Murphy Siding ICLand: "Murphy Siding" wrote: Was that a modern day occurence, or back before railroads rationalized manpower and equipment to stay lean and competitive? 1973. Be cautious with self-affirming analysis that substitutes a pre-determined conclusion for actual facts. Sorry. I'll try to be less self-affirming with my analysis substituting pre-determined conclusions for actual facts. Actually, it was just a question. I guess I'm suggesting that things might be different now than in 1973. I can't say that you've convinced me otherwise.
ICLand: "Murphy Siding" wrote: Was that a modern day occurence, or back before railroads rationalized manpower and equipment to stay lean and competitive? 1973. Be cautious with self-affirming analysis that substitutes a pre-determined conclusion for actual facts.
"Murphy Siding" wrote: Was that a modern day occurence, or back before railroads rationalized manpower and equipment to stay lean and competitive?
Was that a modern day occurence, or back before railroads rationalized manpower and equipment to stay lean and competitive?
1973.
Be cautious with self-affirming analysis that substitutes a pre-determined conclusion for actual facts.
In which ways do you suspect that things would have been different?
ICLand "Murphy Siding" wrote: Was that a modern day occurence, or back before railroads rationalized manpower and equipment to stay lean and competitive? 1973. Be cautious with self-affirming analysis that substitutes a pre-determined conclusion for actual facts.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
The point then was potentially saving lives. Negligence and tort law ensures that the identical priority remains today, perhaps even more so, and particularly because increased congestion and crossing grade use has increased the risk factor several times over. Modern day Hazmat risk concerns and response times has perhaps focused and enhanced railroad concerns over crossing accessibility compared to 40 years ago when, frankly, I don't recall nearly as much public concern over such issues -- on the other hand not nearly as much contingency preparation, either. We are simply a more safety conscious society all the way around.
Railroads are concerned about blocking crossings, and do have safety plans in place to minimize blocked crossings. Notwithstanding what you are reading on this thread, which I find in part simply amazing, and some of which is absolute baloney, they would be absolute fools not to.
And one reason is this: any time there is an identified risk, in order to avoid a negligence per se claim, you have to HAVE A PLAN in place that is designed to minimize the risk. Now, the world is still not perfect, but at least if you have a plan, and have taken "reasonable" steps to implement it, and something bad happens, you avoid the adverse decision that the company has been negligent per se. That's important because if you are negligent per se you can't offer any further defense, you cannot offer mitigating factors, a jury is not allowed to consider comparative negligence, and the damages start to go through the roof. Anyone who suggests that a given Class I railroad does not have a Safety Plan addressing crossing safety and trains blocking the crossings is simply wrong, wrong, wrong.
As near as I can tell, CN took a very long time to get a knuckle changed. At the same time, a critical highway crossing was also blocked for a very long time. I don't think much of any argument that suggests that the RR was doing everything exactly right. On the other hand, stuff happens. If there is a "good" that comes out of it CN has fair warning that, had this been a Hazmat spill, and that major highway crossing remained blocked, that there is a problem with its implementation of its Safety Plan, and it is a big problem. And no one should try and underestimate the seriousness of such a situation; this was a good test of CN's Plan, and fair warning that it failed. And no, this isn't a "gee we never thought of that before," scenario, the FRA has been warning of it for years. It is now specifically part of the required SIP planning for any new mergers. It is a KNOWN risk.
One further thing that some of the chest thumpers miss: railroads still need to be perceived as good corporate citizens.
I don't think I've ever seen anything in the rail industry quite like this forum where people think that railroads do, or should, act like they d*** well please because of whatever reasons they have decided that railroads have some "right" to act however they please. Part of the Safety Plan, long before they were ever required by law, was to ensure that the Company acted with the best possible concern for public safety. That public still consists of shippers, friends, neighbors, relatives, and railroad employees as well as consumers of products carried by railroads.
And while some may blow that off as mere public relations that's not important to "The Industry," I will end my participation here by suggesting that the "attitude" is as wrong as wrong can be and does nothing good for railroading as an industry. And no good can ever come from that attitude. Literally, as I have mentioned earlier, I cannot think of a single positive benefit from that attitude.
Whether it was in 1973 or 2010.
Murphy Siding What's the difference between a coupler and a nuckle?
What's the difference between a coupler and a nuckle?
The knuckle is the pivoting part of the coupler. It is the jaw that clasps the jaw of the mating coupler. The knuckle is what opens to un-couple the coulper, and closes to make a coupling. Either the knuckle alone can break, or a part of the rest of the coupler body can break, thus releasing the knuckle. The shank of the coupler can break, allowing the coupler head and its knuckle to separate from the portion of the shank still connected to the draft gear. Or the whole coupler can pull out of the draft gear to which it connects. The draft gear can break. The draft gear is part of the car center sill. The center sill can break, and pull the car in two. The most common pull-in-two breakage is the knuckle. If the break involves more of the coupler (besides the knuckle) or involves the draft gear, it cannot be repaired by the train crew.
ICLand Under similar circumstances (10 trains a day) I do recall a switcher from a yard ten miles away arriving in about 20 minutes to pull the train off the blocked crossing due to a grade crossing collision at the next crossing.
Under similar circumstances (10 trains a day) I do recall a switcher from a yard ten miles away arriving in about 20 minutes to pull the train off the blocked crossing due to a grade crossing collision at the next crossing.
BaltACD I am certainly glad I am invested in a railroad that is operated by railroaders as opposed to the non-railroaders opinions voiced in this thread. Denial of reality is a terrible thing to lose.
I am certainly glad I am invested in a railroad that is operated by railroaders as opposed to the non-railroaders opinions voiced in this thread.
Denial of reality is a terrible thing to lose.
Johnny
n012944lan you keep speaking of? As a dispatcher for a class one railroad I am very interested in it. We have no set "plan" for a knuckle break, because each break is different.
Didn't say there was a "knuckle" plan.
n012944 What following crew? From what I understand the CN is only running about 10 trains each way a day over the J in Barrington. Chances are the next train was more than 2 hours behind.
What following crew? From what I understand the CN is only running about 10 trains each way a day over the J in Barrington. Chances are the next train was more than 2 hours behind.
Well, that does change the perspective from the horribly congested, heavy traffic version presented earlier and why Barrington is constantly complaining. I couldn't tell from the "diversity' of opinions whether this was high density Chicago area railroading or low density Rock Island type railroading out in Colorado.Now I see that the railroading is practically "leisurely."
Under similar circumstances (10 trains a day) I do recall a switcher from a yard ten miles away arriving in about 20 minutes to pull the train off the blocked crossing due to a grade crossing collision at the next crossing. And yes, we had a plan for that: it was called "figuring out how to keep the crossings clear" and the written instructions went all the way from where to stop for a meet on ordinary movements, to what to do when crossings were blocked by other than normal train movements: derailments, grade crossing incidents, hazmat, etc.. This was part of a formal Safety Plan.
Since 2002, these are required as a matter of law for railroads involved in any merger proceeding by 49 CFR 244.13 as part of Safety Integration Planning. And that rule simply requires that merging railroads standardize individual road Safety Plans, and these plans must specifically (and have for the past 40 years that I am aware of) cover railroad responses to blocked crossings.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
ICLand However, this was supposed to be "congested" railroading. That seems to be the emphatic point of many posters. If so, then a following train should have been able to provide power to the rear of the train in short order and, assuming the broken knuckle is up front, separate the crossings. That's the usual plan. And no, you don't have to call up a crew for that.
However, this was supposed to be "congested" railroading. That seems to be the emphatic point of many posters. If so, then a following train should have been able to provide power to the rear of the train in short order and, assuming the broken knuckle is up front, separate the crossings. That's the usual plan. And no, you don't have to call up a crew for that.
BTW what is this so called plan you keep speaking of? As a dispatcher for a class one railroad I am very interested in it. We have no set "plan" for a knuckle break, because each break is different.
An "expensive model collector"
I would venture to think that the break-in-two on CN and how it was handled is actually a straw man for other issues related to rampant NIMBYism and flight from urban issues. Barrington and Frankfort both opposed CN's purchase of EJ&E because it represented an intrusion of the outside world on their exclusive pastoral Eden where everything is "just so" and outsiders can be kept at bay. This is the same mentality that also opposes the widening of arterial roads from two to four lanes even though they are hopelessly congested or opposes installing sidewalks on side streets because the neighborhood will lose that "country" atmosphere, whatever that is.
The duration of delay and the inconvenience it caused begs the question of why it was allowed to happen. The assumptions began with the very premise of the thread title. That is that the complainers were NIMBYS who could not tolerate a little inconvenience that the CN had every right to cause, and no way to prevent. The assumptions have been that the CN could not have been negligent because long crossing blockages can conceivably be unavoidable. Maybe that was the case, but it is an assumption.
So those assumptions in defense of CN gives birth to the devil’s advocate role of assuming that CN was negligent for causing a delay that they could have prevented. So there are two opposing positions to this thread, and both are based on assumption. Based on the limited information available about the cause of the delay, it you take away all possible assumptions, the entire thread is moot. It has no foundation whatsoever.
For arguments sake it seems a few folks have assumed the break apart was in a location that allowed the front part of the train to pull forward enough to clear the crossing under discussion.
Say your facing north on the street, the front of the train is pointed east or moving from your left to right...now lets say the break was on the west or left side of the crossing, then yes, clearing the crossing would be a matter of the conductor walking back, closing the inglenook, pumping the air up, and having the engineer pull ahead enough to clear, you wouldn't even need a brake test considering the situation.
But what if the pull apart was on the right or east side of the crossing?
Pulling ahead would solve nothing.
And we have no real knowledge of what really broke.
Was it a knuckle, or did the coupler fail?
If it was a knuckle, then the swap out would be pretty much as described as above, have the hogger toss off the right knuckle, drag yourself up to that point, throw the knuckle on the rear crossover platform and shove back to the break, drop the old broken knuckle out and replace, about a 30 to 45 minute job...but if it was a coupler that failed, then nothing the train crew could do in repairs.
So now we are at the "have another locomotive couple into the rear of the train and drag it back" part...well, most railroads don't have locomotives just sitting around, crewed and ready to spring into action.
If they were to have another locomotive cut away from their train, and come up against the rear of the broken train, then that crew would first have to tie down their train, assuming it was in a position and location to safely do so, then travel whatever distance required to reach the rear of the disabled train, couple into it and pump up the air...all of this would have to be considered after the reason for the break apart was determined, and then set in motion, so your looking at best case time wise, 30 to 45 minutes for a broken knuckle, one to two hours for a following locomotive to arrive, couple up, pump up the brakes and move the rear, and that's assuming there was another light locomotive or a train that close.
Everyone is making assumptions about the ability to move the "broken" part of the train when in fact we don't know if the break occurred in a location that allowed a repair truck to gain easy access, if there even was another locomotive in position to move the broken section, or even if there was any locomotive within 30 (10, 15) minutes of access to the rear.
Add in the discovery time of the conductor walking back, finding the break, deciding it was something he or she could not repair, calling in the info and awaiting a decision, then any locomotive coupling up and moving the rear of the train, your looking an hour minimum from the emergency brake application, and that's assuming there were no other issues.
Since everyone is assuming things, lets play this one out.
Train is moving west to east, the break apart happens on the east or "wrong" side of the crossing, so moving the front of the train is useless, and assume the coupler failed, (broken keeper key or the drawbar pin failed, maybe the drawbar itself broke)...lets further the fun by having the rear of the train fouling the only switch that allows easy and quick access to the rear, so the only way a locomotive can get to the rear is to have one dispatched from a yard 10 miles away, (5 mile, 2 miles, pick your poison) and the dispatcher instructs the following locomotive to assist the lead train, which will require by rule the following locomotive to proceed at restricted speed, and require stopping and flagging through the last signal behind the disabled train.
The clock keeps ticking.
So, again, I ask you folks who seem to think it is something that should have been handled quicker how you would go about clearing the crossing faster than what was done?
Lets flip the other way some and assume it is simply a broken knuckle.
Lets say it was on the wrong side of the crossing again, (it wont matter much in this scenario).
I am the conductor, and here is what I would do.
First, we call the dispatcher to let them know we went into emergency braking application, so he can stop following traffic and opposing traffic.
Then we call the trainmaster on duty to inform him what has happened so far.
I tell him I am headed back to the rear to find out what has happened, (remember all we know right now is the train went into emergency, not why it has done so) and he agrees with me the best course of action is to find out what is wrong before we do anything else.
Lets say I have to walk 60 cars back, and find my broken knuckle on the wrong side of the crossing, say 3 or 4 cars past.
I determine it is a E class knuckle, call my engineer to toss a E knuckle off on his side with a lit fusee stuck in it so I can see where it is easier, while he is doing that, I have closed the anglecock, and the train line is pumping up.
During this time, I look as far back towards the rear as best I can on both sides to see if anything looks like it is on the ground, again, so far all we know is a knuckle is broken, not why, it might be the weak link in the chain of a derailment farther back, and this is where the forces involved decided to break the train.
Engineer calls, says his air looks good, so I have him drag me up to the knuckle, I toss it and the spare knuckle pin on the rear crossover platform, we shove back to the break.
I install the new knuckle and pin, couple up the train, cut the air in and once the engineer confirms he has good pressure, and the EOT says the rear car has pressure, letting us know there is a good train line through out the whole train, I have him slowly pull on the train.
It will only take about a car length, if that, for him to decide if the train is acting and moving as easy as it did before.
If so, then I will have him slowly pull the train past the crossing while I stand there and inspect it on this side.
Problem for the crossing solved, and I walk back up the far side to inspect the rest of the train.
If on the other hand, it doesn't move as easily as it did before, or my engineer is not comfortable with moving the train, or we go right back into emergency, I would walk far enough towards the rear to make a cut clear of the crossing circuit, then have him drag the "good" part of the train past the crossing, call the TM and tell him the bad new...crossing problem solved.
Now, you guys figure out how fast any of that that can be done.
By the way, because they didn't simply pull the front part of the train past the crossing tells me that the break apart happened on the "wrong" side to do that...I know of no conductor who wouldn't simply close up the train line and move the part they could if the break was on the good side.
23 17 46 11
This thread demonstrates the problems of speculation when limited factual information is available, or ignoring it even when it is, in some cases. If you look at the satellite view, you can see the single-tracked CN (as it mostly is along its length) crossing the double-tracked UP. There is a siding/interchange track on the CN starting about a mile to the west of the diamonds. Nothing to the east.
BTW: The J early on had overpasses of a number of highways well south of Barrington: Rt. 64, Rt. 38, Rt. 56, to name some.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Where does the article say that the crew didn't have a spare? No actual information on how the repair was affected was included in the article.
benburch No, I get that they think the delay was excessive, what I don't get is that they seem to think that this never should have happened at all.
No, I get that they think the delay was excessive, what I don't get is that they seem to think that this never should have happened at all.
I haven't read that on this thread. You seem to want to create an argument where none exists.
It takes about 5 minutes to drop a broken knuckle. Move the train up to where the engineer has set out a good one, move the train back. If its only five or ten cars back, this whole process can take 15-20 minutes. If there's no spare up front (I've never seen that), I've heard of the next train dropping one off (double track) right at the break. In urban areas, somebody sends out a truck. Whatever is fastest. Time is money. Spare knuckles are pretty much all over the place. It's a railroad. This event is neither news nor unique. Just the time for repair in this instance makes it unusual.
I'm gathering that this train didn't have a spare. Well, yeah, if so, that's a problem all right. There's a reason they always carry a spare. The only other thing that might have held this up was that the knuckle broke far back in the train. That's unusual. CN has had knuckles show up manufactured by Siderúrgica Nacional (Sidena) of Mexico which were woefully prone to breakage. They shouldn't have been in the system. They haven't been manufactured in years.
n012944 Bucyrus: BaltACD: It is exceedingly difficult to cut crossings that are blocked by cars on the porition of the train that has no locomotive attached to it and the movable portion of the train is prevented from coupling to the unmovable portion of the train by a broken knuckle. Duh! Bucyrus: benburch: No, I get that they think the delay was excessive, what I don't get is that they seem to think that this never should have happened at all. And what I do not see is any discussion of why it took time to fix. How long do you think it ought to take to fix a broken knuckle? I have not heard anyone say that knuckles should never break. And, as has been mentioned several times in this thread, the issue has nothing to do with how much time it should take to fix a broken knuckle. The issue is why the CN did not cut the crossing during the repair. Yes, I fully understand that you can't cut the crossing with the lead locomotive if the knuckle is broken. I am assuming that CN has more than one locomotive though. Do you have information that there was no possiblity of cutting the crossing because no other locomotive was available to pull the hind end back? If not, why would you assume that? It seems relatively improbable. Do you information that there was? How about a crew to use it? Most railroads unions require a 2 hour call for a new crew to come out. According to the report this whole thing took between 90 minutes and 2 hours to replace the knuckle. Even if there was an engine RIGHT BEHIND THE TRAIN, it still wouldn't have helped clear the crossings any quicker. I doubt that there was a crew sitting around on a set of power doing nothing, the CN isn't known for having crews being on duty and not working. Any crew would have to tied down its train and travel to the area, which could take anywhere from 45 minutes to 2 hours. Was there a crew in the area? Or are you just assuming that there was?
Bucyrus: BaltACD: It is exceedingly difficult to cut crossings that are blocked by cars on the porition of the train that has no locomotive attached to it and the movable portion of the train is prevented from coupling to the unmovable portion of the train by a broken knuckle. Duh! Bucyrus: benburch: No, I get that they think the delay was excessive, what I don't get is that they seem to think that this never should have happened at all. And what I do not see is any discussion of why it took time to fix. How long do you think it ought to take to fix a broken knuckle? I have not heard anyone say that knuckles should never break. And, as has been mentioned several times in this thread, the issue has nothing to do with how much time it should take to fix a broken knuckle. The issue is why the CN did not cut the crossing during the repair. Yes, I fully understand that you can't cut the crossing with the lead locomotive if the knuckle is broken. I am assuming that CN has more than one locomotive though. Do you have information that there was no possiblity of cutting the crossing because no other locomotive was available to pull the hind end back? If not, why would you assume that? It seems relatively improbable.
BaltACD: It is exceedingly difficult to cut crossings that are blocked by cars on the porition of the train that has no locomotive attached to it and the movable portion of the train is prevented from coupling to the unmovable portion of the train by a broken knuckle. Duh! Bucyrus: benburch: No, I get that they think the delay was excessive, what I don't get is that they seem to think that this never should have happened at all. And what I do not see is any discussion of why it took time to fix. How long do you think it ought to take to fix a broken knuckle? I have not heard anyone say that knuckles should never break. And, as has been mentioned several times in this thread, the issue has nothing to do with how much time it should take to fix a broken knuckle. The issue is why the CN did not cut the crossing during the repair.
It is exceedingly difficult to cut crossings that are blocked by cars on the porition of the train that has no locomotive attached to it and the movable portion of the train is prevented from coupling to the unmovable portion of the train by a broken knuckle. Duh!
Bucyrus: benburch: No, I get that they think the delay was excessive, what I don't get is that they seem to think that this never should have happened at all. And what I do not see is any discussion of why it took time to fix. How long do you think it ought to take to fix a broken knuckle? I have not heard anyone say that knuckles should never break. And, as has been mentioned several times in this thread, the issue has nothing to do with how much time it should take to fix a broken knuckle. The issue is why the CN did not cut the crossing during the repair.
benburch: No, I get that they think the delay was excessive, what I don't get is that they seem to think that this never should have happened at all. And what I do not see is any discussion of why it took time to fix. How long do you think it ought to take to fix a broken knuckle?
And what I do not see is any discussion of why it took time to fix.
How long do you think it ought to take to fix a broken knuckle?
I have not heard anyone say that knuckles should never break. And, as has been mentioned several times in this thread, the issue has nothing to do with how much time it should take to fix a broken knuckle. The issue is why the CN did not cut the crossing during the repair.
Yes, I fully understand that you can't cut the crossing with the lead locomotive if the knuckle is broken. I am assuming that CN has more than one locomotive though. Do you have information that there was no possiblity of cutting the crossing because no other locomotive was available to pull the hind end back? If not, why would you assume that? It seems relatively improbable.
Do you information that there was? How about a crew to use it? Most railroads unions require a 2 hour call for a new crew to come out. According to the report this whole thing took between 90 minutes and 2 hours to replace the knuckle. Even if there was an engine RIGHT BEHIND THE TRAIN, it still wouldn't have helped clear the crossings any quicker. I doubt that there was a crew sitting around on a set of power doing nothing, the CN isn't known for having crews being on duty and not working. Any crew would have to tied down its train and travel to the area, which could take anywhere from 45 minutes to 2 hours. Was there a crew in the area? Or are you just assuming that there was?
I cannot rule out the possibility that cutting the crossing was completely beyond the capability of the CN.
Bucyrus BaltACD: It is exceedingly difficult to cut crossings that are blocked by cars on the porition of the train that has no locomotive attached to it and the movable portion of the train is prevented from coupling to the unmovable portion of the train by a broken knuckle. Duh! Bucyrus: benburch: No, I get that they think the delay was excessive, what I don't get is that they seem to think that this never should have happened at all. And what I do not see is any discussion of why it took time to fix. How long do you think it ought to take to fix a broken knuckle? I have not heard anyone say that knuckles should never break. And, as has been mentioned several times in this thread, the issue has nothing to do with how much time it should take to fix a broken knuckle. The issue is why the CN did not cut the crossing during the repair. Yes, I fully understand that you can't cut the crossing with the lead locomotive if the knuckle is broken. I am assuming that CN has more than one locomotive though. Do you have information that there was no possiblity of cutting the crossing because no other locomotive was available to pull the hind end back? If not, why would you assume that? It seems relatively improbable.
BaltACD It is exceedingly difficult to cut crossings that are blocked by cars on the porition of the train that has no locomotive attached to it and the movable portion of the train is prevented from coupling to the unmovable portion of the train by a broken knuckle. Duh! Bucyrus: benburch: No, I get that they think the delay was excessive, what I don't get is that they seem to think that this never should have happened at all. And what I do not see is any discussion of why it took time to fix. How long do you think it ought to take to fix a broken knuckle? I have not heard anyone say that knuckles should never break. And, as has been mentioned several times in this thread, the issue has nothing to do with how much time it should take to fix a broken knuckle. The issue is why the CN did not cut the crossing during the repair.
Bucyrus benburch: No, I get that they think the delay was excessive, what I don't get is that they seem to think that this never should have happened at all. And what I do not see is any discussion of why it took time to fix. How long do you think it ought to take to fix a broken knuckle? I have not heard anyone say that knuckles should never break. And, as has been mentioned several times in this thread, the issue has nothing to do with how much time it should take to fix a broken knuckle. The issue is why the CN did not cut the crossing during the repair.
benburch ... Are they supposed to bend the laws of physics and fly there?
... Are they supposed to bend the laws of physics and fly there?
well, they could've taken a train .
Yeah, moving the train ahead could have helped clear some (all?) of the crossings, though could it have cleared SR 14? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any indication that moving the still-operational half of the train *would* have cleared that one crossing (or that they *didn't* move some or all of the train out of the way). I don't disagree that not clearing out the crossings that they *could have* was a bad idea (tm).
To the professional railroader types --> IF they could have closed the open trainline at the "new" end of the train, it would have taken about 10 minutes (or thereabouts) to get back up to operating pressure, plus whatever time is necessary to do a brake test (presumably there's *something* that has to be done after they go into emergency) right?
for the sake of argument, let's say they did that, AND had a knuckle dropped off at the head end. so, we're at about 20-30 minutes since emergency. So far, the conductor has gotten to the break, and checked it out; gotten air pressure back into the trainline, done a brake test if necessary.
Ride up to the knuckle, pick it up, and go back. another few minutes (5-10).
so, now we've had this break for nearly 3/4 of an hour before the conductor can even start working on the bad knuckle. 45 minutes or so to get the old one out, and the new one in, brake test, and continue onward seems *VERY* good to me (note I'm not a pro railroader... just volunteer with a historical group on weekends... so my times may be significantly skewed...)
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
benburch No, I get that they think the delay was excessive, what I don't get is that they seem to think that this never should have happened at all. And what I do not see is any discussion of why it took time to fix. How long do you think it ought to take to fix a broken knuckle?
And what I do not see is any discussion of why it took time to fix. I've deal with a lot of broken machinery and sometimes you find a routine repair that takes a whole lot longer than it ought to because something is bent, broken, or stuck. Requiring a tool you do not have.
How long do you think it ought to take to fix a broken knuckle? Is there some guidance as to the standard amount of time?
And was there an issue with the spare knuckles on the locomotive? Did they have the usual compliment of knuckles or were they short?
And if indeed a service truck had to come down from Mundeline with a coupler, why does anybody expect that it would not have been caught in traffic if the train created a traffic jam? Are they supposed to bend the laws of physics and fly there?
benburch OK, then, you are in possession of knowledge that railroad companies would pay you millions for! How can you prevent or predict knuckle failure?
OK, then, you are in possession of knowledge that railroad companies would pay you millions for!
How can you prevent or predict knuckle failure?
Aside from the fact that I suspect you've never "carried a knuckle" in your life, I don't think you understand the point that is being discussed between the various gentlemen. The dispute appears to me not to be over whether or not a knuckle failed, but the railroad company's response to it, which resulted in a lengthy delay, apparently at a critical crossing, causing a substantial traffic tie-up.
If there were more to story, and it were being told by a knowledgeable observer, I would suspect that not only did the company drop the ball on clearing the crossings according to their own pre-arranged contingency plan, but that the truck carrying the replacement knuckle was held up in the traffic caused by not clearing the crossings in a timely fashion. This is called "shooting yourself in the foot."
But, again, I wasn't there, and the story may be richly laden with ironies, or maybe not but I am sure the whole picture was not reported. However, confusing cause -- knuckle -- with effect -- massive traffic tie-ups -- confuses the issues for reasons I cannot discern. One is not the other.
Bucyrus This thread seems to have divided into two opposing viewpoints: 1) CN is negligent for causing an unreasonable delay. 2) Break-in-twos are normal, unpredictable, and can happen anywhere, and Barrington residents or others who complain about delay are NIMBYS, morons and idiots that have no basis for a complaint, and should realize that railroads have a perfect right to delay everybody else for as long as they want to. I adhere to item #1. However, it is not clear to me which side RR Ken and Murray are on. By giving an “Amen” to IC Land, I assume they support viewpoint #1.
I adhere to item #1. However, it is not clear to me which side RR Ken and Murray are on. By giving an “Amen” to IC Land, I assume they support viewpoint #1.
Wow.
This thread seems to have divided into two opposing viewpoints:
1) CN is negligent for causing an unreasonable delay.
2) Break-in-twos are normal, unpredictable, and can happen anywhere, and Barrington residents or others who complain about delay are NIMBYS, morons and idiots that have no basis for a complaint, and should realize that railroads have a perfect right to delay everybody else for as long as they want to.
Whose car was it that had the knuckle break? I think that CN can hardly be responsible if some foreign car had a knuckle break, for example. And even if it was their car, no reasonable inspection can catch all of the defects that can cause this. This is just one of those things that happen like flat tires.
You can't have it both ways.
As you said, the UP line through Barrington is mostly passenger Metra. There's very little freight traffic on the line. Next you state that Barrington doesn't complain about the UP line. "Duh" comes to mind. Residents of Barrington aren't going to complain about a low traffic line that is mostly passenger and serves them directly. They would certainly start squawking if UP started running 15 intermodal trains each way everday.
CN is very much at fault for the breakdown, I haven't seen anyone say otherwise. Breakdowns do happen though, as much as everyone wishes they didn't, they still do. If the breakdown happened while crossing the UP West Line it would still have been an accident, and a regrettable one as well nothing malicious about it. The dispatchers in Omaha would most likely have to work extra hard to prevent trains from stacking up in queue all the way from West Chicago to LA
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.