Train 188 Tragic Accident – What is the Complete Story?

4426 views
239 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    October, 2008
  • From: Calgary
  • 1,737 posts
Posted by cx500 on Friday, September 14, 2018 8:03 PM

243129
 
cx500
And the Superintendents of the day were willing (unofficially) to give them that latitude as it kept the trains on time,

 

......until something happened.

 

And you are suggesting that now, when no latitude is allowed by modern management, that overspeed accidents no longer occur?  Recent history, as you have continually been pointing out, suggests that the accident rate from that cause might be increasing.

  • Member since
    May, 2015
  • 648 posts
Posted by 243129 on Friday, September 14, 2018 8:09 PM

cx500

 

 
243129
 
cx500
And the Superintendents of the day were willing (unofficially) to give them that latitude as it kept the trains on time,

 

......until something happened.

 

 

 

And you are suggesting that now, when no latitude is allowed by modern management, that overspeed accidents no longer occur?  Recent history, as you have continually been pointing out, suggests that the accident rate from that cause might be increasing.

 

Where do I suggest that?

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 14,541 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, September 14, 2018 8:26 PM

243129
 
BaltACD
 
243129
 Putting passengers lives at risk due to being ordered to exceed the speed limit is nothing short of criminal. Had there been a wreck with loss of life would the one who issued that order own up to it? Or perhaps he would not have been prosecuted because he possessed godly powers. My family's railroading pedigree, all in the operating department, dates back to World War I and never,as a kid or adult, have I ever heard of an engineer or conductor being ordered to violate a rule. Your father may have felt he had autocratic 'power' but had someone been injured due to his illegal order he indeed would be the one in the unemployment line. 

It was a different world - you must be one of them 'pantywaist' Lib's trying to apply 21st Century sensibilities to an age gone by the did not have those same sensibilities.  You can bleet all you want - the 1950's and today are two diffrent worlds.

The time was only 50 years past 'The Wreck of Old 97' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wreck_of_the_Old_97 and the country was populated by members of 'The Greatest Generation' a generation who all possessed the CAN DO attitude when face with issues.  

The PRR's Federal operated into Washington Union Station with the locomotive go into the basement of the station (an angle cock got closed by the forces of operation during the trip) just 3 days prior to the Inaguration of President Eisenhower in January 1953 - a temporary floor encased the locomotive in the basement and normal transportation continued through WUT until the traffic binge had subsided.

On Time was not just Management's instructions, it was ingrained into passenger service employees and had been from the time passenger service was created.  Different Worlds, different times. 

So now we are back to name calling? Your 'romance of the rails'  has clouded your view. You cannot tell me that if a fatal wreck as was #188 occurred way back then and excessive speed, which was ordered, was the culprit that there would be no repercussions to the person that ordered that? You must have your head ensconced in a very dark place.

188's incident happened at a SPEED RESTRICTION - SPEED RESTRICTION'S had to be complied with.  Areas where TRACK SPEED was operative was where time was to be gained.

188 would have been violating the Superintendents instructions 'back in the day'.

         

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    May, 2015
  • 648 posts
Posted by 243129 on Friday, September 14, 2018 9:19 PM

BaltACD
188's incident happened at a SPEED RESTRICTION - SPEED RESTRICTION'S had to be complied with. Areas where TRACK SPEED was operative was where time was to be gained. 188 would have been violating the Superintendents instructions 'back in the day'.

Explain what you mean by " Areas where TRACK SPEED was operative was where time was to be gained."

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 14,541 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, September 14, 2018 9:46 PM

243129
 
BaltACD
188's incident happened at a SPEED RESTRICTION - SPEED RESTRICTION'S had to be complied with. Areas where TRACK SPEED was operative was where time was to be gained. 188 would have been violating the Superintendents instructions 'back in the day'. 

Explain what you mean by " Areas where TRACK SPEED was operative was where time was to be gained."

Where there are NO SPEED RESTRICTIONS.  If you don't know track speed, what else don't you know?

Through Northern Ohio and Indiana, there aren't very many hills or curves to create permanent speed restrictions.

 

Especially the final 6 minutes or so.

         

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    July, 2016
  • 236 posts
Posted by Backshop on Saturday, September 15, 2018 7:55 AM

243129

 

 
BaltACD
188's incident happened at a SPEED RESTRICTION - SPEED RESTRICTION'S had to be complied with. Areas where TRACK SPEED was operative was where time was to be gained. 188 would have been violating the Superintendents instructions 'back in the day'.

 

Explain what you mean by " Areas where TRACK SPEED was operative was where time was to be gained."

 

I'm not a railroader, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but even I know what he means.  Here's an example--you're driving down the highway and there's a sharp curve in the road with a 35mph speed limit sign.  You slow down because it's too dangerous to go faster.  Once you get around the curve, it's a straight, level road and the speed limit is 60mph.  You  can go (if you desire) 70-80mph because the road itself is good for it, the limit is arbitrarily set.

  • Member since
    May, 2015
  • 648 posts
Posted by 243129 on Saturday, September 15, 2018 8:32 AM

BaltACD
Where there are NO SPEED RESTRICTIONS. If you don't know track speed, what else don't you know?

Ah your imperious attitude surfaces again. Typical of one who has spent his career desk bound.

So you are saying that there is/are/was no maximum authorized speed (MAS) areas?

  • Member since
    August, 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 9,434 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Saturday, September 15, 2018 8:34 AM

243129

 

 
Deggesty
Yes, from time to time, undesired events took place--possibly because the engineer did not reduce his speed at a point that he knew he should reduce his speed, an event beyond his control caused a mishap.

 

Beyond his control??? If he "knew he should reduce his speed" then it is not "an event beyond his control".

 

Is the engineer in control over someone who is on the track when the train approaches and will be hit by the engine if he does not get off the track?That such a person is on the track is beyond the engineer's control.

Johnny

  • Member since
    May, 2015
  • 648 posts
Posted by 243129 on Saturday, September 15, 2018 8:35 AM

Backshop

 

 
243129

 

 
BaltACD
188's incident happened at a SPEED RESTRICTION - SPEED RESTRICTION'S had to be complied with. Areas where TRACK SPEED was operative was where time was to be gained. 188 would have been violating the Superintendents instructions 'back in the day'.

 

Explain what you mean by " Areas where TRACK SPEED was operative was where time was to be gained."

 

 

 

  Once you get around the curve, it's a straight, level road and the speed limit is 60mph.  You  can go (if you desire) 70-80mph because the road itself is good for it, the limit is arbitrarily set.

 

 

Tell that to the cop and let me know how you made out.

  • Member since
    July, 2016
  • 236 posts
Posted by Backshop on Saturday, September 15, 2018 8:38 AM

I never said it was legal, just if there was little traffic, it was safe because the road was made for it.  I take it that you've never driven over the speed limit?

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,927 posts
Posted by Euclid on Saturday, September 15, 2018 8:39 AM

In the days times preceding Amtrak, when a passenger train had a 79 mph speed limit, I assume that was a rule of the railroad company.  So, when a supervisor ordered an engineer to exceed the speed limit, did this amount to suspending the rule?  If so, if a speed tape showed exceeding the 79 mph limit, was this not a rule violation because the rule had been suspended?  Or was it a rule that had been violated with tacit approval from the supervisor that the rule would not be enforced for the occasion?

Aside from the company rule, in pre-Amtrak times, was the 79 mph speed limit also a government regulation?  If so, to what extent did the government control speed limits of trains?  How did the government enforce train speed limits?

I recall a cab ride on the GN where the engineer explained that he could only exceed the 79 mph limit by about 2 mph or an alarm would sound, and he had only some seconds to reduce speed and avoid a penalty brake application.  How common was this? Could that system have been overridden on occasions where the company wanted to make up lost time?

 

  • Member since
    May, 2015
  • 648 posts
Posted by 243129 on Saturday, September 15, 2018 8:42 AM

Deggesty

 

 
243129

 

 
Deggesty
Yes, from time to time, undesired events took place--possibly because the engineer did not reduce his speed at a point that he knew he should reduce his speed, an event beyond his control caused a mishap.

 

Beyond his control??? If he "knew he should reduce his speed" then it is not "an event beyond his control".

 

 

 

Is the engineer in control over someone who is on the track when the train approaches and will be hit by the engine if he does not get off the track?That such a person is on the track is beyond the engineer's control.

 

 

Once again. "Beyond his control??? If he "knew he should reduce his speed" then it is not "an event beyond his control".

Knowing that he should reduce his speed and not doing it is  not an event beyond his control. What does someone on the track have to do with this conversation?

This is your original post is it not?

Deggesty
Yes, from time to time, undesired events took place--possibly because the engineer did not reduce his speed at a point that he knew he should reduce his speed, an event beyond his control caused a mishap.
  • Member since
    May, 2015
  • 648 posts
Posted by 243129 on Saturday, September 15, 2018 8:47 AM

Euclid
Or was it a rule that had been violated with tacit approval from the supervisor that the rule would not be enforced for the occasion?

That is akin to Trump promising you a pardon. If it's his skin or yours you're going down 'bigly'.

  • Member since
    May, 2015
  • 648 posts
Posted by 243129 on Saturday, September 15, 2018 10:04 AM

Backshop

I never said it was legal, just if there was little traffic, it was safe because the road was made for it.  I take it that you've never driven over the speed limit?

 

You equate this with running a train???  "Legal" is the key word here.

  • Member since
    July, 2016
  • 236 posts
Posted by Backshop on Saturday, September 15, 2018 10:06 AM

243129

 

 
Backshop

I never said it was legal, just if there was little traffic, it was safe because the road was made for it.  I take it that you've never driven over the speed limit?

 

 

 

You equate this with running a train???  "Legal" is the key word here.

 

Answer the question.  My point, and several other peoples', was that just because there was an imposed track speed didn't mean the track was unsafe for marginally faster speeds.

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,927 posts
Posted by Euclid on Saturday, September 15, 2018 10:39 AM

Also, the track is usually safer for marginally faster speeds than what is specified for speed restrictions.  So if you want to make up time, why not fudge on the speed restrictions about the same percentage as on track speed?

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • From: Equestria
  • 6,506 posts
Posted by zugmann on Saturday, September 15, 2018 10:44 AM

243129
You equate this with running a train??? "Legal" is the key word here.

You're equating today's standards/regulations with operating practices from 60-70 years ago....so....yeah.

 The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer or any other railroad, company, or person.

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 14,541 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, September 15, 2018 1:35 PM

Obviously 243129 is the bestest throttle grabber that ever grabbed the throttle in the long history of railroading in the USA.  He can dictate his history and have his dictums acted upon by those now dead creators of that history.  Bow down to his royal hineass.  

         

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    May, 2015
  • 648 posts
Posted by 243129 on Saturday, September 15, 2018 2:30 PM

Backshop

 

 
243129

 

 
Backshop

I never said it was legal, just if there was little traffic, it was safe because the road was made for it.  I take it that you've never driven over the speed limit?

 

 

 

You equate this with running a train???  "Legal" is the key word here.

 

 

 

Answer the question.  My point, and several other peoples', was that just because there was an imposed track speed didn't mean the track was unsafe for marginally faster speeds.

 

 

What part of rules were made to be followed don't you get?

  • Member since
    May, 2015
  • 648 posts
Posted by 243129 on Saturday, September 15, 2018 2:32 PM

Euclid

Also, the track is usually safer for marginally faster speeds than what is specified for speed restrictions.  So if you want to make up time, why not fudge on the speed restrictions about the same percentage as on track speed?

 

Because it's against the rules and you open yourself up to liability.

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 5,904 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, September 15, 2018 4:29 PM

Euclid
Aside from the company rule, in pre-Amtrak times, was the 79 mph speed limit also a government regulation? If so, to what extent did the government control speed limits of trains? How did the government enforce train speed limits?

We've covered this before.  The restriction is 79mph because the rule is '80mph or above'.  The original language is in the Esch Act of 1920, which returned the railroads from Federal Control, and had to do with the implementation of automatic train control on passenger trains.  Enforcement of the 80mph restriction, largely invoking the original wording, became applied to all passenger service in the wake of the Naperville accident (although it has been noted that that accident would most likely not have been avoided with a 79mph restriction) via ICC order 29543.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with safe or prudent speed, or anything to do with track class.  Nor does it, except circumstantially, have anything to do with a timetable permitted speed.

Here is a potentially interesting report

which contains some of the relevant history regarding implementation of train control systems.
  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,927 posts
Posted by Euclid on Saturday, September 15, 2018 4:55 PM

Overmod
 
Euclid
Aside from the company rule, in pre-Amtrak times, was the 79 mph speed limit also a government regulation? If so, to what extent did the government control speed limits of trains? How did the government enforce train speed limits?

 

We've covered this before.  The restriction is 79mph because the rule is '80mph or above'.  The original language is in the Esch Act of 1920, which returned the railroads from Federal Control, and had to do with the implementation of automatic train control on passenger trains.  Enforcement of the 80mph restriction, largely invoking the original wording, became applied to all passenger service in the wake of the Naperville accident (although it has been noted that that accident would most likely not have been avoided with a 79mph restriction) via ICC order 29543.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with safe or prudent speed, or anything to do with track class.  Nor does it, except circumstantially, have anything to do with a timetable permitted speed.

Here is a potentially interesting report

which contains some of the relevant history regarding implementation of train control systems.

 

So then, is exceeding the 79 mph limit a Federal offense as well as a violation of the company rule?  Would it be something like cheating on your income tax?

 

  • Member since
    June, 2004
  • From: roundhouse
  • 2,686 posts
Posted by Randy Stahl on Saturday, September 15, 2018 6:31 PM

243129

 

 
cx500
And the Superintendents of the day were willing (unofficially) to give them that latitude as it kept the trains on time,

 

......until something happened.

 

 

Nope, the trains ran on time after wrecks.  You were more likely to lose your job if you couln't keep to the schedule.

  • Member since
    August, 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 1,627 posts
Posted by n012944 on Saturday, September 15, 2018 7:26 PM

243129

 

 
BaltACD
Where there are NO SPEED RESTRICTIONS. If you don't know track speed, what else don't you know?

 

Ah your imperious attitude surfaces again. Typical of one who has spent his career desk bound.

So you are saying that there is/are/was no maximum authorized speed (MAS) areas?

 

 

That is not what he is saying, and if you don't know that you are more of a blockhead than I gave you credit for.

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • From: Equestria
  • 6,506 posts
Posted by zugmann on Saturday, September 15, 2018 9:04 PM

Everyone is a tough guy on the internet.

 The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer or any other railroad, company, or person.

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 5,904 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, September 15, 2018 10:04 PM

Euclid
So then, is exceeding the 79 mph limit a Federal offense as well as a violation of the company rule?

I believe 49CFR20111 clearly establishes that it would be.  Someone correct me (or amplify) if not.

Interestingly, 49CFR20109 ("Employee Protections") (a)(2) clearly states that "a railroad carrier engaged in interstate or foreign commerce ... may not discharge ... or in any other way discriminate against an employee ... [who] refuse(s] to violate or assist in the violation of any Federal law, rule, or regulation relating to railroad safety or security."  Might be interesting for someone more interested in this stuff than I am to find the date this was first incorporated in the code, as that would offer an earliest date that firing for failure to 'keep time' by exceeding the 79mph regulation would become a Federal offense.

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 14,541 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, September 15, 2018 10:14 PM

Overmod
 
Euclid
So then, is exceeding the 79 mph limit a Federal offense as well as a violation of the company rule? 

I believe 49CFR20111 clearly establishes that it would be.  Someone correct me (or amplify) if not.

Interestingly, 49CFR20109 ("Employee Protections") (a)(2) clearly states that "a railroad carrier engaged in interstate or foreign commerce ... may not discharge ... or in any other way discriminate against an employee ... [who] refuse(s] to violate or assist in the violation of any Federal law, rule, or regulation relating to railroad safety or security."  Might be interesting for someone more interested in this stuff than I am to find the date this was first incorporated in the code, as that would offer an earliest date that firing for failure to 'keep time' by exceeding the 79mph regulation would become a Federal offense.

When was 49CFR20109 enacted?  Remember - in the 1950's there was no OSHA, no EPA none of the regulatory organizations that exist today.  In the 50's the railroads had to deal with the ICC as their main regulatory organization - a regulatory organization that nearly wiped railroads off the face of the USA until Staggers was enacted in 1980.

         

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 1,171 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Sunday, September 16, 2018 3:31 AM

BaltACD
When was 49CFR20109 enacted?

If I read/understood it correctly on October 16, 1970

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/20111

and then under NOTES
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    May, 2015
  • 648 posts
Posted by 243129 on Sunday, September 16, 2018 7:55 AM

 To put this to rest.

A company official, in this case a superintendent, in the days of yore (1950's-60's) issues an order to get the train in on time and to exceed the posted speed limit. Would you consider this legal?

Yes or no.

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,927 posts
Posted by Euclid on Sunday, September 16, 2018 8:22 AM

THIRD POST FROM TOP OF PAGE #6

 

243129 said this:

Putting passengers lives at risk due to being ordered to exceed the speed limit is nothing short of criminal. Had there been a wreck with loss of life would the one who issued that order own up to it?

 

BaltACD said this:

It was a different world - you must be one of them 'pantywaist' Lib's trying to apply 21st Century sensibilities to an age gone by the did not have those same sensibilities.  You can bleet all you want - the 1950's and today are two diffrent worlds.

The time was only 50 years past 'The Wreck of Old 97' 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wreck_of_the_Old_97and the country was populated by members of 'The Greatest Generation' a generation who all possessed the CAN DO attitude when face with issues.  

On Time was not just Management's instructions, it was ingrained into passenger service employees and had been from the time passenger service was created.  Different Worlds, different times. 

 

243129 said this:

Your 'romance of the rails'  has clouded your view. You cannot tell me that if a fatal wreck as was #188 occurred way back then and excessive speed, which was ordered, was the culprit that there would be no repercussions to the person that ordered that?

 

BaltACD said this:

188's incident happened at a SPEED RESTRICTION - SPEED RESTRICTION'S had to be complied with.  Areas where TRACK SPEED was operative was where time was to be gained.

 

*******************************************************

 

Overmod
 
Euclid
So then, is exceeding the 79 mph limit a Federal offense as well as a violation of the company rule?

 

I believe 49CFR20111 clearly establishes that it would be.  Someone correct me (or amplify) if not.

Interestingly, 49CFR20109 ("Employee Protections") (a)(2) clearly states that "a railroad carrier engaged in interstate or foreign commerce ... may not discharge ... or in any other way discriminate against an employee ... [who] refuse(s] to violate or assist in the violation of any Federal law, rule, or regulation relating to railroad safety or security."  Might be interesting for someone more interested in this stuff than I am to find the date this was first incorporated in the code, as that would offer an earliest date that firing for failure to 'keep time' by exceeding the 79mph regulation would become a Federal offense.

 

 

It sounds to me like the CAN DO attitude of the 1900 era has been rewritten in blue to extend another 60 years with superintendents ordering engineers to exceed the 79 mph speed limit in order to make up time.

 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy