477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Saugatuck Hill

Give us a run down of what you saw, post pictures if you'd like...any info is welcome.
User avatar
Saturnalia
Authority on Cat
Posts: 13899
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:54 pm
Location: Michigan's Copper Country
Contact:

477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Saugatuck Hill

Unread post by Saturnalia »

Ep. 477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Grade

Aug 13, 2016 EAST SAUGATUCK, MI -- Underpowered trains in the rain on a hill: not a recipe for success.

Follow along with this misadventure, as we capture CSX's Q326 stalling in real time on a rainy Michigan summer morning. The train, at 9200 tons, was already pushing the limits on this hill, the ruling grade for the run, and the rain didn't make it any easier!

CSX Q326
Consist:
- UP 6812 [AC44CW]
- CSX 8880 [SD40-2]
- 88 cars [Mixed]
Location/Time:
- (1) CSX Grand Rapids Sub, East Saugatuck, MI, 55th St xing, on 8-13-16 from 07:46 to 07:55 EDT
- (2) East Saugatuck, 136th Ave xing, at 08:48
- (3) East Saugatuck, 55th St xing, from 09:57 to 10:18
- (4) Zeeland, Centennial St xing, at 13:05
- Grandville, along Chicago Dr, at 28th St overpass, at 13:33
*(1) Stalls on the crossing at 55th St; (2) First Half double to the siding; (3) Grabbing the second half for the double; (4) Back together and underway with 10:10 recrew*

Thanks for watching! Don’t forget to share this video, like and subscribe to Thornapple River Rail Series!

Like TRRS on Facebook! http://www.facebook.com/thornappleriverproductions

Videography Equipment:
-Primary: Sony PJ790 Camcorder
-Edited with: Cyberlink PowerDirector 13

Copyright 2016 Thornapple River Rail Series

User avatar
ThreeRiversChris
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 1:37 pm
Location: Three Rivers

Re: 477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Saugatuck Hil

Unread post by ThreeRiversChris »

Excellent video! LOVE the close up of the wheels on the UP engine when he starts to get it moving again.

hoborich
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 2966
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:05 am
Location: Northern Michigan

Re: 477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Saugatuck Hil

Unread post by hoborich »

CSX is run by incompetent idiots!

The fact that the AC44 was paired with an old SD40-2 tells me some bean counter put the absolute minimum power on that train for the tonnage, with no reserve power for rain or other variables. Watch some CSX defender post that locos are not cheap. :roll:
Postby Typhoon » Sat Dec 26, 2015 1:19 am

Locomotives are not cheap, carting a multi million dollar asset around just in case is not very cost effective.
:lol:
Then we have small short lines run three locos for 15 or 20 cars.
"Ask your doctor if medical advice from a TV commercial is right for you".

Typhoon
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1124
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:16 pm
Location: Under a palm tree

Re: 477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Saugatuck Hil

Unread post by Typhoon »

If the train was indeed 9200 tons, that is well within the tonnage rating of a SD40/AC44 duo on the ZD sub, assuming both are working properly.

hoborich
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 2966
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:05 am
Location: Northern Michigan

Re: 477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Saugatuck Hil

Unread post by hoborich »

If the train was indeed 9200 tons, that is well within the tonnage rating of a SD40/AC44 duo on the ZD sub, assuming both are working properly.
Ummmm, apparently it wasn't. The bean counter failed to take rain and wet rail into account, while doing his calculating. :lol:
Do the people at the power desk wear green eye shades? :roll:
"Ask your doctor if medical advice from a TV commercial is right for you".

Typhoon
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1124
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:16 pm
Location: Under a palm tree

Re: 477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Saugatuck Hil

Unread post by Typhoon »

hoborich wrote:
If the train was indeed 9200 tons, that is well within the tonnage rating of a SD40/AC44 duo on the ZD sub, assuming both are working properly.
Ummmm, apparently it wasn't. The bean counter failed to take rain and wet rail into account, while doing his calculating. :lol:
Do the people at the power desk wear green eye shades? :roll:
The tonnage rating factors in rail conditions. It is interesting that you know all this from watching an amateur's video. Do you know for a fact that all the engines were working properly? Was a axle cut out of the GE, or a truck cut out on the SD during the run from Barr? Were they both loading properly? Also lets face it, some engineers have the reputation of being able to stall lite power....

But why I am telling you? You got it all figured it all out from watching a video, to the point that you are able to throw out insults about people you have never met. You must have considered all the factors. :roll:

CSX_CO
Over and Out
Posts: 3434
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 10:34 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: 477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Saugatuck Hil

Unread post by CSX_CO »

Never stalled a train that had power for the tonnage. Power ratings are a bit conservative anyway. Had a single SD40-2 lug 9300 tons up Bellefountain Hill one night. 2nd engine has a faulty wheel slip sensor and would drop its load over 300 amps. Made the hill though, and we were way over tonnage for 1 1/3rd engines.

Amazing those GR guys can't make those hills. But then again recrews keep the pools turning.

User avatar
Saturnalia
Authority on Cat
Posts: 13899
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:54 pm
Location: Michigan's Copper Country
Contact:

Re: 477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Saugatuck Hil

Unread post by Saturnalia »

IMG_7358.JPG

Typhoon
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1124
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:16 pm
Location: Under a palm tree

Re: 477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Saugatuck Hil

Unread post by Typhoon »

I don't blame the crew for saying that. If I stalled a train with power that was rated for the hill, I would try to blame the equipment as well. You never know what sucker might believe it. After all you seemed to fall for it, hook line and sinker.


However, since you are the "curator" of the CSX power thread, and you know for a fact that this train was underpowered, can you tell me the tonnage ratings for a SD40 and AC44 eastbound on the ZD sub? Or are more interested in making cute little meme's, and counting paint schemes than having facts to back up your opinions?

hoborich
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 2966
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:05 am
Location: Northern Michigan

Re: 477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Saugatuck Hil

Unread post by hoborich »

The tonnage rating factors in rail conditions.
Ummm, this seems to be happening rather frequently. Nuff said.
"Ask your doctor if medical advice from a TV commercial is right for you".

User avatar
SD80MAC
Ingersoll's Mr. Michigan
Posts: 8394
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:59 pm
Location: Grand Rapids

Re: 477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Saugatuck Hil

Unread post by SD80MAC »

According to the correct tonnage graph (the one in the mainframe is incorrect when it comes to the hill and has been requested to be changed many times ((why there are 2 different ones floating around to begin with, I have no idea)) Barr has been provided with the correct one and they usually follow it now), an AC4400 (not a heavy) is rated at 5600 tons eastbound from Helper to Grand Rapids, while an SD40-2 is rated at 3200 tons, so 8800 tons combined. Train was indeed 9200 tons. For anyone interested, here are the ratings for the following from Helper to GR:

GP38-2/GP40-2: 2100 tons
SD40-2: 3200 tons
SD50/SD60: 3800 tons
C40-8: 4150 tons
ES44DC: 4450 tons
SD70MAC/SD70ACe: 5250 tons
CW44AC: 5600 tons
CW44AH/ES44AH: 6050 tons

With older engines you can generally figure about 1 horse per ton for the hill, but the newer units are greater than that.
"Remember, 4 mph is a couple, 5's a collision!"
http://flickriver.com/photos/conrail680 ... teresting/
Image

Typhoon
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1124
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:16 pm
Location: Under a palm tree

Re: 477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Saugatuck Hil

Unread post by Typhoon »

If SD80's numbers are correct, then I am wrong. :oops:

Raildudes dad
Roadmaster
Posts: 4624
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:12 am
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Re: 477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Saugatuck Hil

Unread post by Raildudes dad »

I'm putting my money on SD80MAC. I think he knows what he's talking about :wink:

GP30M4216
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 3676
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:35 pm
Location: Feel the Zeel, MI
Contact:

Re: 477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Saugatuck Hil

Unread post by GP30M4216 »

Great video Saturnalia! I love the detail on the UP truck when it's time to move. I have tremendous respect for the finesse required to overpower gravity by releasing the brakes and applying just the right amount of throttle to defy this basic law of physics. Especially considering the area equal to the size of 24 quarters is all that provides adhesion to the rails.

Also, thanks for that chart 80MAC! A good reference and I'm glad Barr has the corrected version :wink:

dave989
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 549
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 8:19 pm
Location: Grandville, Mi

Re: 477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Saugatuck Hil

Unread post by dave989 »

From talking to CSX crews, the tier 4's are lousy at getting up the hill with
heavy tonnage.

rob
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:56 pm
Location: grand Rapids

Re: 477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Saugatuck Hil

Unread post by rob »

Typhoon wrote:I don't blame the crew for saying that. If I stalled a train with power that was rated for the hill, I would try to blame the equipment as well. You never know what sucker might believe it. After all you seemed to fall for it, hook line and sinker.


However, since you are the "curator" of the CSX power thread, and you know for a fact that this train was underpowered, can you tell me the tonnage ratings for a SD40 and AC44 eastbound on the ZD sub? Or are more interested in making cute little meme's, and counting paint schemes than having facts to back up your opinions?

so Typhoon if an engineer going to take a train any train up a grade. you have the train at the speed limit at the bottom of the hill. then you put the engine in the 8 notch to pull the hill and you stall is it the engineer fault for not making it? it there a turbo button I don't know about to make the hill.

Rob

EWRice
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:07 pm
Location: Muskegon, MI

Re: 477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Saugatuck Hil

Unread post by EWRice »

Correct power or not, I want a set of those safety yellow pants with suspenders. That is stylish. :wink:

User avatar
Schteinkuh
Railcam Terrorizer
Posts: 595
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:06 pm
Location: The Trnwatcher Trap House

Re: 477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Saugatuck Hil

Unread post by Schteinkuh »

EWRice wrote:Correct power or not, I want a set of those safety yellow pants with suspenders. That is stylish. :wink:
nope nope nope nope nope nope
It’s not whether you win or lose, but rather how many pages you add to the rulebook
https://www.flickr.com/photos/94777455@N02
Image

hoborich
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 2966
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:05 am
Location: Northern Michigan

Re: 477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Saugatuck Hil

Unread post by hoborich »

I don't understand why CSX is loathe to put a third unit on a train that repeatedly stalls with two units.
"Ask your doctor if medical advice from a TV commercial is right for you".

User avatar
SD80MAC
Ingersoll's Mr. Michigan
Posts: 8394
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:59 pm
Location: Grand Rapids

Re: 477: "Whoops!" CSX Freight Train Stalls on Saugatuck Hil

Unread post by SD80MAC »

hoborich wrote:I don't understand why CSX is loathe to put a third unit on a train that repeatedly stalls with two units.
Sometimes it does get 3 or 4 units. If it's over 10,000 tons, it gets helpers.
"Remember, 4 mph is a couple, 5's a collision!"
http://flickriver.com/photos/conrail680 ... teresting/
Image

Post Reply