How Long Does It Take For A Train To Stop
How Long does information technology have a train to end after going into emergency
- Gild Ascending
- Order Descending
|
| Posted by Anonymous on Monday, October 31, 2005 7:27 PM When I went to school on the B&O I learned that the brakes apply at the speed of sound, which has more variables than you can imagine. I saw fourth dimension afterward time a train would shove a setoff into the yard and allow it go into emergency when the engines pulled away. Yous could really meet the brakes apply i car at a time downward thru the yard.
|
|
| Posted by Bearding on Mon, October 31, 2005 eight:03 PM a railroad train travling at 59mph needs at least a1/4 of amile to stop once the dynam brackes are applyed steel on steel you no that information technology slides
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on Monday, October 31, 2005 nine:10 PM When I went through the training to be a presenter for the performance lifesaver program this was one of the topics that was covered and what the instructors told us was information technology takes at a minimum the lenght of "Three Football FIELDS" to stop a fully loaded freight train traveling at 55 mph.
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on Mon, October 31, 2005 ix:17 PM Im looking at my track crossing. I can see way down the track at least a mile. If the engineer decided to put that thing into emergency considering someone is blocking the crossing.. at that place is probably alot of dubiety as to the train'due south ability to end before information technology gets to the crossing. At 70 miles an hour... it will probably demand all of that approach distance. I once witnessed a train on the crossing execute a normal finish from xl mph to just across the gates with the last car and it took something like the last 35 cars afterward the brakes came on. I think the distance was almost half a mile.
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 1, 2005 five:08 AM In my experience information technology's got alot to do with the number of restriction cylinders and brake shoes and the load of class! A long empty train volition cease better than a short loaded one(bold all else is equal). In other words i would rather have to finish 1000 ton of feathers than a 1000 tons of wheat;)
|
|
| Posted by Bearding on Tuesday, Nov 1, 2005 8:36 AM Bottom line, steel wheels on steel rails are not the best tractive force known, along with some other over looked factor loaded cars stop faster so empties, the loaded cars place more weight on the track which in effect increases traction. All trains in an emergency application are unpredictable.
|
|
| Posted by Rodney Brook on Tuesday, November 1, 2005 11:17 AM Amen to that tat14 speed ten tonnage x emergency application = ????? on stopping distance. Rodney
|
|
| Posted past Anonymous on Tuesday, November 1, 2005 12:05 PM Wow, dudes, and the model railroaders think that running trains is e'er 'fun'. Glad to hear that y'all fellows behind the throttle were able to avoid 'a big nasty'. Though I simply have toy trains to play with, information technology is very ineteresting to grab some of the conversations about what the real chore is like, both past and nowadays. One more than note: Just want to say thanks to all those who make and take made this country 'due south industry run past running the track. Not a bad task when the scenery caught is considered.
|
|
| Posted past Anonymous on Tuesday, Nov one, 2005 12:05 PM I dont want to endeavour and stop a plume load. I want em good and heavy for maximum traction. In trucking light loads are trouble considering the brakes dont know the departure. So. Load it up.
|
|
| Posted by zapp on Tuesday, November 1, 2005 12:22 PM I hit a mudpumper (sinkhole) at 50 with a manifest railroad train. the duke behind the last unit and first car came undone (they actually bounced over/under each other!) The engines went into emergency and began to end at once...and yes it hurt when the railroad train ran over us!!!
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, Nov i, 2005 1:57 PM Exercise call up that stopping altitude is equal to a constant times the velocity squared. An erstwhile Upward engineer told me that stopping distance in feet is nigh equal to your velocity squared--if you're going 60 mph, so 3600 feet. A mile and a half seems likewise much, merely three human foot ball fields seems too little for a 60 mph railroad train to me. The 100' rule doesn't seem truthful to me, since a 20 car train at 20 mph won't have 4000 feet to stop.
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 1, 2005 iii:56 PM As mentioned before a x car train and a 100 car train with each machine weighing the same, on the same type of track, and all the other CYA statements volition cease in the same amount of time IF the brakes are practical to ALL wheels at the aforementioned fourth dimension. Since the air pulse travels at approximately 800 feet per second this cannot occur. However, a couple years ago there was an article in TRAINSregarding electrically controlled brakes that were installed on dedicated unit of measurement coal trains. An boosted electrical cable had to be connected up to each car for the arrangement to work. I do non know what the consequence of this organisation was. Perhaps it died due to electrical reliability concerns in the cableing. One thing that volition occur, and real engineers can attest to this, in application of the brakes is the non compatible timing of brake application (Think the 800 anxiety per 2d cistron.) The brakes are practical to the first few cars behind the engine. The other cars have not received the point still and are running without the brakes beingness applied. Since the cars in front are stopping the ones in the real attempt to laissez passer them upwardly and you have the train on the basis. Not a good thing! ***.
|
|
| Posted by Rodney Beck on Wednesday, November two, 2005 10:20 AM Things happen that the breaks practice not apply on all wheels, i.due east. breakes are cut out in route, or ready up and relaease on their own, so all above mail are fine with a 100% train, just all trains are not 100% after leaving terminal. It is still a crap shoot on stopping distance when ever a emergency application occures. Rodney
|
|
| Posted past trainnut57 on Friday, November 4, 2005 vii:33 AM Subsequently reading the initial question and seeing some of the answers given, I offer the following:
|
|
| Posted by jchnhtfd on Fri, November iv, 2005 7:51 AM Trainnut57 -- you are so correct. Merely consider: every bit you must have noticed, at least once, the general public has absolutely no thought how far it takes to stop a car, never listen a truck. Never mind a train! That is the fundamental problem. Surely someone must take cutting yous off at to the lowest degree in one case? I think what happens to most drivers is that the time and distance from when they start to stop, under normal conditions, to when they are actually stopped, just vanishes from their awareness. How else to business relationship for tailgating (which we all see, all the time)? And as you say, condom on dry pavement produces ten to 30 times the friction that steel on steel does -- fifty-fifty with sand. So even without allowing for piddling problems such as those mentioned by Rodney (and others) it volition take 10 to 30 times as long to stop a train (or low-cal locomotive) which translates to 100 to m times the distance... Jamie
|
Source: https://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/48377.aspx?page=2
0 Response to "How Long Does It Take For A Train To Stop"
Post a Comment