Major Derailment in Hyndman PA

Statkowski wrote:Had two derailments in Cherry Tree, Pa. on the RJ Corman Pennsylvania Line involving the bottom of a grade combined with a curve at the bottom. They figured it was too much weight coming down the 0.8% grade putting too much stress on the outside rail of the 14-degree curve at the bottom. Speed was not a factor. Outside rail laid down on its side from the lateral stress, 13 loaded cars ended on the ground. Ever since they reduced the train length there hasn't been a problem since.

Before I retired in December 2016, Q388's had been operated at the MAXIMUM tonnage CSX power rules permitted for both head end power and rear end helper power - that figure is nominally 17K tons over Sand Patch. Several times Q388's that had been built to 20K tons from Willard had to be reduced at Connellsville to get within the allowed maximum tonnage.

Fortunately I retired before EHH's 'definition' damaged the existing and fluid state of precision railroading.

mmi16 that's very interesting, thanks for posting that.

Railway Age has reported that the train weight was 18,000+ tons. They also indicated that there was no rear end helper assigned, that of the five units on the head end, three were dead-in-tow, and that reportedly -- this has not been confirmed -- there was a cut of 50 empty cars at or close to the head end. Link

Oh nice! Thanks for posting Mr. Meehan!

Going downhill with only 2 active units is a mistake,unless there was a Mech reason for 3 units "dead in tow",could the crew started up
those dead units for the DB needed to go down the grade? Saving diesel fuel does not cut it here!

Penny wise, pound foolish. The Hyndman incident will cost many millions $$$.

Backshophoss wrote:Going downhill with only 2 active units is a mistake,unless there was a Mech reason for 3 units "dead in tow",could the crew started up
those dead units for the DB needed to go down the grade? Saving diesel fuel does not cut it here!

DIT engines headed to Cumberland normally are shopped engines and are not able to be used for any of a variety reasons. Cumberland is still one of CSX's major locomotive shops.

Mr. MMI, I must ask how did that "monster train" ever get UP the hill from Meyersdale?

If it had to "double", does Yäger really think of that as "precision railroading"?

Even there were no injuries, the NTSB will investigate as the property damage threshold is $25,000. It will be interesting to see the Prelimary.

mmi16 wrote:DIT engines headed to Cumberland normally are shopped engines and are not able to be used for any of a variety reasons. Cumberland is still one of CSX's major locomotive shops.

That's a good point and, as railroaders on another forum pointed out, there could be any number of causes for the derailment, including a track problem or an equipment defect with one of the freight cars that derailed. As for operating without a helper, and they apparently were, the normal assignment is two high horsepower locomotives with extended range dynamics. They should have been able to negotiate the ascending grade as apparently they did. Comments I've seen from other railroaders was that having a sizeable cut of empties on the head end -- if that turns out to be true -- is something investigators are undoubtedly looking at. Also, again mentioned on Trainorders.com, reportedly the crew has said the train was handling normally, everything was okay. As they reached the foot of the grade at Hyndman they made a modest air brake application and cars immediately began derailing.

I've read several threads on this incident and CSX's current woes in particular. Mention was made about "other people's brake shoes".

For a while, stretch braking was banned on CSX. Has that ban been lifted? Not necessarily in connection with this wreck, but overall?

BR&P wrote:I've read several threads on this incident and CSX's current woes in particular. Mention was made about "other people's brake shoes".

For a while, stretch braking was banned on CSX. Has that ban been lifted? Not necessarily in connection with this wreck, but overall?

TTSI for the Keystone Subdivision, which includes Hyndman, permits stretch braking under certain circumstances.

mmi16 wrote:TTSI for the Keystone Subdivision, which includes Hyndman, permits stretch braking under certain circumstances.

Thanks!

Funny how various practices come into and fall out of favor as technology changes and as opinions develop. I have a train handling manual from.....L&N I believe....which instructs that feed valve braking is to be used when possible. Today it's prohibited not only by the railroads, but by the feds as well. (It always worked OK for me )

I know very little about air brakes or their use but I recall an earlier discussion in which a number of CSX locomotive engineers took part. They said CSX teaches new engineers that dynamics are for controlling speed, the air brakes are for stopping.

Tommy Meehan wrote:I know very little about air brakes or their use but I recall an earlier discussion in which a number of CSX locomotive engineers took part. They said CSX teaches new engineers that dynamics are for controlling speed, the air brakes are for stopping.

In general, that is correct. However, specific territories have their own geographical realities that mandate different braking strategy's be used to keep trains under control.

https://ntsb.gov/investigations/Acciden ... eport.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's something that I found on the union website this morning, interesting. I think 178 cars (loads and empties) is a bit too much to try to run over Sand Patch. I could say more about this one but not right now.

http://www.njherald.com/article/20170821/AP/308219755#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some of this stuff may be in the other link previous but here it is anyway.

Noel Weaver