I don't think that is the same thing discussed here, because in a straight air system, the air line empties as a matter of normal operation during the run. On an automatic air system, what we are really trying to avoid is recharging all those reservoirs on the cars, which needs a lot of air and time.

The key in Mr. Anderson's response is that his equipment is "attended" during the runaround move.

.

I thought it was an interesting question. I actually noticed a conductor on the Strasburg this weekend open both angle cocks and thought “huh that seems different” but didn’t really know exactly what it meant. Now I do.

I didn’t sense a disrespectful tone in the OP’s initial post, but I guess it’s all in the eye of the beholder. Wink, wink.

FRA rules establish the minimum operating requirements. Railroads may adopt standard operating rules published by NORAC or GCOR, which may contain additional requirements. The individual railroad company/operator may also choose to add specific requirements by issuing special instructions regarding certain operations. None of these additional rules or requirements replace the FRA minimums, only expand upon them.

If the FRA is happy with SRC’s operating practices, all is well. I have witnessed and even participated in discussion before regarding
“bottling the air”. I for one, appreciate Kelly’s response explaining their practice. I also enjoyed the comment about railroaders not being afraid to railroad.

For comparison purposes, approximately how much time is being saved by using these older triple valves? In other words how long would the run around on an 8-9 car train take if they had to pump the air back up?

First of all, I'm Kelly.

"Mr. Anderson" is the butt hole trying to dismantle Amtrak.

Second, Our initials are SRC, not SRS.

Third, no harm, no foul. Bottling the air is a cardinal sin in modern freight cars with their propensity to self release, and that is all that any professional railroader active today knows about. However, our P valves don't even have an emergency reservoir to feed a self release, and it isn't a problem.

Previously, I had posted for a while on the O-Gauge Real Trains forum in an attempt to elevate the conversation with more facts and less slandering and innuendo, but was overmatched by mean spirited groupies hanging on every word of their posting heroes, and I found myself being dragged down to their level instead. So I have "left them to themselves", stopped posting, and deleted all of my posts. Your mileage may vary.

The take-home message here isn't that there are 'wrong' and 'right' ways to phrase a fair question. It is that a message explicitly noted in the subject line as being directed to a particular individual needs to go to that individual, not as some 'open letter' to RyPN at large. In the past there have been plenty of posts made with more or less 'muckraking' intent, designed to spur popcorn-making more than 'inquiring minds want to know', and I think it was in this sense that you were criticized.

The point is that once you asked your question to the individual it was addressed to, you and he could easily post the results to the greater list as a true matter of interest, unmistakable as being (as then presented) a civil question of significant importance being answered by a reliable source.

I not so humbly suggest that any similar sort of question, going forward, get 'hashed out' in private before sending it out as an open letter. There's plenty of time to re-post it as a more general question if the original people fail to answer, or seem to be avoiding anything of interest... but I would still very, very strongly not advocate calling out a particular person as if they were a 'culprit' for something widely assumed to be problematic. I think we have lost several regular participants over just this sort of thing here.

Despite any protocol issues, this has been a very interesting, worthwhile, and educational discussion. Thank you to those who have added information.

Ahhh.... I kinda wondered myself about your and PMC's initial responses but I see your point now. I'm sure there was no disrespect or a "calling out" intended by the OP. Though perhaps a gentler approach next time will avoid antagonizing? That said, some good info has come out of the post.

We would occasionally bottle the air when rearranging a consist before an excursion but always with two or more people on the ground and handbrakes set. Doing that saved time over having to wait for air after each cut/couple (unless someone opened an angles cock too fast and put the whole works into emergency).

Kelly botched the quote functions, he attributed Robert J's post to me, but that's ok.

I not so humbly suggest you not derail threads by suggesting they not be started in the first place. It doesn’t really matter... it was an interesting question with interesting answers and many of us learned something.

What do you expect from a hack artist hired by a butchering bastard?

Someone on here has the tagline I love: "If you can't fix it with a hammer you have an electrical problem." , sometimes I feel like fixing my computer with a hammer.

"If it ain't broke, you're not tryin!"

- Red Green