| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| Removing Saftey Appliances https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6605 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | JimBoylan [ Sun Aug 10, 2003 5:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Removing Saftey Appliances |
Since this question occurs in other fields, the courts are already aware of it. For instance, the dance hall operator who locks the fire exits during a sold-out night because the audience might get overheated if gate crashers let the air-conditioned air out! (During this discussion, we may sometimes ignore the fact that Government regulations, however misguided, might possibly require certain things to be done.) When is it advisable or justified to remove or not restore safety equipment on a historical museum vehicle, especially one that carries public visitors as passengers? Operational problems? They don't work well, damage the equipment, and could hurt the passengers if used. They may even be the reason that a particular car was retired early in otherwise good condition, while older wrecks ran until the end of passenger service. They are a high maintenance item, and are one more thing to teach the crew about. Historical considerations? They weren't applied during the era this restoration represents. Usually this means that the apparatus was added later in the life of the car, but sometimes the operating company removed it before the end. Some examples: The Birney at MicKinney Avenue is not a Safety Car. Dallas Rwy. & Terminal did the conversion during its operating life and Mc Kinney restored it to its final condition, with "K" controller and no deadman control. Should safety glass be removed if a car is to be restored to its old "as built" appearance? Non-existance? All we got was the body, or the previous restoration crew disposed of the complicated stuff. Replacement parts are not made any more. Safety Concerns? Someone might use the feature when it's not an emergency. Or, it might hurt the passengers less to be killed in the collision than to be injured in a fall during the sudden stop to avoid the wreck. Not needed? Our crews aren't supposed to run fast. Security? Do you really want the public and ordinary members to know how things work? I know this subject also applies to the entire world, but for starters, this topic is about museum operations. Topic drift and wide world examples can occur later 104577.651@compuserve.com |
|
| Author: | ge13031 [ Sun Aug 10, 2003 8:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Removing Safety Appliances |
The first thing out of the box with any piece of equipment is to Cover Certain Portions of Your Anatomy that might be Exposed in case of an Accident. You must be able to present, for the investigation, that your piece of equipment was properly equipped to minimize liability. What would really nail you would include flukes in the brake system causing unplanned stops or jerky operation or failure to stop in a safe distance, that could endanger people or property. Obvious electrical and fire hazards and improperly trained operators should be included. What would be in your favor would be a brake system, installed according to manufactures specifications, satisfactory for the operation, tested at the beginning of the day, and at the beginning of each trip ... even if it is not the historically correct system. This is actually an offshoot of the FRA required "terminal air brake test" and "running air brake test" that could be very handy to have in your hip pocket should something happen, Window glass is a sticky wicket and you see some pretty junky examples of "safety glass" rubber gasketed into steel frames. It will run you about $15/sqft for 1/4" FRA II polycarbonate which can be substituted for the original 1/4" crystal glass which was usually used. LSE167 has 43 of the original 44 pieces of original 1/4" glass and it would be a shame to have to replace them all ... there is something about the wavey pattern and the splashes where the trolley wire came down snagged on a lantern bracket splashing liquid copper on to the glass before burning a hole in the body and sundry original defects that add something. Documented operator training and experience would be a must and one of the first things your lawyer would ask for in any court case. Are your operators prepared properly to take all the flak that a court case involves ??? "We Run Slow" ...watch shots of automobiles run into brick walls at 10MPH for the implications of this statement. I don't thinks it is advisable to refer to a brake system upgrade as "removing safety appliances". I would like to see a lot of folks jump in on this one ... get a cross section of opinions and real world solutions. lamontdc@adelphia.net |
|
| Author: | Randy Hees [ Sun Aug 10, 2003 11:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Removing Safety Appliances |
This is an interesting question… If you are under FRA regulations, the following will not have any relationship to what you do, (you have specific rules to live by) but if you not subject to the FRA, then who’s rules are you subject to? Under most industrial safety programs, the owner/operator is responsible to have in place safety rules, consistent with what those of any regulatory agency which may have oversight responsibility Our group preserves 19th century narrow gauge equipment. We operate with horses in the place of locomotives. We also have gas locomotives, and have steam locos visit with some regularity. Our line is by all definitions "insular". We don’t connect with anyone, we don’t have public grade crossings. Most of the cars we have preserved were built with link and pin couplers, without air brakes, and without any standardized grabs or steps. Many of these cars saw later use on other lines (which is why they survived long enough to be "preserved") and had "modern" (if you can call K brakes modern) safety equipment installed. Many of these cars lost what ever "modern" safety equipment thay might have been installed when they were converted to sheds, goat houses, out houses (don’t laugh, one of our cars was converted to a two holer") or housing, prior to being ‘saved". During restoration, we do remove "modern" safety equipment (if still present), along with other latter modifications. Most of our cars now have link and pin couplers. I spent 10 years working for a forklift distributor… under OSHA rules, there were lots of "optional" safety devices which could be added to a forklift, but, if you added one, it had to be maintained, forever. Under those rules, we could be in technical violation. Much of our equipment MAY be eligible for a "historic" exemption to the technical safety rules. But technical exemptions don’t do much good in civil suits, and there may be paper work requirements to support the exemption (which we are unaware of). Our group is using common sense, and the best historic practice we can document, and slow operations down to assure safety. At the Riverside ARM meeting in 1998. I was seated at a table with the STB incident investigation team. We had a wonderful frank conversation. I think it is safe to say our unique operation amused them, and didn’t raise any specific red flags. While we are not regulated, some years ago we had the California State track inspector in, informally, to look at our track. It was fun, he enjoyed his day at our farm, and while he noted some low joints and out of level track, and our lack of tie plates, and stub switches, suggested we warranted an FRA 3 The moral of the story is… Understand what you do, and why, and write it down. Follow any rules you set. Reevaluate your practices often. Talk to experts and the regulators, listen, take their advice into account. Yell "Stop" if you have concerns. Remember, lets be careful out there. http://spcrr.org hees@ix.netcom.com |
|
| Author: | JimBoylan [ Sun Aug 10, 2003 11:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Removing Safety Appliances |
> LSE167 (Nice of you to mention that car - I have an 0-gage model and wonder what the real thing looked like.) > I don't thinks it is advisable to refer to a > brake system upgrade as "removing > safety appliances". The example that started me thinking about this topic was a case where the only change involved in the "upgrade" was to replace the conductor's (or passengers') emergency brake valve with a pipe plug! The red cord for pulling the handle was left in place. 104577.651@compuserve.com |
|
| Author: | Brian Norden [ Mon Aug 11, 2003 2:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Removing Safety Appliances |
> The example that started me thinking about this > topic was a case where the only change involved > in the "upgrade" was to replace the conductor's > (or passengers') emergency brake valve with a > pipe plug! The red cord for pulling the > handle was left in place. The device is called a conductor's valve. It is NOT for passenger use; many modern passenger cars had the operating handle under a cover into which the admonishment "Do not touch" (or a simialr phrase) was cast. I believe that the device should be operable so that if some incident occurs onboard (or outside) the car the crew can apply the brakes. Or if the crew senses a run-a-way they can apply the brakes. If you have a concern about passengers pulling the cord and operating the valve, then modify the attachemnt of the cord so that it hangs in place, but does not operate the valve. If you have a leaking valve, fix it. One style is a plug valve and may have to lapped to seat it. The styles with a top mounted operating lever use a washer style rubber seat and a spring. Brian Norden bnorden49@earthlink.net |
|
| Author: | ge13031 [ Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Removing Safety Appliances |
> The device is called a conductor's valve. It > is NOT for passenger use; If you are restoring a car and returning to a straight air system of course there is no conductors valve. The communications to the operator was by bell cord running the length of the car. You can come up with all kinds of scenerios that would lead you think that you want some way for the conductor to be able to apply the brakes from the rear platform of a single ended car. I'm thinking of a post I read where there was some sort of hangup on a municipal project where they wanted the conductor to be able to apply the brakes from anywhere in the car ??? Normally for a straight air system this can be as simple as a gate valve on the bulkhead that would put res. pressure to the cylinder using a very small pipe or choke so the brakes don't slam on and slide the wheels. If you are under the FRA, I do believe you would have to get a waiver to use a straight air system, this could be based on a true historical restoration for a single car operation but it would go easier if you could display backup safety devices. A brake schedule using a type "M" triple valve and M series brake valves is acceptable to the FRA and would have of course a conductors valve to dump the train line. In a long single ended car like LSE167 with the door to the motormans compartment closed, the door to the smoker closed to keep the fumes isolated, the conductor depended on the bell rope for communications. There was a conductors valve mounted on the boiler room bulkhead above the last seat on the port side in case of emergency. There is also a spring return on the controller that returns it to off in case of a problem with the motorman but this is not tied into the brake system ... maybe this could be considered a liability ??? lamontdc@adelphia.net |
|
| Author: | dave [ Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | John Smatlak, where are you? |
John recently headed up a project building two new replicas of historic cars and no doubt gave serious consideration to what sort of safety equipment would be required. Maybe he can be persuaded to post a list here, as well as the consideration requiring each items inclusion. I have seen some interesting retrofits. Charlotte Trolley had a president from the trucking industry who insisted that tractor trailer running lights be mounted on the streetcar. Not sure who demanded it, but a "emergency brake" composed of a 12 volt winch, auto battery, and steel cable connected to a pair of Big Red Buttons in the car would wind on the brakes in an emergency. Releasing them required resetting the electronics, and manually unwinding the cable under the car. Don't know why they didn't just use the hand brake hardware provided. Fusible plugs fit the description of unsafe safety appliances in my mind. I have never heard of one doing its job, but usually they drop when there is plenty of water and all is well, with the chance of doing some damage to the engine crew in the process. One fuse plug unscrewed and dropped in Australia, killing a passenger in the cab. Hardware is no substitution for a well trained and attentive operator. The danger of including "idiot resistant" safety appliances is that idiots will then come along who prove it wasn't resistant enough. Let's keep the job of operating difficult enough that plenty of skills and understanding are required to do it properly, and use good comprehensive training and testing to qualify truly qualified operators instead of relying on hardware. Dave irondave@bellsouth.net |
|
| Author: | Erik Ledbetter [ Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: John Smatlak, where are you? |
> John recently headed up a project building > two new replicas of historic cars and no > doubt gave serious consideration to what > sort of safety equipment would be required. > Maybe he can be persuaded to post a list > here, as well as the consideration requiring > each items inclusion. John has given us a complete article on his Long Beach project which we are in the final stages of editing, It should be up within a week. eledbetter@rypn.org |
|
| Author: | James F. Boylan [ Mon Aug 11, 2003 9:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Removing Safety Appliances |
> The device is called a conductor's valve. It > is NOT for passenger use; many modern > passenger cars had the operating handle > under a cover into which the admonishment > "Do not touch" (or a simialr > phrase) was cast. > Brian Norden Thanks for everyones' comments. Brian, is it still called a "conductor's valve" when the trolley car is converted to one man service merely by removing the conductor and changing the wording of the admonishment to something like "For Passenger Use ONLY IN CASE OF EMERGENCY To Stop Car Pull This Cord"? TyburnRR@cs.com |
|
| Author: | Phil Mulligan [ Mon Aug 11, 2003 11:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Removing Safety Appliances |
As a passenger, I have used the emergency cord in a RR car to stop a derailed train. Recently, a moderately serious derailment (not a museum) was saved from being a very serious derailment when a pax pulled the air. Electric City Trolley Museum Association |
|
| Author: | John Smatlak [ Wed Aug 13, 2003 12:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: John Smatlak, where are you? |
> John recently headed up a project building > two new replicas of historic cars and no > doubt gave serious consideration to what > sort of safety equipment would be required. > Maybe he can be persuaded to post a list > here, as well as the consideration requiring > each items inclusion. > I have seen some interesting retrofits. > Charlotte Trolley had a president from the > trucking industry who insisted that tractor > trailer running lights be mounted on the > streetcar. Not sure who demanded it, but a > "emergency brake" composed of a 12 > volt winch, auto battery, and steel cable > connected to a pair of Big Red Buttons in > the car would wind on the brakes in an > emergency. Releasing them required resetting > the electronics, and manually unwinding the > cable under the car. Don't know why they > didn't just use the hand brake hardware > provided. > Fusible plugs fit the description of unsafe > safety appliances in my mind. I have never > heard of one doing its job, but usually they > drop when there is plenty of water and all > is well, with the chance of doing some > damage to the engine crew in the process. > One fuse plug unscrewed and dropped in > Australia, killing a passenger in the cab. > Hardware is no substitution for a well > trained and attentive operator. The danger > of including "idiot resistant" > safety appliances is that idiots will then > come along who prove it wasn't resistant > enough. Let's keep the job of operating > difficult enough that plenty of skills and > understanding are required to do it > properly, and use good comprehensive > training and testing to qualify truly > qualified operators instead of relying on > hardware. > Dave A very interesting thread. I must say I agree with Dave's comments about the dangers of trying to make railroad equipment "idiot proof", you just end up taking the definition of idiot to new heights. Modern transit equipment has become unbelivably complicated, and consequently more costly to purchase and maintain, and what's worse (IMHO) is the ever-diminishing role of the operator's skill and attentiveness. The approach we used for our project in San Pedro was to keep it simple (no computers on board these cars), and to meet or exceed the criteria set forth by the California PUC for historic streetcars. I don't know how applicable our approach is to railway museum work- we wanted new vehicles that to the passengers looked, sounded and felt like an old trolley, but to the maintainer would have new components for which spare parts could be readily obtained. The three cars in San Pedro use rebuilt vintage trucks and motors, but the control and airbrake equipment is all new, off-the-shelf product from Wabco and other suppliers. It ends up performing the same function as the old stuff, but has the aforementioned advantages of new equipment. Some relevant features of the new replica cars: 1) The cars incorporate a steel subframe and plymetal sub-floor, which made many fabrication aspects easier, while enhancing passenger safety. You don't see the steel skeleton in the finished product, but it's there. All glass (except the clerestory windows) is either tempered or laminated safety glass. 2) Airbrakes- Each car has a pneumatic deadman function (utilizing a footpedal), as well as a conductor's valve. There is also a low-air alarm, and either a low-air condition or an emergency application (such as a penalty application from the deadman) knocks out propulsion power. Sanders are also provided. 3) Electrical-The control circuits are all 36-volts from an on-board low-voltage power supply. This means the operator's controller , the onboard lighting and other equipment in the passenger compartmenr are all using low-voltage, keeping the 600 volts and heavy currents under the car. The propulsion circuits are protected with simple overload relays, and a roof fuse offers some additional protection in the event of a catastrophic electrical problem. The APTA Vintage Trolley Task Force is working on Recommended Practices for vintage trolley operators, although we specifically state that these guidelines are not intended for application to museum equipment. We're developing guidelines based on performance criteria (stopping distance, for example) and also delving into certain mechanical equipment like low-air alarms and interlocks. So far a draft has been circulated and reviewed, and we'll be going over a revised draft shortly. Standards for museum electric railway equipment presents an interesting challenge- we're all aware of the variety of both equipment and operations, and the need to maintain historic accuracy. On the other hand we need to keep it safe, or we risk losing the ability to operate it for the public. I certainly think we can do it without adding gadgets to the cars- but we will need to have the knowledge to understand how it's supposed to work, and the training and maintenance programs in place to support it. Railway Preservation Resources jsmatlak@earthlink.net |
|
| Author: | Pete [ Wed Aug 13, 2003 6:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: John Smatlak, where are you? |
> Hardware is no substitution for a well > trained and attentive operator. The danger > of including "idiot resistant" > safety appliances is that idiots will then > come along who prove it wasn't resistant > enough. Let's keep the job of operating > difficult enough that plenty of skills and > understanding are required to do it > properly, and use good comprehensive > training and testing to qualify truly > qualified operators instead of relying on > hardware. You're treading on some really dangerous ground with this statement. Railroad and transit industry accident records don't support your assertion. |
|
| Author: | Ted Miles [ Wed Aug 13, 2003 1:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Removing Safety Appliances |
Folks, Here is an example in a non-operating museum ship, the steam ferry EUREKA was running in 1954 when a large CO2 fire system was installed in the engine room. She was retired in 1957, so the system was only there for the last gasp of her career. The boat has been restored to the period between 1922 and 1941. I took out the CO2 system for historic accuracy. Now however there is a sprinkler system aboard, which she never had, but was installed to protect a national treasure. She is a large wooden barn so it took a lot of sprinklers! Hope this helps. ted_miles@nps.gov |
|
| Author: | Brian Norden [ Wed Aug 13, 2003 10:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Here, here |
> You're treading on some really dangerous > ground with this statement. Railroad and > transit industry accident records don't > support your assertion. Good safety equipment and good training is always necessary. But you cannot rely on one and not the other. At work I see general industrial safety films and they depict documented cases of trained people dropping their guard and getting hurt or killed. Both equipment and training have to go together. There is a problem of when someone does the same thing day in and day out that they become complacent and inattentive. On the other end is someone who does a job so infrequently that they forget and become inattentive. Either one of these situations can lead to injury or death. Brian Norden bnorden49@earthlink.net |
|
| Author: | John Smatlak [ Thu Aug 14, 2003 6:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: John Smatlak, where are you? |
> Hardware is no substitution for a well > trained and attentive operator. The danger > of including "idiot resistant" > safety appliances is that idiots will then > come along who prove it wasn't resistant > enough. Let's keep the job of operating > difficult enough that plenty of skills and > understanding are required to do it > properly, and use good comprehensive > training and testing to qualify truly > qualified operators instead of relying on > hardware. > You're treading on some really dangerous > ground with this statement. Railroad and > transit industry accident records don't > support your assertion. I don't think that either Dave or I were advocating training at the expense of safety appliances. I was merely making the point that adding gadgets does not necessarily result in a safer transit vehicle (or vintage trolley for that matter), particularly when the added gadget removes some of the operator's skill and attentiveness from the equation. One has only to ride rapid transit with cab signals to observe the phenomenon in action. Ride around on a couple different trains and you'll find it.... up goes the control handle to full acceleration until the cab signal beeps, wham go the brakes unitl it stops beeping, slam goes the control handle up to speed again, all the while jerking the passengers in their seats. Never mind learning the territory, anticipating the speed restriction for that curve ahead, and braking smoothly without ever getting "beeped". I can think of numerous transit accidents that happened despite an overwhelming number of additional safety gadgets being in place, caused because an operator just wasn't paying attention. More gadgets doesn't automatically mean "safer". Not only is first cost and maintenance increased, but I wonder about the advisability of the ever increasing drive to remove the human factor from operation. Clearly a balance is required between the two extremes. jsmatlak@earthlink.net |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|