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.
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"?
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.
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).
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:
Is that BLACK enough for you?
.
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.
Norm
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 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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The video of the train hitting the dump truck above illustrates what I am talking about. Considering the advanced warning of an impending collision and the short distance needed to stop the train after impact, I would say that the engineer dumped the air a considerable distance prior to impact, probably 200-300 feet prior to the crossing that precedes the crossing with the truck. So the braking distance prior to impact was probably 500 feet minimum. Obviously the engineer did not withhold an emergency application because he was worried about it causing his train to derail. While he was not able to stop in time to avoid impact, he may have slowed down enough to save his life or the life of the truck driver.
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 Euclid [Norm,] I don't think you have any idea what point I have been making. That's all right - none of the rest of us do either... As soon as someone points out a flaw in your conclusions, everything seems to change...
Euclid [Norm,] I don't think you have any idea what point I have been making.
That's all right - none of the rest of us do either... As soon as someone points out a flaw in your conclusions, everything seems to change...
I think you know exactly what point I have been making. You are the only one who has responded like you know what point I have been making. My point has been consistent. Who has pointed out a flaw in my conclusions? Big Jim told me about slack action. Is that a flaw in my conclusion? BaltACD keeps posting videos of grade crossing crashes. How does that relate to my conclusions?
Norm tells me that he would accelerate and not go into emergency if he was going to hit a gasoline truck. My conclusion has always been related ONLY to the consequence of an emergency application derailing the train. The consequence of being burned up in a fireball is an entirely different consequence. It is related to the issue of whether or not to go into emergency, but not related to the reason I cite which is not going into emergency when a crossing incursion requires it because going into emergency might derail the train.
RME tells me I should think about dynamiting the brakes simultaneously from the head end and the hind end. He says I should think very carefully about that. Is that a flaw in my conclusions?
EuclidI don't think you have any idea what point I have been making.
Norm48327You know, if I were the only one you might have a point. You ignore the fact others are telling you the same thing.
Norm,
What you always do is make some oblique accusation claiming that everybody in the world agrees that I am incorrect. Yet you never ever give a specific example that I can respond to. I guess that is the point, right?
I don't think you have any idea what point I have been making. Otherwise you would not try to refute it with things that have nothing to do with it such as not braking for a collision with a gasoline truck.
When you say I am ignoring people who are telling me the "same thing"; what exactly is that "same thing" that you see?
EuclidI see that Norm agrees with you whatever it is you are saying. Big surprise.
You know, if I were the only one you might have a point. You ignore the fact others are telling you the same thing.
Paul of CovingtonIf 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. Any 'acceleration' from there will involve a substantial part of the train's weight if the brakes were not applied, or snatching slack in a probably irregular and perhaps violent manner if the brakes were applied at about the same time as the throttle were opened.
The point, as with go-arounds in turbine aircraft, is to have the power to 'escape the fire' fully available at the time you might have to be dragging part of the consist against applied brake to do so. No one is, I think, saying that you aren't applying the train brake at some point, and I wouldn't want to have to argue that no, an engineer opened the throttle and didn't apply brakes at all when he saw a collision that in his opinion would be unavoidable.
BigJimWhat do you think will happen when a 12,000 foot long train stretched out (no slack, drawheads tight) travelling at 10, that is ten miles per hour is put in emergency from the head end?
Euclid, I want you to think very carefully and analytically about what BigJim just asked, and about the specific sequence of mechanical and then physical events that take place after the emergency. (For extra credit, look at the situation when a UDE occurs at different points in the consist.)
For purposes of argument, let's say that with a train that long you have DPU and the train comes correctly out of power and the rear valve goes to emergency at substantially the same time as the front (so there is no need for the wave to propagate to the far end of the train to get all the brakes to start setting up).
There's a key aspect to this, which I would term as involving 'nodes', that I want you to acknowledge.
Let me relate one other story. I was standing in front of the station at a crew change point when the engineer came in with the train stretched out and stopped, repeat STOPPED! His conductor got off on the opposite side and proceeded to cross directly in front of the train toward the station. When he was directly in front of the drawhead, the slack ran in and shoved the head end another ten feet further. The conductor just barely reacted in time not to get run over.
Just this example was given to me (as a child) as the reason you never, ever cross less than 10 to 15 feet in front of a standing train. It's not that the train might start accelerating. It's that it can be banged right to you. Thank you for reminding us about another (often-forgotten) aspect of safety to remember.
Murphy Siding Euclid BigJim What do you think will happen when a 12,000 foot long train stretched out (no slack, drawheads tight) travelling at 10, that is ten miles per hour is put in emergency from the head end? The slack is going to run in very hard and maybe cause a derailment somewhere back in the train. At 10 mph in your example, the emergency application will have the engine and some of the head end cars stopped before the slack run-in reaches them. Good lord! You're now play both sides of the arguement. Who wins when you play ping-pong against yourself at home?
Euclid BigJim What do you think will happen when a 12,000 foot long train stretched out (no slack, drawheads tight) travelling at 10, that is ten miles per hour is put in emergency from the head end? The slack is going to run in very hard and maybe cause a derailment somewhere back in the train. At 10 mph in your example, the emergency application will have the engine and some of the head end cars stopped before the slack run-in reaches them.
BigJim What do you think will happen when a 12,000 foot long train stretched out (no slack, drawheads tight) travelling at 10, that is ten miles per hour is put in emergency from the head end?
The slack is going to run in very hard and maybe cause a derailment somewhere back in the train. At 10 mph in your example, the emergency application will have the engine and some of the head end cars stopped before the slack run-in reaches them.
Good lord! You're now play both sides of the arguement. Who wins when you play ping-pong against yourself at home?
Both sides of the argument? What on earth are you talking about? If you dump the air, it may derail the train. Everybody agrees with that. I have never said otherwise.
I see that Norm agrees with you whatever it is you are saying. Big surprise.
Murphy SidingGood lord! You're now play both sides of the arguement. Who wins when you play ping-pong against yourself at home?
-*-
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Paul of Covington I want to go back to the idea of accelerating when a collision is imminent and unavoidable. If you "floored it", how much difference in speed are we talking about at point of impact? One MPH? Two?
I want to go back to the idea of accelerating when a collision is imminent and unavoidable. If you "floored it", how much difference in speed are we talking about at point of impact? One MPH? Two?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.