“Controlled”
http://www.telegram.com/news/20180225/authorities-say-train-fire-in-worcester-controlled-burn
I continue to be astonished by media coverage of railroads.
So all those Alco’s are really just doing “controlled burns”?
I suppose you could use that term, although I am not fond of “engine car” to describe a locomotive.
Behind that is a toothpick car, and behind that a buzzy-keepcold car.
It’s a “toaster.” We’ve come to expect that…
And we wouldn’t expect anything else from the media any more.
Engine car I can expect from the media.
But the rail company’s media official had to be the one that gave the statement that it was a ‘controlled burn’. This official must have departed the media Friday to becom the mouthpiece of the company on Monday - without going the the Railroad 101 course.
That engine car be very much broken. Fire on the inside - okay. Fire on the outside - less so.
Well, it’s as controlled as one of those ever is on a GE…
And it seems to fit with the more normal use of ‘controlled burn’ in fire management… tree? Would any railroad-management drone not already in the fire service use that particular term of art?
If they were clever it would be an opportunity to discuss regeneration of DPFs as a valuable strategy in diesel-locomotive management, all the more significant for being almost utterly spurious.
I just find it sad that Mr. Jung and the whole staff (I somewhat uncharitably suspect that when you have a paper called the “Telegram” you’re already somewhat behind the technology power curve) still have no idea what they’re looking at, or why there might be an interesting story in it.
In the fire world, a controlled burn (or “prescribed burn”) would be one that was set in order to get rid of something, be it an old house or underbrush.
OTOH, I wouldn’t expect an office drone, or even a run-of-the-mill PR person, to know about and understand why instances such as that occur.
Odd.
I heard that it was a new FRA requirement for improved grade crossing safety:
If repeated loud horn sounds don’t get your attention, then perhaps giant flames coming out of an engine car would.
It would certainly get mine.
Ed
[(-D][(-D]
Whoever or whatever the official is, he needs a good grounding in railroad operation–and in peculiarites of certain engines.
I think they use the term, “controlled burn” just to mean it is something intended or normally occurring rather than an accidental fire. I am sure they realize that the fire has not intentionally been set to dispose of part of the locomotive. I would give them credit for not regarding the fire as an accidental, destructive burn. That is how the public regarded the fire on the oil train locomotive involved in the Lac Megantic runaway.
How would you suggest the news report should have described the fire shown in this thread?
It’s as news worthy as a car backfiring.
I guess it distracted the crowds at Elizabeth Warrens anti gun rally.
If a car had backfired and attracted the attention of some member of the public and they reported it to some authority, it would have been reported in/on the news so that others that might have heard it would understand what had really happened. Thus probably this was reported to someone of authority and they investigated and found it to be not a threat to the public, so it was reported as such… albeit rather poorly described.
As what it was - unburned fuel in the exhaust ignited. Not really an engine malfunction, but close.
Worcester Telegram seems to knew that.
http://www.telegram.com/news/20160612/holden-firefighters-hone-skills-by-burning-old-house
No one from the RR made any statements to the press… no one knew about it until later.
It was running rather rich though.
Definitely shut it down and fix.
“Railroad was doing a scheduled controlled burn on an engine car.”
How often do you guys schedule these burns on your engine cars?