Eastern Railroad Discussion > Bounciest Train I've Ever Seen In Person In Years Q016 - Paris OH

Today I ventured out to Paris / Wayland Ohio west of Newton Falls. Anyway, I caught quite a few CSX trains, but I noticed the eastbounds really bounced through this section of track. Well Q016 was running late this evening because of hitting a pedestrian near Akron, which I started that topic here - https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?2,4277227 anyway, after 1 hour and 30 minute delay do to the accident he came through here are Route 225. Anyway, I decided to do a zoom on the video camera so you can see how bad this track really is. In my opinion, it definitely needs to be replaced. I know other people have seen worse, but this is the worst section of mainline track I've seen in person in years. Actually his snowplow on front almost touched the rail as you can see. Pictures of this train, I'll add tomorrow.

You must be a registered subscriber to watch videos. Join Today!

Thanks for shooting the whole train. 144 wells or artic platforms; about 10,200 ft my guestimate incl locos. Locos are much heavier per footprint than even loaded stacked cons. There is definitely some soft spots there in what appears to be well ballasted and good drainage spot. It was all vertical. I did not see much side sway. Needs to be tamped up and some ballast my guess. I hope O-o-s in Philly views and offers his comments; he is and MofW expert as are others.

Didn't they  derail and  demolish the  depot  a  few  years  back??

Great Video and Congrats on Video of the Day!

SouthWest RailCams
CA, NM, CO, TX, AZ
https://SouthWestRailCams.com

JLinDE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for shooting the whole train. 144 wells or
> artic platforms; about 10,200 ft my guestimate
> incl locos. Locos are much heavier per footprint
> than even loaded stacked cons. There is definitely
> some soft spots there in what appears to be well
> ballasted and good drainage spot. It was all
> vertical. I did not see much side sway. Needs to
> be tamped up and some ballast my guess. I hope
> O-o-s in Philly views and offers his comments; he
> is and MofW expert as are others.
I agree that it needs to be tamped right now and more stone ballast will help. Eventually without this maintenance there could be a derailment as that's a tremendous amount of pressure exerted on that section of bouncy track.
John

JLinDE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> I agree that it needs to be tamped right now and
> more stone ballast will help. Eventually without
> this maintenance there could be a derailment as
> that's a tremendous amount of pressure exerted on
> that section of bouncy track.
> John


THIS VIDEO NEEDS TO BE SHOWN TO A SUPERVISOR OR SOMEONE IN THE HIGHER UP IN THE MOW DEPT NOW!

It's an accident looking for a place to happen if it's left like this. That extreme bounce on this area of track is a warning sign. I'm no expert, but I can certainly tell when something doesn't look right or may turn dangerous. Should you decide to show them your vid and they don't do anything about it....at that point it's on them WHEN not IF a derailment happens. What makes it even worse is the crossing that's near where the bounce is occurring. Just my two cents worth, but that's what I'd do.

Nice job and congrats

I would have been awalking away from that area real quick after seeing that...
then it only got faster...

bert14 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would have been awalking away from that area
> real quick after seeing that...
> then it only got faster...

Thank you to everyone who that has replied. Anyway, bert14, I saw other trains there at that location and the 2 eastbounds I saw did bounce but not as bad as the Q016 you see in that video. Accept one eastbound freight that went through and the 3rd unit I believe a GEVO did the same thing. I very rarely ever film close to a train, but this wasn't overly close, I just wanted a video so you could see how bad the track is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/17 06:39 by cornerfieldhobby.

The train crew has some responsibility in reporting this condition too.

Look at some old Penn Central video's......talk about rocking and rolling...

Rathole Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The train crew has some responsibility in
> reporting this condition too.


Amen to that!

mudd pumping perhaps , becomes washboard, just like a country road

I agree with above. I worked for PC and was out on the property. The videos that bluesboyst mentions are true. I may have some of them and seen other examples in my RR travels. It is sometimes amazing what the standard three piece truck can negotiate under the worst of conditions. The difference between then and now is this. PC could not do much about it due to lack of funds. It had to exist with what it had and hope things worked out on all but mainlines or major yards, and just 'live with it'. But CSX has plenty of money and resources to fix this bad spot in the poster's video quickly. And yes, it should be reported. But if it was, would it now be fixed under the new CSX regime?

Local case in point at the nearby yard. We have a critical switch, on a curved piece of track on a slight downgrade that is used for switching and set off and doubling of road trains. Sometimes crews hold on to 100 or more cars here. The switch is right next to a paved access road owned by the railroad but used and considered as a public road to several businesses that probably have no idea it is still owned by the railroad, despite its name 'B&O Lane'. Just by driving by, and having some RR maintenance knowledge, in the past few years I have found four major defects and reported them. Three were all the bolts missing on one side of a splice bar, one last fall a broken rail between the frog and switch points. They put bars on it. Now, with the recent wet weather, a mud spot has developed just ahead of the switch points where a long string of curved welded rail ends. Heavy cars dip going over it. This track is two feet above the roadway, and others, not just me, think if a shoving move derailed there the cars might tip over on the roadway. At least 1/4 of the cars using this turnout are loaded or empty Hazmats. A local MofW man says the switch needs major upgrading or replacement and requested same. He has been denied, told to 'live with it'.

Is this the new CSX 'live with it'? I will not sit near that switch when trains are moving now. Employees at a local service industry have no choice.....

It looks worse than it is ... i've seen E60s AEM7s HHP8s bounce on NEC trackage ... speed is the reason this train has more action than the others ... uniform profile dips can make a track LOOK bad but it can still be within class standards ... track warp aka <twist> where staggered low spots exist on opposite rails are more prone to produce a rough ride leading to possible derailment ... it's all about the measuement factors ...

Regardless of whether the EHH regime was in place at CSX or not, do I think anything WOULD be done if the vid was shown to someone in the MOW Dept. that could make the call to get it repaired? No, I don't, but at least I could say I tried. And yes the crew does have some responsibility to report it, but the mentality with this is like most anything else these days, yeah, we've known about it for some time, but never had anything happen....until now. When is NOW going to happen,only God knows. And by the way Out_ Of _Service, your screen name fits what has a very high chance of happening through there at some point in the future, the line is going to be out of service for at least a day and a half, maybe more depending. If rails were laid with the intent of having trains bouncing along like this, they'd be doing so all the way not just in one spot. Who knows how many derailments may have happened in the past in remote areas due to something that started out just like this. Again, just my two cents worth.

You guys apparently were never around the railroads in the 1970's.

Yes, some of us were and we don't want to return to the track conditions of that period.


Englewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You guys apparently were never around the
> railroads in the 1970's.