Some Interesting Stuff in this Report (9:15AM, CDT)
- Thread starter Euphod
- Start date
Ed,
Yes, a very serious and tragic accident.
What I find disturbing is that it could have been much worse than it is at the moment. The following is a quote from the article you posted:
Rockford Fire Chief Derek Bergsten said 74 of the train's 114 cars were filled with ethanol, or ethyl alcohol.
I would hope that future regulations would limit the amount of dangerous cargo that can be carried on one train. If all the 114 rail cars had derailed, the loss of life would be very high.
I personally hope the current situation gets resolved quickly and that no further loss of life or injury occurs.
Regards to you,
Ron
Yes, a very serious and tragic accident.
What I find disturbing is that it could have been much worse than it is at the moment. The following is a quote from the article you posted:
Rockford Fire Chief Derek Bergsten said 74 of the train's 114 cars were filled with ethanol, or ethyl alcohol.
I would hope that future regulations would limit the amount of dangerous cargo that can be carried on one train. If all the 114 rail cars had derailed, the loss of life would be very high.
I personally hope the current situation gets resolved quickly and that no further loss of life or injury occurs.
Regards to you,
Ron
norfolksouthern37
what's a normal map?
'cars on the Chicago-bound train began hydroplaning in standing water as it approached the crossing'
they did what now?
they did what now?
Yeah, I'm not trying to promote gore or anything like that (dirty laundry), but I never read an article like this that reported cars at the crossing being "bombarded by rail ties" or that passengers in cars were doused with flaming Ethanol. Scary stuff, and it really brings it home when you are sitting at a crossing waiting, anything could happen.
I'm also surprised the train would "hydroplane" on standing water. We had some serious weather pass through here lately, but that's incredible!
Tragic indeed.
I'm also surprised the train would "hydroplane" on standing water. We had some serious weather pass through here lately, but that's incredible!
Tragic indeed.
norfolksouthern37
what's a normal map?
i just dont see how a train can hydroplane at all, for several reasons. one reason is that water over the tracks is severely restricted, and i just cannot imagine how a traincar can hydroplane ever. you are talking about a wheel to rail contact surface so small...... i dont even know why im trying to comprehend it, its just silly. its like saying that you can get orange juice from an apple... its amazing that, if you read a news article without knowing anything about the subject of the article, they can be really easy to beleive and scary as hell. but if you happen to know something about the subject, be it trains or autos or anything really, you notice how absurd the articles can be with their hype.
Last edited:
illinoiscentral
SARM Volunteer
Sure water over the tracks is not legal...but we are talking about Canadian National.....
Yeah, I'm not trying to promote gore or anything like that (dirty laundry), but I never read an article like this that reported cars at the crossing being "bombarded by rail ties" or that passengers in cars were doused with flaming Ethanol. Scary stuff, and it really brings it home when you are sitting at a crossing waiting, anything could happen.
I'm also surprised the train would "hydroplane" on standing water. We had some serious weather pass through here lately, but that's incredible!
Tragic indeed.
Hydroplane is not the likely cause. Bad track or faulty railcar is more likely the cause. Trains carry hazardous material all the time usually without incident but unfortunately there are times like these that death and serious injury are the result. No reflection on you Ed but the way the media reports incidents like this reminds me of the song "its interesting when people die give us dirty laundry".
I can't imagine a train can hydroplane, that's nonsense. There's simply too much weight on those wheels, and the rails are slightly rounded on top. The only way I can think of, in which rain can adversely affect a train's performance is by getting water between the wheels and brake shoes. That may affect braking slightly, but doesn't count as aquaplaning. Doesn't look like it either. Or perhaps by flooding to the point where the railroad is getting undermined, but that's no aquaplaning either now is it?
Guys
I can assure you, a train can do what can appear to be 'hydroplaning'... Seeing as it was reported that there was water over the track, this can lead to the track itself being destabilised, or even the ground under it completely washed away. In which case you have wagons start to 'slide' (what can appear to be hydroplaning) on the damaged section of track. It doesn't always happen with the loco either, same as bridges don't always collapse when the loco enters the damaged section.
Not got the links on hand, but we had a similar incident in Western Australia. Loco 'hit' a washed out section of track (rails suspended over a washed out embankment) and ended up 90deg to the track and on it's side. A less damaged section of track may have been able to handle part of the train, but each carriage will cause more and more damage to the road bed.
Just because you can't see how a train can 'hydroplane' doesn't mean it hasn't done something similar (e.g. hydroplane due to the wheels not actually being on the track due to a wash-away or similar!).
Zec
I can assure you, a train can do what can appear to be 'hydroplaning'... Seeing as it was reported that there was water over the track, this can lead to the track itself being destabilised, or even the ground under it completely washed away. In which case you have wagons start to 'slide' (what can appear to be hydroplaning) on the damaged section of track. It doesn't always happen with the loco either, same as bridges don't always collapse when the loco enters the damaged section.
Not got the links on hand, but we had a similar incident in Western Australia. Loco 'hit' a washed out section of track (rails suspended over a washed out embankment) and ended up 90deg to the track and on it's side. A less damaged section of track may have been able to handle part of the train, but each carriage will cause more and more damage to the road bed.
Just because you can't see how a train can 'hydroplane' doesn't mean it hasn't done something similar (e.g. hydroplane due to the wheels not actually being on the track due to a wash-away or similar!).
Zec
water simply cannot compress, and the water being pushed ahead of the wheel-on-track cannot get out of the way fast enough, so the wheel simply rolls over it.
Well I guess we could toss it around ad-infinitum, but motorcycles are quite resistant to hydroplaning due to the shape of the tires and the weight distribution over the tires. Now, yes, it's not all about weight here, there are many other physical factors involved as well, but hydroplaning tends to increase as the weight of the vehicle (any vehicle) is reduced, and the footprint of the tire or wheel is increased. Given the weight of a train car, and the size of the contact area between wheel and rail, I am confident that it's quite unlikely true hydroplaning was involved.
The witnesses were not likely to notice "hydroplaning" unless the wheel left the rail to the depth of the flange. I would be quite surprised a witness would even be looking at the wheel on rail area, or could notice hydroplaning taking place at track speed, (in the rain)?
I believe it's much more probable the witnesses saw a tank car already separated from it's bogie(s) after the accident took place, but they were unable to rationalize it in their minds.
Anyway; who you going to believe: me, or the witness's lying eyes?:hehe:
Hydroplaning is just that. If the rail washed, or was driven down into saturated bed, that would not be hydroplaning. Perhaps that could have fooled the eyes of some, but not knowing the depth of the water and other factors will leave us guessing for sure.
True hydroplaning though? I doubt that very much.
The witnesses were not likely to notice "hydroplaning" unless the wheel left the rail to the depth of the flange. I would be quite surprised a witness would even be looking at the wheel on rail area, or could notice hydroplaning taking place at track speed, (in the rain)?
I believe it's much more probable the witnesses saw a tank car already separated from it's bogie(s) after the accident took place, but they were unable to rationalize it in their minds.
Anyway; who you going to believe: me, or the witness's lying eyes?:hehe:
Hydroplaning is just that. If the rail washed, or was driven down into saturated bed, that would not be hydroplaning. Perhaps that could have fooled the eyes of some, but not knowing the depth of the water and other factors will leave us guessing for sure.
True hydroplaning though? I doubt that very much.
I call bull****.
Let's pick this article apart.
This news article is wayyyy overblown. Certainly there was a disaster, and it is a tragedy that someone was killed, but it doesn't have to be reported in such a exaggerated and overdramatic fashion.
Let's pick this article apart.
Ethanol doesn't explode. It will burn violently, but it doesn't explode.
What this really means: one or two railroad ties were displaced from their original location and moved towards the general direction of the vehicle.
Train cars, as you all may know, aren't powered. Thus, they cannot hydroplane, by definition.
This news article is wayyyy overblown. Certainly there was a disaster, and it is a tragedy that someone was killed, but it doesn't have to be reported in such a exaggerated and overdramatic fashion.
@Zec: Aquaplaning is the build-up of a film of water under the (preferrably rubber) tyre that results in aquadynamic lubrication similar to the lubrication of say a cylinder wall or a camshaft. This build-up is caused by water that's trying to flow away from the tyre, but the tyre not allowing for that.
There's a few things you need for aquaplaning to happen: enough speed, a wide tyre and a nice bit of water that can't go anywhere anytime soon. So we had the water, we may have had speed, but the weight of the train is way too big to allow for forming a film of water under the narrow train wheels. Therefore I say that aquaplaning is out of the question.
@Euphod: I fully agree with you.
Boiling liquid expanding vapour explosions are a type of explosion that can occur when a vessel containing a pressurized liquid is ruptured, causing a rapid increase in volume as the liquid evaporates. 'nuff said. :hehe:
There's a few things you need for aquaplaning to happen: enough speed, a wide tyre and a nice bit of water that can't go anywhere anytime soon. So we had the water, we may have had speed, but the weight of the train is way too big to allow for forming a film of water under the narrow train wheels. Therefore I say that aquaplaning is out of the question.
@Euphod: I fully agree with you.
Boiling liquid expanding vapour explosions are a type of explosion that can occur when a vessel containing a pressurized liquid is ruptured, causing a rapid increase in volume as the liquid evaporates. 'nuff said. :hehe:
You do realise I said 'appear to do what looks like hydroplaning'. Not actually do it. But appear to do what looks like it... It may not have actually done it, but to a person who has just seen a train wreck, it can appear to have done that. Same as it can seem the most appropriate word at the time. Granted, the newpaper could have used that word to sensationalise it. But then, they may also be directly quoting a witness who came up with that word to attempt to describe what they saw...
Zec
I'm not sure where you found this definition. Hydroplaning is a function of speed and contact area of the weight bearing surfaces. It occurs when water can't be moved out the way fast enough and the weight bearing surface then rises and rides on a layer of water. The speed factor doesnt have to come from the cars being powered, but can come from an external force such as the loco. I'm of the opinion that the wheels could have hydroplaned; however, I'm not so convinced that they could have hydroplaned enough to raise the wheels above the wheel flanges.
Water is a powerful force and does some fairly unimaginable things.
Mike