crew alerters and safety standards better in Canada

[Anonymous]

Regarding the UP Carizozo NM head on:

"The event recorders from both locomotives of the striking (eastbound) train recorded a speed of 36 mph at impact, with no input from the crew for several miles before the collision, including no braking action before impact."

Is a US model event recorder not tied to a crew alerter ? This collision would never have happened in Canada. The Reset Safety Device, or TMACS, used on BCRail, CN, and CP would have long stopped the train given that there were no control inputs from the deceased hogger for several miles.

Not that I am taking pot shots, but our SBU's have always been two -way, and the BNSF runaway in Cajon Pass where the hogger was unable to dump his train from the tail end would have never occurred with Canadian equipment either.

Adrian
BCR conductor
Ft ST John BC

[Anonymous]

Their is a data recorder in all Locomotives in the US not sure about Canada

[mudchicken]

Not better, just different...both countries adopt the best of what the other guy does best.... ps..it's called ATS here among other names and can be found on passenger engines...

[jeffhergert]

Some UP engines have crew alerters and some don't. Have been on some where the alerter had been removed and on some where the railroad had added alerters (one time on an engine that had one added, the sanders came on when the engineer blew the horn).
I remember reading somewhere of a study done where drowsy engineers acknowledged the alerter as fast, or faster than if they were fully alert.

[jchnhtfd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeffhergert

... one time on an engine that had one added, the sanders came on when the engineer blew the horn...

[:D][:D][:D]
I love it![:D] And what happened when the autosanders came on for wheel slip? I hate to think...[:D]

I'm not sure, from reading the accounts I've seen of that wreck, that either US or Canadian safety systems would have helped much...[:(] I have no desire to pass judgement on anyone at all, but it appears that it may have been possible that one or both of the crewmen on the eastbound train may have been, as we used to say, slightly spaced? Certain it is that someone at the very least wasn't paying as much attention to the signals as they might have been.

[wabash1]

I have ran a few of those so called safer canadian engines ( your words or at least the way i see you saying it.) and they operate down here the same as any thng else. the only differance in above the border engines and our engines is that there is a hot plate on some. ive heard some crews say they had a microwave on their engines but i cannot confirm this. as for the alerters they are not tied in to the event recorder. or at least there is not a space on them to say you hit the alerter. but if you get a penalty that is recorded. it is very possible not to have a penalty brake applacation and see no movement of either the throttle or dynamic and brakes as if he was on flat ground it just keep rolling at the same speed. but there is many up engines that dont have alerter systems on them. and there is no law that states that they are required either. this can result in a runaway if the crew falls asleep.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeffhergert

Some UP engines have crew alerters and some don't. Have been on some where the alerter had been removed and on some where the railroad had added alerters (one time on an engine that had one added, the sanders came on when the engineer blew the horn).
I remember reading somewhere of a study done where drowsy engineers acknowledged the alerter as fast, or faster than if they were fully alert.

I don't think there is one CP or Cn engine WITHOUT a crew Alertor.

That changed after the big derailment in Western Canada where a CN freigth colided head on with a VIA rail only because The Engineer of the Cn train put his cooler on the Dead mans pedal, went to the washroom where he died. kind of pulled an "Elvis presley" special.

The sad part was the CN train had 3 locomotives, the other two behind the head end locomotive had Crew Alert devices, Yes the head end had dead mans pedal

So if i'm not mistaken theats when the governement stepped in and said Crew alter devices for everyone and everyhting.

The derailment was in 1986.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure where you're getting you're information on the Dalehurst, Alberta wreck of 1986, where CN train 413 collided head on with VIA train #4.

First of all, the locomotive consist of the CN train was a GP38-2(W) followed by a pair of SD40's. NONE of the three units were equipped with modern Reset Safety Control devices, and the main cause of the wreck was traced back to the fact that until then, Canada had no hours of service laws, and the crew had been on duty for an excessive length of time. Nobody died before the wreck, but both members of the head end crew of the freight train were sound asleep. This wreck brought hours of service laws into effect, as well as reset safety control devices more modern than the deadmans pedal. Of course, it's been found since that repetitive motion, i.e. slapping the RSC button, does not effectively wake a person from microsleep, and may not be as effective as originally thought.

While it is my opinion that Canadian SBUs have been ahead of the US, solely by the fact that Transport Canada has always mandated that two-way end of train devices be used, Canada is well behind the US in hours of service laws. The federal law works as follows:

maximum on duty time:
territory 199 miles or less - 10 hours
territory 200 miles or more - 12 hours

Crews may work 18 out of every 24 hours, but must not exceed the above listed times. If the crew is not on duty for the full time allowed, the full 8 hours rest is not required. For example, if you go on duty at your home terminal at 0100, and go off duty at your away from home terminal at 0930, you can immediately take a 2 hour call and go back on duty at 1130, and have until 2100 to go back off duty at your home terminal.

Finally, for the person who mentioned the microwaves. All units that are equipped to lead CN trains in Canada are equipped with one. This was a concession to the BLE/UTU when CN implemented the run-through agreement in 1997. It eliminated several crew change locations completely, and reduced others to Certain classes of trains only. For example, crews on intermodal trains now run through from Motntreal to Toronto, while most drag freights still change crews in between at Belleville...

Mark

[wabash1]

CNMARK

Is the time you stated for hours of service canadian law? the 2 way end of train device you talk about its is a rule that we have them on all trains in the usa except locals . which dont need them anyways.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNMark

I'm not sure where you're getting you're information on the Dalehurst, Alberta wreck of 1986, where CN train 413 collided head on with VIA train #4.

First of all, the locomotive consist of the CN train was a GP38-2(W) followed by a pair of SD40's. NONE of the three units were equipped with modern Reset Safety Control devices, and the main cause of the wreck was traced back to the fact that until then, Canada had no hours of service laws, and the crew had been on duty for an excessive length of time. Nobody died before the wreck, but both members of the head end crew of the freight train were sound asleep. This wreck brought hours of service laws into effect, as well as reset safety control devices more modern than the deadmans pedal. Of course, it's been found since that repetitive motion, i.e. slapping the RSC button, does not effectively wake a person from microsleep, and may not be as effective as originally thought.

While it is my opinion that Canadian SBUs have been ahead of the US, solely by the fact that Transport Canada has always mandated that two-way end of train devices be used, Canada is well behind the US in hours of service laws. The federal law works as follows:

maximum on duty time:
territory 199 miles or less - 10 hours
territory 200 miles or more - 12 hours

Crews may work 18 out of every 24 hours, but must not exceed the above listed times. If the crew is not on duty for the full time allowed, the full 8 hours rest is not required. For example, if you go on duty at your home terminal at 0100, and go off duty at your away from home terminal at 0930, you can immediately take a 2 hour call and go back on duty at 1130, and have until 2100 to go back off duty at your home terminal.

Finally, for the person who mentioned the microwaves. All units that are equipped to lead CN trains in Canada are equipped with one. This was a concession to the BLE/UTU when CN implemented the run-through agreement in 1997. It eliminated several crew change locations completely, and reduced others to Certain classes of trains only. For example, crews on intermodal trains now run through from Motntreal to Toronto, while most drag freights still change crews in between at Belleville...

Mark

Wreck! Canada's Worst Railway Accidents, Hugh A. Halliday, 1999, Edition 1, Printed 1997,1999.

Clearly States:

-The two untis, Behind the lead unit HAD Crew Alert Devices, while the head end locomotive did not.

-This RR accident, did not occur at Dalehurst the city, It occured in Dalehurst Siding, and the closest city ot that is Hinton, Alberta, Hence is all Historic documents you read, it is classified as the Hinton Train Disaster, Not Dalehurst.

The engineer, was not sound asleep, he was dead on the toilet after a Epileptic seizure OR A severe asthma attack left him dead.

The Conductor, was sound asleep.

John Edward (Jack) Hudson the engineer, was sitting on the toilet dead.

The conductor in the head end Unit, A Mr. Mark Edwards, was sound asleep.

And an old blue mettalic Cooler, made by coleman, Was sitting on the Deadman's pedal.

Thge second Conductor, In the caboose, A Mr. Wayne Smith, was paying attention, yet somewhat in his own world, as he was aware the train flew by a yellow signal, but found nothing wrong when the train was speeding up down the hill, as he later admitted in the hearing

****To verify this evidence is correct, i suggest you look it up, in the Canadian department of Transportrt records, and the file number is 3202-10.*****

I don't make up facts, I simply write thme as they are.