Heat
wilmette2210Interesting response to the 60 minutes story. I think it would have been good had someone from AAR went on camera. https://www.railwayage.com/cs/ptc/in-dangerous-times-wise-railroaders-shouldnt-clam-up/?fbclid=IwAR1BSeojUGoIvn8HFn4RtwN4VEE69wdGrMUoM584Fa_rqHxBwY8vFSx3PTs
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidThe risks imposed by trains running under the temporary loss of signal protection exceed the risks imposed by trains running routinely without signal protection. Running at restricted speed helps FIX that.
Thank you for a dose of common sense!
The NTSB does really good work until they make their recommendations. They don't ever look at the cost effectiveness of their recommendations. It's not their job. The problem is, they get into "we told you so" mode whenever the next accident happens that might have been prevented by their recommendation. This is really irksome to me...
The show left the impression that RRs were and are slow to adopt PTC, but their 10% claim was really missing the point. 10% of the RRs might be true, but most of the class 1 mainline miles are up and running. (although there is little interoperability, so far)
The RRs are culpable of not advancing PTC or equivalent sooner on their own. They actually made a start in the 1980s, writing out the ATCS specs. But, most of this work never got past demo mode and managment got more interested in mergers than safety investment. (FWIW, the ATCS project was supposed to solve capacity issues in dark territory.)
So, there could have been fledgling ATCS systems running in the mid-90s. The progress and promise would have been enought to keep the government from feeling like they had to do "something" with all those NTSB recommendations. These could have been developed and debugged without having to bet the farm on one vendor and one system, which is what's happened with PTC when the law came down.
So, I think the RRs deserve a dose of bad press over this.
I think they are currently making the same mistake with ECP braking. It's been around for nearly 30 years now and not been advanced much past the early designs. The industry is only some bad luck away from another mandate. The PSR/big mixed train push is only going to make things worse. I doubt much attention is being paid to train/track dynamics and DPU placement.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
BaltACDRestricted speed doesn't FIX anything. There are many trains operating many miles safely in dark territory - both passenger and freight - on a daily basis. When employees do the job they are paid to do.
The risks imposed by trains running under the temporary loss of signal protection exceed the risks imposed by trains running routinely without signal protection. Running at restricted speed helps FIX that.
The following from this link:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/11/20/2018-25311/safety-advisory-related-to-temporary-signal-suspensions
“Safety Advisory 2018-02 [5]
As exemplified by the accidents described above, rail operations under the temporary loss of protections provided by an existing signal system have the potential to introduce new safety risks and amplify existing safety risks because railroad employees accustomed to the safety an existing signal system provides must operate in an environment they may not encounter on a regular basis.
A temporary signal suspension requires operating employees to immediately apply operating rules and practices different from those to which they are accustomed. Because a person's routine may include learned habits that are difficult to set aside when a temporary condition is imposed, operating employees may also need specialized instruction on the applicable rules and practices.”
BaltACDThere are many trains operating many miles safely in dark territory - both passenger and freight - on a daily basis. When employees do the job they are paid to do.
.
BaltACD Euclid BaltACD BigJim Euclid We had discussed that point in great detail right after the wreck, and the predominent consensus here was that you could not run the railroad effectively with that much speed restriction. Yet, if they had, we wouldn't have had all of those fatalities! Yep! Restricted Speed - that is the way to run the railroads to conform to the publics perception of railroads. [/sarcasm] No; running at restricted speed to approach a mainline switch that gets a lot of use and is temporarly not protected by the signals that are normally expected to protect that switch is common sense, especially with a passenger train. And I suspect you would be the first to complain about the duration of the run of the Sunset Limited when it was runing between New Orleans and Florida. The terrirory between Flomaton, AL and Talahassee, FL is all Dark territory if the train were to slow to restricted speed for every facing point switch within this territory. Restricted speed doesn't FIX anything. There are many trains operating many miles safely in dark territory - both passenger and freight - on a daily basis. When employees do the job they are paid to do.
Euclid BaltACD BigJim Euclid We had discussed that point in great detail right after the wreck, and the predominent consensus here was that you could not run the railroad effectively with that much speed restriction. Yet, if they had, we wouldn't have had all of those fatalities! Yep! Restricted Speed - that is the way to run the railroads to conform to the publics perception of railroads. [/sarcasm] No; running at restricted speed to approach a mainline switch that gets a lot of use and is temporarly not protected by the signals that are normally expected to protect that switch is common sense, especially with a passenger train.
BaltACD BigJim Euclid We had discussed that point in great detail right after the wreck, and the predominent consensus here was that you could not run the railroad effectively with that much speed restriction. Yet, if they had, we wouldn't have had all of those fatalities! Yep! Restricted Speed - that is the way to run the railroads to conform to the publics perception of railroads. [/sarcasm]
BigJim Euclid We had discussed that point in great detail right after the wreck, and the predominent consensus here was that you could not run the railroad effectively with that much speed restriction. Yet, if they had, we wouldn't have had all of those fatalities!
Euclid We had discussed that point in great detail right after the wreck, and the predominent consensus here was that you could not run the railroad effectively with that much speed restriction.
Yet, if they had, we wouldn't have had all of those fatalities!
Yep! Restricted Speed - that is the way to run the railroads to conform to the publics perception of railroads. [/sarcasm]
No; running at restricted speed to approach a mainline switch that gets a lot of use and is temporarly not protected by the signals that are normally expected to protect that switch is common sense, especially with a passenger train.
And I suspect you would be the first to complain about the duration of the run of the Sunset Limited when it was runing between New Orleans and Florida. The terrirory between Flomaton, AL and Talahassee, FL is all Dark territory if the train were to slow to restricted speed for every facing point switch within this territory. Restricted speed doesn't FIX anything. There are many trains operating many miles safely in dark territory - both passenger and freight - on a daily basis. When employees do the job they are paid to do.
No, I would not complain about restricted speed if I were riding the train. Restricted speed does FIX the danger of operating at full speed in a territory that is only temporarily dark, and where employees are accustomed to relying on signals to protect them. It is human nature to rely on a safety system (signals) and keep relying on it even though it has been temporarily made unavailable.
I think that sort of circumstance is much different than running where it is routinely dark and people are not accustomed to any backup safety system. I think there is a very good chance that the removal of routinely used signals in this case contributed to a failure to recognize the fact that added diligence was needed to verify that switch.
EuclidWe had discussed that point in great detail right after the wreck, and the predominent consensus here was that you could not run the railroad effectively with that much speed restriction.
samfp1943 Ulrich Paul of Covington Don't forget-- we also have an expert's opinion that "the tracks are in horrible shape." This was from a neighborhood electical contractor. Sensationalism sells. It sure does. I remember 60 Minutes' report on the state of rail safety some 45 years ago. I think it was Morley Safer who did that piece.. As I recall he was standing alongside a track, and after a train had passed (lead by what looked like a Wabash FA unit) he pulled a spike out of the track and held it up to the camera..sensationalism indeed (and technically vandalism too).. 60 Mins was once, a well-watched program... These days,maybe, not so much. These days and times, the "Media" has been spending any credibility, that it once had; throwing it into the furnace of politics. Any news other than that centering around the political landscape, seems to escape any reportage..."Last night's Alabama tornado, and its 23(+?) death toll is getting, what seems to be, 'honorable mention' reporting(?)" Paul of Covington's remark about "sensationalism sells" is the stock, and trade of the current media business. I think that tree68 [Larry] mentioned, as well,[paraphrased] " That it seems that 'Blood' sells in the news business." Just mark me down, as maybe, overly cynical! I'll leave it to our professionals, who 'practiced' the business of railroading to sort out the details. BaltACD's analysis seems to also be spot-on where the AMTRAK,CSX , SC, incident was concerned. The 'media' seems to slant the news, according to their own particular sets of biases and agendas. Rant Off !
Ulrich Paul of Covington Don't forget-- we also have an expert's opinion that "the tracks are in horrible shape." This was from a neighborhood electical contractor. Sensationalism sells. It sure does. I remember 60 Minutes' report on the state of rail safety some 45 years ago. I think it was Morley Safer who did that piece.. As I recall he was standing alongside a track, and after a train had passed (lead by what looked like a Wabash FA unit) he pulled a spike out of the track and held it up to the camera..sensationalism indeed (and technically vandalism too)..
Paul of Covington Don't forget-- we also have an expert's opinion that "the tracks are in horrible shape." This was from a neighborhood electical contractor. Sensationalism sells.
Don't forget-- we also have an expert's opinion that "the tracks are in horrible shape." This was from a neighborhood electical contractor.
Sensationalism sells.
It sure does. I remember 60 Minutes' report on the state of rail safety some 45 years ago. I think it was Morley Safer who did that piece.. As I recall he was standing alongside a track, and after a train had passed (lead by what looked like a Wabash FA unit) he pulled a spike out of the track and held it up to the camera..sensationalism indeed (and technically vandalism too)..
60 Mins was once, a well-watched program...
These days,maybe, not so much.
These days and times, the "Media" has been spending any credibility, that it once had; throwing it into the furnace of politics. Any news other than that centering around the political landscape, seems to escape any reportage..."Last night's Alabama tornado, and its 23(+?) death toll is getting, what seems to be, 'honorable mention' reporting(?)"
Paul of Covington's remark about "sensationalism sells" is the stock, and trade of the current media business.
I think that tree68 [Larry] mentioned, as well,[paraphrased] " That it seems that 'Blood' sells in the news business." Just mark me down, as maybe, overly cynical! I'll leave it to our professionals, who 'practiced' the business of railroading to sort out the details. BaltACD's analysis seems to also be spot-on where the AMTRAK,CSX , SC, incident was concerned.
The 'media' seems to slant the news, according to their own particular sets of biases and agendas.
Rant Off !
You seem to think journalism/media is more sensational or political today? I suggest you take a brief skim of newspapers over the past 100 years or even back to the early republic. If you did, you might learn enough to reconsider that opinion.
Quoting Euclid: "This is certainly bad PR, and the 60-Minutes piece has not misrepresented anything. " The program presented the idea that the trackage agreement as to who is responsible in case of damge was a "secret agreement." Whoever came up with this misinformation certainly did not do much, if any, research on the matter.
Johnny
Is it too much for a company that is paying a 'living wage' for personnel to perform a safety critical job for which they have been trained and qualified to perform, to actually perform the duties of the job? The operational duties of crews in train and engine service are not meaningless and inconsequential, despite how some people that hold those positions may believe.
Good, Bad or indifferent - Railroads have historically held 'The Crew' responsible for actions of the crew - without regard to individual responsibilities that the crew may assign within its performance of job actions. It is the crew's responsibilty to perform their actions in conformance with the rules that each member of the crew has been trained and qualified on.
When a football team goes 3-13 during a season, is the Left Guard the only individul that is held responsible?
Perhaps the take-away here is that "if it bleeds, it leads" journalism resulted in a "the railroads are dragging their feet" story.
The story could have said that the railroads have already converted X of Y miles over to PTC, mentioned the technical challenges, costs, and (forgive me if it did) that the reason the signals were out was specifically so the railroad could install PTC. But it did not.
Hence, the "hatchet job."
That does not absolve the failures that did occur, which have already been mentioned. But it would have cast a much better light on the railroads, etc.
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...
charlie hebdo You are all missing the big picture. Most people watching this will conclude: 1. Bad and apparently avoidable accidents with Amtrak (sometimes involving the freight rails) do happen. [True] DA! accidents happen everywhere 2. The fired engineer on the CSX train said he wouldn't ride Amtrak. [True] The opinion of one man who appears to have a significant bias. 3. Amtrak is not safe. [An opinion shared by a former Amtrak engineer many times on here] Again, one mans opinion and perhaps (probably) biased. 4. The FRA is just an extension of the AAR. [Conjecture, but Zumwalt's statement was damaging.] Zumwalt was in CYA mode while being seen by so many. 5. The railroads have been very slow to adopt PTC. [The excuses may or may not be valid. But Zumwalt's comment was very suggestive.] Again CYA A lot more people watch 60 Minutes than read this forum or work for the rails. If you think this is good PR, you are in denial. If the piece is deliberately in error, perhaps the AAR should demand a correction or sue. But that will never happen. The railroad industry should not honor this piece with any further publicity; with a lawsuit or even a public comment.
You are all missing the big picture. Most people watching this will conclude:
1. Bad and apparently avoidable accidents with Amtrak (sometimes involving the freight rails) do happen. [True] DA! accidents happen everywhere
2. The fired engineer on the CSX train said he wouldn't ride Amtrak. [True] The opinion of one man who appears to have a significant bias.
3. Amtrak is not safe. [An opinion shared by a former Amtrak engineer many times on here] Again, one mans opinion and perhaps (probably) biased.
4. The FRA is just an extension of the AAR. [Conjecture, but Zumwalt's statement was damaging.] Zumwalt was in CYA mode while being seen by so many.
5. The railroads have been very slow to adopt PTC. [The excuses may or may not be valid. But Zumwalt's comment was very suggestive.] Again CYA
A lot more people watch 60 Minutes than read this forum or work for the rails. If you think this is good PR, you are in denial. If the piece is deliberately in error, perhaps the AAR should demand a correction or sue. But that will never happen.
tree68 BigJim I have to wonder, if the signals were out, why was the Amtrak train travelling more than "Restricted speed"? My take - It had become dark territory, at least for the moment.
BigJim
My take - It had become dark territory, at least for the moment.
charlie hebdo You are all missing the big picture. Most people watching this will conclude: 1. Bad and apparently avoidable accidents with Amtrak (sometimes involving the freight rails) do happen. [True] 2. The fired engineer on the CSX train said he wouldn't ride Amtrak. [True] 3. Amtrak is not safe. [An opinion shared by a former Amtrak engineer many times on here] 4. The FRA is just an extension of the AAR. [Conjecture, but Zumwalt's statement was damaging.] 5. The railroads have been very slow to adopt PTC. [The excuses may or may not be valid. But Zumwalt's comment was very suggestive.] A lot more people watch 60 Minutes than read this forum or work for the rails. If you think this is good PR, you are in denial. If the piece is deliberately in error, perhaps the AAR should demand a correction or sue. But that will never happen.
1. Bad and apparently avoidable accidents with Amtrak (sometimes involving the freight rails) do happen. [True]
2. The fired engineer on the CSX train said he wouldn't ride Amtrak. [True]
3. Amtrak is not safe. [An opinion shared by a former Amtrak engineer many times on here]
4. The FRA is just an extension of the AAR. [Conjecture, but Zumwalt's statement was damaging.]
5. The railroads have been very slow to adopt PTC. [The excuses may or may not be valid. But Zumwalt's comment was very suggestive.]
I am not missing the big picture. This is certainly bad PR, and the 60-Minutes piece has not misrepresented anything. In my opinion, the only thing misrepresenting something was the engineer’s statement of his thoughts about the need to confirm the switch position. In my opinion, his 60-Minutes statement conflicts with his interview published shortly after the crash.
The fact that PTC would have prevented this crash does not mean that CSX is to blame for the crash. It seems to me that the fault lies mutually between the engineer and conductor since the paperwork seemingly required them to both certify that the switch was properly lined.
tree68 BigJim I have to wonder, if the signals were out, why was the Amtrak train travelling more than "Restricted speed"? My take - It had become dark territory, at least for the moment. Amtrak was likely issued an EC-1 (track warrant). Not likely they would have been allowed 79 MPH, but normal freight speed wouldn't be out of the question. Dark territory relies on everyone doing their job - restoring switches, reporting correctly, etc. Apparently, that didn't happen.
BigJim I have to wonder, if the signals were out, why was the Amtrak train travelling more than "Restricted speed"?
My take - It had become dark territory, at least for the moment. Amtrak was likely issued an EC-1 (track warrant). Not likely they would have been allowed 79 MPH, but normal freight speed wouldn't be out of the question.
Dark territory relies on everyone doing their job - restoring switches, reporting correctly, etc. Apparently, that didn't happen.
Maximum speeds allowed on unsignaled track is 59 mph for passenger, 49 mph for freight trains. Includes when signals are taken out of service or running against the current of traffic when a track isn't signaled for both directions.
Jeff
daveklepperOne important fact was glossed over in the 60 Minutes report. There was an excelent safety system that had done a good job for preventing accidents for years. It was disabled to make PTC easier to install. it should have been left in place and some means found to install PTC without dissabling it until PTC was operational. It isn't rocket science.
Dave - when it comes to signalling - you cannot leave one system working while you are 'actively' cutting over to a new system. The process is analogus to changing saw blades on your circular saw while the blade is in operation. The blade must be stopped to allow it to be changed.
A signal suspensions covers the period of time when the 'new' PTC signals and equipment that have already been installed on the ground at the appropriate locations.
Control Point signalling is connected to the track circuits and Control Points that are on either side of the control point being upgraded. The new signal equipment has to be connected to the appropriate circuitry of currently operating system and still exiting things while at the same time the Old Signals and circuitry are being inactivated and removed. Once the new circuitry has been connected and the old circuitry has been removed - then the hard part begins - TESTING - insuring that the new system actually performs as it is supposed to - in all the operating conditions that the new equipment has been installed to protect.
I have not worked in the Signal Dept, so I don't know the specifc checks and balances that apply to them in the field during signal suspension cut overs. I have worked with numerous Signal Suspensions, at least as CSX was doing them BEFORE PSR came down the pike. The normal routine - in the week preceeding a Signal Suspension - a Superintendent's Bulletin would be published indicating the SPECIFIC locations where the signals would be taken Out of Service, the starting time and the specific means of operation that would be implemented during the period that signals would be Out of Service. On my division, a contact telephone 'officer' would be established and EVERY CREW going on duty that would be operating IN or THROUGH the area of the Signal Suspension was REQUIRED to contact this 'officer' to one on one review what the requirements for their job would be in operating In or THROUGH the area of suspended signals. (in the Cayce incident, both the Amtrak crew and the CSX crew would have contacted this 'officer' when going on duty - if the incident had occured on my division in pre PSR days).
The Signal Suspension Bulletin will also specify what working signals 'outside' the suspended area will mean - ie. at a Control Point the controls entry into the suspended area (Signals Suspended at B & C - Signals at A & D still function). Suspended area will be from departure of A to arrival at D. Access to the area of suspension is conveyed by a Track Warrant issued by the Train Dispatcher under the rules that apply to TWC territory. The Bulletin will specify that the signals A and D do not convey movement authority into the territory within the suspension area UNLESS the crew also holds the corresponding TWC authority - those signals DO NOT convey block condition authority - only the TWC authority does.
The CSX crew in the incident HELD TWC authority within the Signal Suspension area to perform the duties that their job function required. When the CSX crew completed their job function they released the TWC authority they held - a REQUIREMENT before releasing the authority is to have the Main Track switches within the Signal Suspension area that they have handled HAVE BEEN LINED FOR MAIN TRACK MOVEMENT. It is ONLY AFTER the CSX crew releases their TWC authority for the area that the Train Dispatcher will issue the authority to the Amtrak crew to operate through that area.
Additional note - by CSX Rules - person at the operating controls of a locomotive CANNOT copy 'written' authorities while the train is moving. If the engineer is alone in the cab, the train must be stopped for him to copy and repeat the authority. Compliance with this rule is why the Conductor was on the locomotive at the time of the collision.
Signal Suspensions are (or were) not something that was taken lightly in the enviornment that I worked under.
BigJim NorthWest CSX disabled signal system for PTC work. Amtrak train crashes into CSX train due to human error. 60 Minutes bashes CSX for not installing PTC...? I have to wonder, if the signals were out, why was the Amtrak train travelling more than "Restricted speed"?
NorthWest CSX disabled signal system for PTC work. Amtrak train crashes into CSX train due to human error. 60 Minutes bashes CSX for not installing PTC...?
CSX disabled signal system for PTC work.
Amtrak train crashes into CSX train due to human error.
60 Minutes bashes CSX for not installing PTC...?
I have to wonder, if the signals were out, why was the Amtrak train travelling more than "Restricted speed"?
We had discussed that point in great detail right after the wreck, and the predominent consensus here was that you could not run the railroad effectively with that much speed restriction. I have no idea what speed was actually authorized, nor what the normal track speed was through that area.
Running dark may be technically legal, but it strikes me as asking for trouble to switch over to running dark in an area accustomed to relying on signals. As I recall, the NTSB responded to there being a need for restricted speed in this incident.
BigJimI have to wonder, if the signals were out, why was the Amtrak train travelling more than "Restricted speed"?
Deggesty"We have learned that Amtrak agreed decades ago, in secret indemnity contracts, to be responsible for damages even if the freight company is at fault and the accident occurs on the freight company's tracks. "--quoting Mark James I had long understood that the standard procedure in establishing trackage rights was to hold the road with rights responsible for all damages even when the owning road's employees were at fault.
I had long understood that the standard procedure in establishing trackage rights was to hold the road with rights responsible for all damages even when the owning road's employees were at fault.
Haven't we been all over this, in the Amtrak 188 threads?
No smoking gun, though -- that is, if "Stahl et al." actually remembered their coverage of some of the post-accident shenanigans, or had done their due diligence. Someone like Mike should check to see exactly what the network's coverage contained. And prepare to 'out' them if this new claim turns out (as I strongly suspect it will) to be expedience.
charlie hebdo And it is still a popular program.
And it is still a popular program.
So is TMZ.
An "expensive model collector"
One important fact was glossed over in the 60 Minutes report. There was an excelent safety system that had done a good job for preventing accidents for years. It was disabled to make PTC easier to install. it should have been left in place and some means found to install PTC without dissabling it until PTC was operational. It isn't rocket science.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.