Eastern Railroad Discussion > The new HBD 10 m W of E.Palestine may have passed this burnt jour

 The new HBD 10 miles west of E. Palestine may have passed this burnt journal, also.
The NS threshold is way too lenient as the different  between the end of the axle are not till 115 F for stop and inspect..  At MP79.9 the bad bearing was 38 F degrees and at MP 69.01 was 103 F which means it increased heat by 65 F, that averaged 6 F for each mile and at that rate it would not reach the Stop & Inspect until 8 miles more.  That is only 2 miles short the new detector just added and very close to not obtaining the 115 F and could have even gotten through this new security.  Very Close, because  the Threshold is too lenient.

If one end of the axle is 38 and the other end becomes 103 F in ten miles, as was this case at Salem,  there must be a problem with that bearing.  Take the save course and change the threshold of comparing each end of axle to 50 F different not 77  F different.  And do that NOW,  Nationwide!

Per NTSB  NS setting for their alarm thresholds between 170 F and 200 F: Stop and Inspect, greater than 200 F degrees set out car.   Difference on end of same axle is 115 F degrees for stop & inspect.

 Maybe the train slowed down a small bit and didn't average 6 F for each mile and got to the new Hot Box Detector in 10 miles at 114 F, it would pass with nothing said to tell the crew to stop.  Same result. wreck and fire at E. Palestine.same as happended without new detector.

NOTE The threshold is 115 F DIFFERENCE AT EACH END OF AXLE so figuring the good axle would be 38 F the other end would have to be 153 F degrees to order the train to stop and this may have not gotten that hot still 10 miles west of where it past the E. Plaestine detectorn and derailed.

ALSO NOTE THAT IF THE GOOD BEARING GETS WARMER, 7 F degrees for example, that raises the threshold limit to cause alarm, now up to 160 F with this example.  It could go through the new detector at 159 F and continue on to derailment without the detector making a alarm call.   Reprograming is necessary, not just 200 new detectors.


 



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/23 05:43 by PlyWoody.

                Believe I will wait for the NS or someone else in the industry to give such information. Since it is their situation.
 

The detector that was already in place gave the crew an alarm for a hot bearing. They were already in the process of attempting to bring the train to a stop when it burned off. Explain how another detector that would've been farther west would've have not given an alarm too.

Posted from Android

OHRY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The detector that was already in place gave the
> crew an alarm for a hot bearing. They were already
> in the process of attempting to bring the train to
> a stop when it burned off. Explain how another
> detector that would've been farther west would've
> have not given an alarm too.

The underside of the car in question was in flames 20 miles west of where the train derailed. Having additional detectors increases the likelihood this problem would have been caught before the the train derailed.

The East Pallestine accident is one that almost guarantees there will be new regulations resulting from it.  Lawmakers and regulators don't act quickly, but I predict they will act.

dcfbalcoS1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>                 Believe I will wait for
> the NS or someone else in the industry to give
> such information. Since it is their situation.
>  

Amen. The arm chair keyboard warrior railroading experts need to crawl back into their recliners and wait for the expert reports to be released.

An edit after receiving a very negative pm from Plywoody:
Are you opinionated posters a bearing and hot box detector engineering expert in the RR industry? If not, you are not an authoritative voice in determining root cause of the accident. Even if you are an industry expert, you have not had a chance to see all the evidence collected, plus professionally, you should not be commenting on such matters on the net.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/23 15:28 by JETRR.

Please review the NOTE added to the Original Post as the new detector would not catch this bad bearing until it reached 153 F and could have been just under that.  38 F+115 F = 153 F.

It is not the need for new detector but the reprograming of the existing detector to make it safer to not happen again.  Thank you for you interest in reading and figuring it out. 

PlyWoody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please review the NOTE added to the Original Post
> as the new detector would not catch this bad
> bearing until it reached 153 F and could have been
> just under that.  38 F+115 F = 153 F.
>
> It is not the need for new detector but the
> reprograming of the existing detector to make it
> safer to not happen again.  Thank you for you
> interest in reading and figuring it out. 


How hot is a bearing when it catches fire?

JETRR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dcfbalcoS1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >                 Believe I will wait for
> > the NS or someone else in the industry to give
> > such information. Since it is their situation.
> >  
>
> Amen. The arm chair keyboard warrior railroading
> experts need to crawl back into their recliners
> and wait for the expert reports to be released.
>
> An edit after receiving a very negative pm from
> Plywoody:
> Are you opinionated posters a bearing and hot box
> detector engineering expert in the RR industry? If
> not, you are not an authoritative voice in
> determining root cause of the accident. Even if
> you are an industry expert, you have not had a
> chance to see all the evidence collected, plus
> professionally, you should not be commenting on
> such matters on the net.


Some people just can’t take off their foam colored glasses and accept the fact that a rr is not little miss innocent and needs to be held accountable

Posted from iPhone

Doug Wetherhold
Macungie, PA

ALCO630 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JETRR Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > dcfbalcoS1 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >                 Believe I will wait
> for
> > > the NS or someone else in the industry to
> give
> > > such information. Since it is their
> situation.
> > >  
> >
> > Amen. The arm chair keyboard warrior
> railroading
> > experts need to crawl back into their recliners
> > and wait for the expert reports to be released.
> >
> > An edit after receiving a very negative pm from
> > Plywoody:
> > Are you opinionated posters a bearing and hot
> box
> > detector engineering expert in the RR industry?
> If
> > not, you are not an authoritative voice in
> > determining root cause of the accident. Even if
> > you are an industry expert, you have not had a
> > chance to see all the evidence collected, plus
> > professionally, you should not be commenting on
> > such matters on the net.
>
>
> Some people just can’t take off their foam
> colored glasses and accept the fact that a rr is
> not little miss innocent and needs to be held
> accountable
>
> Posted from iPhone

Foam colored glasses, ha ha, you guys should go back and read your posts. The properly qualified investigators will determine root cause and that will not come from speculating from their recliner and keybopard, LOL!

JETRR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ALCO630 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > JETRR Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > dcfbalcoS1 Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > >                 Believe I will wait
> > for
> > > > the NS or someone else in the industry to
> > give
> > > > such information. Since it is their
> > situation.
> > > >  
> > >
> > > Amen. The arm chair keyboard warrior
> > railroading
> > > experts need to crawl back into their
> recliners
> > > and wait for the expert reports to be
> released.
> > >
> > > An edit after receiving a very negative pm
> from
> > > Plywoody:
> > > Are you opinionated posters a bearing and hot
> > box
> > > detector engineering expert in the RR
> industry?
> > If
> > > not, you are not an authoritative voice in
> > > determining root cause of the accident. Even
> if
> > > you are an industry expert, you have not had
> a
> > > chance to see all the evidence collected,
> plus
> > > professionally, you should not be commenting
> on
> > > such matters on the net.
> >
> >
> > Some people just can’t take off their foam
> > colored glasses and accept the fact that a rr
> is
> > not little miss innocent and needs to be held
> > accountable
> >
> > Posted from iPhone
>
> Foam colored glasses, ha ha, you guys should go
> back and read your posts. The properly qualified
> investigators will determine root cause and that
> will not come from speculating from their recliner
> and keybopard, LOL!

I’m not speculating about the cause. My comments are directed to the people that are still willing to give NS the benefit of the doubt. I have absolutely ZZEERROO doubt that NS will do right for the people without some type of legal or government force. And even then, I’m sure they will stonewall them as long as they possibly can.

Doug Wetherhold
Macungie, PA

ALCO630 Wrote:

> I’m not speculating about the cause. My comments
> are directed to the people that are still willing
> to give NS the benefit of the doubt. I have
> absolutely ZZEERROO doubt that NS will do right
> for the people without some type of legal or
> government force. And even then, I’m sure they
> will stonewall them as long as they possibly can.

Are they still planning on $10B stock buy-back this year?

Ray



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/23 18:36 by Ray_Murphy.

JETRR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dcfbalcoS1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >                 Believe I will wait for
> > the NS or someone else in the industry to give
> > such information. Since it is their situation.
> >  
>
> Amen. The arm chair keyboard warrior railroading
> experts need to crawl back into their recliners
> and wait for the expert reports to be released.
>
> An edit after receiving a very negative pm from
> Plywoody:
> Are you opinionated posters a bearing and hot box
> detector engineering expert in the RR industry? If
> not, you are not an authoritative voice in
> determining root cause of the accident. Even if
> you are an industry expert, you have not had a
> chance to see all the evidence collected, plus
> professionally, you should not be commenting on
> such matters on the net.

Well, IMHO, in this day and age it seems to me that believing what we are told by those in charge is a bit naive. 

I'm sorry this is complicating but this was my business and all the numbers are there at Salem to stop the train and disaster.  I just entered another NOTE to the Original Post to show how that new detector may have let this burning journal pass without an alarm.  Additional Note:  ALSO NOTE THAT IF THE GOOD BEARING GETS WARMER, 7 F degrees for example, that raises the threshold limit to cause alarm, now up to 160 F with this example.  It could go through the new detector at 159 F and continue on to derailment without the detector making a alarm call.   Reprogramming is necessary, not just 200 new detectors.

PlyWoody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please review the NOTE added to the Original Post
> as the new detector would not catch this bad
> bearing until it reached 153 F and could have been
> just under that.  38 F+115 F = 153 F.
>
> It is not the need for new detector but the
> reprograming of the existing detector to make it
> safer to not happen again.  Thank you for you
> interest in reading and figuring it out. 

If the threshold is set too low then you raise the amount of false positives, already 40% of detector activations, even higher.  Moreover crews use wax sticks to confirm an overheated bearing and these melt at specific tempatures that have to be above anything encountered during normal operations, such as on a hot summer day where the bearing is in direct sunlight. 

Halving the HBD interval pretty much solves this problem. It had been long known that it is possible, although unlikely, for a bearing to go from not overheated to the wheel falling off within a 20 mile HBD interval. It's why rollby inspections are still a thing. The Southern used a 10 mile HBD interval. N&W used a 15 mile interval. Both those parts of the NS system retain the closer detector spacing. Conrail had supplimentary dragging equipment detector locations halfway between their 20 mile spaced HBD-DED combos. These can be modified to HBD-DED which is what I suspect NS is doing.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/23 06:35 by mbrotzman.

For those waiting for the "experts" at the NTSB and elsewhere to proclaim the cause please
remember that the NTSB is sitting on the information.

I have participated in a few NTSB dog and pony shows.  When you are on an investigative
committee you are told not to divulge any information discovered.  The NTSB will subpoena and
sit on evidence.

We now know that there were two security cameras that caught the hotbox at Salem, 20 miles 
west of East Palestine.   One of the cameras was right next to the Salem detector.

For some reason the hot journal was not detected.  Since the NTSB is not letting any info out
concerning the Salem detector there could be a design flaw or setting flaw in the detector that
other users should be made aware of.  Instead of sharing the info and perhaps avoiding another
derailment the NTSB goes dark.

Not addressing the Salem detector does nothing but give rise to all kinds of crackpot ideas on
detecting hot journals.  Perhaps the Salem detector would have detected the hot journal if it
was working properly.

 

Englewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps the Salem detector would have detected the hot journal if it was working properly.

That assumes that the Salem detector was not working properly. The detector is designed to detect bearing temperatures, not flames shooting out from under the train.

You are right that the NTSB has the information. So does NS. NS has already taken action based on the investigation to verify the operation of all of their detectors. Hopefully other railroads have taken the opportunity to do the same. if NS finds a detector that is not set to their standard (what they deem "working properly") it should be corrected as part of the sweep.

justalurker66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Englewood Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Perhaps the Salem detector would have detected
> the hot journal if it was working properly.
>
> That assumes that the Salem detector was not
> working properly. The detector is designed to
> detect bearing temperatures, not flames shooting
> out from under the train.
>
> You are right that the NTSB has the information.
> So does NS. NS has already taken action based on
> the investigation to verify the operation of all
> of their detectors. Hopefully other railroads have
> taken the opportunity to do the same. if NS finds
> a detector that is not set to their standard (what
> they deem "working properly") it should be
> corrected as part of the sweep.

NTSB said the Salem detector said the failed bearing gained 65 F in 10 miles so that tell anyone that it is failed and going to pieces.  38 + 65 = 103F with threshold being 115 but should have been 50 above the other bearing.  What happened to better safe than sorry?  You should play with the number in my OP and discover what I am trying to tell you.  New detectors are not the whole answer, re-programing to get alarms when needed is needed.  Threashold for NS is now 115 F between axles.  False alarms are better to handle that dumping chemical in town.