 |
Re: Dynamic braking question
Author: Dr Zarkoff
Date: 04-29-2016 - 17:44
>I think we all know how retainers work (depending whether set to HP, LP or SD) but thanks for the refresher course.
Not everyone who reads these posts on the discussion groups do.
>You waste time walking your train to set and then release retainers.
Lazybones.
>Where I'm from you didn't release the air when dragging a train unless you wanted a quick trip the bottom.
I believe where I'm from has a lot longer downgrade than anywhere on the BN.
>Retainers were however used to get steam powered train down the hill since the brake valves would not maintain pressure.
Same is true for diesels which don't have pressure maintaining. While maintaining is inherent in the design of 26-L, it isn't necessarily so in 24, 8, nor 6, although it can be added.
>Maybe the SP maintained power better than the BN but it was always common to have non-working dynamic and non-maintaining locomotives. I just used 1995 since it was date referred to earlier. Much of mainline experience was before that. Most of us used the regulating valve since the brake valves were so unreliable.
The SP was just about the same. My point is that by 1995 or so, the FRA had begun clamping down on this sort of slipshod maintenance practices. Prior to that, you're right pretty much anything went. However, loss of the maintaining feature in 26-L equates to loss of brake valve control of the train brakes.
Not everyone who reads these posts on the discussion groups do.
>You waste time walking your train to set and then release retainers.
Lazybones.
>Where I'm from you didn't release the air when dragging a train unless you wanted a quick trip the bottom.
I believe where I'm from has a lot longer downgrade than anywhere on the BN.
>Retainers were however used to get steam powered train down the hill since the brake valves would not maintain pressure.
Same is true for diesels which don't have pressure maintaining. While maintaining is inherent in the design of 26-L, it isn't necessarily so in 24, 8, nor 6, although it can be added.
>Maybe the SP maintained power better than the BN but it was always common to have non-working dynamic and non-maintaining locomotives. I just used 1995 since it was date referred to earlier. Much of mainline experience was before that. Most of us used the regulating valve since the brake valves were so unreliable.
The SP was just about the same. My point is that by 1995 or so, the FRA had begun clamping down on this sort of slipshod maintenance practices. Prior to that, you're right pretty much anything went. However, loss of the maintaining feature in 26-L equates to loss of brake valve control of the train brakes.
