Amtrak 501 Derail in Washington State

[243129]

VOLKER LANDWEHR

 

 

243129

And you will hear it again and again because that is the reason that these disasters occur. Nothing prevents human error completely but proper training minimizes those situations.

 

 

Nobody says that proper training is not needed. But the best training will not prevent human errors. There are other factors.

In the early 20th century American railroads new that and developed the first ATS safety systems. While German railways continued development to the present and are developing for the future. American railroads forgot about it with the demise of passenger trains, until PTC hit.
Regards, Volker

 

There is no foolproof system to prevent human error. However as I have stated ad nauseam proper training minimizes that factor.

American railroads had two man crews on the locomotive in all classes of service. The second man was a fireman, a term left over from steam days, who observed, assisted and was mentored by the engineer. This system assured a ready pool of qualified engineers with real time experience. In 1964 the railroads were given a victory over labor with Arbitration Award 282 abolishing the position of fireman and removing the second man from the locomotive on all but passenger trains. Removal from passenger trains followed. Those actions are what created the situation(s) we have today. There is a plethora of poorly trained operating personnel 'out there' and it is a matter of time before the next operator error disaster.

[243129]

This from the United Transportation Union (BRT BLF&E)

In 1959, carriers gave notice they were going to renegotiate contracts with the national BLF&E.  They contended that there was no need for the fireman position on train crews since engines changed from steam to diesel.  In addition, they called for the elimination of one crew member.  The BLF&E contested the carriers’ wishes.  They were concerned not only about the loss of thousands of jobs, but also about the safety of the crew.  By 1960, the negotiations were at impasse, and President Eisenhower called for a study to be made.  In 1962, the Presidential Railroad Commission issued a report that agreed with the railroads that there were too many crew members on trains.  Again the union vigorously objected.  However, in 1963 Congress passed Public Law 88-108, and Arbitration Board 282 issued an award which supported the railroads, ending the dispute.

 After the award went into effect on March 2, 1964, thousands of firemen lost their jobs.  The BLF&E and BRT continued to fight for the reestablishment of the fireman position.  They initiated surveys and studies of the impact that Award 282 had on safety, health, and welfare of crew members and on the efficiency of the train yards.  Between 1964 and 1967, accidents on U.S. railroads increased by fifty percent. 

[charlie hebdo]

And here it comes, finally.  "BRING BACK FIREMEN!"  Featherbedding lives!

[Miningman]

Oh yeah, that's coming, endlessly.

Is there a way to block this thread entirely.

Regardess, I cannot read any of it any longer. 

[243129]

charlie hebdo

And here it comes, finally.  "BRING BACK FIREMEN!"  Featherbedding lives!

 

So I assume you are all for getting rid of co-pilots on airplanes also.

It would be cheaper to put a second person on the locomotive for real time training purposes than to support ChooChoo U. in Wilmington.

[243129]

Miningman

Oh yeah, that's coming, endlessly.

Is there a way to block this thread entirely.

Regardess, I cannot read any of it any longer. 

 

Block the thread? Why because you don't like it? It's very simple , don't read it.

[243129]

The following is an email I sent in 2013 to then Vice President of Operations D.J. Stadtler whose resume contains absolutely no railroad operations experience. Sadly it turned out to be prophetic. Amtrak did not and has not heeded the warnings

 

 

December 1, 2013

Mr. Stadtler:
  It has been a while (seven months) since we left off with your promises of teamwork, further communication, feedback etc (see attached emails). I feel as though my and my veteran co-workers efforts at offering suggestions and observations to improve our overall product with special attention to T&E training procedures have been paid 'lip service'.
That being said the recent embarrassing debacle in Philadelphia on November 19, which by the way received coverage nationally and internationally(see links below), has prompted me once again to try to impress upon you the fact that the training program for T&E new hires is a failure. I am sure that your "training council" would take umbrage at that statement and should they wish to challenge that statement I would be happy to oblige in qualifying it with an invitation to them and yourself to come to New Haven and witness first hand the end result of said training programs.
What happened in Philadelphia is inexcusable. An Amtrak train with 130 passengers whose well being is entrusted to a train crew that had absolutely no idea where they were going but kept going 6.1 miles!  It never should have happened  and poor training is the culprit. Think what could have happened. Once again Amtrak has 'dodged a bullet' so to speak and no one was injured or killed, thankfully. How long can luck hold out? Not much longer and here is why. The seasoned veteran workforce is dwindling rapidly. The odds of there being at least one veteran crew member to bail out the poorly trained new hires is decreasing. Employees with 1 year of service are being turned out as conductors. My previous prediction of an inexperienced and poorly trained crew being the RX for disaster is becoming a reality. Amtrak was lucky with the Philadelphia incident perhaps next time not so lucky. I fervently hope that will not be the case.
I have previously sent to you correspondences that I have submitted to various corporate officers, some responded to, most ignored, to which you promised feedback . I urge you to read them. They contain suggestions and observations which myself and my veteran co-workers feel can help with the betterment of our product.
 Respectfully,
 
Joe *******
Engineer New Haven CT
 
 
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/amtrak-lost-philadelphia-septa-new-york-fiasco_n_4312239.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2510563/Oops-NYC-bound-Amtrak-train-ends-Philadelphia-suburbs.html

P.S. Whenever I write letters or emails that contain passionate convictions I usually wait a day before sending, reread them and be sure I haven't written anything that was clouded by emotion. I completed this message yesterday. The Metro North tragedy  happened today. They were not so lucky.  I have experience with Metro North and I must say that their training regimen might even be worse than Amtrak's. They have had so many signal violations that they have ordered that the assistant conductor be present on the head end when their trains enter Grand Central Terminal. This tragedy, I speculate as all the facts are not in, will be blamed on excessive speed,  operator error and poor training. No matter how much you 'dumb the job down' i.e. ACSES, speed control, positive stop, cab signal you still must have a properly trained engineer, conductor and assistant conductor and I stand by my conviction that our personnel is not properly trained.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2013_Spuyten_Duyvil_derailment

[charlie hebdo]

243129

 

 

Miningman

Oh yeah, that's coming, endlessly.

Is there a way to block this thread entirely.

Regardess, I cannot read any of it any longer. 

 

 

 

 

Block the thread? Why because you don't like it? It's very simple , don't read it.

 

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death [almost] your right to say it." (Evelyn Beatrice Hall, 1906)

Threads should never be locked unless they are too political or full of foul language.

[Miningman]

Ok...not block the thread! I would never be in agreement with that. What I mean is to de-select it off my screen, but I quess you can't.

You guys can fight in perputuity and repeat over and over.

Now I'm gone from this thread. No more visits. 

Sorry for the misinterpretations, perhaps I should have stated it more clearly. 

[243129]

Miningman

Ok...not block the thread! I would never be in agreement with that. What I mean is to de-select it off my screen, but I quess you can't.

You guys can fight in perputuity and repeat over and over.

Now I'm gone from this thread. No more visits. 

Sorry for the misinterpretations, perhaps I should have stated it more clearly. 

 

Ciao.

[Anonymous]

243129

So I assume you are all for getting rid of co-pilots on airplanes also.

How do you come to this conclusion? It is seems overstating a locomotive engineer comparing him with pilots. Airplanes do have a few more degrees of freedom and are technically much more complicated than locomotives.

And at least freight railroads have a conductor on the locomotive.

In Germany the surplus firemen were used as assistant drivers on fast trains (87+ mph) until 1996. From there it was driver-only trains, even the HSR trains. But Germany already had PZB and LZB.
Regards, Volker

[243129]

VOLKER LANDWEHR

 

 

243129

So I assume you are all for getting rid of co-pilots on airplanes also.

 

 

How do you come to this conclusion? It is seems overstating a locomotive engineer comparing him with pilots. Airplanes do have a few more degrees of freedom and are technically much more complicated than locomotives.

And at least freight railroads have a conductor on the locomotive.

In Germany the surplus firemen were used as assistant drivers on fast trains (87+ mph) until 1996. From there it was driver-only trains, even the HSR trains. But Germany already had PZB and LZB.
Regards, Volker

 

 

Co-pilots learn from pilots do they not? The second man on the locomotive will learn from the engineer. There will be a substantial savings over sending them to ChooChoo U.

There is no better teaching curriculum than on the job experience. Simulators don't hack it. They cannot simulate fear. I advocate this form of training for the new hires. I would like to see the second person on all locomotives but being realistic that is not going to happen.

PZB & LZB= automated addiction. You must learn to operate without them. Electronics can and will fail. Nothing but nothing beats proper training of learning to operate without them.

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/automation-addiction-pilots-forgetting-fly/story?id=14417730

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/automation-addiction_asiana-crash_n_3576059.html

 

[Anonymous]

243129

PZB & LZB= automated addiction. You must learn to operate without them. Electronics can and will fail. Nothing but nothing beats proper training of learning to operate without them. https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/automation-addiction-pilots-forgetting-fly/story?id=14417730 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/automation-addiction_asiana-crash_n_3576059.html

Your comparison doesn't fit.

Contrary to computers really making decisions instead of the pilot, PTC and LZB are safety system only monitoring the trains and their rule conformance. Each brake penalty is recorded and disciplined.

Both components are necessary, good trainind and safety systems like PTC that step in e.g. in case of human error.
Regards, Volker

[243129]

VOLKER LANDWEHR

 

 

243129

PZB & LZB= automated addiction. You must learn to operate without them. Electronics can and will fail. Nothing but nothing beats proper training of learning to operate without them. https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/automation-addiction-pilots-forgetting-fly/story?id=14417730 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/automation-addiction_asiana-crash_n_3576059.html

 

 

Your comparison doesn't fit.

Contrary to computers really making decisions instead of the pilot, PTC and LZB are safety system only monitoring the trains and their rule conformance. Each brake penalty is recorded and disciplined.

Both components are necessary, good trainind and safety systems like PTC that step in e.g. in case of human error.
Regards, Volker

 

And the basic knowledge component steps in in case of safety system error. Automation is an aid.  You must possess the basic knowledge in case of failure.  Dependence on automated systems creates a hazard.

Regards,

 Joe

[Anonymous]

243129

And the basic knowledge component steps in in case of safety system error. Automation is an aid. You must possess the basic knowledge in case of failure. Dependence on automated systems creates a hazard. Regards, Joe

Did I say something different? What is more likely to fail, human or technique?

It doesn't really matter, as long as both are there. But sometime in the future there won't be an engineer anymore. I hope the proponents realize that not all that is technically possible should be realized.
Regards, Volker

[243129]

VOLKER LANDWEHR

 

 

243129

And the basic knowledge component steps in in case of safety system error. Automation is an aid. You must possess the basic knowledge in case of failure. Dependence on automated systems creates a hazard. Regards, Joe

 

 

Did I say something different? What is more likely to fail, human or technique?

It doesn't really matter, as long as both are there. But sometime in the future there won't be an engineer anymore. I hope the proponents realize that not all that is technically possible should be realized.
Regards, Volker

 

If by "technique" you mean technology then I go with technology more likely to fail.

[Anonymous]

243129

If by "technique" you mean technology then I go with technology more likely to fail.

I find this at least disputable. In all recent German rail accidents human error was the reason not failure of PZB or LZB.

Perhaps the more computer based systems like ETCS or PTC will be more failure prone but I doubt it.
Regards, Volker

 

[Electroliner 1935]

243129

There is no better teaching curriculum than on the job experience. Simulators don't hack it. They cannot simulate fear. I advocate this form of training for the new hires. I would like to see the second person on all locomotives but being realistic that is not going to happen. PZB & LZB= automated addiction. You must learn to operate without them. Electronics can and will fail. Nothing but nothing beats proper training of learning to operate without them.

Proficiency is learned by doing. I am reminded of a trip I took on PATCO, the New Jersey to Philadelphia transit operation which had an early "automation" system. On my trip to Lindenwold, the operator (who sat in an area open to the public and not a closed cab) was using the atomated system where he would push a button to close the doors, and then a second button to start the train. The train would then accellerate to track speed and automatically decelerate and stop at the next station and the doors would open. On the return trip to Philadelphia, the operator was manually controling the braking to make the station stops. After about five stations, I asked him why the manual operation. He replied "To keep my proficency up" and went on to explain that the automatic braking system was designed on a fixed braking rate and worked well on dry rail but if it rained, the train would slide through the stopping point. So he wanted to maintain his manual operation skills. About that same year, I read that Southwest Airlines chose to NOT activate automatic landing software on its planes because they wanted their pilots to maintain their proficiency. And many of SWA's flights have multiple takeoffs and landings in a days work. One flight I saw this was on a trip from Chicago which had the following segments, Chicago-Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Orlando, Indianapolis, Chicago, Five take offs and landings in one days schedule. Compared to an international flight where the Pilot might ony land their plane ten times a month. One reason I like flying SWA. On a flight from Cleveland to Chicago, looking out the window as we were about to touch down at Midway, I saw a heavy rain cell over the airport and as the plane started to decelerate, I could sense the plane hydroplaning as we did manage to slow sufficiently as we got to the NW corner of the airport (where a SWA flight had overrun the end of the runway and had a fatal encounter with an auto on Central Ave) to make our turn off the runway to the taxiway. Our pilot (a lady) did an excellent job and as I left the plane, I said we were hydroplaning wern't we. She smiled and said yes. 

So my point is that two trips over a new stretch of track does not provide any proficiency and compounding that is being given a new locomotive. There is NO WAY that engineer should have taken that train. He did NOT know the territory and he did NOT know the Locomotive and AMTRAK should not have put him in that cab. Multiple failures. Management thinks anyone can run a train with just two trips. WRONG! And he thought he could operate the new locomotive and could run it over territory that he thought he knew when he didn't. While 243129 tried to tell management that they needed to improve the training, they can not admit that they don't know what they are doing is insufficient. And the RFE's and other people in the chain of command are too far from the front lines to comprehend that there is a big gap in the training. I can see why Anderson may want to not operate without PTC so that he has that to cover for some of the training deficiencies. But as the older experienced engineers retire, I fear there will be more deaths.

[BaltACD]

There are no apprentice positions left on the operating side of railroading.

In the past a person was hired as a brakemen.  He worked that position until he learned enough RR 101 to become qualified as a Flagman.  As he learned more about the ins and outs of his territory and what is required to safely perform all the switching jobs on that territory, in seniority order he would be tested and be qualified as a Conductor.  It would normally take two to three years of working every day - up and down the territory for one to become a qualified conductor.

In the olden days of 'featherbeding' a person was hired as a Fireman.  Depending upon the ambition of individual fireman and the desire of a Engineer to impart his knowledge to the fireman. The fireman secured a wealth of practical knowledge concerning all aspects of the jobs - mechanical - operating - rules compliance before ever being selected for promotion to engineer.  During all this time, two to three years or more - the individual is working his territory trip after trip learning the 'tricks of the trade' and the quirks of the territory.

Now persons are hired off the street sent through some form of training class - length of the class on Amtrak is unknown to me - individuals are then sent out for OJT with existing personnel - length of the OJT is also unknown to me.  Successful completion of OJT and you are a Conductor.  After a period of time as a Conductor and one gets selected for Engineer School with successful completion leading to being a Engineer after a period of OJT.  All this may be accomplished in as little as one year.

[243129]

I have taken the train a number of times since I retired and more often than not I have 'felt' PTC (ACSES) running the train which indicates that the operator is minimally if at all qualified.

The "existing personnel" are victims of the unknowing teaching the unknowing leaving them relatively clueless.

 

[SD70Dude]

Today on the Class I's Conductor IS the apprentice position, and it is expected that everyone will eventually become a qualified Engineer.  And we all know that the Companies want cut crew sizes even further than they already have. 

I'm not saying this is right, in fact I believe we should return to the old practice of new hires working as Brakemen for the first couple years, and forget the idiotic expectation that every single human being is capable of becoming a good Locomotive Engineer.  There are still plenty of yard jobs and locals that have a Brakeman or Switchman on the crew, and of course Conductors are found on every freight train (except for the QNSL, at least for now). 

But this is the current reality.

And when Engineer-only freight crews come to pass one day, as we all know they will, what will the "apprentice" position be?  Or will new hires off the street be expected to run 20,000 ton freights after 2 months of classroom and a bit of on-the-job training, just like our yard crews with the Beltpak?

[blue streak 1]

This qualification question is very interesting.  The US FAA has now increased the amount of flying time to even be used as a co pilot at 121 carriers 5 fold.  As well a hire needs so much night time, instrument time and other times as well.  Experience seems to be the on going factor. There are rumors that some airlines are hiring new people getting flying time in small and medium prop airplaes and qualifying them for the required times.

[243129]

Jonathan Hines who is in charge of rules and compliance and Charles Beatson RFE in charge of OJT for Zone 11(?) should both be removed from their positions due to gross incompetence. Amtrak hiring and training procedures should be subjected to strict oversight.

[charlie hebdo]

Earlier on this thread we started seeing analogies made to flying airplanes.  Here's one that seems to have been overlooked.  Modern air navigation relies on various technical devices, not on visually checking on landmarks below, although it used to long ago.  But Conrail Joe and others seem to think the best navigation/orientation method for trains, even at 79 mph or higher, is observing visual landmarks along the route.  As I said earlier, that seems really antiquated.  When I asked Volker if that were the case on the German passenger trains (which I doubted) he replied by mentioning the technology, which many of our railroaders rejected, just as they reject PTC.  Of course a major reason for the US slowly adopting PTC was human error.

[243129]

charlie hebdo

Back a ways on this thread we started seeing analogies to flying airplanes.  Here's one that seems to have been overlooked.  Modern air navigation relies on various technical devices, not on visually checking on landmarks below, although it used to long ago.  But Conrail Joe and others seem to think the best navigation/orientation method for trains, even at 79 mph or higher, is observing visual landmarks along the route.  As I said earlier, that seems really antiquated.  When I asked Volker if that were the case on the German passenger trains (which I doubted) he replied by mentioning the technology, which many of our railroaders rejected, just as they reject PTC.  Of course a major reason for the US slowly adopting PTC was human error.

 

Well as long as we are assigning monikers I shall heretofore refer to you as 'Cognitive Charlie'. Visual landmarks are the best form of 'navigation' because when 'technology' fails and it does, visual landmarks are your 'go to' form of safe operation.

[charlie hebdo]

243129

Well as long as we are assigning monikers I shall heretofore refer to you as 'Cognitive Charlie'.

I already have a moniker (name) not just a number.  Since you have signed your name 'Joe' on here and you worked for Conrail prior to Amtrak, which you seem to despise, I thought you'd appreciate it.

I believe Volker disposed with the objections to technology in actual practice.

[243129]

I don't despise Amtrak I just point out that they do not know how to run a railroad. Where do I object to technology? Where do engineers reject technology? PTC, ACSES etc. are  electronic aids and aids do fail and when that occurs most engineers who were 'brought up' with these aids become lost. That is why one most have an intimate knowledge i.e visual/audible landmarks of the territory over which they operate. When all else fails one must rely on the "antiquated" system.

[7j43k]

When pilots are lost or disoriented, they are supposed to trust their instruments, not their intuition or where they "think" they are.

 

Ed

[243129]

7j43k

When pilots are lost or disoriented, they are supposed to trust their instruments, not their intuition or where they "think" they are.

 

Ed

 

I am talking "instrument" failure.

[BaltACD]

7j43k

When pilots are lost or disoriented, they are supposed to trust their instruments, not their intuition or where they "think" they are. 

Ed

Primarily because the are above the clouds and have no skymarks to guide them.  While Commercial Pilots are required to have instrument (IFR) and a bunch of other specific rating qualifications to be able to get in the cockpit.

The most basic of Pilots License is VFR.  Visual Flight Rules - looking for and responding to recognizable landmarks.  If they can't see the land they have exceeded their qualifications.