Randy Stahl I'm better at whack a mole when I'm drunk
I'm better at whack a mole when I'm drunk
And that's how you got banned from the pet store.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Murphy SidingYou’d have 1000 distractions, anywhere from your conductor asking you a question to scratching an itch. All those normal distractions would break your concentration.
Check your air, your speed, the load meter, answer the radio...
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:
What was the year and location of the NYC Gulf Curve Wreck? Was that the same as the 1940 Little Falls, NY wreck?
Ed Burns
Happily retired professional railroader from Minneapolis.
OvermodI have seen reports that the accident track was a full siding, with a similar switch back onto the main some distance back. It seems at least plausible that the engine crew thought they had been mistakenly lined through the switch onto empty track by dispatcher mistake
If it was a controlled siding in CTC territory, this would be plausible. But, it wasn't. It's an uncontrolled siding with a circuit controller and electric lock.
If the signal system was on, and the switch was reversed, the previous block signal would be at stop.
I can't imagine any circumstance where a dispatcher would have a guy on the ground throw and lock both turnouts and then forget to put it in the track warrant.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid I am indeed asking what the definitive action on the part of the engineer should be. I don’t expect everyone to agree. I know what I would do. You have 3 seconds. What would you do? Oops! Too late. This is what I would do. I would always look at every switch as I approached it and determine which way it is lined as early as possible. Even before seeing which way the switch is lined, I would plan on the need to make an emergency application. Then if I were to see a wrongly lined switch, I would immediately make an emergency application. My process for assimilation of the open switch and the making of the emergency application would take less than one second.
Murphy Siding Euclid I am indeed asking what the definitive action on the part of the engineer should be. I don’t expect everyone to agree. I know what I would do. You have 3 seconds. What would you do? Oops! Too late.
Euclid I am indeed asking what the definitive action on the part of the engineer should be. I don’t expect everyone to agree. I know what I would do.
I am indeed asking what the definitive action on the part of the engineer should be. I don’t expect everyone to agree. I know what I would do.
You have 3 seconds. What would you do? Oops! Too late.
OK. I'll try to pretend this is sincere and not be (too) sarcastic. So, you would be sitting stiffly in the engineer’s seat with your eyes intently watching the track for the next signal. Your hand would be on the brake lever, ready hit the brakes in a split second. The very instance that you saw the that a switch was wrong you would hit brakes. I see several things wrong with your theory.
I don’t think anyone could sit for that long with a laser-like focus out the windshield
You’d have 1000 distractions, anywhere from your conductor asking you a question to scratching an itch. All those normal distractions would break your concentration.
I don’t think anyone could react in only one second. Even if you were at an arcade playing Whack-A-Mole and expecting something to pop up, your mind would take more than one second to process what’s going on and to react.
I don’t know if they’d pass you in engineer school if you were forsaking everything else in the cab in order to focus on the switch down the track.
I doubt anyone would want to work with you if that was your habit.
If you could, through super-human ability react in one second, you’d still be only two seconds away from impact.
How much braking would the train do in the two seconds left? In conclusion, I’d say you’re living in a dream world if you think you could have done any better than the engineer did. To suggest otherwise is kind of an insult to professional railroaders.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Euclid And as you say, the points are usually easier to see under headlight illumination at night than during the daylight.
LOL
Overmod NDG has posted a Canadian accident report in the String Lining thread that has many similarities with this accident. Take particular note of the table that shows sequential time, brake-pipe pressure, and speed. This with an F40 pulling LRC coaches, almost certainly faster-responding to a brake application than what 91's consist provided. I think Euclid is right insofar as keeping a careful eye on the switches as you encounter them, and reacting as quickly as possible when you see one mislined. Big Jim, who has considerable experience, has said much the same thing. However, to think you will get any particular 'way' off the train even with optimal reaction time before you encounter the switch is silly; in fact, even if we were to assume that 91's engineer applied the emergency 'first', rather than the blended brake ... and I'm sure passenger engineers here understand reasons why he would not ... it's doubtful that the train would have lost much additional speed. Euclid is correct that decreasing the impact force might have been a Good Thing; he will be correct when he gets around to making the point that if the locomotive or part of the train had derailed on the switch it might not even have come into contact with the bridge or the standing CSX consist, and I'd give both head-end crew a significant chance of survival in that case. (Whether there would be more casualties back in the train if it left the rails and piled up does not seem to concern him that much, although it probably should.) I don't think we'll ever quite find out what the post-accident 'strategy' that involved keeping power on the engine even several seconds after negotiating the switch was. We certainly know they didn't go to full emergency until seeing the grinning skull of Death through the bridge portal, by which time even Euclid would have to assume no amount of brake and no superhero reaction time would have helped. I have seen reports that the accident track was a full siding, with a similar switch back onto the main some distance back. It seems at least plausible that the engine crew thought they had been mistakenly lined through the switch onto empty track by dispatcher mistake, and had sufficient time to stop without shaking up the passengers any worse than going through the switch already had. That is consistent with what NTSB has reported so far. I am sick at heart that we cannot know firsthand. May it have been as quick and relatively painless as our 'experts' keep telling us.
NDG has posted a Canadian accident report in the String Lining thread that has many similarities with this accident.
Take particular note of the table that shows sequential time, brake-pipe pressure, and speed. This with an F40 pulling LRC coaches, almost certainly faster-responding to a brake application than what 91's consist provided.
I think Euclid is right insofar as keeping a careful eye on the switches as you encounter them, and reacting as quickly as possible when you see one mislined. Big Jim, who has considerable experience, has said much the same thing. However, to think you will get any particular 'way' off the train even with optimal reaction time before you encounter the switch is silly; in fact, even if we were to assume that 91's engineer applied the emergency 'first', rather than the blended brake ... and I'm sure passenger engineers here understand reasons why he would not ... it's doubtful that the train would have lost much additional speed.
Euclid is correct that decreasing the impact force might have been a Good Thing; he will be correct when he gets around to making the point that if the locomotive or part of the train had derailed on the switch it might not even have come into contact with the bridge or the standing CSX consist, and I'd give both head-end crew a significant chance of survival in that case. (Whether there would be more casualties back in the train if it left the rails and piled up does not seem to concern him that much, although it probably should.)
I don't think we'll ever quite find out what the post-accident 'strategy' that involved keeping power on the engine even several seconds after negotiating the switch was. We certainly know they didn't go to full emergency until seeing the grinning skull of Death through the bridge portal, by which time even Euclid would have to assume no amount of brake and no superhero reaction time would have helped.
I have seen reports that the accident track was a full siding, with a similar switch back onto the main some distance back. It seems at least plausible that the engine crew thought they had been mistakenly lined through the switch onto empty track by dispatcher mistake, and had sufficient time to stop without shaking up the passengers any worse than going through the switch already had. That is consistent with what NTSB has reported so far. I am sick at heart that we cannot know firsthand. May it have been as quick and relatively painless as our 'experts' keep telling us.
Then to this interval, I added the time/distance from the switch to the freight engine. Thus, for that total trackage, from first seeing the switch wrong to point of impact, I calculated it to be approximately 11.34 seconds or 909 feet.
7j43kDo YOU check switch alignment ahead of you? Every time? On a mainline run? Using only your headlights? If YOU had been on the front of 91, would YOU have seen the misaligned switch? Do YOU check EVERY switch you approach?
We are required to call out all facing point main track switches on the air. This is generally based on the signal target. While the target may be visible from a distance, the actual position of the points may not be as obvious from any distance, especially if there is a curve involved or some other obstruction (snow, anyone) exists.
Electroliner 1935 I have a number of thoughts about this accident that I have Angst over. Two men died through no fault of their own. Their families and friend have a need to be able to morn without the facetious or snarky comments on here. Engineer tried to stop but there was insufficient time. I can't imagine the last thoughts of the engineer or conductor. I believe their death was instantanious. I expect the crew of the freight train must be torn over what happened and why (my presuption here) they failed to reline the switch for the main track. I will wait for the STB's report on what failed and allowed the train to be operated expecting a clear path between CP's. I have not yet seen any pictures of the front of the Amtrak locomotive.
I have a number of thoughts about this accident that I have Angst over. Two men died through no fault of their own. Their families and friend have a need to be able to morn without the facetious or snarky comments on here. Engineer tried to stop but there was insufficient time. I can't imagine the last thoughts of the engineer or conductor. I believe their death was instantanious.
I expect the crew of the freight train must be torn over what happened and why (my presuption here) they failed to reline the switch for the main track. I will wait for the STB's report on what failed and allowed the train to be operated expecting a clear path between CP's.
I have not yet seen any pictures of the front of the Amtrak locomotive.
Still in training.
Paul of CovingtonCan you determine that in the daytime, let alone at 2:35 AM?
To be honest: if I were properly trained, and properly watching the track ahead of me, I think I could see it. Probably more easily in the nighttime as the reflection of the headlight off the railheads will show the gap at the point very clearly at substantial distance.
You can easily test this with an experiment: cue up one of the many YouTube videos of corresponding speed and curvature and see at what point you can see the closed points in your route, or any open switches in adjacent track. For those who aren't railroaders, practice a bit and see if you can hone your recognition and reaction.
These answers to Euclid's scenario have accepted the supposition that the position of the switch points could be determined at a distance of 250 ft. Can you determine that in the daytime, let alone at 2:35 AM?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
BigJim 7j43k Re: my comments earlier, and the proposed experiment To the locomotive engineers, here Do YOU check switch alignment ahead of you? Yes, I did! Every time? Yes, I did! On a mainline run? Yes Using only your headlights? Except when the sun was shinning, Duh! If YOU had been on the front of 91, would YOU have seen the misaligned switch? Yes and don't forget that the space between the switch point and stock rail was on the engineers side! Do YOU check EVERY switch you approach? Yes, I did! If so, then there's no need for my experiment. EXACTLY!!! I agree with Sumwalt that it's the duty of the operator to look out for misaligned switches. I am wary of extending that to DEMANDING that they see them, and blaming them if they don't. Ed
7j43k Re: my comments earlier, and the proposed experiment To the locomotive engineers, here Do YOU check switch alignment ahead of you? Yes, I did! Every time? Yes, I did! On a mainline run? Yes Using only your headlights? Except when the sun was shinning, Duh! If YOU had been on the front of 91, would YOU have seen the misaligned switch? Yes and don't forget that the space between the switch point and stock rail was on the engineers side! Do YOU check EVERY switch you approach? Yes, I did! If so, then there's no need for my experiment. EXACTLY!!! I agree with Sumwalt that it's the duty of the operator to look out for misaligned switches. I am wary of extending that to DEMANDING that they see them, and blaming them if they don't. Ed
Re: my comments earlier, and the proposed experiment
To the locomotive engineers, here
Do YOU check switch alignment ahead of you? Yes, I did!
Every time? Yes, I did!
On a mainline run? Yes
Using only your headlights? Except when the sun was shinning, Duh!
If YOU had been on the front of 91, would YOU have seen the misaligned switch? Yes and don't forget that the space between the switch point and stock rail was on the engineers side!
Do YOU check EVERY switch you approach? Yes, I did!
If so, then there's no need for my experiment. EXACTLY!!!
I agree with Sumwalt that it's the duty of the operator to look out for misaligned switches. I am wary of extending that to DEMANDING that they see them, and blaming them if they don't.
Ed
Thanks for your answers.
tree68 Euclid This is what I would do. I would always look at every switch as I approached it and determine which way it is lined as early as possible. Even before seeing which way the switch is lined, I would plan on the need to make an emergency application. Then if I were to see a wrongly lined switch, I would immediately make an emergency application. My process for assimilation of the open switch and the making of the emergency application would take less than one second. And your years of experience in the seat are a basis for this claim? Or is this just your hypothetical view of how things are supposed to be?
Euclid This is what I would do. I would always look at every switch as I approached it and determine which way it is lined as early as possible. Even before seeing which way the switch is lined, I would plan on the need to make an emergency application. Then if I were to see a wrongly lined switch, I would immediately make an emergency application. My process for assimilation of the open switch and the making of the emergency application would take less than one second.
And your years of experience in the seat are a basis for this claim? Or is this just your hypothetical view of how things are supposed to be?
It's not hypothetical at all. It is what I would do. And that's a fact.
Electroliner 1935 Larry, Please don't feed the beast. If you ignore it , it may (we hope) stop commenting.
Larry, Please don't feed the beast. If you ignore it , it may (we hope) stop commenting.
Hasn't worked so far.
I honestly haven’t been following this thread very closely and don’t know if this has been covered yet, but there seems to be a flaw in the CSX operating rules. UNION PACIFIC WHEN THE SIGNAL SYSTEM IS SUSPENED, THE SWITCHES ARE SPIKED! If that had been the case on CSX, the train that Amtrak crashed into would not have been there! As simple as that … or at least the switch would have been lined properly and spiked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
EuclidThis is what I would do. I would always look at every switch as I approached it and determine which way it is lined as early as possible. Even before seeing which way the switch is lined, I would plan on the need to make an emergency application. Then if I were to see a wrongly lined switch, I would immediately make an emergency application. My process for assimilation of the open switch and the making of the emergency application would take less than one second.
.
Do YOU check switch alignment ahead of you?
Every time?
On a mainline run?
Using only your headlights?
If YOU had been on the front of 91, would YOU have seen the misaligned switch? Do YOU check EVERY switch you approach?
If so, then there's no need for my experiment.
Deggesty Semper Vaporo How about if the conductor climbs up on the roof, runs to the front of the locomotive, leaps forward off the engine, lands on the switch lever, causing it to swing to re-line the switch to the main? They do that sort of stuff in cartoons! {snip}
How about if the conductor climbs up on the roof, runs to the front of the locomotive, leaps forward off the engine, lands on the switch lever, causing it to swing to re-line the switch to the main? They do that sort of stuff in cartoons!
{snip}
Such fantisies! You know that can't happen! He has all the switch lock keys in his hand and finds the right one as he reaches out to the switch stand, unlocks the lock and flips it out of the hasp before he hits the lever. Easy-peasy! You need to watch more cartoons!
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Semper Vaporo How about if the conductor climbs up on the roof, runs to the front of the locomotive, leaps forward off the engine, lands on the switch lever, causing it to swing to re-line the switch to the main? They do that sort of stuff in cartoons!
I agree that there was no time to do anything to even alleviate the result of the mislined switch.
And, I give thanks that the lounge car was apparently unoccupied at the time.
Johnny
LensCapOnAs soon as it was clear that a CSX crew had left the switch locked to direct traffic onto the siding it was also clear the wreck had been caused by grotesque crew error. My thoughts ran like this. 1) Hunter Harrison makes major changes to CSX schedules, yards, operations and personnel including relocations of key personnel. People were rapidly trying to move to meet the relocation within the time frame. (NOW!!) 2) Hunter Harrison then died. 3) The rail fan community did not have a clear idea who was running CSX and what was the status of Harrison’s changes. The crash was a failure of old tech, basic core tech, and the better run main lines had techniques to eliminate such a failure by 1890. An open switch like this would be an embarrassment on a model railroad as it’s so basic. CSX management has been strangely missing in this detailed review. I’m just a fan but cannot believe such a switch could be thrown on a main line without informing someone in dispatching, or whatever they call it now. Wasn’t dispatching moved and centralized by Harrison just before his death? Waiting for more knowledgeable comments on this. Sarc/OFF
1) Hunter Harrison makes major changes to CSX schedules, yards, operations and personnel including relocations of key personnel. People were rapidly trying to move to meet the relocation within the time frame. (NOW!!)
2) Hunter Harrison then died.
3) The rail fan community did not have a clear idea who was running CSX and what was the status of Harrison’s changes.
Were the preexisting signal system in operation at the time the incident would have been averted.
Signal system had been suspended in accordance with the appropriate rules to allow for the installation of a PTC viable signal system. Such signal suspensions allow for the installation and testing of NEW signals and equipment that are necessary for the proper functioning of PTC when that feature gets implemented.
Personally I don't know what, if any, changes had been made to local CSX Officers within the time frame surrounding the incident and the palcing of EHH in the top spot at CSX in March 2017. I also don't know what if any efforts were undertaken by that management concerning compliance with existing rules or taking actions to change rules they felt slowed the operation of the property.
I can guarantee you that this incident is a TOTAL EMBARASSMENT to CSX and potentially a legitimate indictment of the EHH management philosophy as it affects field personnel.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Euclid tree68 The point is this: As Bucky's post reads, it appears he feels that the engineer will be able to take some definitive action upon spotting the incorrect target from 250 away. Something that will perhaps prevent the train from reaching the switch? I wouldn't be surprised if the old canard of "not dumping the train because it might derail" soon entered the discussion. Given the effect any action by the engineer will have on the train in the three seconds that elapse between spotting the target and reaching the switch, flapping one's arms will certainly have about as much impact as anything else. An entire five car train will be through the switch less than ten seconds after the locomotive first reaches it, assuming it stays on the rails. Not dumping the air because it might derail the train is an old canard that some people believe is wise. I don’t believe it is wise, and have said so in previous threads such as this one: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/259070.aspx?page=1 To your other point that I am looking for some way to prevent the train from reaching the switch. Of course that would be impossible, and I would not expect to accomplish that feat. But what can be accomplished is reducing the speed of impact. I am indeed asking what the definitive action on the part of the engineer should be. I don’t expect everyone to agree. I know what I would do. It sounds like you are saying that no definitive action can do any good because the train cannot stop in time to avoid the collision.
tree68 The point is this: As Bucky's post reads, it appears he feels that the engineer will be able to take some definitive action upon spotting the incorrect target from 250 away. Something that will perhaps prevent the train from reaching the switch? I wouldn't be surprised if the old canard of "not dumping the train because it might derail" soon entered the discussion. Given the effect any action by the engineer will have on the train in the three seconds that elapse between spotting the target and reaching the switch, flapping one's arms will certainly have about as much impact as anything else. An entire five car train will be through the switch less than ten seconds after the locomotive first reaches it, assuming it stays on the rails.
The point is this: As Bucky's post reads, it appears he feels that the engineer will be able to take some definitive action upon spotting the incorrect target from 250 away. Something that will perhaps prevent the train from reaching the switch?
I wouldn't be surprised if the old canard of "not dumping the train because it might derail" soon entered the discussion.
Given the effect any action by the engineer will have on the train in the three seconds that elapse between spotting the target and reaching the switch, flapping one's arms will certainly have about as much impact as anything else.
An entire five car train will be through the switch less than ten seconds after the locomotive first reaches it, assuming it stays on the rails.
I am indeed asking what the definitive action on the part of the engineer should be. I don’t expect everyone to agree. I know what I would do. It sounds like you are saying that no definitive action can do any good because the train cannot stop in time to avoid the collision.
Jump
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.