EuclidWhat is the statistical probability of a derailment resulting from making an “Emergency” application of the brakes?
Uphill or down? Slack in or out? Tangent or curve(s)? Speed? What is the distribution of empties/loads in the train? Are there any undiscovered track or equipment flaws? Are there any know contributors to derailments in the track structure?
Again, the variables are many - probably too many to compute any specific probabilities.
And because of those many variables, it would be virtually impossible to give specific instructions. There are going to be some rules of thumb, mostly from shared experience, but very little codified.
When faced with a "situation," an engineer has to quickly consider all those variables. And if it's a significant obstacle they're going to run in to (load of steel, or fuel tanker), odds are the crew will be on the floor, hoping they survive at all.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Murphy Siding Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid Another point, as previously mentioned, is that there may be additional liability for the company if no attempt to avoid a collision is made. Surely you can sue anybody for anything. However, I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that the engineer actually even needed to attempt to avoid a collision with someone trespassing on company property. If a Delta jet hits someone on the runway, who is at fault? Probably not Delta. Even if a lawyer could make that case sound plausible, it would be just as plausible to prove that emergency braking would have probably made the situation worse. I doubt that the fact someone was trespassing (violating crossing law) would offset the responsibility to do what is reasonable to protect the trespasser from potentially fatal hazards. Owners of property always want to believe that is the case because they are enraged by people trespassing on their property. Lawyers will throw everything at the wall, and some of it usually sticks. A lawyer might point out that trains are equipped with an “Emergency” braking feature which stops a train as quickly as possible. Railroads are always pointing out that it takes a lot of time to stop a train. So a lawyer might ask a jury why a railroad would not use the most effective method available to slow a train as quickly as possible. An opposing lawyer could point out that if the engineer had used that “Emergency” braking feature which stops a train as quickly as possible, the train could derail and squash the trespasser flat as a pancake. The same lawyer could find an expert witness to explain the difference between a car’s emergency brake and those on a train. It just hit me. I bet you do a lot of expert witness work for civil trials- don’t you? It now makes sense the way you ask questions and turn everything around. You're working the angles.
Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid Another point, as previously mentioned, is that there may be additional liability for the company if no attempt to avoid a collision is made. Surely you can sue anybody for anything. However, I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that the engineer actually even needed to attempt to avoid a collision with someone trespassing on company property. If a Delta jet hits someone on the runway, who is at fault? Probably not Delta. Even if a lawyer could make that case sound plausible, it would be just as plausible to prove that emergency braking would have probably made the situation worse. I doubt that the fact someone was trespassing (violating crossing law) would offset the responsibility to do what is reasonable to protect the trespasser from potentially fatal hazards. Owners of property always want to believe that is the case because they are enraged by people trespassing on their property. Lawyers will throw everything at the wall, and some of it usually sticks. A lawyer might point out that trains are equipped with an “Emergency” braking feature which stops a train as quickly as possible. Railroads are always pointing out that it takes a lot of time to stop a train. So a lawyer might ask a jury why a railroad would not use the most effective method available to slow a train as quickly as possible.
Murphy Siding Euclid Another point, as previously mentioned, is that there may be additional liability for the company if no attempt to avoid a collision is made. Surely you can sue anybody for anything. However, I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that the engineer actually even needed to attempt to avoid a collision with someone trespassing on company property. If a Delta jet hits someone on the runway, who is at fault? Probably not Delta. Even if a lawyer could make that case sound plausible, it would be just as plausible to prove that emergency braking would have probably made the situation worse.
Euclid Another point, as previously mentioned, is that there may be additional liability for the company if no attempt to avoid a collision is made.
Another point, as previously mentioned, is that there may be additional liability for the company if no attempt to avoid a collision is made.
Surely you can sue anybody for anything. However, I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that the engineer actually even needed to attempt to avoid a collision with someone trespassing on company property. If a Delta jet hits someone on the runway, who is at fault? Probably not Delta. Even if a lawyer could make that case sound plausible, it would be just as plausible to prove that emergency braking would have probably made the situation worse.
I doubt that the fact someone was trespassing (violating crossing law) would offset the responsibility to do what is reasonable to protect the trespasser from potentially fatal hazards. Owners of property always want to believe that is the case because they are enraged by people trespassing on their property.
Lawyers will throw everything at the wall, and some of it usually sticks. A lawyer might point out that trains are equipped with an “Emergency” braking feature which stops a train as quickly as possible. Railroads are always pointing out that it takes a lot of time to stop a train. So a lawyer might ask a jury why a railroad would not use the most effective method available to slow a train as quickly as possible.
An opposing lawyer could point out that if the engineer had used that “Emergency” braking feature which stops a train as quickly as possible, the train could derail and squash the trespasser flat as a pancake. The same lawyer could find an expert witness to explain the difference between a car’s emergency brake and those on a train. It just hit me. I bet you do a lot of expert witness work for civil trials- don’t you? It now makes sense the way you ask questions and turn everything around. You're working the angles.
I am not an expert witness, but I do like to work the angles, as you say. I am particularly interested in the angles mentioned earlier about engineers being worried about being blamed for causing a derailment by dynamiting the brakes for an impending crash that manages not to occur. Therefore, it is suggested, engineers feel safer in not applying the brakes until after a collision has occurred. Then if the train derails as a result, they have “proof” that the brake application was necessary.
This raises two questions:
Does the company provide any guidance for engineers faced with this dilemma?
What is the statistical probability of a derailment resulting from making an “Emergency” application of the brakes?
schlimm Murphy Siding It just hit me. I bet you do a lot of expert witness work for civil trials- don’t you? It now makes sense the way you ask questions and turn everything around. You're working the angles. Doubtful. And expert witnesses do not ask questions, they figure out the best answers to them.
Murphy Siding It just hit me. I bet you do a lot of expert witness work for civil trials- don’t you? It now makes sense the way you ask questions and turn everything around. You're working the angles.
Doubtful. And expert witnesses do not ask questions, they figure out the best answers to them.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy SidingIt just hit me. I bet you do a lot of expert witness work for civil trials- don’t you? It now makes sense the way you ask questions and turn everything around. You're working the angles.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Interesting item there have been several BNSF haulage baretables going to Fairburn ( Atlanta ). Guess the track blockage caused loading and unloading of the BNSFs in Birmingham ?
I realize there are lots of variables, and by the time that a collision is nearly inevitable, it will be mostly too late to slow down much, if any. However, if you also factor in a risk of derailment by trying to stop hard, then it becomes logical to not make any brake application until after a collision occurs. Then with there still being the risk of derailment, it would be logical to only use a “Service” application after a collision occurs.
These seem like fairly specific issues, yet I have never seen them addressed in any rule book or special instructions, or any other form of guidance by management. So I am wondering if such rules or instructions exist, and what they say about the matter.
EuclidI can understand the reasoning behind the decision to not make an “Emergency” application until there is proof that a collision is inevitable. The reason is that there is risk of a derailment being caused by the stopping power of the brake application and the effect of slack.
There are so many variables involved that trying to develop an algorithm is beyond impossible.
The crew has absolutely no knowledge of the intentions or the abilities of the person or vehicle fouling the tracks.
And even if the decision is made to place a train into emergency as soon as a potential problem presents itself, there is often little said brake application will do to lessen the severity of the eventual outcome.
I can understand the reasoning behind the decision to not make an “Emergency” application until there is proof that a collision is inevitable. The reason is that there is risk of a derailment being caused by the stopping power of the brake application and the effect of slack.
However, it is precisely in the cases of probable, but not inevitable collisions that the “Emergency” application might save lives.
So, delaying an “Emergency” application until there is proof that collision will occur would seem to defeat the whole purpose of having the “Emergency” application available. What is the point of having an “Emergency” application available, if you can’t use it until the collision is inevitable or over?
All that being the case, I can see the challenge of the decision. The more distance there is between the train and the fouling vehicle, the greater the chance of the vehicle clearing before the train reaches the crossing. And yet those are the cases where stopping short of the crossing would be most possible.
This question of what lawyers would say about withholding an “Emergency” application raises the question of what railroad management would say. What do they say? Are there official company policy or rules that prescribe the proper response by engineers when confronted by probable collisions at grade crossings?
The crew did the only thing they reasonably could do, and they only had a second or two to make that call. They shouldn't be second guessed and should be provided with as much support as possible as they too are the victims in this.
How did crew make out?
Electroliner 1935Another mentioned hitting a tanker of molasses.
Late 50's the Capitol Limited hit a trailer load of dishwashing liquid. Damaged engines were returned to the roundhouse at Garrett, IN. I was down at the depot when an afternoon T'storm hit. Talk about foamers!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Back in the late 50's, on my rides on the PRR's E-8's, the sense of impending crashes by cars driving on gravel roads and not seeming to slow as they approached the crossings but did stop just in time gave me, (a co-op student working my work sessions in the Communications and Signal Dept.) a lot of angst. Fortunately, none failed to stop while I was in the cab. However on one trip from Cincinnati OH to Richmond IN when I was back in a coach, we caught a car (just in front of the front tire) and tossed it into a field. The occupants survived but the locomotives pilot was bent down to where it was deemed unsafe to proceed until a welder could remove about two inches of the pilot. We sat for about an hour while the welder made pass over pass with a cutting torch. That steel is thick! The impact also broke the air hoses off the left front of the lead unit. That was solved by driving some broom handle pieces into the pipes. On a couple of my trips, I discussed with the Engineers what they thought about emergency braking for a car on a crossing. All of them stated that their choice is to apply power and hope to knock the car off the track and not have it go under them and cause a derailment. Also, they talked about some crashes that still bothered them. Hitting a gasoline tanker for one. Another mentioned hitting a tanker of molasses.
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.
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.
You beat me to it. Lawyers care little about physics...
BaltACDPersonally - and not being a locomotive engineer 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.
You can't start second-guessing your actions becuase the train *might* derail. It's easy to sit here and armchair quarterback, but it's a whole different ballgame when you are in that seat with that red handle next to you. Believe me.
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
Personally - and not being a locomotive engineer
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.
In the indicent that started this thread. Placing the train in emergency DID NOT prevent the impact with the individual and did cause the derailment of cars near the rear of the train - the worst outcome on two levels.
jeffhergert Deggesty According to the newspaper story, the conductor was at the controls of the engine. I have the impression that the writer of the account needs some instruction in the operation of road service. All locomotives have a conductor's emergency brake handle. The modern "comfort" cab (the newer ones are becoming less comfortable) also have a horn button on the conductor's side. It is plausible that the conductor blew the horn and pulled the air. Although it probably was the engineer that did it. A couple years ago, going down grade with a 12000 ton manifest near track speed, there was a pick-up truck speeding towards us on a county paved highway on the conductor's side. The driver slammed on the brakes at the last minute and stopped a few feet short of the tracks. According to the conductor, both occupants were laughing. The conductor then said he had been about ready to pull the air. I told him in that situation, I wasn't going to big hole it unless we hit. I wasn't going to risk 12000 tons of manifest derailing on top of us. Jeff
Deggesty According to the newspaper story, the conductor was at the controls of the engine. I have the impression that the writer of the account needs some instruction in the operation of road service.
According to the newspaper story, the conductor was at the controls of the engine. I have the impression that the writer of the account needs some instruction in the operation of road service.
All locomotives have a conductor's emergency brake handle. The modern "comfort" cab (the newer ones are becoming less comfortable) also have a horn button on the conductor's side. It is plausible that the conductor blew the horn and pulled the air. Although it probably was the engineer that did it.
A couple years ago, going down grade with a 12000 ton manifest near track speed, there was a pick-up truck speeding towards us on a county paved highway on the conductor's side. The driver slammed on the brakes at the last minute and stopped a few feet short of the tracks. According to the conductor, both occupants were laughing. The conductor then said he had been about ready to pull the air. I told him in that situation, I wasn't going to big hole it unless we hit. I wasn't going to risk 12000 tons of manifest derailing on top of us.
Jeff
Jeff: I would say that there are many, in cabs across this country who basicly feel the same way. In discussions with other railroaders, I have heard those very sentiments discussed.
Primarily, the dangers that concerned them were exactly what happened in the incident reported here, in this Thread. There are those 'types', who have no clues to the danger they flirt with, when they do something such as you described with the neanderthal types rushing towards a crossing to try and 'scare a train crew' just to get a laugh. Stupidity, knows no bounds.
Most of the conversations I've had, were generally, resolved with the statement that they had to have some proof to show for a highway-grade crossing incident.... The ramifications, in time lost to inspect, and recharge train lines after an emergency brake application, or a derailment that was caused by slack action in the train.
Not to mention the potential for a busy main line segment shut down for those incidents. such events can lead to back-ups and delays of other railroad traffic. Events which can be 'calls on the carpet' for explanations. ( show and tell in the head shed(?)
tdmidget Mookie Johnny - After they eliminated the fireman on a train, the conductors were promoted to engineers. I do n't know if they still have this practice. What? Trains still have conductors. They do not have firemen unless steam powered. Regardless, engineers are engineers and conductors are conductors. Nothing at all to do with firemen.
Mookie Johnny - After they eliminated the fireman on a train, the conductors were promoted to engineers. I do n't know if they still have this practice.
Johnny - After they eliminated the fireman on a train, the conductors were promoted to engineers. I do
n't know if they still have this practice.
What? Trains still have conductors. They do not have firemen unless steam powered. Regardless, engineers are engineers and conductors are conductors. Nothing at all to do with firemen.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
blue streak 1 One item CSX did not post road closed signs at the last convenient detour location. That was poor PR as cars and trucks had to turn around in medical office complex.
One item CSX did not post road closed signs at the last convenient detour location. That was poor PR as cars and trucks had to turn around in medical office complex.
The thirty-nine or seventy-eight foot pieces of rail not drilled are generally referred to as "blanks" around here.
More info on derailment. Had to go to the location again this morning. CSX bought in a surfacing machine and ballast regulator from the A&WP sub work. Fortunately CSX also had a bunch of stick rail (no bolt holes ) from the A&WP sub work and brought it in to repair the track.
The signal damage appears to be extensive as replacement bungalos for both dragging equipment detector and crossing signals appear to be replaced. As well the west bound crossing signal stand is being replaced along with its wiring. Must have been at least 6 signal maintainer trucks at he place.
There was a fork lift trying to load spilled lumber onto flat bed trucks. Most derailed cars were removed but track was only opened for about 4 - 6 hours last night. There have not been any BNSF haulage trains by since derailment with at least one parked in LaGrange,
I feel for the crew, not only did they witness a suicide but they've been involved in a derailment and one never knows how that might turn out. I've been in that situation, only one time, one suicide, it's not a experience I'd wish on any operating crew, or anyone else, for that matter.
Since posted the following in Chatterbox though would bring it over to this thread with some editing/?
Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, September 07, 2016 7:12 PM
CSX had a derailment last night ( time unknown ) after teenager walked in front of freight on a road with no sidewalk. Crossing has bells, lights , and gates.. Happened on the CSX Lineville sub that runs from LaGrange Ga and Brmingham. Happened in city of LaGrange at the Vernon road crossing Train was a westbound mixed freight. Normal speed limits are 20 - 30 MPH.There is no tunnel only a 5 lane overpass just west of stopped AC locos. All evidence was that train was westbound but could be wrong. A loco(s) pulled the east end of train back to LaGrange yard at about 1115 using back up 3 horn signal.
Had a doctors appointment nearby and witnessed the aftermath this morning. Two AC locomotives stopped about 300 feet west of Vernon road crossing. For whatever reason some train cars jack knifed south to outside of the curve ( crossing is curved and has super elevation. As well tracks intercept road at about 30 - 45 degree angle. ) Several cars on their side on both sides of track including a spilled lumber car to south. Some Lumber in road It seemed that lumber fell off car as it was scattered south of overturned car ? Interesting that two Procor DOT-111 tank cars remained upright west of crossing but do not know if they stayed on rails. Another item is that there is a equipment detector on south side of track but was not touched although cars overturned both east and west of bungalow. Unknown if track detectors were torn up,
Crossing damage was complee with removal of all rail, ties, asphalt and some ballast. Quite a crew there and as an aside part of a crossing renewal crew that was working on the A&WP sub about 15 miles away was called to the scene.
Have to wonder if the rear of train pushed cars off track tearing up track and crossing
As I mentioned over on the Driver/Engineer thread - many people don't know. Inasmuch as there's probably not usually a railroad spokesperson on the scene, there's no one there to correct anyone when they get it wrong. I'm sure that if an on-scene news briefing was held, it was run by the police, and they're as likely to get it wrong as anyone.
As Madam La Mook notes, many crew members these days are qualified both as engineers and conductors, so it is possible the designated conductor was at the controls. Or not. I wouldn't take any news report that doesn't cite a railroad spokesperson with a grain of salt on that detail.
The train derailed because the kid was in trouble (anxiety or depression maybe) and nobody close to him took notice or cared. That's the root cause... the rest is just basic physics.
Johnny - After they eliminated the fireman on a train, the conductors were promoted to engineers. I don't know if they still have this practice.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.