tree68 Electroliner 1935 Please tell me your choice and explain why. My two cents - how fast are we going? If we're doing 60 MPH, I'm probably not dumping the brakes. We're going to hit the bus anyhow. I'd probably make an application, but given the certainty of hitting said bus, why introduce the possibility of a major hazmat incident as well?
Electroliner 1935 Please tell me your choice and explain why.
My two cents - how fast are we going? If we're doing 60 MPH, I'm probably not dumping the brakes. We're going to hit the bus anyhow. I'd probably make an application, but given the certainty of hitting said bus, why introduce the possibility of a major hazmat incident as well?
and this quote from this Thread [earler response] by tree68 :
[snip] "...I've seen plenty of accounts that indicated that the engineer determined that an emergency application wouldn't change the outcome, so settled for a full service - in order to make a controlled stop (wait - wouldn't that include avoiding a derailment?)..." [snipped]
I am not nor have been a T&E employee, but I have driven heavy trucks a million miles plus, Yes, I have had envolvement in fatality situations... The major thrust of my point is that a critical decision [ while weighing the potential outcomes] in the same few seconds, is in the skilled hands on the controls.
The whole problem could be looked at as a Physics Exercise- Speed,Mass, Equipment; followed by a healthy portion of Fate [ie; forces in play at that specific time]. As a 'vehicle' operator, you can think about 'situations', consciously, or sub-consciously, but when those circumstances appear, you never know exactly what the individual's reaction will be. It can become simply a matter of training and skills, and a healthy dose of Physics.
It is the Engineer's having previously thought of various reactions in 'situations' that will aid him/her in puttting together a reactive plan for a given situation. In such a case you have a 50/50 chance of being the'hero' or the'goat'.
Electroliner 1935 So my question for Norm and Euclid is, What is your choice as to what you would do if you are the Engineer of a train of hazemat cars and you come around a curve and see an occupied bus on a grade crossing 1000 feet in front of you? Do you dump the air or? Please tell me your choice and explain why.
If there were any chance that I would hit the bus, I would make the emergency application; even if it would not stop the train in time to avoid hitting the bus. My decision would not be influenced whatsoever by the chance that the emergency application would derail the train. It is too simplistic to say it is a choice between hitting the bus or causing a major conflagration. At the very least, hitting the bus is going to result in an investigation that will question my brake operation. And if I make the emergency application, there is only a tiny chance that the train will derail, let alone cause a major conflagration. And even if that did happen, I really doubt that the company would blame me for causing a derailment by choosing to dump the air with the intention to either stop short of the bus or reduce the speed of impact.
tree68 Electroliner 1935 Can't say as I've heard of that one, but the logic sounds probable. Consider: Back in the 1960's, when my late father was working at GM's Proving Grounds, someone came up with a concept of how to hit a deer. Remember that this is back when cars had more or less flat fronts - well before the era of the "jelly bean." The idea was this: when faced with a certain frontal collision with a deer, brake hard. This serves two purposes, it slows the car down, and it sets up part two: Just before impact, gun it. Between the bounce from the compressed front springs and the lift the rear drive will impart to the front of the car, the front end will elevate enough to hit the deer square, instead of flinging it over the hood and potentially into/through the windshield. Never tried it - any deer I've hit has been a sneak attack on the part of the deer... I wouldn't necessarily discount what you were told - but then again, they might have been pulling your leg...
Electroliner 1935
Can't say as I've heard of that one, but the logic sounds probable.
Consider: Back in the 1960's, when my late father was working at GM's Proving Grounds, someone came up with a concept of how to hit a deer.
Remember that this is back when cars had more or less flat fronts - well before the era of the "jelly bean."
The idea was this: when faced with a certain frontal collision with a deer, brake hard. This serves two purposes, it slows the car down, and it sets up part two:
Just before impact, gun it. Between the bounce from the compressed front springs and the lift the rear drive will impart to the front of the car, the front end will elevate enough to hit the deer square, instead of flinging it over the hood and potentially into/through the windshield.
Never tried it - any deer I've hit has been a sneak attack on the part of the deer...
I wouldn't necessarily discount what you were told - but then again, they might have been pulling your leg...
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Electroliner 1935Please tell me your choice and explain why.
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...
Electroliner 1935So, my question is: Were the engine crews playing with me or was that a valid statement?
Norm48327Bear in mind that an engineer must perform this mental calculation in as little as one second of time.
And if you remember from the movie, "MIRACLE ON THE HUDSON", when they added back the pilots decision making time of 35 seconds into the simulation, the decision to land in the Hudson was demonstrated to be correct. An Engineer is dammed if he does and dammed if he doesent. If he hits the school bus but doesn't cause the hazemat conflagration he's a murderer and if he does put the train in emergency and causes a hazemat conflagration he's a murderer. It's a no win scenario. And he may wind up dead. So my question for Norm and Euclid is, What is your choice as to what you would do if you are the Engineer of a train of hazemat cars and you come around a curve and see an occupied bus on a grade crossing 1000 feet in front of you? Do you dump the air or? Please tell me your choice and explain why.
tree68That doesn't mean that no engineer has ever withheld an emergency application in the face of an impending collision, only that he/she did so to avoid a derailment.
Tree, Back in the late 50's when I was a college co-op student working in the PRR signal and communications department, I was given a number of oportunities to ride in the cab on passenger trains. During those trips, I conversed with the Engineers and Firemen about what I saw of automobiles appearing to be late in stopping at grade crossings and what their experiences had been. One thing I remember a number of them telling me was that their choice was to apply power if they were going to strike a car in the hope that they would knock it off the track rather than derail upon getting it under them. One trip when I chose to ride the cushions, we did in fact knock a car off the tracks and into a farm field (hit it in front of its front axle and sent two boys to the hospital) so I know that it is a possible outcome. It did bend the E-8's pilot to within about an 8th of an inch of the rail and a welder had to cut a notch in the pilot before the train was allowed to proceed. Took the welder almost a half an hour to cut a notch through the pilot steel. Not a fair fight (with auto sheet metal) as that is a very thick piece of steel. So, my question is: Were the engine crews playing with me or was that a valid statement?
EuclidMy only contention is that Decision Part Two is a myth.
It's not a myth. It's reality.
Were it not for your last paragraph, we'd be cheering because you finally got it...
Euclid I think that the topic here needs clarification, so I have changed the title of the thread. Here is the premise. The topic is only about Decision Part Two: Decision Part One: A freight train approaches a grade crossing. Events unfold that suggest that a vehicle is fouling or about to foul the crossing, and not clear in time to avoid being hit by the train. The engineer must decide whether or not to dump the air. There are many variables in this scenario that offer an uncertain outcome. He might dump the air only to have the vehicle clear at the last instant. Then the train will stop from the application and be delayed unnecessarily. Or he may hold off, thinking that the vehicle will clear, and it does not clear. Even if he did not have enough distance to stop, significant slowing may have made a difference in the outcome. So, overall, a decision has to be made for achieving the best possible outcome, and the outcome is never certain. It has been this way since the beginning, and I see nothing controversial about it. Decision Part Two: This is an added condition to Decision Part One, but only if the engineer decides to dump the air in Part One. With Part Two, the decision to dump the air in Part One will be either qualified or overruled by the total effect of all conditions of Part Two. The net effect of the conditions of Part Two is as follows: Whether or not, making the emergency application in Decision Part One will cause the train to derail. If it will cause the train to derail, whether or not the severity of the derailment coupled with the danger of the lading will cause more death and injury than the prospective collision with the vehicle on the crossing. To answer these two questions in Decision Part Two, the engineer has to make a calculation involving train length, tonnage, distribution of loads and empties, the train speed, presence of one or more curves, the degree of curvature, where the curves are under the train, the status of air baking, the status of dynamic braking, the track gradient profile, the status of slack throughout the train, the weather conditions, presence of snow, wind conditions, the condition of track surface, the size and type of rail, the personal injury vulnerability of the zone of potential derailment, the population distribution in the zone of potential derailment, the nature of the lading in terms of flammability, explosiveness, and poisonousness, the reach of this lading potential into or beyond the zone of derailment, and the proximity of other trains and their characteristics. There may be other factors as well. When the engineer finishes this calculation, he will know the numerical probability of an emergency application to cause of a derailment, and death and injury that will result from the derailment. From his calculation made in Decision Part One, he will know the numerical probability of striking the vehicle, and extent of death and injury that will result. Then all he has to do is compare the two numerical probabilities. If the numerical probability of Decision Part One is greater than that of Decision Part Two; the engineer makes the emergency application. But if the numerical probability of Decision Part One is less than that of Decision Part Two; the engineer refrains from making the emergency application. Bear in mind that an engineer must perform this mental calculation in as little as one second of time. My only contention is that Decision Part Two is a myth. It is never part of the process. The “Emergency” application is there for emergencies, and emergencies do not allow time for all the navel-gazing required in the worry that the emergency application might derail the train.
I think that the topic here needs clarification, so I have changed the title of the thread. Here is the premise. The topic is only about Decision Part Two:
Decision Part One:
A freight train approaches a grade crossing. Events unfold that suggest that a vehicle is fouling or about to foul the crossing, and not clear in time to avoid being hit by the train. The engineer must decide whether or not to dump the air. There are many variables in this scenario that offer an uncertain outcome. He might dump the air only to have the vehicle clear at the last instant. Then the train will stop from the application and be delayed unnecessarily. Or he may hold off, thinking that the vehicle will clear, and it does not clear. Even if he did not have enough distance to stop, significant slowing may have made a difference in the outcome. So, overall, a decision has to be made for achieving the best possible outcome, and the outcome is never certain. It has been this way since the beginning, and I see nothing controversial about it.
Decision Part Two:
This is an added condition to Decision Part One, but only if the engineer decides to dump the air in Part One. With Part Two, the decision to dump the air in Part One will be either qualified or overruled by the total effect of all conditions of Part Two. The net effect of the conditions of Part Two is as follows:
Whether or not, making the emergency application in Decision Part One will cause the train to derail.
If it will cause the train to derail, whether or not the severity of the derailment coupled with the danger of the lading will cause more death and injury than the prospective collision with the vehicle on the crossing.
To answer these two questions in Decision Part Two, the engineer has to make a calculation involving train length, tonnage, distribution of loads and empties, the train speed, presence of one or more curves, the degree of curvature, where the curves are under the train, the status of air baking, the status of dynamic braking, the track gradient profile, the status of slack throughout the train, the weather conditions, presence of snow, wind conditions, the condition of track surface, the size and type of rail, the personal injury vulnerability of the zone of potential derailment, the population distribution in the zone of potential derailment, the nature of the lading in terms of flammability, explosiveness, and poisonousness, the reach of this lading potential into or beyond the zone of derailment, and the proximity of other trains and their characteristics. There may be other factors as well.
When the engineer finishes this calculation, he will know the numerical probability of an emergency application to cause of a derailment, and death and injury that will result from the derailment. From his calculation made in Decision Part One, he will know the numerical probability of striking the vehicle, and extent of death and injury that will result.
Then all he has to do is compare the two numerical probabilities. If the numerical probability of Decision Part One is greater than that of Decision Part Two; the engineer makes the emergency application. But if the numerical probability of Decision Part One is less than that of Decision Part Two; the engineer refrains from making the emergency application.
Bear in mind that an engineer must perform this mental calculation in as little as one second of time.
My only contention is that Decision Part Two is a myth. It is never part of the process. The “Emergency” application is there for emergencies, and emergencies do not allow time for all the navel-gazing required in the worry that the emergency application might derail the train.
I don't know what you're smokin' but you ain't no Okie. They don't smoke that in Muskogee. Your only contention is whatever you want to change it to to fit the moment of your madness.
Norm
EuclidHere is a fact that I want: Show me one case in which an engineer, after striking a vehicle, claimed that he withheld or delayed an “Emergency” application because he thought it might derail his train.
You're not likely to find one - I doubt it would be phrased that way. That doesn't mean that no engineer has ever withheld an emergency application in the face of an impending collision, only that he/she did so to avoid a derailment.
I've seen plenty of accounts that indicated that the engineer determined that an emergency application wouldn't change the outcome, so settled for a full service - in order to make a controlled stop (wait - wouldn't that include avoiding a derailment?).
Unfortunately, the card index for my brain doesn't keep all those instances filed.
You seem to have plenty of time. Why don't you take a random sample of grade crossing incidents from across the country and see what they say?
Norm48327So you object to the idea that an engineer may have to make the decision of taking a life or two by hitting a vehicle vs the risk of killing many more by derailing a trainload of hazmat. Do you not think that is on an engineer's mind when faced with an either/or decision? Derail the train to save a life and kill several more in the process doesn't add up for rational people.
It may be on the engineer’s mind, but there is no practical way to make the decision, so nobody would make that decision. Some people might say they would make that decision, but nobody actually would. It is a fantasy.
Here is a fact that I want: Show me one case in which an engineer, after striking a vehicle, claimed that he withheld or delayed an “Emergency” application because he thought it might derail his train.
EuclidThe message stated by Jeff that you say I won’t accept has nothing to do with the topic of this thread,
Sorry to disagree with you Ron, but it has everything to do with this thread. You simply won't accept the fact that other's opinions that disagree with yours may be correct. You simply don't have the capability or the maturity to admit you may be wrong.
What I object to is the contention that an engineer must ALSO factor into the decision is the possibility that an emergency application to avoid hitting a vehicle on the crossing might cause the train to derail. It is an entirely different concern than what is happening with the possibility of hitting the vehicle on the crossing.
So you object to the idea that an engineer may have to make the decision of taking a life or two by hitting a vehicle vs the risk of killing many more by derailing a trainload of hazmat. Do you not think that is on an engineer's mind when faced with an either/or decision? Derail the train to save a life and kill several more in the process doesn't add up for rational people.
You always say that you want all the facts and that I am not giving facts or not proving what I say are facts. And yet you don’t even bother to read the words well enough to understand the points that are being made.
Again, many of the "facts" you provide turn out to be so only in your own mind. You see the world only as you wish to see it. I do not have a reading comprehension problem. You, sir, have a problem understanding what others are saying and accepting that they are right and you may be wrong.
EuclidWhat I object to is the contention that an engineer must ALSO factor into the decision, the possibility that an emergency application to avoid hitting a vehicle on the crossing might cause the train to derail. It is an entirely different concern than what is happening with the possibility of hitting the vehicle on the crossing.
Yes, but - this is exactly one of the considerations an engineer must factor into his decision. The problem is that in most cases it's not a matter of if the train is going to hit that vehicle on the crossing, but how hard.
I found a "rule of thumb" formula for emergency application stopping distance in a discussion on Trainorders.com. That poster used a fairly simple formula that applies only on flat track - simply square the speed. At 60 MPH, that's 3600 feet - nearly seven tenths of a mile. At 25 MPH, it's 625 feet, or two football fields. And that assumes dry, level track. OLI says a train doing 55 MPH will require some 5000 feet to stop.
So, if a train rounds a curve at 60 MPH and finds a car on the crossing a quarter mile away, the train is going to hit the car, and even if the engineer dumps the train it won't stop for nearly a half mile after the impact.
And the decelleration is not a constant. The train will slow less quickly at first.
So - if an emergency application will make an appreciable difference in the speed of the train when it reaches the crossing, sure - go ahead.
But if said application will not lessen the impact, and making the application introduces the possibility of even a 1% chance of a derailment, maybe dumping the train isn't a good idea.
Another consideration is twofold. First, what are we going to hit? If it's a box van semi-trailer, the danger of taking a life is relatively small. The collision might be spectacular, but the danger to life could be fairly small. On the other hand, if it's a loaded school bus, I'm probably gonna do everything but jump off and dig my feet into the ballast trying to get the train stopped.
The second "fold" has to do with what's around the tracks. What do we gain if we hit that empty car at a lower speed, but the derailed (non-hazmat) cars take out an occupied building?
You want a black and white answer. There are none to be had here.
Norm48327 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.
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
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.
Norm,
The message stated by Jeff that you say I won’t accept has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, nothing to do the related discussion in a previous thread that I referenced in my first post here, and nothing to do with the question I asked the FRA. Jeff even clarifies this in the beginning of his post that you quoted when he said “maybe the wrong question is being asked.” The “wrong question” that Jeff refers to is what is highlighted in red in his quote of what I said.
He then goes on to refer to an alternate question which deals with the decision of whether or not to make an emergency application based on the events that suggest that a vehicle is fouling or about to foul the crossing, and not clear in time to avoid being hit by the train. When Jeff said, “It depends on the circumstances at that particular moment,” he was referring to that alternate question.
I have never disagreed with his points in making that reference. Where on earth do you find evidence that I am “incapable of getting or accepting” anything about what Jeff said, as you blurt out above?
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
What have I stated here as fact that you feel needs verification?
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.
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.
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 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'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.)
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.
Norm48327C'mon Ron. Name your source. I'm sure he has information others may be interested in. It's not classified information.
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.
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.
C'mon Ron. Name your source. I'm sure he has information others may be interested in. It's not classified information.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The starting assumption of my question is that it pertains to cases where making an emergency application will make a difference.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.