DwightBranch One other thing, the NTSB says they are searching for cell phones to see if the crew were texting, which is not likely in my opinion, those guys weren't texting when they split a switch,or especially if they took a 30mph switch at 65, rolled down the siding and then split the east switch at 65, I am surprised the crew wasn't "alerted" by the units almost tipping over. Still don't know if they were to hold the main or take the siding.
One other thing, the NTSB says they are searching for cell phones to see if the crew were texting, which is not likely in my opinion, those guys weren't texting when they split a switch,or especially if they took a 30mph switch at 65, rolled down the siding and then split the east switch at 65, I am surprised the crew wasn't "alerted" by the units almost tipping over. Still don't know if they were to hold the main or take the siding.
I have heard, but can't verify, that the eastbound was to hold the main with the westbound to take the siding. The east switch was lined for the westbound train to do so. Everything I've seen elsewhere, including on here, fits with that scenario.
Since the surviving crew member is from the westbound train, he probably won't have much insight on what was going on in the cab of the eastbound.
Jeff
Petitnj,
You were there?
On board and observing them sleeping?
Or track side, and you could see them through the cab windows?
23 17 46 11
petitnj East bound crew was sound asleep! At least they slept thru the signals at the siding and barreled on thru town.
East bound crew was sound asleep! At least they slept thru the signals at the siding and barreled on thru town.
Should I forward your post to the NTSB, FRA and UP? Maybe we can get Kalmbach to send your IP information to them as well, since you have such vital information.
Or, you are making crap up? That has no place on this board, and should not be allowed to stand.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Sorry, I thought this was a discussion board and one of the biggest threats to safety is fatigue. NTSB and the railroads have recognized this but the unions continue to fight any "regular schedule" of trains that might allow crews sufficient rest. When will the unions fight for sufficient rest times?
Hopefully (and unfortunately) this accident will raise the problem of crew fatigue even higher and someone will propose reasonable solutions.
Yes, it is a discussion board. But that does not give you the right to say the crew was sleeping before the wreck (and bodies) are even cold.
There is not even time for the investigation to take hold yet for pete sake....
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
meh..some people have to be Judge Dredd I guess...
And you know this how??? If you know more about this tragic event than everyone else then please do share....
I'll bet UP knows which train fouled the main without authority, one of the trains was supposed to take a siding somewhere but we haven't been told which one yet, why it didn't will take some time to figure out, until then it is unfair to assign blame. Fix the problem, not the blame.
I would not assume that the engineer and conductor of the eastbound were asleep. However, I must point out that the NTSB possitively tells us that the crew of that BNSF coal train that ran into the hind end of another train in Iowa last year were asleep. And yet, they have absolutely no way of knowing that to be factual.
I expect opinions on the forum even if they are stated as fact. But I would not have expected it from the NTSB.
So, what could have caused this type of accident? We know, or at least have surmised several facts or assumptions including;
1. EB train more than likely was to hold the main for the WB to enter the siding.
2. WB train was slowing down, while the EB train was at or near the posted speed of 68mph, according to a witness.
3. This was single track, CTC interlocking signal control, which does not allow 2 trains (normally) to occupy the same track.
No one wants to jump to conclusions here, but something did occur that was either mechanical or human error. My question, as a non railroader, is...what could have caused this to occur. I can think of at least 5 scenarios, but have no reason to list them, since I am not a railroader.
Ed
Bucyrus I would not assume that the engineer and conductor of the eastbound were asleep. However, I must point out that the NTSB possitively tells us that the crew of that BNSF coal train that ran into the hind end of another train in Iowa last year were asleep. And yet, they have absolutely no way of knowing that to be factual. I expect opinions on the forum even if they are stated as fact. But I would not have expected it from the NTSB.
There certainly are other things that could cause the crew to be unresponsive-anything from drug or alcohol use, a disabling illness,or even being victims of foul play. However, much of that can be found or excluded by an autopsy. Absent any signs that the crew was just goofing off- open cell phone, iPad with a game paused or a good novel, looking at the scenery-all that is left either sleep or possibly what I call "spaced out", a condition of being awake but not cognizant of important stimuli. Assuming fatalities, the last two can't be found directly, but the elimination of other possible conditions produces a logical conclusion.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
jeffhergert DwightBranch: One other thing, the NTSB says they are searching for cell phones to see if the crew were texting, which is not likely in my opinion, those guys weren't texting when they split a switch,or especially if they took a 30mph switch at 65, rolled down the siding and then split the east switch at 65, I am surprised the crew wasn't "alerted" by the units almost tipping over. Still don't know if they were to hold the main or take the siding. I have heard, but can't verify, that the eastbound was to hold the main with the westbound to take the siding. The east switch was lined for the westbound train to do so. Everything I've seen elsewhere, including on here, fits with that scenario. Since the surviving crew member is from the westbound train, he probably won't have much insight on what was going on in the cab of the eastbound. Jeff
DwightBranch: One other thing, the NTSB says they are searching for cell phones to see if the crew were texting, which is not likely in my opinion, those guys weren't texting when they split a switch,or especially if they took a 30mph switch at 65, rolled down the siding and then split the east switch at 65, I am surprised the crew wasn't "alerted" by the units almost tipping over. Still don't know if they were to hold the main or take the siding.
Jay
jeaton Bucyrus: I would not assume that the engineer and conductor of the eastbound were asleep. However, I must point out that the NTSB possitively tells us that the crew of that BNSF coal train that ran into the hind end of another train in Iowa last year were asleep. And yet, they have absolutely no way of knowing that to be factual. I expect opinions on the forum even if they are stated as fact. But I would not have expected it from the NTSB. II really don't know why you are so offended by the NTSB assesment of that situation. The thing that is known for certain is that the crew did not properly respond to the signals or any other conditions calling for the train to stop. There certainly are other things that could cause the crew to be unresponsive-anything from drug or alcohol use, a disabling illness,or even being victims of foul play. However, much of that can be found or excluded by an autopsy. Absent any signs that the crew was just goofing off- open cell phone, iPad with a game paused or a good novel, looking at the scenery-all that is left either sleep or possibly what I call "spaced out", a condition of being awake but not cognizant of important stimuli. Assuming fatalities, the last two can't be found directly, but the elimination of other possible conditions produces a logical conclusion.
Bucyrus: I would not assume that the engineer and conductor of the eastbound were asleep. However, I must point out that the NTSB possitively tells us that the crew of that BNSF coal train that ran into the hind end of another train in Iowa last year were asleep. And yet, they have absolutely no way of knowing that to be factual. I expect opinions on the forum even if they are stated as fact. But I would not have expected it from the NTSB.
Oh I am not offended by the NTSB’s assumption. It is just that you don’t expect assumptions stated as fact in what purports to be an objective investigation. If you don’t know something for sure, and there are several possible explanations, that is what you report. If one of the explanations stands out as the most likely, that is what you report. But the NTSBs assertion of a very important factor as a fact when it is only an assumption indicates to me that they are more interested in pushing an agenda than being an objective finder of fact. In this case, the agenda was advancing new regulations on testing for sleep disorders.
Bucyrus jeaton: Bucyrus: I would not assume that the engineer and conductor of the eastbound were asleep. However, I must point out that the NTSB possitively tells us that the crew of that BNSF coal train that ran into the hind end of another train in Iowa last year were asleep. And yet, they have absolutely no way of knowing that to be factual. I expect opinions on the forum even if they are stated as fact. But I would not have expected it from the NTSB. II really don't know why you are so offended by the NTSB assesment of that situation. The thing that is known for certain is that the crew did not properly respond to the signals or any other conditions calling for the train to stop. There certainly are other things that could cause the crew to be unresponsive-anything from drug or alcohol use, a disabling illness,or even being victims of foul play. However, much of that can be found or excluded by an autopsy. Absent any signs that the crew was just goofing off- open cell phone, iPad with a game paused or a good novel, looking at the scenery-all that is left either sleep or possibly what I call "spaced out", a condition of being awake but not cognizant of important stimuli. Assuming fatalities, the last two can't be found directly, but the elimination of other possible conditions produces a logical conclusion. Oh I am not offended by the NTSB’s assumption. It is just that you don’t expect assumptions stated as fact in what purports to be an objective investigation. If you don’t know something for sure, and there are several possible explanations, that is what you report. If one of the explanations stands out as the most likely, that is what you report. But the NTSBs assertion of a very important factor as a fact when it is only an assumption indicates to me that they are more interested in pushing an agenda than being an objective finder of fact. In this case, the agenda was advancing new regulations on testing for sleep disorders.
jeaton: Bucyrus: I would not assume that the engineer and conductor of the eastbound were asleep. However, I must point out that the NTSB possitively tells us that the crew of that BNSF coal train that ran into the hind end of another train in Iowa last year were asleep. And yet, they have absolutely no way of knowing that to be factual. I expect opinions on the forum even if they are stated as fact. But I would not have expected it from the NTSB. II really don't know why you are so offended by the NTSB assesment of that situation. The thing that is known for certain is that the crew did not properly respond to the signals or any other conditions calling for the train to stop. There certainly are other things that could cause the crew to be unresponsive-anything from drug or alcohol use, a disabling illness,or even being victims of foul play. However, much of that can be found or excluded by an autopsy. Absent any signs that the crew was just goofing off- open cell phone, iPad with a game paused or a good novel, looking at the scenery-all that is left either sleep or possibly what I call "spaced out", a condition of being awake but not cognizant of important stimuli. Assuming fatalities, the last two can't be found directly, but the elimination of other possible conditions produces a logical conclusion.
While Bucyrus and I have disagreed on these forums before I must say here that he is absolutely right. The NTSB stated flatly that the accident was the result of a "sleep disorder". Yet with this flat statement they could not state what that disorder was. Was it sleep apnea? That's a sleep disorder. Narcolepsy? That's a sleep disorder. But fatigue? That's not a sleep disorder, it's condition. You can be fatigued in your lazyboy in front of the TV if certain circumstances are right. No doubt this a flimsy attempt at an agenda. It discredits every thing the NTSB does.
It could be anything that caused the Westbound crew to not respond.
Electrical fire on board creating fumes.
Carbon monoxide.
Being shot by a rifle.
What did the dispatchers know and see happening?
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
What I can't get past is that the conductor on the westbound had time to bail even though the wreck happened only half a mile past the east end switch where the eastbound was meant to stop. If the conductor would realize that the eastbound was not stopping ONLY when it ran past the switch (at 65 according to the witness) it barely gives the conductor 30 seconds to a) overcome his shock and decide to bail b) open the door (presumably the one behind the engineer) c) run down the gangway d) jump off a moving train f) get up and run far enough to not be underneath the pile. I just cannot believe that all happened in 30 seconds. And so I wonder if there wasn't more warning. Brake failure on the eastbound when they approached east end switch, and they radioed the westbound? Or was the witness way off? I doubt the speed limit in that town was 65 (probably 35 or so) so I don't know how he could be pacing a train through there at 68 as he said.
DwightBranch What I can't get past is that the conductor on the westbound had time to bail even though the wreck happened only half a mile past the east end switch where the eastbound was meant to stop. If the conductor would realize that the eastbound was not stopping ONLY when it ran past the switch (at 65 according to the witness) it barely gives the conductor 30 seconds to a) overcome his shock and decide to bail b) open the door (presumably the one behind the engineer) c) run down the gangway d) jump off a moving train f) get up and run far enough to not be underneath the pile. I just cannot believe that all happened in 30 seconds. And so I wonder if there wasn't more warning. Brake failure on the eastbound when they approached east end switch, and they radioed the westbound? Or was the witness way off? I doubt the speed limit in that town was 65 (probably 35 or so) so I don't know how he could be pacing a train through there at 68 as he said.
Who says he ran to the engine steps - might have dove right from the door. I am certain the closest we will ever come to what happend and why will come from the NTSB investigation.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
To the Union Pacific employees I send my condolences, to the crews that will operate their trains past the past wreck site I share your pain. To the familys of the victims I send my prayers.
I'm certain the loss of these crews will ne noticed in the locker room, in the lunch room and on the railroad radio. I hope that the UP employees will support each other as they always have and watch out for each other in this time of grief.
Randy
MP173: any one or combination of thousands of things could have happened or not happened. You have read here all kinds of speculation and theories and "perhapses". Any one of them could be right or wrong; all of them could be right or wrong. Only the final report(s) from the NTSB, FRA, UP, and/or police agencies will explain. To say some things are obvious is an understatement, but only an understatement and not an official statement of cause.
As for the idea that the NTSB stated that, in another case, sleep or fatigue disorder was the cause without defining the disorder: if it was so stated before the official report, it was out of order but if it was part of the official final report, then they don't have to define the disorder to say that it was a cause. It would be the same as saying "brake failure" without identifying what in the brake system failed and how it cause the problem. But what is missing is the intellegent media asking what the brake failure was or what was the sleep/fatigue disorder and getting the correct answer from the correct experts.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6As for the idea that the NTSB stated that, in another case, sleep or fatigue disorder was the cause without defining the disorder: ...if it was part of the official final report, then they don't have to define the disorder to say that it was a cause. It would be the same as saying "brake failure" without identifying what in the brake system failed and how it cause the problem.
In the Iowa collision I referenced on the previous page, the NTSB made two assertions that were not proven:
1) That the cause of the collision was the crew being asleep at the time.
2) That the cause of the crew being asleep was sleep disorders.
Both are assumptions, not proven facts.
That is not analogous to stating a wreck was caused by brake failure, without identifying the actual part that failed.
In the case of the Iowa wreck, it is true that the NTSB identified sleep disorders as the cause while not defining the actual sleep disorder. HOWEVER, merely saying the cause was sleep disorders was itself an assumption, not a proven fact. Likewise, it was an assumption that the crew was even asleep at the time of the collision.
Bucyrus, I wouild submit that you are overusing the term "assumption" far too much in your argument.
The NTSB made a conclusion, based on the facts of their investigation and their analysis of the accident scene.
MurrayBucyrus, I wouild submit that you are overusing the term "assumption" far too much in your argument. The NTSB made a conclusion, based on the facts of their investigation and their analysis of the accident scene.
Yes, they made a conclusion based on the facts. But their conclusion was an assumption. And that's a fact.
Bucyrus Murray: Bucyrus, I wouild submit that you are overusing the term "assumption" far too much in your argument. The NTSB made a conclusion, based on the facts of their investigation and their analysis of the accident scene. Yes, they made a conclusion based on the facts. But their conclusion was an assumption. And that's a fact.
Murray: Bucyrus, I wouild submit that you are overusing the term "assumption" far too much in your argument. The NTSB made a conclusion, based on the facts of their investigation and their analysis of the accident scene.
I disagree.
A conclusion based upon the facts of an official investigation is not and cannot be an assumption. It is just that...a CONCLUSION.
If that were not the case, then what is the point of official investigations and analysis of accidents?
Just something I posted on the FRA thread...
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/06/25/hlsb0626.htm
When patients on statins feel fatigued, physicians should consider a popular cholesterol-lowering medication as the potential cause, a study says. The study, published online June 11 in Archives of Internal Medicine, shows that taking statins increases people’s risk of having depleted energy or feeling unusually tired while exercising. To improve the energy of such individuals, internist and lead study author Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD, encourages doctors to consider reducing the statin dose to a level that still offers pharmacological benefits but might reduce tiredness. The researchers did not examine why statins can lessen energy, but Dr. Golomb said one possible reason is that reducing cholesterol levels could lead to the production of less vitamin D. Insufficient levels of that nutrient can cause fatigue.
The study, published online June 11 in Archives of Internal Medicine, shows that taking statins increases people’s risk of having depleted energy or feeling unusually tired while exercising.
To improve the energy of such individuals, internist and lead study author Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD, encourages doctors to consider reducing the statin dose to a level that still offers pharmacological benefits but might reduce tiredness.
The researchers did not examine why statins can lessen energy, but Dr. Golomb said one possible reason is that reducing cholesterol levels could lead to the production of less vitamin D. Insufficient levels of that nutrient can cause fatigue.
We may need to check this out...how many of us are on statins as well?
Note that I am in no way saying they all fell asleep at the very same time, nor that any of them were..it just is something to consider is all....
[quote user="Murray"I disagree.
A conclusion based upon fact of an official investigation is not and cannot be an assumption. It is just that...a CONCLUSION.
If that were not the case, then what is the point of official investigations and analysis of accidents?[/quote]
I can understand the point that an investigation reaches a conclusion, as does a trial of the facts in reaching a “decision.” People can be convicted on circumstantial evidence. I would say that the evidence that the crew in the Iowa crash were sleeping is circumstantial, rather than proven fact.
If an investigation is compelled to reach a conclusion, no matter how comprehensive or convincing the evidence is, then a conclusion will be reached. But whether or not the conclusion is factual or theoretical, is beside the point of the conclusion. The conclusion would stand on its own regardless of what was proven fact and/or what was assumed during the investigation.
Jeez, next we'll revisit the sleep deprivation issue over and over and over again. And that will be the end of this thread.
Zardoz,
The sleep disorder connection to this thread started in the post above. Several objected to the poster saying the crew was asleep with no way to know if it were true. I mentioned that the NTSB said the crew of the BNSF coal train in last year's Iowa collision was alseep with no way to know if it were true.
I just looked at the google map of that Area. There are two sidings within a five or six mile stretch of track. One siding is just east of town, the other about 5 miles east. This siding would have been the meet, as it is a much longer siding. If the wreck occurred west of this siding, my gut feeling is the west bound didn't stop where it should have. The siding near town isn't long enough for any train length. Looks more like an industry siding. All speculation on my part as I really don't know where the collision took place. As an engineer this stuff really scares me. I still get a little rattled when I see a train taking a siding, hoping he gets stopped....
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.