RME Paul of Covington If you "floored it", how much difference in speed are we talking about at point of impact? One MPH? Two? Let me add something to what the others told you. You don't "floor" a locomotive and have it respond immediately; it might take several seconds -- perhaps many more than several, especially on some notorious GEs -- for the engine even to spin up and load down to start providing substantial increased torque to the TMs.
Paul of Covington If you "floored it", how much difference in speed are we talking about at point of impact? One MPH? Two?
Let me add something to what the others told you. You don't "floor" a locomotive and have it respond immediately; it might take several seconds -- perhaps many more than several, especially on some notorious GEs -- for the engine even to spin up and load down to start providing substantial increased torque to the TMs.
I don't think I'm as dumb as I might seem. I'm not a railroader, but I've read enough in magazines and in this forum that I know you don't "floor it." That's why I put "floor it" in quotes. I am aware of the delay that you mentioned which is why I posed the question. How much difference would it really make?
(Edit): And it is really mostly a rhetorical question. I'm not really expecting an absolute answer in MPH, just noting that it's not going to make much of a difference.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul,
I don't think it would make much difference. The main thing that would make difference is refraining from applying the brakes. If the train is going fast, it will have plenty of momentum to carry it right past the point of collision. Adding more power would take few seconds of time, and will not begin increasing speed for probably 15-30 seconds. And then it will be a very gradual increase if the train is already moving say 40-50 mph.
If the train is moving slow, adding power will have an quicker and more pronounced effect, but if moving slow enough, it might be possible to stop in time to avoid the collision.
tree68 I believe the point you've been making right along is that there ought to be a hard and fast rule regarding whether to dump the train when facing the possibility of striking a vehicle occupying a crossing. This rule would disregard any possibility of derailing the train. The answer remains "it depends." And I'm confident in saying that pretty much everyone here agrees with that. As I recall, even your contact at FRA couched his answer along those lines...
I believe the point you've been making right along is that there ought to be a hard and fast rule regarding whether to dump the train when facing the possibility of striking a vehicle occupying a crossing. This rule would disregard any possibility of derailing the train.
The answer remains "it depends." And I'm confident in saying that pretty much everyone here agrees with that. As I recall, even your contact at FRA couched his answer along those lines...
I am not, and have not been making the point that there ought to be a hard and fast rule regarding whether to dump the train when facing the possibility of striking a vehicle occupying a crossing.
I think it would help to look at this decision process as two distinct parts. Let’s call them DECISION PART “A” and DECISION PART “B”.
DECISION PART “A”:
This is a decision making process about whether only the logistics of a vehicle incursion call for dumping the air. And certainly your point of “it depends” applies to this decision. In many vehicle incursions, the speed of the approaching vehicle indicates that it will not be able to stop for the crossing. So the obviously inevitable failure to yield would be the first step in considering train braking. But the speed of the approaching vehicle may also indicate that the vehicle will quickly pass through the crossing before the train reaches it. The obvious best choice is to apply no braking at all. In other cases, a vehicle may be stalled on the crossing with enough distance to stop the train with a service application rather than by an emergency application. In such a case the service application is the obvious best choice because there is no added benefit from an emergency application while there is some risk of derailment or break-in-two with the emergency application. So all of these factors about dynamics of train speed, vehicle speed, and distances between train and vehicle require a decision about what braking strategy to use, and including whether any braking is needed. But what I have been talking about in this thread has nothing to do with this DECISION PART “A”.
DECISION PART “B”:
My question goes to this decision. This is an issue that is entirely unrelated to what is unfolding on the crossing as described above. This issue is whether making an emergency application for the vehicle on the crossing will cause the train to derail and endanger people nearby.
My understanding is that there is no hard and fast rule that either calls for this decision or forbids it, and I am not advocating that there be such a rule. I have asked if there is such a rule, but I don’t care if there is not such a rule. I have been told that each railroad deals with the issue by their own instructions during air brake training. In the other thread where the subject began, I believe it was SAM who brought it up according to what he had heard in conversations with other railroaders. You have been the only one here that I recall saying that you would withhold an emergency application that would otherwise be called for if you felt that the risk of derailing the train outweighed the risk of striking the vehicle. Other engineers here have said they would not consider that course of action.
The FRA rep to which I posed this DECISION PART “B” question said that no engineer would ever withhold an emergency application that was called for by crossing events because he/she was worried that it might derail the train and thus possibly cause a greater tragedy than hitting a the vehicle on the crossing. In no way did he say or imply “it depends.” He said that the engineer would focus only on doing everything possible to mitigate the crossing crash without any regard to the possibility of braking causing a derailment. So this DECISION PART “B” is not governed by “it depends” because the decision is never made, period. When you say that most everyone here agrees that “it depends”, they may be agreeing with it as it applies to DECISION PART A, and for that, it surely does depend on many factors.
Now the FRA rep may have been somewhat overreaching by saying that no engineer would ever do this. But I took his emphasis to partly mean that he thought it would be extremely inadvisable. To be sure, another person I talked to once worked in the capacity of training engineers, and he told me that he knows that some engineers do say that they consider the DECISION PART “B”, and that he always told all engineers to not do that.
I speculate that engineers have seldom, if ever withheld an emergency application that was called for by DECISION PART “A” because they felt that the risk of derailing the train posed a greater danger than hitting the vehicle. Some might say that they would do that, but I doubt that any actually would do it. Why would they take on that burden? The company gave them a brake valve with an emergency position. If you come upon an emergency, who is going to blame you for making an emergency application, even if it does cause a derailment? It seems to me that’s somebody else’s problem.
If I've been following this thread reasonably accurately, Bucky is looking for a black-or-white answer and everybody is telling him that there are various shades of gray involved (not that he's hearing it).
CSSHEGEWISCH If I've been following this thread reasonably accurately, Bucky is looking for a black-or-white answer and everybody is telling him that there are various shades of gray involved (not that he's hearing it).
As in an old Simon and Garfunkel song "The man hears what he wants to hear and he disregards the rest".
Sad but true in Bucky's case.
Norm
These ATTACKS on this man have got to stop. If you don't agree with what he says, refute it if you can, but STOP the attacks. If you don't like him, don't read his posts, but STOP the name calling and aspersions. All if it is against the rules of this forum.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Semper VaporoThese ATTACKS on this man have got to stop. If you don't agree with what he says, refute it if you can, but STOP the attacks. If you don't like him, don't read his posts, but STOP the name calling and aspersions. All if it is against the rules of this forum.
You can't describe the world of color to someone that can only see black or white and no gray in between.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
No, there is a black and white answer to the question I posed originally 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?
The answer is no. There are no shades of gray and several people are not hearing that.
I don't think it is ever that black & white... there are always possibilities that the Engineer has to attempt to take into account. How does the Engineer know that the Emergency application will actually stop the train in time? Track condition (moisture, dust, etc.), train weight, condition of the brakes and wheels (traction ability), speed, distance, etc. All weigh into whether the Emergency application might stop the train. But there is NO assurance that the Engineer can perfectly take all that into account because much of it is not known and is basically unknowable.
Based on training and experience and knowledge of the train contents and perceived content of the obstruction causing the situation, the Engineer has to make a split second decision as to whether or not to make the Emergency or "standard" (and just how much is that?) application or to accelerate to hopefully knock the obstruction off the tracks. How does he KNOW that the Emergency application will stop the train in time? How does he KNOW it will derail the train? It could be that what he KNOWS is wrong.
Second guessing the decision before the fact is an exercise in futility. It IS going to depend on the individual's training and experience and knowledge (or the lack of any or all of those) and the particular situation and the mental state (upsets at home, fatigue, argument with the nut or friend sitting in the other seat) of the Engineer at the moment, as well as the unknowable variables of the situation. Too many variables to make a hard and fast decision today for a supposed situation in the future.
Same situation with me driving my car and I see a ball roll out into the street. Do I slam on the brakes to avoid the possible child running after it? Do I chance the rear end collision because the car behind me is too close or the driver is too busy texting to see my brake lights come on? Do I swerve into the opposing lane and hope the on-coming car recognises the situation and can stop before we have a cornfield meet? Is the street covered with leaves or sand or just slick from dampness? What are the conditions of my tires and brakes. I cannot make that decision today because I don't know the situation at all, let alone the unknowables of any situation. The best I can do now is resolve to pay better attention to what is happening along side the road in the distance and be prepared to make the decision in the quickest time I can, given what I can discern at the moment as the situation arises. I can't say I will always slam on the brakes everytime I think I see a ball roll into the street. And I can't say I never will because of the fear that the driver behind me is too close or not paying attention.
Semper Vaporo I don't think it is ever that black & white... there are always possibilities that the Engineer has to attempt to take into account. How does the Engineer know that the Emergency application will actually stop the train in time? Track condition (moisture, dust, etc.), train weight, condition of the brakes and wheels (traction ability), speed, distance, etc. All weigh into whether the Emergency application might stop the train. But there is NO assurance that the Engineer can perfectly take all that into account because much of it is not known and is basically unknowable.
This is not about whether the emergency application will stop the train before hitting the vehicle. It is about whether the emergency application will derail the train by causing in-train stresses. Read my DECISION PART “A” and DECISION PART “B” in the third post down from the top of this page. Part A is many shades of gray and includes the examples you describe. Part B is black and white.
EuclidThis is not about whether the emergency application will stop the train before hitting the vehicle. It is about whether the emergency application will derail the train by causing in-train stresses. Read my DECISION PART “A” and DECISION PART “B” in the third post down from the top of this page. Part A is many shades of gray and includes the examples you describe. Part B is black and white.
I tried to explain this to you earlier.
There is NO two step decision process. There is a one step decision process. Do I apply the emergency brakes? As the factors are considered, as soon as the engineer hits a point that says, yes plug it, he does. If the consideration on whether the train will derail is part of that decision, and it may or may not be, its typically towards the bottom of the list, so the engineer in almost every case hits a "plug it" decision at the top.
Its not like they have a checklist they run down, its a decision made in a second or two.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Semper VaporoIf you don't agree with what he says, refute it if you can,
Can't tell you how many times that has been tried. How can you refute someone who always rearranges what he said to fit his twisted thought pattern? He keeps asking the same question over and over but worded differently in hopes of an outcome he likes. That doesn't work. This has been going on for years. Now people are calling him down on it, and that's long overdue.
Euclid CSSHEGEWISCH If I've been following this thread reasonably accurately, Bucky is looking for a black-or-white answer and everybody is telling him that there are various shades of gray involved (not that he's hearing it). No, there is a black and white answer to the question I posed originally 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? The answer is no. There are no shades of gray and several people are not hearing that.
The correct answer is...YES!!!
Is that BLACK enough for you?
.
BigJim ...there is a black and white answer to the question I posed originally 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? The answer is no. There are no shades of gray and several people are not hearing that. The correct answer is...YES!!!
...there is a black and white answer to the question I posed originally 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? The answer is no. There are no shades of gray and several people are not hearing that.
Can you give me an example of a circumstance where you would decide "yes"?
Euclid BigJim ...there is a black and white answer to the question I posed originally 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? The answer is no. There are no shades of gray and several people are not hearing that. The correct answer is...YES!!! Can you give me an example of a circumstance where you would decide "yes"?
So; you've already forgotten about that tank truck full of gasoline?
Norm48327So; you've already forgotten about that tank truck full of gasoline?
dehusman Euclid This is not about whether the emergency application will stop the train before hitting the vehicle. It is about whether the emergency application will derail the train by causing in-train stresses. Read my DECISION PART “A” and DECISION PART “B” in the third post down from the top of this page. Part A is many shades of gray and includes the examples you describe. Part B is black and white. I tried to explain this to you earlier. There is NO two step decision process. There is a one step decision process. Do I apply the emergency brakes? As the factors are considered, as soon as the engineer hits a point that says, yes plug it, he does. If the consideration on whether the train will derail is part of that decision, and it may or may not be, its typically towards the bottom of the list, so the engineer in almost every case hits a "plug it" decision at the top. Its not like they have a checklist they run down, its a decision made in a second or two.
Euclid This is not about whether the emergency application will stop the train before hitting the vehicle. It is about whether the emergency application will derail the train by causing in-train stresses. Read my DECISION PART “A” and DECISION PART “B” in the third post down from the top of this page. Part A is many shades of gray and includes the examples you describe. Part B is black and white.
I am not saying there actually are two steps. There is only step, and that is DECISION PART “A”. I only mention two steps to separate out factoring in whether an emergency application would derail the train. So I add DECISION PART “B” to make that distinction. I don’t believe that PART B legitimate, so that leaves only the one step that you refer to. So the distinction of two steps is only for illustration purposes.
However, (as highlighted in red) you do include the factoring of a possible derailment into your one step. So let me ask you what I asked Big Jim: Can you give me an example of what would cause you to choose to withhold an emergency application that is called for because it might derail the train? Anybody can say they would consider it. I want to know what it would take to actually do it.
There is a truism - "never ask a question if you won't like the answer."
And another - "never say never."
Is it likely that in the vast majority of cases, an engineer will make an emergency application when faced with a near-certain collision at a crossing. The legendary "99 44/100%" of Ivory soap fame. But to say unequivocably that it will always be the case is wrong.
Just like your claim that highway warning signs "take effect," your assumption that there is one set answer to your question is, in and of itself, wrong.
And you've been told that over and over again, by a variety of people in a position to know.
It's time you accept that as fact.
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...
tree68Is it likely that in the vast majority of cases, an engineer will make an emergency application when faced with a near-certain collision at a crossing. The legendary "99 44/100%" of Ivory soap fame. But to say unequivocably that it will always be the case is wrong.
I have never said that it will always be the case. Anything is possible.
Read your post again. You said there is a black and white answer. Now you're saying there are shades of grey. Make up your mind.
Norm48327 Euclid No, there is a black and white answer to the question I posed originally 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? The answer is no. There are no shades of gray and several people are not hearing that. Read your post again. You said there is a black and white answer. Now you're saying there are shades of grey. Make up your mind.
Euclid No, there is a black and white answer to the question I posed originally 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? The answer is no. There are no shades of gray and several people are not hearing that.
If you read what I said, the sentence begins with: "There are no shades of gray..."
That is not the same thing as saying there are shades of gray.
But I guess you see what you want to see.
My error.
Absolutist thinking or dichotomous reasoning, applied indiscriminately, is often inaccurate, as many have pointed out here, and often linked to emotional disturbances and authoritarian personalities.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
In the old story about the lawyer asking the defendent, "Have you stopped beatng your wife, YES or NO" and the defendent tells the judge that he can't answer yes or no. If I answer No, you will say why am I still beating her, and if I say yes, then I'm saying I did beat her. Having NOT beaten her I can't have stopped so I can't answer Yes or No.
And I always wondered what I would do if a ball rolled out in front of me. Back in the fifties, I was driving down a street in Cincinnati with a can of coke on the seat beside me in the crevase between the two seat backs (no can holders back then) and a ball came out of between parked cars about five car lengths in front of be. I stomped on the brake and stopped short of the kid that came out of between the cars. And the coke went all over the floor. I felt that was a small price to pay for doing the right thing. And had a following car struck me, he woud have been guilty of following to closely. Not a factor. Had I been on a highway with many large semitrucks, I wonder if I would consider the mismatch of being rear ended. Fortunately, never has happened.
Euclid, I think you are trying to say that the engineer faced with hitting an occupied vehicle will apply an emergency brake application every time (BLACK) and not consider the effect it might have on the train he is operating. But I think you are agreeing that there are circumstances (unoccupied, ???) where an engineer might make an exception. If so, do we have to keep what seems to be unnecessary hair splitting that goes back and forth. I think this has been beatrn to death. Thanks
Semper Vaporo These ATTACKS on this man have got to stop. If you don't agree with what he says, refute it if you can, but STOP the attacks. If you don't like him, don't read his posts, but STOP the name calling and aspersions. All if it is against the rules of this forum.
When I signed on today and read this, I was about to respond with an Amen, but after reading the following resonses I saw that it went on and on. Remember that if someone makes you mad, then you are letting him control your mind.
As an engineer, there may come a time where you have to explain your actions to:
But an anonymous poster on a generic train site is NOT on that list. And I would caution others, as motives from the OP are not clear. It seems to go beyond simple curiosity. Fair warning - do with it as you wish.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann As someone with an engineer's license in his wallet, I will remind others so qualified: There may come a time where you have to explain your actions to: The FRA A state PUC or other regulators management a lawyer or judge (god forbid) maybe even a congressional committee? But an anonymous poster on a generic train site is NOT on that list. And I would caution others, as motives from the OP are not clear. It seems to go beyond simple curiosity. Fair warning - do with it as you wish.
As someone with an engineer's license in his wallet, I will remind others so qualified:
There may come a time where you have to explain your actions to:
I've seen that on another forum. Someone wishing to get another pilot in trouble with the FAA succeded. The end result wasn't pretty.
Schlimm,
You mentioned dichotomous thinking being applied indiscriminately.
If you are referring to my yes or no question, it is not a case of dichotomous thinking being applied indiscriminately. It is focused on just one question. There are legitimate yes or no questions, right? A yes or no question is designed for specificity and to confine the answer from wandering all over the place and evasively taking refuge in the shades of gray.
Electroliner 1935Euclid, I think you are trying to say that the engineer faced with hitting an occupied vehicle will apply an emergency brake application every time (BLACK) and not consider the effect it might have on the train he is operating. But I think you are agreeing that there are circumstances (unoccupied, ???) where an engineer might make an exception. If so, do we have to keep what seems to be unnecessary hair splitting that goes back and forth. I think this has been beatrn to death. Thanks
It's what he does.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.