zugmann Fine. Would you find it reasonable to expect you to lock up your brakes (at least as far as anti-lock brakes allow it) if it looked like someone might pull out in front of you?
Fine.
Would you find it reasonable to expect you to lock up your brakes (at least as far as anti-lock brakes allow it) if it looked like someone might pull out in front of you?
That is not a yes or no question. My answer to that would depend on exactly what it looked like. If it really looked like someone would pull out in front of me, I would brake as hard as possible period. But if the other driver just did something a little flakey to raise moderate suspicion that he or she might pull out in front of me, and if I had some room to dodge, then I probably would not brake hard.
EuclidThat is not a yes or no question. My answer to that would depend on exactly what it looked like. If it really looked like someone would pull out in front of me, I would brake as hard as possible period. But if the other driver just did something a little flakey to raise moderate suspicion that he or she might pull out in front of me, and if I had some room to dodge, then I probably would not brake hard.
I'll take that to be a "no".
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
zugmann Euclid That is not a yes or no question. My answer to that would depend on exactly what it looked like. If it really looked like someone would pull out in front of me, I would brake as hard as possible period. But if the other driver just did something a little flakey to raise moderate suspicion that he or she might pull out in front of me, and if I had some room to dodge, then I probably would not brake hard. I'll take that to be a "no".
Euclid That is not a yes or no question. My answer to that would depend on exactly what it looked like. If it really looked like someone would pull out in front of me, I would brake as hard as possible period. But if the other driver just did something a little flakey to raise moderate suspicion that he or she might pull out in front of me, and if I had some room to dodge, then I probably would not brake hard.
Why would you take my answer as a no? I have braked hard when it was required to avoid a collision. The question asked if it would be reasonable to expect me to do that under that circumstance. I have done that. So why would it not be reasonable to expect me to do it?
I might or might not do it, but why would it not be reasonable to expect me to do it?
EuclidWhy would you take my answer as a no?
Because I felt like it.
zugmann Euclid Why would you take my answer as a no? Because I felt like it.
Euclid Why would you take my answer as a no?
Okay, as you wish. I have gotten the answer to my original question.
zugmann Euclid Because I felt like it.
Euclid
Because it was stated as a no. You are getting tangled up in your keyboard.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Euclid Your dismissal of my experience
Your dismissal of my experience
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
BaltACD Euclid Here is an interesting report about a FEC engineer's actions when approaching a loaded school bus stalled on the tracks and recognizing that the bus was stalled by the bus movement produced by the bus driver. I have highlighted in blue the most pertinent text. The rest is background information: ******************************************************** WASHINGTON, D.C. ISSUED: July 8, 198.5 President Florida East Coast Railway Company 1 Malaga Street Post Office Drawer 1048 St. Augustine, Florida 32084 SAFETY RECOMMENDATION (S) R-85-74 ............................................. About 6:55 a.m., on September 27, 1984, a northbound Florida East Coast Railway Company freight train struck a westbound Indian River Academy schoolbus stalled at a grade crossing on Walton Road in Port St. Lucie, Florida. The grade crossing was a two-lane, asphalt-paved, county road intersecting a single railroad track with automatic flashing signals and gates. The 1968 Bluebird/Chevrolet 66-passenger schoolbus was occupied by the driver and four students. Two of the students fled the stopped schoolbus before impact and were not injured. In the collision, the schoolbus body separated from the chassis, and the three remaining occupants were ejected. The two students were killed, and the busdriver was injured seriously. Neither of the two train crewmembers was injured. Northbound FEC freight train Extra 412 North was approaching the crossing at a reported speed of 38 miles per hour with its locomotive headlight illuminated. The engineer was operating the locomotive unit from the right side. The conductor was seated on the left side opposite the engineer. The engineer said he began sounding the standard whistle signal at the Riverview grade crossing, 2,688 feet south of Walton Road. According to the engineer, the schoolbus was in his view at that moment and the warning devices at the crossing were activated. The whistle post was located 2,620 feet south of the crossing at Walton Road. The busdriver believed that the front of the schoolbus was too close to the track and attempted to shift the manual transmission into reverse gear in order to back up. One student said he believed the busdriver got the transmission into gear and stalled the engine. Another student said the schoolbus 'lurched" forward toward the track. According to the busdriver, the engine stalled and the schoolbus rolled forward. The parking brake was not applied. The driver of a pickup truck behind the schoolbus stated that the schoolbus was stopped for 4 or 5 seconds as he approached it and that about the time he stopped to its rear and observed the approaching train, the schoolbus "lurched" forward an estimated 6 or 7 feet and stopped with the front bumper near the east rail. About 2 or 3 seconds later, the schoolbus "jerked" forward for a short distance and stopped for a third time. The front wheels were over the west rail and the schoolbus blocked the track. The pickup driver said the lights of the crossing warning device began flashing while the schoolbus was at its second stop or just as it moved forward to the third stop. The crossing gate descended onto and came to rest upon the right roofline of the schoolbus 18 feet 9 inches from the front bumper. According to the pickup driver, the gate arm came to rest about the time the schoolbus reached its third stop. The train conductor stated that he saw the schoolbus move forward and appear to veer around the automatic gate arm as it descended. He said also that he was reaching for the emergency brake valve on his side of the locomotive cab when the engineer made an emergency application of the train brakes. After placing the automatic brake valve handle in the emergency position, the engineer immediately released the locomotive brake. Sand from the locomotive sanders was found on the track 628 feet from the center of the crossing. Placement of the automatic brake valve handle in the emergency position provides automatic power cutoff and instantaneous sanding. The engineer had a clear view of the schoolbus when he first observed it from the Riverview grade crossing; the schoolbus was stopped short of the track at the Walton Road crossing at that time. Also, he observed the schoolbus move onto the track as the crossing gate descended, and he observed the schoolbus as it stopped astride the track. However, he did not place the automatic brake valve handle in the emergency position until more than 11 seconds later, and after the train had traveled another 612 feet closer to the Walton Road crossing. If the engineer had placed the automatic brake valve handle in the emergency position without hesitation when the schoolbus stopped astride the track, the severity of the accident probably would have been lessened. The presence of the schoolbus, particularly when it moved forward from its initial stop and to a stopped position with its front bumper near the east rail of the track, should have prompted at least preparatory action by the engineer to slow the train. He had two options available: a service application of the brakes or immediate emergency application of the brakes. A service application of the train brakes would have conditioned the train for an emergency stop with reduced risk of derailment or other lading damage. A service application of the brakes would have slowed the train smoothly and set the brakes for an emergency application if it became necessary. It is reasonable to assume that if the engineer had handled the train in this manner, the velocity of the train at impact would have been reduced substantially. An approach to a schoolbus on the highway by a motorist usually results in heightened sense of a need to be prepared to stop. Although there are some adverse effects in braking a train which do not arise when braking a highway vehicle, observing a schoolbus stopped and blocking a track should result in an increased sense of readiness to stop by an engineer. Currently, there is little documented information about the effect of the many varying factors that may influence a train engineer's decisionmaking in such situations. The Safety Board believes that when an engineer sees that a schoolbus is blocking a track and possibly in jeopardy, there is no acceptable alternative to taking whatever action is necessary to stop short of collision. In this accident, the fact that the schoolbus stopped momentarily with the front bumper close to the east rail should have prepared the engineer for evasive action. When the schoolbus stopped, blocking the track, evasive action should have been executed immediately. Therefore, the National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the Florida Use the results of the investigation of the accident in Port St. Lucie, Florida, on September 27, 1984, as a part of the railroad/highway grade crossing safety training given to engine crews. (Class 11, Priority Action) East Coast Railway Company: (R-85-74) The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency with the statutory responsibility ‘I. . . to promote transportation safety by conducting independent accident investigations and by formulating safety improvement recommendations” (Public Law 93-633). The Safety Board is vitally interested in any actions taken as a result of its safety recommendations and would appreciate a response from you regarding action taken or contemplated with respect to the recommendation in this letter. BIJRNETT, Chairman, GOLDMAN, Vice Chairman, and BURSLEY, Member, n concurred in this recommendation.
Euclid Here is an interesting report about a FEC engineer's actions when approaching a loaded school bus stalled on the tracks and recognizing that the bus was stalled by the bus movement produced by the bus driver. I have highlighted in blue the most pertinent text. The rest is background information: ******************************************************** WASHINGTON, D.C. ISSUED: July 8, 198.5 President Florida East Coast Railway Company 1 Malaga Street Post Office Drawer 1048 St. Augustine, Florida 32084 SAFETY RECOMMENDATION (S) R-85-74 ............................................. About 6:55 a.m., on September 27, 1984, a northbound Florida East Coast Railway Company freight train struck a westbound Indian River Academy schoolbus stalled at a grade crossing on Walton Road in Port St. Lucie, Florida. The grade crossing was a two-lane, asphalt-paved, county road intersecting a single railroad track with automatic flashing signals and gates. The 1968 Bluebird/Chevrolet 66-passenger schoolbus was occupied by the driver and four students. Two of the students fled the stopped schoolbus before impact and were not injured. In the collision, the schoolbus body separated from the chassis, and the three remaining occupants were ejected. The two students were killed, and the busdriver was injured seriously. Neither of the two train crewmembers was injured. Northbound FEC freight train Extra 412 North was approaching the crossing at a reported speed of 38 miles per hour with its locomotive headlight illuminated. The engineer was operating the locomotive unit from the right side. The conductor was seated on the left side opposite the engineer. The engineer said he began sounding the standard whistle signal at the Riverview grade crossing, 2,688 feet south of Walton Road. According to the engineer, the schoolbus was in his view at that moment and the warning devices at the crossing were activated. The whistle post was located 2,620 feet south of the crossing at Walton Road. The busdriver believed that the front of the schoolbus was too close to the track and attempted to shift the manual transmission into reverse gear in order to back up. One student said he believed the busdriver got the transmission into gear and stalled the engine. Another student said the schoolbus 'lurched" forward toward the track. According to the busdriver, the engine stalled and the schoolbus rolled forward. The parking brake was not applied. The driver of a pickup truck behind the schoolbus stated that the schoolbus was stopped for 4 or 5 seconds as he approached it and that about the time he stopped to its rear and observed the approaching train, the schoolbus "lurched" forward an estimated 6 or 7 feet and stopped with the front bumper near the east rail. About 2 or 3 seconds later, the schoolbus "jerked" forward for a short distance and stopped for a third time. The front wheels were over the west rail and the schoolbus blocked the track. The pickup driver said the lights of the crossing warning device began flashing while the schoolbus was at its second stop or just as it moved forward to the third stop. The crossing gate descended onto and came to rest upon the right roofline of the schoolbus 18 feet 9 inches from the front bumper. According to the pickup driver, the gate arm came to rest about the time the schoolbus reached its third stop. The train conductor stated that he saw the schoolbus move forward and appear to veer around the automatic gate arm as it descended. He said also that he was reaching for the emergency brake valve on his side of the locomotive cab when the engineer made an emergency application of the train brakes. After placing the automatic brake valve handle in the emergency position, the engineer immediately released the locomotive brake. Sand from the locomotive sanders was found on the track 628 feet from the center of the crossing. Placement of the automatic brake valve handle in the emergency position provides automatic power cutoff and instantaneous sanding. The engineer had a clear view of the schoolbus when he first observed it from the Riverview grade crossing; the schoolbus was stopped short of the track at the Walton Road crossing at that time. Also, he observed the schoolbus move onto the track as the crossing gate descended, and he observed the schoolbus as it stopped astride the track. However, he did not place the automatic brake valve handle in the emergency position until more than 11 seconds later, and after the train had traveled another 612 feet closer to the Walton Road crossing. If the engineer had placed the automatic brake valve handle in the emergency position without hesitation when the schoolbus stopped astride the track, the severity of the accident probably would have been lessened. The presence of the schoolbus, particularly when it moved forward from its initial stop and to a stopped position with its front bumper near the east rail of the track, should have prompted at least preparatory action by the engineer to slow the train. He had two options available: a service application of the brakes or immediate emergency application of the brakes. A service application of the train brakes would have conditioned the train for an emergency stop with reduced risk of derailment or other lading damage. A service application of the brakes would have slowed the train smoothly and set the brakes for an emergency application if it became necessary. It is reasonable to assume that if the engineer had handled the train in this manner, the velocity of the train at impact would have been reduced substantially. An approach to a schoolbus on the highway by a motorist usually results in heightened sense of a need to be prepared to stop. Although there are some adverse effects in braking a train which do not arise when braking a highway vehicle, observing a schoolbus stopped and blocking a track should result in an increased sense of readiness to stop by an engineer. Currently, there is little documented information about the effect of the many varying factors that may influence a train engineer's decisionmaking in such situations. The Safety Board believes that when an engineer sees that a schoolbus is blocking a track and possibly in jeopardy, there is no acceptable alternative to taking whatever action is necessary to stop short of collision. In this accident, the fact that the schoolbus stopped momentarily with the front bumper close to the east rail should have prepared the engineer for evasive action. When the schoolbus stopped, blocking the track, evasive action should have been executed immediately. Therefore, the National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the Florida Use the results of the investigation of the accident in Port St. Lucie, Florida, on September 27, 1984, as a part of the railroad/highway grade crossing safety training given to engine crews. (Class 11, Priority Action) East Coast Railway Company: (R-85-74) The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency with the statutory responsibility ‘I. . . to promote transportation safety by conducting independent accident investigations and by formulating safety improvement recommendations” (Public Law 93-633). The Safety Board is vitally interested in any actions taken as a result of its safety recommendations and would appreciate a response from you regarding action taken or contemplated with respect to the recommendation in this letter. BIJRNETT, Chairman, GOLDMAN, Vice Chairman, and BURSLEY, Member, n concurred in this recommendation.
********************************************************
WASHINGTON, D.C. ISSUED: July 8, 198.5 President Florida East Coast Railway Company 1 Malaga Street Post Office Drawer 1048 St. Augustine, Florida 32084 SAFETY RECOMMENDATION (S) R-85-74 .............................................
About 6:55 a.m., on September 27, 1984, a northbound Florida East Coast Railway Company freight train struck a westbound Indian River Academy schoolbus stalled at a grade crossing on Walton Road in Port St. Lucie, Florida. The grade crossing was a two-lane, asphalt-paved, county road intersecting a single railroad track with automatic flashing signals and gates. The 1968 Bluebird/Chevrolet 66-passenger schoolbus was occupied by the driver and four students. Two of the students fled the stopped schoolbus before impact and were not injured. In the collision, the schoolbus body separated from the chassis, and the three remaining occupants were ejected. The two students were killed, and the busdriver was injured seriously. Neither of the two train crewmembers was injured.
Northbound FEC freight train Extra 412 North was approaching the crossing at a reported speed of 38 miles per hour with its locomotive headlight illuminated. The engineer was operating the locomotive unit from the right side. The conductor was seated on the left side opposite the engineer. The engineer said he began sounding the standard whistle signal at the Riverview grade crossing, 2,688 feet south of Walton Road. According to the engineer, the schoolbus was in his view at that moment and the warning devices at the crossing were activated. The whistle post was located 2,620 feet south of the crossing at Walton Road.
The busdriver believed that the front of the schoolbus was too close to the track and attempted to shift the manual transmission into reverse gear in order to back up. One student said he believed the busdriver got the transmission into gear and stalled the engine. Another student said the schoolbus 'lurched" forward toward the track. According to the busdriver, the engine stalled and the schoolbus rolled forward. The parking brake was not applied.
The driver of a pickup truck behind the schoolbus stated that the schoolbus was stopped for 4 or 5 seconds as he approached it and that about the time he stopped to its rear and observed the approaching train, the schoolbus "lurched" forward an estimated 6 or 7 feet and stopped with the front bumper near the east rail. About 2 or 3 seconds later, the schoolbus "jerked" forward for a short distance and stopped for a third time. The front wheels were over the west rail and the schoolbus blocked the track. The pickup driver said the lights of the crossing warning device began flashing while the schoolbus was at its second stop or just as it moved forward to the third stop.
The crossing gate descended onto and came to rest upon the right roofline of the schoolbus 18 feet 9 inches from the front bumper. According to the pickup driver, the gate arm came to rest about the time the schoolbus reached its third stop. The train conductor stated that he saw the schoolbus move forward and appear to veer around the automatic gate arm as it descended. He said also that he was reaching for the emergency brake valve on his side of the locomotive cab when the engineer made an emergency application of the train brakes. After placing the automatic brake valve handle in the emergency position, the engineer immediately released the locomotive brake. Sand from the locomotive sanders was found on the track 628 feet from the center of the crossing. Placement of the automatic brake valve handle in the emergency position provides automatic power cutoff and instantaneous sanding.
The engineer had a clear view of the schoolbus when he first observed it from the Riverview grade crossing; the schoolbus was stopped short of the track at the Walton Road crossing at that time. Also, he observed the schoolbus move onto the track as the crossing gate descended, and he observed the schoolbus as it stopped astride the track. However, he did not place the automatic brake valve handle in the emergency position until more than 11 seconds later, and after the train had traveled another 612 feet closer to the Walton Road crossing. If the engineer had placed the automatic brake valve handle in the emergency position without hesitation when the schoolbus stopped astride the track, the severity of the accident probably would have been lessened.
The presence of the schoolbus, particularly when it moved forward from its initial stop and to a stopped position with its front bumper near the east rail of the track, should have prompted at least preparatory action by the engineer to slow the train. He had two options available: a service application of the brakes or immediate emergency application of the brakes. A service application of the train brakes would have conditioned the train for an emergency stop with reduced risk of derailment or other lading damage. A service application of the brakes would have slowed the train smoothly and set the brakes for an emergency application if it became necessary. It is reasonable to assume that if the engineer had handled the train in this manner, the velocity of the train at impact would have been reduced substantially.
An approach to a schoolbus on the highway by a motorist usually results in heightened sense of a need to be prepared to stop. Although there are some adverse effects in braking a train which do not arise when braking a highway vehicle, observing a schoolbus stopped and blocking a track should result in an increased sense of readiness to stop by an engineer. Currently, there is little documented information about the effect of the many varying factors that may influence a train engineer's decisionmaking in such situations. The Safety Board believes that when an engineer sees that a schoolbus is blocking a track and possibly in jeopardy, there is no acceptable alternative to taking whatever action is necessary to stop short of collision. In this accident, the fact that the schoolbus stopped momentarily with the front bumper close to the east rail should have prepared the engineer for evasive action. When the schoolbus stopped, blocking the track, evasive action should have been executed immediately.
Therefore, the National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the Florida
Use the results of the investigation of the accident in Port St. Lucie, Florida, on September 27, 1984, as a part of the railroad/highway grade crossing safety training given to engine crews. (Class 11, Priority Action) East Coast Railway Company: (R-85-74)
The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency with the statutory responsibility ‘I. . . to promote transportation safety by conducting independent accident investigations and by formulating safety improvement recommendations” (Public Law 93-633). The Safety Board is vitally interested in any actions taken as a result of its safety recommendations and would appreciate a response from you regarding action taken or contemplated with respect to the recommendation in this letter.
BIJRNETT, Chairman, GOLDMAN, Vice Chairman, and BURSLEY, Member, n concurred in this recommendation.
It says the crew first saw the bus at a preceding crossing 2688 feet from it. The report says the engr waited 11 seconds to place the train in emergency. In that time they travelled 612 feet towards the xing. Once in emergency, the engine put down sand for 628 feet. What happened to the other 1400 feet?
If you read it carefully, it seems to me that the NTSB wants the reader to think the crew had a half-mile view of the bus on the tracks. In reality, the train was closer when the bus rolled onto the tracks. The conductor says when he saw the bus move forward and stop for the final time he was reaching for the emergency valve when the engineer dumped the air before he could open it. The NTSB says the engineer waited 11 seconds before dumping the air after seeing the bus on the tracks. I freely admit math wasn't my strongest subject in school, but something here doesn't add up. I think the train was a lot closer to the bus when it ended up on the tracks.
The NTSB report also says he could have made a service application before the emergency application. I don't see anywhere the length or type of train or it's make-up. Since they say he took 11 seconds to decide to dump the air after seeing the bus, I doubt a service application would have done anything in that amount of time. They also don't say what type of service application. Do they mean a minimum reduction, a 10lbs reduction or a full service reduction?
It's almost like the NTSB wants to blame the crew, especially the engineer for the fatalities.
Jeff
Euclid Norm48327 But of what benefit is it to make posts that show one's lack of experience/knowkedge and claim you are indeed experienced? It simply shows the poster for what he is; an uninformed person who is trying to BS his way through a subject. It accomplishes absolutely nothing toward enhancing one's credibility. Anyone can post an NTSB report they find on line. That type of conduct is nothing more than seeking attention in the form of replies; AKA Trolling. Norm, What exactly is this grievance about me saying things that are incorrect? Please elaborate in detail, and I will respond. Otherwise, you are the one doing the trolling here with your constant snide remarks about undefined generalities. What is your experience that makes you so darn sure of which side to be on? You know nothing about my credibility. All I did here was pose a question about what someone earlier said about withholding an emergency application for fear of derailing the train. I think that is an interesting point. So I asked a simple question and was informed that my simple question can’t exist because there are 10,000 variables that must be weighed and carefully calculated in about two seconds of time available. Therefore the answer to my question is so complex that it cannot be given. I do disagree with that. It may be true of another question, but not of the one I asked. Actually, the question I asked was framed to carefully detach from the requirement to weigh every variable under the sun. I explained that, but it did not matter. So I recognized the NTSB report as addressing that very point of my question. I noticed that they did so quite handily without sinking into an impossible morass of 10,000 questions that only professionals can process in two seconds. The NTSB reported that the engineer was remiss in wasting precious time to prevent possible fatalities. Actually, in reading between the lines, I see the strong possibility that professional railroaders in the NTSB team of experts thought the engineer might have hesitated to make an “Emergency” application because he worried about it derailing his train. I say that because the NTSB acknowledged that possibility of derailing the train. But then, as a whole, they rejected it as being a valid excuse. So then when I post this highly relevant NTSB report, I am told by one of the professionals that the NTSB does not know what they are talking about because they expected the engineer to steer the train around the stalled bus, or somehow stop the train short of the collision when the laws of physics made that impossible. But of course, the NTSB said or implied no such thing. It is simply an absurd exaggeration to win an imagined argument. The NTSB clearly made the point that it is important to slow down as much as possible before an impending collision even if you can’t get fully stopped by then. It makes sense to me. Does it make sense to you? If you are going to hurl all these personal insults, I think you ought to back them up with specifics instead of acting like a spoiled child. I am trying to be reasonable, so let me know what your problem is in specific terms, and I will set you face to face with the facts.
Norm48327 But of what benefit is it to make posts that show one's lack of experience/knowkedge and claim you are indeed experienced? It simply shows the poster for what he is; an uninformed person who is trying to BS his way through a subject. It accomplishes absolutely nothing toward enhancing one's credibility. Anyone can post an NTSB report they find on line. That type of conduct is nothing more than seeking attention in the form of replies; AKA Trolling.
But of what benefit is it to make posts that show one's lack of experience/knowkedge and claim you are indeed experienced? It simply shows the poster for what he is; an uninformed person who is trying to BS his way through a subject. It accomplishes absolutely nothing toward enhancing one's credibility. Anyone can post an NTSB report they find on line.
That type of conduct is nothing more than seeking attention in the form of replies; AKA Trolling.
Norm,
What exactly is this grievance about me saying things that are incorrect? Please elaborate in detail, and I will respond. Otherwise, you are the one doing the trolling here with your constant snide remarks about undefined generalities. What is your experience that makes you so darn sure of which side to be on? You know nothing about my credibility.
All I did here was pose a question about what someone earlier said about withholding an emergency application for fear of derailing the train. I think that is an interesting point. So I asked a simple question and was informed that my simple question can’t exist because there are 10,000 variables that must be weighed and carefully calculated in about two seconds of time available. Therefore the answer to my question is so complex that it cannot be given.
I do disagree with that. It may be true of another question, but not of the one I asked. Actually, the question I asked was framed to carefully detach from the requirement to weigh every variable under the sun. I explained that, but it did not matter.
So I recognized the NTSB report as addressing that very point of my question. I noticed that they did so quite handily without sinking into an impossible morass of 10,000 questions that only professionals can process in two seconds.
The NTSB reported that the engineer was remiss in wasting precious time to prevent possible fatalities. Actually, in reading between the lines, I see the strong possibility that professional railroaders in the NTSB team of experts thought the engineer might have hesitated to make an “Emergency” application because he worried about it derailing his train. I say that because the NTSB acknowledged that possibility of derailing the train. But then, as a whole, they rejected it as being a valid excuse.
So then when I post this highly relevant NTSB report, I am told by one of the professionals that the NTSB does not know what they are talking about because they expected the engineer to steer the train around the stalled bus, or somehow stop the train short of the collision when the laws of physics made that impossible.
But of course, the NTSB said or implied no such thing. It is simply an absurd exaggeration to win an imagined argument. The NTSB clearly made the point that it is important to slow down as much as possible before an impending collision even if you can’t get fully stopped by then. It makes sense to me. Does it make sense to you?
If you are going to hurl all these personal insults, I think you ought to back them up with specifics instead of acting like a spoiled child. I am trying to be reasonable, so let me know what your problem is in specific terms, and I will set you face to face with the facts.
Well, Ron, I will have to give you credit for one thing and that is evading a direct answer. You were asked to tell us of your experience and you promptly changed the subject. That's a common poiltician's way out. Might I ask what office you are running for?
I don't consider it an insult to ask about one's qualifications. Would you have your car repaired by someone who has no personal hands-on experience but has a good line of BS only to later find out you've been misled? No reasonable person would knowingly do that. That is why people here dispute your answers. They constantly disagree with reality.
If I were the only one here who exposes you for what you are and aren't perhaps I might feel differently but I'm obviously not your sole nemisis. The real rails here provide information that is as accurate as they can given that many situations are not cut and dried. You refuse to accept their answers and say they don't know what they are speaking of. It's time for you to wake up and smell the coffee.
Norm
Euclid What exactly is this grievance about me saying things that are incorrect? ..... What is your experience ...... All I did here was pose a question ..... So I asked a simple question .... Therefore the answer to my question is so complex that it cannot be given.... It may be true of another question, but not of the one I asked. ... Actually, the question I asked was framed to carefully detach ... I explained that, ... Actually, in reading between the lines, ... It is simply an absurd exaggeration to win an imagined argument. ... I am trying to be reasonable... I will set you face to face with the facts.
What exactly is this grievance about me saying things that are incorrect? ..... What is your experience ......
All I did here was pose a question ..... So I asked a simple question .... Therefore the answer to my question is so complex that it cannot be given.... It may be true of another question, but not of the one I asked. ... Actually, the question I asked was framed to carefully detach ... I explained that, ... Actually, in reading between the lines, ... It is simply an absurd exaggeration to win an imagined argument. ... I am trying to be reasonable... I will set you face to face with the facts.
Above are the highlights from just one post!
OK.... So what is your background and experience in railroading?
Murphy SidingOK.... So what is your background and experience in railroading?
First of all, Euclid's rail experience or lack of it is really as irrelevant as yours or mine or Murphy (Siding)'s. It's a red herring or distractor. And BaltACD has no relevant experience operating a locomotive either. As far as I can see, on this thread, only Jeff and Zugmann are engineers.
Second, Balt dismissed the NTSB report as political and wrong. In Jeff's case he felt it was simply inaccurate. Given the qualifications of NTSB GO Teams, that seems highly unlikely. None of us investigated the accident scene, took measurements or interviewed witnesses. The only impartial, objective and accurate account is the accident report. Railroaders may dislike the conclusions, but I fail to see any evidence to support that disagreement. Face it, people, all of us, even engineers and dispatchers, make errors.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
And thus you nicely illustrate the point we have tried repeatedly to make - there can be no hard and fast rules. The number of "ifs" that can arise are beyond counting.
What if they started to move out of your way, so you got off the brakes, then they stopped again - are you at fault for not continuing to brake hard? Remember that applying the emergency brakes is irreversable - the train is stopping. Apply that logic to your answer to my original question.
Why did the engineer wait 11 seconds before dumping the air? Maybe he was hoping one of those "ifs" would come to pass. Maybe the bus would move off the tracks before his train arrived at the crossing.
Most locomotives drop sand when the brakes are placed in emergency. Any lapse would likely be purely mechanical.
SchlimmFirst of all, Euclid's rail experience or lack of it is really as irrelevant as yours or mine or Murphy's. It's a red herring or distractor. And BaltACD has no relevant experience operating a locomotive either. As far as I can see, on this thread, only Jeff and Zugmann are engineers.
And so am I. My experience is not with 100 car mainline freights, but I have to know (and practice) the same basic skills. Hauling 500 happy family members on a Christmas train at 30 MPH through a snow storm may not sound all that challenging - but it is.
Bucky's experience is relevant - he makes profound statements on how he feels things should be, which all too often have little connection with reality. So far, we've only been able to guess that what he proposes is based on what he has perhaps read, but it would be nice of him to acknowledge that he's an accountant, or a dentist, or a bricklayer, or whatever, and that he's never laid a hand on a brake handle or a throttle, if, that's the case.
You put Balt down for not being an engineer - but he does work in the railroad industry, which is, it appears, more than we can say for Bucky.
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...
schlimm Murphy Siding OK.... So what is your background and experience in railroading? Forst of all, Euclid's rail experience or lack of it is really as irrelevant as yours or mine or Murphy's. It's a red herring or distractor. And BaltACD has no relevant experience operating a locomotive either. As far as I can see, on this thread, only Jeff and Zugmann are engineers. Second, Balt dismissed the NTSB report as political and wrong. In Jeff's case he felt it was simply inaccurate. Given the qualifications of NTSB GO Teams, that seems highly unlikely. None of us investigated the accident scene, took measurements or interviewed witnesses. The only impartial, objective and accurate account is the accident report. Railroaders may dislike the conclusions, but I fail to see any evidence to support that disagreement. Face it, people, all of us, even engineers and dispatchers, make errors.
Murphy Siding OK.... So what is your background and experience in railroading?
Forst of all, Euclid's rail experience or lack of it is really as irrelevant as yours or mine or Murphy's. It's a red herring or distractor. And BaltACD has no relevant experience operating a locomotive either. As far as I can see, on this thread, only Jeff and Zugmann are engineers.
Euclid's rail experience or lack of it is as relevant as yours or mine or Murphy's. If Bucyrus/Euclid wants anyone to take him seriously, what he says has to be plausible. Instead, he comes off as an interloper whose only goal is to suggest that he knows more about railroading than railroaders.
If you watch the pattern, it's all a game. Someone says the sky is blue. Euclid finds one little exception and drives a huge wedge into that exception. Suddenly it's game on! It's a game to see how many people he can get involved. He never has to answer any direct question. That takes the fun out of it. Better to keep turning words back over on themselves, asking questions and dumping thousands of words like a waterfall. The internet was built for people with hobbies like this.
I feel the reason that beuclid can't tell you of experience or lack of experience is due to his profession. He works in some field where they do a lot of investigating an provide *expert* opinions and yes- expert witness work in a court of law. That's why he remains forever elusively anonymous.
[/quote]
Norm48327 Euclid Norm48327 But of what benefit is it to make posts that show one's lack of experience/knowkedge and claim you are indeed experienced? It simply shows the poster for what he is; an uninformed person who is trying to BS his way through a subject. It accomplishes absolutely nothing toward enhancing one's credibility. Anyone can post an NTSB report they find on line. That type of conduct is nothing more than seeking attention in the form of replies; AKA Trolling. Norm, What exactly is this grievance about me saying things that are incorrect? Please elaborate in detail, and I will respond. Otherwise, you are the one doing the trolling here with your constant snide remarks about undefined generalities. What is your experience that makes you so darn sure of which side to be on? You know nothing about my credibility. All I did here was pose a question about what someone earlier said about withholding an emergency application for fear of derailing the train. I think that is an interesting point. So I asked a simple question and was informed that my simple question can’t exist because there are 10,000 variables that must be weighed and carefully calculated in about two seconds of time available. Therefore the answer to my question is so complex that it cannot be given. I do disagree with that. It may be true of another question, but not of the one I asked. Actually, the question I asked was framed to carefully detach from the requirement to weigh every variable under the sun. I explained that, but it did not matter. So I recognized the NTSB report as addressing that very point of my question. I noticed that they did so quite handily without sinking into an impossible morass of 10,000 questions that only professionals can process in two seconds. The NTSB reported that the engineer was remiss in wasting precious time to prevent possible fatalities. Actually, in reading between the lines, I see the strong possibility that professional railroaders in the NTSB team of experts thought the engineer might have hesitated to make an “Emergency” application because he worried about it derailing his train. I say that because the NTSB acknowledged that possibility of derailing the train. But then, as a whole, they rejected it as being a valid excuse. So then when I post this highly relevant NTSB report, I am told by one of the professionals that the NTSB does not know what they are talking about because they expected the engineer to steer the train around the stalled bus, or somehow stop the train short of the collision when the laws of physics made that impossible. But of course, the NTSB said or implied no such thing. It is simply an absurd exaggeration to win an imagined argument. The NTSB clearly made the point that it is important to slow down as much as possible before an impending collision even if you can’t get fully stopped by then. It makes sense to me. Does it make sense to you? If you are going to hurl all these personal insults, I think you ought to back them up with specifics instead of acting like a spoiled child. I am trying to be reasonable, so let me know what your problem is in specific terms, and I will set you face to face with the facts. Well, Ron, I will have to give you credit for one thing and that is evading a direct answer. You were asked to tell us of your experience and you promptly changed the subject. That's a common poiltician's way out. Might I ask what office you are running for? I don't consider it an insult to ask about one's qualifications. Would you have your car repaired by someone who has no personal hands-on experience but has a good line of BS only to later find out you've been misled? No reasonable person would knowingly do that. That is why people here dispute your answers. They constantly disagree with reality. If I were the only one here who exposes you for what you are and aren't perhaps I might feel differently but I'm obviously not your sole nemisis. The real rails here provide information that is as accurate as they can given that many situations are not cut and dried. You refuse to accept their answers and say they don't know what they are speaking of. It's time for you to wake up and smell the coffee.
I don’t consider it to be an insult for you to ask what my experience is. I was referring to your unfounded accusations claiming that I am misrepresenting myself. That is in the post of yours that I quoted, and not your prior post demanding to know my qualifications. You can believe whatever you want, but you are not free to make angry, derogatory assertions about a person’s qualifications, knowledge, or opinions, as you have done in the post I quoted.
To your prior point demanding to know my qualifications:
There is no requirement here for people to detail their qualifications in order to speak. There is no basis to demand that they do. The fact that I have never stated any qualifications does not prove that I have none. It certainly does not give you the right to assert here that I have none.
I have learned that when people are fuming with disagreement and demanding to know their tormenter’s qualifications, there are no qualifications that would satisfy them. Obviously, you are only asking for my qualifications in order to find more leverage for your deep resentment. If I gave you just one qualification, you would immediately conclude that it is inadequate to prove that I know anything. It doesn’t take a genius to see how that would go. It would just be another avenue of resentment for you to take us down.
Personally, I judge what people say by the way I interpret it according to my knowledge of the subject. I have known people who had all the qualifications to comment on a subject, but still realized that they were full of it. I have known lots of professional railroaders. Some I had the greatest respect for. Others, not so much. They all had credentials.
I am confident of the experience and knowledge I have. I would not be interested in this forum if I had no railroad experience. There are endless reasons for people to disagree with my comments. Sometimes they correct me and I accept that. But sometimes I feel that they resent what I say for some personal reason, so I don’t accept it. Sometimes, I believe they are factually wrong. We are all free to disagree and have opinions here.
In this thread, the only thing I have disagreed with is whether a question I asked was a yes-or-no question, or not. I only posed what I felt was a yes or no question because I was told that the original form of the question had so many variables that it could not be answered. Frankly, I took that to be dodging my question and I could see why that would be done with that particular question. I would expect lots of disagreement on the answer to that question within the railroad industry.
Notice too, that just because I tried to narrow down the question so it could be answered DOES NOT MEAN that I am saying that all of the variables inherent in the total addressing of the question do not exist. I never said they don’t. I never said that the full scope of the question can be answered yes or no.
But essentially, I was told here that the only way to learn the answer to the question was to wait for the specific circumstance to arise and let a professional calculate the answer on the spot. As you can see, the NTSB does not seem to agree with that on one hand, but does seem ambivalent on the other hand.
Also, in this thread, I have given my opinion of what I thought an engineer should do when confronted with the two scenarios that Paul North posted. I posted the NTSB report about the FEC/school bus collision, and commented on some of its points.
So where is the big problem that you see?
Again, the experience that matters most would be that of an NTSB investigator. Lacking that, second most would be a mainline engineer's. A chief dispatcher's relevance for this is about as much as an airport control tower manager's in a plane crash at altitude from extreme weather - not much.
Reading Euclid's comments is an ordeal, true, so I usually ignore most of his obsessive, circular arguments. But he did provide the service of providing the NTSB report. That is the substance here. The rest is just a silly distraction not worth two cents.
EuclidSo where is the big problem that you see?
You're going to wear out the taps on your shoes at this rate. Best dancing around a question I've seen in years...
Is it all that hard to say "I'm an accountant," or "I'm a mechanic," or whatever?
I'm retired, after a career in data processing and network management. I've also got almost 40 years of fire and EMS experience, including some 15 years with a "white hat." I've been a volunteer on a tourist railroad for 10 years, currently a qualified engineer and the supervisor of conductors.
And you?
Quote: Murphy Siding
"I feel the reason that beuclid can't tell you of experience or lack of experience is due to his profession. He works in some field where they do a lot of investigating an provide *expert* opinions and yes- expert witness work in a court of law. That's why he remains forever elusively anonymous."
Given that Bucky is on the forum from morning to the wee small hours of night my guess is he's unemployed.
tree68You're going to wear out the taps on your shoes at this rate. Best dancing around a question I've seen in years...
Yep. Great dog and pony show. All fluff, no stuff.
Norm48327 Quote: Murphy Siding "I feel the reason that beuclid can't tell you of experience or lack of experience is due to his profession. He works in some field where they do a lot of investigating an provide *expert* opinions and yes- expert witness work in a court of law. That's why he remains forever elusively anonymous." Given that Bucky is on the forum from morning to the wee small hours of night my guess is he's unemployed.
Frankly (in the immortal words of Rhett Butler)I don't give a damn (what Euclid does for a living). Like many here, he's probably retired.
How about discussing the railroad accident and NTSB report?
That incident is Off Topic of this thread. Sorry! This thread is about a person simply walking into the middle of the track immediately in front of the train that killed them.
BaltACDThat incident is Off Topic of this thread. Sorry! This thread is about a person simply walking into the middle of the track immediately in front of the train that killed them.
OK. New thread for that. http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/258509.aspx
tree68 Euclid That is not a yes or no question. My answer to that would depend on exactly what it looked like. If it really looked like someone would pull out in front of me, I would brake as hard as possible period. But if the other driver just did something a little flakey to raise moderate suspicion that he or she might pull out in front of me, and if I had some room to dodge, then I probably would not brake hard. And thus you nicely illustrate the point we have tried repeatedly to make - there can be no hard and fast rules. Why did the engineer wait 11 seconds before dumping the air? Maybe he was hoping one of those "ifs" would come to pass. Maybe the bus would move off the tracks before his train arrived at the crossing. Any lapse would likely be purely mechanical.
And thus you nicely illustrate the point we have tried repeatedly to make - there can be no hard and fast rules.
Any lapse would likely be purely mechanical.
I have never disputed your first point.
To your second point, I think that is a possibility.
Your third point: I interpret the NTSB to conclude that the 11-second lapse was intentional and not just a mechanical conquence.
Note that the NTSB counted that as a partial cause, and blamed most of the rest on the bus driver.
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/lagrangenews/obituary.aspx?n=eli-samuel-flores&pid=181342320
http://www.alternacommunity.com/get-involved/child-page-3/
wanswheel http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/lagrangenews/obituary.aspx?n=eli-samuel-flores&pid=181342320 http://www.alternacommunity.com/get-involved/child-page-3/
Considering his age and accomplishments - and knowing how juvenile minds want to bully those who have skills and intellect beyond the norm - I suspect his actions were a result of the nationwide bullying epidemic. Unfortunately he isn't the first to have taken such actions to end his life nor will he become the last to do so.
RIP - Eli may you have found the peace you sought.
Visited derailment site today. 3 very torn up cars.
1. Gatax tank car on side all dented up. Has red markings that say empty and purged. wheels and trucks al ben up.
2. Railbox box car whole side completely stove in. same of trucks.
3. grain hopper on side
All cars just west (10 ft ) of crossing.
4. Both crossing signal and defect detector bungalows brand new. Derilment pulled much wire out of ground and temporary wire laid on ground.
5. Signal maintainers still trying to fix detector. Something new just on outside of ril might be an acoustic detector. Light masts not damaged except for one just bottom 2 feet. Used old incadescent lights. Brand new gates and gate stands
6. All rail blanks already field welded.
BaltACDConsidering his age and accomplishments - and knowing how juvenile minds want to bully those who have skills and intellect beyond the norm - I suspect his actions were a result of the nationwide bullying epidemic. Unfortunately he isn't the first to have taken such actions to end his life nor will he become the last to do so. RIP - Eli may you have found the peace you sought.
Really sad. There always was bullying, of course, but when I was young parents and schools really cracked down on it.
schlimmReally sad. There always was bullying, of course, but when I was young parents and schools really cracked down on it.
Alas, there was a day when the bullied could fight back - there are plenty of stories about the bullied standing up to the bully, after which they became friends.
These days of 'zero tolerance' too often mean that if a bullied person does "strike back" they'll be the one in detention.
Then there are the parents who can't believe that their little Johnny or Mary could do such a thing, and are insulted if someone suggests they did. Truth be known, Johnny and Mary are probably just parroting what they hear at home.
Most teachers try hard but can't police everything. And as you suggest, it starts at home.
I will never forget my Mother telling me (when I was about 8 or 9) that their freedom ends where my nose begins and if they hit me, hit them back. Words may hurt but they can say what they want, just not make contact. So I did hit back and they stopped.
schlimm Murphy Siding OK.... So what is your background and experience in railroading? First of all, Euclid's rail experience or lack of it is really as irrelevant as yours or mine or Murphy (Siding)'s. It's a red herring or distractor. And BaltACD has no relevant experience operating a locomotive either. As far as I can see, on this thread, only Jeff and Zugmann are engineers.
Don't forget me--I may be retired, but I did have over 30 years experience as Engineer (Actually 28, the other 2 years were as a Conductor/trainman).
schlimm Second, Balt dismissed the NTSB report as political and wrong. In Jeff's case he felt it was simply inaccurate. Given the qualifications of NTSB GO Teams, that seems highly unlikely. None of us investigated the accident scene, took measurements or interviewed witnesses. The only impartial, objective and accurate account is the accident report. Railroaders may dislike the conclusions, but I fail to see any evidence to support that disagreement. Face it, people, all of us, even engineers and dispatchers, make errors.
If every Engineer dumped the air as soon as they saw a vehicle or person on the tracks, you'd have trains stopped all over the country. It would be the beginnings of a new form of urban entertainment: "Let's go stop some trains".
"Plug 'em when you hit 'em" was my motto. Sure, set some air if, in your experience it seems that perhaps an incident is likely, and THEN dump the air if an impact is inevitable. But how many incidents can you actually see in sufficient time to stop? Even a passenger train going 70 takes at least a good quarter-mile to stop. A freight train that does not have its slack all bunched or stretched is in prime condition for a derailment if the air goes (from whatever source: kicker, air hose parting, etc).
During my 30 years, I had 5 fatal incidents resulting in 9 dead. The few times some smarmy lawyer tried to get personal with me about my railroad experience, I would treat them to some good old-fashioned logic. Never were my actions questioned beyond the initial investigation.
Engineers and Dispatchers and Conductors do make errors. SO DO LAWYERS.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.