BREAKING NEWS - Amtrak train rear ends freight in Chicago

[oltmannd]

 

 As for the signal , enough excuses, even if this engineer got confused and thought it was a diverging aproach, how come he/she was at 40 mph and accelerating ????

Diverging Aproach is still only medium speed or 30 mph for passenger trains.

 Again this person not only was ignorant of signals but on what road they were on, and in my opinion not fit to be running a locomotive.

That's what I don't get.  He was behaving like he had a slow clear, which would be R/R/G on a high color light signal.   Restricting would be R/R/Y.  Wonder if he got so lost in though getting down to slow speed for the control point that he forgot about the what the signal told him about the track occupancy on the other side.

[wabash1]

carl tell me about the signal mast at this  place is it a 2 head or a 3 head  this will clear up alot of mis information.

[CShaveRR]

CORA book shows it as a signal bridge with a pair of two-head signals.

[Anonymous]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZWpeU55J3E&NR=1

see why you should ride somewhere in the middle of the train

[eolafan]

I guess we can safely say that F40 won't be passing our little town depot any time soon!!!!

[tomwazy]

 

   The Englewood signal is an overhead bridge spanning 3 tracks...two main tracks and a yard track entering the main. There are two signal heads for each track. The signas and the signal bridge were replaced from the old Pennsy posistion style to the current color lights on an alumnium structure.

   Under Norac signal rules,which on NS only apply in ex Conrail territory,a red over yellow is "restricting". For it to have been a medium approach,thereby allowing medium speed,it would have had to have been red over flashing yellow on a two head signal.

  I have been told the engineer called the signal as "slow approach" over the radio,and that the conductor,who is back in the train,recorded it as such on his/her paperwork. A slow approach conveys a clear block ahead,prepared to stop at the next signal. That would explain to some degree his not looking for a train ahead in his block.

[Dutchrailnut]

On a slow Approach his/her best speed should have never exceeded 30 mph , so where is excuuse for the 40 mph and accelerating ??

SLOW APPROACH

Proceed prepared to stop at next

signal. Slow Speed applies until entire

train clears switches, then Medium Speed applies.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

As for Mr Blysards comment, here is actual  Norac rule 94 with no exeption for off duty employees, or statement to effect of crew members only.

94. Responsibilities of Employees: Signals and Restrictions

a. General Requirements

Employees qualified on the operating rules and located on the leading engine or car must be on the lookout for signals affecting the movement of their train. They must communicate to each other in a clear manner the name of each signal as soon as it becomes clearly visible. After the name of a signal has been communicated, employees must observe it until passed. Any change in the signal must be communicated in the required manner.

When a train reaches a point 2 miles from a temporary restriction, employees qualified on physical characteristics and located on the leading engine or car must immediately communicate with the Engineer and confirm the requirements of the restriction.

If a train is not operated in accordance with the requirements of a signal indication or restriction, qualified employees located on the leading engine or car must communicate with the Engineer immediately. If necessary, they must stop the train.

 

[ericsp]

Yes, Wabash, Medium Speed (or slow speed) are defined on railroads that use indications with those words in them.  But, if this engineer thought he had a Diverging Approach (I know, not thinking NS), the speed is specified--30 mph on BNSF, 40 on CN, CP, or UP.  Medium Approach has a defined speed of 30 on Amtrak as well.

The signal encountered at Englewood is a high signal, on a bridge.

I have read the rest of the post now before replying, I agree that the signal was misunderstood. in that it was human error, but to change all the signal systems because of this is wrong, You are trained on the trackage you run on, and that includes signals ( as you know) there is conductors out there working the same jobs who can't tell you what the signal aspect is much less the meaning, these also are your future engineers. How long has this student engineer been working this line why was the lead engineer not paying attention? these wont be answered anytime soon, I work the old southern side of the ns, i have looked at and even run on trackage of the old n&w side, Not knowing the signal mast or the territory I can give a good guess on what it indicated, Like what was stated in the past post there can be as many as 3 meanings for that signal i can think of, as well as differant meanings for slow speed medium speed , this is why i have no problem with the southern railway signals  red yellow and green.

red= stop or if number plate restricting

yellow = approach

green = go.

real simple, time table tells your speeds to run . But i still say no lunar white the light blends in to other lights in some areas makes it hard to see. flashing red works  just go slow and make sure its not connected to another train.

In my opinion we should have one signal system just like we one standard gauge track. It doesn't take a Ph.D to figure that out.

Make thousands of engineers memorize new signals for the benefit of a few? How many accidents might that cause during the transition?

[ericsp]

I see that the lawyers are already feeding on this. Somebody is suing both Amtrak and NS. Why NS, other than they have big money? All they did was be there. Hopefully it will be thrown PDQ.

NS owns the tracks and they are responsible. Amtrak only pays for "trackage rights".

No. That's not the deal that Amtrak has with the frt carriers.  Amtrak carries all the liability for their trains and passengers when operated over the frt roads. 

Straight from amtrak's site (bold emphasis is mine):

Train 371, the Pere Marquette - Service Disruption Near Chicago

November 30, 2007
7:30 pm CDT

Amtrak is working with the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board and other agencies following a collision involving Amtrak Train 371, the Pere Marquette, of Friday, November 30, with a Norfolk Southern (NS) freight train on NS tracks south of Chicago.

There were 187 passengers and six employees on board the Amtrak train. Most passengers and crew members were unhurt and were later transported to Amtrak Chicago Union Station and on to their destinations. Amtrak will work through the weekend, if needed, to care for affected passengers and employees. Two Amtrak employees were among the most seriously injured.

Amtrak service has resumed over this route between Chicago and points east, including Michigan, subject to some delays in the affected area. The only significant service disruption on Saturday, December 1, is the operation of Train 371, which will be represented by chartered motorcoaches for the full route south and west from Grand Rapids to Chicago.

Passengers should call 800-USA-RAIL or visit Amtrak.com for specific information and train status updates.

This information is correct as of the date and time above and will be updated as needed.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/Simple_Copy_Popup&c=am2Copy&cid=1178294090161

Check your information. It was in NS tracks but a CSX train. Check the facts.

Checking the facts is a good idea. Now if only a certain person would do that.

[georgr]

Hi all. Interesting discusion.

I do not have a lot of knolage about signaling here. But I still have one question about that signaling aspect. Why would you let a train run into an ocupied block anyway? What is the reason for that?

To me it would be clear and easy if a block is not empty, or clear, no other train can enter it. This way no accidents like this would happen. I hope.

Georg 

[CShaveRR]

Why would you let a train run into an ocupied block anyway? What is the reason for that?

Georg 

Basically, to get the train out of the way.  Two trains were approaching Englewood on Track 1:  Amtrak 371, westbound, and an NS manifest freight, eastbound (the tank cars from this train were visible on the video).  So they crossed the Amtrak train over.  Just to do that, they had to move it across the control point and into the occupied block.  And at that point, the Restricted Speed definition allowed it to proceed slowly (maximum speed 15, but always capable of stopping short, within half the range of vision).

[oltmannd]

Hi all. Interesting discusion.

I do not have a lot of knolage about signaling here. But I still have one question about that signaling aspect. Why would you let a train run into an ocupied block anyway? What is the reason for that?

To me it would be clear and easy if a block is not empty, or clear, no other train can enter it. This way no accidents like this would happen. I hope.

Georg 

It can let you get a mile or more closer to where you're headed.  Or, you might have to fit two trains into a single passing siding, example.

There is currently no automatic enforcement of any signal aspect, even a stop signal at an interlocking.  Letting a train run at restricted speed into an occupied block probably isn't  any more dangerous than letting a train run by a clear signal at track speed.  You're still depending on the man to follow the rules -- and the rules don't allow for collisions....

[spokyone]

There is currently no automatic enforcement of any signal aspect

I don't understand this statement. Please explain.

[oltmannd]

There is currently no automatic enforcement of any signal aspect

I don't understand this statement. Please explain.

You can run a stop signal with a train almost as easily as you can run a red light in your car.  Even with cab signal or train stop equipment, all you have to do is acknowledge the signal and you can keep on truckin'.  Even with LSL or suppression speed control equipment, you can still operate 15 mph all day long.

Positive train stop is still mostly just a dream for the frt RRs.  Some transit operations have it and NJT is has a cab signal based scheme they are working on,  and the frt RRs are playing around with various computer/communication based schemes in a very limited way, but that's about it, so far, at least.

[Krazykat112079]

There is currently no automatic enforcement of any signal aspect

I don't understand this statement. Please explain.

Not automatic, as in it still depends on the guy (or gal) at the throttle to do what they are supposed to do with a given aspect.   

[Anonymous]

Most interesting thread, although as a non railroader, the discussion of signal aspects confuses me a bit.  Never mind- I will ask the pros I know nearby what y'all mean.

A couple of amateur questions come to mind.

1) The black box on board the locomotive- Does this also have a voice pickup, like the aviation versions do?  I know from my own experience that locomotive cabs are noisy- maybe too noisy for a mike to pick up crew conversations.  I also know that some railroads have put cameras in the cab which tie into the "black box"- would this Genesis have one of those as well?

2) What exactly happens with a locomotive post crash like this?  The NTSB FAA crash crews tend to isolate crashed planes in a hanger for technical evaluation- does the same sort of thing happen here?  Who evaluates whether the locomotive is totalled or not?  I have visions of a State Farm guy standing there with a clipboard... shaking his head and contemplating whether a deductable applies.

3) Which brings up another question- does AMTRAK carry private insurance for accidents like this, or are they self insured?  Given the hullabaloo over the budget... completely replacing a locomotive out of their operations budget would be a fair sized chunk of money- even assuming the manufacturer (EMD or GE?) even makes them anymore...

Thanks for the answers.  I'll go back to figuring out what a lunar aspect is on my own.

[Anonymous]

Whoops, some of the above questions were answered on another thread.  My bad- will look closer next time. Manifold apologies.

[Anonymous]

While I was at work yesterday a co-worker asked me what I thought was going to happen to the engineer . I said Amtrak will probably fire the guy . My co-worker then stated that the engineer was a female engineer who has not been a engineer too long . This is just what I heard . You know how rumors are .

[georgr]

Hi

Thanks for the clearing of the signalin. It is more understandable now.

To me, I am from Switzerland,  makes just not much sense to run into ocupied block. It is not being done here. Sure no rules without exception!

Thanks Georg

[spokyone]

   Reviewing the pages of this thread, there has been no mention of the dispatcher communicating by radio, what his intentions are. On my most recent trip to Kansas City, our train was directed into a siding already occupied by a coal train. The dispatcher informed us in plain language on the radio to go "knuckle to knuckle." After the meet, he directed us step by step, as we backed out of the siding, until we were on our way.
  Is this procedure common?
 

[vlmuke]

as far as communication from the dispatcher there typically is very little maybe 2 to 1 or signal indication if you're stopped, he or she is busy enough as it is, unless something specific needs to happen such as going into the siding and shoving out later, but running on the main little communication is needed everything is governed by the timetable, bulletins and signals in this case it is purely a mistake by the crew by calling a wrong signal and going by the wrong signal the black box in a loco is very similar to a planes black box it records throttle position radio traffic etc.. as far as the damage to the loco it might be able to be repaired if not they will cannibilize it for parts so all is not lost as far as more than one train on the tracks you have to that line moves over 100 trains a day on it if you only had one train on a track at a time you would never get any freight moved the engineer most likey will never work as engineer again but possibly could in a year or so but would you get behind the controls if it were you?

[Dutchrailnut]

While I was at work yesterday a co-worker asked me what I thought was going to happen to the engineer . I said Amtrak will probably fire the guy . My co-worker then stated that the engineer was a female engineer who has not been a engineer too long . This is just what I heard . You know how rumors are .

 

Your Co-worker was patially right, but the Female engineer was the one NOT operating and outlawed.

 The Male engineer was operating see:

http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2007/12/amtrak_engineer_was_new_to_job.html

[edblysard]

Let's try one more time...

The other engineer was off duty, had hit the hours of service, was deadheading back to his or her home terminal and by law, is forbidden to perform any service for the carrier.

Any service at all, including lining switches, lacing air hoses, or calling signals.

He/she is simply the equal of a piece of baggage, and is being transported back by the company, the same as if he was riding in a crew van or private taxi.

I know about NORAC rule 94, I work under the GCOR, which has the same rule about crew members calling signals, almost word for word.

Please show me, in either NORAC or the GCOR any rule which specifically instructs any deadheading employees to call signals.

And please show me any rule, in either NORAC or GCOR that specifically prevents deadheading employees from riding in the lead locomotive.

There is none, because for all intents, deadheading employees do not exist in terms of operating rules.

Nothing in either rule book instructs a deadheading employee to perform any service to the carrier except ride, and that particular circumstance is not covered by the "rules" but rather by the national union contract, which forces carriers to provide a form of transportation, of the carriers choice, back to the on duty terminal for any T&E employee over the hours of service law who is not going to "work" their way back in service.

There is no rule in either book that prevents a deadheading employee from riding in the cab, in fact, neither book has any specific instructions about where a deadheading employee in passenger service must ride, or can not ride, it simply is not addressed.

 

You are assuming that a dead heading employee is required by rule to perform service for the carrier.

That is incorrect; they can not, both by union contract and by Federal law.

I suggest you read the hours of service law; it is quite specific about what an off duty employee can, and can not do.

If they are off duty, they may not perform any service for the carrier...including calling signals, period.

 

For Amtrak, deadheading engineers and conductors on the train, in the cab, is a normal occurrence, it happens ever single day.

I work for a freight railroad, and we routinely deadhead entire 3 man crews back in our locomotive.

I can guarantee you that not a one of them will ever call a signal, line a switch, or in any manner help with the operation of the train, they are forbidden to do so by law.

When we arrive at the terminal, they will detrain, go directly to their automobiles, and leave...they are even forbidden from tying up in the time keeping system as this is service to the carrier.

They have to wait until the next time they are on duty to enter their time claim, call in feedback to the clerks, or perform any service to the carrier.

 

Unless there was an on duty conductor assigned to that train present in the cab, the rules assign full responsibility for the safe operation of the train to the assigned engineer.

 

By rule, in the absence of the conductor, the engineer is required to operate the train in a safe manner consistent with the railroads train handling and operating rules.

The presence of a deadheading employee in the cab in no shape, form or fashion alters that.

As for Mr Blysards comment, here is actual  Norac rule 94 with no exeption for off duty employees, or statement to effect of crew members only.

94. Responsibilities of Employees: Signals and Restrictions

a. General Requirements

Employees qualified on the operating rules and located on the leading engine or car must be on the lookout for signals affecting the movement of their train. They must communicate to each other in a clear manner the name of each signal as soon as it becomes clearly visible. After the name of a signal has been communicated, employees must observe it until passed. Any change in the signal must be communicated in the required manner.

When a train reaches a point 2 miles from a temporary restriction, employees qualified on physical characteristics and located on the leading engine or car must immediately communicate with the Engineer and confirm the requirements of the restriction.

If a train is not operated in accordance with the requirements of a signal indication or restriction, qualified employees located on the leading engine or car must communicate with the Engineer immediately. If necessary, they must stop the train.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

Let me know which part of following rule you do not understand :

Employees qualified on the operating rules and located on the leading engine or car must be on the lookout for signals affecting the movement of their train

[Anonymous]

While I was at work yesterday a co-worker asked me what I thought was going to happen to the engineer . I said Amtrak will probably fire the guy . My co-worker then stated that the engineer was a female engineer who has not been a engineer too long . This is just what I heard . You know how rumors are .

 

Your Co-worker was patially right, but the Female engineer was the one NOT operating and outlawed.

 The Male engineer was operating see:

http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2007/12/amtrak_engineer_was_new_to_job.html

thanks for the info

[Dakguy201]

Ed, I understand the deadheading engineer had no duty to call the signal, monitor the signal or even to remain awake.  However, I would think that close to the end of the run she was at least taking some interest in their arrival. 

However, if I were in the cab and realized a signal had been missed or misread, I would  say something cautionary.  It may not be my duty, but I am riding in the cab also.  From that I conclude she either did not see it or it was difficult to see correctly.  I'm aware that the last few miles of that line are nearly exactly north/south but perhaps there is some factor here that makes difficult visibility at that particular signal?  Certainly, I don't know, but it is one of those factors the feds are going to have to eliminate. 

[MP173]

Perhaps, just perhaps she was dozing at the time and was not aware of the eminent situation.  She certainly would have been entitled to that rest.

ed

[Chris30]

quote by: Edblysard

He/she is simply the equal of a piece of baggage, and is being transported back by the company, the same as if he was riding in a crew van or private taxi.

quote by: Dutchrailnut:

Let me know which part of following rule you do not understand :

Employees qualified on the operating rules and located on the leading engine or car must be on the lookout for signals affecting the movement of their train.

Honestly, I couldn't say who is right or wrong... But one thing I do know is that a piece of baggage has never called a signal!

I'm looking forward to finding out how involved the dispatcher(s) were in this acident. There has been some confusion regarding which railroad / dispatcher has authority at this location - NS in Michigan or Metra. I would have to believe that since it's NS owned track it would be a NS dispatcher calling the shots. Anyway, while the dispatcher isn't required to communicate situations like this to a train crew with signal indication being sufficient, I think that this type of situation would have warranted special attention / instructions considering the cargo on the Amtrak train and the congestion in the area: NS DS to Amtrak 321... (after Amtrak 321 respnds) I'm going to line you through CP Englewood two to one to get you around a freight that's eastbound approaching CP Englewood on one. Proceed on signal indication at normal switch speed then restricted speed not to exceed 15mph. I've got a westbound freight holding at CP [whatever the next control point is] so I need you pull up behind that freight and hold. The Amtrak train would then have to repeat those instructions back to the dispatcher that they acknowledge they are going to cross two to one at CP Englewood on signal indication not to exceed 15mph and that they are to hold behind the freight occupying the block.

CC

[edblysard]

Darkguy,

I agree...trust me, if I was deadheading and the engineer I was riding with missed a signal, especially in this situation, I would have at the least said something to him...and depending on the environment, maybe even plug the train.

But I would have no obligation to do a thing under the operating rules, in fact, by law, I would be forbidden to do any service to the carrier other than polishing the seat.

People outside the industry tend to confuse the operation rules with laws....they are not the same.

The "RULES", be they NORAC or GCOR, are nothing more that operating procedures, written by and agreed upon by the subscribing railroads, but overseen by the FRA.

The FRA doesn't write the rules, but they are empowered to force subscribing railroads to follow those rules through fines.

They can, and do make recommendations, even setting standards. Often those recommendations and standards are incorporated into the rules, and the FRA can interpret the rules as they see fit, and base new recommendations on that interpretation.

No operation rule may supersede any Federal law, which the hours of service law is.

The FRA can and does and fine railroads which violate the laws, such as the Hours of Service Law, and will fine the employee too if circumstance warrant it.

 

I did a quick survey at work today, including my local UTU president, several senior conductors and engineers, a trainmaster and a dispatcher, and my railroads Superintendent, (former BN Corridor and Terminal manager) and every one of them said the same thing.

They are all aware of the accident, and the unknown circumstances surrounding it.

Under no circumstance would they expect the deadheading engineer to be calling signals.

 

All of them offered the same opinion as to why this happened.

The on duty engineer was either confused or not quite certain where he was being routed, and or miss interpreted the last signal, made an assumption about track conditions, and realized his mistake way too late.

All of them correctly pointed out that, if this was yard tracks or a running rail, as opposed to main line, then restricted speed was the max he should have been moving at.

Obviously, he failed to heed that rule.

If this was a main line, the dispatcher should have warned him about the traffic ahead.

Not too many choices about the reasons this happened, considering the NTSB has already stated the last signal was displaying the correct aspect according to the signal computer log.