I hold a patent (long since expired) for a method of automatically striking the wheel at some predermined interval and checking the resulting tone against that of a good wheel. Failure to meet tis criteria would dump the train into Emergency. The Patent Office liked it but nobody picked it up.
Jerry Pier
I simply introduced the analyzed statistics, because they show the frequencies for a variety of causes of accidents, and it depends on mainline, siding or yard locations and speed. So human error, for example, is more of a factor in switching than mainline accidents, where track and wheel and brake problems dominate.
I have no idea what BaltACD's objection is about. He kept that a a secret except to say the magic word "political."
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Without knowing what, if any, agenda might be served by "tweaking" statistics, we can only look at them with a grain of salt. It could well be that they are simply a straightforward representation of the numbers reported to them. Or not.
I suspect that the basic logic behind their conclusions - high speed is track/equipment, low speed is human error, will ring true with most folks.
We would do well to keep this sort of data "in the back of our heads" against the day that someone proclaims, f'rinstance, that human error is the cause of all rail incidents, as might happen if someone wants to introduce some new control into the system.
That said, I'm left with the impression that some folks feel that the railroads aren't doing all they can do to prevent derailments. While there might be a few pockets of less than due diligence, I doubt that you'll find any railroads that aren't striving toward that goal, and spending significant money toward that end in the process.
It's going to be very hard for a railroad with thousands of miles of track, and hundreds of train starts daily not to experience some sort of failure occasionally. And every now and then, one of those failures will be spectacular (which is rarely a good thing).
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
There is a dollar amount threshold involved in reporting derailments to the FRA - at present I believe the threshold is $7500 in equipment, signal, property and track damage - damage to lading is not included in the amount nor is the cost of wreck clearing.
Carrier officials do everything within their power to minimize the $$$$ of damages so as not to exceed the FRA threshold expect when absolutely necessary. The value is based on estimates - not on actual expenditures.
When attempting to catagorize actual derailment causes from only a subset of all derailments the catagories are skewed. Figures lie and liars figure. When you start building reports based on less than full data - and don't publicise that the report base does not include ALL incidents - you are reporting from the viewpoint of an agenda - what that agenda is may be open to question.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Jerry PierI hold a patent (long since expired) for a method of automatically striking the wheel at some predermined interval and checking the resulting tone against that of a good wheel. Failure to meet tis criteria would dump the train into Emergency. The Patent Office liked it but nobody picked it up.
Jerry, what's the patent number? I for one would like to read it. (Posting here instead of PM in case there are others, too...)
From a DOT publication regarding what is required to be reported to RAIRS:
"A reportable rail-equipment train accident is one in which damage to equipment, track, and railroad structures is in excess of $6,600 dollars (the dollar amount has been adjusted for inflation; in 1975 the dollar amount was $1,750) that does not include loss of lading, clean up costs, societal costs, loss of main line, personal injury or death. Data are collected 30 days after the close of the month in which the accident occurs and updated when the costs associated with the accident are 10% higher than initially reported.The definition of a reportable highway-rail crossing crash is any highway user (car, pedestrian, bicycle, etc.) hitting or being hit by on-track equipment at a highway-rail crossing. Data are collected 30 days after the close of the month in which the accident occurs."
1975 is when the RAIRS system was started. Pretty much any incident less than $6600 in damage will be pretty minor. Any of the derailments that involve a train moving at speed or involve any release of hazmat or threaten any release due to the derailment would be in excess of $6600. So BaltACD is right, a one wheel dropping inside in a yard track will probably not be in the statistics. But is that really a major concern? The threshold would capture incidents that would be a significant risk to health, safety and property.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusman1975 is when the RAIRS system was started. Pretty much any incident less than $6600 in damage will be pretty minor. Any of the derailments that involve a train moving at speed or involve any release of hazmat or threaten any release due to the derailment would be in excess of $6600. So BaltACD is right, a one wheel dropping inside in a yard track will probably not be in the statistics. But is that really a major concern? The threshold would capture incidents that would be a significant risk to health, safety and property.
Precisely. It is hard to see how excluding minor accidents would result in distortions that would be detrimental to any so-called agenda.
The 2013 threshold is $9900, prior year $9500. The entire explanation is given in this official link:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-11-30/html/2012-28925.htm
"`rail equipment accident/incident'' is a collision, derailment, fire, explosion, act of God, or other event involving the operation of railroad on-track equipment (standing or moving) that results in damages to railroad on-track equipment, signals, tracks, track structures, or roadbed, including labor costs** and the costs for acquiring new equipment and material, greater than the reporting threshold for the year in which the event occurs. 49 CFR 225.19(c). Each rail equipment accident/incident must be reported to FRA using the Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Report"
** the hourly rate is now $25.56943
While I have not done an exact accounting over the years - my observations are that approximately 1 in 5 derailments ends up being FRA reportable. Discounting roughly 80% of actual derailments puts a serious skew to any reports generated from FRA reportable derailments - especially when one is looking at 'cause'.
Your impression is hardly as accurate as actual data. In any case you miss or choose to avoid the important point,namely that the accidents under that threshold are trivial from a cost benefit analysis. Why spend a great deal of money to prevent accidents, etc. that cost so little? One would think that would be obvious.
The rail industry relies on FRA statistics, as you can see in this report on ties:
http://www.rta.org/assets/docs/RTASponsoredResearch/WoodCrosstiePerformanceandInspection/derailment%20index%20final.pdf
Or this:
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/45000/45700/45776/RR_Derailments_Decrease_C3RS_Site_at_Midterm_final.pdf
But you just quote old saws about stats and lies.
Is there anything that detects a broken flange? I have seen it twice on the DM&E when I lived in Rochester, Mn 19+ years ago. One RR employee who had remembered me as a foamer asked me to call the RR if I ever saw a broken flange on a train. I saw one on a UP train south of the town I live in I don't remember how many years ago. I think I did call the UP 800 number that time. A broken flange sure makes a lot of noise and I have read they can cause a derailment. Sounds like someone taking a sledge hammer to an anvil every few seconds.
Its too late for this but,,,, how about two flanges per wheel? As in flanges on both sides of the rail head. Switches, crossings and who knows what else would have to be modified besides replacing the wheels to do this.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
Also: Is there a chance that one of the other types of RR car braking systems being tested could reduce derailments?
BoydIs there anything that detects a broken flange?
Several potential approaches; here are three to start:
Vibration detector will find a broken flange STAT, as the balance will change dramatically.
Optical detector 'aimed' at the outer inside (relatively polished) edge of the flange, not just the root and tread-contact profile, can detect 'gaps' or changes in background continuity. Thismight be capable of detecting incipient cracking optically, but it is not quite as reliable against 'falsing' as dark marks or stains can throw off the detection 'integrity'
Magnetic (or ultrasonic) detector, perhaps on a brake beam or shoe, that detects the great difference between metal present and missing. This would have to be a comparatively cheap and robust sensor and signal transmitter, but the actual analysis logic can be handled remotely.
schlimm Your impression is hardly as accurate as actual data. In any case you miss or choose to avoid the important point,namely that the accidents under that threshold are trivial from a cost benefit analysis. Why spend a great deal of money to prevent accidents, etc. that cost so little? One would think that would be obvious. The rail industry relies on FRA statistics, as you can see in this report on ties: http://www.rta.org/assets/docs/RTASponsoredResearch/WoodCrosstiePerformanceandInspection/derailment%20index%20final.pdf Or this: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/45000/45700/45776/RR_Derailments_Decrease_C3RS_Site_at_Midterm_final.pdf But you just quote old saws about stats and lies.
Statistics can be, and frequently are, skewed or intentionally misquoted to suit the agenda of the user.
Norm
A businessman was interviewing job applications for the position of manager of a large division. He quickly devised a test for choosing the most suitable candidate. He simply asked each applicant this question, "What is two plus two?" The first interviewee was a journalist. His answer was, "Twenty-two". The second was a social worker. She said, "I don't know the answer but I'm very glad that we had the opportunity to discuss it." The third applicant was an engineer. He pulled out a slide rule and came up with an answer "somewhere between 3.999 and 4.001."Next came an attorney. He stated that "in the case of Jenkins vs. the Department of the Treasury, two plus two was proven to be four." Finally, the businessman interviewed an accountant. When he asked him what two plus two was, the accountant got up from his chair, went over to the door, closed it, came back and sat down. Leaning across the desk, he said in a low voice, "How much do you want it to be?" He got the job.
A businessman was interviewing job applications for the position of manager of a large division. He quickly devised a test for choosing the most suitable candidate. He simply asked each applicant this question, "What is two plus two?"
The first interviewee was a journalist. His answer was, "Twenty-two".
The second was a social worker. She said, "I don't know the answer but I'm very glad that we had the opportunity to discuss it."
The third applicant was an engineer. He pulled out a slide rule and came up with an answer "somewhere between 3.999 and 4.001."Next came an attorney. He stated that "in the case of Jenkins vs. the Department of the Treasury, two plus two was proven to be four."
Finally, the businessman interviewed an accountant. When he asked him what two plus two was, the accountant got up from his chair, went over to the door, closed it, came back and sat down. Leaning across the desk, he said in a low voice, "How much do you want it to be?" He got the job.
Norm48327Statistics can be, and frequently are, skewed or intentionally misquoted to suit the agenda of the user.
Statistics are one of the primary tools of most research. Without physics, the space program, medical advances, and so much of what we take for granted would not have been possible. Statistics can be misused and are, but not at all to the extent your snarky comment suggests. Folks who feel the need to disparage statistics usually have an agenda or simply do not understand how to use them.
schlimm Norm48327Statistics can be, and frequently are, skewed or intentionally misquoted to suit the agenda of the user. Statistics are one of the primary tools of most research. Without physics, the space program, medical advances, and so much of what we take for granted would not have been possible. Statistics can be misused and are, but not at all to the extent your snarky comment suggests. Folks who feel the need to disparage statistics usually have an agenda or simply do not understand how to use them.
And I suppose the next thing you'll be doing is crying foul to the moderators. Enough already.
Please make sure not to attack each other when discussing these exciting and invigorating topics. Thanks and have a wonderful day!
Angela Pusztai-Pasternak, Production Editor, Trains Magazine
I sometimes doubt statistics because I see an agenda behind them, and everyone knows that statistics can lie. But what I do not understand is nature of the agenda that some here seem to see in the derailment statistics. Do you believe that the statistics are overstating the number of derailments? Do you not believe that track failures account for the number of derailments reported?
The only specific reason to doubt the statistics given so far is the fact that they only include 20% of derailments. Is there a belief that the statistics would show a different distribution of causes if they considered 100% of derailments?
So far, the only apparent reason for this rejection of the derailments statistics is that, because statistics can lie, anybody producing railroad statistics is up to no good.
daveklepperWalking each side of a loaded oil train and tapping each wheel with a small hammer, and listening to the "bonk".
Broken/cracked wheels are exceedingly rare. We don't even have a train delay code for it around here. Order of magnitude - you could count the number of broken/cracked wheels found on trains last year on one hand and none derailed.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Less than the full number of derailments being reported is because there is a cut-off in dollar amount of the cost (for all accidents, not just derailments), which is adjusted annually. I have no idea how this criterion was established by the FRA, but probably in conjunction with the AAR and/or the railroads to reduce the burden on them of mandatory reporting.
If BaltACD is actually correct about that 20% figure, and given his experience, almost certainly is, then the number of annual derailments is 5X the reported figure, not very good PR.
As with any data analysis, you use the data that is relevant to what the problem is. If the problem is ALL derailments then yes you are not getting all the derailments with the FRA data. If the problem is derailments that could result in major interruptions or that affect a main route or that could result in a release of hazmat, then you probably are getting all the relevant data.
If I am interested in all instances where people seek medical help, I will include visits to instant care clinics in grocery stores. If I am interested in all instances where people have organ transplants I will exclude visits to instant care facilities in grocery stores. Will my study of transplants be flawed if I only use a tiny fraction of all the possible interactions people have with the medical community? No.
If I am studying potential risk of hazmat release, will including a one wheel falling in while being spotted on an industrial track where the speed limit is less than 10 mph derailment be important to finding an answer? Probably not.
To answer the question of whether you would get a different answer if you included all the derailment data, the answer is probably yes. Would you get a "better" insight to the problem, it depends on what the problem is. If the problem is reducing deaths in children, knowing that the most common injury to kids is a skinned knee won't lead you to a soution that solves the problem. You would want to ignore the data on the minor injuries and concentrate on only those that could cause a fatality.
Not including all the data is not necessarily mean the the analysis is flawed.
The principles that apply to the creation of the Safety Pyramid
also apply to derailment causation. When you only look near the top of the pyramid you have no real understanding of everything that went into something getting near the top.
People don't publish study statistics that don't support their point of view - whatever that point of view may be - and EVERYONE has a point of view.
BaltACD The principles that apply to the creation of the Safety Pyramid also apply to derailment causation. When you only look near the top of the pyramid you have no real understanding of everything that went into something getting near the top. People don't publish study statistics that don't support their point of view - whatever that point of view may be - and EVERYONE has a point of view.
But why do you seem to assume that the point of view behind the derailment statistics is sinister? What is the point of view that you see in them? Why do you not address that question? Why do you keep shooting the messenger without any mention of the message?
dehusman To answer the question of whether you would get a different answer if you included all the derailment data, the answer is probably yes. Would you get a "better" insight to the problem, it depends on what the problem is. If the problem is reducing deaths in children, knowing that the most common injury to kids is a skinned knee won't lead you to a soution that solves the problem. You would want to ignore the data on the minor injuries and concentrate on only those that could cause a fatality. Not including all the data is not necessarily mean the the analysis is flawed.
Amen, and well-stated.
I would add that adding information about 'most' low-speed derailments would provide "data" that can be actively manipulated by people who actually want to 'lie with statistics'.
Are there aspects of low-speed derailments that might have implications for safety going forward? -- for example, would a low-speed derailment damage a wheel or flange and make it susceptible to accelerated failure in service? Or is the wheelset containing that wheel automatically flagged, pulled and checked ... as I expect it would be. I think you would need to establish what categories of lower-speed/lower-energy derailment were to be included, based on actual relevance to causing or inducing the higher-speed/higher-consequence ones. But certainly no criterion strictly based on derailment 'events' at any speed tells you much that is useful in our context...
There is rarely anything sinister about the point of view behind statistics, and particularly not in this case. But they are always developed for a very specific purpose which may or may not be suitable for other studies and conclusions.
How the categories are defined by the statistician will make a great deal of difference to the apparent results. In this case, including or excluding derailments under a dollar threshold makes a huge difference. Changing the threshold or merely adding certain specific types that are otherwise under the threshold will also change the numbers.
Statistics provide useful information but should be used only as a guide, not taken as fundamental truth. The railroad industry and the pipeline companies each produce accurate statistics about the safe transportation of oil, but the apparent conclusions are somewhat different. That is why knowing the point of view is important.
John
OvermodOr is the wheelset containing that wheel automatically flagged, pulled and checked ... as I expect it would be.
That's what I've always seen happen. Even the smallest derailment sends the car to the shop.
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
There are two railroads in my town. One is owned by the government. It operates only on city property.
The other is privately owned. The privately owned railroad runs on two tracks through town and hundreds of miles beyond.
Over the last 50 years, the private railroad has had several derailments within the city limits. One derailment was caused by a run away string of loaded coal cars. Luckily, nobody has been killed, nor injured as a result.
The government owned railroad's safety record is spotless.In over 50 years, that old steam locomotive down by the depot become a park has never once derailed.
Comparing safety statistics, there is no comparison. Cost to benefit ratios, excluding esthetics, are a different matter.
A example of why I distrust 'statistics' when the input data has been categorized.
CSX had a derailement in Philadelphia at the end of January with a oil train on a bridge over the Schuykill Expressway.
It was just recently published that the track had just ungone tie replacement maintenance. The proximate cause was the rail turned over because it wasn't properly secured to the ties in the area that had been worked on, because the personnel responsible for the tie replacement did not follow company standards before they released the track back for service.
Do we have a track failure derailment? Do we have a man failure derailment? The TRUE cause is man failure in not following company procedure. How do you report this for FRA statistics?
I have no idea if this incident will be reported as a track failure or a man failure. No matter how it gets reported it will skew the data. This is just a single incident. The reporting of hundreds, if not thousands, of incidents make up the FRA statistics and in many of the incidents decisions must be made on how the cause is actually reported. If both causes were to be reported then the incident would be double reported.
There are thousands of decisions that go into making the FRA reports and the statistics that get generated from those reports. Decisions one doesn't think of when someone says the FRA report says X.
Feel good article in today's paper about how the state is stepping up to ensure safer railroading here. They went through a couple of yards, found some wheels and brakes out of tolerance, and a few lose bolts. One broken rail.
Pretty much everyday railroading.
They inspected a total of six miles of track (in yards) and 44 switches...
That didn't stop the governor from saying, "This inspection blitz has resulted in immediate improvement to some of the state's busiest rail sites..."
daveklepper An evaluation worth reading from Progrressive Railroading: — by Toby Kolstad -- snipped -- There is one common denominator to all the tank-car derailment tragedies of late that has hardly been mentioned: Train speeds all exceeded 40 mph. High-speed derailments almost always involve dozens of cars piled into a very small space; in derailments at slower speeds, cars tend to stay coupled together and upright. Limiting the speed of trains with blocks of haz-mat tank cars to 25 mph would reduce the catastrophic consequences of derailments involving these cars by almost 100 percent. That would be far more effective than the 56.6 percent reduction estimated by the AAR's own research for the tank-car changes they have suggested, or the 37 percent reduction that would be achieved with RSI's recommendations. However, a 25 mph speed limit is as impractical to railroads as insulating and jacketing all existing tank cars in haz-mat service is for rail-car lessors.
An evaluation worth reading from Progrressive Railroading:
— by Toby Kolstad
-- snipped --
There is one common denominator to all the tank-car derailment tragedies of late that has hardly been mentioned: Train speeds all exceeded 40 mph. High-speed derailments almost always involve dozens of cars piled into a very small space; in derailments at slower speeds, cars tend to stay coupled together and upright. Limiting the speed of trains with blocks of haz-mat tank cars to 25 mph would reduce the catastrophic consequences of derailments involving these cars by almost 100 percent. That would be far more effective than the 56.6 percent reduction estimated by the AAR's own research for the tank-car changes they have suggested, or the 37 percent reduction that would be achieved with RSI's recommendations. However, a 25 mph speed limit is as impractical to railroads as insulating and jacketing all existing tank cars in haz-mat service is for rail-car lessors.
The suggested 25 MPH speed limit would have done nothing to minimize the consequences of the Lac Megantic disaster or any other runaway.
- Erik
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.