caldreamer Twice I was the engine when we hit someone. Both occured on the commuter line between San Jose and San Francisco. SP rule was come to a stop if possible, otherwase hit them and then come to a stop. Stoping before you hit them at 70+ MPH was impossible. SP did not want those bilevel commuter cars derailing.
Twice I was the engine when we hit someone. Both occured on the commuter line between San Jose and San Francisco. SP rule was come to a stop if possible, otherwase hit them and then come to a stop. Stoping before you hit them at 70+ MPH was impossible. SP did not want those bilevel commuter cars derailing.
What we were discussing are these two alternative scenarios:
1) Apply emergency braking when it appears that a collision is imminent.
2) Do not apply emergency braking until a collision happens.
In the case of what I highlighted in red in your quote; either of your two conditions could apply to my scenario #1 above. So I would not conclude that the S.P. instruction you mention applies to my scenario #2.
With my two alternative scenarios, the engineer has a choice. With your two scenarios of the S.P. rule, the engineer has no choice.
tree68... We have trouble with truck drivers blindly following their GPS onto logging roads, which don't always come out somewhere, necessitating a long backwards tow to get them out of the woods.
We have trouble with truck drivers blindly following their GPS onto logging roads, which don't always come out somewhere, necessitating a long backwards tow to get them out of the woods.
Going from the track at Watkins Glen to a motel in Bath, my GPS routed me on one of the 'dirt roads' with signs 'Road not maintained November 1 to April 1'. Only followed that route one time and changed my GPS 'Settings' to eliminate that kind of road in the future.
I am amazed at how long the GPS will try to reroute me to the original route it has plotted before recalculating to the route I am actually going to take. On my return from Road America in Wisconsin to Maryland, the GPS wanted to route me on the Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania toll roads; kept trying to reroute me down to Layfayette, IN on I-65.
The round trip tolls on the Illinois toll road between Indiana and Wisconsin cost me $39.90 for the round trip. Suspect that the tolls through Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania would have been well over $100 one way. I use I-65 to I-70 at Indianapolis to I-79 near Washington, PA to I-68 near Morgantown, WV to I-70 near Hancock, MD to my local roads home.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Lithonia Operator SD60MAC9500 Lithonia Operator How do we know the train was not in emergency? Lack of squealing noise and brake smoke? If he was not in emergency, maybe that's because the train had been contacted (police to dispatcher to engineer) and told the car was no longer occupied. And the engineer determined that the impact speed would be low. Penalty application was at 1:09 in the video when the engine was about a 1/3 of the way into the crossing. Watch the cab don't pay attention to any thing else in the video. You'll see the cab light up red. Which is a feature on newer GE's when a penalty brake application is initiated the cab lights illuminate in red, not to sure about EMD's having this cab light feature. My understanding was that a "penalty application" was something that happens if an engine runs a red signal, or in other similar situations. I don't understand what triggered a penalty application in this case. Maybe radar facing forward from the cab? Am I not correct that a penalty application is a full service application (not "emergency" application) which happens to be made by the engine's safety system, not the engineer?
SD60MAC9500 Lithonia Operator How do we know the train was not in emergency? Lack of squealing noise and brake smoke? If he was not in emergency, maybe that's because the train had been contacted (police to dispatcher to engineer) and told the car was no longer occupied. And the engineer determined that the impact speed would be low. Penalty application was at 1:09 in the video when the engine was about a 1/3 of the way into the crossing. Watch the cab don't pay attention to any thing else in the video. You'll see the cab light up red. Which is a feature on newer GE's when a penalty brake application is initiated the cab lights illuminate in red, not to sure about EMD's having this cab light feature.
Lithonia Operator How do we know the train was not in emergency? Lack of squealing noise and brake smoke? If he was not in emergency, maybe that's because the train had been contacted (police to dispatcher to engineer) and told the car was no longer occupied. And the engineer determined that the impact speed would be low.
How do we know the train was not in emergency? Lack of squealing noise and brake smoke?
If he was not in emergency, maybe that's because the train had been contacted (police to dispatcher to engineer) and told the car was no longer occupied. And the engineer determined that the impact speed would be low.
Penalty application was at 1:09 in the video when the engine was about a 1/3 of the way into the crossing. Watch the cab don't pay attention to any thing else in the video. You'll see the cab light up red. Which is a feature on newer GE's when a penalty brake application is initiated the cab lights illuminate in red, not to sure about EMD's having this cab light feature.
My understanding was that a "penalty application" was something that happens if an engine runs a red signal, or in other similar situations. I don't understand what triggered a penalty application in this case. Maybe radar facing forward from the cab?
Am I not correct that a penalty application is a full service application (not "emergency" application) which happens to be made by the engine's safety system, not the engineer?
I don't understand that either. I don't understand how a penalty application would fit into this scenario. Before reaching the crossing, the train appeared to be slowing down over the last 500-800 feet at least. I assume that was due to engineer initiated braking.
Flintlock76So it is with GPS. People have to remember, it's the servant, not the master. Balt's right, keep your situational awareness, always.
It's not just railroad tracks. Sometimes it's rivers.
I've heard in the past of truck drivers flying IFR in the fog. As long as the GPS says they're in the road, they're in the road...
I have great fun toying with my GPS as it tries to route me a different way than what I know I want to go... "Recalculating the route..."
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...
BaltACDAs I said earlier - GPS units can be 'very demanding' when they issue their turn instructions. The driver needs to have situational observations before complying with the instruction.
Reminds me of a World War 2 era movie I was watching concerning bombardier training, where the instructor, slightly frustrated, tells the trainee "Come on now, pay attention! It's (the bombsight's) not going to do ALL the work for you!"
So it is with GPS. People have to remember, it's the servant, not the master. Balt's right, keep your situational awareness, always.
I do see the cab light go red, now that you've pointed it out.
Was that ever written down, though?
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
York1I've got to think that maybe the city could somehow make the intersection safer. At a quieted crossing, there is a concrete curb that does not allow a car to cross over to the left side. Could something like that work here?
Perhaps there is an abstract parallel with the "flangeway trap" issue? Perhaps we could design a tapered apron retrofit that would prevent this type malady from ever happening again?
Maybe a system like this?
At this rate - it may be safer to pave the whole thing and make it bona-fide street running.
Yeah, I also heard the company lawyers' heart skip a few beats, too.
If I recall, this has happened quite a few times at intersections just like this.
I can see how a driver may get confused by the signs and roadways, especially at night.
I've got to think that maybe the city could somehow make the intersection safer. At a quieted crossing, there is a concrete curb that does not allow a car to cross over to the left side. Could something like that work here?
York1 John
I asked my doctor if I gave up delicious food and all alcohol, would I live longer? He said, "No, but it will seem longer."
OvermodMy opinion was that her waiting to put the train in 'emergency' until actually striking the conductor(s), but then wiping it to emergency, was pointless. You as I recall from the older thread were arguing, with some force, that she should have put the train in emergency well before that point. I took that to be the opinion with which Zug was disagreeing, not the idea that putting the train in emergency after 'it no longer mattered' was primarily either sentimentality or CYA. Even so, if Zug were to think there were a reason to use emergency after hitting someone, and explained his reasoning, I would most likely not criticize it. Now I expect to be taken to task for saying I wasn't going to engage on the issue, and then engaging. Guilty as charged if so.
Zug's not going to comment on this one way or antoher. Except for zug making the comment about zug. Zug doesn't know how he should feel about zug making this comment about zug, though.
Too much focus in blaming individuals, whether driver or train engineer. In most aspects of life events, the causes are multifactorial, including systemic failures. Obviously something is amiss in crossing protection and protecting trains and their personnel from each other. I think that should be the focus for prevention rather than the current atomistic approach of the NTSB.
tree68The braking curve is not a straight line. It likely would have appeared as such even without the collision.
That is a reasonable explanation.
Convicted OneStill, the video to me seems to indicate that the train began to slow down more abruptly upon contact....perhaps that is a red herring?
The braking curve is not a straight line. It likely would have appeared as such even without the collision.
Overmodbut then wiping it to emergency, was pointless.
I think that one of the arguments used for delayed application of emergency was that you could have a train that the slack was both bunched as well as pulled out on the same train, and the possibility that putting such a train into emergency might cause a more serious derailment.
So, by riding a manual application first, the entire train gets bunched. Then go into emergency.
I swear that I saw somewhere someone mentioning that waiting until contact was a policy with one of the railroads, but I can't find it now...perhaps the comment was made in jest, and I just failed to appreciate it as such?
Still, the video to me seems to indicate that the train began to slow down more abruptly upon contact....perhaps that is a red herring?
Emergency application was at 1:09 in the video when the engine was about a 1/3 of the way into the crossing. Watch the cab don't pay attention to any thing else in the video. You'll see the cab light up red. Which is a feature on newer GE's when a emergency brake application is initiated the cab lights illuminate in red, not to sure about EMD's having this cab light feature.
Overmod My opinion was that her waiting to put the train in 'emergency' until actually striking the conductor(s), but then wiping it to emergency, was pointless. You as I recall from the older thread were arguing, with some force, that she should have put the train in emergency well before that point. I took that to be the opinion with which Zug was disagreeing, not the idea that putting the train in emergency after 'it no longer mattered' was primarily either sentimentality or CYA. Even so, if Zug were to think there were a reason to use emergency after hitting someone, and explained his reasoning, I would most likely not criticize it. Now I expect to be taken to task for saying I wasn't going to engage on the issue, and then engaging. Guilty as charged if so.
My opinion was that her waiting to put the train in 'emergency' until actually striking the conductor(s), but then wiping it to emergency, was pointless.
You as I recall from the older thread were arguing, with some force, that she should have put the train in emergency well before that point. I took that to be the opinion with which Zug was disagreeing, not the idea that putting the train in emergency after 'it no longer mattered' was primarily either sentimentality or CYA.
Even so, if Zug were to think there were a reason to use emergency after hitting someone, and explained his reasoning, I would most likely not criticize it.
Now I expect to be taken to task for saying I wasn't going to engage on the issue, and then engaging. Guilty as charged if so.
And if the vehicle does not clear in time, there is the handy rationalization/excuse that the train was going to fast to stop in time even if an emergency application had been made prior to impact.
The point of waiting until it no longer mattered is not that it no longer mattered, ho hum, nothing to critcize because it no longer matters. The point is that delaying until it no longer mattered means that nothing was done to prevent a death while it did matter.
tree68Local news reports that bystanders heard the driver tell police he was following his GPS. https://www.nbc12.com/story/34265838/train-strikes-car-in-ashland/
https://www.nbc12.com/story/34265838/train-strikes-car-in-ashland/
As I said earlier - GPS units can be 'very demanding' when they issue their turn instructions. The driver needs to have situational observations before complying with the instruction.
Even so, if Zug were to think there were a reason to use emergency only after hitting someone, and explained his reasoning, I would most likely not criticize it.
zugmann Euclid The criticism was completely justified, and it was not by just one person.
Euclid The criticism was completely justified, and it was not by just one person.
Overmod said:
Personally, I would tend to trust Zug's opinion on this, just as with freight-train braking policy, implicitly. (So neither he nor I will choose to engage the issue any further... I'm already highly sorry I mentioned it.)
***************************************************
Overmod, I cannot properly quote your post that I want to respond to because the "Add Quote to your Post" instruction and 3-dot icon are for some reason outside of boundary box of your post. So I have quoted it manually.
But you say you trust Zug's opinion on this. What opinion is that? The only opinion that he stated was that my opinion is wrong; and my opinion was that the criticism of the engineer (about waiting until impact to begin emergency braking) was completely justified. He does not think that criticism was justified, and you apparently now agree. And yet you started this whole line of discussion by criticising the engineer. So you appear to be taking two opposing positions on this matter.
Local news reports that bystanders heard the driver tell police he was following his GPS.
BaltACDTrack speed through Ashland is 45 MPH. With engines stopping within 150 feet of the impact, it is evident that the train had been braking for a period of time before arriving at the scene. Add Quote to your Post
Agree, that and it's night time and the locomotive engineer is not letting up on the horn at all, then you have the obvious police car strobes next to an upcomming crossing.....I would think he would slow down just for the potential of emergency people being in close proximity even if he didn't see the car on the tracks from a distance.
7j43k What's really amazing to me is how the car driver could have done that when the whole place is so well lit.
What's really amazing to me is how the car driver could have done that when the whole place is so well lit.
Alcohol, pot or other drugs, texting, cell phone usage or other ways of being distracted while driving. Maybe never having been to that crossing before, or never before in daylight. Or a combination of some of the above. And don't rule out dumb.
I think it was great the way they first responders had all the flashers going. In addition to warning motorists and pedestrians, it may have also let the train engineer know sooner than he otherwise would have that there was a situation there, and probably not one that was going to resolve itself in time.
I'm not engaging with you on this. Sorry.
zugmann Euclid The criticism was completely justified, and it was not by just one person. That's your opinion - which I think is wrong. But that's my opinion.
That's your opinion - which I think is wrong. But that's my opinion.
What is your opinion as to why it is wrong to criticize that engineer for waiting until striking the two empolyees before applying emergency braking? Why should she have waited?
Car hit the ballast at 18:22:35 Train appears at 18:26:20 - less than 4 minutes after the car fouled the right of way. There are no first responders on scene until the edit places the train in the scene - no way, from the video, to know when first responders initiated communications to the railroad.
Train was braking long before the incident was visible to the train crew. Train impacted the car at 18:27:10 and was fully stopped at 18:27:20.
Notice that both the PD & FD first responders moved their vehicles out of the way before impact.
Normal chain of communications is First Responder to their own dispatch center, FRDC to CSX PSCC command center, PSCC command center to BD (RF&P Train Dispatcher), BD Dispatcher to train.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.