Trains.com

Suicide causes derailment

12259 views
212 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: Roanoke, VA
  • 2,019 posts
Posted by BigJim on Friday, September 16, 2016 12:01 PM

matthewsaggie

Failure to make a full emergency application will simply provide additional fodder for the lawyers in the follow-up lawsuits. Damned if you do- damned if you don't. 

"Damn the Lawyers! Full speed ahead!!!"
David Farragut

 

A number of years ago, there was a show on TV that delt with the aftermath of a train derailment that involved some very dangerous chemicals, one of which was benzine. That stuff caused all kinds of problems. So, sit those pussified lawyers down and let them, no make them watch that show and you will see why you don't want to put a train in emergency trying to avoid the inevitable.
And just for your information, the slower the speed of the train, the more likely there will be a jack-knife.

.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Friday, September 16, 2016 1:34 PM

.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Friday, September 16, 2016 2:43 PM

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.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Friday, September 16, 2016 2:51 PM

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?

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Friday, September 16, 2016 2:58 PM

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."

 

I have changed my mind and do not take your answer as a yes. 

 

 

 

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Friday, September 16, 2016 2:58 PM

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?

 

Chlorine escaped from a tank car that was ruptured.

Johnny

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Friday, September 16, 2016 3:48 PM

Euclid
So, what happened pertaining to my full comment?

You pretty much described exactly what happened there.

 

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Friday, September 16, 2016 3:55 PM

Euclid
I have changed my mind and do not take your answer as a yes.

That's nice.  I don't care.

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

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Friday, September 16, 2016 4:14 PM

zugmann
 
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. 

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Friday, September 16, 2016 4:26 PM

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?

 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Friday, September 16, 2016 6:31 PM

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?

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Friday, September 16, 2016 7:27 PM

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?

 

Now wait a minute.  Are you telling me that there are variables, and that the answer isn't just a simple yes/no?  Hmm

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Friday, September 16, 2016 7:32 PM

Murphy Siding
Now wait a minute. Are you telling me that there are variables, and that the answer isn't just a simple yes/no?

Yes, but....... Crying

Norm


  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Friday, September 16, 2016 8:00 PM

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.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, September 16, 2016 10:11 PM

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.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Friday, September 16, 2016 10:38 PM

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.  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.    

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, September 16, 2016 10:47 PM

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.  

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.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Saturday, September 17, 2016 6:45 AM

Euclid
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.

Methinks that's a major part of the problem here.

You're looking for black and white answers in a shades of gray world.

 

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Saturday, September 17, 2016 6:56 AM

tree68

You're looking for black and white answers in a shades of gray world.

Fifty shades of gray??Whistling

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Saturday, September 17, 2016 8:08 AM

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. 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Saturday, September 17, 2016 8:31 AM

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.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Saturday, September 17, 2016 8:41 AM

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. 

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, September 17, 2016 10:07 AM

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. 

 

I'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.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Saturday, September 17, 2016 10:21 AM

Murphy Siding
I'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.

 

 

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.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Saturday, September 17, 2016 11:35 AM

Murphy Siding
I'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!

Norm


  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Saturday, September 17, 2016 12:25 PM

Big surprise Norm.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Saturday, September 17, 2016 12:35 PM

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. 

 

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.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Saturday, September 17, 2016 12:47 PM

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?

Norm


  • Member since
    November 2005
  • 4,190 posts
Posted by wanswheel on Saturday, September 17, 2016 12:55 PM

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.

 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Saturday, September 17, 2016 12:56 PM

Euclid
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.

If you feel we're not giving you an answer to your question, then perhaps you are not asking the right question!

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.

LarryWhistling
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...

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy