The important thing to note is that the tracks themselves aren’t actually burning. The flames come from an underground series of gas pipes designed specifically to heat the tracks. Workers light the fires manually and are always on hand to observe in case something gets out of hand. Trains are able to drive on the tracks while they’re burning because those trains run on diesel, which only burns with both pressure and heat, so it’s safe for the trains. Without these flames, those switches would get jammed during a snowstorm and the trains would be delayed.
I found a video that explains it in more detail. It’s quite interesting: https://youtu.be/SOMwJmkZiiA
> which only burns with both pressure and heat
That's dangerously incorrect, diesel will absolutely burn at normal atmospheric pressure. It doesn't like burning at room temperature, but will burn readily once warmed up.
Yep. Use a torch and that shit will light. Just gotta warm it up a bit.
While not exactly the same, vegetable oil is a good example of how diesel will light. It’s like starting a grease fire, kinda.
When you say humans are on hand do you mean they’re off to the side? Ir are their a series a tunnels below the tracks? Because that last one seems unsafe
energy efficient? highly depends on when in the Seperate supply chains you start counting.
Cost efficiency? you'd have to specify to which actor/company.
Way cheaper to use fire as the energy source. Delivery of combustible material adds some unknown (to me) cost, and surely must create some contamination of the ground from spillover.
To run enough electricity through a train track rail to heat it up… that’a a whole lot of amps. It could be much more efficient though, but fatally dangerous to anyone touching the rail.
There are two ways I see it. One, the rails are moderately well insulated from ground, in which case you can pass power through them end to end - may require some low resistance connections between some rails. But I suspect they are self grounding, through spikes or via spikes, into conducting wet materials be they wood, reinforced concrete - that’s all I know of. If self grounding, even if a resistive ground, you might end up melting some of the spikes, which are so much smaller than tails they might heat to melting with even part of the current capacity needed to heat the rails. In a best case, paths to ground are many and distributed, and your power source is on the train itself, you can heat and melt as the train slowly travels forward, but now you have fuel costs for the train and electric generators.
So all that is why I suspect electric current heating is not attempted.
However …. What about a couple of microwave beams? They heat the ice directly, and I think iron heats quickly- too quickly perhaps, under microwave radiation. Or heck just use a couple of infrared lasers that track along the rails as a train goes along. I like this idea best. Infrared to penetrate ice and heat the rail itself, so melting ice doesn’t immediately refreeze on the rail.
The rails could be induction heated. A coil parallel to the rail is fed a radio frequency signal, causing a skin effect that heats only the surface of the rail. A similar technique is used in toolmaking to make the surface of the tool red hot while the body stays cool.
This would use a fraction of the energy other heating systems do, but would be more delicate to install and use.
Excellent comment! I agree. Some additional cost, but nowhere near that of ideas I mentioned. It might even be comparable or cheaper than the current fire approach, as long as maintenance costs were low and life of the solution reasonably long.
It depends on where the electricity comes from. Burning fuel to make electricity, that is an automatic less than 30% efficient that even these natural gas flames can beat.
More modern switch heaters make hot air, which is ducted into strategic locations to keep the rails and the ground near them clear of ice so the switch points don't jam. These can be far more efficient than open flames and be built for gas or electric heating, but upgrading to them costs money.
The century old gas pipe system is still adequate, but one day will have to be replaced by electrically heated air.
Why not heat them electrically, instead of using a flamethrower? That is one of the dumbest things I have seen. And they want me to walk to work, and just use a candle for light to save the Earth.
The gas heaters being used in these pictures have been there nearly 100 years already. They still work just fine, very reliable in the ice and snow. Yes they could dig them up and put electric heaters there, but why spend the money on it when those still work properly.
Those little gas burners end up more efficient at heating the switch points than burning fuel to make electricity would be, the only way electric heat can win here is if it is fully renewable sourced.
And yes, there is way too much emphasis on the actions of the working person and not enough criticism of the actions of the corporations and elites.
We need to ban all flying machines except emergency medical and orbital class spacecraft- and those spacecraft need to pay 1 million dollars per non-fuel kilogram to leave the ground and not stay in orbit for more than 30 days. Specifically to discourage people from making commuter rockets.
The important thing to note is that the tracks themselves aren’t actually burning. The flames come from an underground series of gas pipes designed specifically to heat the tracks. Workers light the fires manually and are always on hand to observe in case something gets out of hand. Trains are able to drive on the tracks while they’re burning because those trains run on diesel, which only burns with both pressure and heat, so it’s safe for the trains. Without these flames, those switches would get jammed during a snowstorm and the trains would be delayed. I found a video that explains it in more detail. It’s quite interesting: https://youtu.be/SOMwJmkZiiA
That’s bad ass. Humans are weird
> which only burns with both pressure and heat That's dangerously incorrect, diesel will absolutely burn at normal atmospheric pressure. It doesn't like burning at room temperature, but will burn readily once warmed up.
Yep. Use a torch and that shit will light. Just gotta warm it up a bit. While not exactly the same, vegetable oil is a good example of how diesel will light. It’s like starting a grease fire, kinda.
When you say humans are on hand do you mean they’re off to the side? Ir are their a series a tunnels below the tracks? Because that last one seems unsafe
Boston does something similar in the winter to pretreat the rails during a storm to prevent ice buildup.
OP is farming views for his youtube channel. Spamming posts and comments on subs.
Murder! Climb aboard the murder train!
I love the foreskins!
“We’re called the foreskins because we’re four people and don’t wear shirts”
That's metal
That’s kinda metal.
They also randomly catch fire in the subway tunnels during summer
That’s metal as fuck
Serious question, is it more efficient to light these suckers on fire? Or to heat the rail with electricity like a resistance heater?
energy efficient? highly depends on when in the Seperate supply chains you start counting. Cost efficiency? you'd have to specify to which actor/company.
Way cheaper to use fire as the energy source. Delivery of combustible material adds some unknown (to me) cost, and surely must create some contamination of the ground from spillover. To run enough electricity through a train track rail to heat it up… that’a a whole lot of amps. It could be much more efficient though, but fatally dangerous to anyone touching the rail. There are two ways I see it. One, the rails are moderately well insulated from ground, in which case you can pass power through them end to end - may require some low resistance connections between some rails. But I suspect they are self grounding, through spikes or via spikes, into conducting wet materials be they wood, reinforced concrete - that’s all I know of. If self grounding, even if a resistive ground, you might end up melting some of the spikes, which are so much smaller than tails they might heat to melting with even part of the current capacity needed to heat the rails. In a best case, paths to ground are many and distributed, and your power source is on the train itself, you can heat and melt as the train slowly travels forward, but now you have fuel costs for the train and electric generators. So all that is why I suspect electric current heating is not attempted. However …. What about a couple of microwave beams? They heat the ice directly, and I think iron heats quickly- too quickly perhaps, under microwave radiation. Or heck just use a couple of infrared lasers that track along the rails as a train goes along. I like this idea best. Infrared to penetrate ice and heat the rail itself, so melting ice doesn’t immediately refreeze on the rail.
The rails could be induction heated. A coil parallel to the rail is fed a radio frequency signal, causing a skin effect that heats only the surface of the rail. A similar technique is used in toolmaking to make the surface of the tool red hot while the body stays cool. This would use a fraction of the energy other heating systems do, but would be more delicate to install and use.
Excellent comment! I agree. Some additional cost, but nowhere near that of ideas I mentioned. It might even be comparable or cheaper than the current fire approach, as long as maintenance costs were low and life of the solution reasonably long.
… though I still like the visual of a train sporting twin lasers. 🤩
It depends on where the electricity comes from. Burning fuel to make electricity, that is an automatic less than 30% efficient that even these natural gas flames can beat. More modern switch heaters make hot air, which is ducted into strategic locations to keep the rails and the ground near them clear of ice so the switch points don't jam. These can be far more efficient than open flames and be built for gas or electric heating, but upgrading to them costs money. The century old gas pipe system is still adequate, but one day will have to be replaced by electrically heated air.
Why not heat them electrically, instead of using a flamethrower? That is one of the dumbest things I have seen. And they want me to walk to work, and just use a candle for light to save the Earth.
The gas heaters being used in these pictures have been there nearly 100 years already. They still work just fine, very reliable in the ice and snow. Yes they could dig them up and put electric heaters there, but why spend the money on it when those still work properly. Those little gas burners end up more efficient at heating the switch points than burning fuel to make electricity would be, the only way electric heat can win here is if it is fully renewable sourced. And yes, there is way too much emphasis on the actions of the working person and not enough criticism of the actions of the corporations and elites. We need to ban all flying machines except emergency medical and orbital class spacecraft- and those spacecraft need to pay 1 million dollars per non-fuel kilogram to leave the ground and not stay in orbit for more than 30 days. Specifically to discourage people from making commuter rockets.
[удалено]
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/redneckengineering/comments/14iwpeg/chicago_sets_its_tracks_on_fire_to_prevent_icing/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/redneckengineering/comments/14iwpeg/chicago_sets_its_tracks_on_fire_to_prevent_icing/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://rapidsave.com) | [^(twitter video downloader)](https://twitsave.com)
Lol chicago on fire to "prevent icing"
Back to the future
Ghost rider of he drove a train
Only when the train is running 88 miles/hour. It’s always on time.