CSX Fatalities Probable Cause, Ivy City, DC

14247 views
729 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 19,432 posts
Posted by tree68 on Thursday, August 01, 2019 4:33 PM

BaltACD

Without regard to the actions or inactions of any other parties - the deaths of the CSX employees were the result of their lack of demonstrated situational awareness when in the foul/kill zone of another carrier with whom protection for their safety had not not been established, nor had the CSX employees requested it.

Which has been my point from the beginning.  And trying to pin the blame on others pretty much ignores that simple fact.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 1,640 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Thursday, August 01, 2019 5:28 PM

tree68

 

BaltACD

Without regard to the actions or inactions of any other parties - the deaths of the CSX employees were the result of their lack of demonstrated situational awareness when in the foul/kill zone of another carrier with whom protection for their safety had not not been established, nor had the CSX employees requested it.

 

Which has been my point from the beginning.  And trying to pin the blame on others pretty much ignores that simple fact.

 

Yes.  Call me a cynic but I smell another agenda or two at play. 

  • Member since
    May, 2015
  • 1,185 posts
Posted by 243129 on Thursday, August 01, 2019 8:21 PM

BaltACD

Without regard to the actions or inactions of any other parties - the deaths of the CSX employees were the result of their lack of demonstrated situational awareness when in the foul/kill zone of another carrier with whom protection for their safety had not not been established, nor had the CSX employees requested it.

 

 

That was established long ago on this and other threads.

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 16,653 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, August 01, 2019 8:35 PM

243129
 
BaltACD

Without regard to the actions or inactions of any other parties - the deaths of the CSX employees were the result of their lack of demonstrated situational awareness when in the foul/kill zone of another carrier with whom protection for their safety had not not been established, nor had the CSX employees requested it. 

That was established long ago on this and other threads.

So why are you and others trying to hold other individuals responsible.

  • Member since
    May, 2015
  • 1,185 posts
Posted by 243129 on Thursday, August 01, 2019 9:26 PM

BaltACD
So why are you and others trying to hold other individuals responsible.

The two CSX employees were responsible for their demise. The other two Amtrak employees (175 & 66) involved were exposed for their inadequacies because of this accident. No blame is assigned to them.

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 5,485 posts
Posted by Euclid on Thursday, August 01, 2019 9:52 PM

tree68
 
243129
So you are advocating not erring on the side of caution and providing any chance at all that applying the brakes in emergency might afford escape time no matter how remote that possibility?

Not at all.  She apparently was taking action to slow the train.  Fifteen seconds isn't much time to work with.  Even Bucky has said that going into emergency might only provide a couple more seconds before impact.  That the crew apparently never saw 175 right up to the point of impact says that two more seconds would have made no difference.

What I have a problem with is the idea that making an emergency application should be a rote reaction.  

 

How do you know it says that two seconds would not have made any differnence; if the two seconds were not given?  If there were 15 seconds from point of seeing the two men on the track up to the poing of striking them,  I don't see how that makes it possible to conclude that 2 more seconds would not have done any good.  Just because they did not move in 15 seconds does not mean that they would not have moved if additional time were allotted.  They could have realized that 175 was approaching them at any point, and that realization would likely have been instantaneous.  In another half second, they could have gotten clear.  That did not happen in 15 seconds, but it grew more likely as the train got closer. 

If you conclude that because they did not move in 15 seconds, they would not have moved in 17 seconds, it has no logical basis.  If it did, you could say if they did not move in 15 seconds, they would not have moved in a hour.  If all they had was 15 seconds, there is no way to know what would have happend if they had more time. 

Every second raised the probability that they would become aware of their situation.

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 19,432 posts
Posted by tree68 on Thursday, August 01, 2019 9:58 PM

Euclid
How do you know it says that if the two seconds were not given?  If there were 15 seconds from point of seeing the two men on the track up to the poing of striking them,  I don't see how that makes it possible to conclude that 2 more seconds would not have done any good.  Just because they did not move in 15 seconds does not mean that they would not have moved if additional time were allotted.  They could have realized that 175 was approaching them at any point, and that realization would likely have been instantaneous.  In another half second, they could have gotten clear.  That did not happen in 15 seconds, but it grew more likely as the train got closer.  If you conclude that because they did not move in 15 seconds, they would not have moved in 17 seconds, it has no logical basis.  If it did, you could say if they did not move in 15 seconds, they would not have moved in a hour.  If all they had was 15 seconds, there is no way to know what would have happend if they had more time. 

I don't know - and neither do you.  

In the end, it all comes down to two people who were someplace they should not have been, not paying attention to things they should have been paying attention to.  

The incident was no one's fault but theirs.  

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 5,485 posts
Posted by Euclid on Thursday, August 01, 2019 10:11 PM

tree68
 
Euclid
How do you know that two more seconds would not have made any difference if the two more seconds were not given? 
 
If there were 15 seconds from point of seeing the two men on the track up to the poing of striking them,  I don't see how that makes it possible to conclude that 2 more seconds would not have done any good.  Just because they did not move in 15 seconds does not mean that they would not have moved if additional time were allotted.  They could have realized that 175 was approaching them at any point, and that realization would likely have been instantaneous.  In another half second, they could have gotten clear.  That did not happen in 15 seconds, but it grew more likely as the train got closer.  If you conclude that because they did not move in 15 seconds, they would not have moved in 17 seconds, it has no logical basis.  If it did, you could say if they did not move in 15 seconds, they would not have moved in a hour.  If all they had was 15 seconds, there is no way to know what would have happend if they had more time. 

 

I don't know - and neither do you.  

 

 

I agree that I don't know.  I have always said that, but just above, you said you do know.  You said this:

That the crew apparently never saw 175 right up to the point of impact says that two more seconds would have made no difference.

 

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 19,432 posts
Posted by tree68 on Friday, August 02, 2019 6:41 PM

Euclid
I agree that I don't know.  I have always said that, but just above, you said you do know.  You said this:

Let me take your usual tack here - "That was just my opinion..."

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 5,485 posts
Posted by Euclid on Thursday, August 08, 2019 5:18 PM

In reviewing this, I conclude that the timespan of elements in the approach of the two Amtrak trains is much shorter than what the report suggests.  We know that the people on the track could not have been seen until the two trains came around respective curves and entered the final straight section of track with a clear line of sight to the two conductors on the track ahead of #175.   

The overall implication in the report data is that both engineers saw the two victims at about the same time since the two trains converged at the location of the two victims simultaneously.  And also it is implied, that point where the two victims were first seen by both engineers was 15-20 seconds prior to impact.  This is implied because it was estimated by the engineer of #175.

I conclude that even though both engineers had a clear line of sight to the two victims perhaps as far back as 1500 feet each, the actual visual contact would not have been possible at that distance.  Therefore, I conclude that visual sighting of the two victims took place not more than 6-7 seconds before impact, and the horn blowing began about 5 seconds before impact. 

Seven seconds at the speed they were traveling is 756 feet.  Even if the two victims could have been seen at that distance, I doubt it would have been possible to draw any conclusions about what was being seen.  I doubt it could be determined whether it was one person or two people, or whether they were fouling the track or in the clear.

So I conclude that the entire time span including the sighting of the two victims, and the horn blowing was no longer than 7 seconds, and maybe as short as 4 seconds.  But I would have to check the event recorder for #175 again to confirm that it does not conflict with my estimate.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy