zugmannBut there's dump handles on the other side of the cab for a reason.
Is that reason that spelled out? One might inferr that it's only for when the engineer is incapacitated?
Convicted OneIs that reason that spelled out? One might inferr that it's only for when the engineer is incapacitated?
Performing Duties Safely(a) All employees must follow instructions from proper authority,and must perform all duties efficiently and safely.
Notice it doesn't say "engineer". It says "all employees". If you're qualified*, then it's your repsonsibility.
*- conductor trainees sometimes do get leniancy, from what I've observed. But there's talso imes when they get fired as well (and no union protection, so they're gone for good).
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Convicted One(Respectfully) You can spin it however you choose, but in practice regardless if the not fully trained student grabs the brake OR the throttle, it seems to defy the very premise of this thread.....remember, only personnel who have been properly hired, vetted, supervised, and trained are competent to operate the locomotive.
And - to the company's satisfaction - that is everyone in the cab.
While the Engineer can operate the throttle and the braking forces he has at hand on the control stand. Those not in the engineers seat have the Emergency Brake Valve on the Conductors side of the locomotive. Everyone in the cab has been Rules Qualified - Trainees in any form of OJT don't set foot on the property until they have been Rules Qualified.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Murphy Siding Euclid Lithonia Operator Convicted One BaltACD 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. Let's look at the other side of that, suppose the trainee hits the brake control, avoids the mishap, but the seasoned engineer and conductor maintain that the trainee's action was unwarranted... (I just don't envision the old heads agreeing "hey the kid saved us") is the trainee going to be disciplined for his action? Seems like a can't win situation. I too thought of that scenario, and I agree with you. No-win. Before a person other than the engineer dumps the air, that person is going tell the engineer why he thinks it is necessary, unless maybe if the engineer is unable to respond. Otherwise, only if there is a disagreement between the engineer and the other person about the need to stop or just slow down, would the person go ahead and dump the air. What happens after that will determine how blame is distributed. It would be interesting to hear cases of how this sort of disagreement has played out in the past. I don't think it happens very often. You're being inconsistent. On a dozen other threads you've gone on forever trying to determine exactly how much quicker a train would have stopped if only the engineer had done something a split second sooner. Now you're advocating a debate in the cab over whether or not the engineer is going too fast. If the vote among the crew is two against one, do you advocate rock-paper-scissors as the determining factor on whether the student should commandeer control of the train?
Euclid Lithonia Operator Convicted One BaltACD 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. Let's look at the other side of that, suppose the trainee hits the brake control, avoids the mishap, but the seasoned engineer and conductor maintain that the trainee's action was unwarranted... (I just don't envision the old heads agreeing "hey the kid saved us") is the trainee going to be disciplined for his action? Seems like a can't win situation. I too thought of that scenario, and I agree with you. No-win. Before a person other than the engineer dumps the air, that person is going tell the engineer why he thinks it is necessary, unless maybe if the engineer is unable to respond. Otherwise, only if there is a disagreement between the engineer and the other person about the need to stop or just slow down, would the person go ahead and dump the air. What happens after that will determine how blame is distributed. It would be interesting to hear cases of how this sort of disagreement has played out in the past. I don't think it happens very often.
Lithonia Operator Convicted One BaltACD 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. Let's look at the other side of that, suppose the trainee hits the brake control, avoids the mishap, but the seasoned engineer and conductor maintain that the trainee's action was unwarranted... (I just don't envision the old heads agreeing "hey the kid saved us") is the trainee going to be disciplined for his action? Seems like a can't win situation. I too thought of that scenario, and I agree with you. No-win.
Convicted One BaltACD 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. Let's look at the other side of that, suppose the trainee hits the brake control, avoids the mishap, but the seasoned engineer and conductor maintain that the trainee's action was unwarranted... (I just don't envision the old heads agreeing "hey the kid saved us") is the trainee going to be disciplined for his action? Seems like a can't win situation.
BaltACD 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.
Let's look at the other side of that, suppose the trainee hits the brake control, avoids the mishap, but the seasoned engineer and conductor maintain that the trainee's action was unwarranted... (I just don't envision the old heads agreeing "hey the kid saved us") is the trainee going to be disciplined for his action?
Seems like a can't win situation.
I too thought of that scenario, and I agree with you. No-win.
Before a person other than the engineer dumps the air, that person is going tell the engineer why he thinks it is necessary, unless maybe if the engineer is unable to respond. Otherwise, only if there is a disagreement between the engineer and the other person about the need to stop or just slow down, would the person go ahead and dump the air. What happens after that will determine how blame is distributed. It would be interesting to hear cases of how this sort of disagreement has played out in the past. I don't think it happens very often.
You're being inconsistent. On a dozen other threads you've gone on forever trying to determine exactly how much quicker a train would have stopped if only the engineer had done something a split second sooner. Now you're advocating a debate in the cab over whether or not the engineer is going too fast. If the vote among the crew is two against one, do you advocate rock-paper-scissors as the determining factor on whether the student should commandeer control of the train?
There is no voting about it. There could be 100 people in the cab with 99 of them not wanting to pull the air. But if just one wants to, he is free to pull it and nobody can stop him. The companies want to error on the side of any doubt about moving ahead. They feel the possible hazards to trains are just that important.
And this certainly does not conflict with my previous positions about going into emergency sooner rather than later when a collision seems imminent. If anyting, the two positions are identical.
BaltACD When I was working - a saying floated around the Division. 'You weren't truly a NS employee unless you had been fired at least once.' FWIW
When I was working - a saying floated around the Division.
'You weren't truly a NS employee unless you had been fired at least once.'
FWIW
FWIW? Nothing.
EuclidThe worst that will happen is stopping a train when it is not necessary.
Seems like I recall some here arguing (in threads pertaining to hit pedestrians) that throwing trains into emergency under some conditions can cause a derailment. Throw in some haz-mat cargo and suddenly you've upped that "worst that can happen" to the next level.
Convicted One Euclid The worst that will happen is stopping a train when it is not necessary. Seems like I recall some here arguing (in threads pertaining to hit pedestrians) that throwing trains into emergency under some conditions can cause a derailment. Throw in some haz-mat cargo and suddenly you've upped that "worst that can happen" to the next level.
Euclid The worst that will happen is stopping a train when it is not necessary.
Oh yes, I recall that too. The subject came up around the premise that in a close call at a grade crossing, when a collision seems imminent, and the train cannot stop in time to avoid the collision, any emergency application just might cause a derailment. And any deraiment can kill people in the vicinity.
So if a collision is imminent, some people say an engineer should wait until impact before making an emergency application because only then does he know that the vehicle will not suddenly clear before impact. And if it does clear, a brake applicaion would not be needed, and therefore no risk of a brake application causing a derailment will exist.
My position is and was then that an engineer should always make the emergency application as soon as a collision seems nearly certain, and certainly should not withhold an emergency application that is justified just because it might cause a derailment.
So, if you were an experienced engineer, and some conductor trainee fresh out of the academy throws your train into emergency because he thought you were operating outside the confines of due safety,....how do you go about thanking him?
Convicted One So, if you were an experienced engineer, and some conductor trainee fresh out of the academy throws your train into emergency because he thought you were operating outside the confines of due safety,....how do you go about thanking him?
Either way, wouldn't there be some accountability issues? (demerits, or whatever).
Convicted One Either way, wouldn't there be some accountability issues? (demerits, or whatever).
Euclid Convicted One Either way, wouldn't there be some accountability issues? (demerits, or whatever). I don't know if there would or not. The basic assumption would be that the train was stopped, and that may or may not have been justified. Beyond that point, I guess the accountablity would depend on the details.
I don't know if there would or not. The basic assumption would be that the train was stopped, and that may or may not have been justified. Beyond that point, I guess the accountablity would depend on the details.
As a individual - if you see something NEEDS to be done, and no one else is doing, it is your obligation to DO IT and know why and be able to defend why you did it.
That is a part of being an ADULT in our society, it is having the courage of your convictions.
BaltACD Euclid Convicted One Either way, wouldn't there be some accountability issues? (demerits, or whatever). I don't know if there would or not. The basic assumption would be that the train was stopped, and that may or may not have been justified. Beyond that point, I guess the accountablity would depend on the details. As a individual - if you see something NEEDS to be done, and no one else is doing, it is your obligation to DO IT and know why and be able to defend why you did it. That is a part of being an ADULT in our society, it is having the courage of your convictions.
Euclid BaltACD Euclid Convicted One Either way, wouldn't there be some accountability issues? (demerits, or whatever). I don't know if there would or not. The basic assumption would be that the train was stopped, and that may or may not have been justified. Beyond that point, I guess the accountablity would depend on the details. As a individual - if you see something NEEDS to be done, and no one else is doing, it is your obligation to DO IT and know why and be able to defend why you did it. That is a part of being an ADULT in our society, it is having the courage of your convictions. What does that have to do with what I said?
What does that have to do with what I said?
You are writing in weasel words.
Convicted One jeffhergert The train probably passed the last block signal (red non-absolute) way over restricted speed. If he had pulled the air, even if they still would have rear ended the train ahead, I think he may have been shown leniency Over the course of your career, on trains where you are the engineer, how many times have you had a fellow employee in the same control cab as you are, "pull the air" ?
jeffhergert The train probably passed the last block signal (red non-absolute) way over restricted speed. If he had pulled the air, even if they still would have rear ended the train ahead, I think he may have been shown leniency
Over the course of your career, on trains where you are the engineer, how many times have you had a fellow employee in the same control cab as you are, "pull the air" ?
I've never had it done, nor have I had to do it to an engineer when I was a conductor. But then I've not allowed the situation to go to that level where the air needed pulling.
I did threaten to pull the air when I was an engineer and had en engineer trainee running the train. We went past a yellow signal, going uphill. The next signal was about 3.7 miles away and on the downhill side. We went past the approach around 30 mph. He wasn't slowing as we continued uphill. I wasn't concerned, but was waiting to see what he did at the top of the hill, about 1.7 miles from the next signal. Approaching the top the student says, "I think that train ahead has moved on down." or something like that. (We were approaching the away from home terminal and had heard them talk to their outbound.) I said, "I think you'll slow down to a crawl and be prepared to stop at the next signal or I'm going to pull the air." It had the desired effect. As he started setting air and slowing us down I explained to him that he was probably right that the train had pulled down. But that's a bad habit to start, especially in that location. Limited sight distance. By the time you could see the signal, if you weren't prepared to stop you weren't going to. Even though stopping isn't required at red intermediate (non-absolute) signals anymore, there still could be something stopped right past it. Or a red flag.
The closest I've come to a conductor pulling the air was on a heavy manifest going downhill with a couple of guys in a pickup speeding towards a crossing and then slamming their brakes on. I wasn't going to "shoot 'em" unless we actually hit. We discussed this on a previous thread about grade crossing accidents and when to go into 'emergency'.
Jeff
Convicted One zugmann But there's dump handles on the other side of the cab for a reason. Is that reason that spelled out? One might inferr that it's only for when the engineer is incapacitated?
zugmann But there's dump handles on the other side of the cab for a reason.
It's spelled out. From GCOR Rule 1.47:
C. All Crew Members’ Responsibilities
1. To ensure the train is operated safely and rules are observed, all crew members must act responsibly to prevent accidents or rule violations. Crew members in the engine control compartment must communicate to each other any restrictions or other known conditions that affect the safe operation of their train sufficiently in advance of such condition to allow the engineer to take proper action. If proper action is not being taken, crew members must remind engineer of such condition and required action.
2. Crew members in the engine control compartment must be alert for signals. As soon as signals become visible or audible, crew members must communicate clearly to each other the name of signals affecting their train. They must continue to observe signals and announce any change of aspect until the train passes the signal. If the signal is not complied with promptly, crew members must remind the engineer and/or conductor of the rule requirement. If crew members do not agree on the signal indication, regard the signal as the most restrictive indication observed.
3. When the engineer and/or conductor fail to comply with a signal indication or take proper action to comply with a restriction or rule, crew members must immediately take action to ensure safety, using the emergency brake valve to stop the train, if necessary.
I've pulled the air twice, once with the conductor's valve in the locomotive cab, and once with my foot while riding the end of a car (I know, that's unsafe). In both cases we were shoving into a track and the radio failed. So I did what I had to do to get us stopped before something really bad happened.
When I was relatively new I had a few trips where the Engineer let it get away a bit going downgrade, or 'grandstanded' up to a stop signal. Looking back, I should have pulled the air on those occasions.
When working as a Conductor I too have had to remind the Engineer to slow down sometimes. It is never easy, but it is necessary.
About a month ago we had a near miss where the Conductor did pull the air at speed. They were screaming up to a restricting signal and it was known that there was another train not far ahead (fortunately it was not right at the signal). They went past the restricting signal at about 25 mph (Canadian restricted speed is 15 mph max) while in emergency, and stopped without hitting the other train.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Euclid BaltACD Euclid Convicted One Either way, wouldn't there be some accountability issues? (demerits, or whatever). I don't know if there would or not. The basic assumption would be that the train was stopped, and that may or may not have been justified. Beyond that point, I guess the accountablity would depend on the details. As a individual - if you see something NEEDS to be done, and no one else is doing, it is your obligation to DO IT and know why and be able to defend why you did it. That is a part of being an ADULT in our society, it is having the courage of your convictions. What if you do what needs to be done according to the courage of your convictions, but your convictions turn out to be wrong? Then what happens to you? I think that was the question.
What if you do what needs to be done according to the courage of your convictions, but your convictions turn out to be wrong? Then what happens to you? I think that was the question.
You explain your reasoning and life goes on. Presuming there was no collision, your reason will carry the day. Big holing the train on a Clear Signal with unlimited visibility and no track defects ahead - you will have a lot of explaining to do....
BaltACDBig holing the train on a Clear Signal with unlimited visibility and no track defects ahead - you will have a lot of explaining to do....
Not to mention having to walk the entire train (they're often running to 14,000 feet these days) and explaining to the dipatcher why you just threw a monkey wrench into his finely tuned railroad by tying up the main for an hour or more.
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...
tree68 BaltACD Big holing the train on a Clear Signal with unlimited visibility and no track defects ahead - you will have a lot of explaining to do.... Not to mention having to walk the entire train (they're often running to 14,000 feet these days) and explaining to the dipatcher why you just threw a monkey wrench into his finely tuned railroad by tying up the main for an hour or more.
BaltACD Big holing the train on a Clear Signal with unlimited visibility and no track defects ahead - you will have a lot of explaining to do....
However, if it was account of the situation Jeff was discribing - saved a potential collision.
It is amazing the number of train crews who think they know more of what the Dispatcher is intending to do - than the Dispatcher is actually doing.
Rear end collision in Ohio - train knew it was following another train (didn't know it was following two trains) First of the three trains got a Clear Signal, that was able to be seen by the 3rd train as it passed a Restricted Proceed signal at the allowed maximum speed only to run into the rear of the 2nd train shortly thereafter.
BaltACDIt is amazing the number of train crews who think they know more of what the Dispatcher is intending to do - than the Dispatcher is actually doing.
Recently read that the FRA refers to that as "self-dispatching", and is to be discouraged (of course). I have heard of a crew recently recieeve a stern talking to for asking the train ahead of them their location.
*although there are times where you *do* have to question what the dispatcher is doing.
BaltACD Big holing the train on a Clear Signal with unlimited visibility and no track defects ahead
Why would you do that?
BaltACDRear end collision in Ohio - train knew it was following another train (didn't know it was following two trains) First of the three trains got a Clear Signal, that was able to be seen by the 3rd train as it passed a Restricted Proceed signal at the allowed maximum speed only to run into the rear of the 2nd train shortly thereafter.
It makes no difference how many trains are ahead. Had the engineer adhered to restricted speed the accident would not have occurred.
243129 BaltACD Big holing the train on a Clear Signal with unlimited visibility and no track defects ahead Why would you do that?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding think that's his point. If you do it for no plausible reason, there will be consequences.
And as the subject story shows us, not doing it for no plausible reason has consequences, as well.
Firing a trainee for an oversight made by his instructor still amazes me. The expectation that the trainee is going to over rule his instructor and save the day just seems to expect too much.
Perhaps it's something along the lines of once a wild animal tastes human flesh you have to kill it, or it will just keep coming back to bite you? Firing everyone involved probably gave someone a sense of closure?
Reading through all this, it's pretty obvious that the procedures for both operating personnel and dispatchers is muddled, with potentially bad consequent outcomes.
BaltACD Euclid BaltACD Euclid Convicted One Either way, wouldn't there be some accountability issues? (demerits, or whatever). I don't know if there would or not. The basic assumption would be that the train was stopped, and that may or may not have been justified. Beyond that point, I guess the accountablity would depend on the details. As a individual - if you see something NEEDS to be done, and no one else is doing, it is your obligation to DO IT and know why and be able to defend why you did it. That is a part of being an ADULT in our society, it is having the courage of your convictions. What if you do what needs to be done according to the courage of your convictions, but your convictions turn out to be wrong? Then what happens to you? I think that was the question. You explain your reasoning and life goes on. Presuming there was no collision, your reason will carry the day. Big holing the train on a Clear Signal with unlimited visibility and no track defects ahead - you will have a lot of explaining to do....
You pull the air at 25 or more mph when you first see the red signal (where there is limited visibility) or upon passing the signal because the engineer is not taking action to slow down. You don't hit anything. Were you still justified in pulling the air?
jeffhergert You pull the air at 25 or more mph when you first see the red signal (where there is limited visibility) or upon passing the signal because the engineer is not taking action to slow down. You don't hit anything. Were you still justified in pulling the air? Jeff
Jeff,
I don’t know the answer to that question. I don’t see anything in the rule that answers it either. But it would seem to me that the person in your example would be justified even if it ultimately proved unnecessary. Otherwise if the decision to pull the air is allowed to be judged in hindsight, it would undermine the whole premise of empowering everyone in the cab to make the decision spontaneously which is the key element in quick action intended to prevent an accident.
I think the clear day, with no hazard scenario is fine as an absolute prohibition of pulling the air. But the real question applies to the gray area scenarios. With any of these, discipline for a wrong call seems completely unjustified.
And if this thread's discussion is a sample of what railroaders believe, the correct procedure needs clarification.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.