CN and 21 Minutes: Is it enough?

[MP173]

I listen in on the scanner regularly and hear the dispatchers often report to trains something to the effect that

"it has been reported that...., please proceed with caution....etc"

The entire timeline of when the 911 call was made, when the patrolman inspected it, when the call was made to CN, and the time of the accident will be very interesting to sort out.

ed

[henry6]

Bucyrus

henry6

Law enforcement official on private property?  Doubt it for several reasons. First, it would be tresspassing and also not of thier juristiction.  Secondly, liability...to and from the railroad and to and from the enforcment agency's authority.  Third, there probably was a lot more that the law enforcement agency had on its hands. 

I can’t imagine that any of these points would or should prevent the police from taking action in an emergency.  Suppose the police were there at the crossing concluding that the washout was serious enough to threaten a train, and a train suddenly appeared on the horizon.  What should they do in that case? 

 

If it were me in that case, and if I had a fusee in my car, there is no question about what I would do if I saw a train approaching from a significant distance.  And I would not worry about trespassing. 

I am basing my statement on a conversation I had with a police department that would not take action when a crossing gate was down and there was no train.  His reason was that should something happen to the public because of the police action the police and the municipality would be at risk.  Therefore no action was less r4isky than some safety action (like stopping people from going around the gates!)

[tree68]

zardoz

When I called the posted number, my call went directly to the dispatcher

WC was a relatively small "local" railroad.  As I pointed out earlier, CSX calls go to Jax - to the railroad police, I believe.  While I think I've heard the Jax power desk talking directly to a crew here in NNY, I suspect that any information of the type we're discussing has to be relayed from Jax to the Selkirk DS handling the NY line in question.   That's all gonna take time.

[zardoz]

Paul_D_North_Jr

On the other hand, if the typical time lag from call to police to DS notification of train crew is consistently in the 15 to 30 minute range as seems to be indicated by the accounts above, then maybe another strategy is needed.

If that is true, then this whole system of putting a phone number on a crossing gate and calling it an "emergency" number is rather flawed.

Years ago I noticed something along the (then) WC mainline that required the attention of a railroad professional.  When I called the posted number, my call went directly to the dispatcher (I recognized his voice from the scanner).  Within 2 minutes the dispatcher was on the radio informing the appropriate personnel (I heard the radio call myself). 2 minutes--not 15 to 30!!  And the reason for the call was not nearly as serious as a washout.

Of course, that was on the WC, not the CN.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

tree68

zardoz

I am astounded by the suggestion that the train was travelling at track speed through all that weather and that the brakes were not even applied until it went into emergency. If true, then the train crew showed very poor judgement operating that way.

The accounts I found said the train was doing 38 and accelerating, which still shows less than stellar judgment, given the reported weather at the time.

[snip] I get the feeling there may not be a single smoking gun here - this incident was a combination of a number of things that could/should have been done better. [snip]

From the Rockford Register Star article that was linked in the post by Bucyrus at 10;37 AM today [06-24-2009].  Note that the person saying this was an NTSB Board Member of the investigation team, not an uninformed layperson;

'The train was traveling 34 mph at the time of the accident, well below the 50 mph speed limit, according to information retrieved from the train’s data system. Because the train was leaving an urban area, it was accelerating, said Robert Sumwalt, one of the NTSB’s five board members and one of 15 NTSB staff members in town for the investigation.

The emergency brake went off at 8:36 p.m., but wasn’t deployed by the train’s engineer, Sumwalt said. While he wouldn’t confirm what set it off, he said the brake can be set off by train cars separating from each other.' [emphasis added - PDN]

- Paul North.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Well, we're now focusing on a couple of incidents where the police notified the railroad, but the appropriate action apparently wasn't taken.

To be fair, I wonder how often - and how quickly - the 'right' action is taken, and promptly - but so we never hear about it [Q] 

Or, are we only seeing the few and rare failures [Q]  Yes, I know, 100 per cent infallibility on this [and many other things] is certainly the desired goal.  But if these are the exceptions that prove the rule, then maybe we just have to accept that as being the irreducible minimum of failures, and move on.

On the other hand, if the typical time lag from call to police to DS notification of train crew is consistently in the 15 to 30 minute range as seems to be indicated by the accounts above, then maybe another strategy is needed.  Perhaps the cops and county EMS personnel need to be told that's the reality of the situation, so if you think something needs to be done sooner, then be prepared to do it yourself.

This reminds me of something I've been told about wilderness rescues - figure an additional 1 hour for response and evacuation, for each 1/4 mile that you're away from a roadway.  So if you're really back in the brush or up the creek, you'd better 'Be Prepared' to take care of yourself, in a lot of different ways.  [Kind of like that guy a couple years ago who self-amputated his hand with a pocketknife after it was pinned by a falling boulder for a couple of days and he couldn't extricate it by himself, or similar . . .   ]

- Paul North.

[tree68]

zardoz

I am astounded by the suggestion that the train was travelling at track speed through all that weather and that the brakes were not even applied until it went into emergency. If true, then the train crew showed very poor judgement operating that way.

The accounts I found said the train was doing 38 and accelerating, which still shows less than stellar judgment, given the reported weather at the time.

As for the deputy - I couldn't find anything to indicate that there was more than one patrol on the scene, and I'm sure he figured he'd done what he could by initiating the call(s).  

Properly flagging the reported washout would require someone a mile or more away in both directions (given the reported track speed), since it appears that no one knew which direction a train might be arriving in.   One patrol - two flags - and as has been mentioned, other patrols may well have been occupied with other storm-related responses.  

Even if he had gone to the crossings east and west of the problem area, all he could have done at one was drop a flare - and that assumes that he understands the significance of a lit flare to a railroader, which he may not.

I get the feeling there may not be a single smoking gun here - this incident was a combination of a number of things that could/should have been done better.  F'rinstance - did the 9-1-1 center call CN before or after the patrol arrived on the scene?  How much more time was lost waiting for the patrol to arrive at the scene and verify the problem?

[Anonymous]

There was an unusual grade crossing crash back in the 1990s in central Florida, which highlights the question of the police taking action to flag a train.  An Amtrak train hit a power peaking generator on a flatbed trailer that was hung up on a grade crossing.  This was a very special, oversize and extra heavy truckload being escorted by the State Patrol as well as several others.  When the trailer hung up they called the SCL and asked them if any trains were in the area.  A dispatcher told them that there was an Amtrak train close, but it was still over 15 minutes away. 

Meanwhile lots of people were furiously working with jacks and blocking to get the trailer dislodged from the crossing.  Despite having several patrol cars that could have easily gotten down the line in both directions, they made no attempt to flag trains.  Instead, they stayed at the crossing with everybody hoping that the problem could be solved before the train arrived.  In about ten minutes, the train swung around a nearby curve at full speed and plowed into the generator dead center.      

[zardoz]

For those of you wondering why the sheriff didn't flag the train down, might I suggest that the storms that had just passed through more than likely caused much more damage than just washing out the tracks; so if the cops called the railroad, and the railroad acknowledged the information, then perhaps the cop had other disasters to deal with instead of waiting around for a train that might or might not come.

I am astounded by the suggestion that the train was travelling at track speed through all that weather and that the brakes were not even applied until it went into emergency. If true, then the train crew showed very poor judgement operating that way. With storms of that intensity, most anything can happen (trees fall on tracks, power lines fall on tracks, etc.), and the crew should have been operating at a controlled speed; if not restricted speed, then at least reduced speed (IMHO).

I would say that the "fertilizer is about to hit the ventilator".

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

A.K. Cummings

Paul_D_North_Jr

  Also, that we can't be sure the signals had gone to red / STOP due to the high water across the rail conditions [Q] 

 

[snip] To our signaling experts: Would water above rail level cause the signals to drop? My assumption is that it would, as the water would short out the rails and act as a shunt, but I wouldn't want to say that with any degree of certainty. [snip]

[EDITED] On the other thread about this wreck - 'Re: Tank cars blow up in Illinois derailment, 1 killed', now at the bottom of Page 2 of the Forum's index, at http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/155696.aspx?PageIndex=2 - beaulieu said [on 06-21-2009, at 11;24 AM] -

'As long as the rails remain connected to each other the circuit is complete, the water isn't a good enough jumper to short the circuit and turn the signals red.'

Frankly, I'm a little surprised by that, but since I don't have good knowledge of this subject otherwise, I am in the unfortunate position of just having to accept that statement as true - which it may well be - until someone else comes forth with a different, contrary, or better explanation, etc.  That's why I made sure to include that possibly exculpatory statement.

- Paul North. 

[Andy Cummings]

Paul_D_North_Jr

Also, that we can't be sure the signals had gone to red / STOP due to the high water across the rail conditions [Q]

 

Paul —

ETT shows ABS on either side of Rockford and CTC through the city. With the speed the train was traveling, my presumption was that the crew was operating on a clear signal of some kind. It's entirely plausible that you can have a washed-out right-of-way but have clear signals. As long as the rails remain intact and unbroken, the system won't sense an outage, and a washed-out sub-grade doesn't mean the rails get broken. To our signaling experts: Would water above rail level cause the signals to drop? My assumption is that it would, as the water would short out the rails and act as a shunt, but I wouldn't want to say that with any degree of certainty. 

Anybody on here work in law enforcement? Some interesting points made about the responsibility of the sheriff's department, and I'd be curious to hear from somebody with a background in that.

Best,  

[gabe]

MP173

I just noticed the "Current Issue" advertisment at the top of the page...."Hunter's Way". 

 

ed

I am glad I am not the only one who noticed that and saw the terrible irony.  Were I the plaintiffs' attorney on that case, that would probably be Exhibit 1.

Of course, we do not know what happened, and we should suspend judgment.  But, if the above-cited mantra of you don't stop a train on CN had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with the accident, Hunter's Way will be paving the way to quite a sizeable punitive damages judgment.

Gabe

[jeffhergert]

A few years ago I was a conductor on a westbound manifest.  The dispatcher called us at Glidden, Iowa (MP251) about a yellow container that had a door open and the contents were spilling out.  The dispatcher told us that a person at Grand Jct (MP225) had called the emergency number and reported it.

Although that may not be as serious as a washout, the information took at least 30 minutes to get to us.

We stopped and I didn't find a container spilling it's load.  What I found was a flat car with sheet steel that had shifted and needed to be set out.  After doing that and reporting to the dispatcher, he asked again about the container.  I told him we don't have any cars loaded with containers and no box cars losing their contents, but the flat car we set out was yellow.  This shows how reported information can be distorted thru channels. 

I never found out, but I knew a guy who was a retired railroader (not with CNW or UP) who lived in Grand Jct at the time.  I think it might have been him who reported it using the posted hot line.  I'm sure he reported exactly what I found, but the operator at the emergency number may not have understood him.  We have to remember that not everyone who works for the railroad works or has an extensive knowledge about trains.  I'm not trying to absolve CN, 20 minutes seems excessive with something that seems simple enough to understand.  Everyone now is in C-Y-A mode so before passing judgement, maybe we need to know more information. 

I agree the deputies could've tried to flag the train, but that they didn't try to doesn't hold them responsible.  

Jeff 

 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

On the other hand -

I understand it was still daylight when this happened, correct  [Q]

Also, that we can't be sure the signals had gone to red / STOP due to the high water across the rail conditions [Q]

So the tracks and adjoining terrain and properties and conditions should have been visible, correct [Q]

Do you think the loco crew knew it was - or had been - raining, either there or in the area [Q]

Do you think the loco crew had the windshield wipers on [Q]

Maybe on 'fast' speed, too [Q]

Do you think the loco crew saw that there it was pretty wet out there [Q]

Do you think the loco crew saw that there was standing water in the area [Q]

Do you think the loco crew saw that the rails were covered with water [Q]

Do you think that a loco crew from that area might have prior experience with washouts - such as from breached beaver dams [Q]

How comfortable do you think the loco crew should have been, after they saw that the rails were covered with water - which means like 7 to 8 inches above the ties, and 2 to 3 feet above the subgrade [Q]

What about the risk of damage to the traction motors from water getting into them [Q]

Do you think the loco crew should have proceeded 'full speed ahead' into a situation where their tracks were not visible due to water [Q]

Is that what you would do with your own vehicle [Q]

Wouldn't you have at least tapped on the brakes or slowed down a little, to like a moderate speed [Q]

So what do you think about the reports that the brakes were not applied from the locomotive, and may have gone on only when the derailment started [Q]

Would you have maybe 'walked the train through' the standing water area [Q]

No, I'm not trying to hang this on the train crew - I'm just saying / asking that a lot more aspects of this need to be looked into as to who was performing reasonably in light of what they knew and when, and maybe had the 'last clear chance' to avoid this disaster.

- Paul North.

[desertdog]

 

First, nobody has all the facts and will not for some time in the distant future. That said, in the meantime let's use some common sense here.  If several citizens were concerned enough about it to call 911, the least the sheriff's department could have done is made it a priority call and dispatched someone to the scene.  The consequences of a washout were clear to the callers. They should have been to the dispatch operator, as well.  These were not calls about a loud party or barking dogs. 

John Timm

[oltmannd]

MP173

Too bad the sheriff's deputy wasnt Kate Shelley.

 

[oltmannd]

gabe

I am not sure I can hold the deputy at fault in any way shape or form.

Presumably, the individual he talked to at CN was not the janitor.  I would like to think that anyone who works for a railroad and is informed that there is a wash out somewhere in the system would consider it information that needs acted on.

In other words: (1) if the sheriff should have flagged the tracks, lit flares, etc., I think the first person it should have occurred for him to do that would be the person he talked to at CN; (2) more importantly, if I call CN, tell them there is a condition on their tracks capable of derailing their train, and they say "OK, thanks," I think it safe to assume that the problem is being handled.

The thing that really gets me on this one is that it you would think from the nature of the calls that CN should have known it was near a rail crossing, where motorists are often want to congregate for an oncoming train.

That having been said, I am still withholding judgment.  But, I suspect CN is going to have a real legal problem--if not a PR problem.

I agree that CN could be in a world of hurt, here.

Also agree that the sheriff's dept probably has all their CYA paperwork in order.

I STILL think that the officer is morally obligated to go flag the track the best way he knows how and to enlist whatever help he can get if, in his judgment, there is real, imminent danger of a derailment.  At least until he knows CN is on the job.

He has even more of an obligation than a general citizen because he is a public safety officer

He is most certainly allowed on private property because of the imminent danger and his role w.r.t. public safety.  Fire depts don't need permission to put out your house fire!  Police don't need permission to go onto somebody's yard to stop a mugging.

The dept is too busy?  Doing what?  Traffic tickets?  Serving papers?  Compared to preventing a derailment?

The moral standard here is "WWKSD".  There is not much risk of anybody at the sheriff's dept getting anything named after them....

[Anonymous]

I can see lots of reasons why the police apparently did nothing at the scene to protect trains, but none of them seem like legitimate reasons.  Probably it never occurred to the police that there was anything they could do at the scene, so they just passed it off to CN. 

Apparently the washout was first discovered by private citizens who called 911, and the police responded to the scene to investigate.  I think they dropped the ball in their response, no matter what they said to CN or what CN said to them.  And I think the fact that they are now volunteering the rather sensitive information that they had officially alerted CN of the problem is evidence that the police realize they dropped the ball and don’t want to be blamed for it. 

[MP173]

I just noticed the "Current Issue" advertisment at the top of the page...."Hunter's Way". 

 

ed

[Los Angeles Rams Guy]

I can only echo much of Andy's sentiments on this subject.  It will be interesting to see who at CN received the call from the Winnebago County sheriff and where the eventual and unmistakable gap was.  Regardless, this just looks bad.

Oddly enough, one time back in the summer of 1980 I myself was paralleling the ICG's Iowa Division mainline between Dyersville and Earlville on my way back to my hometown from work on old U.S. Highway 20.  A bad storm had passed through the area not too long before and I noticed that a couple of the CTC signals along the mainline were completely dark (the CN has since replaced the IC/ICG signals on the Iowa Division).  Alarmed, I immediately called the ICG's yard office in Waterloo to let them know of the situation once I got home.  Presumably they got them fixed okay; nothing bad happened because of it.  But I think the thing that sticks out in my mind is that back then you had at least SOME local people you could call who knew what was going on and the reaction was seemingly "faster".  Nowadays without the local touch it seems that much easier for things like this to fall through a black hole.       

[MP173]

CN has a real problem and perhaps the sheriff's dept.

What a horrible tragedy, which seems to have been preventable.

Too bad the sheriff's deputy wasnt Kate Shelley.

Was there a warning placed by CN's dispatcher limiting speed due to possible flash flooding?  NS and CN in Indiana regularly provide these warnings to train crews.

This death and the injuries should not have occured.

ed

[Andy Cummings]

overall

Andy,

Could the sheriff have stayed at the scene with his blue lights flashing and tried to keep people away and even tried to flag the train down himself?

 George

 

George —

Not having a law-enforcement background, I don't have any more insight into that than anyone else. My uneducated guess is that, while he could, I'd doubt he would for several reasons: 1) If the train is moving fast, it may well not be able to stop anyway, 2) the deputy has no idea whether there's a train anywhere nearby, 3) the deputy has other duties to perform, 4) the deputy should reasonably be able to assume that after calling the railroad, there's no reason why a train should be entering the area in question.

If a deputy were to flag down a train, he'd do well to throw a road flare on the tracks, as it's similar enough to a fusee that the train crew would see it and likely stop. Just because you see the flashing lights on a squad car on the street adjacent to the tracks doesn't mean you're going to stop; generally speaking, it's probably a traffic stop or something of the like, not the cops trying to get your attention.

[gabe]

I am not sure I can hold the deputy at fault in any way shape or form.

Presumably, the individual he talked to at CN was not the janitor.  I would like to think that anyone who works for a railroad and is informed that there is a wash out somewhere in the system would consider it information that needs acted on.

In other words: (1) if the sheriff should have flagged the tracks, lit flares, etc., I think the first person it should have occurred for him to do that would be the person he talked to at CN; (2) more importantly, if I call CN, tell them there is a condition on their tracks capable of derailing their train, and they say "OK, thanks," I think it safe to assume that the problem is being handled.

The thing that really gets me on this one is that it you would think from the nature of the calls that CN should have known it was near a rail crossing, where motorists are often want to congregate for an oncoming train.

That having been said, I am still withholding judgment.  But, I suspect CN is going to have a real legal problem--if not a PR problem.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

henry6

Law enforcement official on private property?  Doubt it for several reasons. First, it would be tresspassing and also not of thier juristiction.  Secondly, liability...to and from the railroad and to and from the enforcment agency's authority.  Third, there probably was a lot more that the law enforcement agency had on its hands. 

I can’t imagine that any of these points would or should prevent the police from taking action in an emergency.  Suppose the police were there at the crossing concluding that the washout was serious enough to threaten a train, and a train suddenly appeared on the horizon.  What should they do in that case? 

 

If it were me in that case, and if I had a fusee in my car, there is no question about what I would do if I saw a train approaching from a significant distance.  And I would not worry about trespassing. 

[overall]

Andy,

Could the sheriff have stayed at the scene with his blue lights flashing and tried to keep people away and even tried to flag the train down himself?

 George

[Andy Cummings]

I know that on DM&E, the county law enforcement people had the authority and ability to dial into our radio towers to contact train crews directly, and did so on occasion. We had the phone numbers of every law enforcement agency in every county we passed through in our timetables for quick reference; I'm certain they had our contact number as well. If Winnebago County didn't have a number to talk to somebody in a position of authority at CN, that would be a serious problem that I think both CN and the county would want to address, particularly in light of recent events. Even still, if I were a deputy and didn't have that information, I'd call the 800 number that's on the crossing shanty, which is there pretty much for this exact reason. Unless the department for some reason called a freight agent in Montreal, or something along those lines, I'm having difficulty understanding this, and even then it's a bit difficult to fathom.

On one hand, none of us know the reason word didn't get relayed in time, and I for one will hold off on passing judgment until we find out what that reason was. But as to the question: Was 21 minutes enough time? The answer is yes, 21 minutes should have been far more than enough time.

If the sheriff is correct and he did contact the railroad through proper channels and nothing was done to slow or stop this train, then something went very wrong at CN. Regardless, somebody here made a terrible, terrible mistake, and a human being paid with her life. I, for one, believe that when the investigation reveals who that was, that individual should be held to account.

Best,

Andy Cummings
Associate Editor
TRAINS Magazine
Waukesha, Wis.
 

 

henry6

But there are no trains on the Cayman Islands!

Seriously, though...it is not that the CN did nothing but rather what did they do?  Who did the Sheriff's Department actually call, what did they actually tell the person who answered the call, and what was the chain to the train?  And while I am not accusing anybody of anything nor defending anybody or anything, it just definitely is not a simple black and white, 1 and 0, answer. 

 

[henry6]

jeaton

I know one of the Assistant Fire Chiefs in Rockford.  As a city with substantial manufacturing and railroad activity, they are well schooled to deal with conditions such as came up in the time before the accident. 

I'm going on record predicting that the finding will be that someone in the CN organization dropped the ball.  Give the CN person taking the initial call 5 minutes to be certain of the track location and contact the appropriate dispatch desk and give the dispatcher no more than 5 minutes to contact the crew on the radio.  If their procedures are such that they cannot respond that quickly-I think I am being generous-then they really need to get it together.

But this is assuming the Sheriff's dept. made the call to the right person with the complete and right message.  If it got to the wrong person once in the chain, add 10 minutes and you are at 20 minutes.

[henry6]

Law enforcement official on private property?  Doubt it for several reasons. First, it would be tresspassing and also not of thier juristiction.  Secondly, liability...to and from the railroad and to and from the enforcment agency's authority.  Third, there probably was a lot more that the law enforcement agency had on its hands.  The real question here lies in the chain of communication, its design, its logistics, its locations, its definitions, its people, its messages, its congestion, etc, etc. 

[HarveyK400]

Right thing to do; or unrealistic expectation with stretched police resources and priorities in large rural patrol areas?  Resonding to a call could take some time.  Once the railroad had been notified, the priority for a response would not seem to be very high to do the railroad's job to warn an approaching train.

[Anonymous]

oltmannd

21 minutes was enough for the Sheriff to get a couple of people up the line in each direction to flag any train that happened along...until the got some confirmaton from CN.  Whether it was the Sheriff's legal responsibility or not, it would have been the right thing to do.

WWKSD?

Absolutely.

I speculate that the sheriff’s department would not have released the information about their call to CN, had not the sheriff’s department felt defensive about how they themselves handled the emergency at the scene once they discovered it.  They certainly have the flares and flashing lights that would be capable of flagging down a train.  “Lighting up” the crossing would have been the prudent first thing to do.  Then get on the phone.