posted
What's the proper railroading term for an incident in which locomotive inadvertently becomes uncoupled from its train while moving at speed?
Happened yesterday on the Algoma Central just four miles south of Hearst. We were already 1.5 hours late.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe the engineer was trying to make up some time by pulling a little less weight?
Isn't it called a "separation" when 2 cars uncouple? I don't know if there's a different term when it's the locomotive separating from the train.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard "train divided" but don't know whether it's an official term - I would lean towards Vincent's separation. Certainly not a good situation, particularly with passenger trains.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come to think of it, I believe the conductor did say "train separated." I would have said "Where'd the locomotive go?"
In any case there was no danger. The air brakes did what they were supposed to and stopped both parts of the train, the locomotive about 50 yards ahead.
I'd been through this before once, when the Zephyr lost its rear coach in the Sierra. Same hard stop, same sudden odor of brake smoke.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Henry, are you sure they weren't filming a sequel to "Silver Streak" up there? Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Train Separation" is a recognized term for the incident Mr. Kisor experienced; however "involuntary separation" appears to be Amtrakese for such:
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: In any case there was no danger. The air brakes did what they were supposed to and stopped both parts of the train, the locomotive about 50 yards ahead.
It's not without significant risk. You're:
(a) relying on the front portion to stop slower than the rear, otherwise an "involuntary recoupling at speed" takes place (engine surges ahead briefly before brakes fully apply, engine stops quickly, cars in rear slam back into engine even though they're also braking).
(b) hoping that it's not two passenger cars separating with persons about to walk between the two cars, lest they "involuntarily disembark" (at speed, and without a step stool).
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a good point, Geoff, especially in the first case. In the second case, the car immediately behind the locomotive (the one uncoupled from it) was the power car; the sole coach was behind that one, and the baggage behind that in turn.
It would be useful to know how often during an involuntary separation of locomotive and train that the trailing segment of the train slams into the leading one. Does the added mass of the engine cause it to stop more slowly, therefore open up space between it and the rest of the train?
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geoff Mayo: [QUOTE](a) relying on the front portion to stop slower than the rear, otherwise an "involuntary recoupling at speed" takes place (engine surges ahead briefly before brakes fully apply, engine stops quickly, cars in rear slam back into engine even though they're also braking).
An accident of exactly this nature occurred many years ago on the GM&O just west of Union, Mississippi. This was the "Rebel" train between Jackson, Tennessee and New Orleans. The train was a very short and unique diesel train built in the 1930's. A coach was added at Union to serve the additional loading between Jackson, Mississippi and New Orleans.
It is ICC Accident Report #3040. Date of accident November 23, 1946. The ICC reprots were models of brevity compared to tne NTSB reports.
The summary of this one states:
quote:Accident at Tuscola, Miss., on November 23, 1946, caused by the power brakes of the rear portion of a passnger train being disconnected from the train air-brake system. . . .
On November 23, 1946, there was a collision between the front and rear portions of a passenger train on the Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad at Tuscola, Miss., which resulted in the injury of three passengers, one person carried under contract, three train-service employees and one train porter.
These traisn were unique sets of equipment operating on a very low density line in terms of both on-line population and traffic volume on the line.
Here is the meat of the report:
quote:No. l, a south-bound first-class passenger train, consisted of Diesel-electric motor-car 354, a three-compartment type unit, one coach, one coach-sleeping car and one observation-sleeping car, in the order named. The train was being operated from the control compartment located at the front of the motor-car. This train departed from Union, the last open office, 29.9 miles north of Tusco1a, at 4:08 a.m., 40 minutes late, and while it was moving at an estimated speed of 25 miles per hour the train became separated between the second and third cars. The separation occurred about 1 mile north of the station at Tuscola. The front portion of the train, which consisted of the motor-car and one car, stopped about 5:24 a.m. in the vicinity of the station at Tuscola. Immediately afterward the rear portion, consisting of two cars and moving at an estimated speed of 25 miles per hour, struck the north end of the front portion.
The force of the impact moved the front portion of the train forward about 40 feet. The rear wheels of the front truck of the third car were derailed. The rear coupler of the second car and the front coupler of the third car were broken, and the center sills of both cars were buckled. The abutting ends of these two cars were crushed inward about 30 inches, and the side sheets were spread to a width of about 14 feet. The roof sheets were torn and bent at the ends, and the interior fixtures of the cars were considerably damaged. The fourth car was slightly damaged.
The weather was clear at the time of the accident, which occurred about 5:24 a.m.
The engineer, the conductor and the flagman were injured.
The equipment involved in this accident is of streamline lightweight-steel construction, designed for operation only in trains consisting of equipment of similar design. Each unit was constructed in accordance with specifications which provide for withstanding of end-to-end buffing stress of 200,000 pounds for passenger cars used in trains weighing between 300,000 pounds and 600,000 pounds lightweight. The weight of the equipment was 494,280 pounds. Each unit is provided with 4-wheel trucks having roller-bearings. The couplers are of tight-lock design, having tight contours in the coupler heads and knuckles, wings on each side of the coupler head, and interlocking pins and, funnels on the wings. When connected the couplers form a solid beam, horizontally and vertically, to prevent lateral or vertical movement between coupler faces. When the knuckles close during coupling action, a tapered-wedge lock, located in the body of the coupler, slides horizontally forward as a result of spring action and engages the tapered surface of the tail of the knuckle and a safety latch drops to engage a l/2-inch shoulder on the lower part of the shank to prevent the lock from moving backward. The knuckle cannot be opened until the safety latch has been raised and the wedge lock has been retracted and disengaged by means of a lever and a chain actuated from the corner of the car by a detachable crank. This action lifts the safety latch sufficiently to clear the right-angle offset so that the wedge lock can move backward to clear the knuckle tail. The shank of the coupler is connected to the draft gear by a ball-and-socket joint. Spring carriers and centering devices are provided for moving the coupler to central position upon being uncoupled. This arrangement limits the coupling function under impact proportionate to the gathering range of the coupler. In addition, the couplers involved are equipped with automatic connectors which are rigidly attached below the coupler heads and which contain the air, electric and steam connections. These connections couple under impact and, if proper coupling has been made, no leakage of air or steam occurs.
Each unit is provided with HSC brake equipment with Decelakron control. The motor-unit is provided with an M-40 brake valve and a safety-control feature. The train-brake system is arranged for electro-pneumatic operation, automatic air-brake operation and straight-air operation. Two brake pipes are required for the varied operations, one for electro-pneumatic and automatic operations and the other for straight-air operation. In electro-pneumatic operation the control valves are actuated in response to electrical energy transmitted through the circuits in the couplers and the units to the control valves simultaneously as a result of placing the brake valve in actuating position. The brake-pipes on each unit can be closed at each end by cut-out cocks. Self-venting cut-out cocks are located in the supply pipes to each brake cylinder. The train-brake system on each unit can be cut out by closing the branch-pipe cut-out cock and releasing air pressure from the auxiliary reservoir and the supply reservoir.
The passenger train speed limit on this line was 60 mph. This on a line in either 80 or 90 pound rail and no signal system.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This gets more and more fascinating with each message. Thanks especially to Messrs. Mayo and Harris.
Of oblique interest might be a habit of some engineers that I heard about while researching "Zephyr": plugging the engine brake with a piece of wood or a coin. When a passenger train arrived at a station and the brakes on the engine as well as the cars were applied and then released, there would be a sharp (and, to the engineers in question, annoying) blast of air from the engine brake close to the engineer's ear. Plugging the brake stifled the annoying noise. (I think but am not sure that it also helped to stretch out the minimal slack between the cars, helping insure a smooth and jolt-free restart..)
Of course plugging the brake nullified a safety device and was officially frowned on.
Does it still go on? I don't know.
I also don't know if plugging the brake would cause the engine during a train separation to keep going until the crew became aware it wasn't pulling a load anymore. Anyone know?
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MDRR: IIRC, Amtrak uses the term "involuntary separation".
Sounds more like somebody being kicked out of the Army.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Trainweb article on the Algoma Central adventure is up now.
Many thanks to the members of the forum for helping put the Separation Adventure into perspective. This is a wonderful resource for writers.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen this happen on a Coast Starlight #11 several years ago at the old OAK station at 16th and Wood. A switch crew had "tacked on" an old ex-ATSF hi level coach at the rear to accomodate some heavy coach business. I was the TA assigned to that car. Car was coupled and the air made. Passengers were loaded. On departure, in less that 500 yds the knuckles opened and the car separated. Both the single coach, and main train stopped immediately.
The rear brakeman got on the pac-set and called the head end, and the train was quickly reassembled. I think the switch crew did not perform a "double stretch" that day (have the engine pull out the slack and make sure the joint was secure.) No one got hurt, but I'm sure some of the T and E crew felt "official repercussions" from the SP/ Amtrak managers that day.
Posts: 588 | From: East San Diego County, CA | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
