Some Interesting Stuff in this Report (9:15AM, CDT)

[jadebullet]

Okay, just to clear things up, the article said that it looked like the train was hydroplaning, not that it was. This actually makes sense, because if there was a washout, it would look like the train was hydroplaning as they say. The cars probably started sliding sideways as the ground under the ties gave way. As for a train hydroplaning, yeah, that cannot happen really. The weight, and amount of surface area wouldn't allow it to happen, even at high speeds, unless the train was heading into a river, at which point, the traction motors wouldn't be very happy.

The article is a bit blown out of proportion though.

 

[Euphod]

Nice Gesture, but you're still getting Sued...

http://www.wrex.com/Global/story.asp?S=10570436

 

[norfolksouthern37]

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

im not, the contact surface between a rail and a wheel is probably no bigger than 1/2 of an inch even factoring in any rail/wheel flattening, then there is the speed required to hydroplane just one of those 8 surfaces, the weight, and the amount of water required. i dont see any of these ever matching at any one time. so to me its not possible. if there was standing water, it is mandatory slow speed over that section. any water over the rail means 5mph speeds and any water more than a few inches would spell disaster for the traction motors by grounding them. water is more likely to move the roadbed, or cause soft spots, this would be my guess for the whole thing, seeing as how the train was probably doing track speed, and most soft spot track damage does not happen until the locomotives roll over it.

 

[sethmcs]

Black boxes?

Don't trains have black boxes recording train function like airplanes?

 

[norfolksouthern37]

yes they do.

 

[leeferr]

im not, the contact surface between a rail and a wheel is probably no bigger than 1/2 of an inch even factoring in any rail/wheel flattening, then there is the speed required to hydroplane just one of those 8 surfaces, the weight, and the amount of water required. i dont see any of these ever matching at any one time. so to me its not possible. if there was standing water, it is mandatory slow speed over that section. any water over the rail means 5mph speeds and any water more than a few inches would spell disaster for the traction motors by grounding them. water is more likely to move the roadbed, or cause soft spots, this would be my guess for the whole thing, seeing as how the train was probably doing track speed, and most soft spot track damage does not happen until the locomotives roll over it.

I think that you may have misread my post. I wasn't supporting the theory that the train hydroplaned. I was only questioning the definition that the cars had to be powered to hydroplane 'by definition'. I still support the theory that it's possible for a train car to hydroplane if the speed is sufficient, but I doubt any train traveling in the US could approach the speeds sufficient to cause it. Of course, it would take some complicated thermo-dynamic and calculus calculations to support the theory, but to what end? I think that we'd all agree that this train did not hydroplane.
Mike

 

[K4driver]

The over reporting reminds me of a story back in 1905 the story goes that the eastern express in Harrisburg PA, Had collided with a train carrying dynamite, the reporters said 163 were killed and "They were blown to atoms","No trace shall ever be found of them" and that gas tanks below the coaches shot up through the roofs,and the passenger Locomotive was blown to smithereens. well 23 only were killed,No gas tanks launched through the roof,the Locomotives were rebuild-able, and only 3 were "Blown atoms". The press Likes to exzagerate the news to make a better story.

 

[norfolksouthern37]

at that point then doesnt the news become fictional entertainment? that is what i consider most news now anyway.