BaltACD jeffhergert Even with the engineer having problems identifying colors, the first signal more restrictive than clear (if the reports are correct as to signal progression in use) would have been flashing. Only a few signals are able to have an aspect that uses the flashing mode. Surely, had he seen that you would think he would be more observant of the next signal(s), using any "tricks" that may have gotten him by in the past. Even asking the conductor for his observation, should the conductor be "otherwise occupied" and the engineer had any doubt. Jeff Jeff - Does UP require announcing the train ID and Signal Indication on the Road Radio Channel as some other carriers require? My carrier does and I know from personal experience that the practice saves lives - sometimes T&E, sometimes MofW.
jeffhergert Even with the engineer having problems identifying colors, the first signal more restrictive than clear (if the reports are correct as to signal progression in use) would have been flashing. Only a few signals are able to have an aspect that uses the flashing mode. Surely, had he seen that you would think he would be more observant of the next signal(s), using any "tricks" that may have gotten him by in the past. Even asking the conductor for his observation, should the conductor be "otherwise occupied" and the engineer had any doubt. Jeff
Even with the engineer having problems identifying colors, the first signal more restrictive than clear (if the reports are correct as to signal progression in use) would have been flashing. Only a few signals are able to have an aspect that uses the flashing mode. Surely, had he seen that you would think he would be more observant of the next signal(s), using any "tricks" that may have gotten him by in the past. Even asking the conductor for his observation, should the conductor be "otherwise occupied" and the engineer had any doubt.
Jeff
Jeff -
Does UP require announcing the train ID and Signal Indication on the Road Radio Channel as some other carriers require? My carrier does and I know from personal experience that the practice saves lives - sometimes T&E, sometimes MofW.
Only for those signals more restrictive than an advance approach. At least system wide, there could be Service Unit (Division) instructions that require more than what the system rules require.
Conductors on road freight trains are also supposed to keep a log of signals more restrictive than a clear and note that the signal was called out in the cab and the engineer responded back.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Yes, you are right. The conductor could have been sleeping.
Bucyrus As to your first point: The only lack of response by the engineer was a failure to resond to the signals. But he made several control changes during the fatal approach including dumping the air about 5-10 seconds before impact. There is no indication that the engineer was totally unresponsive as would be the case when sleeping. So it is nonsense for the NTSB to say they can't rule out fatigue. Aren't we all a little fatigued these days? I know I am.
As to your first point: The only lack of response by the engineer was a failure to resond to the signals. But he made several control changes during the fatal approach including dumping the air about 5-10 seconds before impact. There is no indication that the engineer was totally unresponsive as would be the case when sleeping.
So it is nonsense for the NTSB to say they can't rule out fatigue. Aren't we all a little fatigued these days? I know I am.
So why did the Conductor fail to take action? He has a brake valve on his side of the cab.
henry6 No, they are indicating that they don't know why the UP crew did not respond...if indeed they were sleeping or othierwise or unattentive was it because of fatigue or short call or didn't sleep enough before being called or something else? They may be able to determine later. They are promoting PTC here simply because PTC would have stopped the train when the engineer didn't. Nothing political or subversive at all.
No, they are indicating that they don't know why the UP crew did not respond...if indeed they were sleeping or othierwise or unattentive was it because of fatigue or short call or didn't sleep enough before being called or something else? They may be able to determine later.
They are promoting PTC here simply because PTC would have stopped the train when the engineer didn't. Nothing political or subversive at all.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said their PTC agenda was subversive or political, so I don't know why you mention those sinister motives. My only point is that the NTSB is blaming the crash on that fact that it was not prevented. In my opinion, that is childish.
I stopped for deer already. Granted, I was at restricted speed* and moving through the yard, still...
*- just complying with restricted speed rules.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
UPrailfanA Plane is not going to have say a Deer or a Car appear in front of it at 35K feet or have a car Brake valve decide to dump the Airline on its own.
You are not going to stop your train for a deer, a car or ever for a kid chasing a ball across the tracks. It is just not going to happen. You are going to hit said object. Even a fully automated trail will know when it hit something and will begin to stop. You might feel good about thinking "Well I tried to stop" but it really makes no difference.
Riding the LIRR to work every morning, I could stand at the front storm door and watch the tracks in front of us. (The engineer lived in a little phone booth next to the storm door.) I never counted less than 30 carcases of dogs in various stages of decomposition on our tracks on a five mile stretch through residential back yards. Some engineers would apply the brake before the hit the animal, others did not bother. The dogs never ran to the side, but always ran down the tracks in front of us, as if they could not step of the rail to safety. Our trains did 80 mph on that stretch of track. I was riding up front, the engineer had his door open, so we could see each other. I never saw it, but he did, a pigeon flew into the bonnet of our train. I sure as heck heard and felt it though. I shrugged it off. Trains hit birds and other things all of the time. He was quite shaken by it, but kept on going, and never dropped his throttle or the brakes. He had no time to react, and then it was all over with no point in reacting. He did call it in though.
When we got to NYP he went out to examine the train to see if there was any damage to the bonnet. (The bonnet being fiberglass), but there was none, so there was nothing more to do except to walk to the other end of the train and take it back out to Long Island, and for me to go to work.
AUTO PILOT is supposed to be for your convenience and safety, you still have to run the train. (At least for now.)
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
The NTSB says they can’t rule out fatigue. But from a technical analysis viewpoint, their conclusions do rule out fatigue as contributing to the crash. They say they have proof that the engineer made control changes at each signal as though the signal were clear. So obviously he was not sleeping. And then they found the explanation that he could not see the signals well enough to interpret them, so that is the cause.
Therefore, when they say they can’t rule out fatigue, I interpret that to mean that they cannot prove that the engineer was not tired. That seems incredibly subjective and irrelevant, and only seems to give more evidence that the NTSB is promoting a sleep disorder agenda.
They are also promoting a PTC agenda in their incredible indictment of the U.P. and railroad industry as a whole for causing the crash because of not having PTC in place at the crash site. They could just as well conclude that U.P. is at fault for running the train that day.
Lion there is a Difference about Auto pilot on a Plane compared to a Train. A Plane is not going to have say a Deer or a Car appear in front of it at 35K feet or have a car Brake valve decide to dump the Airline on its own. I know from the Cab Rides I got Years ago say about 20 Years ago that the Engineers had their hands full then let alone now.
Well, a train went past three signals without appropriate response from the crew. The crew is dead, so you cannot ask them.
NTSB can only investigate the things that they can see. We can speculate on lots of things, but they will resolve nothing. This is a pretty straight forward, vanilla, head-on collision.
The vision issue is an interesting excursion. But if you keep having the same sorts of accidents over and over again, it seems fairly obvious that similar conclusions will be reached.
Rather than PTC, LION would first impliment CAB SIGNALS and Alerters for the Conductor as well as the Engineer.
Someone brought up Pilots and co-pilots, but cannot most conductors spell the engineer already, if he wants to visit the nose of the locomotive? The difference with the airplane is that it is on auto-pilot for most of the trip. Cannot a train also have an auto-pilot? Something not right is followed by a loud alarm.
zugmann Seems to be a generic fill-in-the-blank report for any rail incident anymore. Recommendations: safety programs, cameras, and PTC. No matter what the incident is... those are the recommendations. Just fill in date and train symbols.
Seems to be a generic fill-in-the-blank report for any rail incident anymore.
Recommendations: safety programs, cameras, and PTC. No matter what the incident is... those are the recommendations. Just fill in date and train symbols.
I have to agree - the summary makes it seem as if no real effort was expended in the investigation beyond the engineer flunking his eye exam with his personal ophthalmologist. If it were a actors performance, one would say they 'phoned it in'.
Obviously still on the "sleep disorder" agenda even though there is absolutely no evidence of it playing any part in this accident.
It appears that the railroads need to learn from the airlines. The co pilot; aka "second officer" has to become involved and be assertive when pilot is in error. The same goes for conductors and engineers. The operation must be a team effort.
Perhaps they might benefit from the "human performance" training in my trade. It starts with" We make errors because we are human. Therefore we must take steps to eliminate or correct those errors."
The first step to solving a problem is to recognize that there is a problem. It sounds like that is not happening here.
Pretty clear findings, causes and recommendations.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
HERE is NTSB summary Report.
CSSHEGEWISCH CPL and position light signals have been attractive to the fan community primarily because they were different. There may be relatively less moving parts than on a semaphore or a single-bulb searchlight signal but there is more wiring and more bulbs to maintain. A maintainer would be the person to know how much work is required to keep the various signals operating properly.
CPL and position light signals have been attractive to the fan community primarily because they were different. There may be relatively less moving parts than on a semaphore or a single-bulb searchlight signal but there is more wiring and more bulbs to maintain. A maintainer would be the person to know how much work is required to keep the various signals operating properly.
They are attractive to me because I used them. Along with searchlight signals, PRR position lights, and regular traffic-light style lights. I don't think there's too many RRers that use them that wouldn't agree with me. Something with the dual lightheads that helps distinguish them from mostly single-point lineside non-RR lights.
We're also talking LEDs, so they don't usually burn out. Plus if one light head does go, you still can determine indication, and don't have to subject trains to reduced/restricted speed, or have to get DS permission past them.
If the doctor is employed or designated by the railroad, he will note and report whatever the parameters of health and service require. If the doctor is a private personal physician, he is not required to report to the company but if he knows in what type of work his patient employed, he should at least caution the patient. Colors of lights, flags, and even equipment, all play safety roles in operations of a railroad. And last of all, the patient himself has to be responsible enough to know how dangerous it is for him not to be able to recognize and react to signals,etc be they a colored light or a red or green or yellow or white flag. He not only is putting himself in danger but also his fellow workers, customers and passengers, and innocents along the right of way and his family. He/she can get away with it for years but only has to have a problem once.
Bucyrus . Railroads have always been sitcklers for refusing color blindness.
. Railroads have always been sitcklers for refusing color blindness.
BucyrusTherefore, what perplexes me is why the doctor did not reveal the information to the railroad company.
Your personal physician does not reveal things to your employer. That is for the company physician to worry about when he examines you. I think an exception is (at least on NYCT) that you must tell the railroad what medications you are on.
Certain things like CDL licenses, and I would presume railroad crew, flight crew, ships crew etc, require vision and hearing tests, and maybe even sleep tests. I know (or let us just say that I have heard) If you have been prescribed a C-pap machine, you must use. The machine reports how you have been using it and your compliance. I think for a CDL it gos as a restriction on your license, and you must present the printouts when you renew.
BE THAT AS IT MAY IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEER PASSED HIS LAST PHYSICAL AND VISION TEST, otherwise he would not have been driving. The railroad can do little more than that.
rdamon With LED technology we should not be relegated to "round" lights. I have noticed that street running light rail uses a white line for a red signal so as not to confuse the motorist. I am not sure about the feasibility of a true CPL ( - \ | )format could be possible in a three-bulb or even searchlight format it may not be visible at a distance, but may help when passing a block. Cab signals probably make this a moot point. Robert
With LED technology we should not be relegated to "round" lights. I have noticed that street running light rail uses a white line for a red signal so as not to confuse the motorist.
I am not sure about the feasibility of a true CPL ( - \ | )format could be possible in a three-bulb or even searchlight format it may not be visible at a distance, but may help when passing a block.
Cab signals probably make this a moot point.
Robert
The white line is just a few additional LEDs 'in between' the large number of red LEDs in parallel that are used for the 'lamp and reflector' replacement unit.
There is, of course, no reason why LED traffic lights 'need' to be round -- any more than over-the-road trailer lights have to be. In both cases, what you have is a bunch of small light-emitting devices arranged to fit in a standard-sized 'hole' -- in the traffic light, the existing head or case.
Amtrak-style LEDs are a bit different: they are very large, bright devices with 'searchlight' style optics, which have the same general circle-from-central-focus most-efficient geometry. Position lights, as with the B&O-style originals, are done with multiple round sources.
Best economy remains keeping the light round, because it will resolve substantially as a 'round' source to the eye at any meaningful initial distance.
Up close, you could have bars of 'bipolar' LEDs which can be made to display red, green, or multiple shades of orange depending on DC polarity or AC modulation. But these are probably better set up to show advisory signals only... and in fact, if you're going to that extent, scrolling 'dot-matrix' text might be a better alternative...
BroadwayLion desertdog Bucyrus I am perplexed as to how a doctor could determine that an engineer might not be able to interpret signals, and yet the engineer was allowed by the company to continue in service. I share your perplexity. John Timm Well, desist in your perplexity. He knew that if the railroad knew he would be taken out of service. He wants to work. It is normal for a man to conceal his infirmities, after all they are not manly. Obviously he also passed his vision tests for a driver's license, so LION thinks his vision was not all that bad. Color on paper and color of lights are of course two different things. And what is colored light other than white light with a filter in front of it. What tricks the eye can play on such things the LION does not know. Him does know that looking at a white paper with the right eye lends a greenish tint, while looking with the left eye lends a reddish tint, at least to the eye of this lion. LION was looking out of dining room window this morning, him thinks he might not be able to distinguish a semaphore at one mile. Well, is no semaphore in back yard, but him cannot see clearly the cross beams on power poles at one mile. Him looks at mile markers on interstate, sometimes him can see them only 1/4 mile away (depending on terrain). Mile markers are same size as semaphore blade but are down in the weeds and not up on a mast. LION thinks they should go to cab signals. ROAR
desertdog Bucyrus I am perplexed as to how a doctor could determine that an engineer might not be able to interpret signals, and yet the engineer was allowed by the company to continue in service. I share your perplexity. John Timm
Bucyrus I am perplexed as to how a doctor could determine that an engineer might not be able to interpret signals, and yet the engineer was allowed by the company to continue in service.
I am perplexed as to how a doctor could determine that an engineer might not be able to interpret signals, and yet the engineer was allowed by the company to continue in service.
I share your perplexity.
John Timm
Well, desist in your perplexity. He knew that if the railroad knew he would be taken out of service. He wants to work. It is normal for a man to conceal his infirmities, after all they are not manly. Obviously he also passed his vision tests for a driver's license, so LION thinks his vision was not all that bad.
Color on paper and color of lights are of course two different things. And what is colored light other than white light with a filter in front of it. What tricks the eye can play on such things the LION does not know. Him does know that looking at a white paper with the right eye lends a greenish tint, while looking with the left eye lends a reddish tint, at least to the eye of this lion.
LION was looking out of dining room window this morning, him thinks he might not be able to distinguish a semaphore at one mile. Well, is no semaphore in back yard, but him cannot see clearly the cross beams on power poles at one mile. Him looks at mile markers on interstate, sometimes him can see them only 1/4 mile away (depending on terrain). Mile markers are same size as semaphore blade but are down in the weeds and not up on a mast.
LION thinks they should go to cab signals.
I am not perplexed by a person wanting to conceal his medical problems if they might lead to a loss of a job. In reading the article, I understand that the doctor was made aware of the engineer’s problems, so he did not intend to, or was not able to conceal his vision problems from the doctor.
Therefore, what perplexes me is why the doctor did not reveal the information to the railroad company. And if the doctor did reveal the information to the company, then I am perplexed as to why they did not act on it.
There was a glass lens a couple years ago that caused all kinds of problem in both rail and highway signalling. In DeWitt Yard in Syarcuse an engine pulled a cut of cars out of a yard track into the face of a train comming right at him, the engineer swearing his dwarf signal showed he could come out. A good RFE/TM checked out for a couple of days and found the sun shown on the signal at certain times in such a way so that the lens reflected a clear indication despite being set against the move. The engineer was cleared of wrong doing and the lenses have been replace. Except on highway traffic signals which you can't see until you are underneath them.
Carl Sally began his transit system career as an operator/motorman on streetcars in Atlantic City. He also studied for a college degree in transportation economics. He was a transit consultant and worked on the light rail revival in North America, doing planning for several transit systems. When he retired, he went back to work as a motorman on Los Angeles' light rail system (I think that was the system, but I am not cerain). About ten years ago, he was waiting to take a train out of one of two tracks at a terminal station with a center platform and a sizzors crossover at the approach. He ran his train out of the pocket into a head-on collision wih an incoming train. Neither were going very fast, so all that sustained injuries had light ones. He swore he saw a green signal but the investigators determined that the signal was red and the visability good. He was out-of-work afterward, had mental problems, and passed away recently. I knew him as a very decent jovial and kind person, the kind of person who raises the happiness of anyone in a room upon his entering.
schlimm Is it possible that the huge improvements in rail technology (much longer, faster, heavier freight trains) have outgrown the signalling technology, even with cab signals? How else to explain these accidents where signals were disregarded, sometimes by more than one crew, other than human error? Either way seems like a solution needs to be found. Maybe it's PTC, maybe not.
Is it possible that the huge improvements in rail technology (much longer, faster, heavier freight trains) have outgrown the signalling technology, even with cab signals? How else to explain these accidents where signals were disregarded, sometimes by more than one crew, other than human error? Either way seems like a solution needs to be found. Maybe it's PTC, maybe not.
Huge improvements in rail (or any) technology is only as good as the attention paid to it by human beings in maintaining the systems and adhering to its rules and rigors. To become complacent that the computer will take care of things if you take a snooze or a bathroom break is the false sense of security we have been sold. Couple that with the sincerety and committment of many today who have found a job rather than a career. The pay is good but the attitude is lousey. PTC will help if only because no one else is paying enough attention.
Semaphores are good in daylight, but fall back on just a single light through a colored lens at night. Also the arm is subject to corrosion, and as a fail safe is required to fall to the down(stop) position by gravity, which requires even more maintenance in winter. With PTC implementing a simplified form of Cab Signals should be easier.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.