to Congress...

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmt088C9RkY

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pER8ERQBl0U

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-4f6VfbOTo

Nathan

Nathan Simmons
trainman51 at gmail.com
http://www.t-51.org
KI4MSK


On 11/9/2010 11:41, NW Mailing List wrote:

>

> George this is really interesting stuff. It’s clever that design 

> features were incorporated to counter expected problems during train 

> operations. Yet good track and equipment maintenance are still highly 

> important.

>

> I was witness to many separations/trains breaking in two railfanning 

> while living in NE Ohio during the 70’s. I spent many hours in 

> Railroad Block Towers like Fairhope, Warwick, Maze, JO, Sterling, 

> Alliance, Beria, and others. Pre-Conrail Penn Central (and to a lesser 

> degree EL) had all the ills possible to lead to trains breaking in 

> two. Worn out track with horrible surface bent rail and muddy joints 

> on the mainline! (imagine branch line conditions). Additionally 

> equipment was worn out from dreadful lack of maintenance. PC was just 

> plain broke! Another factor too was the overall moral and attitude of 

> personnel and how they did or at times didn’t perform their jobs. Many 

> just plain didn’t care and management had little to no control. PC 

> train operations were an interesting debacle to witness!

>

> Ed Painter; Narrows, VA living in Russellville, AR

>

> *From:*nw-mailing-list-bounces at nwhs.org 

> [mailto:nw-mailing-list-bounces at nwhs.org] *On Behalf Of *NW Mailing List

> *Sent:* Friday, November 05, 2010 1:54 PM

> *To:* NW Mailing List

> *Subject:* Re: Train splits

>

> Recent comments on the Mailing List about slack action causing a 

> coupler pin to rise and cause an uncoupling provides an opening for a 

> little "Techno Talk" on the interesting anti-creep features built into 

> a coupler and into the articulated locklift that the uncoupling rod 

> hooks into. The common Type E bottom-operated freight car coupler will 

> be used as an example.

>

> As shown on the attachment "AntiCreep," Figure 1, the "Connector" of 

> the articulated locklift has an extension aimed at the bottom of the 

> coupler body. If the slack runs in sufficiently to cause the 

> uncoupling lever handle to swing forward, the locklift assembly will 

> normally swing forward also, causing the Connector extension to 

> contact the underside of the coupler, as shown in Figure 2, preventing 

> the lock (aka "pin") from moving upward (As shown in these figures the 

> bottom end of the lock has the diagonal slot into which a pin on the 

> locklift "Toggle" is engaged.). In contrast to the preceding slack 

> action result, normal operation of the uncoupling lever against the 

> bottom of the Connector rotates it so that the extension on the upper 

> end of the connector clears the bottom of the coupler body as 

> connector rises, as shown in Figure 4 (Figure 3 is omitted here).

>

> There is another anti-creep feature intended to prevent a lock from 

> working upward due to vibration or bouncing on rough track (the latter 

> should not be a problem on NS's good track!). As shown on the 

> attachment "Locklift" the Toggle has a projecting horizontal ledge at 

> its upper end, and near the pin that engages the slot in the lock. In 

> the normal position of the locklift and lock, the toggle ledge in 

> directly underneath a mating ledge in the coupler body (see the note 

> in the upper left of attachment "AntiCreep" referred to above). If the 

> lock tries to move upward on its own, the Toggle will be pulled upward 

> with its pin in the bottom of the lock slot until the two ledges come 

> into contact preventing further upward movement. Again, normal 

> operation of the uncoupling lever nullifies the anti-creep by causing 

> the Toggle pin to move upward in the diagonal slot in the bottom end 

> of the lock moving the Toggle ledge back far enough to clear the ledge 

> in the coupler body.

>

> Incidentally, the Type F coupler for freight service has an additional 

> anti-creep feature, making a total of three for that coupler.

>

> So, why do uncouplings occur in service? One possibility is that the 

> carman or trainman making the coupling does not ascertain that the 

> lock dropped fully. As shown in the attachment "TypeE Coupler," it 

> should be evident if the lock on a rare top-operated coupler is not 

> down fully, and a little experience should reveal if the articulated 

> locklift on a bottom operated lock is not in pin-down configuration. 

> Incidentally, the Type F coupler has a "tell tale" hole that is only 

> visible when the lock is fully down. I recall a similar telltale hole 

> in the Type H tightlock coupler for passenger service. Anyone can 

> imagine the importance of insuring that a passenger car coupler does 

> not uncouple while passengers are crossing from one car to another!

>

> Although a drooping coupler mated to a high coupler can lead to an 

> unintended separation, particularly on rough bouncy track, the most 

> probable cause of undesired uncouplings is wear in the mating parts. 

> There are gages to check such wear when a coupler body is 

> reconditioned, but excessive wear could occur before a coupler goes 

> through reconditioning. For example, if the wall in the coupler body 

> back of the bottom end of the lock wears excessively, it could allow 

> the bottom end of the lock to move back far enough to nullify both 

> anti-creep features. A prescribed procedure to check a coupler's 

> anticreep involves the use of a large screwdriver inserted through the 

> lock hole in the bottom of the coupler to pry the bottom of the lock 

> backwards (away from the coupler face) while a pry bar inserted 

> through the opening in the coupler face is used to try to pry the lock 

> upwards. The lock should not rise if the anticreep is effective.

>

> [The three attachments came from the "AAR Manual of Standards and 

> Recommended Practices" in the N&WHS Archives.]

>

> Gordon Hamilton

>

> ----- Original Message -----

>

>     *From:*NW Mailing List <mailto:nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>

>

>     *To:*NW Mailing List <mailto:nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>

>

>     *Sent:*Saturday, October 23, 2010 8:02 AM

>

>     *Subject:*Re: Train splits

>

>     In regard to the OWL "BROKE IN TWO!". One thing that hasn't been

>     mentioned is that sometimes lockpins will get shaken up. Slack

>     action would be a good cause of this. Slack runs in and the cut

>     lever swings up lifting the pin. The pin now stays up and when the

>     slack comes out , the train separates. POW! You are now in emergency.

>

>     The cause of the break-in-two on the recording is unclear. It

>     definately wasn't a drawhead or the car would have been set out.

>

>     A broken knuckle might seem the most likely cause, however,

>     nothing was ever said about a knuckle or repairing one. A pin

>     coming up is the only other likely cause. However, there is just

>     not enough information provided in the narrative to know for sure.

>

>     Jimmy Lisle

>

>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>     ________________________________________

>     NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org

>     To change your subscription go to

>     http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list

>     Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at

>     http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/

>

>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>     No virus found in this message.

>     Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>

>     Version: 10.0.1144 / Virus Database: 422/3212 - Release Date: 10/22/10

>

>

> ________________________________________

> NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org

> To change your subscription go to

> http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list

> Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at

> http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/