Actually Ken
There was an article in Trains, around 99 or 2000 that proposed the same basic concept, a crew car/dorm that would travel with a TOFC, the idea was expanded to include a dorm/rec room for truck drivers, who would simply drive on to the train at a RO-RO facility, park the whole rig, and ride from LA to Chicago, NJ to LA, what every the route, and arrive rested, with zero hours on the log book...the concept was expanded to include intermediate drop off and pick up facilities, so a driver who wanted to go from LA to Oklahoma City could ride the train most of the way.
The train was to be staffed by a crew pool dedicated only to that one train; they would work 8 on, 8 off, something along those lines, for four or five trips, and then be off a week.
It was suggested that this service could charge a premium price, so forth and so on...then at the end of the article the author points out that unless the railroad that ran such a train could guarantee zero delays to the train, and somehow work around FRA regs on locomotive inspections, dedicated train sets, initial startup cost, investment all that, the idea was, on paper good, but unworkable in real life.
But it raised some valid ideas, scheduling being one of them.
The only rub with running a "scheduled" railroad is the conflict when you have to interchange with a non-scheduled railroad, and of course, your customers have to agree to service on a basis that most likely is not as frequent as it is now.
As for the swap trains half way idea, FEC does that now, and has successfully done that for years, as has NS.
As for crews using prescription drugs to stay awake, well, I am not going to argue with the poster who mentioned it, but I know a lot of UP, BNSF and KCS road crews, and none of them would ever try that, the random drug test would pop them, and I don't know any doctor that would prescribe such drugs to a railroader in the first place.
And the railroader would have to report taking such drugs to the railroad, if they didn't and the drugs show up on a random, which they will, you're fired the moment the test results come in.
Now, I know that to most of you folks this accident is a horrible thing, which is true, three people died and the survivor is going to be bothered by all of this the rest of his life, but...
Again, based on the number of train starts against the number of accidents that result in fatalities, we do a darn better job at being safe that almost any other mode of transportation.
This is one incident among well over a thousand crew starts that day.
Nothing will ever completely prevent accidents on a railroad, the equipment and what we do with it is inherently dangerous.
Commercial fisherman face dangers every day, worse in some instances, because they are way out there and on water, so jumping off isn't an option.
Getting help or being rescued has a slim chance of success, drowning is a reality and fear they all face, but that risk is part of the job, they are aware of it, and fish anyway.
But you rarely read about their accidents and death in the papers or on the web, unless you live in the port they are from, it never makes the news, because it happens outside the eye of the news folks.
Train wrecks, on the other hand, make good press, note the totally un informative remark from the NTSB, the dofus said some pompous important sounding stuff, but in reality, said nothing at all beyond the obvious, "two trains ran into each other, we don't know why."
Yet it is presented as if this was some deep dark mystery that will take the resources, skill and deductive facilities of a Sherlock Holmes to figure out the puzzle.
And sadly, it's treated the same way here on this forum, and most of the other railroad forums, as if it was a puzzle to work out.
It's not...
Some posters are using this accident to further an agenda, related to sleep disorders, illness, their personal concepts of that, others are going to push for "schedules"...if Dave was still here, he would *** the railroad for forcing the crew to work unrested, even though they were legally rested (anything to express his personal dislike of any railroad) some have mentioned PTC and some folks here are so into figuring out the mystery, they miss the fact that these were ordinary guys, at work, and simply made a mistake, one that cost them their lives, and the life of the engineer on the opposing train.
Not to take it lightly, but that's a risk that is part of the job, doing this means you have to trust the other guy to do it right, no matter if the other guy is the dispatcher, the MOW guy who welds the rail, fixed the soft spot, or another crew that will be running towards you, you have to approach this work with the assumption that the other people you work with are on the ball.
You should note that most of the railroaders here have refrained from commenting, they know the answer to the "puzzle" already.
Carl knows, he alluded to it already in a previous post.
I know why the train blew the signals, ran through a switch and hit the other train....it is not a puzzle to be worked out at all, they were asleep.
Why they were has yet to be shown...maybe the engineers daughter had her graduation party the night before, or it was his anniversary and he went out with his wife, stayed up late...maybe the conductor had a hot date, we won't really know, maybe the "exhaust in the cab" theory will work out to be true, it really doesn't matter.
Every one of you have shown up at work bushed and beat, ordinary lives can get in the way some times.
But so many postings here and on other forums are focused on details that really are moot, things like what exact mile post was the impact at, how many cars derailed, people working out all the physics of the impact force from the "clues" they have found, all the entertainment this accident seems to have provided, it's almost ghoulish, like the morbid interest that makes people slow down to a crawl while driving past an automobile accident, looking to get a glimpse of the bodies.
Did everyone forget that people died here, someone's husband, someone's brother, best friend?
They all knew the risk when they set their grips down in the cab...the chance for something to go wrong is always there, but like all the railroaders I know, they showed up for work, grabbed the paperwork, mounted up and went to work.
Somewhere along the line, something went wrong, and they paid for it, paid dearly.
And this is a entertaining puzzle to some?
Man oh man...
23 17 46 11
Ed,
Another home run for the Chief of the Ilk.
Mac McCulloch
dakotafred Greyhound's idea is certainly worth a try, especially on a line like BNSF's Transcon. My only quibble would be with the 18 hours off, which would get awfully long. Why not whittle that down by working 8 instead of 6 -- which is still a heck of an improvement on 12?
Greyhound's idea is certainly worth a try, especially on a line like BNSF's Transcon. My only quibble would be with the 18 hours off, which would get awfully long. Why not whittle that down by working 8 instead of 6 -- which is still a heck of an improvement on 12?
It has been tried, is being tried, and will be tried. And tried. And tried. And tired. But it quickly falls apart at the first delay and then hardly recovers. First day could be two hour delay of train arrival; either crew is on duty and sits around for two hours or gets called two hours later. So, the crew got an 8 hour sleep and woke up and readied for one hour to the first call time. Now, they are 3 hours out of sleep before they board the train. So what has been solved? Next day is the same 2 hour delay but trhe third day it may be 6 hour delay. Do we want crews on dutly sitting idle for 6 hours? Do you want a crew that got the poper 8 hour sleep but didnt sign on until 6 or 8 hours later. Scheduled freights and scheduled crew calls seem to work for only so long before a crew is 12 then 24 hours off the call. You get called for yesterday's train or for tomorro's train? It all just hasn't fit for too long before it is all askew. Crews don't want to miss a day's pay but what if their train didn't show up but 12 hours late, do they miss their turn or do they go and get bagged out on the line. They will miss their next turn. Yes, they have tried and it gets confusing and frustrating.
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.
I do not understand why you would assert that you know what caused the wreck, and assert that the cause was that the eastbound engineer and conductor were asleep. The first person in this thread to offer that opinion was Petitnj on page 6. You and zugmann acted quite offended, giving the impression that you thought Petitnj was way out of line for publicly speculating that the crew was asleep. So I am a little confused about your position on this matter.
Even at this point, I would not assert that the crew was asleep. How could I? Sleep is certainly a possibility, but I can’t rule out other causes. I can see several explanations. I would hesitate to even list them here, let alone pick one and announce it as the cause. Some of the possible causes discredit the victims, and they can’t defend themselves. So I believe it would not be fair to them to accuse them without proof.
The idea of a dorm car tacked onto a freight train is intrigueing with the crew on 8, off 8, etc. Of course there are over the road truckers that do that. However, the trucking industry has found it difficult to find drivers because of the away from home time. Some have gone to a given route and trading off to a new driver at a terminal sometimes going right back, sometimes swapping out half way,. other times laying over night, Married teams have been encourage to sign up for the cross country tour....of course it's not that romantic in that one is always sleeping while the other is driving. And the truck companies have turned to putting the trailers/containers on rail cards and let the railroads handle the crewing. Airline pilots, truck drivers, railroad train and engine crews all suffer the same fatigue problems and all three industries are trying to seek solutons benificial to all.
The reality of rail operations is the most trains do not operate end to end on a carriers property. Most of the runs are through only 1 or 2 crew districts and require connections being switched from other trains arriving terminals to form their train and they work their way across their territory making pick ups and set offs between origin and destination.
You all foget, that in the history of railroading, the caboose was the 'crew car'. When trains went on the law, the crew went to the caboose, got rest and when rested slogged on some more....only thing was, back in the day, only one crew was assigned to the train.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The idea that that the NS crews traded trains is fine for a normal train, BUT you wouldth erailroad want to pay the penalty for the delay of a UPS or Schneider hot shot? Be late one minute and the penalty is thousands of dollars that the railrod has to pay to the shipper. They premium money for premium service and they demand that it delivered ON TIME, EVERY TIME.
Frist off, my condolences to the crews family.
On the discussion of the engine crew falling asleep, in 1989 there was a collision of a CN freight and VIA passenger train resulting in twenty-three crew and passengers losing their lives. The situation is similar, red signals overrun, siding switches split and high speed. It is one of accidents we need to learn from as the 1989 accident resulted in better safety on the CP and CN.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinton_train_collision
and
http://trn.trains.com/en/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2011/02/Canada%20recalls%20deadly%20passenger-freight%20crash%2020%20years%20later.aspx
There was also a documentary made for the Discovery called Mayday that detailed the accident.
henry6 The idea of a dorm car tacked onto a freight train is intrigueing with the crew on 8, off 8, etc. Of course there are over the road truckers that do that. However, the trucking industry has found it difficult to find drivers because of the away from home time. Some have gone to a given route and trading off to a new driver at a terminal sometimes going right back, sometimes swapping out half way,. other times laying over night, Married teams have been encourage to sign up for the cross country tour....of course it's not that romantic in that one is always sleeping while the other is driving. And the truck companies have turned to putting the trailers/containers on rail cards and let the railroads handle the crewing. Airline pilots, truck drivers, railroad train and engine crews all suffer the same fatigue problems and all three industries are trying to seek solutons benificial to all.
Trying to sleep on the road is problematic, and if the dorm car is anywhere close to the units and the whistle and engine noise I wouldn't bet on it being a good sleeping place. Semi drivers know this. I've told this story here before, but my father, an over the road truck driver, only once participated in a two-man operation when his company essentially forced him and another driver to do so between Chicago and Mississippi, when a customer needed the chemicals they hauled quickly. The other driver couldn't sleep, and when it was his turn to drive somewhere in Tennessee fell asleep at the wheel and rear ended a car full of people, my dad awoke with the truck in flames, and had to jump, in his underwear, onto burning pavement. He refused to ever do it again. I know Amtrak service staff sleep on board, but no one's lives are a risk if a waiter falls asleep. Better to assign "calling windows" in my opinion.
What keeps the other options for the accident cause alive is the modern attitude that an accident could not be human caused. The lawyers and politicians want to put blame on some large corporation for any accident because that is where the money is.They will blame the railroad, the locomotive manufacturer, the signal manufacturer, the county tree trimmer and just about anyone else who might have deep pockets. The gain from these court cases is immense. Investigators always say "the cause is under investigation" for fear of tainting the conclusion with media and corporate responses. And I have no doubt that a thorough investigation (you mean someone would set out to do a sketchy investigation) will proceed and conclude they couldn't find a direct cause (as in the Canadian accident). Unfortunately, a result such as this is very unproductive as it doesn't get the real cause out in the open and lead to solutions. The lawyers don't want to see the blame placed on individuals as they don't have enough money to make it work the lawyer's time to sue. I know this is very crass to discuss a very unfortunate accident such as this in such terms, but someone will have to stand up and say "hey we can't live our lives like this, fatigue needs to be fixed."
Petitnj: the idea is that humans are the root of all accidents...the more computers, gadgets, and wizzits the less likely an accident. Thus when one awakes in a maze of debri he can find a black box which will tell him exactly which computer, gadget or wizzit faled while he was sleeping or otherwise distracted. I jest, but you get the point.
As for cabooses being hotel rooms for crews away from home...that is a nice romantic rememberence of days gone by. It was imparitive to have brakemen able to attack the tops of cars to acceess the brakes from both front and back of the train. It was also imparitive that when the train stopped for any reason other than scheduled station stops, that a flagman walk back with flags, flares, and lanterns to protect his train from another approaching train. Air brakes, automatic block signals, shorter trips (time wise) and eventually loss of the caboose entirely is the history of the bobber. Yes, crews would be holed up in that car seemingly forever before the hours of service laws and thus it became a man camp. (Cabooses were usually assigned to a conductor, other crewmen varied by run or job. The new appliances and operations made it cheaper for the railroad to pool the cabooses just as they were pooling locomotives. In effect, the sleeping and living arrangments of cabooses--and locomotives---of the past have no bearing on the fatigue factors of today.) After the pooling of cabooses crews were supplied with bunk houses or the fineries of the RR YMCA at away terminals. The caboose afforded a place for hind end crew memebers to station themselves to do their assigned tasks including watching the cars ahead for stuck brakes and hot boxes, for the conductor to have an office and desk to do his paperwork. And to make it comfortable, there was the pot bellied stove and cushions on the hard wood bench seats, a "railroad style" toilet closet, a small water tank, and a few cupboards--including an ice box---for lunches or other food items, to store either job related equipment or whatever one would have with him. A "girly" calendar was optional but a frequent wall hanging. It was made cozy and home like in a rough way...but as a hotel room on the road, it didn't quite fill the bill.
petitnj...someone will have to stand up and say "hey we can't live our lives like this, fatigue needs to be fixed."
And after that, someone will have to stand up and tell us how to fix it.
Fatigue isn't only a question of being unable to adjust to strange shifts. There really are night people, who actually prefer to work then. (One of these folks, who retired four years before I did, continued to sleep every day until he died five or so years into his retirement.)
You've heard of metal fatigue...something getting stressed or bent repeatedly to the point of breaking.I submit that "people-fatigue" can be similar: constant exposure to the droning noise or vibration of a locomotive covering the miles with little reason do do anything except stare at the track ahead. It breaks--deadens--something in you causing you to need some recovery time, taken--usually involuntarily--in the form of sleep. As I've aged, I've noticed it becoming more pronounced in both me and my wife, and have to acknowledge that long road trips in the car may be ruled out before too many more years. And a good car is nothing like the environment of a locomotive cab or a caboose--road trips were ruled out for me on the railroad long ago--thankfully it didn't involve a change of job for me (I just quit taking transfer jobs or volunteering for road service).
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Need not "submit", CShave, as the hypothesis is already accepted. .
Airel view of the impact
Maybe greyhounds dorm car idea was in effect. Look at the pix above and not the yellow section of wreckage with what appears to be windows across the the road from the tank truck, ( which appears to be a water truck from the wet areas on the pavement).
On drugs to keep awake.
Drugs will only do so much to keep one going. If you keep using to try to keep awake what happens is your body will shut down even harder when it does try to get some rest.
This is what is referred to as crash. One's body needs rest. And to try and deny it needed rest will inevitability cause problems. And if you use drugs it makes the problem that much worse
..
One of the nice things about driving a truck OTR, is by and large you can set your own schedule. And if worse comes to worse if you need to take a break you can stop the truck and park for some rest and not tie up traffic. My usual practice was to stop about an hour or so before sunrise and take a short nap thru sunrise if I had to make an overnite run. On a railroad if a crew is tired can they tell a dispatcher they are tired and need to take a nap?
Rgds IGN
PS And yes at times dispatch was not happy with me on the subject but after 16 years OTR my position was respected.
Note that the westbound had the most energy coming into the collision as it derailed and jack knifed numerous cars. The eastbound locomotives are most likely close to their collision point and few of the cars behind were involved.
Tragic as this was, it was amazing that damage and injury was limited to the train and crew. The nearby road was unaffected and luckily the accident occurred far from houses.
Any idea on how the proposed Positive Train Control would have prevented this accident? We have talked to some PTC experts but they are holding the details close to the vest.
petitnj Note that the westbound had the most energy coming into the collision as it derailed and jack knifed numerous cars. The eastbound locomotives are most likely close to their collision point and few of the cars behind were involved.
No, the EB stayed mostly in line because it had the most energy not the other way around.
petitnj Any idea on how the proposed Positive Train Control would have prevented this accident? We have talked to some PTC experts but they are holding the details close to the vest.
Assuming that PTC would be working properly, and all the info in the system was correct, it should have stopped the eastbound short of the red signal at the control point. It would continually compare the speed (current and projected), throttle or dynamic brake positions, air brake reduction (if any), weight of the train to what the computer would calculate to be a safe stopping distance. If train operation didn't agree with the computer's calculations, it would stop the train. I would guess that at this point in PTC developement, it would be at the last point where a full service (penalty) brake application would stop the train short of the target, in this case a stop signal. It wouldn't wait until an emergency application was needed.
While we don't have PTC yet, we do have some engines equipped with the LEADER system for fuel conservation. It uses GPS and a simplified screen showing grade, crossings and bridges (it doesn't yet show other tracks, including mains, block signals or indications) that will eventually be integrated into the PTC system. I've noticed, by comparing the moving diagram with physical locations such as grade crossings that the the difference from the screen to the real world is anywhere from 75 to 250 feet. At the moment the screen shows the front of the train entering the crossing, the crossing is actually anywhere from the second engine to the third or fourth car back.
Jeff, by no means an expert.
Sorry I got east and west confused again. I meant that the east bound jack knifed because it was going fast and the west bound stopped in place because it was going slowly by that time.
BaltACD Airel view of the impact
These photos are fascinating, it looks as though ALL of the loaded autoracks on the westbound stayed on the rails, meaning the units took all the force of the eastbound. It also means that cars did not pile up in the area where the conductor jumped.
DwightBranch BaltACD: Airel view of the impact These photos are fascinating, it looks as though ALL of the loaded autoracks on the westbound stayed on the rails, meaning the units took all the force of the eastbound. It also means that cars did not pile up in the area where the conductor jumped.
BaltACD: Airel view of the impact
You have over looked the racks that are derailed about 5 cars deep in the auto train.
One other thing that is highlighted is how most all the double stacks stayed connected - despite the forces they were subjected to.
travelingengineerForgive me if this has already been reported elsewhere or earlier, but NTSB has just this morning (July 9th) reported that neither UP train was "speeding" prior to their crash. Specifically the eastbound train was traveling at 64 mph and the westbound train at 38 mph, "speed limit in the area is 70 mph." Recording devices in the pulling locomotives were fully destroyed (melted), but an expectation is that the push locomotives may have devices with relevant data. Here is the web [url] http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ntsb-trains-were-not-speeding-172134393.html[/url]
[url] http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ntsb-trains-were-not-speeding-172134393.html[/url]
Unless there was signal system failure, giving both trains Clear signal indications - one of the trains was Speeding in that it was exceeding the speed allowed by the signal indication it was operating under.
BaltACD Guys: The linked piece below was posted on Page 11 of this Thread. It would seem to support, in part, the arguments of both Travelingengineer and BaltACD as well. At this point it does not seem that speed was the issue, but possibly misdirection onto the wrong track by a faulty switch position(?) directing the trains onto the same track(?) Point is highlighted in red. travelingengineer: Forgive me if this has already been reported elsewhere or earlier, but NTSB has just this morning (July 9th) reported that neither UP train was "speeding" prior to their crash. Specifically the eastbound train was traveling at 64 mph and the westbound train at 38 mph, "speed limit in the area is 70 mph." Recording devices in the pulling locomotives were fully destroyed (melted), but an expectation is that the push locomotives may have devices with relevant data. Here is the web [url] http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ntsb-trains-were-not-speeding-172134393.html[/url] Unless there was signal system failure, giving both trains Clear signal indications - one of the trains was Speeding in that it was exceeding the speed allowed by the signal indication it was operating under.
Guys:
The linked piece below was posted on Page 11 of this Thread. It would seem to support, in part, the arguments of both Travelingengineer and BaltACD as well.
At this point it does not seem that speed was the issue, but possibly misdirection onto the wrong track by a faulty switch position(?) directing the trains onto the same track(?)
Point is highlighted in red.
travelingengineer: Forgive me if this has already been reported elsewhere or earlier, but NTSB has just this morning (July 9th) reported that neither UP train was "speeding" prior to their crash. Specifically the eastbound train was traveling at 64 mph and the westbound train at 38 mph, "speed limit in the area is 70 mph." Recording devices in the pulling locomotives were fully destroyed (melted), but an expectation is that the push locomotives may have devices with relevant data. Here is the web [url] http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ntsb-trains-were-not-speeding-172134393.html[/url]
Admittedly, the following linked article is dated the 25th of June but it may contain some relevant information.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=155716424
Posted from NPR:
by The Associated Press
FTL:"...The National Transportation Safety Board determined that one of the trains failed to take a side track and give the other locomotive the right of way, NTSB spokesman Mark Rosekind said Monday night. He declined to say which train was on the wrong track, but said no malfunction was found in the signals that guide the trains..."
Sam
Looks like they rules out speeding: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ntsb-t...172134393.html
rdamon Looks like they rules out speeding: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ntsb-t...172134393.html
I don't think speeding was ever the issue, in that neither train was exceeding line speed. What was the problem is that the eastbound Z-train failed to stop, when the signal was Red.
If you cause a wreck by running a red light, neither the cop nor the lawyers are going to worry about how fast you were going. Balt is right--speed was never the issue. The issue was one train being where it shouldn't have been.
So, why would the NTSB tell us that they will have the answers in a year or so, but immediately volunteer the answer to a question that nobody it asking?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.