BuslistMy typo mistake, should have been And Zugman said it is ultimately ....
It's all good.
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
Buslist schlimm Buslist Because as has been said before, a properly functioning CTC system's field logic would not allow a dispatcher to make such an error. So we would need a malfunctioning signal system and a malfunctioning dispatcher to satisfy you. Looks like Dave Husman and Jeff Hergert have discussed other ways that the accident could occur. Perhaps you can turn your snarkiness on them? neither one of those constitute dispatcher error! And Zugman (I think) it is ultimately up to the train crew to obey the signals.
schlimm Buslist Because as has been said before, a properly functioning CTC system's field logic would not allow a dispatcher to make such an error. So we would need a malfunctioning signal system and a malfunctioning dispatcher to satisfy you. Looks like Dave Husman and Jeff Hergert have discussed other ways that the accident could occur. Perhaps you can turn your snarkiness on them?
Buslist Because as has been said before, a properly functioning CTC system's field logic would not allow a dispatcher to make such an error. So we would need a malfunctioning signal system and a malfunctioning dispatcher to satisfy you.
Looks like Dave Husman and Jeff Hergert have discussed other ways that the accident could occur. Perhaps you can turn your snarkiness on them?
neither one of those constitute dispatcher error! And Zugman (I think) it is ultimately up to the train crew to obey the signals.
My typo mistake, should have been
And Zugman said it is ultimately ....
Buslistneither one of those constitute dispatcher error! And Zugman (I think) it is ultimately up to the train crew to obey the signals.
That's what I said on here from the start. Kind of what I do.
zugmannBut then you run the risk of crews getting too dependent on a dispatcher. I know most of our dispatchers always try to give a heads up of when you may be stopping, but they're in an office far away. We're the ones staring at the pretty lights along the tracks. Responsibility is all ours.
Euclid If this collision was caused as speculated here, how would have more advanced information presented to the crew prevented the collision? What would they have done different if they had more information? When I worked road trains I was always glad to get information about what was coming up ahead. If I knew about a meet in advance I could time my arrival at the meeting point to avoid having to stop thereby saving fuel and wear and tear on the equipment. Or I knew I would be stopping, giving some time for a bathroom break or time to check on a trailing unit. In this incident the dispatcher calling on the radio "may" have gotten the crews attention. Mark Vinski
If this collision was caused as speculated here, how would have more advanced information presented to the crew prevented the collision? What would they have done different if they had more information?
EuclidSo with all the video and still shots of this wreck, the one video that is the most uniquely revealing and the most unlikely to get has been posted on line for a few days or so, and now has been removed.
I would say this a bit more carefully. But yes, I am saying that a video was available (on a TV stations' Facebook page, with 800-odd comments) that showed something very different from the video that shows now on that page. And I am further saying that I have not yet found the original video elsewhere on the Web.
I'm not saying anything about how that might come to be, other than to note that when I do find it I'll provide a link.
Overmod Euclid This must be the video that you refer to where one of the trains is moving fast. It is the second video down in this linked story: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Several-videos-capture-moments-after-trains-8331885.php No, that's still at least several seconds later than the one I saw -- the top of the 'cloud' is much higher and has turned a full gray color in this video, and I think the angle is different. I referred earlier to a video by the New couple; I based that on it being the attribution given by the TV station to the video on its Facebook page. It now appears that video was changed TO the version provided by the News, which is the one that shows the last few seconds of the westbound train stopping. So the version I was commenting on initially is still not 'up' in media where I can link to it now.
Euclid This must be the video that you refer to where one of the trains is moving fast. It is the second video down in this linked story: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Several-videos-capture-moments-after-trains-8331885.php
No, that's still at least several seconds later than the one I saw -- the top of the 'cloud' is much higher and has turned a full gray color in this video, and I think the angle is different.
I referred earlier to a video by the New couple; I based that on it being the attribution given by the TV station to the video on its Facebook page. It now appears that video was changed TO the version provided by the News, which is the one that shows the last few seconds of the westbound train stopping. So the version I was commenting on initially is still not 'up' in media where I can link to it now.
So with all the video and still shots of this wreck, the one video that is the most uniquely revealing and the most unlikely to get has been posted on line for a few days or so, and now has been removed.
There are problems in a safety-critical system when you start mixing reminders at different times or lags and there is no written or persistent backup of the "workflow". Reminding someone about an upcoming meet in 30 minutes is likely to be 'overwritten' by subsequent things that happen in foreground attention, unless there is a written reminder or prompt that flags it (with some hierarchical method of signaling as the time of the reminder's importance approaches). Meanwhile, if the meet changes for some reason, one of two things may happen: the latency or perceived primacy of the original communication may override the recency of the 'update'; and if there are too many changes the crew may start 'zoning out' the early warnings, and extend that over to later ones as well -- with increasing risk as they become tired, stressed, or concerned with other events or emergencies.
I would be highly in favor of Don's tongue-in-cheek proposal to 'give the crew the dispatcher's view of their piece of the railroad' -- in much the same format as the old Microsoft moving-map GPS did. This would give you a route line with your train 'transponders' indicated, front and rear, with telemetry, and all the signals, switch positions, anticipated crossovers, other train information, etc. displayed. It would also have a 'repeater' for all the civil restrictions, slow orders, and other transient things the crew would be expected to remember -- the immediate problem then becoming they will increasingly rely on the 'repeater' to show them the current state, without remembering and reviewing the actual paper communications that are the 'official' proof in writing on which the system rests.
An armchair Apple engineer would make this sort of display, with data fusion, the primary train=handling interface. The problem with that is that if the system goes bad -- and it depends on a number of radio-based systems any of which in failing may eliminate safety-critical inputs -- it will abruptly shift from mandatory to untrustable, a very poor thing for a safety critical system to do, and manifestly unfair to do (perhaps over and over in the course of an eight-hour workday) to a crew that has to depend on its connectivity for 'safety assurance'.
Note that it is not easy to predict when the system fails, or how reliable its information is, without using precisely the sort of foreground attention and complex activity that has been demonstrated to cause accidents when certain smartphone activities are used ... see the Air France crash with the pitot-tube freezing for an extreme, but perhaps very relevant example.
Frankly, I think it's much wiser to keep the system 'automatic' and predictable using nothing but rules-based signal indications, and use an overlay for the civil and dispatch 'refinements' within the same visually-based system. If you have dispatcher communications, have them read and text simultaneously where, if a crew shifts their eyes to read them, they will see an easily-comprehended instantaneous signal display at the same focus their eyes adopt to read them. With a simple control to play back part of the message if it isn't understood when heard ... but not a bunch of fiddly controls with no haptic feedback, that require a crew to look at them every time to figure out what they need to put their finger on.
I have my own thoughts on how an e-log system ought to contain its own record of slow orders and other civil stuff -- provided to a crew in defined electronc form at the time they leave to get on the engine, and then uploaded in equally defined electronic form to a standard system on the engine. That is then the time and place to compare the electronic version, step by step against a checklist, with any 'paper' or verbal instructions, to be sure everything is loaded correctly and everything on the engine that reads things is working as expected, or workarounds are satisfactory and understood. Etc., and there are a whole bunch of etc's that I'm not going to go into.
But don't mix media, and don't give a crew TMI, especially if it distracts them to receive or process it, and don't mix things up by giving them information out of good haptic sequence...
...except in emergencies. And when you call an emergency, be very careful to keep it well-managed as an emergency, neither too much or too little excitement and interference. Automatic systems that trigger on emergency conditions shouldn't bray alarm, either ... there are better ways to get a crew to respond, if they are able. And there better be ways to implement a response if the crew does not...
EuclidThis must be the video that you refer to where one of the trains is moving fast. It is the second video down in this linked story: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Several-videos-capture-moments-after-trains-8331885.php
Overmod Euclid Is it thought that, had the crew been informed of the upcoming meet, they would have been less likely to run the red board? you're asking the wrong question, twice. First, as noted already, the whole premise of CTC is to take dispatcher communication and train orders out of the picture. You run your train by signal authority only ... and, to be safe, the blocks are long enough, and the relay setup reliable enough, that you never see a red without having enough time to stop before hitting or splitting anything. Second, there needs to be automatic train stop on absolute red. Any time, anywhere. One of the four functions of mandated PTC is to provide this, but it was just about as simple before WW1 -- magnet on the track that 'fails safe', that applies full (safe level of) service brake and, on a diesel-electric consist, either eases throttle and DPU off or drops the ground relay to the traction power. In answer to your question: Yes, it would be nice to have the dispatcher radio the crew to alert them when they're meeting opposing traffic, that they'll be crossing over, etc. But on a proper and safe CTC system this is not adding anything new to safety -- and in the present accident, it is likely the dispatcher could have said all kinds of things that wouldn't have made any difference. If no one is listening, it doesn't matter what a dispatcher says. If no one is following train orders, it doesn't matter what the train-order procedures are. If no one is controlling the throttle and brake, it does not matter what the signals are set to. So no, it likely wouldn't have mattered if the dispatcher had 'informed' that eastbound crew about an impending meet a little in advance of what the signals were telling them, or explained what they were going to encounter over the next couple of miles, or at the Panhandle crossover. I'll leave it to the practical railroaders to comment on whether continuous information that may compromise the 'absolute meaning' of CTC displayed signals is a safe 'generally accepted procedure' for dispatching. In my opinion (as an IxD person who knows cognitive science) some aspects of that approach are beneficial, and some decidedly not beneficial ... in specific circumstances, with particular appropriateness in 'anomalous situations' or critical safety contexts (as in assisting untrained pilots in landing heavy aircraft, or responding to emerging failures in nuclear power-plant accidents). Here, the only real 'warning' the dispatcher could have given was to the westbound crew, to give them some few seconds advanced warning -- or to advise the conductor on the westbound to jump with her engineer, as death was bowling for her otherwise.
Euclid Is it thought that, had the crew been informed of the upcoming meet, they would have been less likely to run the red board?
you're asking the wrong question, twice.
First, as noted already, the whole premise of CTC is to take dispatcher communication and train orders out of the picture. You run your train by signal authority only ... and, to be safe, the blocks are long enough, and the relay setup reliable enough, that you never see a red without having enough time to stop before hitting or splitting anything.
Second, there needs to be automatic train stop on absolute red. Any time, anywhere. One of the four functions of mandated PTC is to provide this, but it was just about as simple before WW1 -- magnet on the track that 'fails safe', that applies full (safe level of) service brake and, on a diesel-electric consist, either eases throttle and DPU off or drops the ground relay to the traction power.
In answer to your question: Yes, it would be nice to have the dispatcher radio the crew to alert them when they're meeting opposing traffic, that they'll be crossing over, etc. But on a proper and safe CTC system this is not adding anything new to safety -- and in the present accident, it is likely the dispatcher could have said all kinds of things that wouldn't have made any difference.
If no one is listening, it doesn't matter what a dispatcher says. If no one is following train orders, it doesn't matter what the train-order procedures are. If no one is controlling the throttle and brake, it does not matter what the signals are set to. So no, it likely wouldn't have mattered if the dispatcher had 'informed' that eastbound crew about an impending meet a little in advance of what the signals were telling them, or explained what they were going to encounter over the next couple of miles, or at the Panhandle crossover.
I'll leave it to the practical railroaders to comment on whether continuous information that may compromise the 'absolute meaning' of CTC displayed signals is a safe 'generally accepted procedure' for dispatching. In my opinion (as an IxD person who knows cognitive science) some aspects of that approach are beneficial, and some decidedly not beneficial ... in specific circumstances, with particular appropriateness in 'anomalous situations' or critical safety contexts (as in assisting untrained pilots in landing heavy aircraft, or responding to emerging failures in nuclear power-plant accidents). Here, the only real 'warning' the dispatcher could have given was to the westbound crew, to give them some few seconds advanced warning -- or to advise the conductor on the westbound to jump with her engineer, as death was bowling for her otherwise.
Overmod,
You respond as though I am advocating this extra communication. Yet I explicitly said above that I am against the idea. However, there is support here for the idea of extra information such as telling crews of upcoming meets. I am asking my question of those advocates of extra information, so it is not a wrong question. I want to hear why they think such meet notification would add safety. You yourself have answered the question when you said this:
"In answer to your question: Yes, it would be nice to have the dispatcher radio the crew to alert them when they're meeting opposing traffic, that they'll be crossing over, etc. But on a proper and safe CTC system this is not adding anything new to safety -- and in the present accident, it is likely the dispatcher could have said all kinds of things that wouldn't have made any difference."
So how do you conclude that such reminders cannot possibly change the outcome?
Since I am not getting any answers to my question from those who favor the extra information, I will answer for them based on what I think their reasoning is as follows:
Informing a crew of an impending meet maybe 30 minutes ahead of time would reinforce the matter into their consciousness, and motivate them to be more alert. So maybe they would be less likely to fall asleep or lapse into some other kind of inattention.
It would be like when you make a dentist appointment. Everything is locked into the schedule, yet they call you a day ahead of time to remind you. This issue is obvious. Sometimes crews fail to act as required by signals for a variety of reasons. So reminding them of upcoming action can’t hurt, and it may help.
Again: The part is blue is NOT my position. It is the answer to my question those who advocate the extra communication.
zugmann oltmannd Why not just give the train crew the dispatcher's track line view of the railroad... No more room for another screen in these engines.
oltmannd Why not just give the train crew the dispatcher's track line view of the railroad...
No more room for another screen in these engines.
It'll be even worse with PTC. Still, there are ways. Or you could let them have it on their phones...Which opens up a whole 'nother can of worms.
More info of this nature increases situational awareness. None of it is "bullet proof". That's what the signal system's for...
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
EuclidIs it thought that, had the crew been informed of the upcoming meet, they would have been less likely to run the red board?
Well, at some point, they were able to communicate. If they, in fact were asleep, is it being suggested that, had they been informed of the meet before falling asleep, it would have been more likely that they would not have fallen asleep and ran by the board?
Understand that I am not advocating such notification. On one hand I can see the argument that any added communcation about the operating plan can't hurt and will probably help. But I also see zugmann's point about the danger of crews relying on that extra communication. I agree with that point, and think that adding information redundancy can backfire by a greater tendancy to inadvertantly omit the redundant information, which can catch a crew that relies on it.
Euclid zugmann Euclid If this collision was caused as speculated here, how would have more advanced information presented to the crew prevented the collision? What would they have done different if they had more information? Nobody here is psychic. We don't know what they WOULD have done. Maybe I was not clear, but I am not asking for a psychic prediction about what the crew would have done or did do. My point was directed at the suggestion that informing a crew of upcoming meets would make things safer. So my question was to ask this: Is it thought that, had the crew been informed of the upcoming meet, they would have been less likely to run the red board?
zugmann Euclid If this collision was caused as speculated here, how would have more advanced information presented to the crew prevented the collision? What would they have done different if they had more information? Nobody here is psychic. We don't know what they WOULD have done.
Euclid If this collision was caused as speculated here, how would have more advanced information presented to the crew prevented the collision? What would they have done different if they had more information?
Nobody here is psychic. We don't know what they WOULD have done.
Maybe I was not clear, but I am not asking for a psychic prediction about what the crew would have done or did do. My point was directed at the suggestion that informing a crew of upcoming meets would make things safer. So my question was to ask this:
Is it thought that, had the crew been informed of the upcoming meet, they would have been less likely to run the red board?
If a crew is unable to communicate - for whatever the reason - how do they get notified? The unabated speed of one train, would be prima facia evidence that they were unable to communicate with either the Train Dispatcher or the signals displayed for them.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Who knows. I've heard of crews that were told they were going to be stopping at CP-Whatever, and still got by the signal.
Communication is always good - but you can't be dependent on the dispatcher telling you everything. You're usually not the only crew out there.
oltmanndWhy not just give the train crew the dispatcher's track line view of the railroad...
BigJimI don't think that there is a rule requiring dispatchers to notify crews of train meets, but, maybe there ought to be. If nothing else, it should be an unwritten rule. The more information a train crew has, the better they can adapt to changing conditions.
Oh, my, YES! For a whole lot of reasons.....
Why not just give the train crew the dispatcher's track line view of the railroad...
BigJim I don't think that there is a rule requiring dispatchers to notify crews of train meets, but, maybe there ought to be. If nothing else, it should be an unwritten rule. The more information a train crew has, the better they can adapt to changing conditions.
I don't think that there is a rule requiring dispatchers to notify crews of train meets, but, maybe there ought to be. If nothing else, it should be an unwritten rule. The more information a train crew has, the better they can adapt to changing conditions.
Bad idea. That leads to dependency. Especially on a two main track CTC railroad. Telling the crew about unusual situations? Absolutely. Using the radio to supplement the signal system? No.
An "expensive model collector"
But then you run the risk of crews getting too dependent on a dispatcher. I know most of our dispatchers always try to give a heads up of when you may be stopping, but they're in an office far away. We're the ones staring at the pretty lights along the tracks. Responsibility is all ours.
BigJim Buslist "The eastbound train approx an hour out of Amarillo blew by a flashing yellow and thru the red at 67 mph and hit at that speed. Doesn't look like he ever took any action. I wonder if the dispatcher had notified both trains that they would be meeting at this point? (It doesn't appear that he did.) Correct me if I am wrong, but, I seem to remember that BNSF does not require its crews to call all signals over the radio as NS does. If both trains had known there was to be a meet at this point, then, the absense of signal calling could be a sign that something wasn't right. I don't think that there is a rule requiring dispatchers to notify crews of train meets, but, maybe there ought to be. If nothing else, it should be an unwritten rule. The more information a train crew has, the better they can adapt to changing conditions.
Buslist "The eastbound train approx an hour out of Amarillo blew by a flashing yellow and thru the red at 67 mph and hit at that speed. Doesn't look like he ever took any action.
I wonder if the dispatcher had notified both trains that they would be meeting at this point? (It doesn't appear that he did.) Correct me if I am wrong, but, I seem to remember that BNSF does not require its crews to call all signals over the radio as NS does. If both trains had known there was to be a meet at this point, then, the absense of signal calling could be a sign that something wasn't right.
This must be the video that you refer to where one of the trains is moving fast. It is the second video down in this linked story:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Several-videos-capture-moments-after-trains-8331885.php
From the link. The word "videos" is a direct link to the video showing that train in motion:
“In one of the videos, two girls caught the derailment and collision as it happened. In the video, the carts are seen traveling at a moderate rate of speed before slamming into carts further ahead in the track.
The carts piled until the trains stopped moving and the cloud of black smoke, initially small at the beginning of the video, grows.”
Also, in this same link, there is a video with the live link reference: Same moment, from other side
That is the other video we have talked about that shows just the last few seconds of movement of the colliding train. Apparently someone else on the opposite side of the tracks shot this video.
Overmod In the clip I saw, filming commenced several seconds after the actual impact, perhaps enough time for the person to react, start the camera up (on video), and commence recording. I don't remember if there was any shaking at the beginning that would indicate the camera first being pointed and focused on the scene. There was evidence of a very large initial shock as a rising smoke ball in white and gray smoke, roughly oval and rising faster than expanding, with additional smoke rising with a couple of seconds' delay. I would estimate the actual collision to have been a number of seconds earlier (and it would be possible to work backward from the rate of evolution shown in the video frames to extrapolate the moment of impact). I have seen no evidence that anyone was filming the approach of the trains, or captured the 'moment of impact'. I have not read any account by the New couple about what they were doing at the time, how they came to record the scene, or how they provided it to channel 7; my suspicion is that we will hear this principally through the NTSB and not from 'the media'. Not to be paranoid about this, but it seems that the clip I saw has been edited to show a very different, and later, view of the accident. This might have been the result of unintentional use of video from a different accident, so I'm not going to suggest that potentially sensitive or incriminating evidence is being held until after the investigators can assess it.
There was evidence of a very large initial shock as a rising smoke ball in white and gray smoke, roughly oval and rising faster than expanding, with additional smoke rising with a couple of seconds' delay. I would estimate the actual collision to have been a number of seconds earlier (and it would be possible to work backward from the rate of evolution shown in the video frames to extrapolate the moment of impact).
I have seen no evidence that anyone was filming the approach of the trains, or captured the 'moment of impact'. I have not read any account by the New couple about what they were doing at the time, how they came to record the scene, or how they provided it to channel 7; my suspicion is that we will hear this principally through the NTSB and not from 'the media'.
Not to be paranoid about this, but it seems that the clip I saw has been edited to show a very different, and later, view of the accident. This might have been the result of unintentional use of video from a different accident, so I'm not going to suggest that potentially sensitive or incriminating evidence is being held until after the investigators can assess it.
I don't understand this point from your last paragraph above:
"it seems that the clip I saw has been edited to show a very different, and later, view of the accident."
In relation to what is it "different and later"?
The only video that I have seen that shows one train still in motion is the one available that shows what appears to be the last couple seconds of movement of one of the colliding trains. Just to clarify, I assume that you are not referring to that video.
Buslist"The eastbound train approx an hour out of Amarillo blew by a flashing yellow and thru the red at 67 mph and hit at that speed. Doesn't look like he ever took any action.
.
From the West Coast
A visit to Summit in Cajon Pass (Southern California) was made Saturday morning, July 2, 2016, with the expectation of seeing possibly a bunch of BNSF westbounds. But, the only westbound at Summit was a Los Angeles & Salt Lake (UP).
A return to Summit was made in early evening, but the situation was even worse. So, the conclusion was reached that the Texas log jam made it to the West Coast in record time, or hadn’t gotten here yet. There did seem to be a bit more eastbounds than usual in Cajon Pass.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
Here's the information I have.
"The eastbound train approx an hour out of Amarillo blew by a flashing yellow and thru the red at 67 mph and hit at that speed. Doesn't look like he ever took any action. The westbound moving at 44 mph got a red signal, plugged it and was down to 37 mph at impact. The westbound engineer jumped and survived, the female conductor did not jump and is presumed deceased. They have now stopped recovery efforts believing she was basically vaporized. The remains of the eastbound crew were recovered.The pile of containers included 18 well cars on the westbound train piled up and on fire.So, it appears the impact was at a combined speed of 104 mph! Counted as destroyed are 3 lives, 8 locomotives and a lot of cars, containers and lading."
10 pm Eastern time - I am becoming concerned about the fourth crew member - has his/her remains been found with the media having turned their attention elsewhere? :( I've been on site after a few tractor-trailer disasters, but unstacking a train wreck is in a completely different universe.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.