tree68 Euclid Obviously that was my point. Not the way I read it. And it appears not the way several others read it. "Yes, but..."
Euclid Obviously that was my point.
Not the way I read it. And it appears not the way several others read it. "Yes, but..."
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...
n012944 Euclid BaltACD Euclid Okay, but why hold a passenger train for that freight switching work? Why not have the freight job release their block authority and give authority to 91 before it arrives? Then after 91 passes without being delayed, give block authority back the the freight job so they can finish their work? In your perfect world that would happen. This is the real world of railroading - there are only 24 hours of track time to get everything done. Sometimes a move has to wait for track time to be able to continue their run. When the Dispatcher gave the CSX crew the block to perform what they had to do, he was probably told that the crew could do what they needed to do in 'XX' minutes, which would have had them clear for 91 without delay - the crew didn't get their move accomplished in 'XX' minutes and 91 was held until the Dispatcher got the block back. Okay, I see. If they took the block away from the freight, gave it to 91, and then had to give it back to the freight, it might have taken up more of the 24 hour track time than just holding 91 to let the freight finish. Then maybe somewhere in that urgent process, perhaps a mistake was made. Some things never change. Maybe, perhaps, ya but. A sign of a Euclid/Buckey thread. A dispatcher does not "take a block away" from a train crew. The train crew releases the block back to the dispatcher. There is a difference.
Euclid BaltACD Euclid Okay, but why hold a passenger train for that freight switching work? Why not have the freight job release their block authority and give authority to 91 before it arrives? Then after 91 passes without being delayed, give block authority back the the freight job so they can finish their work? In your perfect world that would happen. This is the real world of railroading - there are only 24 hours of track time to get everything done. Sometimes a move has to wait for track time to be able to continue their run. When the Dispatcher gave the CSX crew the block to perform what they had to do, he was probably told that the crew could do what they needed to do in 'XX' minutes, which would have had them clear for 91 without delay - the crew didn't get their move accomplished in 'XX' minutes and 91 was held until the Dispatcher got the block back. Okay, I see. If they took the block away from the freight, gave it to 91, and then had to give it back to the freight, it might have taken up more of the 24 hour track time than just holding 91 to let the freight finish. Then maybe somewhere in that urgent process, perhaps a mistake was made.
BaltACD Euclid Okay, but why hold a passenger train for that freight switching work? Why not have the freight job release their block authority and give authority to 91 before it arrives? Then after 91 passes without being delayed, give block authority back the the freight job so they can finish their work? In your perfect world that would happen. This is the real world of railroading - there are only 24 hours of track time to get everything done. Sometimes a move has to wait for track time to be able to continue their run. When the Dispatcher gave the CSX crew the block to perform what they had to do, he was probably told that the crew could do what they needed to do in 'XX' minutes, which would have had them clear for 91 without delay - the crew didn't get their move accomplished in 'XX' minutes and 91 was held until the Dispatcher got the block back.
Euclid Okay, but why hold a passenger train for that freight switching work? Why not have the freight job release their block authority and give authority to 91 before it arrives? Then after 91 passes without being delayed, give block authority back the the freight job so they can finish their work?
In your perfect world that would happen. This is the real world of railroading - there are only 24 hours of track time to get everything done. Sometimes a move has to wait for track time to be able to continue their run.
When the Dispatcher gave the CSX crew the block to perform what they had to do, he was probably told that the crew could do what they needed to do in 'XX' minutes, which would have had them clear for 91 without delay - the crew didn't get their move accomplished in 'XX' minutes and 91 was held until the Dispatcher got the block back.
Okay, I see. If they took the block away from the freight, gave it to 91, and then had to give it back to the freight, it might have taken up more of the 24 hour track time than just holding 91 to let the freight finish. Then maybe somewhere in that urgent process, perhaps a mistake was made.
Some things never change. Maybe, perhaps, ya but. A sign of a Euclid/Buckey thread.
A dispatcher does not "take a block away" from a train crew. The train crew releases the block back to the dispatcher. There is a difference.
Picky, picky. I did not mean to take the block away from the freight job without their consent. I assume that the dispatcher has the authority to require the freight job to release their block back in order to give it to 91. And if he asks them to give up the block, they will comply and restore the switches and be in the clear. Obviously that was my point.
blue streak 1 Is it possile that the freight train actually was involved with 2 separate crews. One parking the train on the siding and the last crew being a road crew or to continue switching ? If so possibilities completely change as to what happened .
Is it possile that the freight train actually was involved with 2 separate crews. One parking the train on the siding and the last crew being a road crew or to continue switching ? If so possibilities completely change as to what happened .
I was wondering if this crew might have had a brakeman or was working with a utility brakeman. I noticed in one of the many news links that one reported that a trainmaster had also been interviewed by the NTSB Could this trainmaster have restored a different switch (they're not supposed to do such things, but with CSX cutbacks and wanting to do things faster with less...) and then notified the crew. The crew thinking that it was the main track switch was restored, then released their authority?
Jeff
Euclid tree68 Euclid I thought it was interesting because I would not have expected that #91 was stopped short of the collision site and waiting for a go-ahead. What was the reason for holding #91? Why would they not have had given #91 authority to pass through the area without stopping? If the reason is not known, is there a typical reason for holding #91 under these circumstances? The article says it was done per protocol. What is that protocol? It is possible that 91 was held where it was for two reasons. First, the CSX crew may not have given up their track yet. Second, 91 may have been held at an established "block station," oftimes simply a sign beside the track. If 91 were held at that location because it was an established “block station,” why would the fact that it was an established block station require holding the train there? Just to clarify; I am not asking for the basis for choosing the location to hold the train. I am asking for the reason to hold the train.
tree68 Euclid I thought it was interesting because I would not have expected that #91 was stopped short of the collision site and waiting for a go-ahead. What was the reason for holding #91? Why would they not have had given #91 authority to pass through the area without stopping? If the reason is not known, is there a typical reason for holding #91 under these circumstances? The article says it was done per protocol. What is that protocol? It is possible that 91 was held where it was for two reasons. First, the CSX crew may not have given up their track yet. Second, 91 may have been held at an established "block station," oftimes simply a sign beside the track.
Euclid I thought it was interesting because I would not have expected that #91 was stopped short of the collision site and waiting for a go-ahead. What was the reason for holding #91? Why would they not have had given #91 authority to pass through the area without stopping? If the reason is not known, is there a typical reason for holding #91 under these circumstances? The article says it was done per protocol. What is that protocol?
It is possible that 91 was held where it was for two reasons. First, the CSX crew may not have given up their track yet. Second, 91 may have been held at an established "block station," oftimes simply a sign beside the track.
If 91 were held at that location because it was an established “block station,” why would the fact that it was an established block station require holding the train there?
Just to clarify; I am not asking for the basis for choosing the location to hold the train. I am asking for the reason to hold the train.
23 17 46 11
LithoniaOperatorI 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?
The NTSB doesn't report to the Trains Forum.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidOkay, I see. If they took the block away from the freight, gave it to 91, and then had to give it back to the freight, it might have taken up more of the 24 hour track time than just holding 91 to let the freight finish. Then maybe somewhere in that urgent process, perhaps a mistake was made.
n012944 beat me to it, but I'll leave this here, anyhow.
The dispatcher can't take the block away from the freight, although he can certainly be adamant about getting it back. The freight has to give it up. And that's not supposed to happen until they are in the clear and switches are restored.
An "expensive model collector"
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.
Is it determined yet whether the CSX crew was tying the train down where it was parked or was intending to cut off the power and run somewhere?
EuclidOkay, but why hold a passenger train for that freight switching work? Why not have the freight job release their block authority and give authority to 91 before it arrives? Then after 91 passes without being delayed, give block authority back the the freight job so they can finish their work?
BaltACD Euclid tree68 Euclid I thought it was interesting because I would not have expected that #91 was stopped short of the collision site and waiting for a go-ahead. What was the reason for holding #91? Why would they not have had given #91 authority to pass through the area without stopping? If the reason is not known, is there a typical reason for holding #91 under these circumstances? The article says it was done per protocol. What is that protocol? It is possible that 91 was held where it was for two reasons. First, the CSX crew may not have given up their track yet. Second, 91 may have been held at an established "block station," oftimes simply a sign beside the track. If 91 were held at that location because it was an established “block station,” why would the fact that it was an established block station require holding the train there? Just to clarify; I am not asking for the basis for choosing the location to hold the train. I am asking for the reason to hold the train. 91 would be held at the North Limit of the Signal Suspension. The CSX crew having the block in the Signal Suspension. When the CSX crew released the block it was given to 91. While TWC rules permit blocking milepost to milepost, it is was not CSX policy to do that when I was working. For Signal Suspension, you either get the entire limit of the block or you don't get the block.
91 would be held at the North Limit of the Signal Suspension. The CSX crew having the block in the Signal Suspension. When the CSX crew released the block it was given to 91.
While TWC rules permit blocking milepost to milepost, it is was not CSX policy to do that when I was working. For Signal Suspension, you either get the entire limit of the block or you don't get the block.
Okay, but why hold a passenger train for that freight switching work? Why not have the freight job release their block authority and give authority to 91 before it arrives? Then after 91 passes without being delayed, give block authority back the the freight job so they can finish their work?
EuclidI thought it was interesting because I would not have expected that #91 was stopped short of the collision site and waiting for a go-ahead. What was the reason for holding #91? Why would they not have had given #91 authority to pass through the area without stopping? If the reason is not known, is there a typical reason for holding #91 under these circumstances? The article says it was done per protocol. What is that protocol?
It is possible that 91 was held where it was for two reasons. First, the CSX crew may not have given up their track yet. Second, 91 may have been held at an established "block station," oftimes simply a sign beside the track. Further, the CSX train's authority may have extended all the way to that point. We don't know where that train came from in the first place.
I would suspect that the "protocol" was simply the operating rules for the railroad.
edblysard oltmannd Euclid Don Oltmannd posted this on the other thread: “I heard that the CSX dispatcher got the 'switch is normal and locked" from someone in the yard office, not the conductor. The person quoted a news article in the Jax paper. I haven't been able to find that. Not good if true...” I looked at some of that paper, but could not find that specific point that Don mentions. It should not be all that hard to find. I was hoping someone could find it. It could be it doesn't exist.... For the dispatcher to take anyone’s word other that that of the conductor or engineer of the train would be very very odd. I honestly can’t imagine a dispatcher accepting someone else’s word. Kinda like removing a blue flag….you just don’t, ever.
oltmannd Euclid Don Oltmannd posted this on the other thread: “I heard that the CSX dispatcher got the 'switch is normal and locked" from someone in the yard office, not the conductor. The person quoted a news article in the Jax paper. I haven't been able to find that. Not good if true...” I looked at some of that paper, but could not find that specific point that Don mentions. It should not be all that hard to find. I was hoping someone could find it. It could be it doesn't exist....
Euclid Don Oltmannd posted this on the other thread: “I heard that the CSX dispatcher got the 'switch is normal and locked" from someone in the yard office, not the conductor. The person quoted a news article in the Jax paper. I haven't been able to find that. Not good if true...” I looked at some of that paper, but could not find that specific point that Don mentions. It should not be all that hard to find.
Don Oltmannd posted this on the other thread:
“I heard that the CSX dispatcher got the 'switch is normal and locked" from someone in the yard office, not the conductor. The person quoted a news article in the Jax paper. I haven't been able to find that. Not good if true...”
I looked at some of that paper, but could not find that specific point that Don mentions. It should not be all that hard to find.
I was hoping someone could find it. It could be it doesn't exist....
I totally agree.
BaltACD Euclid Here is an interesting piece of information: https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/02/06/incorrect-information-from-csx-employee-led-to.html “Shortly before the 2:35 a.m. crash, Amtrak 91 stopped five miles before the site of the collision and waited for a go-ahead from a CSX dispatcher, per CSX protocol when a signaling system is being worked on, CSX documents show.” That isn't new information.
Euclid Here is an interesting piece of information: https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/02/06/incorrect-information-from-csx-employee-led-to.html “Shortly before the 2:35 a.m. crash, Amtrak 91 stopped five miles before the site of the collision and waited for a go-ahead from a CSX dispatcher, per CSX protocol when a signaling system is being worked on, CSX documents show.”
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/02/06/incorrect-information-from-csx-employee-led-to.html
“Shortly before the 2:35 a.m. crash, Amtrak 91 stopped five miles before the site of the collision and waited for a go-ahead from a CSX dispatcher, per CSX protocol when a signaling system is being worked on, CSX documents show.”
That isn't new information.
I thought it was interesting because I would not have expected that #91 was stopped short of the collision site and waiting for a go-ahead. What was the reason for holding #91? Why would they not have had given #91 authority to pass through the area without stopping?
If the reason is not known, is there a typical reason for holding #91 under these circumstances? The article says it was done per protocol. What is that protocol?
As Ed notes, the conductor does the ground work. The engineer generally stays in the cab. It might be possible, if they were done tying the train down, that the engineer might volunteer to get the switch, particularly if the crew has a good working relationship and the conductor has other work to do before they can quit.
In my experience, the SPAF gets signed, but is not read back to the dispatcher. It's only noted on the air that the switches were restored and that the SPAF was signed by both members of the crew. It's the EC-1 (TW) that gets read, or in this case, the cancellation information of same.
As long as the train is not in motion, the engineer can handle the EC-1, otherwise it would be the conductor.
Review and clarification please. Is this the correct interpretation?:| One of the crew members fills out and signs the form that says the switch was moved to the correct position. The 2nd crew member signs the form agreeing with the first crew member that the switch was moved to the correct position. A crew member then calls the dispatcher and says the switch has been moved to the correct position and both crew members have signed the form agreeing that it has been done. The dispatcher reads the information back. The crew member confirms what was read back is correct and the dispatcher OK's the next train to go through, knowing that the switch should be in the correct position. Which crew member typically fills out the form? Which one calls it in to the dispatcher?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
LithoniaOperator It seems like the SPAF is not nearly as much about being a memory-jogger as it is about creating a paper trail in case $#!t happens and someone will need to be blamed.
It seems like the SPAF is not nearly as much about being a memory-jogger as it is about creating a paper trail in case $#!t happens and someone will need to be blamed.
The NTSB went to some length in noting that the severe monetary penalties associated with EO 24 could be highly counterproductive if ... as in one case they cited ... the risk of penalty led employees who had 'forgotten' to try to get back to line the switch "like it never even happened" instead of fessing up ASAP and having all the statutory crap fall on you ... with a train wrecking and perhaps people dying if they didn't get the CYA finished up in time.
And yes, I do suspect there may be some of that here somewhere...
Perhaps never since the Sixties was 'Danger, Will Robinson!' more appropriate to hear. If the 'heard it in the yard office' story was his, it may have come from the same eagerness to write before checking and somewhat blissful ignorance of Railroading that had him hypothesizing (on the 4th) that CSX signal maintainers had a hand in this ... misunderstanding that it was a systemic suppression, not negligent tinkering, that had the signal system inactive. I think he got the 'conductor misreported the switch position' the same way he had all the other facts in that story ... plucked from Sumwalt's briefing, but not necessarily quite as Sumwalt said.
I think it would be extremely wise to wait for the recorded radio traffic, interview transcripts, and documentation before swallowing a Jacksonville Business Journal 'scoop' based on unstated original sources of independent verifiability.
This jibes with the experimenting the NTSB did after Graniteville, described in RAR 05-04. You need to do a little translation of the description in your head, but resolving the switchpoints themselves is right in line with what Jeff said (and what I get from videos).
Targets, reflective targets, are more interesting. Apparently trained observers who knew in advance exactly where to look could make out a target for a mislined switch over 1100' away. When not expecting, the 'unambiguous' resolution of reflective spot was over 500'. They mentioned without full reference the 'previous' mislining accident caused by the local conductor (in 1999) where the engineer was surprised to see the misline ... and stopped 5 carlengths from the switch. That raised more interesting possibilities than it solved.
EuclidHere is an interesting piece of information: https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/02/06/incorrect-information-from-csx-employee-led-to.html “Shortly before the 2:35 a.m. crash, Amtrak 91 stopped five miles before the site of the collision and waited for a go-ahead from a CSX dispatcher, per CSX protocol when a signaling system is being worked on, CSX documents show.”
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.