Personalities play a role. Imagine a young recruit who's paired with a seasoned engineer and conductor who are not friendly, and have made it clear they aren't that interested in any input from the trainee.
Is that trainee really going to physically grab the throttle or brake levers if the "old heads" are saying "We f*<k!#g know what we're doing; we do this all the time."?
The railroad's expecting a lot from the new kid. That would be a very tough spot to be in.
ns145 ... That 5 extra mph is a big difference when an unexpected obstruction suddenly pops into view.
Yes, but you forget that maximum 'permissible speed' does not change the requirement under restricted speed to be able to stop in 'half the visible distance to an obstruction.' It does not mean 'whack the train up to permissible speed and await surprise.'
It's a little like changing the maximum speed limits in 'driving too fast for conditions'. You may now be allowed 45mph ... but that doesn't mean you can always go safely at 45mph, and you have to use judgment in exactly how much slower a safe stop would call for.
As here.
Murphy Siding BaltACD Psychot Murphy Siding jeffhergert There was a rear ender at Bradford, IA about 10 or 12 years ago. The engr had been in my engineer's class. As I recall, they hit the rear end in the high 20s/low 30s mph. By listening to radio conversations they thought the train ahead of them was farther away. They didn't realize there was another train inbetween them and the train they heard on the radio. No one was seriously injured in the incident. The engr, condr and a new-hire student making his first trip were fired. The engr got his job back on a technicality that I no longer remember. He didn't last long, getting into trouble again. The second time he quit before being fired. He went to work, the OP will like this, for Amtrak but in train service. Jeff Why would the new hire student get fired over that? Wouldn't he or she just have been along for the ride, observing? It seems to me that the new hire would have had the potential to be a very safe engineer, having been through that accident. That does seem incredibly unfair. Good, Bad or indifferent - Railroads tend to assess discipline to the Entire Crew involved in a incident. The 'logic' being that any of the crew members had the 'authority' and ability to have prevented the incident from happening. A Engineer operating his train at the upper limit of Restricting Speed, the other members of the crew knew or should have known that the train was being operated IN EXCESS of one half the range of vision for the territory that they could see, therefore they all take the fall. Compliance with the rules is the obligation of EVERY crew member, even trainees as even trainees have had to pass a rules test BEFORE they begin the on job training part of their training. I see where they're coming from, but doesn't the guy in the driver's seat pretty much call the shots? If the conductors says you're going too fast and the engineer says you're not, who prevails?**I kind of imagine it's similar to the rule my wife and I have about driving. Whoever has a steering wheel in front of them gets to drive and whoever doesn't gets to shut the hell up.
BaltACD Psychot Murphy Siding jeffhergert There was a rear ender at Bradford, IA about 10 or 12 years ago. The engr had been in my engineer's class. As I recall, they hit the rear end in the high 20s/low 30s mph. By listening to radio conversations they thought the train ahead of them was farther away. They didn't realize there was another train inbetween them and the train they heard on the radio. No one was seriously injured in the incident. The engr, condr and a new-hire student making his first trip were fired. The engr got his job back on a technicality that I no longer remember. He didn't last long, getting into trouble again. The second time he quit before being fired. He went to work, the OP will like this, for Amtrak but in train service. Jeff Why would the new hire student get fired over that? Wouldn't he or she just have been along for the ride, observing? It seems to me that the new hire would have had the potential to be a very safe engineer, having been through that accident. That does seem incredibly unfair. Good, Bad or indifferent - Railroads tend to assess discipline to the Entire Crew involved in a incident. The 'logic' being that any of the crew members had the 'authority' and ability to have prevented the incident from happening. A Engineer operating his train at the upper limit of Restricting Speed, the other members of the crew knew or should have known that the train was being operated IN EXCESS of one half the range of vision for the territory that they could see, therefore they all take the fall. Compliance with the rules is the obligation of EVERY crew member, even trainees as even trainees have had to pass a rules test BEFORE they begin the on job training part of their training.
Psychot Murphy Siding jeffhergert There was a rear ender at Bradford, IA about 10 or 12 years ago. The engr had been in my engineer's class. As I recall, they hit the rear end in the high 20s/low 30s mph. By listening to radio conversations they thought the train ahead of them was farther away. They didn't realize there was another train inbetween them and the train they heard on the radio. No one was seriously injured in the incident. The engr, condr and a new-hire student making his first trip were fired. The engr got his job back on a technicality that I no longer remember. He didn't last long, getting into trouble again. The second time he quit before being fired. He went to work, the OP will like this, for Amtrak but in train service. Jeff Why would the new hire student get fired over that? Wouldn't he or she just have been along for the ride, observing? It seems to me that the new hire would have had the potential to be a very safe engineer, having been through that accident. That does seem incredibly unfair.
Murphy Siding jeffhergert There was a rear ender at Bradford, IA about 10 or 12 years ago. The engr had been in my engineer's class. As I recall, they hit the rear end in the high 20s/low 30s mph. By listening to radio conversations they thought the train ahead of them was farther away. They didn't realize there was another train inbetween them and the train they heard on the radio. No one was seriously injured in the incident. The engr, condr and a new-hire student making his first trip were fired. The engr got his job back on a technicality that I no longer remember. He didn't last long, getting into trouble again. The second time he quit before being fired. He went to work, the OP will like this, for Amtrak but in train service. Jeff Why would the new hire student get fired over that? Wouldn't he or she just have been along for the ride, observing? It seems to me that the new hire would have had the potential to be a very safe engineer, having been through that accident.
jeffhergert There was a rear ender at Bradford, IA about 10 or 12 years ago. The engr had been in my engineer's class. As I recall, they hit the rear end in the high 20s/low 30s mph. By listening to radio conversations they thought the train ahead of them was farther away. They didn't realize there was another train inbetween them and the train they heard on the radio. No one was seriously injured in the incident. The engr, condr and a new-hire student making his first trip were fired. The engr got his job back on a technicality that I no longer remember. He didn't last long, getting into trouble again. The second time he quit before being fired. He went to work, the OP will like this, for Amtrak but in train service. Jeff
There was a rear ender at Bradford, IA about 10 or 12 years ago. The engr had been in my engineer's class. As I recall, they hit the rear end in the high 20s/low 30s mph. By listening to radio conversations they thought the train ahead of them was farther away. They didn't realize there was another train inbetween them and the train they heard on the radio.
No one was seriously injured in the incident. The engr, condr and a new-hire student making his first trip were fired. The engr got his job back on a technicality that I no longer remember. He didn't last long, getting into trouble again. The second time he quit before being fired. He went to work, the OP will like this, for Amtrak but in train service.
Jeff
Why would the new hire student get fired over that? Wouldn't he or she just have been along for the ride, observing? It seems to me that the new hire would have had the potential to be a very safe engineer, having been through that accident.
That does seem incredibly unfair.
Good, Bad or indifferent - Railroads tend to assess discipline to the Entire Crew involved in a incident. The 'logic' being that any of the crew members had the 'authority' and ability to have prevented the incident from happening.
A Engineer operating his train at the upper limit of Restricting Speed, the other members of the crew knew or should have known that the train was being operated IN EXCESS of one half the range of vision for the territory that they could see, therefore they all take the fall. Compliance with the rules is the obligation of EVERY crew member, even trainees as even trainees have had to pass a rules test BEFORE they begin the on job training part of their training.
I see where they're coming from, but doesn't the guy in the driver's seat pretty much call the shots? If the conductors says you're going too fast and the engineer says you're not, who prevails?**I kind of imagine it's similar to the rule my wife and I have about driving. Whoever has a steering wheel in front of them gets to drive and whoever doesn't gets to shut the hell up.
Air carriers also suffer with the problem of subordinates failing to challenge the 'pilot in control' for mistakes the subordinate observes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster
There is a Emergency Brake Valve on the Conductors side of the locomotive for use by anyone that is not behind the operating controls to initiate a brake application should they feel that the train is being operated in a improper manner.
I agree, it takes a big pair for someone to use that Emergency brake valve and for a trainee to do it take a nearly impossible big pair. Be that as it may, if they don't do it and the accident takes place they have forfeit their opportunity to have prevented the incident and will suffer the consequence.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
243129 Why would the trainee be placed with someone who is obviously not proficient in his craft?
Why would the trainee be placed with someone who is obviously not proficient in his craft?
I'll play. How do you determine proficiency? You know, before the fact.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Lithonia OperatorPersonalities play a role. Imagine a young recruit who's paired with a seasoned engineer and conductor who are not friendly, and have made it clear they aren't that interested in any input from the trainee.
Usually the engineer trainee is a going to already have been a seasoned conductor. And in my expereinces (from both roles as trainer and trainee), when there's a trainee, most guys and gals are extra-vigilant to be following the proper ways to do stuff.
At least with us, if a engineer doesn't want a trainee, he can usually ask to not have one. (sometimes there's special circumstances like a RFE giving the trainee a ride or whatnot).
ns145Also somewhat disturbing to me is that the maximum permissible speed under the Restricted Speed definition on many railroads has been increased from 15 mph to 20 mph. That 5 extra mph is a big difference when an unexpected obstruction suddenly pops into view.
It's not a speed. It's a method of operation. Of course you do have managers, as Jeff has already alluded to, that get upset with a crew and want to write them up for malicious compliance. If that ain't a slippery slope.
Here is a situation that occurs from time to time: a passenger train backs into or out of a station in almost total darkness; the only illumination is from the dwarves, and the conductor, who is standing at the rear, simply calls the indication of the signals (restricting) to the engineer. How fast does the train move? (This is the situation when Amtrak 5 or 6 is detoured across Wyoming, and enters or leaves Salt Lake City--#5 backs in, and #6 backs out.) There may be some light spilling from the vestibule of the rear carf.
Johnny
zugmann ns145 Also somewhat disturbing to me is that the maximum permissible speed under the Restricted Speed definition on many railroads has been increased from 15 mph to 20 mph. That 5 extra mph is a big difference when an unexpected obstruction suddenly pops into view. It's not a speed. It's a method of operation. Of course you do have managers, as Jeff has already alluded to, that get upset with a crew and want to write them up for malicious compliance. If that ain't a slippery slope.
ns145 Also somewhat disturbing to me is that the maximum permissible speed under the Restricted Speed definition on many railroads has been increased from 15 mph to 20 mph. That 5 extra mph is a big difference when an unexpected obstruction suddenly pops into view.
I understand exactly what you and Overmod are saying and I am aware of the subtle difference. My point is that given the frequency of rear end collisions due to excessive speed, what is the safety justification for adding the extra 5 mph to the restricted speed definition?
Seems to me railroad management wants its cake and eat it too. They have bumped up the maximum permissible speed allowed under restricted speed operation (which does have a psychological effect, despite all of the rational arguments that it shouldn't) and eliminated the stop and go's at intermediate signals to move traffic along, but woe to the train crew that hangs themselves with the rope that they have been given.
Edited.
DeggestyHere is asituation that occurs from time to time: a passenger train backs into or out of a station in almost total darkness; the only illumination is from the dwarves, and the conductor, who is standing at the rear, simply calls the indication of the signals (restricting) to the engineer. How fast does the train move? (This is the situation when Amtrak 5 or 6 is detoured across Wyoming, and enters or leaves Salt Lake City--#5 backs in, and #6 backs out.) There may be some light spilling from the vestibule of the rear carf.
I don't know about Amtrak.
When I rode B&O passenger trains and back up moves were required (B&O trains backed into Washington Union Station). The Conductor would either use the brake valve that was located under the seats of the at the Observation end of the Observation car or if not equipped with a Observation Car the train was equipped with a 'back up hose' brake valve and air operated warning whistle. Conductor would notify the engineman of when to start the movement through the use of the normal trainlined communication line. The back up hose was able to apply and release the brakes - engineer could watch his air gauges to understand the actions the Conductor was taking. It is not like each of these employees were performing these actions for the first time in their lives and had no idea of what the results of the actions would be. Time honored teamwork.
zugmannI'll play. How do you determine proficiency? You know, before the fact.
Vetting by veteran operations employees.
The engineer on the westbound crude consist is 'toast'. The conductor is also culpable. The trainee has recourse with good union representation.
243129 zugmann I'll play. How do you determine proficiency? You know, before the fact. Vetting by veteran operations employees.
zugmann I'll play. How do you determine proficiency? You know, before the fact.
Who Vets the veterans? Not all veterans are of the same level of competence.
243129Vetting by veteran operations employees.
And how do they get "veteran" status?
I've known guys with 20+ years running that got by stop signals/ run over banners. Just becuase they been working out here long doesn't mean they can't make mistakes.
So we have "veterans" "vetting" (what does vetting mean?) engineers so they are "proficient".
243129The engineer on the westbound crude consist is 'toast'. The conductor is also culpable. The trainee has recourse with good union representation.
You don't seem aware of NS policies in regards to these type of incidents. Not that I would expect you to, since I wouldn't know how Amtrak would handle similar incidents.
Determination of who is competent as an engineer is subtly different than who is competent to train or supervise other operating personnel.
charlie hebdoDetermination of who is competent as an engineer is subtly different than who is competent to train or supervise other operating personnel.
In a perfect world.
BaltACD Deggesty Here is asituation that occurs from time to time: a passenger train backs into or out of a station in almost total darkness; the only illumination is from the dwarves, and the conductor, who is standing at the rear, simply calls the indication of the signals (restricting) to the engineer. How fast does the train move? (This is the situation when Amtrak 5 or 6 is detoured across Wyoming, and enters or leaves Salt Lake City--#5 backs in, and #6 backs out.) There may be some light spilling from the vestibule of the rear carf. I don't know about Amtrak. When I rode B&O passenger trains and back up moves were required (B&O trains backed into Washington Union Station). The Conductor would either use the brake valve that was located under the seats of the at the Observation end of the Observation car or if not equipped with a Observation Car the train was equipped with a 'back up hose' brake valve and air operated warning whistle. Conductor would notify the engineman of when to start the movement through the use of the normal trainlined communication line. The back up hose was able to apply and release the brakes - engineer could watch his air gauges to understand the actions the Conductor was taking. It is not like each of these employees were performing these actions for the first time in their lives and had no idea of what the results of the actions would be. Time honored teamwork.
Deggesty Here is asituation that occurs from time to time: a passenger train backs into or out of a station in almost total darkness; the only illumination is from the dwarves, and the conductor, who is standing at the rear, simply calls the indication of the signals (restricting) to the engineer. How fast does the train move? (This is the situation when Amtrak 5 or 6 is detoured across Wyoming, and enters or leaves Salt Lake City--#5 backs in, and #6 backs out.) There may be some light spilling from the vestibule of the rear carf.
The last time we were detoured eastbound, I was in the lounge car after breakfast, and one of the Amtrak conductors came by. I asked him if he were going to be qualified if the detour was continued many more days (extensive trackwork in Utah and Colorado), and he told me he did not want to be qualified.. As it was, that was last day for that trackwork, and the Amtrak crews were going to be flown to Grand Junction after the train reached Green River, Wyoming.
Yes, I remember backing into Washington in 1968. Now, apparently the standard procedure is to come in on one of the lower level tracks. At least once, there was a train headed for Florida waiting for #30.
.
BaltACDWho Vets the veterans? Not all veterans are of the same level of competence.
Who vets the person who vets the veterans?
Experience and competence is indicated in past performance and by other experienced employees and supervisors
243129Experience and competence is indicated in past performance and by other experienced employees and supervisors
As a supervisor once told me: "you're only as good as your last screw up". For all we know, this engineer had a 30 year perfect record until that day.
The supervisor part? I'll leave that go for now. With PSR, most of them are just trying to figure out how to keep their job.
It's easy to say: "we need qualified, vetted people to to x".
x can be:
government
military
railroad
trucking
airlines
guys who stock vending machines
---
But on what criteria and how do we properly vet people? And how do we vet those that have to do the vetting?
It's an oversimplified solution that sounds good wihtout a real plan behind it. And I'm sorry, but just because someone has x-number of years out here doesn't make them automatically vetted.
DeggestyYes, I remember backing into Washington in 1968. Now, apparently the standard procedure is to come in on one of the lower level tracks. At least once, there was a train headed for Florida waiting for #30.
For Amtrak and P030 - Washington is the Terminating Station.
For the B&O, other than commuter trains, Washington was a intermediate station as trains would continue on to points East or West of Washington. Switching and train reorganization took place on the B&O trains operating through Washington.
Zugmann said: "And I'm sorry, but just because someone has x-number of years out here doesn't make them automatically vetted."
I'm reminded of something a VP of transportation told me many years ago when I was a kid traffic guy fresh out of college.
zugmannAs a supervisor once told me: "you're only as good as your last screw up"
243129 zugmann As a supervisor once told me: "you're only as good as your last screw up"
zugmann As a supervisor once told me: "you're only as good as your last screw up"
So, any real reply, or just a cute face?
zugmann charlie hebdo Determination of who is competent as an engineer is subtly different than who is competent to train or supervise other operating personnel. In a perfect world.
charlie hebdo Determination of who is competent as an engineer is subtly different than who is competent to train or supervise other operating personnel.
I should have said "Correct determination" as I am well aware that probably none of what I said is reflected in current practices.
Lithonia Operator Having never been on a train crew, I am a little confused about some of these accidents in this thread. Is the common theme in all of them that the following train was allowed to be in that block at restricted speed, but they were moving at the upper end of restrictive, and in any event were not obeying the requirement of being able to stop if they saw a train ahead? Jeff, in the one where the student got fired also, you say there was a train in between them and the one they thought was nearest. But still, they had passed a yellow signal, right?
Having never been on a train crew, I am a little confused about some of these accidents in this thread.
Is the common theme in all of them that the following train was allowed to be in that block at restricted speed, but they were moving at the upper end of restrictive, and in any event were not obeying the requirement of being able to stop if they saw a train ahead?
Jeff, in the one where the student got fired also, you say there was a train in between them and the one they thought was nearest. But still, they had passed a yellow signal, right?
I don't remember if they had been running on yellows and then a red one, but the last block signal they went past was a red permissive one. Thinking that the next train was further along, they didn't take the appropriate action to be prepared to stop at an obstruction. To be honest, if I thought the train ahead of me was further along and I caught a signal unexpected like that, the first thing that comes to mind is TEST! Actually for many of us, when the unexpected is encountered, test is the first thing that comes to mind. Especially if it's toward the end of the month.
As Balt said, the trainee (a conductor trainee) has passed a rules test. They are supposed to know certain things, too. I will agree that many new-hires, and even conductors making their first few trips set up, can be somewhat intimidated by the older members of the crew. (Some of the old heads were a bit "gruff" to say the least when I hired out. At least some seemed that way. Most once you got to know them, you found out really weren't that way. It wasn't an act, but just the way they were. Of course, a few really were hard-Axx types who never 'warmed up' to other people.) I always make it a point when working with a new-hire or freshly promoted conductor to let them know that if they think I'm doing something wrong, to say something. I'm human just like them and can forget or overlook something too.
As to restricted speed being raised to a top speed of 20mph, my quick look at some rule books shows that going back in some cases 50 or more years. Some older books than that don't even have a speed listed. It seems the western roads more likely to have the 20mph top limit. If you go back really far, the only way to proceed past a red signal was to have a flagman preceed the movment by 10 minutes to the next signal.
The slippery slope is that an arbitraitor upheld a ruling (I think it happened on the NS) where they said the engineer was going too slow at restricted speed.
jeffhergertThe slippery slope is that an arbitraitor upheld a ruling (I think it happened on the NS) where they said the engineer was going too slow at restricted speed.
Jeff, do you recall any of the circumstances in that case (day, night, rain, curves, heavy train, etc)? If they were going ~2mph on a bright sunny day on straight welded rail track with a visibility exceeding 10 miles, with a train of 3 empties, then perhaps the arbitrator might have a point. Otherwise...a slippery slope indeed! I'd bet that even after that ruling the carrier never 'officially' indicated a minimum required speed.
zardoz jeffhergert The slippery slope is that an arbitraitor upheld a ruling (I think it happened on the NS) where they said the engineer was going too slow at restricted speed. That ruling is even more absurd than the spins put on political statements. Jeff, do you recall any of the circumstances in that case (day, night, rain, curves, heavy train, etc)? If they were going ~2mph on a bright sunny day on straight welded rail track with a visibility exceeding 10 miles, with a train of 3 empties, then perhaps the arbitrator might have a point. Otherwise...a slippery slope indeed! I'd bet that even after that ruling the carrier never 'officially' indicated a minimum required speed.
jeffhergert The slippery slope is that an arbitraitor upheld a ruling (I think it happened on the NS) where they said the engineer was going too slow at restricted speed.
That ruling is even more absurd than the spins put on political statements.
I think it was a case where the engineer was going really slow, with good visibility for quite a distance.
However, restricted speed has an item about looking out for a broken rail. While it doesn't require being able to stop short of one, if you do see one or think you've gone over one, your supposed to stop. It's hard to look out for a broken rail at 20 mph. By the time you see it, if you can see it at all at the high end, or feel it and start taking action to stop, you may already be on the ground.
I've seen a train that didn't make it over a broken rail at 17mph. It got about 10 cars over before they started digging up rail and ties. It was a failed weld and while they observed their cab signal clearing up, they didn't hear or feel the usual "clunk" of a broken rail. Our rules at that time required moving at restricted speed one train length or until the leading wheels pass the next governing wayside signal when the cab signal cleared up between wayside signals. Since they were moving within the parameters of restricted speed they weren't held accountable for the derailment. Our rules now say we can immediately increase speed. Unless you think you've gone over a broken rail.
zugmannSo, any real reply, or just a cute face?
I took a page from your book.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.