Western Railroad Discussion > Question about loco Placement-in-train rule

I have a question regarding the reasoning and specifics on a rule. This is on a Shortline operating on a commuter line that rarely operates multiple-unit consists, and if it does; very rarely has more than 2 units. The commuter agency rulebook governs both railroads, and it seems they just copied and pasted UP's old ABTH into their own.

My research led me to understand that the reason behind this rule on class 1's is due to the fact that non-alignment control couplers can jackknife and potentially cause the locomotive or cars to climb the rail or cause the rail to roll over when the lead consist is in dynamics or is shoving a heavy cut. By placing such locomotives in 2nd place the hazard is avoided.

1. My first question is what were the protocols when there were only 2 units in the consist, one of which was a non-alignment control locomotive? Such as a road-switcher job with a GP38 and an MP15.

2. Does this whole rule only apply to locomotives isolated or shut down as the first paragraph suggests?

3. What would it mean if our MP15 does in fact have alignment control? (UMLER/RAILINC confirmed)

4. If none of the above were the case, wouldn't you want your non-alignment locomotive in the lead position on a 2-unit consist so that the alignment control loco is against the cars?

Thanks in advance for your comments!

---

Running or not, you don't want a locomotive without alignment control couplers coupled to the first car in a heavy train as a heavy slack run-in will induce lateral forces that could push the locomotive or car off the tracks. Generally you want a locomotive without alignment control couplers coupled between two locomotives with alignment controlled couplers. But in the case of just two units, just hope you can make the locomotive without the alignment controlled couplers the leader. Rules vary from railroad to railroad, but this appears to be copied from a class 1 rulebook. Generally shortlines don't handle trains heavy enough to be a issue, This also wasn't an issue in the past when air brakes, not dynamic brakes were the primary means of controlling slack in a train.. But with the heavy reliance on dynamic braking on class 1 railroads these days, these forces where the train meets the locomotives has become far more critical.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

This sounds like part of the SP's rule which provided for one or two non-alignment control locomotives in a dynamic brake equipped consist.

One or two non alignment locos had to be mu'ed behind one dynamic leader, the consist behind them didn't matter. There was some confusion when they would get two SW1500s and a GEEP on a local, and they ended up with the GEEP leading so they had the one unit of dynamic, and a toilet.

The bottom line of this whole thing is to look back at the number of five unit SD7 and 9 consists running over the NWP without ever an incident. Two four axle non-alignment units can't develop enough effort to derail anything.
G

I was rather confused over all this. When we were SP I remember SD9's as having alignment control couplers (not sure about SD7's) and you'd routinely see them all over the place, anywhere in the consist, and in all kinds of grade territory. It was my understanding also that MP15's, which were basically a road version of an SW1500, also had alignment control couplers. Then when UP came along all these units were considered as "non-alignment control" units.

Of course on UP with multiple railroads being combined maybe some SD7's/SD9's and MP15's from other railroads didn't have alignment control couplers - who knows.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/18 19:22 by Railbaron.

hawker95 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have a question regarding the reasoning and
> specifics on a rule. This is on a Shortline
> operating on a commuter line that rarely operates
> multiple-unit consists, and if it does; very
> rarely has more than 2 units. The commuter agency
> rulebook governs both railroads, and it seems they
> just copied and pasted UP's old ABTH into their
> own.
>
> My research led me to understand that the reason
> behind this rule on class 1's is due to the fact
> that non-alignment control couplers can jackknife
> and potentially cause the locomotive or cars to
> climb the rail or cause the rail to roll over when
> the lead consist is in dynamics or is shoving a
> heavy cut. By placing such locomotives in 2nd
> place the hazard is avoided.

First, as to the reason behind the rule remember that the lateral forces involved in train handling scenarios do not respect nor are they confined to
so-called 'class 1' railroad operations therefore these forces must be considered in arranging locomotive placement regardless of class of railroad or
geographical location of their operation. Second, 'jack knifing' is only one result of exceeding lateral over vertical (L/V) forces. Stringlining is
the opposite effect where excessive lateral force is applied with the result of either lifting a lightly loaded or empty car off the track toward the
inside of a curve or possibly turning the inside rail of a curve over when too much force is applied when cars are being pulled, also know as in 'draw'.
The hazards are still there, just waiting for a poorly maintained stretch of anybody's railroad. Also, see my comments below question 4.
>
> 1. My first question is what were the protocols
> when there were only 2 units in the consist, one
> of which was a non-alignment control locomotive?
> Such as a road-switcher job with a GP38 and an
> MP15.

The rule you are citing, 101.17 in paragraph A discusses a locomotive with alignment control couplers being PLACED IN A TRAIN, (NOT the locomotive used to operate the train), with the engine isolated or shut down. The exception in paragraph A refers to SW and MP model switch engines WITH alignment control (because we're still under paragraph A) which
requires those engines to be placed as the second in the locomotive consist (the locomotive used to operate the train) one
per train, when handling cars. In your two locomotive example of a GP38/MP15 consist; which ever locomotive is NOT equipped with with alignment control must be placed
second in the consist, one per train, when handling cars.

>
> 2. Does this whole rule only apply to locomotives
> isolated or shut down as the first paragraph
> suggests?

Yes. However, again, in your first question with the two working locomotive consist neither the GP38 or MP15 are shut down or isolated, therefore rule 101.17 would not apply.
>
> 3. What would it mean if our MP15 does in fact
> have alignment control? (UMLER/RAILINC confirmed)

According to the exception in paragraph A (SW and MP model locomotives WITH alignment control couplers) as well as the models, among others listed, in paragraph B WITHOUT alignment control couplers require second in the locomotive consist, one per train when handling cars placement.
>
> 4. If none of the above were the case, wouldn't
> you want your non-alignment locomotive in the lead
> position on a 2-unit consist so that the alignment
> control loco is against the cars?

That would seem logical, however as an example, BNSF in their April 7, 2010 AB&TH rule 103.6.6 'Shoving Movements' only limited power during shoving movements when
exceeding 12 equivalent axle's. Only referring to a BNSF Train Tonnage Profile among your train documents would tell you what "Equivalent" axles meant but basically that
equated to higher axle rating on AC locomotives. (That's an old reference but it may still be in effect).

Another quirk regarding locomotive placement in the past was that Southern Pacific once required a so-called 'road locomotive' to placed 'against the train' when a
locomotive consist contained a locomotive not equipped with alignment control couplers. I know all about that one and wrote about my first hand experience here:

https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?18,3937078,3937078#msg-3937078

> Thanks in advance for your comments!


Charlie

Thank you all for your replies.
As I understand it now after reading the comments, my scenario of the GP38/MP15 consist where both are powered and both are equipped with alignment control couplers means rule 101.17 does not apply. However, if either the MP15 is isolated, shut down, or does not have alignment control couplers means that it goes in 2nd place no matter how many units you have in the powered consist.

This is helpful information in the circumstance where we use MU consists because we won't have to swap locomotive placement when changing directions as my boss thought.

As a note, SP installed blocking devices on their SW1500's and when they were used in a consist those blocks were supposed to be swung in and locked in place. While they supposedly limited the swing of the drawbar they didn't eliminate the placement requirement. 

One day on the westbound (SP directions) Coos Bay Hauler we had one 2nd out spliced between 2 SD9's. Passing through Tunnel 16 we derailed 7 cars inside the tunnel. When the RFE showed up the very first thing he checked were if the blocks were in place on the SW1500; the SW1500 had nothing to do with the derailment because I was power braking and we "found" a broken rail.
 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/18 19:29 by Railbaron.