CSX Fatalities Probable Cause, Ivy City, DC

[Euclid]

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.

[tree68]

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..."

[Euclid]

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.

 

[tree68]

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.  

[Euclid]

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.

[243129]

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.

[BaltACD]

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.

[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.

[charlie hebdo]

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. 

[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.

[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.

 

[Overmod]

tree68

Considering the newest loco I run is well over 50 years old... Blended braking, if I'm not already in dynamics, will take upwards of 20 seconds to set up...

I'm surprised you can get it at all -- my understanding was that if you went hard into the air the dynamics dropped off the line to preclude wheelslide, and you'd have to do something like bail off the independent to get DB back. 

I should have been much more clear that the situation involved modern Amtrak power, modern Amtrak brakes ... and nominal Amtrak procedure for using the brake, which I'm still waiting to see delineated.  The blended braking here is carefully programmed and computer-regulated precisely so that high-speed braking is as prompt and effective as possible.  

I would opine that 175's engineer was making an effort, even if she hadn't reached that part of the "algorithm" that calls for going into emergency until after the collision...

I don't think there is part of the algorithm that says you do -- 66 on the other side didn't, and there is nothing to be gained ... but a few things to be lost ... by going to emergency only after striking someone.  It's that, not the level of care she showed before the impact, that I have the issue with.

I, for one, would probably be extremely angry at the victims for putting me in that position.

I'd get down off the engine and scream at them.  Get the police and press charges to 'enhance the experience' so they'll never, ever, ever do something so stupid again.

If they lived through it.  And, as you say, if they didn't:

They made a bad choice, and now I would have to suffer for it.

Reason #1 for the emergency brake when it matters: it was their bad choice and you gave them every chance to survive it.

[tree68]

Overmod

If it takes anyone 15 seconds to accomplish those actions... although I'm not an engineer, I'd suggest you need to be in a decidedly different range of employment.

Considering the newest loco I run is well over 50 years old...  Blended braking, if I'm not already in dynamics, will take upwards of 20 seconds to set up...  

Now that we've introduced the moral aspect into the discussion, I'll agree that whatever the engineer can do to make it look like he/she did something will carry a lot of weight with the jury, and perhaps assuage some of the guilt the engineer may feel.

Even if it doesn't change the outcome.

I would opine that 175's engineer was making an effort, even if she hadn't reached that part of the "algorithm" that calls for going into emergency until after the collision.  I doubt she "withheld" said application.  

I, for one, would probably be extremely angry at the victims for putting me in that posistion.  They made a bad choice, and now I would have to suffer for it.

And, before you pillory me for having that opinion - I've been in fire and EMS for over 40 years.  I have come to find it difficult to feel sorry for a drunk who has piled into a tree and killed himself, and even harder if that drunk kills or injures other people in the process.  Their family, yes.

 

[charlie hebdo]

Overmod

I find I must have been traumatized by these people as a child, as I still have a strong response to this when I see it:

I dind't care for licorice as a child.  I still don't like coming across black jelly beans in mix.  It was a particular betrayal that love of railroads had to be associated with That Darn Taste.

 

Betrayal, I tell you.

And of course you can bet I got teased with the 'choo choo' monicker from time to time, too, although I did get the last laugh in high school... good thing I'm not serious, right?

 

I can empathize accurtely with you.  Although I loved rich, juicy black licorice as a youngster (Switzers, wrapped in cellophane was my prefered brand) the Good n Plenty marque was a different story.  I don't really know how many times I was teased using their little jingle about "Choo choo Charlie" to my dismay.  It didn't help that there were those creations of Madison Avenue, using my moniker, the jingle for "Wildroot Cream Oil" and numerous commercials for Starkist tuna.

[Murphy Siding]

Euclid

 

 

Murphy Siding

 

243129

 

tree68

I believe she acted within the the scope of her training and experience.

 

 

So you contend that Amtrak trained her not to "dump" the train until impact?

 

tree68

Given the apparent situation, I don't believe anything she could have done would have changed the outcome.

 

 

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?

 

 

 

 

I presume this will rub you the wrong way, but someone has to say it, so here goes: The tone you are using is not condusive to any real "discussion" of the topic at hand. I was expecting one of your questions to be "Did you stop beating your wife"?

    This is a lively and interesting topic. There are several knowledgable people involved in the discussion, and a fair amount of interested parties. How 'bout we all try to shelve our attitudes- me included?

 

 

 

 

 

I think you are imagining a bad tone.  I see nothing unreasonable in that exhange that you quoted.  It seems like entirely fair and reasonable questions and answers.  You seem to be objecting to there being disagreement on the the subject. There nothing insulting in that quote. 

What is it that you object to?

 

So, have you stopped beating your wife?

[zardoz]

Euclid

At least a thousand times, in several different threads, I have made the point that the mere chance of saving a life is worth more than the cost of any damage to the train or the schedule.

Saving a life?

Would that include punks standing on your track throwing rocks (or shooting) at the cab of a different train?

And what level of damage would you find acceptable, and how would you know if any particular situation would exceed your limit?

Do you believe the same 'rule' should apply to freight operations?

What if the dumping of air causes a derailment and the opposing train crashes into your derailment? Are the innocent lives of the crewmen in that train less important that the life of some scumbag vandal?

Sorry, Euclid, but your (quite understandable) lack of understanding of the realities of train operations becomes apparent in the types of questions you propose and the statements you sometimes make. 

[Overmod]

I find I must have been traumatized by these people as a child, as I still have a strong response to this when I see it:

I dind't care for licorice as a child.  I still don't like coming across black jelly beans in mix.  It was a particular betrayal that love of railroads had to be associated with That Darn Taste.

Complicating this was that the same company, in a very similar box, offered a delicious product called Good 'N Fruity -- but did they ever railroad with that?  Oh no!  

Betrayal, I tell you.

And of course you can bet I got teased with the 'choo choo' monicker from time to time, too, although I did get the last laugh in high school... good thing I'm not serious, right?

[Euclid]

Overmod

 

 

The 'dancing' is about how quickly the emergency brake gets applied in an accident like this -- obviously it makes no sense to apply it 'upon impact' if it is going to be applied at all, other than in some kind of rationalization.  You went to considerable pains, at considerable length, to argue with many folks that prompt use of the emergency brake as soon as the conductors came into view was the 'correct thing to do.'  Then you started qualifying the idea for some reason, as if you'd never said that prompt use of the brake was what you'd been so avidly advocating, and at least to me trying to claim you'd never said you'd advocated prompt use of the brake as a default response.

Will you be as specific in noting when you would, or would not, advocate application of the emergency brake during one of these events -- as a one-time clear statement of what you believe?

 

Okay, thanks for your answer.  I thought that what I believed was entirely clear, but I will think about and write a synopsis in the best compostion possible.  But first, I want to address something you said above. In that quote, you say this:

"Then you started qualifying the idea for some reason, as if you'd never said that prompt use of the brake was what you'd been so avidly advocating, and at least to me trying to claim you'd never said you'd advocated prompt use of the brake as a default response."

When you say I "began qualifying the idea for some reason..."  When did I do that?  Where did I say anything like that? 

Maybe it was in disussion with Tree.  I had characterized his position as wanting to withhold an emergency application until after impact, or maybe just use a service applcaition, but in any case, not using an emergency application prior to impact.  

Then he characterized my position as advocating always always making an emergency application as early as possible.  So I went to pains to clarify that there is a range in the distant approach to seeing a potential conflict in which I would not avocate making an emergency application.  The reason is that it is too far away to be practical prevention of collisions.  For one thing, if a person would react that far away, there would be no need for the braking to be an emergency application.  A service application would suffice.  And at that distance, I don't know how the need for stopping to avoid a collision would even be defined.

But prior to this discussion with Tree, a page or two back, I thought it went without saying that I was not suggesting that an emergency applicaition should be made as soon as any slight, distant potential conflict appears at the earliest sighting. 

But I will think about this and see if I can write a rule.  I will make it black and white, like a railroad rule. 

 

 

[BaltACD]

[Overmod]

tree68

 

Overmod

The only argument is how long you give the horn, lights, warning on the radio... before you go to the conscience-based emergency brake. 

Horn, bell, knock off power, start applying brakes (blended braking was mentioned - how long is the set-up for dynamic braking on that locomotive?), start applying brakes.    This all takes time.

But the times overlap, as do the actions (to an only slightly lesser extent)

For reference, watch (and consult with as necessary) the details in the P42 orientation video -- note their reference to making a 'safe, on-time trip every time': while the controls on an ACS64 may work a bit differently, they wouldn't take any longer time to 'de-actuate.'

So: You see what looks like employees in vests where they shouldn't be.  Hit the horn and the lights (the bell comes on automatically and would sound until manually stopped) -- ah, what? Maybe a second for reaction time, and a second or two if you tap on the horn button a few times?  Another 3/4 second or so to see they aren't reacting at all ... that's when your brake "prioritization" comes in.  Note the description of what you do on a P42 to get blended braking vs. emergency: hint: it ain't very difficult to get emergency from full blended.

She wasn't motoring (in suppression for a speed restriction) so that added, what? a half second to pull the power off? doesn't apply.  (In any case it would drop out in emergency...)

If it takes anyone 15 seconds to accomplish those actions... although I'm not an engineer, I'd suggest you need to be in a decidedly different range of employment.

Oops - your 15 seconds is up.

But, as I said to Euclid, that's not the point here.  We're not concerned with whether you'll inevitably hit them if they don't jump -- that was a foregone conclusion from the moment you could actually resolve them at any practical distance.  You're trying, for moral reasons, to extend the possible recognition time they have to get clear of you.  That's the reason for the perhaps 3% 'improvement' given by full emergency over full blended.  Not that you stop, but that you did anything possible under the circumstances.

[Overmod]

Euclid

At least a thousand times, in several different threads, I have made the point that the mere chance of saving a life is worth more than the cost of any damage to the train or the schedule.  In black and white terms, I stand completely opposed to the belief that an emergency application, when it could be beneficial to saving a life; should be withheld until impact to make sure the application is not made in vain.

This is not the issue here, and never was.  I would like to think that Amtrak 'training' does not teach 'go to emergency after you hit somebody because then you know you have to stop' -- there are a couple of things I perceive to be pointless in that action, but absent specific teaching materials or policies I can't say that was something Amtrak condoned rather than something Sahara rationalized.

The 'dancing' is about how quickly the emergency brake gets applied in an accident like this -- obviously it makes no sense to apply it 'upon impact' if it is going to be applied at all, other than in some kind of rationalization.  You went to considerable pains, at considerable length, to argue with many folks that prompt use of the emergency brake as soon as the conductors came into view was the 'correct thing to do.'  Then you started qualifying the idea for some reason, as if you'd never said that prompt use of the brake was what you'd been so avidly advocating, and at least to me trying to claim you'd never said you'd advocated prompt use of the brake as a default response.

I'm not going to pretend that my opinion on this subject hasn't changed over the course of discussion of this accident: I was initially not in favor of using full emergency in a 'hopeless case' and have come to agree in principle with both you and Joe that the 'moral' thing to do is to go to emergency as early as observing you don't get a recognition from 'whistling and lights', in part for the stated reason that 'even a short additional time for reaction might preserve life', and in part to assuage conscience that everything that might have mattered has been tried.  Will you be as specific in noting when you would, or would not, advocate application of the emergency brake during one of these events -- as a one-time clear statement of what you believe?

[Euclid]

Murphy Siding

 

243129

 

tree68

I believe she acted within the the scope of her training and experience.

 

 

So you contend that Amtrak trained her not to "dump" the train until impact?

 

tree68

Given the apparent situation, I don't believe anything she could have done would have changed the outcome.

 

 

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?

 

 

 

 

I presume this will rub you the wrong way, but someone has to say it, so here goes: The tone you are using is not condusive to any real "discussion" of the topic at hand. I was expecting one of your questions to be "Did you stop beating your wife"?

    This is a lively and interesting topic. There are several knowledgable people involved in the discussion, and a fair amount of interested parties. How 'bout we all try to shelve our attitudes- me included?

 

 

I think you are imagining a bad tone.  I see nothing unreasonable in that exhange that you quoted.  It seems like entirely fair and reasonable questions and answers.  You seem to be objecting to there being disagreement on the the subject. There nothing insulting in that quote. 

What is it that you object to?

[Murphy Siding]

243129

 

tree68

I believe she acted within the the scope of her training and experience.

 

 

So you contend that Amtrak trained her not to "dump" the train until impact?

 

tree68

Given the apparent situation, I don't believe anything she could have done would have changed the outcome.

 

 

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?

 

I presume this will rub you the wrong way, but someone has to say it, so here goes: The tone you are using is not condusive to any real "discussion" of the topic at hand. I was expecting one of your questions to be "Did you stop beating your wife"?

    This is a lively and interesting topic. There are several knowledgable people involved in the discussion, and a fair amount of interested parties. How 'bout we all try to shelve our attitudes- me included?

[243129]

tree68

At seventy-five miles per hour (110 feet per second), probably not.

So why bother eh? Take away any chance that those two more seconds might have made a difference.

[tree68]

243129

"two more seconds would have made no difference."????

At seventy-five miles per hour (110 feet per second), probably not.  At the 20-30 MPH where we operate, yes, it could make a difference.

We operate in some pretty curvy territory - there are spots where 15 seconds would be a luxury in terms of spotting trespassers.  And we do get them.  There have been some close calls for myself, and most of our other engineers.

 

 

[Overmod]

I am a science-fiction fan.  One of the stories I hate the worst in the whole canon is one titled "The Cold Equations" in which an inhuman action has to be taken essentially because the designers of a transportation system colossally misdesigned it.  (The author's point was supposed to be different, but if you read it you'll probably start agreeing with me...)

One of the points here is that a similar premise is involved: the idea that you must have an irreversible emergency-braking run, or much less capable maximum service brake rate, but not a reversibly-activated "maximum possible deceleration rate" that is triggered with a locking control, but can be released without stopping if desired.

It might be interesting to have a technical discussion about how to implement such a thing with existing Amtrak brake systems ... probably in a different thread from this one.  It seems to me that it would facilitate some significant changes in potential training.

[243129]

tree68

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

"two more seconds would have made no difference."????

So why bother eh? Take away any chance that those two more seconds might have made a difference.

You are an engineer?

 

[Euclid]

Overmod

Likewise the argument about 'thought process' is one that training needs to address: it's difficult to prioritize schedule-keeping or reduction of damage to equipment against 'best effort' to preserve human life.  I wish Euclid would stop dancing about what he means with using the emergency brake in these situations, because this would have to be resolved before any particular further discussion of the "proper" responses to this kind of presenting emergency makes much sense.  (Yes, that's a gentle hint.)

Overmod,

I wish you would explain what you mean when you say I have been dancing around what I mean with using the emergency brake in these situations. 

At least a thousand times, in several different threads, I have made the point that the mere chance of saving a life is worth more than the cost of any damage to the train or the schedule.  In black and white terms, I stand completely opposed to the belief that an emergency application, when it could be beneficial to saving a life; should be withheld until impact to make sure the application is not made in vain.

[tree68]

Overmod

The only argument is how long you give the horn, lights, warning on the radio like Ricky Gates tried if you know they're employees, before you go to the conscience-based emergency brake.

In this case, there was apparently a fifteen second window.

Horn, bell, knock off power, start applying brakes (blended braking was mentioned - how long is the set-up for dynamic braking on that locomotive?), start applying brakes.    This all takes time.  

Are they reacting?  No? Time to dump the brakes.  Oops - your 15 seconds is up.