CONTENT REMOVED FOR TRANSFER TO NEW THREAD 3/26/24
Detectors i'm familiar with, ours and some foriegn line and/or their predecessors, don't tell an engineer to stop the train. They give a defect tone and message, "defect detected" and maybe detector location if it's talk on defect only. They won't state the nature or location of the defect until the entire train is clear of the detector. Many detectors check for multiple defects. Those require clearing the detector. Stand alone type detectors, usually dragging equipment detectors, also only give the detector location and that a defect has been detected. When you know that you're going over a dragging equipment only type, you are to bring the train to a stop and then the detector gives the location.
Within the last few years, the powers that be decided the minimum speed for our detectors should be set at 15 mph. Most were set slower, some you could even stop on and the detector would not lose it's count on the train when you started moving again. By setting the minimum speed to 15 mph, you will almost always get an integrity failure from the detector if you go much below 15. It can still detect defects, but won't give a type or location for any defect(s) detected. Then the entire train needs to be inspected.
Regarding DP's. The remotes can't be placed into dynamics unless the head end is in idle or power. The system won't let remotes go into dynamics when the head end is in power.
We are to run the fence up on all DP trains. EMS when engaged immediately puts up the fence if it already isn't up. Then EMS normally tries to run the train in a slack bunched condition most of the time.
Jeff
EuclidPerhaps that explains the reluctance of the NTSB to immediately announce the cause.
Has the NTSB ever announced a cause in under a year? And have they ever immediately announced a cause? This whole argument is just plain silly.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Bearing Failure is the Cause. There was no way of stopping the train that would not have wrung off the journal - the only possible solution would have been to have a helicopter pick up the offending car BEFORE it wrung off. A helicopter picking up a car on the fly is a total 'Star Wars' type happening.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Silliness reigned and we all got wet.
zugmann Euclid Perhaps that explains the reluctance of the NTSB to immediately announce the cause. Has the NTSB ever announced a cause in under a year? And have they ever immediately announced a cause? This whole argument is just plain silly.
Euclid Perhaps that explains the reluctance of the NTSB to immediately announce the cause.
In reading NTSB final reports on incidents where I have obtained knowlege from some of the parties that were actually involved in the incident - the NTSB has become political and will hedge their causes based on 'push' (money?). Their wording of causes can be very, very shaky and nuanced.
Euclidbut it sure sounded to probably everyone that they were announcing the cause.
Virtually any investigation will involve some likely suspects, and they are often announced early on. Yes, it appears that the bearing was the cause, but until all avenues have been investigated, it's only one possibility.
We'll know when they file the final report.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
To add to the previous discussion in this thread:
I went back and located the actual test (in the Federal Register archives) of ICC Order 29543, and find that it contains "official" definitions of 'medium speed' and 'restricted speed' that amend the version in the 1939 version of the 'rules'. It reads as follows:
136.11(q)(2) Low (restricted) speed. A speed that will permit stopping short of another train or an obstruction, but not exceeding 15 miles per hour.
That is the form of 'restricted speed' that I remember from my youth, and it would be interesting to see the discussion surrounding how 'another train' came to include a train running in the opposite direction also under restricted speed. Someone might look at the 1970 Transportation Act definitions and see if the change is in there.
EuclidIf Train A is moving in compliance with restricted speed such that it is prepared to stop short of any train ahead, I don’t see how Train A can be prepared to stop short of a train approaching him when his sight site distance is limited in a way that restricted speed is supposed to address. The train opposing Train A may be eating up the stopping distance of Train A without Train A being aware of that. An unprotected opposing train will definitely be a hazard to Train A. But as such a hazard, what if the opposing train is not even complying with restricted speed? What if he is mistakenly running at full track speed? Train A could stop and still get hit by the opposing train.
It is obvious that you will be operating the train exceeding Restricted Speed since you can't comprehend its operation.
EuclidAn unprotected opposing train will definitely be a hazard to Train A. But as such a hazard, what if the opposing train is not even complying with restricted speed? What if he is mistakenly running at full track speed? Train A could stop and still get hit by the opposing train.
And that has to do with what, exactly?
zugmann And that has to do with what, exactly?
Complying with restricted speed rule to stop short of hazards when some hazards may be moving toward you.
EuclidComplying with restricted speed rule to stop short of hazards when some hazards may be moving toward you.
If your train is supposed to be operating at restricted speed, then the opposing train will also be operating at restricted speed.
This is the very heart of "half the distance." It's been explained that way several times.
If either train is unable to stop before reaching the oncoming train, then said train wasn't operating at restricted speed.
It's really pretty simple.
tree68 Euclid Complying with restricted speed rule to stop short of hazards when some hazards may be moving toward you. If your train is supposed to be operating at restricted speed, then the opposing train will also be operating at restricted speed. This is the very heart of "half the distance." It's been explained that way several times. If either train is unable to stop before reaching the oncoming train, then said train wasn't operating at restricted speed. It's really pretty simple.
Euclid Complying with restricted speed rule to stop short of hazards when some hazards may be moving toward you.
Restricted Speed with opposing trains PRESUMES that each train become visible to the other train at the same point in time and by stopping within 1/2 the range of vision they will come to a stop facing each other - without impact.
The reality of sight lines and background lighting can skew when one train is visible to the other AS A TRAIN.
EuclidI understand, but I am asking a slightly different question that I will explain later.
Sensible operation planning -- just as 'ought to have been' used in the Cayce accident -- is the only real thing that would avoid an accident, unless sight distance were so great, and identification of the facing trains so immediate and effective, that conventional brake and braking practice would stop both trains "in time".
Note that you can NOT start up with the idea that 'any time you're running at restricted speed and see another train you emergency brake to get as short a stopping distance as possible because inches or seconds may count'. Real railroads aren't safe for trains in emergency.
Incidentally, with respect to train recognition, if the train 'not operating at restricted speed' is going faster than 15mph, it has to have ditch lights operating on the front end. That rules out a backing move, or a locomotive operating long-hood-forward without ditch lights on that end. You'd see 'three lights' from either cab, and perhaps (if your vision and distance perception is better than mine) you'd recognize from the cab of the train at 'restricted speed' that the 'another train' was speeding.
Now, for fun: how about learning from the Smiths Falls near-collision, and say that trains 'coming to a stop from restricted speed' need to be capable of accelerating in reverse as soon as they have come to a controlled stop. The only thing that saved the VIA Rail LRC locomotive (and its pathetic fiberglass nose protection) from disaster was the very prompt and dramatically-smoking reversing of the freight power... and even then it was a close-run thing.
Overmod Euclid I understand, but I am asking a slightly different question that I will explain later. There is no real answer to the question 'what if the other train is not operating at restricted speed'. As far as the 'faster' train is concerned, it's Cayce with all its impending horror; for the train operating under 'restricted speed' it no longer matters whether they can guesstimate where 'half the distance from where you saw the other train' might be, and any clever efforts to achieve it will, bluntly, fail. All they can really hope to do is plug the train when they see collision is impossible to avoid. Sensible operation planning -- just as 'ought to have been' used in the Cayce accident -- is the only real thing that would avoid an accident, unless sight distance were so great, and identification of the facing trains so immediate and effective, that conventional brake and braking practice would stop both trains "in time".
Euclid I understand, but I am asking a slightly different question that I will explain later.
There is no real answer to the question 'what if the other train is not operating at restricted speed'. As far as the 'faster' train is concerned, it's Cayce with all its impending horror; for the train operating under 'restricted speed' it no longer matters whether they can guesstimate where 'half the distance from where you saw the other train' might be, and any clever efforts to achieve it will, bluntly, fail. All they can really hope to do is plug the train when they see collision is impossible to avoid.
Euclid Overmod Euclid I understand, but I am asking a slightly different question that I will explain later. There is no real answer to the question 'what if the other train is not operating at restricted speed'. As far as the 'faster' train is concerned, it's Cayce with all its impending horror; for the train operating under 'restricted speed' it no longer matters whether they can guesstimate where 'half the distance from where you saw the other train' might be, and any clever efforts to achieve it will, bluntly, fail. All they can really hope to do is plug the train when they see collision is impossible to avoid. Sensible operation planning -- just as 'ought to have been' used in the Cayce accident -- is the only real thing that would avoid an accident, unless sight distance were so great, and identification of the facing trains so immediate and effective, that conventional brake and braking practice would stop both trains "in time". Yes, as you say, I think that there is no solution to the circumstance of two trains approaching each other on the same track, with one train complying with a restricted speed requirement, and the other being sufficiently out of compliance with it. If Train A was complying with the restricted speed rule, and Train B was exceeding restricted speed, making it impossible for both trains to stop in time, the collision would be exclusively the fault of Train B. That is even though Train A did not comply with the rule requiring him to be able to stop within half of his range of vision, for the hazard of an approaching train. But in the larger perspective, what sort of circumstances would lead to two trains approaching each other, on course for a head-on collision, but only on the authority of the restricted speed rule? It seems to me that if two trains approaching each other on course for a head-on collision, and each unaware of the other, they should both be immediately stopped by some means other than restricted speed. Does the rule even list this circumstance as being one of the hazards that is addressed under the status of restricted speed? Are those hazards that are specifically listed in the rule limited to that list? Or-- is the rule calling for a speed that allows stopping in half the distance from any conceivable hazard that is visible to the naked eye, regardless of the circumstance? Some of the references to the rule imply that to be the case. And also, the term, “Obstruction” would include everything. A train being required to stop short of a train ahead that is stopped or moving slowly ahead, in the same direction, makes perfect sense. But, all that the rule says is this: “(Be) Prepared to stop within one-half the range of vision — short of a train, obstruction, or switch improperly lined. Be on the lookout for broken rail.” It does not exclude a train coming toward you head-on. “Short of a train” means a train standing still, or moving in either direction. And it also does not exclude the need to comply if a train is approaching at a speed greater that what is allowed by the rule. Such a train is definitely a hazardous obstacle, which is what restricted speed is supposed to protect against. That is, it protects against something being wrong, like an obstruction, improperly lined switch, or a broken rail. Those wrong items are no different than the wrongness of a train coming toward you head-on, while exceeding the required restricted speed.
Brain Dead Crews only operate on the Euclid RR. Catastrophe Inc.
The preliminary NTSB report on the incident reported that the striking train was operating at 13 MPH - well inside Euc's 15 MPH interpertation of Restricted Speed however far outside the 1/2 Range of Vision part of Restricted Speed.
Bucky can throw all the "what if's" in that he wants.
That isn't going to change the premise on which "restricted speed" is based.
About the only time two opposing trains or engines will be approaching each other on the same track under restricted speed will be within yard limits or restricted limits on a main track or controlled (signalled) track. Under the similar "Movement on other than main track" rule, when trains or engines are moving on the same yard track or uncontrolled siding. Remember, yard limits or restricted limits are only on a main track. Other than main track covers everything else.
Another posibility would be when opposing trains have overlapping or joint limits. One would probably have some kind of work authority, allowing movement in either direction within it's authorized limits. The other could either be a straight away move or also have some kind of working limits. When this happens, both would be notified that they are within joint limits and all movement would be at restricted speed within the joint limits.
Outside of the above, movement of opposing trains and engines would be governed by other movement authority. Either verbal or written, with or without block signals or by signal indications. Those rules are designed to keep opposing trains from running into each other. It is assumed that everyone will follow the rules for the respective authority types, that mechanical or signal equipment will function as designed. That's why on a main track or signalled track a collision is more likely to be one train running into the rear end, rather than a head on collision between two trains.
jeffhergert About the only time two opposing trains or engines will be approaching each other on the same track under restricted speed will be within yard limits or restricted limits on a main track or controlled (signalled) track. Under the similar "Movement on other than main track" rule, when trains or engines are moving on the same yard track or uncontrolled siding. Remember, yard limits or restricted limits are only on a main track. Other than main track covers everything else. Another posibility would be when opposing trains have overlapping or joint limits. One would probably have some kind of work authority, allowing movement in either direction within it's authorized limits. The other could either be a straight away move or also have some kind of working limits. When this happens, both would be notified that they are within joint limits and all movement would be at restricted speed within the joint limits. Outside of the above, movement of opposing trains and engines would be governed by other movement authority. Either verbal or written, with or without block signals or by signal indications. Those rules are designed to keep opposing trains from running into each other. It is assumed that everyone will follow the rules for the respective authority types, that mechanical or signal equipment will function as designed. That's why on a main track or signalled track a collision is more likely to be one train running into the rear end, rather than a head on collision between two trains. Jeff
EuclidI asked those questions because the restricted speed rule does not seem to rule out that two-opposing-trains situation. But I understand your point about the other factors that would come into play with that situation, so the control is not just the restricted speed rule.
As has been explained before, the whole idea of restricted speed is that two opposing trains running at restricted speed can stop before a collision can occur.
Any other situation occurring means that someone is not running at restricted speed.
In signaled territory, there is generally enough leeway built into the system to prevent two trains running in opposite directions from being faced with that situation.
In dark territory, occupancy is generally exclusive, so one of the trains is somewhere they should not be.
NORAC Rule 98 is applied to certain areas (terminals, yards, etc) and calls for restricted speed in ALL cases. Some rulebooks even specify a maximum speed that is less than that otherwise specified in the timetable. I'm sure other railroads have an equivalent rule.
At Deshler, OH, it's not unusual to see the interlocking signals go to restricting after a train passes, and until it clears the next control point, at which time the signal will change to an approach aspect.
One thing I learned in my first two weeks of employment on the railroad - reading and writing the words written in the Rule Book don't train you for how the Rule Boo IN ITS ENTIRETY is tied together and applied in the wide variety of situations that routinely occur on a Class 1 railroad. The entire rule book is brought to bear on any situation the crops up - not just one single sentance of a single rule.
That is where Safety Culture comes into the equation. Safety scoffers always want to sharp shoot and parse the wording and application of one rule independent of all others.
tree68 Bucky can throw all the "what if's" in that he wants. That isn't going to change the premise on which "restricted speed" is based.
EuclidThat is not at all what I am doing.
Actually, it's exactly what you're doing - "what if yada yada."
Never said you're trying to rewrite the rules. Usually it's a matter of trying to read something into the topic that isn't there.
tree68 Euclid That is not at all what I am doing. Actually, it's exactly what you're doing - "what if yada yada." Never said you're trying to rewrite the rules. Usually it's a matter of trying to read something into the topic that isn't there.
Euclid That is not at all what I am doing.
Winner, Winner - Chicken Dinner!
If anything, I was the one who came closest to 'trying to rewrite the rule' -- in saying that if the rule reads clearly 'half the distance to the obstruction' any testing for it ought to enforce compliance.
The actual rule for 'restricted speed' was part of the same ICC Order of 1947 that imposed the train control/continuous cab signal requirement in the early Fifties. And both its text and its discussion in the Federal Register clearly state 'stop short of an obstruction' -- which is, of course, how all the railroaders see it being tested.
I encourage anyone to go to the link I posted and read the discussion and text of the Order for themself. Any hypotheticals that involve that definition should be fairly clear to address afterward. All that has apparently 'changed' is that the rule now says 'half the distance' just in case the 'obstruction' happens to be a train moving at restricted speed. And all that remains is to find the "official" time and place that the rule was modified to read as it does... together with, I suspect, the then Government rationale for imposing it (and, hopefully, some insight into how rear-world humans could properly execute it as written).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.