Stopping Distance

[BigJim]

 

Big Jim wrote: "I know what he is trying to say, but,written  that way it is pretty stupid."

Actually, what I wrote was; "written that way it is still pretty stupid."

[wabash1]

Nick

     Your right about the EOT is used to stop the rear from slamming into the front part, I don't work as a Engineer nor a Conductor, but I know my EOTs

 

you are right and i dont know why everyone is against you. the EOT activated at the right time will keep the rear from running into the head end. Just like you say. and then when the conductor walks back to the rear of the cut. closes the train line then proceeds to fix the damage caused by ripping the train apart from the rear then you go on your way. 2 or three times of this in a trip and you will get all your overtime and a few days ( months) off. plus a very mad conductor. they dont like being woke up from the nap they was taking to go fix things.

There is a right and a wrong time to dump the rear , for example if I had a bunch of emptys on the rear and loads up front , I would think twice about dumping the EOT . Seems to me a good way to get a knuckle on the power. Loads on the rear ...yep .. dump the EOT , mixed train, yes , dump the rear , your taking your chances dumping them either way . I would do my best to remember the old saying that there are two ways to run a train , streched , or bunched . I would use independent to hold the front end in the best I could keeping them bunched if possible . I try to know where my slack is even if I dump them .

Randy

 

you are right i was making a point about the eot they are a saftey device and i only used mine once as we was anglecocked 5 cars back didnt know it until we needed brakes for a stop. i dumped the rear and it stopped. i was bunched for the stop so there was no way i was going to have a run out. also i do run my train 95% of the time streached .

[Rick the Railroader]

Big Jim, You didn't answer my questions. Afraid to? You seem to be down on every one, why? Did you get fired or something? That burr in your saddle, come from somewhere!

[csxengineer98]

EOTs set the Brakes from the rear of the train rather than front to rear. This means shortens the stopping distance.

What would make you think that? Why would you think that a train going into emergency from the rear would stop any quicker than one going into emergency from the head end? Do you have any idea of the how much higher the percentage of breaking in two would be if the train went into emergency from the rear rather than the head end?

Have you ever operated an EOT? Do you have any idea how long it takes for them to react? I would imagine that you would think, as I at first did, that as soon as you flip the switch the rear of the train goes into emergency. That is not always the case.

The purpose of the EOT is not to put the train in emergency to stop any quicker, the purpose of the EOT is to put the train in emergency in case of a trainline blockage. In other words, in the name of safety.

I remember the FRA quoting a derailment / runaway on Cajon pass as an example for 2 way EOT's . If I remember correctly a stack train ( perhaps more than one ) desending the grade kinked an airhose and cause the train to runaway through a populated part of Bakersfield. Apparently when the slack came in , the hoses bunched.

That example was used in the FRA ruling requiring thier use.

Randy

The Cajon runnaway was not a kinked airhose. It was a closed anglecock about 20 cars back in a manifest that was like 80-90 cars long. By the time the crew realized what was happening it was too late. The 20 cars worth of brakes could not hold the train on the 3.0% grade. The train only made it about 4 miles and didn't make the curve after the I-15 underpass. The wreck killed the crew and the resulting toxic fire was bad enough that the whole pass was shut down for 3 days (138-15-and the railroads). This train would not have run away if it was equiped with a 2-way EOT. Because of this wreck the FRA requires 2-way EOTs on major grades. The railroad claimed that the anglecock was closed by someone that tampered with the train at Summit. As a result the security fence was installed and security hired to watch the trains at summit. I think it's highly unlikely the train was tampered with at Summit. I think that is just a scapegoat story to cover up employee error in Barstow.

NO the Cajon pass runways was caused by insefistent brake force...and a grossly under estimeated train weight.  the crew thought they had X number of tonns in there train and enought engins with DB to hold it back on the hill.  but in fact they had Y (which was alot more then X tones) and didnt have enought DB to hold it back on the hill.  also..the train wasnt equiped with 2 way EOT becouse there was a maned rear end helper to make it up the one side of the pass.  when the engineer lost controll of it and became a runaway, he pluged it and put it into emergancy.... the train litterly burned the brakes off.  and by putting it in emergancy with the way the units where wired up...they lost all the DB they had that was doing what it could to hold the train back.  I remember the helper crew was calling out speeds over the radio as the train did its death plung off the side of the pass.  belive it reached about 100mph befor it didnt make the curve and whiped out the houses.  also there was no fire with that derailment..the cargo that spilled was potash.  the fire came a week later after the cleanup when a gasoline pipeline was damaged durning the cleanup and ruptured..blowing up and burning a few houses that wherent destoryed in the train wreck to the ground. 
this is the only most reason wreck i know of on Cajon pass..so if this isnt the one your talking about..inlight me..
csx engineer

[Randy Stahl]

EOTs set the Brakes from the rear of the train rather than front to rear. This means shortens the stopping distance.

What would make you think that? Why would you think that a train going into emergency from the rear would stop any quicker than one going into emergency from the head end? Do you have any idea of the how much higher the percentage of breaking in two would be if the train went into emergency from the rear rather than the head end?

Have you ever operated an EOT? Do you have any idea how long it takes for them to react? I would imagine that you would think, as I at first did, that as soon as you flip the switch the rear of the train goes into emergency. That is not always the case.

The purpose of the EOT is not to put the train in emergency to stop any quicker, the purpose of the EOT is to put the train in emergency in case of a trainline blockage. In other words, in the name of safety.

I remember the FRA quoting a derailment / runaway on Cajon pass as an example for 2 way EOT's . If I remember correctly a stack train ( perhaps more than one ) desending the grade kinked an airhose and cause the train to runaway through a populated part of Bakersfield. Apparently when the slack came in , the hoses bunched.

That example was used in the FRA ruling requiring thier use.

Randy

The Cajon runnaway was not a kinked airhose. It was a closed anglecock about 20 cars back in a manifest that was like 80-90 cars long. By the time the crew realized what was happening it was too late. The 20 cars worth of brakes could not hold the train on the 3.0% grade. The train only made it about 4 miles and didn't make the curve after the I-15 underpass. The wreck killed the crew and the resulting toxic fire was bad enough that the whole pass was shut down for 3 days (138-15-and the railroads). This train would not have run away if it was equiped with a 2-way EOT. Because of this wreck the FRA requires 2-way EOTs on major grades. The railroad claimed that the anglecock was closed by someone that tampered with the train at Summit. As a result the security fence was installed and security hired to watch the trains at summit. I think it's highly unlikely the train was tampered with at Summit. I think that is just a scapegoat story to cover up employee error in Barstow.

NO the Cajon pass runways was caused by insefistent brake force...and a grossly under estimeated train weight.  the crew thought they had X number of tonns in there train and enought engins with DB to hold it back on the hill.  but in fact they had Y (which was alot more then X tones) and didnt have enought DB to hold it back on the hill.  also..the train wasnt equiped with 2 way EOT becouse there was a maned rear end helper to make it up the one side of the pass.  when the engineer lost controll of it and became a runaway, he pluged it and put it into emergancy.... the train litterly burned the brakes off.  and by putting it in emergancy with the way the units where wired up...they lost all the DB they had that was doing what it could to hold the train back.  I remember the helper crew was calling out speeds over the radio as the train did its death plung off the side of the pass.  belive it reached about 100mph befor it didnt make the curve and whiped out the houses.  also there was no fire with that derailment..the cargo that spilled was potash.  the fire came a week later after the cleanup when a gasoline pipeline was damaged durning the cleanup and ruptured..blowing up and burning a few houses that wherent destoryed in the train wreck to the ground. 
this is the only most reason wreck i know of on Cajon pass..so if this isnt the one your talking about..inlight me..
csx engineer

That was one incident , I believe that was the Duffy street incident . I'm thinking of a couple of stack trains that ran away from kinked hoses. The Duffy street derailment was a loaded mineral train not potash as potash is carried in closed covered hoppers and the cars in the Duffy derailment were open top cars..

[BigJim]

Big Jim, You didn't answer my questions. Afraid to? You seem to be down on every one, why? Did you get fired or something? That burr in your saddle, come from somewhere!

Artist,

If you will go back and look at your post you will see that you did not directly address it to me. Other than the fact that at the very bottom you grossly misquoted me, it was so incoherent that I didn't know who you were talking to, consequently, I just left it alone, just like I'm going to do with this one as you certainly have no idea about train handling whatsoever!

Randy,

You are right, they were entirely different incidences. The one csxeng. refers to had a pusher and the one you are refering to had a one way eot.

[Rodney Beck]

Amen csx, deacon & wabash I have had my card for almost 2 years now and all of you are right about first service reduction, about 2 weeks ago I had a 18,700 ton coal train I just got by the intermiedate signal on a clear then lighting struck the control point 2 miles away the signal droped out (went red stop indication) it was the middle of the night so I saw the signal drop. I sat first service in notch 8 and started notching off got down to notch 4 and took another 4 psi out of the brake pipe got to idle and took another 4 psi out of the brake pipe at this time I had a 16 psi reduction the train was slowing and a mile fromthe signal went in to dymamic brakes and took 4 more psi out of the barke pipe for a total of a 20 psi reduction at this time I would guess I was about a half a mile away at this time i went to full service 26 psi out of the brake pipe and got the train stopped about 4 engine lengths from the signal.

 

Rodney

[Randy Stahl]

Sounds like good train handling , nice job keeping a cool head !!

[chad thomas]

EOTs set the Brakes from the rear of the train rather than front to rear. This means shortens the stopping distance.

What would make you think that? Why would you think that a train going into emergency from the rear would stop any quicker than one going into emergency from the head end? Do you have any idea of the how much higher the percentage of breaking in two would be if the train went into emergency from the rear rather than the head end?

Have you ever operated an EOT? Do you have any idea how long it takes for them to react? I would imagine that you would think, as I at first did, that as soon as you flip the switch the rear of the train goes into emergency. That is not always the case.

The purpose of the EOT is not to put the train in emergency to stop any quicker, the purpose of the EOT is to put the train in emergency in case of a trainline blockage. In other words, in the name of safety.

I remember the FRA quoting a derailment / runaway on Cajon pass as an example for 2 way EOT's . If I remember correctly a stack train ( perhaps more than one ) desending the grade kinked an airhose and cause the train to runaway through a populated part of Bakersfield. Apparently when the slack came in , the hoses bunched.

That example was used in the FRA ruling requiring thier use.

Randy

The Cajon runnaway was not a kinked airhose. It was a closed anglecock about 20 cars back in a manifest that was like 80-90 cars long. By the time the crew realized what was happening it was too late. The 20 cars worth of brakes could not hold the train on the 3.0% grade. The train only made it about 4 miles and didn't make the curve after the I-15 underpass. The wreck killed the crew and the resulting toxic fire was bad enough that the whole pass was shut down for 3 days (138-15-and the railroads). This train would not have run away if it was equiped with a 2-way EOT. Because of this wreck the FRA requires 2-way EOTs on major grades. The railroad claimed that the anglecock was closed by someone that tampered with the train at Summit. As a result the security fence was installed and security hired to watch the trains at summit. I think it's highly unlikely the train was tampered with at Summit. I think that is just a scapegoat story to cover up employee error in Barstow.

NO the Cajon pass runways was caused by insefistent brake force...and a grossly under estimeated train weight.  the crew thought they had X number of tonns in there train and enought engins with DB to hold it back on the hill.  but in fact they had Y (which was alot more then X tones) and didnt have enought DB to hold it back on the hill.  also..the train wasnt equiped with 2 way EOT becouse there was a maned rear end helper to make it up the one side of the pass.  when the engineer lost controll of it and became a runaway, he pluged it and put it into emergancy.... the train litterly burned the brakes off.  and by putting it in emergancy with the way the units where wired up...they lost all the DB they had that was doing what it could to hold the train back.  I remember the helper crew was calling out speeds over the radio as the train did its death plung off the side of the pass.  belive it reached about 100mph befor it didnt make the curve and whiped out the houses.  also there was no fire with that derailment..the cargo that spilled was potash.  the fire came a week later after the cleanup when a gasoline pipeline was damaged durning the cleanup and ruptured..blowing up and burning a few houses that wherent destoryed in the train wreck to the ground. 
this is the only most reason wreck i know of on Cajon pass..so if this isnt the one your talking about..inlight me..
csx engineer

 

That was the SP wreck at Duffy st. in San Bernadino. I was talking about the ATSF wreck next to Morman Rocks.

[stmtrolleyguy]

Hello;

I just returned from a trip to NE Kansas.  While there I made a train watching stop at Perry and had the fortune of speaking with a UP Lineman working on a Grade Crossing.  As we talked a Coal Drag passed and I asked about how fast it was going.  He said 30 to 35.  He went on to say that the max speed for coal trains was 39 mph explaining that a loaded 100 car coal train moving at 50mph will require 2 1/2 miles to stop.   That astonished me and after thinking about I began to wonder if that might not be excessive.  A friend directed me to a web site dealing with stopping distance but I'm unable to make heads or tails of it.  Can anyone provide some imput?

Thank You,    TSB

Let me try.  Contrary to popular opinion, the problem isn't  the weight. The problem is that the maximum braking force the hopper car can generate is set so that the wheels don't slide when it's empty. 

An analogy.  If you are riding on a bike and you stop from 20 mph or so by dragging your feet, you can probably get stopped in pretty short order.  But, try to stopping your car from 20 mph by dragging your feet....  Same braking force - much greater inertia, so much longer stopping distances.

If the weight difference between a loaded and empty frt car is not too great, then the difference between loaded and empty stopping distances isn't too great.  The same goes if you are dealing with trains that have mixture of loads and empties.  But with unit trains, the difference can be extreme and the push for greater loaded capacity and lower tare wts only makes matters worse.

 

So...In other words, the brakes on a fully loaded hopper car are set to apply to stop the empty car.  If they were set to stop the full car, and there was a train of emptys, it would slam the brakes on too hard, possibly locking up the wheels and causing the cars to slide.

[oltmannd]

Hello;

I just returned from a trip to NE Kansas.  While there I made a train watching stop at Perry and had the fortune of speaking with a UP Lineman working on a Grade Crossing.  As we talked a Coal Drag passed and I asked about how fast it was going.  He said 30 to 35.  He went on to say that the max speed for coal trains was 39 mph explaining that a loaded 100 car coal train moving at 50mph will require 2 1/2 miles to stop.   That astonished me and after thinking about I began to wonder if that might not be excessive.  A friend directed me to a web site dealing with stopping distance but I'm unable to make heads or tails of it.  Can anyone provide some imput?

Thank You,    TSB

Let me try.  Contrary to popular opinion, the problem isn't  the weight. The problem is that the maximum braking force the hopper car can generate is set so that the wheels don't slide when it's empty. 

An analogy.  If you are riding on a bike and you stop from 20 mph or so by dragging your feet, you can probably get stopped in pretty short order.  But, try to stopping your car from 20 mph by dragging your feet....  Same braking force - much greater inertia, so much longer stopping distances.

If the weight difference between a loaded and empty frt car is not too great, then the difference between loaded and empty stopping distances isn't too great.  The same goes if you are dealing with trains that have mixture of loads and empties.  But with unit trains, the difference can be extreme and the push for greater loaded capacity and lower tare wts only makes matters worse.

 

So...In other words, the brakes on a fully loaded hopper car are set to apply to stop the empty car.  If they were set to stop the full car, and there was a train of emptys, it would slam the brakes on too hard, possibly locking up the wheels and causing the cars to slide.

Exactly!

[Anonymous]

I saw a docomentary on the Cajon runaway once.  The train had been loaded improperly.  If my memory is right, it was a unit train of open hoppers usualy loaded with a mineral that I can't remember, but on that day they were loaded with Taconite, which needed to be filled to a lower level in the car.  The shipper was unaware of this and filled the cars to a higher level, causing the train to have a higher weight than the expected wieght in the calculations for the grade and motive power requirements.

Acording to the documentary, once the train had been loaded, a runaway was inevitable.

[zardoz]

Sounds like good train handling , nice job keeping a cool head !!

With a loaded coal train he could have gone straight to full service (since he was in run 8 anyway) and not had any problems stopping in a much shorter distance (unless he was in hog-back country).

[Randy Stahl]

Sounds like good train handling , nice job keeping a cool head !!

With a loaded coal train he could have gone straight to full service (since he was in run 8 anyway) and not had any problems stopping in a much shorter distance (unless he was in hog-back country).

I think in the rule book (at least in ours) we pretty much demand a split reduction , going right in to full service is a good way to get an efficiency failure if the RFE downloads your train . Other than that peskey rule I agree, sounds like he had them right where he wanted them .

[zardoz]

Sounds like good train handling , nice job keeping a cool head !!

With a loaded coal train he could have gone straight to full service (since he was in run 8 anyway) and not had any problems stopping in a much shorter distance (unless he was in hog-back country).

I think in the rule book (at least in ours) we pretty much demand a split reduction , going right in to full service is a good way to get an efficiency failure if the RFE downloads your train . Other than that peskey rule I agree, sounds like he had them right where he wanted them .

Randy,

Please explain "efficiency failure if the RFE downloads".  I am unfamiliar with those terms.

I certainly understand the handling advantages of using a split reduction, but in the case of a signal dropping, I would want to stop as quickly as possible, in case the signal dropping was due to an opposing movement fouling the main line. 

However, I still maintain that with a unit train, the small amount (if any) of unwanted slack action would be at best a very minimal risk.

[dldance]

Amen csx, deacon & wabash I have had my card for almost 2 years now and all of you are right about first service reduction, about 2 weeks ago I had a 18,700 ton coal train I just got by the intermiedate signal on a clear then lighting struck the control point 2 miles away the signal droped out (went red stop indication) it was the middle of the night so I saw the signal drop. I sat first service in notch 8 and started notching off got down to notch 4 and took another 4 psi out of the brake pipe got to idle and took another 4 psi out of the brake pipe at this time I had a 16 psi reduction the train was slowing and a mile fromthe signal went in to dymamic brakes and took 4 more psi out of the barke pipe for a total of a 20 psi reduction at this time I would guess I was about a half a mile away at this time i went to full service 26 psi out of the brake pipe and got the train stopped about 4 engine lengths from the signal.

 

Rodney

I repeat the previous comment of great train handling.  Almost anyone can get a train moving but stopping nearly 19,000 tons is a fine art. Nice to know you didn't make headlines. 

dd

[zardoz]

Amen csx, deacon & wabash I have had my card for almost 2 years now and all of you are right about first service reduction, about 2 weeks ago I had a 18,700 ton coal train I just got by the intermiedate signal on a clear then lighting struck the control point 2 miles away the signal droped out (went red stop indication) it was the middle of the night so I saw the signal drop. I sat first service in notch 8 and started notching off got down to notch 4 and took another 4 psi out of the brake pipe got to idle and took another 4 psi out of the brake pipe at this time I had a 16 psi reduction the train was slowing and a mile fromthe signal went in to dymamic brakes and took 4 more psi out of the barke pipe for a total of a 20 psi reduction at this time I would guess I was about a half a mile away at this time i went to full service 26 psi out of the brake pipe and got the train stopped about 4 engine lengths from the signal.

 

Rodney

I repeat the previous comment of great train handling.  Almost anyone can get a train moving but stopping nearly 19,000 tons is a fine art. Nice to know you didn't make headlines. 

dd

A fine art? To stop a coal train?  Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.  He did a nice job (with a lot of extra work), but it was hardly "art". 

Getting a poorly-powered, badly-blocked train over the road in territory where at any given time part of your 150 car train is going uphill, part is going down hill, and yet a third part is doing something in between, with a slow order at the bottom of the hill and just barely (in good conditions) sufficient power to crest the hill after the slow order, and to top it off having wet or snowy rail.  And to make it more fun, add in a 24RL brake valve in the lead unit and a crew in the caboose.  Now THAT requires the skilled hands of an artist.

[Randy Stahl]

RFE= road forman of engines . In most train handling rulebooks a split reduction is the rule , not the suggestion . A road forman can use event recorder downloads to perform a efficiency test or ride check , if a split reduction is not made it is a violtion of the rules. I don't think the rules exclude unit trains.

[BigJim]

I saw a docomentary on the Cajon runaway once.  The train had been loaded improperly.....Acording to the documentary, once the train had been loaded, a runaway was inevitable.

ruppert,

You are remembering correctly about this documentary, however, this is not the same incident that brought about the two way eot's.

With a loaded coal train he could have gone straight to full service (since he was in run 8 anyway) and not had any problems stopping in a much shorter distance (unless he was in hog-back country).

A fine art? To stop a coal train?  Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.  He did a nice job (with a lot of extra work), but it was hardly "art".

I agree with zardoz on this.

While rule books may suggest using a split reduction to stop a train under normal circumstances, it does not prohibit single reductions. In the case of a signal dropping in my face, I would decide on what to do depending on the prevailing situation.

 

[chad thomas]

I saw a docomentary on the Cajon runaway once.  The train had been loaded improperly.  If my memory is right, it was a unit train of open hoppers usualy loaded with a mineral that I can't remember, but on that day they were loaded with Taconite, which needed to be filled to a lower level in the car.  The shipper was unaware of this and filled the cars to a higher level, causing the train to have a higher weight than the expected wieght in the calculations for the grade and motive power requirements.

Acording to the documentary, once the train had been loaded, a runaway was inevitable.

Actually the cars were loaded properly but a clerk in Mojave grossly underestimated the weight because he used a less dense material as a referance instead of verifying the weight of the material in the cars (Trona I think). Then that was compounded by a dynamic brake failure. 

[StillGrande]

EOTs set the Brakes from the rear of the train rather than front to rear. This means shortens the stopping distance.

What would make you think that? Why would you think that a train going into emergency from the rear would stop any quicker than one going into emergency from the head end? Do you have any idea of the how much higher the percentage of breaking in two would be if the train went into emergency from the rear rather than the head end?

Have you ever operated an EOT? Do you have any idea how long it takes for them to react? I would imagine that you would think, as I at first did, that as soon as you flip the switch the rear of the train goes into emergency. That is not always the case.

The purpose of the EOT is not to put the train in emergency to stop any quicker, the purpose of the EOT is to put the train in emergency in case of a trainline blockage. In other words, in the name of safety.

I remember the FRA quoting a derailment / runaway on Cajon pass as an example for 2 way EOT's . If I remember correctly a stack train ( perhaps more than one ) desending the grade kinked an airhose and cause the train to runaway through a populated part of Bakersfield. Apparently when the slack came in , the hoses bunched.

That example was used in the FRA ruling requiring thier use.

Randy

The Cajon runnaway was not a kinked airhose. It was a closed anglecock about 20 cars back in a manifest that was like 80-90 cars long. By the time the crew realized what was happening it was too late. The 20 cars worth of brakes could not hold the train on the 3.0% grade. The train only made it about 4 miles and didn't make the curve after the I-15 underpass. The wreck killed the crew and the resulting toxic fire was bad enough that the whole pass was shut down for 3 days (138-15-and the railroads). This train would not have run away if it was equiped with a 2-way EOT. Because of this wreck the FRA requires 2-way EOTs on major grades. The railroad claimed that the anglecock was closed by someone that tampered with the train at Summit. As a result the security fence was installed and security hired to watch the trains at summit. I think it's highly unlikely the train was tampered with at Summit. I think that is just a scapegoat story to cover up employee error in Barstow.

NO the Cajon pass runways was caused by insefistent brake force...and a grossly under estimeated train weight.  the crew thought they had X number of tonns in there train and enought engins with DB to hold it back on the hill.  but in fact they had Y (which was alot more then X tones) and didnt have enought DB to hold it back on the hill.  also..the train wasnt equiped with 2 way EOT becouse there was a maned rear end helper to make it up the one side of the pass.  when the engineer lost controll of it and became a runaway, he pluged it and put it into emergancy.... the train litterly burned the brakes off.  and by putting it in emergancy with the way the units where wired up...they lost all the DB they had that was doing what it could to hold the train back.  I remember the helper crew was calling out speeds over the radio as the train did its death plung off the side of the pass.  belive it reached about 100mph befor it didnt make the curve and whiped out the houses.  also there was no fire with that derailment..the cargo that spilled was potash.  the fire came a week later after the cleanup when a gasoline pipeline was damaged durning the cleanup and ruptured..blowing up and burning a few houses that wherent destoryed in the train wreck to the ground. 
this is the only most reason wreck i know of on Cajon pass..so if this isnt the one your talking about..inlight me..
csx engineer

That was one incident , I believe that was the Duffy street incident . I'm thinking of a couple of stack trains that ran away from kinked hoses. The Duffy street derailment was a loaded mineral train not potash as potash is carried in closed covered hoppers and the cars in the Duffy derailment were open top cars..

What made the national news were:

--A freight train runaway on Burlington Northern Santa Fe on Cajon Pass. Two crew members died.

In the wake of the BNSF derailment on Cajon and subsequent inspections on BNSF, FRA said it had determined "that the railroad's operations in the area pose an imminent and unacceptable threat to public safety." FRA issued an emergency order requiring use of two-way EOT devices, use of a crew-occupied helper locomotive on the rear of the train, or use of "other comparable measures" to provide for braking capability from the rear as well as from the head end.

From Railway Age, March 1996.

 

Testimony before the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Railroads, House of Representatives
March 12, 1996
The second accident that led to NTSB safety recommendations on the power brake regulations occurred near San Bernardino, California. About 7:30 a.m., local time on May 12, 1989, Southern Pacific Transportation Company freight train 111, which consisted of a four-unit locomotive, 69 hopper cars loaded with trona, and a two-unit helper locomotive on the rear of the train, derailed at milepost 486.8. The entire train was destroyed as a result of the derailment. Seven homes located in the adjacent neighborhood were totally destroyed and four others were extensively damaged. Of the five crew members on board the train, two on the head end of the train were killed. A third crewman on the head end received serious injuries, and two crewmen on the rear end of the train received minor injuries. Of eight residents in their homes at the time of the accident, two were killed and one received serious injuries as a result of being trapped under debris for 15 hours. Local officials evacuated homes in the surrounding area because of a concern that a 14-inch pipeline owned by the Calnev Pipe Line Company, which was transporting gasoline and was located under the wreckage, may have been damaged. Residents were allowed to return to their homes about 24 hours after the derailment.

About 8:05 a.m., on May 25, 1989, 13 days after the train derailment, the 14-inch pipeline ruptured at the site of the derailment, released its product

[zardoz]

RFE= road forman of engines . In most train handling rulebooks a split reduction is the rule , not the suggestion . A road forman can use event recorder downloads to perform a efficiency test or ride check , if a split reduction is not made it is a violtion of the rules. I don't think the rules exclude unit trains.

Thanks, Randy (we used to call them "Travelling Engineers").

 

What a stupid rule!!  Is that in the GCOR?

 

Generalization:  Although, with engineers being "created" out of conductors with all of 1 year experience, I suppose there is now the need to make these kind of rules so these highly inexperienced engineers do not fupp duck.  It's a good thing the modern locomotives do so much thinking for the engineer, for with the little training they get, they need all the help then can get.

[tree68]

From the 2004 UP "Air Brake and Train Handling Rules" -

33.3 Use Of Automatic Brake
33.3.1 Applying or Reapplying Automatic Brakes
When applying or reapplying automatic brakes, make brake pipe
reductions according to these guidelines:
1. Make an initial brake pipe reduction as follows:

For a fully charged system, reduce the brake pipe at least 6 PSI.
Or

For an undercharged system, following a release, reduce the brake
pipe 5 PSI below the previous reduction.
2. Use split reductions for planned slowdowns and stops. Make an initial
reduction of 6 to 8 PSI followed by additional reductions in 2 to 3 PSI
increments spaced 30 seconds apart.
3. Make a final reduction when operating conditions permit as train is
nearing a stop to prevent a run out of slack. A final reduction is a brake
pipe reduction made in such a way as to result in brake pipe pressure
exhausting as the train comes to a stop.

[rrboomer]

Tree 68's quote of UP AB&TH rule 33.3 would be for a 'Planned stop". CP Rail's  book says about the same thing, except wants the throttle ruduced to no more than forth position before the ititial brake application (pausing at least 3 seconds between each notch, and this is a fine way to stop a train if you have enough distance to the point where you have to stop. CP also doesn't want more than a 15lb reduction used.

The young runner was not making a "Planned" stop and he did a FINE job getting his train stopped and kept "In train" forces" as low as possible under the conditions he was presented. Note he used all of his  two miles to get stopped. It's not the way I would have done it but I wasn't in his seat.

As you go along the road you try to live up to the air brake rules but sometimes the circumstances require more aggressive action to get stopped. Getting the train stopped is the most important part of the job.