jeffhergert I finally read the full, linked notice. Except for the part of recent derailments, it reads like standard train handling instructions/rules. I think Euclid is reading more into this notice. I don't think BNSF had a big jump in derailments due to improper dynamic brake operation. They obviously had some so they issued a bulletin. Four years ago. The notice also says improper dynamic operation "contributed" to the derailments. It doesn't say how much of the derailments was being placed on improper dynamic operation as opposed to other factors. It could be that the supervisory manager, while reviewing the download, noted the improper use and assigned more of the blame to the engineer rather than nonhuman contributing factors. They all like to blame their employees whenever possible. Jeff
I finally read the full, linked notice. Except for the part of recent derailments, it reads like standard train handling instructions/rules. I think Euclid is reading more into this notice. I don't think BNSF had a big jump in derailments due to improper dynamic brake operation. They obviously had some so they issued a bulletin. Four years ago.
The notice also says improper dynamic operation "contributed" to the derailments. It doesn't say how much of the derailments was being placed on improper dynamic operation as opposed to other factors. It could be that the supervisory manager, while reviewing the download, noted the improper use and assigned more of the blame to the engineer rather than nonhuman contributing factors.
They all like to blame their employees whenever possible.
Jeff
We also get notices about drinking water and avoiding bees in the summer time.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Euclid jeffhergert I finally read the full, linked notice. Except for the part of recent derailments, it reads like standard train handling instructions/rules. I think Euclid is reading more into this notice. I don't think BNSF had a big jump in derailments due to improper dynamic brake operation. They obviously had some so they issued a bulletin. Four years ago. The notice also says improper dynamic operation "contributed" to the derailments. It doesn't say how much of the derailments was being placed on improper dynamic operation as opposed to other factors. It could be that the supervisory manager, while reviewing the download, noted the improper use and assigned more of the blame to the engineer rather than nonhuman contributing factors. They all like to blame their employees whenever possible. Jeff I don’t think I am reading anything into the bulletin by BNSF. It may have the feel of just standard train handling instructions, but the whole page focuses in detail on just this one point that begins with the first sentence, which says this: “Engineers making rapid adjustments of dynamic brakes while attempting to slow/control train speed or attempting to stop have contributed to several recent derailments. In all events, the slack was not adequately gathered before advancing to the higher-braking notches therefore causing a severe run-in event and subsequent derailment. Proper planning and train-handling techniques are a must when using dynamic brakes for slowing and stopping.” I did notice their use of the word “contributed” instead of “caused,” as you mention. I was not sure what to make of that except for the common saying that there is never just one cause of a disaster. In any case, the bulletin makes it sound like the derailment would not have occurred had it not been for the “contribution” of the engineer. In any case, I am not blaming the engineers for these derailments. Since the BNSF seems to be adopting a teaching moment about how to avoid this problem, they have apparently concluded that these derailments are occurring because the engineers were not aware of the instructions as they apply to this issue. So the cause was not carelessness or recklessness. It could have been a lack of training. It could also have something to do to the increasing train lengths making slack control more challenging. I completely agree with your points that I highlighted in red.
Euc - you have never worked on the railroad and have no idea of the routine instructions and bulletins that are issued - issued with the knowledge that there are continually new employees that weren't around the last time the instruction or bulletin was issued.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I don't doubt they had some derailments back then where improper dynamic usage was observed. They then put out a notice as a reminder for other engineers to not screw up. Partly as education, partly to reinforce that it was a human caused factor in the derailments, whether it was the biggest factor or not.
EMS, since it can't read, can handle throttle and dynamics however it sees fit. And it doesn't always use proper techniques.
zugmann We also get notices about drinking water and avoiding bees in the summer time.
Doesn't it give you a nice warm fuzzy feeling knowing that management is so concerned about your well-being?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
BaltACD Euclid jeffhergert I finally read the full, linked notice. Except for the part of recent derailments, it reads like standard train handling instructions/rules. I think Euclid is reading more into this notice. I don't think BNSF had a big jump in derailments due to improper dynamic brake operation. They obviously had some so they issued a bulletin. Four years ago. The notice also says improper dynamic operation "contributed" to the derailments. It doesn't say how much of the derailments was being placed on improper dynamic operation as opposed to other factors. It could be that the supervisory manager, while reviewing the download, noted the improper use and assigned more of the blame to the engineer rather than nonhuman contributing factors. They all like to blame their employees whenever possible. Jeff I don’t think I am reading anything into the bulletin by BNSF. It may have the feel of just standard train handling instructions, but the whole page focuses in detail on just this one point that begins with the first sentence, which says this: “Engineers making rapid adjustments of dynamic brakes while attempting to slow/control train speed or attempting to stop have contributed to several recent derailments. In all events, the slack was not adequately gathered before advancing to the higher-braking notches therefore causing a severe run-in event and subsequent derailment. Proper planning and train-handling techniques are a must when using dynamic brakes for slowing and stopping.” I did notice their use of the word “contributed” instead of “caused,” as you mention. I was not sure what to make of that except for the common saying that there is never just one cause of a disaster. In any case, the bulletin makes it sound like the derailment would not have occurred had it not been for the “contribution” of the engineer. In any case, I am not blaming the engineers for these derailments. Since the BNSF seems to be adopting a teaching moment about how to avoid this problem, they have apparently concluded that these derailments are occurring because the engineers were not aware of the instructions as they apply to this issue. So the cause was not carelessness or recklessness. It could have been a lack of training. It could also have something to do to the increasing train lengths making slack control more challenging. I completely agree with your points that I highlighted in red. Euc - you have never worked on the railroad and have no idea of the routine instructions and bulletins that are issued - issued with the knowledge that there are continually new employees that weren't around the last time the instruction or bulletin was issued.
EuclidHey I am just the messenger here. I didn’t write the message. But I do have a pretty good idea of the routine instructions and bulletins that are issued.
Your every comment indicates that you have no idea. Every instruction or bulletin issued is no 'the Magna Carta' or the 'Constitution' - instructions and bulletins are what they are - nothing more, nothing less.
Your final statements are a Tucker Carlson type of bull.
Paul of Covington Doesn't it give you a nice warm fuzzy feeling knowing that management is so concerned about your well-being?
Another one tells us to use flashlights and glowsticks over candles in case of power outages. Or was it in case of emergency raves?
BaltACD instructions and bulletins are what they are - nothing more, nothing less.
who has said otherwise?
zugmann Paul of Covington Doesn't it give you a nice warm fuzzy feeling knowing that management is so concerned about your well-being? Another one tells us to use flashlights and glowsticks over candles in case of power outages. Or was it in case of emergency raves?
So fusees are out, too?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.