The Rustbucket

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

[snipped] At about the same time, Trains had an article about the last days of the Rock Island’s Rockets. There was a ‘sidebar’ (on the left page, in a gray background) about some lightweight passenger cars that were used on them for a while, and how it failed to shunt the signals. As best as I can recall*, the solution mentioned was to turn up the voltage. But, part of the route was along a river that often had low-lying fog, and that led to the track being shunted even when no train was nearby, and so the signals went red. Nevertheless, the Rockets would pass the signals at track speed. A quote from a signal maintainer or supervisor in the article was this, as near as I can recall: “I don’t know what the ICC would have done if they’d seen that. I suppose we’d still be paying the fine.” (The RI had gone bankrupt and was liquidated by then.)

(*RWM, I’m going from memory only, and as you know I don’t speak ‘signal’, but that is my best recollection and I’d say it’s about 90% faithful to what was printed. I’ll make it a point to look it up and confirm or correct the details as appropriate.)

“Tales of the PEORIA ROCKET”, by Edward J. Brunner with Stu Eidson, Trains, December 1981, Vol. 42, No. 2 , pgs. 45 - 49 inclusive. The sidebar is captioned as “GENESIS OF THE ZANINESS?”, pg. 46, cols. 1 - 2 (though it doesn’t have the gray background that I recalled above). The loathed equipment was the Jet Rocket of 1956 - 57, a lightweight articulated Talgo trainset. The employee was indeed a retired signal maintainer, but I had the initial problem exactly backwards above: " . . . at first, the train would not activate block signals–it would sail right past a signal, leaving behind a clear green indication. "I don’t

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

[snipped] About 20 -25 years ago there was a nasty grade crossing accident with fatalities on SEPTA’s Newtown Branch (lower Bucks County), supposedly caused by rust preventing actuation of the crossing signals. The daily traffic was only 2 or 3 round-trips of RDCs, 1 or 2 cars per train, so that’s believable to me. Someday I’ll see if I can find out more details of that one - the question has come up before.

See the NTSB’s “Safety Recommendations” letter to SEPTA, dated Nov. 29, 1982 at:

http://www3.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/1982/R82_110_112.pdf

The incident occurred Jan. 2, 1982 and involved a gasoline tanker truck ! Footnote [2] at the bottom of page 2 references a 1968 collision between a B&M RDC and a tanker truck as well . . .

• Paul North.

[Kevin_C_Smith]

IIRC, weren’t signal activation problems an issue with the Aerotrain?

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

The NTSB report is listed as:

Title: Collision of a Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Commuter Train with a Gasoline Truck, Southampton, Pennsylvania, January 2, 1982.
NTSB Report Number: RHR-82-03, adopted on 10/19/1982
NTIS Report Number: PB82-917005

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Chase_Rapid_Transit_Line#Fire_at_Southampton

Interesting and lengthy thread (5 pages, 60+ posts, some off-topic . . . ) - “1982 RDC wreck details?” - which claims that the RDC in that incident did not have an “exciter” device which others did to prevent that problem. Also mentions a “weld bead” -sometimes using a stainless steel rod - placed on the rails for more concentrated contact area, and that the Reading RR used to run an FP7 and coach set on the line to “polish the rails” from time to time. Also has some photos:

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=59701

• Paul North.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Another situation of rail polishing occurred with the CTA on the Skokie Swift (now the Yellow Line). There was no Owl or Sunday service on this line so the first runs of the day were operated by the four-unit articulated car sets (CTA 51-54) since the additional wheels would help remove the veneer of rust that would develop overnight or over the weekend.

[Falcon48]

I think the question should be “Why DON"T Amtrak locomotives shine their own rails?”

I have watched trains on lightly used lines almost clear the tower before the track occupancy light turns on. Fortunately, the run down clock locks the setup until occupancy gets detected. If the locomotive doesn’t get the rail clean, the rolling wheels of the following cars have little scrubbing action, but a whole lot them can get the rail clean. And the length of an Amtrak train is ? ? ?

And modelers in G scale outside get so tired of ‘shining the rails’, they go to battery power, not feasible for Amtrak.

This is a UP operation, and it has been going on for years between Joliet and Springfield. I hadn’t heard it called the “rust bucket” before. Rather, the term I’ve heard was the “rust buster”. The problem, which is alluded to in some of the other posts, is that there is otherwise too liitle train service on this line segment to keep the track clean enough so that the short Amtrak trains will reliably shunt signal circuits. This is a potentially serious issue as the signal circuits control not only wayside signals, but grade crossing signals. Since the UP-SP merger, there has been very little freight on this segment, and only a few Amtrak trains a day. The problem is worst in passing sidings, which are only used by some of the few trains which traverse this segment. The “rust buster” is an effort to deal with this problem. It may become unnecessary as the new UP Global IV intermodal yard should put more freight traffic on this line.

[Falcon48]

coborn35:

So you are telling me that the rails get rusty enough in ONE day that they need a special train so the signals work?

While I am no expert on the oxidation of iron, I would be very surprised if oxides don’t star forming immediately after the train goes by. The pertinent question is how thick the oxide layer becomes in 25 hours, not whether it forms at all. Something else that may make a difference - most passenger cars use disk brakes so they don’t have the tread cleaning feature of tread brakes as found on freight cars.

Based on my experience with contact resistance of electromechanical relays, I’d wonder if electric railroads, especially 600VDC lines, would have less trouble with maintaining good contact. Passing a high current through a contact usually does a good job of blowing out oxidation.

• Erik

I can tell you from personal experience that your speculation that a 600 volt DC electric railroad has less trouble shunting signal circuits on oxidized rail than non-electric railroads is correct. However, this effect seems to occur only when the electric car or locomotive is actually drawing traction power. I’ve actually seen situations on oxidized rail where the signal shunt will be lost when the electric car stops drawing traction power, and then will be re-established as soon as the car or loco begins powering again. I’m not an electrical engineer, but I don’t think the reason is that the 600 volts is "blowing out’ the oxidation. Rather, I think it’s because the traction power is high enough to complete the traction power circut through the oxidation layer and, once the traction power circuit is complete, there is a clear path for the signal circuit as well (so

[daveklepper]

A very good analysis, and it applies to all ground-return electrics, regardless of voltage and ac or dc alaternatives.

[henry6]

First, addressing the term “rustbucket”. I remember that was used to refer to an old, rusty, clanky steam locomotive both in real and affectionate terms. Sometimes old unmaintained diesels also earned the monicker. But I never heard it used in regards to track or rail conditions. Maybe “rust trail” or “rusty trail”, but not “rust bucket”.

Now to where this thread has led. Back in the 50’s one of the major problems with the Budd RDC cars was that they did not properly shunt a track circuit. After a major rear ender at Palmer, MA on the B&A-NYC did they institute a double stop at each station to assure the setting the signals to the rear. Also nationally all RDC’s received an extra rod or whatever to assure the shunting of ciircuits.

Why can’t “Amtrak locomtives shine their own rails?” Surley you jest. First, in effect, they do. But that does no good in advance of their arrival in a block. So having moves to “keep the rails shiney” is a way of doing it as expensive as it sounds but the alternative would be to slow the passenger train down to where it was no longer viable.

Rails do contract rust…often very quickly…in damp or humid conditions. WIth fewer trains…because of longer trains or less traffic…the possiblity of rusty rail is probably more prevelant than what we would suspect. I trust that railroaders and railroads know their railroad and do what they have to when they have to.

In a similar situation the DL&W railroad knew that ice quickly formed on the catenary of their New Jersey lines so would run deadhead trains, especially at night, just to keep the catenary clear. Effective for sure, but also one of the greatest light shows in the North Jersey winter sky!

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

See the last 2 posts (of 87) from this past Feb. 14, 2011 on Page 5 of 5 of this thread, which is captioned as “UP Global 4 Thread”:

http://railroadfan.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=28&p=174649

And this short thread from January 2011, captioned “Turning Engines in/around Bloomington IL”:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?2,2377663

See esp. the last post from Jan. 28th - then you’ll see perhaps what motivated some of RWM’s comments above about the benign nature of the lading . . . [:-^]

• Paul North.

[daveklepper]

Lots of electric operations run deadhead trains through the night in snowy or icy or rainy-but below 32 Fahrrentheight weather to keep third rails and overhead wires in good shape. North Shore and CA&E did so regularly. I think Metro North and LIRR do so today.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

[snipped] Something else that may make a difference - most passenger cars use disk brakes so they don’t have the tread cleaning feature of tread brakes as found on freight cars.

That was mentioned in some of the literature I glanced at on the RDC’s difficulties. Unfortunately, the October 1982 NTSB report on the SEPTA accident is pretty expensive, even though it’s only 64 pages - $33 for Microfiche, $48 for “Print on Demand” (‘PDF’ format ?) see: http://www.ntis.gov/search/product.aspx?ABBR=PB82917005 , so I doubt I’ll be ordering that one anytime soon.

Railroad/Highway Accident Report - Collision of a Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Commuter Train No. 114 with a Gasoline Truck, Southampton, Pennsylvania, January 2, 1982. National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC. Bureau of Accident Investigation.

Page Count: 64 pages Date: Oct 1982 Report Number: NTSB-TSR-RHR-82-3 ProductType: Technical report
NTIS Order Number: PB82-917005

[quote user=“erikem”]
Based on my experience with contact resistanc

[erikem]

The contact cleaning from current isn’t quite arc-welding, as the relays contacts have little problem opening again. Gold plating does a great job of creating contacts with consistently low contact resistance, but the plating will burn off if much current flows through them (max current is typically less than 100 milli-amps).

The relays I was referring to in my previous post are carrying peak currents of about 20 amps per contact - duty cycle is really low, so we’re within the contact heating limits of the relay. I have noticed that the contact resistance increases noticeably when the relays are operated without any current flow - turning on the current for a couple of hundred microseconds is enough to clean the contacts.

I’ll stand by my story that heating is what cleans the wheel/rail contact on electrified railroads. Assuming a 1 volt drop and 100 amps per wheel, that works out to 100 watts Also remember that poor electrical conductors are almost always poor thermal conductors (BeO and diamond are a couple of exceptions). !00 watts in what may be a few micrograms of iron oxide is going to result in very hot iron oxide - presumably hot enough to reduce it back to iron and oxygen. This cleaning only happens when the loco/car is drawing significant traction current - one track cleaning idea would be to run a couple of thousand amps between a couple of electrically insulated trucks - where the return current is flowing through the rails between the trucks.

One last note - coded track circuits are said to be more reliable than battery track circuits. One problem with simple track circuits is that the pick-up voltage for a relay is higher than the drop-out voltage. With a coded circuit, the relay may be picking up and dropping out 3 times per second and the shunt created by the wheels only needs to reduce track voltage to where the relay won’t pick up as opposed to where it needs to be to drop out.

• Erik