blue streak 1 BaltACD Maintainers don't ROUTINELY contact the Train Dispatcher to announce their arrival on site. It doesn't matter if they need to do something to the signal system or not - LET THE DISPATCHER KNOW YOU ARE THERE! Balt: Have you ever had a signalman drop a block signal in front of a train causing all sorts of grief for you and train crew ?
BaltACD Maintainers don't ROUTINELY contact the Train Dispatcher to announce their arrival on site. It doesn't matter if they need to do something to the signal system or not - LET THE DISPATCHER KNOW YOU ARE THERE!
Maintainers don't ROUTINELY contact the Train Dispatcher to announce their arrival on site. It doesn't matter if they need to do something to the signal system or not - LET THE DISPATCHER KNOW YOU ARE THERE!
Balt: Have you ever had a signalman drop a block signal in front of a train causing all sorts of grief for you and train crew ?
Yes they have. Review of the CADS signal log can usually identify what happened. Maintainers excuse is always "I didn't think it would do that.'
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
FRA is gonna have a field day with this failed bubba. Besides being in debt for the rest of his life for willfull violation Code 1's, he'll be lucky if he stays out of jail. After FRA gets done with him, they will get into the business of UTA's culture, especially the signal side.
He will never work for an operating railroad again, as it should be.
EuclidBut if that is the case, why would you suggest that a trained expert might conclude that "It's only going to be a couple minutes, so I won't bother the dispatcher..." ?
SV's reply answers about 99% of that. The other 1% is "I've been doing this job so long that I can fix it in a short time, so no need to jump through all the usual (required) hoops.
There's also the "I've gotten away with this before" factor.
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...
My biggest complaint about signalman - all of them - from 26 years of dealing with signal problems of all varieties on multiple territories -
Maintainers don't ROUTINELY contact the Train Dispatcher to announce their arrival on site. It doesn't matter if they need to do something to the signal system or not - LET THE DISPATCHER KNOW YOU ARE THERE! Then you can have a job briefing so that both parties can know what the game plan is going forward. Even if something is only going to take 10 seconds - the Train Dispatcher needs to know, as he knows things that are taking place that the Maintainer doesn't.
I would say that 99% of the time a simple knob twist adjusts the circuit to match the conditions and account for the additional current flowing through the ground and confusing the detector. Only if it cannot be adjusted out does the maintainer go looking for the "cause". He might have adjusted it too far and was testing it and didn't know it was that far out of adjustment or that the train was due and might not trigger the gates... or the test disabled the gates momentarily and possibly took a bit longer than usual and thus left the crossing unprotected at just the wrong moment.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
tree68 Euclid Why would the signalman override the activated signals and gates first rather than just clearing the ice and snow that was causing the false activation? I think you need to read up on how crossing signals are activated. Then you'll have the answer to your question. (Hint: Approach circuits can be over a quarter mile long, and the resistance between the rails can be affected by salt, which would be impossible to just "clear out.") Euclid How can that employee be experienced and fully-trained, and still act in such an incredibly irresponsible and careless manner? Sometimes experience brings complacency. "It's only going to be a couple of minutes, so I won't bother the dispatcher...."
Euclid Why would the signalman override the activated signals and gates first rather than just clearing the ice and snow that was causing the false activation?
I think you need to read up on how crossing signals are activated. Then you'll have the answer to your question. (Hint: Approach circuits can be over a quarter mile long, and the resistance between the rails can be affected by salt, which would be impossible to just "clear out.")
Euclid How can that employee be experienced and fully-trained, and still act in such an incredibly irresponsible and careless manner?
Sometimes experience brings complacency. "It's only going to be a couple of minutes, so I won't bother the dispatcher...."
Yes, I am fully aware of how the crossing is activated; no need to read up on it. I realize it could take hours to clear the fault by finding and removing the cause. We both know that. But if that is the case, why would you suggest that a trained expert might conclude that "It's only going to be a couple minutes, so I won't bother the dispatcher..." ?
EuclidWhy would the signalman override the activated signals and gates first rather than just clearing the ice and snow that was causing the false activation?
EuclidHow can that employee be experienced and fully-trained, and still act in such an incredibly irresponsible and careless manner?
I think the outcome speaks for itself. He was not fully trained as a normal person would define it. So for the company to say he was experienced and fully trained, must mean that something else caused him to forget the lifesaving step of his responsiblity.
Euclid ... How can that employee be experienced and fully-trained, and still act in such an incredibly irresponsible and careless manner?
...
How can that employee be experienced and fully-trained, and still act in such an incredibly irresponsible and careless manner?
He was probably a human.
EuclidFrom the link: “UTA did not identify the terminated employee other than to say he was an experienced and fully-trained member of the rail maintenance staff.” How can that employee be experienced and fully-trained, and still act in such an incredibly irresponsible and careless manner?
“UTA did not identify the terminated employee other than to say he was an experienced and fully-trained member of the rail maintenance staff.”
There is a difference between what companies deem 'fully trained' and what is in reality 'fully trained'.
In this instance, it appears that contacting the Dispatcher or other Control Operator to determine the location of approaching trains prior to raising the gates to release traffic was the part of his training that was not implemented.
There are all manner of people that can pass written tests, but can't apply the details tested in real world applications. This may be one of them.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/4881154-155/uta-employee-fired-over-frontrunner-fedex-truck
Why would the signalman override the activated signals and gates first rather than just clearing the ice and snow that was causing the false activation?
The only reason I can see would be to make an immediate response to clear backed-up road traffic without taking the time to get the crossing flagged, notify the train crew, etc.
From the link:
Signalman is going to have to worry about more than just unemployment.
Some violations are grounds for immediate, or automatic dismissal, UTA may feel that this case falls into that catagory.
The company that I drive for, their policy is dismissal for a CITATION, for texting while driving, conviction not needed. I don't condone texting while driving, but the company's policy doesn't require there to be an accident involved, and I don't intend to find out if the citation is dismissed, if it matters.
This case did involve an accident with extensive property damage, though fortunately no serious injuries, evidently, that was enough.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
CShaveRRI just read today that the maintainer involved in this incident was fired for not following protocols when repairing crossing signals.
That was quick. Signalmen must not have any form of Union due process on UTA.
CShaveRR I just read today that the maintainer involved in this incident was fired for not following protocols when repairing crossing signals.
I just read today that the maintainer involved in this incident was fired for not following protocols when repairing crossing signals.
Nice to get facts and not opinions. Poor horse.
Saw the report a couple hours ago in Google News.
Rich
'
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Many years ago, the Auto Train was southbound, running through one of the small towns south of Fayetteville, NC. It was late at night. The dining car crew had finished up, and were going to bed in the crew car when the train went into emergency and came to a fairly quick stop, with the crew car across a grade crossing. We looked out and saw a guy lying in the street. Nearby was his mangled bicycle, looking a lot like steel spaghetti.
We look blankets out to him to await the police and paramedics. It seems that he had just left the local trackside watering hole and was walking his bike across the tracks when our nasty ol' train jumped out and bit him. Last time I saw him, he was being loaded into an ambulance. He wasn't very coherent. I don't know whether that can be attributed to the shock, or to what he had to drink. I don't think he was seriously hurt.
Tom
ChuckCobleigh Balt, your bicyclist is not the first. We had one in La Mesa, CA, who thought he could beat the big red trolley and did just about the same thing with probably the same result. Surprisingly, the short story in our local fishwrap is still online six years later. We didn't see him hit the train but we saw some of the aftermath. I think he was on a break from a meeting of the local Mensa chapter. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-la-mesa-bicyclist-hit-trolley-2010aug31-story.html
Balt, your bicyclist is not the first. We had one in La Mesa, CA, who thought he could beat the big red trolley and did just about the same thing with probably the same result. Surprisingly, the short story in our local fishwrap is still online six years later.
We didn't see him hit the train but we saw some of the aftermath. I think he was on a break from a meeting of the local Mensa chapter.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-la-mesa-bicyclist-hit-trolley-2010aug31-story.html
Johnny
Deggesty ChuckCobleigh Balt, your bicyclist is not the first. We had one in La Mesa, CA, who thought he could beat the big red trolley and did just about the same thing with probably the same result. Surprisingly, the short story in our local fishwrap is still online six years later. We didn't see him hit the train but we saw some of the aftermath. I think he was on a break from a meeting of the local Mensa chapter. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-la-mesa-bicyclist-hit-trolley-2010aug31-story.html If he was a member of Mensa, he apparently was not admitted on the basis of his proficiency in physical sciences or his knowledge of law.
ChuckCobleigh Balt, your bicyclist is not the first. We had one in La Mesa, CA, who thought he could beat the big red trolley and did just about the same thing with probably the same result. Surprisingly, the short story in our local fishwrap is still online six years later. We didn't see him hit the train but we saw some of the aftermath. I think he was on a break from a meeting of the local Mensa chapter. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-la-mesa-bicyclist-hit-trolley-2010aug31-story.html If he was a member of Mensa, he apparently was not admitted on the basis of his proficiency in physical sciences or his knowledge of law.
or cycling with his eyes open and his mind engaged with what his eyes were seeing!
EDIT: Sarcasm alert. In other words, it was doubtful he was hurrying to accept that job offer from NASA.
ruderunnerQuestion, why was the officer present? Just coincidence or was he called about the malfunctioning gates? Was he supposed to be flagging?
I think it was just 2 officers in the one patrol car.
Lights and gates resumed functioning when the car following the hit trailer scooted across.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
CShaveRR Balt, you're absolutely correct. When I said that the train crew "should be aware", it follows that thate should have been made aware by someone in authority that the crossing was defective, and they should approach it assuming that protection wasn't working. That would have to have been done by the dispatcher (judging from the train's speed, it wasn't). But in turn, the dispatcher would have to have been notified that the crossing was defective (which he must have been, since somebody had to have told the Signal Department), and again when the maintainer had arrived at the scene. UP's bungalows have (had?) a flashing light on them when someone was inside working on them. With the proper notifications in place, that would be warning enough. If there was a flasher on this bungalow and no notification, engineer should be contacting dispatcher and slowing down. I don't buy that the visibilty at the time was so bad that nothing could be seen (either by the train crew or a truck driver who had looked down the track...visibility was not impaired by surroundings, I've seen reported).I foresee a few "safety meetings" in UTA's future. I hope FRA funding isn't cut in the near future...
Balt, you're absolutely correct. When I said that the train crew "should be aware", it follows that thate should have been made aware by someone in authority that the crossing was defective, and they should approach it assuming that protection wasn't working. That would have to have been done by the dispatcher (judging from the train's speed, it wasn't). But in turn, the dispatcher would have to have been notified that the crossing was defective (which he must have been, since somebody had to have told the Signal Department), and again when the maintainer had arrived at the scene. UP's bungalows have (had?) a flashing light on them when someone was inside working on them. With the proper notifications in place, that would be warning enough. If there was a flasher on this bungalow and no notification, engineer should be contacting dispatcher and slowing down. I don't buy that the visibilty at the time was so bad that nothing could be seen (either by the train crew or a truck driver who had looked down the track...visibility was not impaired by surroundings, I've seen reported).I foresee a few "safety meetings" in UTA's future. I hope FRA funding isn't cut in the near future...
The flashing white light, now they use a strobe light, on the signal bungalows means commercial power is out. Before they started adding the flashing light you were required to observe the costant lit white light. If it was out, you reported the fact to the dispatcher, the same as you do if the power off strobe is flashing. They used to test for this by placing a piece of tape over the constant lit light.
The rotating blue flashing beacon is a warning system of an approaching train used my MOW/Signal. The system also includes a siren when active. Once in a while after the user is done, the forget to deactivate the system. I've gone through a control point late at night with the blue lights flashing and the siren wailing.
Some control points have been equipped with a back up generator. These units have a flashing blue light that when activated signifies the status of the generator. Whether it's flashing or not doesn't affect trains. We don't have to report it. Yet.
Jeff
BaltACD Norm48327
Norm48327
blue streak 1Two thoghts: Look at the video closely at the 0:18 time. It appears that the police officer realized a train was coming and started to back up away from a possible wreck ? "IF" -- a maintainer came to the crossing and found it down and went into the bungalow. At the same time the train entered the detection circuit. The maintainer cancelled the activation therefore signal system was deactivated. If this was a quite zone then the maintainer did not know the train was in the activation circuit. Is this unlikely ? ? Possibly but timing can be everthing.
Look at the video closely at the 0:18 time. It appears that the police officer realized a train was coming and started to back up away from a possible wreck ?
"IF" -- a maintainer came to the crossing and found it down and went into the bungalow. At the same time the train entered the detection circuit. The maintainer cancelled the activation therefore signal system was deactivated. If this was a quite zone then the maintainer did not know the train was in the activation circuit. Is this unlikely ? ? Possibly but timing can be everthing.
An aside to this - My experience on multiple territories on my former carrier. Signalmen come on the property and DON'T announce their arrival on the property to the Train Dispatcher - BEFORE they do anything - BEFORE they are informed of anything that may be about to take place where they are.
I don't know if that was the case in this incident or not.
On my former carrier, all 'emergency' calls are routed through the Police Command Center - malfunctioning crossings are considered emergencies. The PCC notifies BOTH Signals and the Train Dispatcher for the territory - the Train Dispatcher will then put out a crossing protection message to all trains that will be passing the crossing - the message is put out through the CADS system and there are both printed and recorded records of the message and how it was transmitted and repeated by each train it was given to. Malfunctioning crossing were nothing to be 'played' with.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.