EuclidRegarding how jumping might have applied to the U.P. train, I have never head of a head end crew jumping off of the engine in anticipation of being hit from behind by a following train.
Indeed. There would be no reason whatsoever to jump from a locomotive of a standing train that was about to be hit, unless the striking train vastly outweighed the stopped train and was moving quickly, and the stopped train was relatively short and light.
If the above scenario was not the case, and if you had sufficient notice that you were about to be struck, your best bet would be to simply stand up and plaster yourself against the back wall of the cab. Not only would simply standing against the bulkhead take far less time than going all the way down the steps and getting away from the potential of scattering debris, you would retain the protection of the cab.
As strong as today's cabs are, jumping would rarely seem to be the best option.
dehusman Euclid I have never head of a head end crew jumping off of the engine in anticipation of being hit from behind by a following train. How would the head end crew even know they were going to be hit?
Euclid I have never head of a head end crew jumping off of the engine in anticipation of being hit from behind by a following train.
How would the head end crew even know they were going to be hit?
I don't know. In many cases, the crew might not know they are going to be hit, but otherwise they might be notified of the impending collision or see the following train approaching. But as I said, I have never heard of a head end crew jumping off the engine to avoid injury from being struck from behind by a following train. Whereas, jumping from an engine of a train about to run into another train is quite common. Although, I understand that railroads have advised against this in the last few decades.
In this U.P. wreck, it was reported that the crew of the lead train had gotten off their engine while they were stopped. I doubt that this means they got off to avoid the effect of the collision with the rear of their train.
In this video, you can see one of the head end crew jump just as the train with the video enters the switch points:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5wh1q3f5No
EuclidIn this U.P. wreck, it was reported that the crew of the lead train had gotten off their engine while they were stopped.
Chian is a crew change. At some point EVERY train stops and EVERY crew gets off their train.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusman Euclid In this U.P. wreck, it was reported that the crew of the lead train had gotten off their engine while they were stopped. Chian is a crew change. At some point EVERY train stops and EVERY crew gets off their train.
Euclid In this U.P. wreck, it was reported that the crew of the lead train had gotten off their engine while they were stopped.
Johnny
Deggesty dehusman Euclid In this U.P. wreck, it was reported that the crew of the lead train had gotten off their engine while they were stopped. Chian is a crew change. At some point EVERY train stops and EVERY crew gets off their train. I am puzzled by your reference to "Chian"? Do you mean Cheyenne? This event took place 18 miles west of Cheyenne, and thus was not at a crew change point.
I am puzzled by your reference to "Chian"? Do you mean Cheyenne? This event took place 18 miles west of Cheyenne, and thus was not at a crew change point.
IF UP was having crew issues - and most carriers are having crew issues at some locations of their systems - the lead train may have been held at it's location pending the avilability of a crew with the original crew on the train having, or about to go on the Hours of Service and having been removed from the train so as not to accrew 'Limbo Time' being transported from the train after their HOS time. The size of trains being operated these days prevent, in many cases, from moving and holding the train at a crew change location account blocking road crossings.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
zardoz Euclid Regarding how jumping might have applied to the U.P. train, I have never head of a head end crew jumping off of the engine in anticipation of being hit from behind by a following train. Indeed. There would be no reason whatsoever to jump from a locomotive of a standing train that was about to be hit, unless the striking train vastly outweighed the stopped train and was moving quickly, and the stopped train was relatively short and light. If the above scenario was not the case, and if you had sufficient notice that you were about to be struck, your best bet would be to simply stand up and plaster yourself against the back wall of the cab. Not only would simply standing against the bulkhead take far less time than going all the way down the steps and getting away from the potential of scattering debris, you would retain the protection of the cab. As strong as today's cabs are, jumping would rarely seem to be the best option.
Euclid Regarding how jumping might have applied to the U.P. train, I have never head of a head end crew jumping off of the engine in anticipation of being hit from behind by a following train.
Not stand up, lay down on the floor next to back wall. If something the engine hits rides up and over the front, it usually seems to go through the cab at an angle. There's been a few collisions where the least affected parts of the cab was the floor next to the back wall.
Jeff
BaltACD Deggesty dehusman Euclid In this U.P. wreck, it was reported that the crew of the lead train had gotten off their engine while they were stopped. Chian is a crew change. At some point EVERY train stops and EVERY crew gets off their train. I am puzzled by your reference to "Chian"? Do you mean Cheyenne? This event took place 18 miles west of Cheyenne, and thus was not at a crew change point. IF UP was having crew issues - and most carriers are having crew issues at some locations of their systems - the lead train may have been held at it's location pending the avilability of a crew with the original crew on the train having, or about to go on the Hours of Service and having been removed from the train so as not to accrew 'Limbo Time' being transported from the train after their HOS time. The size of trains being operated these days prevent, in many cases, from moving and holding the train at a crew change location account blocking road crossings.
Deggesty BaltACD Deggesty dehusman Euclid In this U.P. wreck, it was reported that the crew of the lead train had gotten off their engine while they were stopped. Chian is a crew change. At some point EVERY train stops and EVERY crew gets off their train. I am puzzled by your reference to "Chian"? Do you mean Cheyenne? This event took place 18 miles west of Cheyenne, and thus was not at a crew change point. IF UP was having crew issues - and most carriers are having crew issues at some locations of their systems - the lead train may have been held at it's location pending the avilability of a crew with the original crew on the train having, or about to go on the Hours of Service and having been removed from the train so as not to accrew 'Limbo Time' being transported from the train after their HOS time. The size of trains being operated these days prevent, in many cases, from moving and holding the train at a crew change location account blocking road crossings. Thanks, Balt. That does make sense. I had not thought that CHeyenne would be so congested.
Thanks, Balt. That does make sense. I had not thought that CHeyenne would be so congested.
Crew issues CAN create congestion where one would otherwise never expect it. While I believe UP to be multiple tracked where this event happened, on single track railroads crew issues can easily have trains backed up 100 miles in either direction of the actual crew change point.
Yes, the collision apparently did take place in two-track territory, just west of Borie--I doubt that the two trains were descending the ten mile longer single track that was constructed in the fifties.
jeffhergert zardoz Euclid Regarding how jumping might have applied to the U.P. train, I have never head of a head end crew jumping off of the engine in anticipation of being hit from behind by a following train. Indeed. There would be no reason whatsoever to jump from a locomotive of a standing train that was about to be hit, unless the striking train vastly outweighed the stopped train and was moving quickly, and the stopped train was relatively short and light. If the above scenario was not the case, and if you had sufficient notice that you were about to be struck, your best bet would be to simply stand up and plaster yourself against the back wall of the cab. Not only would simply standing against the bulkhead take far less time than going all the way down the steps and getting away from the potential of scattering debris, you would retain the protection of the cab. As strong as today's cabs are, jumping would rarely seem to be the best option. Not stand up, lay down on the floor next to back wall. If something the engine hits rides up and over the front, it usually seems to go through the cab at an angle. There's been a few collisions where the least affected parts of the cab was the floor next to the back wall. Jeff
I think he was reffering to the crew of a parked train that was about to be rear ended (rather than the striking train). They could be at risk of whiplash (if the train suddenly moved forward), and bracing one's head could prevent that.
DeggestyI am puzzled by your reference to "Chian"?
The old head UP guys used to write "Cheyenne" as "Chian". Much less to type.
jeffhergertNot stand up, lay down on the floor next to back wall. If something the engine hits rides up and over the front, it usually seems to go through the cab at an angle. There's been a few collisions where the least affected parts of the cab was the floor next to the back wall.
(Edit) Actually, I was refering to an impact from the rear, with no specification regarding equipment in front. However, in a head-on, you are absolutely correct.
zardoz jeffhergert Not stand up, lay down on the floor next to back wall. If something the engine hits rides up and over the front, it usually seems to go through the cab at an angle. There's been a few collisions where the least affected parts of the cab was the floor next to the back wall. Good point! I sit corrected.
jeffhergert Not stand up, lay down on the floor next to back wall. If something the engine hits rides up and over the front, it usually seems to go through the cab at an angle. There's been a few collisions where the least affected parts of the cab was the floor next to the back wall.
Good point! I sit corrected.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I think he's about to go fetal.
Murphy Siding zardoz jeffhergert Not stand up, lay down on the floor next to back wall. If something the engine hits rides up and over the front, it usually seems to go through the cab at an angle. There's been a few collisions where the least affected parts of the cab was the floor next to the back wall. Wouldn't that be lay corrected?
zardoz jeffhergert Not stand up, lay down on the floor next to back wall. If something the engine hits rides up and over the front, it usually seems to go through the cab at an angle. There's been a few collisions where the least affected parts of the cab was the floor next to the back wall.
Wouldn't that be lay corrected?
In school, I was told that hens "lay" and humans "lie"! But I always thought that some lie more convincingly than others.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
And once again, the signal/PTC/Cab/etc. system was not working. Since the crew was always awoken by these things before, now when they fall asleep, the outcome is disaster. More reason to remove the crew from driving the train and only run when PTC like systems operate.
Nothing has been officially said. There has been talk going around that the train ran away. That they had somehow lost the ability to control the train, either by piddling away their air or some problem in the air brake system.
I'm starting to wonder now if the first report I heard via a local manager about both neither PTC and CCS being used is true. It's possible if there was a problem (either crew or mechanical) and air pressure dropped low enough, even a penalty or emergency application from PTC or CCS would have no effect.
It reminds me of a rear end collision about 13 years ago where the train's locomotive had a defective air brake valve. It had been reported as having problems a few days before the collision and was allowed to stay in service. I remember my supervisor (since retired) at the time had told me on one of their conference calls that others were saying that the crew had tampered with the brake valve. When the FRA report came out, the crew took the brunt of the responsiblity for the accident. The defective brake valve was mentioned, but almost as an after thought. For that one the FRA certainly seemed to be, as some coworkers say, the railroad's lapdog.
How many locomotives now use electrically controlled air valves for the braking vs the old control stand hand operated brake valve of old? It seems like a new point of failure. While more sophisticated, more points of failure. And if the electrically controlled braking system fails, ie doen't vent the brake pipe, do the locomotives have a "back up" manually operated valve. I realalize this would not prevent a case of "pissing away" the air but not knowing what the failure was and the comments about a defective air valve mad we wonder what options the crew has. I would think that if the engineer initiated a brake pipe pressure reduction and the pressure guage didn't reflect one, he would take additional actions.
Also suspect that the electronic controls are supposdly designed to be "Fail Safe" but how that is done, I have no knowledge.
Even if the electronic brake valve fails the emergency valve will still work. It is connected directly to the brake pipe - no electronics involved. However there could still be some other problem that prevents the brakes from working.
Mark Vinski
mvlandswEven if the electronic brake valve fails the emergency valve will still work. It is connected directly to the brake pipe - no electronics involved. However there could still be some other problem that prevents the brakes from working. Mark Vinski
If the trainline pressure has been 'pissed away' an emergency application will have little power if any.
There have been several run away trains over the years. One cause is repeated applications and releases of the brakes that works the auxilirary reservoir pressures down to the point where the train speed can not be comtrolled. This is probably considered an operating error. Another cause is a blocked brake pipe. This could be a closed angle cock, ice blockage, pinched air hose, etc. There is a variety of causes for this and investigation will have to determine exact cause. DPU locos would eliminate this possibility as it allows an emergency application mid train. UP lost control of a coal train years ago due to excess piston travel on truck mounted brake cylinders. I think it is unlikely this could happen again due to design changes. Since this train was a mixed consist a similar situation does not exist.
petitnjMore reason to remove the crew from driving the train and only run when PTC like systems operate.
And yet somehow for over 100 years we were able to operate trains and get them over the road, despite the lack of either proper equipment and/or management that knew the difference between a drawbar and a crowbar.
AB brakes, brass journals, no dynamics, poor cab heaters, 39' jointed rail, 'flimsies' handed up to a train at track speed, no radio communication, 14-hour days....How did we ever do it without the miracle of PTC?
Perhaps it has something to do with the calibre of many of the new hires (in the offices, on the ground, and in the cab).
I had heard last week that there may have been a problem with the brakes, but no details on whether it was the train, the engines or the way they were operated.
zardoz petitnj More reason to remove the crew from driving the train and only run when PTC like systems operate. And yet somehow for over 100 years we were able to operate trains and get them over the road, despite the lack of either proper equipment and/or management that knew the difference between a drawbar and a crowbar. AB brakes, brass journals, no dynamics, poor cab heaters, 39' jointed rail, 'flimsies' handed up to a train at track speed, no radio communication, 14-hour days....How did we ever do it without the miracle of PTC? Perhaps it has something to do with the calibre of many of the new hires (in the offices, on the ground, and in the cab).
petitnj More reason to remove the crew from driving the train and only run when PTC like systems operate.
Tragic as it is, this accident is an anomaly. The railroad safety record today vs 25 or 50 years ago is much better, let alone 100 years ago. Look at the statistics for facts, don't rely on anecdotal evidence to drw generalizations.
zardozPerhaps it has something to do with the calibre of many of the new hires (in the offices, on the ground, and in the cab).
Or perhaps incidents didn't garner national/worldwide attention like they do in today's instant information age.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
charlie hebdoThe railroad safety record today vs 25 or 50 years ago is much better, let alone 100 years ago. Look at the statistics for facts, don't rely on anecdotal evidence to drw generalizations.
No doubt that safety is better today compared to 50+ years ago, although I'm doubtful regarding the 25-year figure. However, there was so much more to be concerned about (see above) for the railroaders of those days compared to today, and I'm not even considering the complexities of running steam locomotives.
The ability of PTC to successfully operate a train shows just how much easier it is to run a train today compared to the time frame mentioned. I'm not saying it is easy, I'm just saying it is easier.
And my observations come from not entirely 'anecdotal evidence', but also from first-hand experience.
David1005 There have been several run away trains over the years. One cause is repeated applications and releases of the brakes that works the auxilirary reservoir pressures down to the point where the train speed can not be comtrolled. This is probably considered an operating error. Another cause is a blocked brake pipe. This could be a closed angle cock, ice blockage, pinched air hose, etc. There is a variety of causes for this and investigation will have to determine exact cause. DPU locos would eliminate this possibility as it allows an emergency application mid train. UP lost control of a coal train years ago due to excess piston travel on truck mounted brake cylinders. I think it is unlikely this could happen again due to design changes. Since this train was a mixed consist a similar situation does not exist.
zardozThe ability of PTC to successfully operate a train shows just how much easier it is to run a train today compared to the time frame mentioned.
PTC does not "operate the train." There is nothing in PTC that makes a train go, it is all about stop. PTC doesn't slow the train down for speed restrictions. Its not cruise control or a "self driving" feature. As long as the train is operated below the speed limit and within its authority, PTC takes no active role in the operation of the train. PTC is purely a penalty system.
dehusman zardoz The ability of PTC to successfully operate a train shows just how much easier it is to run a train today compared to the time frame mentioned. PTC does not "operate the train." There is nothing in PTC that makes a train go, it is all about stop. PTC doesn't slow the train down for speed restrictions. Its not cruise control or a "self driving" feature. As long as the train is operated below the speed limit and within its authority, PTC takes no active role in the operation of the train. PTC is purely a penalty system.
zardoz The ability of PTC to successfully operate a train shows just how much easier it is to run a train today compared to the time frame mentioned.
He may have been thinking of Trip Optimizer, which DOES operate the train, to varying degrees of success.
TO is so good that it is not allowed to use the air brakes, and requires the Engineer to take over in numerous other situations too.
But between TO and PTC the eventual goal is to run autonomous trains. A couple of Class I's have publicly stated that.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Was the train descending a significant grade? Have there been many instances of peeing away the air on relatively flat trackage?
With the comments about a possible brake problem, what has been the underlying basis for that piece of information? Is it nothing more than one possible conclusion simply because the train did not stop?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.