Eastern Railroad Discussion > Wind turbine blade train at Deshler.

While on my way to work I caught this blade train well east of Deshler making a backup move west on # 1 track, crossing over at east Deshler and headed down the Toledo sub to go into the siding at south Deshler.

Because of this move it held up five trains that I know of around the Deshler area. Is this a normal move for this area or a possible detour move or is it a new train, or a train sent in the wrong direction? I have never seen or heard of this move through Deshler, anyone know what's going on? I did not get a picture of the crew riding the rear car because I know some of them don't like their picture taken.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/11 04:59 by Hamler-Henry.

---

---

---

X-991-27 is the train. Several windmill trains have operated through all three transfers at Deshler in the past few months. May have been clearance issue in northwest transfer and also Q-509 was being held in the northwest transfer at that time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/11 05:56 by farmer.

There's a wind farm under construction in the thumb area of Michigan. Perhaps these blades are for that? If that's the case, I don't know why the back-around move at Deshler was chosen over Fostoria though.

Posted from BlackBerry

This train was sitting at Tracy Road at 9:30AM in Toledo with no signal and what looked like the outbound crew getting ready - then they got a light and departed at 9:45AM. Heads up Michigan!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/11 06:55 by MDH.

Didn't finally get out of Toledo until about 11:45 when it cleared Alexis after taking a MOW delay on the East side.

Michael

Hamler-Henry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
\, anyone know what's going on?

Meet and pass issues, due to the width of the cars.

csxdispatcher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hamler-Henry Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> \, anyone know what's going on?
>
> Meet and pass issues, due to the width of the
> cars.


Not the width, the load was no wider than the car. Maybe because of the length of the blades on tight curves?

Yep, for the thumb of MI. Went by the house (South Clyde MP 61.4) @ 16:10

Hamler-Henry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> csxdispatcher Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hamler-Henry Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > \, anyone know what's going on?
> >
> > Meet and pass issues, due to the width of the
> > cars.
>
>
> Not the width, the load was no wider than the car.
> Maybe because of the length of the blades on tight
> curves?

They were far wider than a standard car

The clearances on the northwest connection are very tight in Deshler which probably necessitated the odd move. Maybe other issues on the C&O too which is why they didn't go to Fostoria.

One of these went through Deshler on the night of July 3rd, led by a Warbonnet and a BNSF Pumpkin. It had used the NW transfer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/11 22:49 by Poker2662.

csxdispatcher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hamler-Henry Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > csxdispatcher Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Hamler-Henry Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > \, anyone know what's going on?
> > >
> > > Meet and pass issues, due to the width of the
> > > cars.
> >
> >
> > Not the width, the load was no wider than the
> car.
> > Maybe because of the length of the blades on
> tight
> > curves?
>
> They were far wider than a standard car


No they are not, the load does not extend beyond the edges of the flat car which is no wider than say a boxcar. Longer in lenght but not wider.

It appears the tip of the blade is on one car, and then there is a spacer car, and the butt is on a third car. That would be very tight on the NW Xfer at Deshler. It could wind in an office to get a therapeutic massage from a "Weasel" on Main St. on Deshler...

45ACP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It appears the tip of the blade is on one car, and
> then there is a spacer car, and the butt is on a
> third car. That would be very tight on the NW
> Xfer at Deshler. It could wind in an office to
> get a therapeutic massage from a "Weasel" on Main
> St. on Deshler...


Each blade used two cars.

This building would be close to the track, but there appeared to be a safe distance between it and a train on the NW transfer, so otherwise it wouldve been more likely for the blades to hit the crossing gate.

---

Hamler-Henry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> csxdispatcher Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hamler-Henry Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > csxdispatcher Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Hamler-Henry Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > \, anyone know what's going on?
> > > >
> > > > Meet and pass issues, due to the width of
> the
> > > > cars.
> > >
> > >
> > > Not the width, the load was no wider than the
> > car.
> > > Maybe because of the length of the blades on
> > tight
> > > curves?
> >
> > They were far wider than a standard car
>
>
> No they are not, the load does not extend beyond
> the edges of the flat car which is no wider than
> say a boxcar. Longer in lenght but not wider.

Really? You should call Omaha with that expert information and tell them that the people who measured the width of the car are incompetent. After all they measured it to be wider than a standard car......

csxdispatcher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hamler-Henry Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > csxdispatcher Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Hamler-Henry Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > csxdispatcher Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Hamler-Henry Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > \, anyone know what's going on?
> > > > >
> > > > > Meet and pass issues, due to the width of
> > the
> > > > > cars.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not the width, the load was no wider than
> the
> > > car.
> > > > Maybe because of the length of the blades
> on
> > > tight
> > > > curves?
> > >
> > > They were far wider than a standard car
> >
> >
> > No they are not, the load does not extend
> beyond
> > the edges of the flat car which is no wider
> than
> > say a boxcar. Longer in length but not wider.
>
> Really? You should call Omaha with that expert
> information and tell them that the people who
> measured the width of the car are incompetent.
> After all they measured it to be wider than a
> standard car......


Omaha, what do they know? the cars are no wider than the the UP units and, two of the cars was an ex TTX flatcar painted into the new reporting marks. The blades were narrower than the UP units. So, how can it be considered a "wide" load?

Wait, wait, let me go make some popcorn. This is getting lively.

Perhaps the fact of when the cars turn, the center of the blade hangs of the side of the track since each blade is on two cars...?

Hamler-Henry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Omaha, what do they know? the cars are no wider
> than the the UP units and, two of the cars was an
> ex TTX flatcar painted into the new reporting
> marks. The blades were narrower than the UP units.
> So, how can it be considered a "wide" load?

Hamler-Henry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> csxdispatcher Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hamler-Henry Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > csxdispatcher Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Hamler-Henry Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > csxdispatcher Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > > Hamler-Henry Wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > \, anyone know what's going on?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Meet and pass issues, due to the width
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > cars.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not the width, the load was no wider than
> > the
> > > > car.
> > > > > Maybe because of the length of the blades
> > on
> > > > tight
> > > > > curves?
> > > >
> > > > They were far wider than a standard car
> > >
> > >
> > > No they are not, the load does not extend
> > beyond
> > > the edges of the flat car which is no wider
> > than
> > > say a boxcar. Longer in length but not wider.
> >
> > Really? You should call Omaha with that expert
> > information and tell them that the people who
> > measured the width of the car are incompetent.
> > After all they measured it to be wider than a
> > standard car......
>
>
> Omaha, what do they know? the cars are no wider
> than the the UP units and, two of the cars was an
> ex TTX flatcar painted into the new reporting
> marks. The blades were narrower than the UP units.
> So, how can it be considered a "wide" load?

I am sure that UP's clearance people are not as near as smart as you.. Maybe I will make the suggestion to Jacksonville to have the clearance department abolished and have Hamler-Henry just eyeball every load. Think of the money the company will save!!!! Nevermind, I think I will take to word of those that actully MEASURED the load, not someone looking at it from trackside.