Murphy SidingIt just hit me. I bet you do a lot of expert witness work for civil trials- don’t you? It now makes sense the way you ask questions and turn everything around. You're working the angles.
Doubtful. And expert witnesses do not ask questions, they figure out the best answers to them.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Murphy Siding It just hit me. I bet you do a lot of expert witness work for civil trials- don’t you? It now makes sense the way you ask questions and turn everything around. You're working the angles. Doubtful. And expert witnesses do not ask questions, they figure out the best answers to them.
Murphy Siding It just hit me. I bet you do a lot of expert witness work for civil trials- don’t you? It now makes sense the way you ask questions and turn everything around. You're working the angles.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid Another point, as previously mentioned, is that there may be additional liability for the company if no attempt to avoid a collision is made. Surely you can sue anybody for anything. However, I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that the engineer actually even needed to attempt to avoid a collision with someone trespassing on company property. If a Delta jet hits someone on the runway, who is at fault? Probably not Delta. Even if a lawyer could make that case sound plausible, it would be just as plausible to prove that emergency braking would have probably made the situation worse. I doubt that the fact someone was trespassing (violating crossing law) would offset the responsibility to do what is reasonable to protect the trespasser from potentially fatal hazards. Owners of property always want to believe that is the case because they are enraged by people trespassing on their property. Lawyers will throw everything at the wall, and some of it usually sticks. A lawyer might point out that trains are equipped with an “Emergency” braking feature which stops a train as quickly as possible. Railroads are always pointing out that it takes a lot of time to stop a train. So a lawyer might ask a jury why a railroad would not use the most effective method available to slow a train as quickly as possible. An opposing lawyer could point out that if the engineer had used that “Emergency” braking feature which stops a train as quickly as possible, the train could derail and squash the trespasser flat as a pancake. The same lawyer could find an expert witness to explain the difference between a car’s emergency brake and those on a train. It just hit me. I bet you do a lot of expert witness work for civil trials- don’t you? It now makes sense the way you ask questions and turn everything around. You're working the angles.
Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid Another point, as previously mentioned, is that there may be additional liability for the company if no attempt to avoid a collision is made. Surely you can sue anybody for anything. However, I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that the engineer actually even needed to attempt to avoid a collision with someone trespassing on company property. If a Delta jet hits someone on the runway, who is at fault? Probably not Delta. Even if a lawyer could make that case sound plausible, it would be just as plausible to prove that emergency braking would have probably made the situation worse. I doubt that the fact someone was trespassing (violating crossing law) would offset the responsibility to do what is reasonable to protect the trespasser from potentially fatal hazards. Owners of property always want to believe that is the case because they are enraged by people trespassing on their property. Lawyers will throw everything at the wall, and some of it usually sticks. A lawyer might point out that trains are equipped with an “Emergency” braking feature which stops a train as quickly as possible. Railroads are always pointing out that it takes a lot of time to stop a train. So a lawyer might ask a jury why a railroad would not use the most effective method available to slow a train as quickly as possible.
Murphy Siding Euclid Another point, as previously mentioned, is that there may be additional liability for the company if no attempt to avoid a collision is made. Surely you can sue anybody for anything. However, I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that the engineer actually even needed to attempt to avoid a collision with someone trespassing on company property. If a Delta jet hits someone on the runway, who is at fault? Probably not Delta. Even if a lawyer could make that case sound plausible, it would be just as plausible to prove that emergency braking would have probably made the situation worse.
Euclid Another point, as previously mentioned, is that there may be additional liability for the company if no attempt to avoid a collision is made.
Another point, as previously mentioned, is that there may be additional liability for the company if no attempt to avoid a collision is made.
Surely you can sue anybody for anything. However, I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that the engineer actually even needed to attempt to avoid a collision with someone trespassing on company property. If a Delta jet hits someone on the runway, who is at fault? Probably not Delta. Even if a lawyer could make that case sound plausible, it would be just as plausible to prove that emergency braking would have probably made the situation worse.
I doubt that the fact someone was trespassing (violating crossing law) would offset the responsibility to do what is reasonable to protect the trespasser from potentially fatal hazards. Owners of property always want to believe that is the case because they are enraged by people trespassing on their property.
Lawyers will throw everything at the wall, and some of it usually sticks. A lawyer might point out that trains are equipped with an “Emergency” braking feature which stops a train as quickly as possible. Railroads are always pointing out that it takes a lot of time to stop a train. So a lawyer might ask a jury why a railroad would not use the most effective method available to slow a train as quickly as possible.
An opposing lawyer could point out that if the engineer had used that “Emergency” braking feature which stops a train as quickly as possible, the train could derail and squash the trespasser flat as a pancake. The same lawyer could find an expert witness to explain the difference between a car’s emergency brake and those on a train. It just hit me. I bet you do a lot of expert witness work for civil trials- don’t you? It now makes sense the way you ask questions and turn everything around. You're working the angles.
I am not an expert witness, but I do like to work the angles, as you say. I am particularly interested in the angles mentioned earlier about engineers being worried about being blamed for causing a derailment by dynamiting the brakes for an impending crash that manages not to occur. Therefore, it is suggested, engineers feel safer in not applying the brakes until after a collision has occurred. Then if the train derails as a result, they have “proof” that the brake application was necessary.
This raises two questions:
Does the company provide any guidance for engineers faced with this dilemma?
What is the statistical probability of a derailment resulting from making an “Emergency” application of the brakes?
EuclidWhat is the statistical probability of a derailment resulting from making an “Emergency” application of the brakes?
Uphill or down? Slack in or out? Tangent or curve(s)? Speed? What is the distribution of empties/loads in the train? Are there any undiscovered track or equipment flaws? Are there any know contributors to derailments in the track structure?
Again, the variables are many - probably too many to compute any specific probabilities.
And because of those many variables, it would be virtually impossible to give specific instructions. There are going to be some rules of thumb, mostly from shared experience, but very little codified.
When faced with a "situation," an engineer has to quickly consider all those variables. And if it's a significant obstacle they're going to run in to (load of steel, or fuel tanker), odds are the crew will be on the floor, hoping they survive at all.
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...
tree68There are going to be some rules of thumb, mostly from shared experience, but very little codified.
I seem to recall, perusing the NTSB docket on the Nevada Amtrak event where the semi plowed into the CZ, the engineer in his post-incident interview stated that he was trying to keep the train stretched as things unfolded because of his belief the likelihood of derailment in that sort of collision was lower with the train stretched. I don't recall now whether he attributed that to training or shared experience or both, but at the time I found it an interesting insight.
tree68 Euclid Uphill or down? Slack in or out? Tangent or curve(s)? Speed? What is the distribution of empties/loads in the train? Are there any undiscovered track or equipment flaws? Are there any know contributors to derailments in the track structure? Again, the variables are many - probably too many to compute any specific probabilities. And because of those many variables, it would be virtually impossible to give specific instructions. There are going to be some rules of thumb, mostly from shared experience, but very little codified. When faced with a "situation," an engineer has to quickly consider all those variables. And if it's a significant obstacle they're going to run in to (load of steel, or fuel tanker), odds are the crew will be on the floor, hoping they survive at all.
Euclid
Automatic Train Stop (ATS), Train Control with cab signals (TC) and Positve Train Control (PTC) - when encountering a situation that requires a 'penalty stop'; apply the brakes in full service - NOT EMERGENCY.
My company's instructions to crews for when a signal goes RED (STOP at control points, or Restricted Proceed at Intermediates) in the face of the train (ie. the signal the crew passed before the now RED signal, granted authority that DID NOT require the train to approach the signal 'prepared to STOP') is for the crew to make a maximum service application consistant with good train handling in bringing the train to a STOP, and then wait for the Signal Technicians to review the signal log at the appropriate location, to document that the train DID NOT voluntarily run past a STOP signal.
With the size trains that are currently being operated (up to 15K feet in length) the use of the Emergency Brake by the crews is something that is not to be used without thought.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
What a can of worms I opened up. I just want to say with the episode I described, I wasn't going to throw us into emergency. I wasn't trying to second-guess the crew involved with the suicide. In that situation it would be hard not to shoot 'em. I probably would do the same thing in that situation. A vehicle speeding towards a crossing is different from a vehicle, or person, on the tracks.
I have had a few episodes when I did put some air under the train just in case I was going to have to dump the air. Fortunately the vehicles on the crossings, stopped by traffic conditions, were able to clear before the "big hole" was needed.
Jeff
tree68 Euclid What is the statistical probability of a derailment resulting from making an “Emergency” application of the brakes? Uphill or down? Slack in or out? Tangent or curve(s)? Speed? What is the distribution of empties/loads in the train? Are there any undiscovered track or equipment flaws? Are there any know contributors to derailments in the track structure? Again, the variables are many - probably too many to compute any specific probabilities. And because of those many variables, it would be virtually impossible to give specific instructions. There are going to be some rules of thumb, mostly from shared experience, but very little codified. When faced with a "situation," an engineer has to quickly consider all those variables. And if it's a significant obstacle they're going to run in to (load of steel, or fuel tanker), odds are the crew will be on the floor, hoping they survive at all.
Euclid What is the statistical probability of a derailment resulting from making an “Emergency” application of the brakes?
I understand your point about there being many variables affecting whether dumping the air would cause a derailment. But just to get an idea of the probability, I would like to know the number of derailments triggered by “Emergency” applications. I am not concerned about narrowing it down to various extenuating situations. Everybody talks about how it can happen. I just want to get an idea of how often it happens.
I don’t see why it would be virtually impossible to give specific instructions. They would not have to cover every contingency such as the ones you mention. But a decision to wait until there is a collision before apply brakes is very specific. I cannot believe that railroad companies would be ambivalent on that point.
The suggestion earlier that some engineers worry about being blamed for dumping the air prior to impact suggests that the company requires it prior to impact, depending on the probability of a collision. In other words, I suspect that the company would not agree that an engineer should wait for impact before risking a brake application. But that is just my inference. There must be a specific answer to the question.
Jeff,
I did not interpret your comments about the approaching vehicle to mean you were second guessing the crew involved in this LaGrange fatality. I understand your point that a person or vehicle on the track is different from a vehicle speeding toward the tracks. Vehicles on the track may be stalled in traffic or maybe stuck in snow. As such they give visual evidence that they may not move in time, which offers the opportunity to slow down or even stop the train if it is not moving too fast.
EuclidI don’t see why it would be virtually impossible to give specific instructions. They would not have to cover every contingency such as the ones you mention.
Railroad rules are no longer written by railroaders - they are written by lawyers. A lawyer will never say in 10 words what he can state in 100 undecipherable pages.
Euclid I don’t see why it would be virtually impossible to give specific instructions.
I don’t see why it would be virtually impossible to give specific instructions.
Murphy Siding Euclid I don’t see why it would be virtually impossible to give specific instructions. Because, as Larry has explained several times so far to you, there are 10,000 variations of what's going on in the situation at the moment that the crew has to make a crucial decision. That would require about 2,000 pages in a written rule book.
Because, as Larry has explained several times so far to you, there are 10,000 variations of what's going on in the situation at the moment that the crew has to make a crucial decision. That would require about 2,000 pages in a written rule book.
And I have explained that I am not asking for specific instructions that cover 10,000 variations. I am asking just one question and it is simple:
Should an engineer withhold braking until after a collision occurs because the risk of derailing the train may outweigh the safety benefit of applying brakes prior to the collision?
It's a yes or no question.
EuclidIt's a yes or no question.
No it is not!
Trains, moving at anything other than Restricted Speed, are not line of sight vehicles. Their stopping distance exceeds the range of EFFECTIVE vision.
Another angle of this story that I find interesting is assertion that this was a case of suicide. Media is traditionally a little skittish about reporting suicides as opposed to accidental deaths. I know of two suicide–by-train deaths in my area that were never reported in the local news.
With many headlines referring to this LaGrange death as a suicide, the closest evidence reported that would suggest a possible suicide is this from the above link:
http://www.wtvm.com/story/33036768/1-struck-and-killed-causes-train-derailment-in-lagrange
It says this:
“According to the LaGrange Police Department, a 14-year-old male intentionally stepped in front of the train and was killed.”
The article also offers this disclaimer:
“Editor's note: The name of the teen has been omitted from this report due to the nature of his death. This publication does not report suicides but reports the circumstances of events as they occur in the public sphere.”
So the article states that it has withheld the name because it does not report suicides, but then goes on to report what occurred in the public sphere, leaving the unescapable conclusion that we are to believe this was a suicide. Yet what it reported occurring in the public sphere does not at all confirm that this was a suicide. How’s that for brilliant journalism?
BaltACDMy company's instructions to crews for when a signal goes RED (STOP at control points, or Restricted Proceed at Intermediates) in the face of the train (ie. the signal the crew passed before the now RED signal, granted authority that DID NOT require the train to approach the signal 'prepared to STOP') is for the crew to make a maximum service application consistant with good train handling in bringing the train to a STOP, and then wait for the Signal Technicians to review the signal log at the appropriate location, to document that the train DID NOT voluntarily run past a STOP signal.
You guys have a second part to that? Ours has the above, but adds "unless an emergency application is neccesary, then it must be made without hesitation" (something like that - rulebook is in the locker).
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
EuclidShould an engineer withhold braking until after a collision occurs because the risk of derailing the train may outweigh the safety benefit of applying brakes prior to the collision? It's a yes or no question.
Every train is different, every situation is different, every day is different. Sorry Bucky, but that is not a black and white, yes or no question. Part of having an engineer's license is being entrusted to use best judgement. There is no definite answer to a question like that - no matter how much you want there to be.
When he was here a few years ago, Railway Man made the point that people do want black-or-white, not nuances - which doesn't work, because railroad operations (and life) are not that simple.
- Paul North.
We just had what in our industry is called a Suicide by truck. Guy stopped his car in a parking lot he left a note saying he was depressed. He then walked to the Interstate waited until he saw a truck it happened to be one of ours ran out in front of it. The driver a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan still has yet to return to work. He is taking all the time we can give him to get over this incident that happened to him.
You think it is bad for a Railroad crew try it from a truck drivers persepective. They get to see the impact feel it and then have to deal with the aftermath as that truck is their home away from home. Our policy is to fly the driver home replace him with a new driver we send out to repower the load and have the truck professionally cleaned after it is released back to us by whatever agency needed to investigate the accident. Then about 4 months later we get the Lawsuit from some Lawyer that says our driver did not do everything he could of to prevent the accident up to and one time I am not kidding Laying over a 50K lb load of Chorline Gas in the middle of the road to avoid his clients son. That case was dismissed.
Yeah I see stuff like that all the time. Any fatal accident is a tradedy for everyone involved however the Lawyers that do file these suits need to have their Heads examined sometimes with their Ideas of what is possible in Physics. One guy claimed a truck that weighs 80K should not take 500 feet to stop.
zugmann Euclid Should an engineer withhold braking until after a collision occurs because the risk of derailing the train may outweigh the safety benefit of applying brakes prior to the collision? It's a yes or no question. Every train is different, every situation is different, every day is different. Sorry Bucky, but that is not a black and white, yes or no question. Part of having an engineer's license is being entrusted to use best judgement. There is no definite answer to a question like that - no matter how much you want there to be.
Euclid Should an engineer withhold braking until after a collision occurs because the risk of derailing the train may outweigh the safety benefit of applying brakes prior to the collision? It's a yes or no question.
It surely is a black and white, yes or no question, but I can clarify it. With the countless variables that might cause a derailment during an “Emergency” application, I think it is fair to say that there is always a risk of derailment being triggered by an emergency application. I am sure everyone will agree with that.
Also, until a collision actually occurs, there is no way for an engineer to know that one will occur for certain.
Therefore, to clarify the question: Assuming that there is ALWAYS a risk of derailing the train that may outweigh the safety benefit of applying brakes prior to the collision, should an engineer EVER withhold braking until after a collision occurs?
I think the answer to that question has to be YES.
I can think of one exception. That would be where the engineer can see that a vehicle is stalled, hung up, or stuck on the track and there is enough distance to stop short.
What are some examples of the other numerous variables that would justify not taking a chance of derailment by making an “Emergency” application prior to a collision?
Would EBS reduce derailment probabilities in emergency applications?
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/person-fatally-struck-by-marc-train-in-baltimore-county/41602114
schlimm Would EBS reduce derailment probabilities in emergency applications?
In many cases it would, as EBS would reduce the amount of slack run-in. However, in some cases it would not, such as if the engineer (or gravity) was adjusting the slack at the time, or if there was sharp curvature of the track.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reading the many responses of this thread, it is very easy to see which posters have actual railroad experience, or at least have an understanding of how and why things happen, compared to those that seem to think the real trains should act just like a model railroad...
Of course, while actually working on the rails it's just as easy to tell the difference between a person who has a good understanding of train handling compared to those that just know how to pull the throttle and blow the horn.
Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid I don’t see why it would be virtually impossible to give specific instructions. Because, as Larry has explained several times so far to you, there are 10,000 variations of what's going on in the situation at the moment that the crew has to make a crucial decision. That would require about 2,000 pages in a written rule book. And I have explained that I am not asking for specific instructions that cover 10,000 variations. I am asking just one question and it is simple: Should an engineer withhold braking until after a collision occurs because the risk of derailing the train may outweigh the safety benefit of applying brakes prior to the collision? It's a yes or no question.
EuclidAlso, until a collision actually occurs, there is no way for an engineer to know that one will occur for certain.
YGBSM!
Norm
Euclid Therefore, to clarify the question: Assuming that there is ALWAYS a risk of derailing the train that may outweigh the safety benefit of applying brakes prior to the collision, should an engineer EVER withhold braking until after a collision occurs?
Maybe.
You can derail a train with a service application, or using the dynamic, or using the independent (that's an easy one), or coming off of dynamic/power and having a run out, or using the throttle, or shoving with air, and sometimes they derail on their own through no fault of train operations.
zugmann Euclid Therefore, to clarify the question: Assuming that there is ALWAYS a risk of derailing the train that may outweigh the safety benefit of applying brakes prior to the collision, should an engineer EVER withhold braking until after a collision occurs? Maybe.
I'll take "maybe" as a yes because of my word "EVER."
ECP brakes would reduce the probability of derailment during an “Emergency” application. However, when advocating ECP brakes in earlier threads here, I was informed that slack action does not cause derailments.
In an “Emergency” application the total time for setup with ECP compared to conventional air brakes is not much different. There are some variables, but I would guess that ECP might only be five seconds faster. However, there is significant difference regarding slack run-in. That is that conventional air brakes produce a wave of brake setup that travels from the head end to the hind end (on trains without distributed power). This causes a wave of slack run-in that grows more intense, and more able to cause a derailment, as it progresses toward the rear.
Whereas, with ECP, the setup is simultaneous throughout the train so there is no wave of slack run-in. Fundamentally, there is no reason for the slack to run in as a response to an ECP application. Of course, there could be 10,000 variables.
EuclidI'll take "maybe" as a yes because of my word "EVER."
And I'll take your "yes" as "you are going to hear what you want to hear and pull your justification from your rear".
Whatever, Bucky. I'm not going to argue. You want to make crap up, go for it. You fool nobody on here.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.