In a recent thread, we had a discussion where it was claimed that engineers, when confronted with a possible grade crossing collision, might refrain from making an “Emergency” application of air brakes because doing so might derail the train.
See this thread: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/258449.aspx
I was skeptical of this claim, so we had some debate on the matter. Out of curiosity, I posed this question to the FRA as follows:
In a case where making an “Emergency” air brake application would slow or stop the train to mitigate or prevent colliding with a vehicle at a grade crossing; is it ever advisable, proper, or permissible for an engineer, to refrain from making that “Emergency” application because of the danger arising from the possibility of the application causing the train to derail?
Notice that this is a yes-or-no question because it asks if it is ever advisable to do as described in the question. So if it is advisable just once, the answer has to be yes. If it is never advisable, or if it happens to be prohibited; the answer has to be no.
The general consensus in the thread discussion was that the question is too complex to have a fixed answer. It was said that countless variables enter into the answer, and only the engineer can process all those variables in a split second and come up with the perfect answer.
I understand that point, but it does not exist if the answer is no. Only if the answer is yes, does it open the door to the countless variables, and the need to choose whether or not to refrain from making an “Emergency” application. If the answer is no, there is no need to choose whether or not to refrain from making an “Emergency” application. And if there is no need to choose, the countless variables are irrelevant.
My contention has been that the answer is no; it is never advisable, so all I asked to begin with, is whether the answer is yes or no.
The FRA representative that responded to my question told me that the answer to my question is no. He said no railroad has a rule or policy that governs the matter. But he assured me that, in all cases where an “Emergency” application was called for, no engineer would ever refrain from making the application because of the possibility that it might derail the train.
He said that there is less than a 1% chance that making an “Emergency” application will derail the train; and in those rare cases, the reason is most likely due to bad train makeup. He said that in cases of trains with distributed power, and also having a poor train makeup, an engineer would resolve ahead of time that, if an “Emergency” application were required, he or she would make the application from the locomotive on the rear of the train. In that way, the application would create tension throughout the train rather than compression which would result if the application was being made from the head end locomotive. He said that the reasoning would be that tension is less likely to cause a derailment than compression.
Thus the answer from the FRA is no to my above question in bold. That is, that it is never advisable, proper, or permissible to refrain from making an “Emergency” application because it might derail the train; both in the context of my question about grade crossings, and for any other type of emergency that justifies making an “Emergency” application.
Therefore, if withholding an “Emergency” application to avoid derailing the train is never done, there is no reason to weigh the consequences of the application in terms of causing a derailment. So, there is no reason to evaluate the effect of the countless variables that might contribute to a greater likelihood of an “Emergency” application causing a derailment.
Did your contact at the FRA happen to mention how much seat time he has?
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...
tree68 Did your contact at the FRA happen to mention how much seat time he has?
He told me he used to be an engineer before going to work for the FRA.
EuclidSo, there is no reason to evaluate the effect of the countless variables that might contribute to a greater likelihood of an “Emergency” application causing a derailment.
So if a car pauses on a crossing ahead of me, I should dump the train, right?
Your reply options are limited to "yes" and "no."
tree68 Euclid So, there is no reason to evaluate the effect of the countless variables that might contribute to a greater likelihood of an “Emergency” application causing a derailment. So if a car pauses on a crossing ahead of me, I should dump the train, right? Your reply options are limited to "yes" and "no."
Euclid So, there is no reason to evaluate the effect of the countless variables that might contribute to a greater likelihood of an “Emergency” application causing a derailment.
That is not at all what I said. Read it again. The yes or no has nothing to do with the choice of whether or not to dump the air. You still have to make that choice.
The question assumes that the circumstances of the crossing incursion call for dumping the air. The answer to the question as no refers to the fact that circumstances of deciding whether to dump the air should not include the risk of the application causing a derailment.
Was the FRA guy talking about a train of hazmat in a congested area? Derailing one of those could create a situation far worse than hitting a vehicle.
Norm
Norm48327 Was the FRA guy talking about a train of hazmat in a congested area? Derailing one of those could create a situation far worse than hitting a vehicle.
Yes we talked about the hazards of an emergency application derailing hazmat train. He said the an Emergency application that was called for would not be withheld even if the risk of derailing the train included relatively dangerous cargo.
EuclidTherefore, if withholding an “Emergency” application to avoid derailing the train is never done, there is no reason to weigh the consequences of the application in terms of causing a derailment. So, there is no reason to evaluate the effect of the countless variables that might contribute to a greater likelihood of an “Emergency” application causing a derailment.
Here's what you wrote - you don't indicate that you are quoting the FRA official, who you did say said there was no reason to avoid making an emergency application. So in that context, it is necessary to answer my question with a yes or no reply.
In the previous thread, you kept wanting a black and white answer - and were repeatedly told that such an answer wasn't possible.
If you didn't support the FRA's answer to your question, you wouldn't have posted it here.
So back to my question - a car pauses on a crossing in front of your train. Do you dump the train, or not? Remember, the FRA said there was no reason not to do so.
Euclid Norm48327 Was the FRA guy talking about a train of hazmat in a congested area? Derailing one of those could create a situation far worse than hitting a vehicle. Yes we talked about the hazards of an emergency application derailing hazmat train. He said the an Emergency application that was called for would not be withheld even if the risk of derailing the train included relatively dangerous cargo.
IOW, he's willing to take a chance on derailing a train load of toxic inhalation hazmat in a heavily populated area in order to save the lives of the persons on the crossing? I would opine he has his priorities mixed up.
tree68In the previous thread, you kept wanting a black and white answer - and were repeatedly told that such an answer wasn't possible. So back to my question - a car pauses on a crossing in front of your train. Do you dump the train, or not? Remember, the FRA said there was no reason not to do so.
The FRA never “said there was no reason not to do so” in reference to dumping the air if there was a good chance of hitting a vehicle on a crossing. That has never been the point in any discussion in either thread, or in my question and response from the FRA. Of course the decision as to whether to dump the air in such cases requires evaluating the chance for a collision. Nobody has ever suggested otherwise.
The point is whether the decision to dump the air should also factor in the likelihood of the emergency application causing the train to derail, which might be a danger greater than a grade crossing collision. The FRA said that possibility should not be factored into the decision to dump the air.
If you look at my question to the FRA, notice that it assumes, as a starting point, that all evaluation has already been made regarding the choice of whether dumping the air is justified. That starting point assumption is in red:
The FRA gave me a black and white, yes or no answer. They answered my question with “no”.
If you're not currently travelling through heavy curves or crossovers the likelihood of a train derailing is almost nonexistent.
Just dump the air. There are few circumstances where not using emergency would be better.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
EuclidHe told me he used to be an engineer before going to work for the FRA.
I know of an engineer who decided to get rid of his wife and kids using carbon monoxide. He got rid of the wife and kids, but didn't factor in the fact that the entire garage would be full of CO, so also died himself.
My Dad helped investigate the incident.
Did this fellow say he was a locomotive engineer, or just an engineer?
It really comes down to whether making the emergency application will make any difference. If it won't change the outcome, why bother? Make a safe, controlled stop.
EuclidIn a case where making an “Emergency” air brake application would slow or stop the train to mitigate or prevent colliding with a vehicle at a grade crossing; is it ever advisable, proper, or permissible for an engineer, to refrain from making that “Emergency” application because of the danger arising from the possibility of the application causing the train to derail? The FRA gave me a black and white, yes or no answer. They answered my question with “no”.
Bucky, that man was playing CYA. Had he answered your question with "yes" he could have been accused of saying it was OK to kill those people on the crossing. That would not go over well with either his boss or the general public.
Engineer: OK. mechanical, chemical, electrical? Ya gotta dig a little deeper in the well to find his qualifications before taking his answer as gospel.
Norm48327Bucky, that man was playing CYA. Had he answered your question with "yes" he could have been accused of saying it was OK to kill those people on the crossing. That would not go over well with either his boss or the general public. Engineer: OK. mechanical, chemical, electrical? Ya gotta dig a little deeper in the well to find his qualifications before taking his answer as gospel.
Norm,
The FRA rep said he used to be a locomotive engineer.
You say he was CYA because he could not admit officially that it would be OK to kill those people on the crossing. Who is it that you think would believe it is OK to kill those people on the crossing?
tree68It really comes down to whether making the emergency application will make any difference. If it won't change the outcome, why bother? Make a safe, controlled stop.
The starting assumption of my question is that it pertains to cases where making an emergency application will make a difference.
EuclidNorm, The FRA rep said he used to be a locomotive engineer. You say he was CYA because he could not admit officially that it would be OK to kill those people on the crossing. Who is it that you think would believe it is OK to kill those people on the crossing?
Tell ya what, Bucky. Give me his name and phone number. I'd really like to hear his qualifications straight from the horse's mouth and have some discussion with him on the topic.
Euclid tree68 It really comes down to whether making the emergency application will make any difference. If it won't change the outcome, why bother? Make a safe, controlled stop. The starting assumption of my question is that it pertains to cases where making an emergency application will make a difference.
tree68 It really comes down to whether making the emergency application will make any difference. If it won't change the outcome, why bother? Make a safe, controlled stop.
Considering most sightlines, maximum track speeds and train size of todays trains - there are very few instances where an emergency application would make any difference.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidWho is it that you think would believe it is OK to kill those people on the crossing?
Really? Really?
I would think by now that you would realize that absolutely no one here (or anywhere else) thinks it would be OK to kill people at a crossing. Millions of dollars and thousands of hours have been spent trying to prevent such incidents.
Those who have been involved in grade crossing incidents would give just about anything if there were some way to go back and prevent those collisions.
What we're talking about here is pure physics. As Balt notes, trains don't stop on a dime. A half mile to a mile stopping distance would not be an unusual expectation for most trains. And that's regardless of how the brakes are applied.
As Norm notes - the FRA guy gave you as non-committal answer as possible based on your question. I wouldn't have been surprised if he had told you that he simply couldn't answer your question.
tree68As Norm notes - the FRA guy gave you as non-committal answer as possible based on your question. I wouldn't have been surprised if he had told you that he simply couldn't answer your question.
The question here is about holding off on an emergency application that could mitigate a crossing collision because that emergency application might derail the train thereby causing greater death and injury than the crossing collision. I asked the FRA rep if that is advisable or proper. He said no.
He said that no engineer would compromise the safety of the first person needing it in order to save someone else that may or may not need it if the train should happen to derail as a consequence of braking for the first person.
How is that non-committal?
Why would you think that he would not want to answer my question? He sounded perfectly confident in his answer of no. In no way did it sound non-committal or hesitant.
Euclid tree68 As Norm notes - the FRA guy gave you as non-committal answer as possible based on your question. I wouldn't have been surprised if he had told you that he simply couldn't answer your question. The question here is about holding off on an emergency application that could mitigate a crossing collision because that emergency application might derail the train thereby causing greater death and injury than the crossing collision. I asked the FRA rep if that is advisable or proper. He said no. He said that no engineer would compromise the safety of the first person needing it in order to save someone else that may or may not need it if the train should happen to derail as a consequence of braking for the first person. How is that non-committal? Why would you think that he would not want to answer my question? He sounded perfectly confident in his answer of no. In no way did it sound non-committal or hesitant.
tree68 As Norm notes - the FRA guy gave you as non-committal answer as possible based on your question. I wouldn't have been surprised if he had told you that he simply couldn't answer your question.
It is non-committal because you can't make a commitment without knowing specifics of the conditions being encountered - sightline, train speed, train makup and tonnage. With track speeds greater than 10 MPH very few sight lines will permit stopping todays 14K feet 15K ton or greater trains to avoid an impact.
C'mon Ron. Name your source. I'm sure he has information others may be interested in. It's not classified information.
Norm48327C'mon Ron. Name your source. I'm sure he has information others may be interested in. It's not classified information.
I'd PM this, but I'll say it for anyone still following this repartee.
Call the FRA (202-493-6015) and ask to be connected to someone that will answer the question as asked. I wouldn't be surprised to find that person would be the same one under discussion here, or know who that ex-locomotive-engineer might be. I also suspect that people at the FRA will remember talking with Ron Travis about grade crossing safety, and you might have a highly interesting subsequent discussion about that.
Here are some other possibilities for independent verification of the information:
Yu-Jiang Zhang Manager of Data Collection and Retention(202) 493-6460; Yujiang.Zhang@dot.gov
Joseph E. RileyActing Director of Track Structures, Office of Railroad Safety (202) 493-6357; Joseph.E.Riley@dot.gov
James Payne Track Specialist, ATIP, Office of Railroad Safety(202) 493-6005James.Payne@dot.gov
(These are people who have volunteered (internally) to be contacted by the public concerning matters involving the FRA.)
RME Norm48327 C'mon Ron. Name your source. I'm sure he has information others may be interested in. It's not classified information. I'd PM this, but I'll say it for anyone still following this repartee. Call the FRA (202-493-6015) and ask to be connected to someone that will answer the question as asked. I wouldn't be surprised to find that person would be the same one under discussion here, or know who that ex-locomotive-engineer might be. I also suspect that people at the FRA will remember talking with Ron Travis about grade crossing safety, and you might have a highly interesting subsequent discussion about that. Here are some other possibilities for independent verification of the information: Yu-Jiang Zhang Manager of Data Collection and Retention(202) 493-6460; Yujiang.Zhang@dot.gov Joseph E. RileyActing Director of Track Structures, Office of Railroad Safety (202) 493-6357; Joseph.E.Riley@dot.gov James Payne Track Specialist, ATIP, Office of Railroad Safety(202) 493-6005James.Payne@dot.gov (These are people who have volunteered (internally) to be contacted by the public concerning matters involving the FRA.)
Norm48327 C'mon Ron. Name your source. I'm sure he has information others may be interested in. It's not classified information.
I will keep those contacts in mind.However, the point I'm trying to make is that Ron is never willing to back up what he says with hard data or names of contacts. He's also unwilling to disclose his "experience" in railroading when asked. Those two items alone lend credence to the opinion of some that he is less then truthful about his credentials in his postings and that some of his stories are just that; stories.
I don't think I'm alone in my thoughts regarding this.
Norm48327 ... the point I'm trying to make is that Ron is never willing to back up what he says with hard data or names of contacts. He's also unwilling to disclose his "experience" in railroading when asked. Those two items alone lend credence to the opinion of some that he is less then truthful about his credentials in his postings and that some of his stories are just that; stories.
Those are valid concerns, and I would certainly prefer that Ron just provide the information or give his experience when he posts. We should go by what's in a post, and not the supposed expertise behind who made it; there are plenty of sources even on the Net of a thousand lies to be able to confirm or deny truth in a posting, or line of argument, or piece of information in context. And appeals to authority are, aside from being fallacies, irritating in some of their assumptions.
I do have to break out the aspirin bottle for a few of the ongoing comments, but on the whole I'd rather go through the points, and independently confirm or deny them, isolated from considerations of the Bucylid source or the Bucylid language sometimes used to confusticate or bebother people here. It's good for the soul to love the sinner, hate the sin.
RME,
I work in an industry where facts and data rule. No wiggle room when you have to deal with the feds. That said, I don't expect railfans to be 100%accurate on every post they make, but I do expect them to make a reasonable effort to be factual. I have neither the time nor the inclination to verify the veracity of each poster. One soon finds out who is credible and who is simply blowing smoke.
BTW, it is never disgraceful for one, includin myself, to admit a mistake.
I just think it is hilarious someone called and bothered the FRA on this.
I guess I don't ever see myself parking on the railroad tracks when a train is comming or buidling a house right next to the tracks where trains derail.
What have I stated here as fact that you feel needs verification?
But he assured me that, in all cases where an “Emergency” application was called for, no engineer would ever refrain from making the application because of the possibility that it might derail the train.
Maybe the wrong question is being asked. Maybe the question is when the Emergency situation begins. That is really the judgement call.
Since I seemed to start it off before, I still stand beside what I wrote. Are there other times when I would be willing to dump the air? Yes. Before an actual collision occurred? Yes. Even if I knew the train was a heavy, slopped together (although it meets system make-up requirements.) manifest? Yes. It depends on the circumstances at that particular moment.
Jeff
jeffhergert But he assured me that, in all cases where an “Emergency” application was called for, no engineer would ever refrain from making the application because of the possibility that it might derail the train. Maybe the wrong question is being asked. Maybe the question is when the Emergency situation begins. That is really the judgement call. Since I seemed to start it off before, I still stand beside what I wrote. Are there other times when I would be willing to dump the air? Yes. Before an actual collision occurred? Yes. Even if I knew the train was a heavy, slopped together (although it meets system make-up requirements.) manifest? Yes. It depends on the circumstances at that particular moment. Jeff
That is the message Ron seems incapable of getting or accepting.
Reading this thread first thing in the morning is not wise. Welcome to Buckyworld, where black is white (sometimes) and nothing is what it seems (or maybe it is). Logic? Rationality? Common/understandable language? NO NO NO
Syntax/grammer intact; semantics garbled. Dx?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.