Much as I hate FB, that's where their story is: https://www.facebook.com/7newssydney/videos/1641354432555350/
I don't have a crystal ball, but I see pineapples in somebody's future...
On 22 April 2017 the crew of 8960 alerted ARTC train control to their train running away on the approach to Dombarton.
Channel 7 news have just put out a video claiming a 40-wagon freighter, a stone train by the looks of it, ran away travelling from Dombarton - Moss Vale over a distance of 15km and got up to 100kph.It's a wonder the news clip didn't have footage of members of the local constabulary trying to shoot the fuel cut off button!
Much as I hate FB, that's where their story is: https://www.facebook.com/7newssydney/videos/1641354432555350/
I don't have a crystal ball, but I see pineapples in somebody's future...
A runaway freight train on the NSW south coast has been safely stopped after quick-thinking rail staff diverted the train to a siding yard.The Moss Vale-Unanderra line runs through/past Dombarton. Sounds somewhat similar to El Zorro's runaway at the bottom of the hill a few years ago when they ran out of air and SPAD'ed at Unanderra.
The privately owned train reported braking issues when travelling between Dombarton and Unanderra, near Wollongong, at about 12.50pm on Saturday, a Sydney Trains spokesperson said.
Signallers stopped all nearby freight and rail services and diverted the runaway train to a siding yard uphill where it came to a halt.
There was no damage to infrastructure and nobody was injured in the incident.
Depends if you're on the noisy end of said freighter!An amazing and scary situation.
Bollocks!
Now we can write a small library about the incident. First off, chapter one...Circumstances of the incident...Sometimes I think that whoever wrote that must've thought that whoever reading it was a complete uneducated person that can't read or write. The reason why I say small library is that most of the library would be copyright statements protecting the life of the train incident and also glossary of terms.Depends if you're on the noisy end of said freighter!An amazing and scary situation.
Bollocks!
The El Zorro Unanderra runaway investigation report. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
HUMANS!!!
On 22 April 2017 the crew of 8960 alerted ARTC train control to their train running away on the approach to Dombarton. ARTC alerted Sydney Trains who were able to clear a path for the train through Unanderra towards Inner Harbour. The train reached a maximum speed of 118.6 km/h and came to a stand on a rising grade at the north fork on approach to Inner Harbour. The ATSB has commenced an investigation into this accident, which will be undertaken by officers from the NSW Office of Transport Safety Investigations, under the provisions of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003. Investigators have commenced collecting evidence and statements from involved parties, which will be analysed and a draft investigation report compiled. The draft report will be forwarded to relevant parties for comment prior to the completion and release of the final report. The investigation is continuing.
The driver said the first indication that he had a problem was past signal WG 1058 (100.500 km), at Dombarton. The time was 1242. He said that the signal was at full clear with the train travelling at 20 km/h.So at 1242.07, the Driver releases the brakes, then makes a minimum application (50kpa reduction), however, the report says at 1242.28, the driver releases the brakes as the air that was exhausting is stopped by the release. The timeline given doesn't make sense.
At 1242:07, the driver made a release of the train’s air brake for approximately 30 seconds. He then reapplied the air brakes with a 50 kPa reduction in the brake pipe pressure. The dynamic brake was delivering 229 kN of braking force. The independent brake handle was in the release position and there was 0 kPa in the locomotive brake cylinders.
At 1242:28, the train’s speed had increased to 30 km/h. At this point, the train brake air that had been venting to atmosphere was stopped by the movement of the automatic brake handle by the driver to the release position. The driver reduced the brake pipe pressure to 420 kPa. However, despite this, the train’s speed continued to increase. The driver continued to reduce the brake pipe pressure in order to slow the train. The driver again reduced the brake pipe pressure to 344 kPa and the train’s speed reached 46 km/h. The dynamic brake was still delivering 229 kN of force.
The Final Report is out.KV, I have no idea about the general working of these trains but I worked enough of the old limestone trains down the range and around 80% without operating Dynamic brakes, thing is that with many of the workings it was integral to the control of the train to actually bring it to a stand every so often, it very much depended on how far off the bottom the charge needle got to at each subsequent application, if it did not get off the bottom, then you brought the train to a stand at the next application.
Multiple brake applications down the hill resulted in insufficient air left to safely control the train.
The ATSB seems to make a big deal about the train being 'overweight', as the X2010 recorded a trailing tonnage of 3,360, based on 84 tonnes per wagon, but the train was actually 10% heavier. In itself this is not a huge deal, IMHO, as you compensate for that as you work the train. The opposite could well be true, an accurate weight but with 10% of the brakes isolated.
I'm surprised there is no screenshot of the datalogger to show both the multiple brake applications and also the time between them...You can learn an awful lot about what happened from that, if you know what you're looking at.
The section titled "The Occurrence" doesn't make sense, at least to me.The driver said the first indication that he had a problem was past signal WG 1058 (100.500 km), at Dombarton. The time was 1242. He said that the signal was at full clear with the train travelling at 20 km/h.So at 1242.07, the Driver releases the brakes, then makes a minimum application (50kpa reduction), however, the report says at 1242.28, the driver releases the brakes as the air that was exhausting is stopped by the release. The timeline given doesn't make sense.
At 1242:07, the driver made a release of the train’s air brake for approximately 30 seconds. He then reapplied the air brakes with a 50 kPa reduction in the brake pipe pressure. The dynamic brake was delivering 229 kN of braking force. The independent brake handle was in the release position and there was 0 kPa in the locomotive brake cylinders.
At 1242:28, the train’s speed had increased to 30 km/h. At this point, the train brake air that had been venting to atmosphere was stopped by the movement of the automatic brake handle by the driver to the release position. The driver reduced the brake pipe pressure to 420 kPa. However, despite this, the train’s speed continued to increase. The driver continued to reduce the brake pipe pressure in order to slow the train. The driver again reduced the brake pipe pressure to 344 kPa and the train’s speed reached 46 km/h. The dynamic brake was still delivering 229 kN of force.
There is also no comparison of braking effort with a full independent application vs full dynamic brake. Granted dynamic is generally considered superior, but to say "The dyno dropped out due to the independent being applied and the auto going to emergency" gives a false impression of total loss of braking capacity on the locos, when the independent was fully applied with ~500kpa in the brake cylinders.
We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.