edblysardI may be wrong, but doesn’t the rules require all movement on the adjacent tracks, including sidings, to be stopped when Amtrak or any passenger train passes? Again, I may be remembering wrong, but…
In normal operations - if there is any Current of Traffic multiple track territory still in existance - trains of any variety may pass each other.
In signalled territory trains of all varieties pass each other at normal speeds in multiple track territory.
There is no requirement for trains on sidings or other track adjacent to the Main track to stop when passenger trains pass.
The one requirement for freight trains when operating in passenger train territory is to not block or operate through passenger stations when passenger trains are due and will be picking up or discharging passengers at those station. Freight crews know the timetable operation of those passenger trains for their territory. In many cases the freight train will contact the passenger train on the road radio channel so the operation of the freight can be coordinated with the operation of the passenger train.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidWhy the need to hold the passenger train for the freight job when there is room to get by?
Because the freight hadn't cleared their paper yet. That's how it works in dark territory. Not rocket science.
If the signals were working per usual, Amtrak likely would have been waiting at the next signal north, which would have been showing stop. Once the switch was restored, they'd have gotten a less restrictive aspect and been able to proceed.
I suspect you're wondering why the freight was allowed to have the track if Amtrak was due - why they weren't in the clear well before the scheduled arrival.
I'm sure that was their plan. Sometimes things take longer than planned - maybe that last auto rack wasn't quite ready. Who knows?. Amtrak was down 20 minutes, too.
Railroad dispatching can be like a big chess game. When all the moves go as planned, things work great. One hiccup can throw a monkey wrench into the works that takes hours to work out.
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...
BaltACD edblysard I may be wrong, but doesn’t the rules require all movement on the adjacent tracks, including sidings, to be stopped when Amtrak or any passenger train passes? Again, I may be remembering wrong, but… In normal operations - if there is any Current of Traffic multiple track territory still in existance - trains of any variety may pass each other. In signalled territory trains of all varieties pass each other at normal speeds in multiple track territory. There is no requirement for trains on sidings or other track adjacent to the Main track to stop when passenger trains pass. The one requirement for freight trains when operating in passenger train territory is to not block or operate through passenger stations when passenger trains are due and will be picking up or discharging passengers at those station. Freight crews know the timetable operation of those passenger trains for their territory. In many cases the freight train will contact the passenger train on the road radio channel so the operation of the freight can be coordinated with the operation of the passenger train.
edblysard I may be wrong, but doesn’t the rules require all movement on the adjacent tracks, including sidings, to be stopped when Amtrak or any passenger train passes? Again, I may be remembering wrong, but…
23 17 46 11
BaltACDLithoniaOperator I think a lot has been determined by the NTSB. But much of what they have found has not been passed along to the Trains forum. What's up with that?
Still in training.
Quoting Euclid "Euclid
Well maybe you and others want to read it just a certain way so you can use it just a certain way."
Most of us try to read posts according the plain meaning of the words used, and do not try to interpret posts according to something the poster did not put into the post.
Johnny
LithoniaOperator BaltACD LithoniaOperator I think a lot has been determined by the NTSB. But much of what they have found has not been passed along to the Trains forum. What's up with that? My comment was sarcasm. That's why I put in the winking-face emoticon.
BaltACD LithoniaOperator I think a lot has been determined by the NTSB. But much of what they have found has not been passed along to the Trains forum. What's up with that?
A wink is not sufficiently sarcastic to the railroad community!
BaltACD LithoniaOperator BaltACD LithoniaOperator I think a lot has been determined by the NTSB. But much of what they have found has not been passed along to the Trains forum. What's up with that? My comment was sarcasm. That's why I put in the winking-face emoticon. A wink is not sufficiently sarcastic to the railroad community!
BaltACDA wink is not sufficiently sarcastic to the railroad community!
edblysardWonder what I was remembering...kinda old so...
I sorta remember this, too, at the height of the 'Do You Live In The Blast Zone? fireball craze. It had something to do with key trains stopping anytime a passenger train was in their vicinity, I think. To keep a derailment/explosion from being a mass fatality. Don't know if it made it to an actual order or rule.
jeffhergert PennsyBoomer Once again it is another level of checking based upon events that have precipitated most all of the Rules. There were not Form B's protecting maintenance of way work until, I believe, the late 70s when a UP train got into an Ohio Crane fouling their right of way. The advent of the Form B has no doubt been of benefit but, prior to, it was flag and whistle. So this rule, appropriately, for a first train was inevitable in the event. Consolidated Code of Operating Rules 1967 and Uniform Code of Operating Rules 1968 both had train orders (CCOR Form Y and UCOR Form U) to protect men and machines. UCOR also had a provision under Form X orders for protecting men and machines. There may be others, those xamples just come to mind. Jeff
PennsyBoomer Once again it is another level of checking based upon events that have precipitated most all of the Rules. There were not Form B's protecting maintenance of way work until, I believe, the late 70s when a UP train got into an Ohio Crane fouling their right of way. The advent of the Form B has no doubt been of benefit but, prior to, it was flag and whistle. So this rule, appropriately, for a first train was inevitable in the event.
Once again it is another level of checking based upon events that have precipitated most all of the Rules. There were not Form B's protecting maintenance of way work until, I believe, the late 70s when a UP train got into an Ohio Crane fouling their right of way. The advent of the Form B has no doubt been of benefit but, prior to, it was flag and whistle. So this rule, appropriately, for a first train was inevitable in the event.
Consolidated Code of Operating Rules 1967 and Uniform Code of Operating Rules 1968 both had train orders (CCOR Form Y and UCOR Form U) to protect men and machines. UCOR also had a provision under Form X orders for protecting men and machines. There may be others, those xamples just come to mind.
Jeff
I find no reference to these forms of train orders in PRR (1960 rev.) or PC (1968) rule book. In situations where work was to be performed fouling an in service main track a "free form" order was used designating hours in effect, limits and requiring authority to proceed - a precursor to the Form Y or Form B - but this was not a common event. Undercutting bridge clearances that normally fouled adjacent track(s) would be an example.
Notification:
LithoniaOperator Rule WF-S:
If I use a winking face, it's to denote sarcasm, irony, humor or absurdity.
* * *
Please sign and fax an approved acknowledgement form. Radio messages will not be recognized as proper acknowledgement.
(Winky-face applies only to paragraph above it.)
Have I covered my a$$?
im not familiar with "r.r." terminology or the "terms & conditions" ("T&C") used therein, but i do remember a tragic situation that occurred 10-15 years ago in SW s.c.. it is remarkably similar to the "cayce incident".. unfortunately, i cannot recall the details, but is very similar to this latest tragedy.. near a small company town in SW s.c., a freight train pulled off to a siding that served one customer, the main employer of this hamlet.. the crew left no cars on the mainline, but took the entire manifest onto the siding.. for whatever reason, the switch was LOCKED OPEN.. i dont recall how long the train worked along the siding, but the worst possible happened: a passenger train came along and diverted to the siding.. BOTTOM LINE: the passenger train was able to continue on the siding into the town where the freight train was working.. the passenger train slammed into the freight train, killing many crewmen and passengers.. i dont recall which members of the freight crew were injured, but the damage to both trains was devastating; worse, the accident actually killed the town.. the "mill", or whatever it was called, was also significantly damaged and not rebuilt.. because the "mill" was the primary employer, the town literally disappeared; it's gone now.. i believe some (or all) of the crew were charged with criminal negligence and were convicted but dont recall their sentences.. i never did read their justification for LOCKING THE SWITCH OPEN.. can anyone fill in the details on this event?
i have read several stories about accidents where a "controlling authority" was planning to implement stronger safety systems on a stretch where an accident occurred, but somehow "didnt get around to it".. it seems to be a "cover story" thats handed out whenever this happens.. i wonder how many r.r. executives would allow their family to travel a stretch of track where "state-of-the-art" controls were promised but never installed? makes me wonder..
but, i could be wrong!
COTTON BELT RUNS A
Blue Streak
Information I have received through back channels - Engineer inquired of the Conductor 3 (Count them THREE) times after the Conductor 'signed off' on his SPAF the switch had been lined for the Main and the EC-1 for the block released back to the Dispatcher - Three times the Conductor reported he had lined the switch for the Main Track. Engineer was in the process of walking to the switch to check it for himself when 91 entered the picture.
I was told it was a Cayce Yard crew that had the job of adding power to the 31 auto racks that were already in the siding thus building outbound train Q210 that would later be called to go to Greenwood, SC - Atlanta and then North.
None of this is NTSB testimony so it is subject to CYA.
BaltACDEngineer inquired of the Conductor 3 (Count them THREE) times after the Conductor 'signed off' on his SPAF the switch had been lined for the Main
Asking him three times then double checking... Things that make you go "hmmmm." Not all employees are created equally....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
If the engineer had to ask, he must not have known whether the switch had been re-lined. How could the conductor have re-lined the switch for the main line without the engineer realizing it?
Balt -- when was the conductor 'past' the engineer long enough, anywhere in the timeframe starting with commencement of the shove, to have lined and locked that switch?
I have to wonder how the EC-1 got released with a 'signed SPAF' if the engineer were so unconvinced ... to the point of leaving the power of a train still being made up to verify the switch status after the three (3) requests of the conductor. After how many of the requests did the engineer sign off? I presume the conductor released the authority.
LithoniaOperator Notification: LithoniaOperator Rule WF-S: If I use a winking face, it's to denote sarcasm, irony, humor or absurdity. * * * Please sign and fax an approved acknowledgement form. Radio messages will not be recognized as proper acknowledgement. (Winky-face applies only to paragraph above it.) Have I covered my a$$?
Euclid If the engineer had to ask, he must not have known whether the switch had been re-lined. How could the conductor have re-lined the switch for the main line without the engineer realizing it?
edblysard, what does 23 17 46 11 stand for? If I may ask.
BaltACD Information I have received through back channels - Engineer inquired of the Conductor 3 (Count them THREE) times after the Conductor 'signed off' on his SPAF the switch had been lined for the Main and the EC-1 for the block released back to the Dispatcher - Three times the Conductor reported he had lined the switch for the Main Track. Engineer was in the process of walking to the switch to check it for himself when 91 entered the picture. I was told it was a Cayce Yard crew that had the job of adding power to the 31 auto racks that were already in the siding thus building outbound train Q210 that would later be called to go to Greenwood, SC - Atlanta and then North. None of this is NTSB testimony so it is subject to CYA.
LithoniaOperator Euclid If the engineer had to ask, he must not have known whether the switch had been re-lined. How could the conductor have re-lined the switch for the main line without the engineer realizing it? He did NOT re-line the switch for the mainline. That's why we are here discussing this. As for his seeing/not-seeing the conductor doing/not-doing his job, there are many possible scenarios. Probably he was doing engineer work, and did not see what the conductor was doing. The fact that the engineer (if this is true) asked three times what the status of the switch was, suggests to me that the conductor was perhaps a recent hire, or a person known to be unreliable. Just speculating, of course. But the fact that the engineer told the dispatcher (if he did) that the SPAF had been signed by him, or if he had actually signed it when, in fact, he was not certain of the switch status, is very troubling. Sounds like the conductor is in deep trouble, and the engineer may be also. He would have not been walking up to check if he was certain of the switch position. It's a tragedy for these two individuals, also. But a procedure existed to deal with the conditions, and one or more people did not follow the rules. And one or more may be lying in the aftermath. Very sad all the way around.
Yes, I realize the conductor did not re-line the switch. And, as you say, there could be many possible scenarios in which the conductor was able to re-line the switch without the engineer being aware of it. But it also seems like there is a high probability in this case that none of those scenarios materialized.
I suspect that the engineer came to the same conclusion. He never saw the conductor re-line the switch; and that there was no time period during the work which would have allowed the conductor to be out of the engineer's sight or awareness long enough to go to the switch, re-line it, and return.
Under those circumstances, without actually knowing the switch position, the natural conclusion would be that the switch could not possibly have been restored for the mainline.
Just because you know a guy is a screwup does not mean you would know he was such a BIG and GHASTLY screwup who would lie. 3 times.
The engineer may well have asked 3 times. And then figured NOBODY would lie about something like that 3 times over.
And then signed and called it in.
And then had a few more minutes to think about it. And decided it wouldn't hurt a bit, while he was just sitting around, to go over and confirm.
This all does make the engineer look about as good as he can, under the circumstances. So grains of salt may be sprinkled around, as necessary.
Ed
edblysard, never mind if you’d rather not say. I think I get it now anyway.
7j43k, that is very believable scenario. Speculation, obviously, but I would not be surprised if you turn out to be right.
Of course, I suppose it’s possible that NTSB, CSX, AMTK (and we) will never really know. If stories don’t jive, then I guess CSX will probably just fire them both. And injured parties will sue everyone they can semi-credibly add to the complaint.
If it was a yard crew bringing additional (light) power for the autoracks why didn't they stop directly after the switch, re-align it and then back the power to the train? It would have been a short walk for the conductor.Regards, Volker
LithoniaOperator7j43k, that is very believable scenario. Speculation, obviously, but I would not be surprised if you turn out to be right. Of course, I suppose it’s possible that NTSB, CSX, AMTK (and we) will never really know. If stories don’t jive, then I guess CSX will probably just fire them both. And injured parties will sue everyone they can semi-credibly add to the complaint.
With knowledge I have of CSX Discipline - They BOTH have been fired, if the local discipline 'investigation' has been held.
I may be mistaken as I don't know the specifics of either contract, but normally contracts require that the party's be charged within 5 or 7 days of the incident and unless posponed by mutual company-union agreement the investigation is to be held within 10 to 15 days of the notification. Postponement of investigations is a normal occurence.
The NTSB marches to its own drummer in investigation the happening.
VOLKER LANDWEHR If it was a yard crew bringing additional (light) power for the autoracks why didn't they stop directly after the switch, re-align it and then back the power to the train? It would have been a short walk for the conductor.Regards, Volker
I would opine it was because they "owned" the track at the time. An unknown is whether the dispatcher was after them to clear up ASAP. I'm sure that will come out eventually.
If there was no sense of urgency on the part of the crew, then why hurry?
There are a number of pieces missing from this puzzle from our perspective.
Want to read the transcripts between conductor and engineer. Maybe the engineer wondered if the conductor was referring to the switch going to the auto yard and not the switch to the siding ?
VOLKER LANDWEHRIf it was a yard crew bringing additional (light) power for the autoracks why didn't they stop directly after the switch, re-align it and then back the power to the train? It would have been a short walk for the conductor. Regards, Volker
Yet again, there is so much that we don't know!
.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.