Norm48327 Euclid Big surprise Norm. You know, Bucky, If I were the only one saying that you won't listen to reasoning other than your own I might concede I was picking on you. I'm NOT alone. Therefore it seems logical the fault lies with someone who can never admit he is wrong and twists things around seeking the answer he wants. Have you ever considered the other half of the world may have a valid point?
Euclid Big surprise Norm.
Big surprise Norm.
You know, Bucky, If I were the only one saying that you won't listen to reasoning other than your own I might concede I was picking on you. I'm NOT alone. Therefore it seems logical the fault lies with someone who can never admit he is wrong and twists things around seeking the answer he wants.
Have you ever considered the other half of the world may have a valid point?
I seriously doubt that he is capable of that degree of insight or awareness. His inability to understand simple, declarative sentences makes it obvious that a dialogue is nearly impossible. I suggest the rest of us just leave him to his internal arguments.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
zugmann Euclid Heh. That's a good one. Tell me another.
Euclid
Heh. That's a good one. Tell me another.
Never had to deal with the application of rules to the real world, has he?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidLook at railroad rules. They are black and white.
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
EuclidI think you're a little mixed up. You have no idea what the question was let alone whether it was answered. This "shades of gray" nonsense is not an answer.
Your question regarding reaction to an obstruction in a crossing (or elsewhere) needs to include not only the obstruction in the crossing, but the nature of the obstruction, distance to the crossing, visibility of the crossing, upgrade or downgrade, tangent or curve, wet rail or dry, time of year, time of day, speed of the train, makeup of the train (including type of cargo and the placement of loads and empties), traffic conditions at the crossing (ie, T intersections, parallel roads), and the nature of the neighborhood/area.
These are all factors that have an effect on the decision a crew will make when faced with a situation. And I'm sure others can add more.
Change any one of those factors and I'm sure the answers you get will also change.
Hence the "shades of gray."
Yes, railroad rule books include many "black and white" items - in response to black and white questions. A phrase you will also find there is "in keeping with good train handling practices," or something very similar.
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...
Every day this thread stays current and all I can think is the poor kid. Eli was probably terrified to do what he thought he had to do to experience relief, and I hope he got a moment of it, in anticipation of meeting his merciful God.
Norm
Euclid schlimm Euclid I think he made his priorities quite clear in an earlier post: "If trains stopped every time a potential situation came into view - NOTHNG WOULD MOVE." [Balt's emphasis] You're just beating a dead horse. I have no idea of what he meant in the statement that you quote about trains stopping every time a potential situation came into view. I would hardly call it clear. Nobody has suggested that trains should stop every time a potential sitation comes onto view. But he did make his priorities almost entirely clear in the above statement which is about something entirely different than the statement about NOTHING WOULD MOVE. He made a statement and I have asked him for a clarification. I would hardly call that beating a dead horse. Seems clear enough to me. His priority as a chief dispatcher is keeping traffic moving. That is his job, not crossings. As Balt said, he's not a locomotive engineer. The quote you attribute to me is incomprehensible because it includes statements by me, you, and Balt-- all mixed together. I do agree that if something is stopped it is not moving.
schlimm Euclid I think he made his priorities quite clear in an earlier post: "If trains stopped every time a potential situation came into view - NOTHNG WOULD MOVE." [Balt's emphasis] You're just beating a dead horse. I have no idea of what he meant in the statement that you quote about trains stopping every time a potential situation came into view. I would hardly call it clear. Nobody has suggested that trains should stop every time a potential sitation comes onto view. But he did make his priorities almost entirely clear in the above statement which is about something entirely different than the statement about NOTHING WOULD MOVE. He made a statement and I have asked him for a clarification. I would hardly call that beating a dead horse. Seems clear enough to me. His priority as a chief dispatcher is keeping traffic moving. That is his job, not crossings. As Balt said, he's not a locomotive engineer.
Euclid I think he made his priorities quite clear in an earlier post: "If trains stopped every time a potential situation came into view - NOTHNG WOULD MOVE." [Balt's emphasis] You're just beating a dead horse. I have no idea of what he meant in the statement that you quote about trains stopping every time a potential situation came into view. I would hardly call it clear. Nobody has suggested that trains should stop every time a potential sitation comes onto view. But he did make his priorities almost entirely clear in the above statement which is about something entirely different than the statement about NOTHING WOULD MOVE. He made a statement and I have asked him for a clarification. I would hardly call that beating a dead horse.
Seems clear enough to me. His priority as a chief dispatcher is keeping traffic moving. That is his job, not crossings. As Balt said, he's not a locomotive engineer.
The quote you attribute to me is incomprehensible because it includes statements by me, you, and Balt-- all mixed together. I do agree that if something is stopped it is not moving.
Incomprehensible? I think not since I did not attribute a quote to you. The only attribution was for what Balt said. I only commented that his priority as a dispatcher is to keep freight moving. I have no idea about or interest in your various puzzlements and internal dialogues/debates.
Murphy SidingI'll take that as a yes because you've been told the answer about 35 times now and still insist that if you keep asking you will get a different answer. I think the time has come for you to do what you frequently do in cases like this. Quote one of your own posts, agreeing with yourself. Then make the answer be whatever you want it to be. If you can refrain from arguing with yourself, I think you'll be satisfied with the answer you give yourself.
What Murphy said; in spades!
I think you're a little mixed up. You have no idea what the question was let alone whether it was answered. This "shades of gray" nonsense is not an answer.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
EuclidI think he made his priorities quite clear in an earlier post: "If trains stopped every time a potential situation came into view - NOTHNG WOULD MOVE." [Balt's emphasis] You're just beating a dead horse. I have no idea of what he meant in the statement that you quote about trains stopping every time a potential situation came into view. I would hardly call it clear. Nobody has suggested that trains should stop every time a potential sitation comes onto view. But he did make his priorities almost entirely clear in the above statement which is about something entirely different than the statement about NOTHING WOULD MOVE. He made a statement and I have asked him for a clarification. I would hardly call that beating a dead horse.
Well fifty shades of gray are just fifty little black and white answers. The gray areas hardly mean that no conclusion can be reached, as seems to be the assumption in this thread.
Look at railroad rules. They are black and white. It just takes a lot of them to address every situation. Anyone who was well versed in the issues surrounding the question I have been asking could give an intelligent answer despite the gray areas.
tree68 You're looking for black and white answers in a shades of gray world.
You're looking for black and white answers in a shades of gray world.
Fifty shades of gray??
EuclidI have no idea of what he meant in the statement that you quote about trains stopping every time a potential situation came into view.
Methinks that's a major part of the problem here.
Euclid schlimm Euclid BaltACD The ONLY time a train should be placed in emergency is when such an application 'stands a chance' of PREVENTING what appears about to happen. In 99.9% of all incidents, when the situation comes into view, the speed and train size will not permit the train to be stopped with an emergency application prior to the situation that is developing. Make maximum service application in concert with good train handling. The impact is not avoidable by any braking means, so don't endanger the train by using emergency. Say an engineer is running a freight train and he suddenly sees freight cars standing on the track ahead. Under the circumstances of train speed and distance to the stopped cars, neither an emergency application nor a service application will stop the train before hitting the cars. Are you saying that the engineer should make a service application instead of an emergency application because the latter has a chance of derailing the train; and it will not prevent impact? I think he made his priorities quite clear in an earlier post: "If trains stopped every time a potential situation came into view - NOTHNG WOULD MOVE." [Balt's emphasis] You're just beating a dead horse. I have no idea of what he meant in the statement that you quote about trains stopping every time a potential situation came into view. I would hardly call it clear. But he did make his priorities almost entirely clear in the above statement which is about something entirely different than the statement about NOTHING WOULD MOVE. He made a statement and I have asked him for a clarification. I would hardly call that beating a dead horse.
schlimm Euclid BaltACD The ONLY time a train should be placed in emergency is when such an application 'stands a chance' of PREVENTING what appears about to happen. In 99.9% of all incidents, when the situation comes into view, the speed and train size will not permit the train to be stopped with an emergency application prior to the situation that is developing. Make maximum service application in concert with good train handling. The impact is not avoidable by any braking means, so don't endanger the train by using emergency. Say an engineer is running a freight train and he suddenly sees freight cars standing on the track ahead. Under the circumstances of train speed and distance to the stopped cars, neither an emergency application nor a service application will stop the train before hitting the cars. Are you saying that the engineer should make a service application instead of an emergency application because the latter has a chance of derailing the train; and it will not prevent impact? I think he made his priorities quite clear in an earlier post: "If trains stopped every time a potential situation came into view - NOTHNG WOULD MOVE." [Balt's emphasis] You're just beating a dead horse.
Euclid BaltACD The ONLY time a train should be placed in emergency is when such an application 'stands a chance' of PREVENTING what appears about to happen. In 99.9% of all incidents, when the situation comes into view, the speed and train size will not permit the train to be stopped with an emergency application prior to the situation that is developing. Make maximum service application in concert with good train handling. The impact is not avoidable by any braking means, so don't endanger the train by using emergency. Say an engineer is running a freight train and he suddenly sees freight cars standing on the track ahead. Under the circumstances of train speed and distance to the stopped cars, neither an emergency application nor a service application will stop the train before hitting the cars. Are you saying that the engineer should make a service application instead of an emergency application because the latter has a chance of derailing the train; and it will not prevent impact?
BaltACD The ONLY time a train should be placed in emergency is when such an application 'stands a chance' of PREVENTING what appears about to happen. In 99.9% of all incidents, when the situation comes into view, the speed and train size will not permit the train to be stopped with an emergency application prior to the situation that is developing. Make maximum service application in concert with good train handling. The impact is not avoidable by any braking means, so don't endanger the train by using emergency.
Say an engineer is running a freight train and he suddenly sees freight cars standing on the track ahead. Under the circumstances of train speed and distance to the stopped cars, neither an emergency application nor a service application will stop the train before hitting the cars.
Are you saying that the engineer should make a service application instead of an emergency application because the latter has a chance of derailing the train; and it will not prevent impact?
I think he made his priorities quite clear in an earlier post: "If trains stopped every time a potential situation came into view - NOTHNG WOULD MOVE." [Balt's emphasis] You're just beating a dead horse.
I have no idea of what he meant in the statement that you quote about trains stopping every time a potential situation came into view. I would hardly call it clear.
But he did make his priorities almost entirely clear in the above statement which is about something entirely different than the statement about NOTHING WOULD MOVE.
He made a statement and I have asked him for a clarification. I would hardly call that beating a dead horse.
Emergency braking is not a panacea - used incorrectly it creates train handling situations and results that service braking doesn't. One size and one assertion doesn't fit all situations. Immovable and/or flammable obstructions require different actions than other situations.
I have no idea of what he meant in the statement that you quote about trains stopping every time a potential situation came into view. I would hardly call it clear. Nobody has suggested that trains should stop every time a potential sitation comes onto view.
I am only asking BaltACD about what he stated. He did not add a bunch of variables and exceptions to what he stated. If he wants to answer my question with bunch of conditions and variables, that's fine with me. I am just asking him for a confirmation of my understanding of what he said.
Murphy SidingNow wait a minute. Are you telling me that there are variables, and that the answer isn't just a simple yes/no?
Yes, but.......
tree68 Euclid Are you saying that the engineer should make a service application instead of an emergency application because the latter has a chance of derailing the train; and it will not prevent impact? It depends... Tangent or curve? Cargo? Uphill or down? Actual speed? Amount of time between first sight and collision?
Euclid Are you saying that the engineer should make a service application instead of an emergency application because the latter has a chance of derailing the train; and it will not prevent impact?
It depends...
Tangent or curve? Cargo? Uphill or down? Actual speed? Amount of time between first sight and collision?
EuclidAre you saying that the engineer should make a service application instead of an emergency application because the latter has a chance of derailing the train; and it will not prevent impact?
BaltACDThe ONLY time a train should be placed in emergency is when such an application 'stands a chance' of PREVENTING what appears about to happen. In 99.9% of all incidents, when the situation comes into view, the speed and train size will not permit the train to be stopped with an emergency application prior to the situation that is developing. Make maximum service application in concert with good train handling. The impact is not avoidable by any braking means, so don't endanger the train by using emergency.
zugmann Euclid I have changed my mind and do not take your answer as a yes. That's nice. I don't care.
Euclid I have changed my mind and do not take your answer as a yes.
That's nice. I don't care.
I did it for the sake of accuracy.
EuclidI have changed my mind and do not take your answer as a yes.
EuclidSo, what happened pertaining to my full comment?
You pretty much described exactly what happened there.
Euclid tree68 Euclid Say a train is running on the main line and the engineer suddenly sees an open facing point switch leading into a spur with freight cars standing on it. Welcome to Graniteville. So, what happened pertaining to my full comment?
tree68 Euclid Say a train is running on the main line and the engineer suddenly sees an open facing point switch leading into a spur with freight cars standing on it. Welcome to Graniteville.
Euclid Say a train is running on the main line and the engineer suddenly sees an open facing point switch leading into a spur with freight cars standing on it.
Welcome to Graniteville.
So, what happened pertaining to my full comment?
Johnny
Euclid 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."
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.
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?
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."
I have changed my mind and do not take your answer as a yes.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.