This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are vacuum brakes employed on heavy road vehicles and if not, why? Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)
Use on road vehicles: Vacuum brakes were originally developed to provide a continuous brake through all the vehicles in a train. This was not necessary in a road vehicle. Furthermore, the requirement to maintain the vacuum (using the small ejector) meant a constant bleed of steam from the boiler, which would be harder to sustain in a road locomotive. It would have been simpler to use a straightforward steam brake, where a small piston acts directly on the brakes only when required. Indeed, this was the method used on "freight-only" rail locomotives intended for use on unfitted stock (i.e. waggons which carried only hand-operated brakes). Moonraker88 20:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Air brakes is more fool-proof, and is not likly to suck dirt and other things into it as is the case if you have a road as compared to a rail underneat you. Also the English version of the Vacuum brake article is a joke compared to the German one i'm strongly considering translating that one to english and using it instead of the current one. And regarding steam breaks they are the prefered means of breaking a locomotive in any situation even if you do have vacuum/air-brake equipment on board.
I think this article needs a bit of pruning. It doesn't flow very well for an uninformed reader -- and they are the people we are writing this for. Also several non sequiturs and logical jumps, and the inclusion of slang terms reduce the authority of the writing.
Afterbrunel 06:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Happy for your improvements to be made. Can you give me a couple of days to finalise what I am doing (in case we cut across one another's edits)?
There's still a lot to do; by the way, I deleted most of the "other railways that use vackum" paragraph because it looked a bit non-authoritative -- I was expecting someone to put "citation needed" on it at any moment.
So far as Armagh is concerned -- obviously dear to your heart -- I am happy that you have reinstated it. Could you maybe just hone the wording a bit. When I read "This happened in the Armagh accident", I look for what it was that happened in the preceding words. (I presume you know that you can get the full text of the Inquiry at http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_Armagh1889.pdf
regards
Afterbrunel 20:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to say, after "because it looked a bit non-authoritative " that if you know of any way of checking that the information is up to date, that would be a great help.
Afterbrunel
20:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If you have a minute before you go, why not just put a few bullet points here about what you think is missing (and would plan to add when you get back).
I'm not being defensive about the diagrams, but: I wanted them to be as simple as possible; how does the vacuum get to the top? well, as the former non-authoritative text said, by having a flap piston ring like a bicycle pump does. But this only happens once a day (when the vehicles first get coupled to a locomotive after sleeping overnight) and never again during that day's work, so (I humbly suggest) it is a complication that migth not be essential.
Everyone: there are several things this still lacks, and anyone who can help would be welcome; no doubt you can see shortcomings yourselves, but these are the ones I can see:
That will do for now.
Afterbrunel 17:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The opposition on the grounds of cost (particularly by the LNWR and it`s chairman Richard Moon) to the fitting of the automatic type of brake meant that it took a serious accident at Armagh in 1889 before legislation compelled the automatic system.
Why has this sentence, which I researched back in 2006 (but have only just noticed) been removed ? As far as I`m aware Richard Moon of the LNWR holds an infamous part in the history of the continuous vacuum brake. -- JustinSmith ( talk) 18:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Some people may come to this article to read about vacuum brakes in vehicles.. perhaps add at top: This article is about vacuum brakes on trains. For the usage of vacuum for brakes in cars, see Vacuum servo. Charlieb000 ( talk) 23:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems a bit redundant given how it should be fairly obvious how inferior a system where you toot the whistle so that your mate can apply a single set of brakes in one wagon right at the end of the train is vs one where all the wheels of all the vehicles in the train are operated more or less simultaneously via a single lever in the locomotive, but, someone put a "how so?" tag on that sentence, so here we are. Hopefully my exposition passes muster. I was going to add something about how train brakes were considered scandalously insufficient for the task at hand even during the mid 19th century and there were newspaper-led campaigns to improve safety standards, but properly backing that up will require a citation scavenger hunt that I really don't have the taste for right now. There's enough evidence of it spread around the various articles detailing individual early-days railway disasters, however, if someone wants to give THAT a go... 80.189.129.200 ( talk) 17:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Clearly, the inventor of the brake was an Indian, Col Guruprasad Das. Please find the citations herewith. Uddhav9 ( talk) 19:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
http://www.uniindia.com/no-trains-yet-in-native-land-of-vacuum-brake-inventor/east/news/1694250.html Uddhav9 ( talk) 19:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
https://www.revolvy.com/page/Barpeta Uddhav9 ( talk) 19:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The main article states that when a train or vehicle has been standing for some time with the vacuum pipe open to the air, the pressures on both sides of the brake piston become equal because leakage will allow air into the upper part of the cylinder. I understand that this will release the brake since brake application relies on an upward force of atmospheric pressure on the lower side, and partial vacuum on the upper side. This delayed release seems to me to be a very undesirable feature. The supposed advantage of the system is its 'automatic' character - the brake will be applied to an entire train if, by accident, the train parts, and the vacuum pipe is broken. But if the brake on a detached part of a train is later released because of the mechanism mentioned above, the detached part would start moving again if it is on a gradient, and this would surely present an unacceptable hazard. Is this a correct understanding ? This scenario is not discussed in the main text. Andrewg4oep ( talk)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are vacuum brakes employed on heavy road vehicles and if not, why? Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)
Use on road vehicles: Vacuum brakes were originally developed to provide a continuous brake through all the vehicles in a train. This was not necessary in a road vehicle. Furthermore, the requirement to maintain the vacuum (using the small ejector) meant a constant bleed of steam from the boiler, which would be harder to sustain in a road locomotive. It would have been simpler to use a straightforward steam brake, where a small piston acts directly on the brakes only when required. Indeed, this was the method used on "freight-only" rail locomotives intended for use on unfitted stock (i.e. waggons which carried only hand-operated brakes). Moonraker88 20:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Air brakes is more fool-proof, and is not likly to suck dirt and other things into it as is the case if you have a road as compared to a rail underneat you. Also the English version of the Vacuum brake article is a joke compared to the German one i'm strongly considering translating that one to english and using it instead of the current one. And regarding steam breaks they are the prefered means of breaking a locomotive in any situation even if you do have vacuum/air-brake equipment on board.
I think this article needs a bit of pruning. It doesn't flow very well for an uninformed reader -- and they are the people we are writing this for. Also several non sequiturs and logical jumps, and the inclusion of slang terms reduce the authority of the writing.
Afterbrunel 06:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Happy for your improvements to be made. Can you give me a couple of days to finalise what I am doing (in case we cut across one another's edits)?
There's still a lot to do; by the way, I deleted most of the "other railways that use vackum" paragraph because it looked a bit non-authoritative -- I was expecting someone to put "citation needed" on it at any moment.
So far as Armagh is concerned -- obviously dear to your heart -- I am happy that you have reinstated it. Could you maybe just hone the wording a bit. When I read "This happened in the Armagh accident", I look for what it was that happened in the preceding words. (I presume you know that you can get the full text of the Inquiry at http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_Armagh1889.pdf
regards
Afterbrunel 20:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to say, after "because it looked a bit non-authoritative " that if you know of any way of checking that the information is up to date, that would be a great help.
Afterbrunel
20:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If you have a minute before you go, why not just put a few bullet points here about what you think is missing (and would plan to add when you get back).
I'm not being defensive about the diagrams, but: I wanted them to be as simple as possible; how does the vacuum get to the top? well, as the former non-authoritative text said, by having a flap piston ring like a bicycle pump does. But this only happens once a day (when the vehicles first get coupled to a locomotive after sleeping overnight) and never again during that day's work, so (I humbly suggest) it is a complication that migth not be essential.
Everyone: there are several things this still lacks, and anyone who can help would be welcome; no doubt you can see shortcomings yourselves, but these are the ones I can see:
That will do for now.
Afterbrunel 17:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The opposition on the grounds of cost (particularly by the LNWR and it`s chairman Richard Moon) to the fitting of the automatic type of brake meant that it took a serious accident at Armagh in 1889 before legislation compelled the automatic system.
Why has this sentence, which I researched back in 2006 (but have only just noticed) been removed ? As far as I`m aware Richard Moon of the LNWR holds an infamous part in the history of the continuous vacuum brake. -- JustinSmith ( talk) 18:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Some people may come to this article to read about vacuum brakes in vehicles.. perhaps add at top: This article is about vacuum brakes on trains. For the usage of vacuum for brakes in cars, see Vacuum servo. Charlieb000 ( talk) 23:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems a bit redundant given how it should be fairly obvious how inferior a system where you toot the whistle so that your mate can apply a single set of brakes in one wagon right at the end of the train is vs one where all the wheels of all the vehicles in the train are operated more or less simultaneously via a single lever in the locomotive, but, someone put a "how so?" tag on that sentence, so here we are. Hopefully my exposition passes muster. I was going to add something about how train brakes were considered scandalously insufficient for the task at hand even during the mid 19th century and there were newspaper-led campaigns to improve safety standards, but properly backing that up will require a citation scavenger hunt that I really don't have the taste for right now. There's enough evidence of it spread around the various articles detailing individual early-days railway disasters, however, if someone wants to give THAT a go... 80.189.129.200 ( talk) 17:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Clearly, the inventor of the brake was an Indian, Col Guruprasad Das. Please find the citations herewith. Uddhav9 ( talk) 19:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
http://www.uniindia.com/no-trains-yet-in-native-land-of-vacuum-brake-inventor/east/news/1694250.html Uddhav9 ( talk) 19:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
https://www.revolvy.com/page/Barpeta Uddhav9 ( talk) 19:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The main article states that when a train or vehicle has been standing for some time with the vacuum pipe open to the air, the pressures on both sides of the brake piston become equal because leakage will allow air into the upper part of the cylinder. I understand that this will release the brake since brake application relies on an upward force of atmospheric pressure on the lower side, and partial vacuum on the upper side. This delayed release seems to me to be a very undesirable feature. The supposed advantage of the system is its 'automatic' character - the brake will be applied to an entire train if, by accident, the train parts, and the vacuum pipe is broken. But if the brake on a detached part of a train is later released because of the mechanism mentioned above, the detached part would start moving again if it is on a gradient, and this would surely present an unacceptable hazard. Is this a correct understanding ? This scenario is not discussed in the main text. Andrewg4oep ( talk)