Home · Maps · About

Home > SubChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

[1 2]

< Previous Page  

Page 2 of 2

 

(1640040)

view threaded

Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 15 13:54:10 2025, in response to Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 15 11:31:10 2025.

So long as you mentioned Williamsburg bridge collision, what did you hear as the major contributing factors?

Post a New Response

(1640041)

view threaded

Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 15 13:56:51 2025, in response to Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 15 11:04:08 2025.

Since the issue in question from the OP was not flat spots, I was wondering why Steam Driven was raising it.

Post a New Response

(1640042)

view threaded

Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?

Posted by Steamdriven on Sat Mar 15 14:00:59 2025, in response to Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 15 13:56:51 2025.

I meant that ABS is a known solution to wheels becoming flat-spotted.

Post a New Response

(Sponsored)

iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It

(1640043)

view threaded

Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?

Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 15 16:39:39 2025, in response to Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 15 13:54:10 2025.

Williamsburg bridge collision, what did you hear as the major contributing factors?

I've discussed the WB collision many times, so I'll skip to the results without the derivation.

It's less of what I heard than what I inferred from reading the NTSB report.

1. Obviously, the scenario was initiated by a train operator passing a red signal. However, the signal system is supposed to prevent such an incident from causing a collision. Why didn't it?

2. The emergency brakes were actuated by the train operator passing a red signal. The reason the follower's train did not stop short of a collision was because the emergency brakes applied about half the deceleration of its rated 3.0 mph/sec. The collision occurred on an uphill, so that wheel slippage wasn't a factor.

I consider the failure of the emergency brakes to be the major contributing factor. Had following train decelerated at 3.0 mph/sec from the point of its application, the following train would have stopped about 50 feet short of a collision.

I consider this to be a maintenance/equipment failure.

3. There are also two design failures that I consider to be contributing factors. If emergency brakes are applied, the primary mission is to stop the train. Throw an anchor overboard, if it would help. :=)

3a. Dynamic braking is not applied during emergency braking. A test was made by applying full service braking (with dynamic braking). The follower stopped approximately 150 feet short of the collision point.

Dynamic braking requires both third rail power and operating propulsion motors. Both might not be available during an emergency. Therefore, emergency braking should not depend on dynamic brakes. This does not excuse not applying them.

3b. The trains are not equipped with track brakes. Both dynamic and air brakes require wheels not slip. This limits the maximum deceleration rate.

Track brakes work on a different principle - an electromagnet connects the truck to the rail. The electromagnet's static friction stops the train at approximately 6 to 7 mph/sec. The electromagnet's power comes from the battery, so that third rail power is not required for successful application.

4. The MTA's collision explanation was that the newer trains achieved a higher speed than the older equipment. The signal system was designed for the older equipment's slower speed. The MTA's solution was to limit the maximum speed that could be obtained on all trains by altering the throttles.

5. The MTA's CYA response makes me skeptical of any explanation involving rolling stock brake systems.



Post a New Response

(1640044)

view threaded

Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?

Posted by heypaul on Sat Mar 15 17:04:00 2025, in response to Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 15 16:39:39 2025.

Both you guys obviously haven't seen this definitive explanation of the cause of the collision.
which unfortunately is full of shit.

Post a New Response

(1640045)

view threaded

Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 15 20:07:26 2025, in response to Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?, posted by Steamdriven on Sat Mar 15 14:00:59 2025.

But flat spots are not the issue on this case.

Post a New Response

(1640046)

view threaded

Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 15 20:07:26 2025, in response to Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?, posted by Steamdriven on Sat Mar 15 14:00:59 2025.

But flat spots are not the issue on this case.

Post a New Response

(1640047)

view threaded

Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 15 20:07:46 2025, in response to Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?, posted by Steamdriven on Sat Mar 15 14:00:59 2025.

But flat spots are not the issue on this case.

Post a New Response

(1640048)

view threaded

Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 15 20:07:47 2025, in response to Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?, posted by Steamdriven on Sat Mar 15 14:00:59 2025.

But flat spots are not the issue on this case.

Post a New Response

(1640049)

view threaded

Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 15 20:07:48 2025, in response to Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?, posted by Steamdriven on Sat Mar 15 14:00:59 2025.

But flat spots are not the issue on this case.

Post a New Response

(1640050)

view threaded

Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 15 20:07:50 2025, in response to Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?, posted by Steamdriven on Sat Mar 15 14:00:59 2025.

But flat spots are not the issue on this case.

Post a New Response

(1640051)

view threaded

Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?

Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Mar 15 22:37:05 2025, in response to Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?, posted by heypaul on Sat Mar 15 17:04:00 2025.

Who the eff is this a**hole?

Post a New Response

(1640052)

view threaded

Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 15 23:02:24 2025, in response to Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?, posted by heypaul on Sat Mar 15 17:04:00 2025.

Definitive? Hardly! There were 3 actual significant causes found in the internal investigation. By the way, who was that expert?

Post a New Response

(1640059)

view threaded

1995 Williamsburg Bridge Train Crash. Was Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?

Posted by heypaul on Sun Mar 16 09:22:58 2025, in response to Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 15 23:02:24 2025.

Definitive? Hardly! There were 3 actual significant causes found in the internal investigation. By the way, who was that expert?

I came across this video on YouTube on Saturday. I agree that is far from definitive and thought it was a good example of someone not knowing what they were talking about. I just read most of the NTSB report on the tragic accident. I was particularly amused by the YouTube blogger's assertions that there were no skid marks on the rails and that many of the bridge's signals date back to 1918. He also stated that the train was moving at 20 mph, while the report stated the train was moving around 35 when it was tripped and going about 18 mph when it crashed into the M train. The video would have been visually much better without the vlogger placing himself in the forefront.

The NTSB report suggests a number of factors that contributed to the crash.

1. They felt that motorman was asleep at the time of the accident and recommendations were made that the TA needed to better inform and educate workers about the need for adequate rest before going to work. The J train operator was working a midnight shift and the accident happened around 6 am, a particularly dangerous time for overnight workers who experience change in sleeping patterns.

2. There was insufficient stopping distance within blocks

3. The operator of the struck M train had not notified Command Center that it was stopped, although it was determined that the rule covering this was not clear or well understood.

I remember reading back in 1995, that the brake shoes were composite rather than steel, although the NTSB states that the TA had made modifications in some of the braking systems to compensate for that change in brake shoes.

Post a New Response

(1640061)

view threaded

Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?

Posted by TUNNELRAT on Sun Mar 16 10:49:01 2025, in response to Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 15 20:07:48 2025.

are your fingers "stuttering"?


Post a New Response

(1640062)

view threaded

Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?

Posted by Steamdriven on Sun Mar 16 11:56:45 2025, in response to Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 15 20:07:47 2025.

OK. I'm not familiar with the details, my comment pretty much applies only to flat spots.

Post a New Response

(1640071)

view threaded

Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?

Posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 16 22:22:26 2025, in response to Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?, posted by TUNNELRAT on Sun Mar 16 10:49:01 2025.

Chilly night

Post a New Response

(1640077)

view threaded

Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?

Posted by Railman718 on Mon Mar 17 05:46:36 2025, in response to Re: R Train May Run 8 Cars Instead of 10...Re: Is There an Update on the R160's Wheel Wear Problem?, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 15 20:07:50 2025.

But flat spots are not the issue on this case.

You are correct..

Im done with my popcorn with this issue..

Other Fun things at the moment have my attention..

Post a New Response

[1 2]

< Previous Page  

Page 2 of 2

 

[ Return to the Message Index ]