A couple questions: A train on a Class 1 railroad cuts out 20 or so cars from a switching yard and moves them to storage tracks about 1-1/4 mile away. The trip is literally over the river, through the woods, around a corner and up the steepest railroad grade in the state. There are no crossings in the 1-1/4 mile trip; the train goes over one busy street and under another. At the far end of the trip a utility man in a pickup is throwing the switch. In general, would a man be riding the front car? One of the tank cars had a stenciled note that said "Liquid petroleum gas. Not oderized". I thought the odor was put in for safety reasons. Doesn't the warning sort of translate to "In the event of a gas leak, if you are close enough to read this you are probably already dead"?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
My take on propane odorization is it's for gas going for distribution, as in fuel. Propane going to a chemical plant for feedstock (where the odorant would be a contaminant) would be exempted. Propane is an asphyxiant and collects in confined or low-lying places, but has low toxicity. There are a lot more toxic chemicals, carried in tank cars, than propane. Of course it is very flammable. My guess is that if a propane tank car was leaking, you would hear it.
There darned well had better be somebody on the point. The utility man/brakie can't protect against what he can't see. It isn't only crossings that come into play.
Murphy Siding In general, would a man be riding the front car?
In general, would a man be riding the front car?
If they're pushing, yes.
Literally every other detail in the scenario doesn't matter - if they're pushing, the brakeman/trainman is riding the point.
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
Depends what the rules say. If I have exclusive use of a section of main track and there are no crossings or lights, I can back my train up to get the conductor on the head end. He does not have to be on the point. CROR.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
Switches (rigid); Spring derails (a favorite); trespassers; M/W forces in yard limits protected by a flag, cars not in the clear....
As a roadmaster, I heard plenty of excuses on backing incidents. As a railroad surveyor I did three backing related fatality surveys (including one for a neighbor I knew for 20+ years and the work train crews knew there were people "back there" fixing signs from a hi-rail in "joint working limits" that a jordan spreader had knocked down under a situation similar to the OP....)
Even backing-up the length of your train where you just had been can be lethal.
mudchickenEven backing-up the length of your train where you just had been can be lethal.
But is permissible under some rulebooks.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Such as the CROR in Canada when you have proper protection under 'Known to be Clear' in yards and exclusive track use in CTC/OCS (dark territory).
It is my understanding that CSX changed from making pickups and drops on the head end to the tail end. This leaves the conductor a full trainlength away from the locomotive when all is said and done.
I watched a CSX train back up its entire length the past fall, in order to pick up the conductor. We're talking hundreds of feet - 50 to 70 cars, maybe more.
That said, I've called backup moves from the ground, but I could see the entire movement, and it was our usual short train.
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...
Backing up is allowed under our rules for trains on a main or signalled track. It can't go over crossings, either public or private. It can't back up into the limits of a Form B, protection men/machines.
However, in Murphy's case I don't think one could say it was a back up move. It sounds like a shoving move from the get-go. Generally, unless there are other instructions or protocols in play, the leading edge would need to be protected. A shove wouldn't necessarily need to be protected by a person riding it. Someone on the ground ahead of the move, who can see it and the track from his/her vantage to the end of the move, could take charge of it. In Murphy's description, someone would probably have to ride until the U-man can see it. Once that point was reached, the person on the shove could get off and catch the engine while the U-man has the shove.
We have also gone to mostly rear end setouts. It makes sense in some cases, not so much in others. Mostly, because some of the size of some of the setouts. I've handled a mile and a half's worth of cars on a headend setout, where the conductor had to ride it. A half mile from where he made the cut (at a crossing) to the switch and then a half mile back to the yard tracks. We've had a few fatalities from people being bounced off long cuts on shoving moves. For awhile, they made it almost impossible to ride a shove.
Jeff
jeffhergert Backing up is allowed under our rules for trains on a main or signalled track. It can't go over crossings, either public or private. It can't back up into the limits of a Form B, protection men/machines. However, in Murphy's case I don't think one could say it was a back up move. It sounds like a shoving move from the get-go. Generally, unless there are other instructions or protocols in play, the leading edge would need to be protected. A shove wouldn't necessarily need to be protected by a person riding it. Someone on the ground ahead of the move, who can see it and the track from his/her vantage to the end of the move, could take charge of it. In Murphy's description, someone would probably have to ride until the U-man can see it. Once that point was reached, the person on the shove could get off and catch the engine while the U-man has the shove. We have also gone to mostly rear end setouts. It makes sense in some cases, not so much in others. Mostly, because some of the size of some of the setouts. I've handled a mile and a half's worth of cars on a headend setout, where the conductor had to ride it. A half mile from where he made the cut (at a crossing) to the switch and then a half mile back to the yard tracks. We've had a few fatalities from people being bounced off long cuts on shoving moves. For awhile, they made it almost impossible to ride a shove. Jeff
Murphy Siding jeffhergert We've had a few fatalities from people being bounced off long cuts on shoving moves. For awhile, they made it almost impossible to ride a shove. Jeff Yikes! 'Seems like you'd want to tie yourself to the car the way bull riders and bronc riders tie themselves to the saddle.
jeffhergert We've had a few fatalities from people being bounced off long cuts on shoving moves. For awhile, they made it almost impossible to ride a shove. Jeff
We've had a few fatalities from people being bounced off long cuts on shoving moves. For awhile, they made it almost impossible to ride a shove.
Yikes! 'Seems like you'd want to tie yourself to the car the way bull riders and bronc riders tie themselves to the saddle.
The slack shift in a cut of cars being handled by a locomotive can easily exceed ones ability to hold on to the grab irons - especially if you are only holding on with one hand as the other hand is holding on to either a radio or a lantern. For a while CSX was promoting having the individual protecting the 'point' walking on the ground - leading the movement at walking speed, I believe several individuals were injured trying to watch where they were going as well as watching where the lead part of the shove was.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
And, that's why shoving platforms are used in some places.
Johnny
BaltACD Murphy Siding jeffhergert We've had a few fatalities from people being bounced off long cuts on shoving moves. For awhile, they made it almost impossible to ride a shove. Jeff Yikes! 'Seems like you'd want to tie yourself to the car the way bull riders and bronc riders tie themselves to the saddle. The slack shift in a cut of cars being handled by a locomotive can easily exceed ones ability to hold on to the grab irons - especially if you are only holding on with one hand as the other hand is holding on to either a radio or a lantern. For a while CSX was promoting having the individual protecting the 'point' walking on the ground - leading the movement at walking speed, I believe several individuals were injured trying to watch where they were going as well as watching where the lead part of the shove was.
We've had guys written up for turning their head when walking a shove. You also had to stop walking to talk on the radio.
Foe awhile after the fatalities, one could only ride a shove if the move was more than 1000ft. Also only if there wasn't someway to have another employee at the far end protect the move or a ride available to reposition the conductor to the far end. There have since been some changes to that, even before the PSR push.
Ah yes, changes to rules. Safety is of the first importance, unless it slows down operations or is any other way inconvenient for the management. Often promulgated by committees more familiar with Powerpoint than riding the point.
cx500 Ah yes, changes to rules. Safety is of the first importance, unless it slows down operations or is any other way inconvenient for the management. Often promulgated by committees more familiar with Powerpoint than riding the point.
Deggesty cx500 Ah yes, changes to rules. Safety is of the first importance, unless it slows down operations or is any other way inconvenient for the management. Often promulgated by committees more familiar with Powerpoint than riding the point. Ah, yes! It helps when employees who have been on the ground rise to higher places and make use of their ground knowledge in their new capacities.
Ah, yes! It helps when employees who have been on the ground rise to higher places and make use of their ground knowledge in their new capacities.
Safety does hit the bottom line - Injury Settlements cost money - lots of it.
BaltACDSafety does hit the bottom line - Injury Settlements cost money - lots of it.
Of course, but that may be somebody else's budget! Meanwhile managers have had a year or two of bonuses for meeting personal targets and moved upwards.
John
cx500 BaltACD Safety does hit the bottom line - Injury Settlements cost money - lots of it. Of course, but that may be somebody else's budget! Meanwhile managers have had a year or two of bonuses for meeting personal targets and moved upwards. John
BaltACD Safety does hit the bottom line - Injury Settlements cost money - lots of it.
The CEO's budget is the corporations bottom line. If the CEO is fine with throwing away money in Injury Settlements safety takes a back seat. If the CEO wants to maximize profits, improved safety reduces Injury Settlements and he gets to laugh all the way to the bank and shareholders.
If the CEO only pays lip service to safety he signs off on promotions to individuals that have demonstrated by their safety records they don't care. A corporation rots from the head - just like a fish.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.