|
Brother Jonathan posted:Must be related to these morons. A fitting end to Clark Griswald's Family Truckster.
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 15:52 |
|
|
McDeth posted:I'm not talking about trucks vs. cars, I'm talking abou trucks vs. trains. How the gently caress does a truck driver manage to drive into the side of a train? Oblivious? Clinically blind? How does someone not see they aren't clear of a truck and wrap themselves around the front of the truck causing a major accident? poo poo happens and people tard out. One truck v train accident has the problem of the truck completely centerpunched the train, UP said all the safety equipment of the crossing worked, yet somehow, the crossing arm on the side of the impact is still intact. And the skidmarks show the truck remained completely in the lane until impact. I mean, how do trains run into other trains? That has to take a lot more talent than anything else out there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
InterceptorV8 posted:How does someone not see they aren't clear of a truck and wrap themselves around the front of the truck causing a major accident? poo poo happens and people tard out. One truck v train accident has the problem of the truck completely centerpunched the train, UP said all the safety equipment of the crossing worked, yet somehow, the crossing arm on the side of the impact is still intact. You are right, a special set of circumstances have to take place for a train to contact another. You have to break a few rules that must never be broken. When you boil it down, trains are really just huge machines, and train crews, especially the engineer are the operators. When two front end loaders, two cranes, two pieces of farm equipment, two earth scrapers, even two bulldozers impact each other, there is destruction, damage, injury or death. It is all to scale though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 05:49
|
|
|
I just remembered a really badass steam loco: Southern Pacific cab forward. There's only ONE left and it's the one in the picture. Also, several pages back I mentioned how the Meitetsu line in Japan had a section on the road...it's been gone for years now. The area in question was the Inuyama Bridge, which is now a regular rail bridge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuyama_Bridge Zeether fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Oct 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
A buddy of mine works in the NYC Subway, and is expecting something like 23 hours of overtime due to the storm. They finally shut off the traction (third rail) power last night, because according to him, "Cables [were] blowing up and catching fire all over." Electric trains are awesome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
Yeah, like 7 tunnels are in various states of flooded. Nobody take the elevator. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
bytebark posted:A buddy of mine works in the NYC Subway, and is expecting something like 23 hours of overtime due to the storm. They finally shut off the traction (third rail) power last night, because according to him, "Cables [were] blowing up and catching fire all over." Electric trains are awesome. 23 hours? That sounds kinda small... of course I come from a freight railroad where 23 hours a week is the norm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
Zeether posted:I just remembered a really badass steam loco: Train Simulator 2013 has that engine as a DLC, and I've thought about getting it just because that is such a unique configuration. By the way, I was just reading a history of EMD locomotive design, and it said that with the EMC E-1 in 1937, they added a long nose to the EMC No. 511 to deliberately obscure the view of the track immediately in front of the engine. The book says that drivers were missing signals because in the cab-forward design, the drivers eyes are drawn to the moving cross ties and rails, making them "zone out" and miss important details to the sides. The nose forces the drivers to look to the sides, and it also provides a crumple-zone in case of a collision. Does this explanation make sense to the drivers in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
BrokenKnucklez posted:23 hours? That sounds kinda small... of course I come from a freight railroad where 23 hours a week is the norm. Maybe he was talking 23 hours + 8 of whatever he normally pulls for a single day?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 22:00
|
|
|
BrokenKnucklez posted:23 hours? That sounds kinda small... of course I come from a freight railroad where 23 hours a week is the norm. His facebook feed says he's just been granted 8 hours of paid rest, then back to work. With the state things are in out east, I wonder if that means he can get home and get some proper sleep, or if the roads are still totally hosed, find a high and dry spot somewhere on NYCTA property and have a really long nap. Brother Jonathan posted:By the way, I was just reading a history of EMD locomotive design, and it said that with the EMC E-1 in 1937, they added a long nose to the EMC No. 511 to deliberately obscure the view of the track immediately in front of the engine. The book says that drivers were missing signals because in the cab-forward design, the drivers eyes are drawn to the moving cross ties and rails, making them "zone out" and miss important details to the sides. The nose forces the drivers to look to the sides, and it also provides a crumple-zone in case of a collision. I think the second reason holds more water. Box-cab locomotives were considered deathtraps for crew members in the event of a collision, and then later on the Pioneer Zephyr (google it) - a streamlined train with the cab low to the ground - hit another train and it completely destroyed the cab. Railroads started wanting some buffer space in case in locomotives in case a collision occurred.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
During the transition from steam to diesel a lot of engineers didn't like diesels because they were used to having a whole boiler between them and anything they might hit. This was the reason a lot of railroads (N&W especially) had the long hood designated as the front of a locomotive despite the visibility problems that entailed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
Train hits water truck in Utah http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3e9_1351905068
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Train hits water truck in Utah I've been through there before. Holy crap indeed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
The MTA posted some raw footage of one of their special pump trains draining water in the subway tunnels beneath lower Manhattan, pretty cool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS7x9UGx5n4
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
InterceptorV8 posted:I've been through there before. Someone put this together as well. Seems very fitting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 07:41
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Train hits water truck in Utah Not actually a water truck, although the tank can hold water. That's a giant Vac truck. They use them for cleaning out storm drains and various other stuff that requires the ability to suck pretty much anything that will fit up that pipe into a giant tank.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 08:51
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Train hits water truck in Utah Oh look another truck driver not paying attention. Shocking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 09:27
|
|
|
bennyfactor posted:The MTA posted some raw footage of one of their special pump trains draining water in the subway tunnels beneath lower Manhattan, pretty cool: So wait, they just dump the water back in the sewer system? The one that's probably hosed up from being completely immersed for five days? The one that most likely has leaks going right back onto the tracks somewhere else?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 18:26
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Train hits water truck in Utah That truck got owned. Can't believe the driver was completely fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
Yeap. 300 tonnes vs 10
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:And that's not all of it. There are even some locomotives that use honest to goodness gears to drive the wheels. And hilariously complex transmissions to make it all work. Even multiple engines, driving a differential so one engine can shut down. Freaking germans... I've been on one of those on a trip in Germany. It scared the crap out of me when, after boarding a nice, quiet little train with all the windows open, one of the loudest diesel engines I've ever heard started up and shook the crap out of everything. It was also a surprise once it was moving and the engine seemed to run out of revs, then shift into second. Then third. This was less than two hours after deboarding the first inter-city train I'd ever ridden, an ICE, so I got to see the full range of what Germany had to offer in terms of passenger rail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:And that's not all of it. There are even some locomotives that use honest to goodness gears to drive the wheels. And hilariously complex transmissions to make it all work. Even multiple engines, driving a differential so one engine can shut down. Freaking germans... I want to see pics of the clutch disc they use for this. DC electric motors are awesome for a reason. Full torque from zero, bitches.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
McDeth posted:Oh look another truck driver not paying attention. Shocking. We just had yet another level crossing "accident" in Australia. Each time there are renewed calls for upgrading rural level crossing around the nation, same old etc. etc. This time was no different, except it later was found out that there *were* boom gates at this rural crossing and the truck driver just barreled through those as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 06:42
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:We just had yet another level crossing "accident" in Australia. Each time there are renewed calls for upgrading rural level crossing around the nation, same old etc. etc. This time was no different, I sometimes wonder if it is possible to get truck drivers to stop. Someone put together a compilation of greatest hits of the Carolina Can-Opener, a rail bridge with a clearance of 11 ft. 8 in. It has a sensor with warning lights that flash OVERHEIGHT, but truck drivers have been smashing into it for years. Just imagine if train drivers were as oblivious to signals as truck drivers are! Nerobro posted:And that's not all of it. There are even some locomotives that use honest to goodness gears to drive the wheels. And hilariously complex transmissions to make it all work. Even multiple engines, driving a differential so one engine can shut down. Freaking germans... kastein posted:I want to see pics of the clutch disc they use for this. It's not just the Germans that used constant-mesh mechanical gearboxes. The Hunslet Engine Company of Leeds did too: 
Brother Jonathan fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Nov 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
I saw this parked up at Paddington the other day. I know they don't go as fast as the trains on the continent but they still look cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 10:53
|
|
|
Unfortunately those were fairly irredeemable piles of shite the first time FGW used them, let's hope they've ironed out all the problems this time around. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 11:28
|
|
|
ctishman posted:So wait, they just dump the water back in the sewer system? The one that's probably hosed up from being completely immersed for five days? The one that most likely has leaks going right back onto the tracks somewhere else? Water infiltrated the subways in Lower Manhattan through air shafts and passenger entrances due to a 13-14' foot storm surge (as measured at the Battery), not leaky sewers. The storm surge is gone, so it's just a matter of moving water up high enough that it can flow back out to the harbor through a storm drain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 15:16
|
|
|
Ahh. That makes better sense, then. I suppose they don't really have a better option anyhow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 16:41
|
|
|
jammyozzy posted:Unfortunately those were fairly irredeemable piles of shite the first time FGW used them, let's hope they've ironed out all the problems this time around. Not as big piles of poo poo as this:  The danish IC4, built by Ansaldobreda in Italy, the trains were scheduled to be in service in 2003, 4 years later the first train was delivered, and in 2007 a second train was put into service. More can be read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IC4 A train of this type was strangely enough given by Berlusconi to Muammar Gadaffi, before the dictator was killed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
Kidney Stone posted:The danish IC4, built by Ansaldobreda in Italy, the trains were scheduled to be in service in 2003, 4 years later the first train was delivered, and in 2007 a second train was put into service. It says on that page that it is a diesel-mechanical design, but it doesn't say exactly what kind of transmission it uses. But why on Earth didn't they go with a well-established DMU instead of mechanical? And they ordered 83 sets in 2000 and are still waiting for them? I can see why the Danish people would be angry!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
I had no idea anyone was still making diesel mechanical locomotives. That seems more than a little insane to me. I wonder why they did it? Incidentally I have to wonder why no one has tried the locomotive model in a car. Diesels work best when used on a high torque load with little variation in RPM so hook up a small efficient turbo-diesel to a generator with some moderate capacity batteries (hybrid style) and drive the car purely on electric motors with the batteries to provide a boost when accelerating and getting charged when standing still. You'd be able to run the diesel at whatever its most efficient speed is all the time, and shut it off when the batteries are at full charge. Sure, weight would be an issue, but that's an issue with any electric car. Am I nuts? This seems obvious to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
Disgruntled Bovine posted:Incidentally I have to wonder why no one has tried the locomotive model in a car. You basically described a Prius, the electric motor does most of the propulsion, while the gas engine is a generator and can assist when accelerating. There's s few types of hybrids, most locomotives are "series" where only the electric motor propels the vehicle and the gas engine is just a generator, while the Prius is "parallel" where both motors are used as needed. I'm sure by now someone has made a diesel hybrid car, I know European car makers have very efficient diesel motors in their small cars, so the technology is out there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
The original Volt concept was a series hybrid (and it kinda bugs me that they didn't stick with it).
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 04:13
|
|
|
Bow TIE Fighter posted:You basically described a Prius, the electric motor does most of the propulsion, while the gas engine is a generator and can assist when accelerating. There's s few types of hybrids, most locomotives are "series" where only the electric motor propels the vehicle and the gas engine is just a generator, while the Prius is "parallel" where both motors are used as needed. I'm sure by now someone has made a diesel hybrid car, I know European car makers have very efficient diesel motors in their small cars, so the technology is out there. most of the acceleration in a prius comes from the 100+hp motor. The electric motors are only good for something like 40hp. both motors need to be active to transfer any torque to the wheels. The transmission in the volt is actually very similar. Series hybrids are a lossy option. As long as you have a gas motor there, and a gearbox as a fair option, the prius and volt designs are pretty darned good. Better than serial hybrid. You can get away with smaller motors, for the same output power. Locomotives see the big benefit in that the transmission has infinite gears, and you see no gearbox losses. The gearboxes necessary to transmit power from the prime mover to the motors are not small. Each driven axle throws at minimum another 2% loss into the game. While more electric motors don't "add" losses. When you have six driven axles that's significant. They also don't need to worry about weight. The heavier the locomotive, the more tractive effort you can get from it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
Bow TIE Fighter posted:You basically described a Prius, the electric motor does most of the propulsion, while the gas engine is a generator and can assist when accelerating. There's s few types of hybrids, most locomotives are "series" where only the electric motor propels the vehicle and the gas engine is just a generator, while the Prius is "parallel" where both motors are used as needed. I'm sure by now someone has made a diesel hybrid car, I know European car makers have very efficient diesel motors in their small cars, so the technology is out there. I was specifically referring to the use of a diesel engine in a hybrid rather than a gasoline engine, as a diesel is more efficient and given the way a the engine in a hybrid is generally used (running at it's most efficient RPMs to charge the battery) a diesel would be far better than a gasoline engine. That said I've done my research now and it seems this has been done in the case of several car models in Europe but none of them have been brought to the US yet due to expense. Diesels engines, due to the need to build them tougher, are more expensive than gas, so when added to the additional expense of a hybrid powertrain the European manufacturers just don't seem to think such a car would sell in the US. They may be right, but it still seems like a better idea to me than a gas hybrid. Disgruntled Bovine fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Nov 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
While looking up technical data on the Danish IC4 train, I found an amusing story about a brake problem: It must have been a very bad brake problem indeed if the fleet had to be "grounded"!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
Isn't that kind of the idea behind a cvt? Keep the engine at a relatively constant rpm and let the transmission handle the rest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 06:36
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvyIrsZ7Zhs I hate when that happens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
Erwin posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvyIrsZ7Zhs Dear god. What happens there? I mean, the frame is obviously hosed. Does the shipper's insurance rate just skyrocket after the insurer pays out of pocket for a goddamn locomotive?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 15:52 |
|
|
One can tell that the frame broke on impact. When I was in the navy, we had an aircraft break its frame when it landed poorly. The squadron could do nothing but scratch it and cannibalize it for parts. Is the locomotive looking at the same fate?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 02:49
|
|