Norm48327When you were posting as Bucyrus you went running to one of the moderators to have posts that disagreed with you deleted. I have that information from two former volunteer moderators.
Norm,
Since you brought this up here, I must respond to set the record straight. You say that, in that earlier thread, I had the moderators remove all the posts that disagreed with me.
What moderator is going to agree to remove posts that disagree with one person in a thread just because that person wants them removed? That claim has no credibility to anyone with common sense.
Whoever told you that is either misinformed or lying. Just on the face of it, the lack of credibility should be obvious. Besides that, I don’t want posts that disagree with me to be removed. I believe in the substance of the debate, and I want it to stand as complete documentation. If you remove half of it, the other half makes no sense.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Deggesty My solution: that everyone else stop posting on this thread, and let Euclid/Bucyrus/Bucky/etc. answer his own posts.
My solution: that everyone else stop posting on this thread, and let Euclid/Bucyrus/Bucky/etc. answer his own posts.
23 17 46 11
Johnny
Euclid BigJim Euclid As a former locomotive engineer, I sir take exception to your idiotic statement and take offense that you think that the human brain cannot make such a decision quicker than the blink of an eye! I've been there and done that! So, just shut the heck up!!! What I said has nothing to do with how quickly the decision is made. I said make the decision "with any certainty," referring to the certainty of the results of either dumping the air or not.
BigJim Euclid As a former locomotive engineer, I sir take exception to your idiotic statement and take offense that you think that the human brain cannot make such a decision quicker than the blink of an eye! I've been there and done that! So, just shut the heck up!!!
Euclid
As a former locomotive engineer, I sir take exception to your idiotic statement and take offense that you think that the human brain cannot make such a decision quicker than the blink of an eye! I've been there and done that! So, just shut the heck up!!!
What I said has nothing to do with how quickly the decision is made. I said make the decision "with any certainty," referring to the certainty of the results of either dumping the air or not.
For crying out loud Ron, GIVE IT UP! Stop acting like a ten year old who will not take no for an answer. You've been told the realities by those who actually run the trains and you continue to challenge them with inane nonsense.
When you were posting as Bucyrus you went running to one of the moderators to have posts that disagreed with you deleted. I have that information from two former volunteer moderators. You can't deny facts but you are persistent in attempting to do so. It make people question your mental state. Get off the computer for a day or two and go outside and check out the real world. You're living in your own fantasyland.
Norm
BigJim Euclid I think the idea is a bogus proposition and never actually carried out. I also think it is absurd to presume that such a complex decision could be made with any certainty. If the collision did kill or injure someone on the crossing, there will be no convincing explanation for withholding the brake application. Any engineer would know that.
Euclid I think the idea is a bogus proposition and never actually carried out. I also think it is absurd to presume that such a complex decision could be made with any certainty. If the collision did kill or injure someone on the crossing, there will be no convincing explanation for withholding the brake application. Any engineer would know that.
+2!!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
EuclidI think the idea is a bogus proposition and never actually carried out. I also think it is absurd to presume that such a complex decision could be made with any certainty. If the collision did kill or injure someone on the crossing, there will be no convincing explanation for withholding the brake application. Any engineer would know that.
.
My answer is no.
Euclid The question here is whether it is proper to withhold an emergency application for a likely grade crossing collision because the application might derail the train and cause a larger catastrophe.
The question here is whether it is proper to withhold an emergency application for a likely grade crossing collision because the application might derail the train and cause a larger catastrophe.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Bogus is the critical word in this entire thread.
zugmann As an engineer, there may come a time where you have to explain your actions to: The FRA A state PUC or other regulators management a lawyer or judge (god forbid) maybe even a congressional committee? But an anonymous poster on a generic train site is NOT on that list. And I would caution others, as motives from the OP are not clear. It seems to go beyond simple curiosity. Fair warning - do with it as you wish.
As an engineer, there may come a time where you have to explain your actions to:
But an anonymous poster on a generic train site is NOT on that list. And I would caution others, as motives from the OP are not clear. It seems to go beyond simple curiosity. Fair warning - do with it as you wish.
I think the idea is a bogus proposition and never actually carried out. I also think it is absurd to presume that such a complex decision could be made with any certainty. If the collision did kill or injure someone on the crossing, there will be no convincing explanation for withholding the brake application. Any engineer would know that.
But of course, everybody else here insists that I am dead wrong. They all agree that this practice is acceptable, legitimate, proper, and normal—just part of an engineer’s job.
Well if it is a legitimate part of the engineer’s job, why worry about admitting it on the forum? Why act like it’s something to hide?
Electroliner 1935Euclid, I think you are trying to say that the engineer faced with hitting an occupied vehicle will apply an emergency brake application every time (BLACK) and not consider the effect it might have on the train he is operating. But I think you are agreeing that there are circumstances (unoccupied, ???) where an engineer might make an exception. If so, do we have to keep what seems to be unnecessary hair splitting that goes back and forth. I think this has been beaten to death.
As schlimm said, it's what hes does [best]. If your were reading the forum when the Lac Megantic wreck occured you are famaliar with his infamous "yes, but". Twists and turns to get people to agree with him were far too common. He attempts to rationaize his answers with more "yes, but" that only alienates other posters.
His horse died a horrible death several years ago but he's still beating it. The carcass is beginning to stink.
Electroliner 1935Euclid, I think you are trying to say that the engineer faced with hitting an occupied vehicle will apply an emergency brake application every time (BLACK) and not consider the effect it might have on the train he is operating. But I think you are agreeing that there are circumstances (unoccupied, ???) where an engineer might make an exception. If so, do we have to keep what seems to be unnecessary hair splitting that goes back and forth. I think this has been beatrn to death. Thanks
It's what he does.
Schlimm,
You mentioned dichotomous thinking being applied indiscriminately.
If you are referring to my yes or no question, it is not a case of dichotomous thinking being applied indiscriminately. It is focused on just one question. There are legitimate yes or no questions, right? A yes or no question is designed for specificity and to confine the answer from wandering all over the place and evasively taking refuge in the shades of gray.
zugmann As someone with an engineer's license in his wallet, I will remind others so qualified: There may come a time where you have to explain your actions to: The FRA A state PUC or other regulators management a lawyer or judge (god forbid) maybe even a congressional committee? But an anonymous poster on a generic train site is NOT on that list. And I would caution others, as motives from the OP are not clear. It seems to go beyond simple curiosity. Fair warning - do with it as you wish.
As someone with an engineer's license in his wallet, I will remind others so qualified:
There may come a time where you have to explain your actions to:
I've seen that on another forum. Someone wishing to get another pilot in trouble with the FAA succeded. The end result wasn't pretty.
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
Semper Vaporo These ATTACKS on this man have got to stop. If you don't agree with what he says, refute it if you can, but STOP the attacks. If you don't like him, don't read his posts, but STOP the name calling and aspersions. All if it is against the rules of this forum.
These ATTACKS on this man have got to stop. If you don't agree with what he says, refute it if you can, but STOP the attacks. If you don't like him, don't read his posts, but STOP the name calling and aspersions. All if it is against the rules of this forum.
When I signed on today and read this, I was about to respond with an Amen, but after reading the following resonses I saw that it went on and on. Remember that if someone makes you mad, then you are letting him control your mind.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
In the old story about the lawyer asking the defendent, "Have you stopped beatng your wife, YES or NO" and the defendent tells the judge that he can't answer yes or no. If I answer No, you will say why am I still beating her, and if I say yes, then I'm saying I did beat her. Having NOT beaten her I can't have stopped so I can't answer Yes or No.
And I always wondered what I would do if a ball rolled out in front of me. Back in the fifties, I was driving down a street in Cincinnati with a can of coke on the seat beside me in the crevase between the two seat backs (no can holders back then) and a ball came out of between parked cars about five car lengths in front of be. I stomped on the brake and stopped short of the kid that came out of between the cars. And the coke went all over the floor. I felt that was a small price to pay for doing the right thing. And had a following car struck me, he woud have been guilty of following to closely. Not a factor. Had I been on a highway with many large semitrucks, I wonder if I would consider the mismatch of being rear ended. Fortunately, never has happened.
Euclid, I think you are trying to say that the engineer faced with hitting an occupied vehicle will apply an emergency brake application every time (BLACK) and not consider the effect it might have on the train he is operating. But I think you are agreeing that there are circumstances (unoccupied, ???) where an engineer might make an exception. If so, do we have to keep what seems to be unnecessary hair splitting that goes back and forth. I think this has been beatrn to death. Thanks
Absolutist thinking or dichotomous reasoning, applied indiscriminately, is often inaccurate, as many have pointed out here, and often linked to emotional disturbances and authoritarian personalities.
My error.
Norm48327 Euclid No, there is a black and white answer to the question I posed originally as follows: In a case where making an “Emergency” air brake application would slow or stop the train to mitigate or prevent colliding with a vehicle at a grade crossing; is it ever advisable, proper, or permissible for an engineer, to refrain from making that “Emergency” application because of the danger arising from the possibility of the application causing the train to derail? The answer is no. There are no shades of gray and several people are not hearing that. Read your post again. You said there is a black and white answer. Now you're saying there are shades of grey. Make up your mind.
Euclid No, there is a black and white answer to the question I posed originally as follows: In a case where making an “Emergency” air brake application would slow or stop the train to mitigate or prevent colliding with a vehicle at a grade crossing; is it ever advisable, proper, or permissible for an engineer, to refrain from making that “Emergency” application because of the danger arising from the possibility of the application causing the train to derail? The answer is no. There are no shades of gray and several people are not hearing that.
In a case where making an “Emergency” air brake application would slow or stop the train to mitigate or prevent colliding with a vehicle at a grade crossing; is it ever advisable, proper, or permissible for an engineer, to refrain from making that “Emergency” application because of the danger arising from the possibility of the application causing the train to derail?
The answer is no. There are no shades of gray and several people are not hearing that.
Read your post again. You said there is a black and white answer. Now you're saying there are shades of grey. Make up your mind.
If you read what I said, the sentence begins with: "There are no shades of gray..."
That is not the same thing as saying there are shades of gray.
But I guess you see what you want to see.
Euclid CSSHEGEWISCH If I've been following this thread reasonably accurately, Bucky is looking for a black-or-white answer and everybody is telling him that there are various shades of gray involved (not that he's hearing it). No, there is a black and white answer to the question I posed originally as follows: In a case where making an “Emergency” air brake application would slow or stop the train to mitigate or prevent colliding with a vehicle at a grade crossing; is it ever advisable, proper, or permissible for an engineer, to refrain from making that “Emergency” application because of the danger arising from the possibility of the application causing the train to derail? The answer is no. There are no shades of gray and several people are not hearing that.
CSSHEGEWISCH If I've been following this thread reasonably accurately, Bucky is looking for a black-or-white answer and everybody is telling him that there are various shades of gray involved (not that he's hearing it).
If I've been following this thread reasonably accurately, Bucky is looking for a black-or-white answer and everybody is telling him that there are various shades of gray involved (not that he's hearing it).
No, there is a black and white answer to the question I posed originally as follows:
tree68Is it likely that in the vast majority of cases, an engineer will make an emergency application when faced with a near-certain collision at a crossing. The legendary "99 44/100%" of Ivory soap fame. But to say unequivocably that it will always be the case is wrong.
I have never said that it will always be the case. Anything is possible.
There is a truism - "never ask a question if you won't like the answer."
And another - "never say never."
Is it likely that in the vast majority of cases, an engineer will make an emergency application when faced with a near-certain collision at a crossing. The legendary "99 44/100%" of Ivory soap fame. But to say unequivocably that it will always be the case is wrong.
Just like your claim that highway warning signs "take effect," your assumption that there is one set answer to your question is, in and of itself, wrong.
And you've been told that over and over again, by a variety of people in a position to know.
It's time you accept that as fact.
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...
dehusman Euclid This is not about whether the emergency application will stop the train before hitting the vehicle. It is about whether the emergency application will derail the train by causing in-train stresses. Read my DECISION PART “A” and DECISION PART “B” in the third post down from the top of this page. Part A is many shades of gray and includes the examples you describe. Part B is black and white. I tried to explain this to you earlier. There is NO two step decision process. There is a one step decision process. Do I apply the emergency brakes? As the factors are considered, as soon as the engineer hits a point that says, yes plug it, he does. If the consideration on whether the train will derail is part of that decision, and it may or may not be, its typically towards the bottom of the list, so the engineer in almost every case hits a "plug it" decision at the top. Its not like they have a checklist they run down, its a decision made in a second or two.
Euclid This is not about whether the emergency application will stop the train before hitting the vehicle. It is about whether the emergency application will derail the train by causing in-train stresses. Read my DECISION PART “A” and DECISION PART “B” in the third post down from the top of this page. Part A is many shades of gray and includes the examples you describe. Part B is black and white.
I tried to explain this to you earlier.
There is NO two step decision process. There is a one step decision process. Do I apply the emergency brakes? As the factors are considered, as soon as the engineer hits a point that says, yes plug it, he does. If the consideration on whether the train will derail is part of that decision, and it may or may not be, its typically towards the bottom of the list, so the engineer in almost every case hits a "plug it" decision at the top.
Its not like they have a checklist they run down, its a decision made in a second or two.
I am not saying there actually are two steps. There is only step, and that is DECISION PART “A”. I only mention two steps to separate out factoring in whether an emergency application would derail the train. So I add DECISION PART “B” to make that distinction. I don’t believe that PART B legitimate, so that leaves only the one step that you refer to. So the distinction of two steps is only for illustration purposes.
However, (as highlighted in red) you do include the factoring of a possible derailment into your one step. So let me ask you what I asked Big Jim: Can you give me an example of what would cause you to choose to withhold an emergency application that is called for because it might derail the train? Anybody can say they would consider it. I want to know what it would take to actually do it.
Norm48327So; you've already forgotten about that tank truck full of gasoline?
Euclid BigJim ...there is a black and white answer to the question I posed originally as follows: In a case where making an “Emergency” air brake application would slow or stop the train to mitigate or prevent colliding with a vehicle at a grade crossing; is it ever advisable, proper, or permissible for an engineer, to refrain from making that “Emergency” application because of the danger arising from the possibility of the application causing the train to derail? The answer is no. There are no shades of gray and several people are not hearing that. The correct answer is...YES!!! Can you give me an example of a circumstance where you would decide "yes"?
BigJim ...there is a black and white answer to the question I posed originally as follows: In a case where making an “Emergency” air brake application would slow or stop the train to mitigate or prevent colliding with a vehicle at a grade crossing; is it ever advisable, proper, or permissible for an engineer, to refrain from making that “Emergency” application because of the danger arising from the possibility of the application causing the train to derail? The answer is no. There are no shades of gray and several people are not hearing that. The correct answer is...YES!!!
...there is a black and white answer to the question I posed originally as follows: In a case where making an “Emergency” air brake application would slow or stop the train to mitigate or prevent colliding with a vehicle at a grade crossing; is it ever advisable, proper, or permissible for an engineer, to refrain from making that “Emergency” application because of the danger arising from the possibility of the application causing the train to derail? The answer is no. There are no shades of gray and several people are not hearing that.
The correct answer is...YES!!!
Can you give me an example of a circumstance where you would decide "yes"?
So; you've already forgotten about that tank truck full of gasoline?
Is that BLACK enough for you?
Semper VaporoIf you don't agree with what he says, refute it if you can,
Can't tell you how many times that has been tried. How can you refute someone who always rearranges what he said to fit his twisted thought pattern? He keeps asking the same question over and over but worded differently in hopes of an outcome he likes. That doesn't work. This has been going on for years. Now people are calling him down on it, and that's long overdue.
EuclidThis is not about whether the emergency application will stop the train before hitting the vehicle. It is about whether the emergency application will derail the train by causing in-train stresses. Read my DECISION PART “A” and DECISION PART “B” in the third post down from the top of this page. Part A is many shades of gray and includes the examples you describe. Part B is black and white.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Semper Vaporo I don't think it is ever that black & white... there are always possibilities that the Engineer has to attempt to take into account. How does the Engineer know that the Emergency application will actually stop the train in time? Track condition (moisture, dust, etc.), train weight, condition of the brakes and wheels (traction ability), speed, distance, etc. All weigh into whether the Emergency application might stop the train. But there is NO assurance that the Engineer can perfectly take all that into account because much of it is not known and is basically unknowable.
I don't think it is ever that black & white... there are always possibilities that the Engineer has to attempt to take into account. How does the Engineer know that the Emergency application will actually stop the train in time? Track condition (moisture, dust, etc.), train weight, condition of the brakes and wheels (traction ability), speed, distance, etc. All weigh into whether the Emergency application might stop the train. But there is NO assurance that the Engineer can perfectly take all that into account because much of it is not known and is basically unknowable.
This is not about whether the emergency application will stop the train before hitting the vehicle. It is about whether the emergency application will derail the train by causing in-train stresses. Read my DECISION PART “A” and DECISION PART “B” in the third post down from the top of this page. Part A is many shades of gray and includes the examples you describe. Part B is black and white.
Based on training and experience and knowledge of the train contents and perceived content of the obstruction causing the situation, the Engineer has to make a split second decision as to whether or not to make the Emergency or "standard" (and just how much is that?) application or to accelerate to hopefully knock the obstruction off the tracks. How does he KNOW that the Emergency application will stop the train in time? How does he KNOW it will derail the train? It could be that what he KNOWS is wrong.
Second guessing the decision before the fact is an exercise in futility. It IS going to depend on the individual's training and experience and knowledge (or the lack of any or all of those) and the particular situation and the mental state (upsets at home, fatigue, argument with the nut or friend sitting in the other seat) of the Engineer at the moment, as well as the unknowable variables of the situation. Too many variables to make a hard and fast decision today for a supposed situation in the future.
Same situation with me driving my car and I see a ball roll out into the street. Do I slam on the brakes to avoid the possible child running after it? Do I chance the rear end collision because the car behind me is too close or the driver is too busy texting to see my brake lights come on? Do I swerve into the opposing lane and hope the on-coming car recognises the situation and can stop before we have a cornfield meet? Is the street covered with leaves or sand or just slick from dampness? What are the conditions of my tires and brakes. I cannot make that decision today because I don't know the situation at all, let alone the unknowables of any situation. The best I can do now is resolve to pay better attention to what is happening along side the road in the distance and be prepared to make the decision in the quickest time I can, given what I can discern at the moment as the situation arises. I can't say I will always slam on the brakes everytime I think I see a ball roll into the street. And I can't say I never will because of the fear that the driver behind me is too close or not paying attention.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Semper VaporoThese ATTACKS on this man have got to stop. If you don't agree with what he says, refute it if you can, but STOP the attacks. If you don't like him, don't read his posts, but STOP the name calling and aspersions. All if it is against the rules of this forum.
You can't describe the world of color to someone that can only see black or white and no gray in between.
As in an old Simon and Garfunkel song "The man hears what he wants to hear and he disregards the rest".
Sad but true in Bucky's case.
tree68 I believe the point you've been making right along is that there ought to be a hard and fast rule regarding whether to dump the train when facing the possibility of striking a vehicle occupying a crossing. This rule would disregard any possibility of derailing the train. The answer remains "it depends." And I'm confident in saying that pretty much everyone here agrees with that. As I recall, even your contact at FRA couched his answer along those lines...
I believe the point you've been making right along is that there ought to be a hard and fast rule regarding whether to dump the train when facing the possibility of striking a vehicle occupying a crossing. This rule would disregard any possibility of derailing the train.
The answer remains "it depends." And I'm confident in saying that pretty much everyone here agrees with that. As I recall, even your contact at FRA couched his answer along those lines...
I am not, and have not been making the point that there ought to be a hard and fast rule regarding whether to dump the train when facing the possibility of striking a vehicle occupying a crossing.
I think it would help to look at this decision process as two distinct parts. Let’s call them DECISION PART “A” and DECISION PART “B”.
DECISION PART “A”:
This is a decision making process about whether only the logistics of a vehicle incursion call for dumping the air. And certainly your point of “it depends” applies to this decision. In many vehicle incursions, the speed of the approaching vehicle indicates that it will not be able to stop for the crossing. So the obviously inevitable failure to yield would be the first step in considering train braking. But the speed of the approaching vehicle may also indicate that the vehicle will quickly pass through the crossing before the train reaches it. The obvious best choice is to apply no braking at all. In other cases, a vehicle may be stalled on the crossing with enough distance to stop the train with a service application rather than by an emergency application. In such a case the service application is the obvious best choice because there is no added benefit from an emergency application while there is some risk of derailment or break-in-two with the emergency application. So all of these factors about dynamics of train speed, vehicle speed, and distances between train and vehicle require a decision about what braking strategy to use, and including whether any braking is needed. But what I have been talking about in this thread has nothing to do with this DECISION PART “A”.
DECISION PART “B”:
My question goes to this decision. This is an issue that is entirely unrelated to what is unfolding on the crossing as described above. This issue is whether making an emergency application for the vehicle on the crossing will cause the train to derail and endanger people nearby.
My understanding is that there is no hard and fast rule that either calls for this decision or forbids it, and I am not advocating that there be such a rule. I have asked if there is such a rule, but I don’t care if there is not such a rule. I have been told that each railroad deals with the issue by their own instructions during air brake training. In the other thread where the subject began, I believe it was SAM who brought it up according to what he had heard in conversations with other railroaders. You have been the only one here that I recall saying that you would withhold an emergency application that would otherwise be called for if you felt that the risk of derailing the train outweighed the risk of striking the vehicle. Other engineers here have said they would not consider that course of action.
The FRA rep to which I posed this DECISION PART “B” question said that no engineer would ever withhold an emergency application that was called for by crossing events because he/she was worried that it might derail the train and thus possibly cause a greater tragedy than hitting a the vehicle on the crossing. In no way did he say or imply “it depends.” He said that the engineer would focus only on doing everything possible to mitigate the crossing crash without any regard to the possibility of braking causing a derailment. So this DECISION PART “B” is not governed by “it depends” because the decision is never made, period. When you say that most everyone here agrees that “it depends”, they may be agreeing with it as it applies to DECISION PART A, and for that, it surely does depend on many factors.
Now the FRA rep may have been somewhat overreaching by saying that no engineer would ever do this. But I took his emphasis to partly mean that he thought it would be extremely inadvisable. To be sure, another person I talked to once worked in the capacity of training engineers, and he told me that he knows that some engineers do say that they consider the DECISION PART “B”, and that he always told all engineers to not do that.
I speculate that engineers have seldom, if ever withheld an emergency application that was called for by DECISION PART “A” because they felt that the risk of derailing the train posed a greater danger than hitting the vehicle. Some might say that they would do that, but I doubt that any actually would do it. Why would they take on that burden? The company gave them a brake valve with an emergency position. If you come upon an emergency, who is going to blame you for making an emergency application, even if it does cause a derailment? It seems to me that’s somebody else’s problem.
Paul,
I don't think it would make much difference. The main thing that would make difference is refraining from applying the brakes. If the train is going fast, it will have plenty of momentum to carry it right past the point of collision. Adding more power would take few seconds of time, and will not begin increasing speed for probably 15-30 seconds. And then it will be a very gradual increase if the train is already moving say 40-50 mph.
If the train is moving slow, adding power will have an quicker and more pronounced effect, but if moving slow enough, it might be possible to stop in time to avoid the collision.
RME Paul of Covington If you "floored it", how much difference in speed are we talking about at point of impact? One MPH? Two? Let me add something to what the others told you. You don't "floor" a locomotive and have it respond immediately; it might take several seconds -- perhaps many more than several, especially on some notorious GEs -- for the engine even to spin up and load down to start providing substantial increased torque to the TMs.
Paul of Covington If you "floored it", how much difference in speed are we talking about at point of impact? One MPH? Two?
Let me add something to what the others told you. You don't "floor" a locomotive and have it respond immediately; it might take several seconds -- perhaps many more than several, especially on some notorious GEs -- for the engine even to spin up and load down to start providing substantial increased torque to the TMs.
I don't think I'm as dumb as I might seem. I'm not a railroader, but I've read enough in magazines and in this forum that I know you don't "floor it." That's why I put "floor it" in quotes. I am aware of the delay that you mentioned which is why I posed the question. How much difference would it really make?
(Edit): And it is really mostly a rhetorical question. I'm not really expecting an absolute answer in MPH, just noting that it's not going to make much of a difference.
The video of the train hitting the dump truck above illustrates what I am talking about. Considering the advanced warning of an impending collision and the short distance needed to stop the train after impact, I would say that the engineer dumped the air a considerable distance prior to impact, probably 200-300 feet prior to the crossing that precedes the crossing with the truck. So the braking distance prior to impact was probably 500 feet minimum. Obviously the engineer did not withhold an emergency application because he was worried about it causing his train to derail. While he was not able to stop in time to avoid impact, he may have slowed down enough to save his life or the life of the truck driver.
tree68 Euclid [Norm,] I don't think you have any idea what point I have been making. That's all right - none of the rest of us do either... As soon as someone points out a flaw in your conclusions, everything seems to change...
Euclid [Norm,] I don't think you have any idea what point I have been making.
That's all right - none of the rest of us do either... As soon as someone points out a flaw in your conclusions, everything seems to change...
I think you know exactly what point I have been making. You are the only one who has responded like you know what point I have been making. My point has been consistent. Who has pointed out a flaw in my conclusions? Big Jim told me about slack action. Is that a flaw in my conclusion? BaltACD keeps posting videos of grade crossing crashes. How does that relate to my conclusions?
Norm tells me that he would accelerate and not go into emergency if he was going to hit a gasoline truck. My conclusion has always been related ONLY to the consequence of an emergency application derailing the train. The consequence of being burned up in a fireball is an entirely different consequence. It is related to the issue of whether or not to go into emergency, but not related to the reason I cite which is not going into emergency when a crossing incursion requires it because going into emergency might derail the train.
RME tells me I should think about dynamiting the brakes simultaneously from the head end and the hind end. He says I should think very carefully about that. Is that a flaw in my conclusions?
EuclidI don't think you have any idea what point I have been making.
Norm48327You know, if I were the only one you might have a point. You ignore the fact others are telling you the same thing.
What you always do is make some oblique accusation claiming that everybody in the world agrees that I am incorrect. Yet you never ever give a specific example that I can respond to. I guess that is the point, right?
I don't think you have any idea what point I have been making. Otherwise you would not try to refute it with things that have nothing to do with it such as not braking for a collision with a gasoline truck.
When you say I am ignoring people who are telling me the "same thing"; what exactly is that "same thing" that you see?
EuclidI see that Norm agrees with you whatever it is you are saying. Big surprise.
You know, if I were the only one you might have a point. You ignore the fact others are telling you the same thing.
Paul of CovingtonIf you "floored it", how much difference in speed are we talking about at point of impact? One MPH? Two?
Let me add something to what the others told you. You don't "floor" a locomotive and have it respond immediately; it might take several seconds -- perhaps many more than several, especially on some notorious GEs -- for the engine even to spin up and load down to start providing substantial increased torque to the TMs. Any 'acceleration' from there will involve a substantial part of the train's weight if the brakes were not applied, or snatching slack in a probably irregular and perhaps violent manner if the brakes were applied at about the same time as the throttle were opened.
The point, as with go-arounds in turbine aircraft, is to have the power to 'escape the fire' fully available at the time you might have to be dragging part of the consist against applied brake to do so. No one is, I think, saying that you aren't applying the train brake at some point, and I wouldn't want to have to argue that no, an engineer opened the throttle and didn't apply brakes at all when he saw a collision that in his opinion would be unavoidable.
BigJimWhat do you think will happen when a 12,000 foot long train stretched out (no slack, drawheads tight) travelling at 10, that is ten miles per hour is put in emergency from the head end?
Euclid, I want you to think very carefully and analytically about what BigJim just asked, and about the specific sequence of mechanical and then physical events that take place after the emergency. (For extra credit, look at the situation when a UDE occurs at different points in the consist.)
For purposes of argument, let's say that with a train that long you have DPU and the train comes correctly out of power and the rear valve goes to emergency at substantially the same time as the front (so there is no need for the wave to propagate to the far end of the train to get all the brakes to start setting up).
There's a key aspect to this, which I would term as involving 'nodes', that I want you to acknowledge.
Let me relate one other story. I was standing in front of the station at a crew change point when the engineer came in with the train stretched out and stopped, repeat STOPPED! His conductor got off on the opposite side and proceeded to cross directly in front of the train toward the station. When he was directly in front of the drawhead, the slack ran in and shoved the head end another ten feet further. The conductor just barely reacted in time not to get run over.
Just this example was given to me (as a child) as the reason you never, ever cross less than 10 to 15 feet in front of a standing train. It's not that the train might start accelerating. It's that it can be banged right to you. Thank you for reminding us about another (often-forgotten) aspect of safety to remember.
Murphy Siding Euclid BigJim What do you think will happen when a 12,000 foot long train stretched out (no slack, drawheads tight) travelling at 10, that is ten miles per hour is put in emergency from the head end? The slack is going to run in very hard and maybe cause a derailment somewhere back in the train. At 10 mph in your example, the emergency application will have the engine and some of the head end cars stopped before the slack run-in reaches them. Good lord! You're now play both sides of the arguement. Who wins when you play ping-pong against yourself at home?
Euclid BigJim What do you think will happen when a 12,000 foot long train stretched out (no slack, drawheads tight) travelling at 10, that is ten miles per hour is put in emergency from the head end? The slack is going to run in very hard and maybe cause a derailment somewhere back in the train. At 10 mph in your example, the emergency application will have the engine and some of the head end cars stopped before the slack run-in reaches them.
BigJim What do you think will happen when a 12,000 foot long train stretched out (no slack, drawheads tight) travelling at 10, that is ten miles per hour is put in emergency from the head end?
The slack is going to run in very hard and maybe cause a derailment somewhere back in the train. At 10 mph in your example, the emergency application will have the engine and some of the head end cars stopped before the slack run-in reaches them.
Good lord! You're now play both sides of the arguement. Who wins when you play ping-pong against yourself at home?
Both sides of the argument? What on earth are you talking about? If you dump the air, it may derail the train. Everybody agrees with that. I have never said otherwise.
I see that Norm agrees with you whatever it is you are saying. Big surprise.
Murphy SidingGood lord! You're now play both sides of the arguement. Who wins when you play ping-pong against yourself at home?
-*-
Paul of Covington I want to go back to the idea of accelerating when a collision is imminent and unavoidable. If you "floored it", how much difference in speed are we talking about at point of impact? One MPH? Two?
I want to go back to the idea of accelerating when a collision is imminent and unavoidable. If you "floored it", how much difference in speed are we talking about at point of impact? One MPH? Two?
Speed would not be the consideration. Getting all the way through the fire would. Dropping it in the big hole might leave you right in the middle of the fire. That happened to a NS (I believe) crew on a bridge fire. As I recall, at least one of the crew perished.
Bucky,I'm so glad that I don't have to talk to you eye to eye, or, even be within earshot of you. You must love to listen to your gums flap when you ask stuff like this.
I'm going to ask you one question then I'll leave you to pontificate about it for another three pages.
What do you think will happen when a 12,000 foot long train stretched out (no slack, drawheads tight) travelling at 10, that is ten miles per hour is put in emergency from the head end?
Let me relate one other story.I was standing in front of the station at a crew change point when the engineer came in with the train stretched out and stopped, repeat STOPPED! His conductor got off on the opposite side and proceeded to cross directly in front of the train toward the station. When he was directly in front of the drawhead, the slack ran in and shoved the head end another ten feet further. The conductor just barely reacted in time not to get run over.
Neither I nor anyone I have talked to has said there is anything wrong with an engineer carrying out the procedure you describe when facing a likely collision with a truck hauling flammable material. The same procedure may be preferred when encountering a burning trestle. My only question pertains to withholding an emergency application because it might derail the train.
EuclidIf engineers actually did withhold the emergency application as described here, I think it would leave the company highly vulnerable to legal liability. Consider mounting a legal defense with a braking system that alone is capable of causing derailments leading to death or injury. Then consider an engineer avoiding the use of that braking system when it might save lives, because it may cause a derailment which cost lives.
Now, consider the case of an imminent collision with a gasoline tanker. The self-preservation instinct may take over and the engineer may go to run 8 in an attempt to go through the fire that is certain to ensue. Save lives? Yep! I'm gonna save my own and the conductor's first.
I have gotten some more feedback on this issue of engineers saying that they might withhold withhold an emergency air brake application for a probable grade crossing collision because the emergency application might derail the train.
Three sources have told me that the railroads have no written rules that prohibit an engineer from doing this.
One of the three told me that he was aware that some engineers say they will do this, but that he routinely advised his company’s engineers not to do this.
One told me that the railroads, while not having a written rule, do cover the topic in their air brake training for engineers.
One told me that the FRA has no rules covering this matter.
One source told me that he has heard of an engineer on his railroad that struck a vehicle on a crossing, but did not make an emergency application because he said he had loads on the rear of his train and did not want to take a chance on derailing his train. The source of this information told me that the company ended up paying out a large settlement because it was shown that the engineer did not do everything possible to brake for the collision.
So, here was a case of an engineer accepting a small catastrophe in exchange for avoiding a larger catastrophe. But of course, the problem with doing that is that you can never prove that the larger catastrophe would have really happened. It would be like the captain of the Titanic saying that he hit the iceberg because he was trying to avoid an even bigger iceberg.
I conclude that it is extremely rare for an engineer to withhold an emergency application in a case where the train actually strikes the vehicle, and there was time for braking to take effect. Some engineers might say they will withhold emergency braking in such a case, but it would be extremely unlikely that they would ever actually do it.
I conclude that if an engineer really believes that a crossing collision is imminent, he or she will make an emergency application of brakes; despite any thought of it causing a derailment; even if the application is unlikely to reduce death or injury.
If engineers actually did withhold the emergency application as described here, I think it would leave the company highly vulnerable to legal liability. Consider mounting a legal defense with a braking system that alone is capable of causing derailments leading to death or injury. Then consider an engineer avoiding the use of that braking system when it might save lives, because it may cause a derailment which cost lives. In a legal sense, that is a brake system with a serious design defect.
I have contacted the FRA in the past with questions that have come up here on the forum. I have always found them pleasant to talk to and willing to offer an intelligible response. One thing that I was told during this most recent contact about brake handling at grade crossing incursions is that a good source of information on the topic would be some of the state highway patrols.
I was surprised to hear that, but he told me that the state patrols are now investigating grade crossing crashes including all of the engineer’s control responses such as brake applications. He told me that the highway patrols are being trained for this role through a new program administered through Operation Lifesaver.
It would be interesting to learn more about this.
BaltACD Time to operate more than a keyboard!
Time to operate more than a keyboard!
BaltACDA littel dose of reality vs. theory
Several times, you have mentioned that trains cannot be stopped quick enough to avoid collisions with vehicles, and you seem to therefore imply that an “Emergency” application is not necessary. But as you must know, sometimes there are cases where an “Emergency” application can make a difference for the good. Sometimes it can either stop the train before impact or reduce speed significantly prior to impact. Both of these outcomes typically require making an “Emergency” application of the brakes.
The only question of this thread is whether this decision to make the “Emergency” application should be overridden by a worry that the application might cause the train to derail; and that the possible derailment might involve hazardous material; and that the release of that hazardous material might extend to areas occupied by innocent bystanders; and that the hazard might injure or kill some of the innocent bystanders.
The FRA says that an engineer should not, as described above, second guess the use of an “Emergency” application that is called for by the obvious emergency unfolding on the crossing. I agree with them, and so do others here in this thread and the previous thread where I raised the issue.
Of course, there will be cases where the train cannot stop in time, or slow down enough to make any difference in the fate of the motorist or other people in the vehicle. That is why that, in my basic question to the FRA, I excluded those instances by introducing the question with this qualifier:
In a case where making an “Emergency” air brake application would slow or stop the train to mitigate or prevent colliding with a vehicle at a grade crossing;
This is not a question of theory versus reality, as you imply. There is nothing theoretical about it. The question is confined to those cases where an “Emergency” application might make a difference in the outcome. The video you posted shows a case where an “Emergency” application would not have made any difference, so it has nothing to do which what this thread is about.
Consider this: In all cases where trains strike vehicles, how many of them occurred where the engineer made only a “Service” application, as opposed to making an “Emergency” application? In such cases, I’ll bet the “Emergency” application is used at least 100 times more often than the “Service” application.
A littel dose of reality vs. theory
Dave H.,
I agree with all of that, and it is exactly what the FRA rep told me. He said that no engineer wants to live with the memory of hitting and killing people on the crossing, and that would be the first and only thing on their mind.
He said they would do everything possible to avoid the crossing crash and not be worried about the causing the train to derail if they dumped the air. I do not believe they ever hesitate due that worry, let alone spend time calculating the risk of derailing the train because of the emergency braking for the crossing.
I also agree with your point that, even though it is not done with prospective grade crossing collisions, there are emergency situations where a service application might be used because of the risk of derailing the train from an emergency application. However, in the question I posed to the FRA in the first post, it pertains only to prospective grade crossing collisions.
EuclidThe subject of this thread is whether or not an engineer should ever refrain from dumping he air because doing so might derail the train.
No its about whether a engineer involved in a situation that could be a potential grade crossing accident would refrain from dumping the air because he might derail the train.
I have been involved in several situations where placing the train in emergency was an option and the engineer decided NOT to put the train in emergency, but to make a normal stop to not risk derailing the train. In all of those cases it did not involve a grade crossing, there were predominately trains passing a stop/stop and proceed signal where the track was clear within the range of vision past the signal. Since part of the engineer's decision process was to consider the risk of derailing the train, you can't say that an engineer would never consider it in other similar situations. I would agree that the answer to the question whether an engineer involved in a grade crossing accident would ever not put the train in emergency due to the risk of derailing the train is probably a "no", but not because they don't consider it, but because the engineer's immediate concern is the safety of the people in the vehicle. There is a high proabability that if a train hits a car the occupants will be injured or killed, there is a very, very low probability that the train will derail. No engineer I have ever met wanted to go home second guessing himself that if he had only plugged the train those kids might have lived. No engineer wants to be on a witness stand when the plaintiff's lawyer asks them if he could have plugged the train.
Outside of the fuel truck example, pretty much any time a train hits an object there is a chance that the object will derail the train, so there really isn't an advantage to not putting the train in emergency. The fact that in the cases of a fuel truck on the track or a non-obstruction situation, some engineers may not plug the train is pretty much proof that at some level they do consider it. In the heirachy of what is considered, whether or not the train will derail is at the bottom of things to consider and will I kill people in the car is at the top, so the decision point to plug the train is reached before I get to thinking about whether the train will derail. You are assuming that they consider all options before making a decision, in reality as soon as they hit a critical "do it" point, they will plug the train.
I wish simply to state my respect for the FRA man with whom you questioned.
schlimm Reading this thread first thing in the morning is not wise. Welcome to Buckyworld, where black is white (sometimes) and nothing is what it seems (or maybe it is). Logic? Rationality? Common/understandable language? NO NO NO Syntax/grammer intact; semantics garbled. Dx?
Reading this thread first thing in the morning is not wise. Welcome to Buckyworld, where black is white (sometimes) and nothing is what it seems (or maybe it is). Logic? Rationality? Common/understandable language? NO NO NO
Syntax/grammer intact; semantics garbled. Dx?
See and you were ripping on me for soda dispensers in Passenger Cars.
I would never question a Locomotive Engineer on the operation of a Frieght Train or second guess their judgement in an emergency. Gesh, thats like riding in the passenger compartment of a passenger jet and yelling out instructions to the Captain.....lol. I am sure it happens on some flights I just would not want to be on them.
Norm48327 Euclid Norm, The subject of this thread is whether or not an engineer should ever refrain from dumping he air because doing so might derail the train. That is what I stated in my question to the FRA, and it has been the topic of this thread and all discussion related to it in the previous discussion in the other thread. The FRA rep did indeed give me an unequivocal NO as an answer to that question. The point of refraining from dumping the air to avoid stopping in a fireball resulting from colliding with a tank truck has nothing whatsoever to do with the risk of derailing the train. So the advice to dump the air in that circumstance is an entirely separate issue, and does not conflict with anything I have previously said, as you contend. Tell you what, Bucky. When you can carry on a conversation that does not take all the twists and turns you like so much to interject into them perhaps people will start to take you seriously. Until you are willing to listen to other's viewpoints without twisting what they have posted around to your liking there seems to be no point in trying to converse with you. You really need to get out of the basement more often and see what's happening in the real world. You spend far too much time in fantasyland. When you can accomplish the above, and at least show us you DO have some firsthand experience people are very likely to keep questioning the veracity of your posts. In the meantime have fun talking to yourself. Your trolling has become far worse than annoying and irritating. If you want to run to the moderators and get some protection like you did a few years back perhaps that will satisfy you but I doubt that this time they will be willing to do so. PS: I am not alone in my opinion.
Euclid Norm, The subject of this thread is whether or not an engineer should ever refrain from dumping he air because doing so might derail the train. That is what I stated in my question to the FRA, and it has been the topic of this thread and all discussion related to it in the previous discussion in the other thread. The FRA rep did indeed give me an unequivocal NO as an answer to that question. The point of refraining from dumping the air to avoid stopping in a fireball resulting from colliding with a tank truck has nothing whatsoever to do with the risk of derailing the train. So the advice to dump the air in that circumstance is an entirely separate issue, and does not conflict with anything I have previously said, as you contend.
Tell you what, Bucky.
When you can carry on a conversation that does not take all the twists and turns you like so much to interject into them perhaps people will start to take you seriously. Until you are willing to listen to other's viewpoints without twisting what they have posted around to your liking there seems to be no point in trying to converse with you. You really need to get out of the basement more often and see what's happening in the real world. You spend far too much time in fantasyland.
When you can accomplish the above, and at least show us you DO have some firsthand experience people are very likely to keep questioning the veracity of your posts. In the meantime have fun talking to yourself. Your trolling has become far worse than annoying and irritating.
If you want to run to the moderators and get some protection like you did a few years back perhaps that will satisfy you but I doubt that this time they will be willing to do so.
PS: I am not alone in my opinion.
I really like your dry sense of humor Norm.
tree68 Electroliner 1935 To be snarky, I reply that I doubt you are going to get pregnant and I know that I AM NEVER going to get pregnant. Most every thing else is possible. True - but they did make a movie about it....
Electroliner 1935 To be snarky, I reply that I doubt you are going to get pregnant and I know that I AM NEVER going to get pregnant. Most every thing else is possible.
True - but they did make a movie about it....
You mean this one? Actually pretty good, Arnie and DeVito go great together onscreen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNfsJuv0bJU
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Electroliner 1935To be snarky, I reply that I doubt you are going to get pregnant and I know that I AM NEVER going to get pregnant. Most every thing else is possible.
tree68One thing I've learned in life is never say never.
To be snarky, I reply that I doubt you are going to get pregnant and I know that I AM NEVER going to get pregnant. Most every thing else is posible.
Ya know, probably 99 and 44/100 percent of the time, an engineer is going to dump the train against the surety of a collision at a crossing. And the train is going to stay on the track 99% of those times.
But, you can rest assured the behavior of the train behind him/her is very much a part of the thought process.
Nobody wants to hit a vehicle (or anything else) at a crossing (or anywhere else).
Sometimes you have no choice. It's going to happen no matter what the engineer does.
Then the other factors come into play.
One thing I've learned in life is never say never. One percent is one percent. It is not zero. And that one percent can kill a lot of people, too...
One percent is one percent. It is not zero.
And that one percent can kill a lot of people, too...
EuclidNorm, The subject of this thread is whether or not an engineer should ever refrain from dumping he air because doing so might derail the train. That is what I stated in my question to the FRA, and it has been the topic of this thread and all discussion related to it in the previous discussion in the other thread. The FRA rep did indeed give me an unequivocal NO as an answer to that question. The point of refraining from dumping the air to avoid stopping in a fireball resulting from colliding with a tank truck has nothing whatsoever to do with the risk of derailing the train. So the advice to dump the air in that circumstance is an entirely separate issue, and does not conflict with anything I have previously said, as you contend.
Norm48327 Euclid As you describe, the FRA rep that I spoke to did mention that the one exception to the practice of dumping the air if a crossing collision is imminent is if the fouling vehicle is a gasoline or propane truck. He said that it was a universal belief that not braking was the best course of action because the point is to avoid stopping with the locomotive in the fire because the crash may be survivable if the locomotive is able to pass through the fire before the crew is exposed to too much heat. This calculation is easy to make in the seconds prior to impact. He did not mention opening the throttle, but it makes sense to advance the same purpose. But, but, but...... That's not what you previously said he said. Seems to me he gave you an unequivical NO. Are you rearranging the story to fit your agenda?
Euclid As you describe, the FRA rep that I spoke to did mention that the one exception to the practice of dumping the air if a crossing collision is imminent is if the fouling vehicle is a gasoline or propane truck. He said that it was a universal belief that not braking was the best course of action because the point is to avoid stopping with the locomotive in the fire because the crash may be survivable if the locomotive is able to pass through the fire before the crew is exposed to too much heat. This calculation is easy to make in the seconds prior to impact. He did not mention opening the throttle, but it makes sense to advance the same purpose.
But, but, but...... That's not what you previously said he said. Seems to me he gave you an unequivical NO. Are you rearranging the story to fit your agenda?
The subject of this thread is whether or not an engineer should ever refrain from dumping he air because doing so might derail the train.
That is what I stated in my question to the FRA, and it has been the topic of this thread and all discussion related to it in the previous discussion in the other thread. The FRA rep did indeed give me an unequivocal NO as an answer to that question.
The point of refraining from dumping the air to avoid stopping in a fireball resulting from colliding with a tank truck has nothing whatsoever to do with the risk of derailing the train.
So the advice to dump the air in that circumstance is an entirely separate issue, and does not conflict with anything I have previously said, as you contend.
Trains operating at maximum track speed (or trying to attain that speed) are not line of sight vehicles. They cannot be stopped in the distance that is necessary for their operator to make a knowledgeable sighting and decision.
EuclidAs you describe, the FRA rep that I spoke to did mention that the one exception to the practice of dumping the air if a crossing collision is imminent is if the fouling vehicle is a gasoline or propane truck. He said that it was a universal belief that not braking was the best course of action because the point is to avoid stopping with the locomotive in the fire because the crash may be survivable if the locomotive is able to pass through the fire before the crew is exposed to too much heat. This calculation is easy to make in the seconds prior to impact. He did not mention opening the throttle, but it makes sense to advance the same purpose.
SD70M-2Dude tree68 Electroliner 1935 During those trips, I conversed with the Engineers and Firemen about what I saw of automobiles appearing to be late in stopping at grade crossings and what their experiences had been. One thing I remember a number of them telling me was that their choice was to apply power if they were going to strike a car in the hope that they would knock it off the track rather than derail upon getting it under them. One trip when I chose to ride the cushions, we did in fact knock a car off the tracks and into a farm field (hit it in front of its front axle and sent two boys to the hospital) so I know that it is a possible outcome. So, my question is: Were the engine crews playing with me or was that a valid statement? Can't say as I've heard of that one, but the logic sounds probable. I wouldn't necessarily discount what you were told - but then again, they might have been pulling your leg... I don't think they were pulling your leg, I've heard the same story from several old heads I work with (some have since retired). The rationale I've heard did not involve saving the occupants of the vehicle from death or injury, but rather it might save the TRAIN & ENGINE CREW from the same. The version I was told also did not involve a car so much as a larger vehicle like a logging or tank truck, and the purpose of not putting the train into emergency is indeed to punch the vehicle off the track and with it the ensuing fireball, so maybe, just maybe the lead locomotive would survive intact.
tree68 Electroliner 1935 During those trips, I conversed with the Engineers and Firemen about what I saw of automobiles appearing to be late in stopping at grade crossings and what their experiences had been. One thing I remember a number of them telling me was that their choice was to apply power if they were going to strike a car in the hope that they would knock it off the track rather than derail upon getting it under them. One trip when I chose to ride the cushions, we did in fact knock a car off the tracks and into a farm field (hit it in front of its front axle and sent two boys to the hospital) so I know that it is a possible outcome. So, my question is: Were the engine crews playing with me or was that a valid statement? Can't say as I've heard of that one, but the logic sounds probable. I wouldn't necessarily discount what you were told - but then again, they might have been pulling your leg...
Electroliner 1935 During those trips, I conversed with the Engineers and Firemen about what I saw of automobiles appearing to be late in stopping at grade crossings and what their experiences had been. One thing I remember a number of them telling me was that their choice was to apply power if they were going to strike a car in the hope that they would knock it off the track rather than derail upon getting it under them. One trip when I chose to ride the cushions, we did in fact knock a car off the tracks and into a farm field (hit it in front of its front axle and sent two boys to the hospital) so I know that it is a possible outcome. So, my question is: Were the engine crews playing with me or was that a valid statement?
Can't say as I've heard of that one, but the logic sounds probable.
I wouldn't necessarily discount what you were told - but then again, they might have been pulling your leg...
I don't think they were pulling your leg, I've heard the same story from several old heads I work with (some have since retired). The rationale I've heard did not involve saving the occupants of the vehicle from death or injury, but rather it might save the TRAIN & ENGINE CREW from the same. The version I was told also did not involve a car so much as a larger vehicle like a logging or tank truck, and the purpose of not putting the train into emergency is indeed to punch the vehicle off the track and with it the ensuing fireball, so maybe, just maybe the lead locomotive would survive intact.
As you describe, the FRA rep that I spoke to did mention that the one exception to the practice of dumping the air if a crossing collision is imminent is if the fouling vehicle is a gasoline or propane truck. He said that it was a universal belief that not braking was the best course of action because the point is to avoid stopping with the locomotive in the fire because the crash may be survivable if the locomotive is able to pass through the fire before the crew is exposed to too much heat. This calculation is easy to make in the seconds prior to impact. He did not mention opening the throttle, but it makes sense to advance the same purpose.
SD70M-2Dude
Sir, thak you. That was a fascinating read. I believe it to be true having read of many RR accidents .The photo of the lumber through the cab (Wow, they were very fortunate).
I have had preminition type dreams but none to equal. Sometimes, I have woken up and written down what my preminition was and filed it away expecting to be able to prove that I forsaw what was to come but never got a match.
As to your answer as to what you would do in the event of an inevitable collision, I think most engineers I have known would make the same choice.
On a trip (Between Indianapolis IN & Columbus OH) back in the late 50's on the PRR at night in a fog when all that could be seen was the headlight hitting the fog, and having a CLEAR cab signal was apparently routine for the senior engine crew to run at 90 mph. They didn't display any heightened concerns, just business as usual. But for this college student, my imagination of what might get on the R.O.W. ahead of us gave me angst. Fortunately, no idiots or unfortuate individuals chose to get in our way and we stayed on schedule. Or as Doris Day sang, "Que Sera Sera, What ever will be will be."
Here is the tale of one example of an incident where this theory wound up being employed (scroll down the page to get to it). Unfortunately like most everything in the real world it does not work every time, and 4 men paid the ultimate price for a driver's poor decision (in one version the truck driver was suicidal, I am unsure if that is true or not though). Incident happened on CN's Wainwright Subdivision east of Edmonton, AB in 1991.
http://caboosecoffee.blogspot.ca/2012/08/there-but-for-grace-of-god.html
A bit off topic, but here's what happens when you hit a logging truck. Crew survived by lying flat on the cab floor (google CN 5146 for more shots):
One must also remember that when this theory was formulated there were almost no black boxes or downloads (those that were around were rather primitive), railroad management was a bit more sympathetic to their employees and the situations they were put in and lawyers were few and far between by modern standards, especially north of the 49th. That is another factor to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to put your train into emergency.
So what would I do when faced with a potential crossing accident? I don't need to ask, for I have been through several near misses (no impacts yet thank God) already in my young career and every time I put the train into emergency without hesitation, and so did my Engineers. It turned out to be the right decision every time as we did not derail or come apart. In the future I will do that again, in most of these incidents there is so little time to make a decision that you have to rely on instinct, and mine (inherited from those I work with) is to get the train stopped as quickly as possible. It also shows the world that you did everything you could, and were not at fault in any way (I hate that this is a factor but welcome to today's world).
Electroliner 1935 Norm48327 Bear in mind that an engineer must perform this mental calculation in as little as one second of time. And if you remember from the movie, "MIRACLE ON THE HUDSON", when they added back the pilots decision making time of 35 seconds into the simulation, the decision to land in the Hudson was demonstrated to be correct. An Engineer is dammed if he does and dammed if he doesent. If he hits the school bus but doesn't cause the hazemat conflagration he's a murderer and if he does put the train in emergency and causes a hazemat conflagration he's a murderer. It's a no win scenario. And he may wind up dead. So my question for Norm and Euclid is, What is your choice as to what you would do if you are the Engineer of a train of hazemat cars and you come around a curve and see an occupied bus on a grade crossing 1000 feet in front of you? Do you dump the air or? Please tell me your choice and explain why.
Norm48327 Bear in mind that an engineer must perform this mental calculation in as little as one second of time.
And if you remember from the movie, "MIRACLE ON THE HUDSON", when they added back the pilots decision making time of 35 seconds into the simulation, the decision to land in the Hudson was demonstrated to be correct. An Engineer is dammed if he does and dammed if he doesent. If he hits the school bus but doesn't cause the hazemat conflagration he's a murderer and if he does put the train in emergency and causes a hazemat conflagration he's a murderer. It's a no win scenario. And he may wind up dead. So my question for Norm and Euclid is, What is your choice as to what you would do if you are the Engineer of a train of hazemat cars and you come around a curve and see an occupied bus on a grade crossing 1000 feet in front of you? Do you dump the air or? Please tell me your choice and explain why.
You are not quoting me. You are quoting Euclid.
So my question for Norm and Euclid is, What is your choice as to what you would do if you are the Engineer of a train of hazemat cars and you come around a curve and see an occupied bus on a grade crossing 1000 feet in front of you? Do you dump the air or? Please tell me your choice and explain why.
I'm not an engineer so I don't have to make the decision. I was pointing out to Bucky what the consequences could be.
tree68 Electroliner 1935 Please tell me your choice and explain why. My two cents - how fast are we going? If we're doing 60 MPH, I'm probably not dumping the brakes. We're going to hit the bus anyhow. I'd probably make an application, but given the certainty of hitting said bus, why introduce the possibility of a major hazmat incident as well?
Electroliner 1935 Please tell me your choice and explain why.
My two cents - how fast are we going? If we're doing 60 MPH, I'm probably not dumping the brakes. We're going to hit the bus anyhow. I'd probably make an application, but given the certainty of hitting said bus, why introduce the possibility of a major hazmat incident as well?
and this quote from this Thread [earler response] by tree68 :
[snip] "...I've seen plenty of accounts that indicated that the engineer determined that an emergency application wouldn't change the outcome, so settled for a full service - in order to make a controlled stop (wait - wouldn't that include avoiding a derailment?)..." [snipped]
I am not nor have been a T&E employee, but I have driven heavy trucks a million miles plus, Yes, I have had envolvement in fatality situations... The major thrust of my point is that a critical decision [ while weighing the potential outcomes] in the same few seconds, is in the skilled hands on the controls.
The whole problem could be looked at as a Physics Exercise- Speed,Mass, Equipment; followed by a healthy portion of Fate [ie; forces in play at that specific time]. As a 'vehicle' operator, you can think about 'situations', consciously, or sub-consciously, but when those circumstances appear, you never know exactly what the individual's reaction will be. It can become simply a matter of training and skills, and a healthy dose of Physics.
It is the Engineer's having previously thought of various reactions in 'situations' that will aid him/her in puttting together a reactive plan for a given situation. In such a case you have a 50/50 chance of being the'hero' or the'goat'.
Electroliner 1935 So my question for Norm and Euclid is, What is your choice as to what you would do if you are the Engineer of a train of hazemat cars and you come around a curve and see an occupied bus on a grade crossing 1000 feet in front of you? Do you dump the air or? Please tell me your choice and explain why.
If there were any chance that I would hit the bus, I would make the emergency application; even if it would not stop the train in time to avoid hitting the bus. My decision would not be influenced whatsoever by the chance that the emergency application would derail the train. It is too simplistic to say it is a choice between hitting the bus or causing a major conflagration. At the very least, hitting the bus is going to result in an investigation that will question my brake operation. And if I make the emergency application, there is only a tiny chance that the train will derail, let alone cause a major conflagration. And even if that did happen, I really doubt that the company would blame me for causing a derailment by choosing to dump the air with the intention to either stop short of the bus or reduce the speed of impact.
tree68 Electroliner 1935 Can't say as I've heard of that one, but the logic sounds probable. Consider: Back in the 1960's, when my late father was working at GM's Proving Grounds, someone came up with a concept of how to hit a deer. Remember that this is back when cars had more or less flat fronts - well before the era of the "jelly bean." The idea was this: when faced with a certain frontal collision with a deer, brake hard. This serves two purposes, it slows the car down, and it sets up part two: Just before impact, gun it. Between the bounce from the compressed front springs and the lift the rear drive will impart to the front of the car, the front end will elevate enough to hit the deer square, instead of flinging it over the hood and potentially into/through the windshield. Never tried it - any deer I've hit has been a sneak attack on the part of the deer... I wouldn't necessarily discount what you were told - but then again, they might have been pulling your leg...
Electroliner 1935
Consider: Back in the 1960's, when my late father was working at GM's Proving Grounds, someone came up with a concept of how to hit a deer.
Remember that this is back when cars had more or less flat fronts - well before the era of the "jelly bean."
The idea was this: when faced with a certain frontal collision with a deer, brake hard. This serves two purposes, it slows the car down, and it sets up part two:
Just before impact, gun it. Between the bounce from the compressed front springs and the lift the rear drive will impart to the front of the car, the front end will elevate enough to hit the deer square, instead of flinging it over the hood and potentially into/through the windshield.
Never tried it - any deer I've hit has been a sneak attack on the part of the deer...
Electroliner 1935Please tell me your choice and explain why.
Electroliner 1935So, my question is: Were the engine crews playing with me or was that a valid statement?
Norm48327Bear in mind that an engineer must perform this mental calculation in as little as one second of time.
tree68That doesn't mean that no engineer has ever withheld an emergency application in the face of an impending collision, only that he/she did so to avoid a derailment.
Tree, Back in the late 50's when I was a college co-op student working in the PRR signal and communications department, I was given a number of oportunities to ride in the cab on passenger trains. During those trips, I conversed with the Engineers and Firemen about what I saw of automobiles appearing to be late in stopping at grade crossings and what their experiences had been. One thing I remember a number of them telling me was that their choice was to apply power if they were going to strike a car in the hope that they would knock it off the track rather than derail upon getting it under them. One trip when I chose to ride the cushions, we did in fact knock a car off the tracks and into a farm field (hit it in front of its front axle and sent two boys to the hospital) so I know that it is a possible outcome. It did bend the E-8's pilot to within about an 8th of an inch of the rail and a welder had to cut a notch in the pilot before the train was allowed to proceed. Took the welder almost a half an hour to cut a notch through the pilot steel. Not a fair fight (with auto sheet metal) as that is a very thick piece of steel. So, my question is: Were the engine crews playing with me or was that a valid statement?
EuclidMy only contention is that Decision Part Two is a myth.
It's not a myth. It's reality.
Were it not for your last paragraph, we'd be cheering because you finally got it...
Euclid I think that the topic here needs clarification, so I have changed the title of the thread. Here is the premise. The topic is only about Decision Part Two: Decision Part One: A freight train approaches a grade crossing. Events unfold that suggest that a vehicle is fouling or about to foul the crossing, and not clear in time to avoid being hit by the train. The engineer must decide whether or not to dump the air. There are many variables in this scenario that offer an uncertain outcome. He might dump the air only to have the vehicle clear at the last instant. Then the train will stop from the application and be delayed unnecessarily. Or he may hold off, thinking that the vehicle will clear, and it does not clear. Even if he did not have enough distance to stop, significant slowing may have made a difference in the outcome. So, overall, a decision has to be made for achieving the best possible outcome, and the outcome is never certain. It has been this way since the beginning, and I see nothing controversial about it. Decision Part Two: This is an added condition to Decision Part One, but only if the engineer decides to dump the air in Part One. With Part Two, the decision to dump the air in Part One will be either qualified or overruled by the total effect of all conditions of Part Two. The net effect of the conditions of Part Two is as follows: Whether or not, making the emergency application in Decision Part One will cause the train to derail. If it will cause the train to derail, whether or not the severity of the derailment coupled with the danger of the lading will cause more death and injury than the prospective collision with the vehicle on the crossing. To answer these two questions in Decision Part Two, the engineer has to make a calculation involving train length, tonnage, distribution of loads and empties, the train speed, presence of one or more curves, the degree of curvature, where the curves are under the train, the status of air baking, the status of dynamic braking, the track gradient profile, the status of slack throughout the train, the weather conditions, presence of snow, wind conditions, the condition of track surface, the size and type of rail, the personal injury vulnerability of the zone of potential derailment, the population distribution in the zone of potential derailment, the nature of the lading in terms of flammability, explosiveness, and poisonousness, the reach of this lading potential into or beyond the zone of derailment, and the proximity of other trains and their characteristics. There may be other factors as well. When the engineer finishes this calculation, he will know the numerical probability of an emergency application to cause of a derailment, and death and injury that will result from the derailment. From his calculation made in Decision Part One, he will know the numerical probability of striking the vehicle, and extent of death and injury that will result. Then all he has to do is compare the two numerical probabilities. If the numerical probability of Decision Part One is greater than that of Decision Part Two; the engineer makes the emergency application. But if the numerical probability of Decision Part One is less than that of Decision Part Two; the engineer refrains from making the emergency application. Bear in mind that an engineer must perform this mental calculation in as little as one second of time. My only contention is that Decision Part Two is a myth. It is never part of the process. The “Emergency” application is there for emergencies, and emergencies do not allow time for all the navel-gazing required in the worry that the emergency application might derail the train.
I think that the topic here needs clarification, so I have changed the title of the thread. Here is the premise. The topic is only about Decision Part Two:
Decision Part One:
A freight train approaches a grade crossing. Events unfold that suggest that a vehicle is fouling or about to foul the crossing, and not clear in time to avoid being hit by the train. The engineer must decide whether or not to dump the air. There are many variables in this scenario that offer an uncertain outcome. He might dump the air only to have the vehicle clear at the last instant. Then the train will stop from the application and be delayed unnecessarily. Or he may hold off, thinking that the vehicle will clear, and it does not clear. Even if he did not have enough distance to stop, significant slowing may have made a difference in the outcome. So, overall, a decision has to be made for achieving the best possible outcome, and the outcome is never certain. It has been this way since the beginning, and I see nothing controversial about it.
Decision Part Two:
This is an added condition to Decision Part One, but only if the engineer decides to dump the air in Part One. With Part Two, the decision to dump the air in Part One will be either qualified or overruled by the total effect of all conditions of Part Two. The net effect of the conditions of Part Two is as follows:
Whether or not, making the emergency application in Decision Part One will cause the train to derail.
If it will cause the train to derail, whether or not the severity of the derailment coupled with the danger of the lading will cause more death and injury than the prospective collision with the vehicle on the crossing.
To answer these two questions in Decision Part Two, the engineer has to make a calculation involving train length, tonnage, distribution of loads and empties, the train speed, presence of one or more curves, the degree of curvature, where the curves are under the train, the status of air baking, the status of dynamic braking, the track gradient profile, the status of slack throughout the train, the weather conditions, presence of snow, wind conditions, the condition of track surface, the size and type of rail, the personal injury vulnerability of the zone of potential derailment, the population distribution in the zone of potential derailment, the nature of the lading in terms of flammability, explosiveness, and poisonousness, the reach of this lading potential into or beyond the zone of derailment, and the proximity of other trains and their characteristics. There may be other factors as well.
When the engineer finishes this calculation, he will know the numerical probability of an emergency application to cause of a derailment, and death and injury that will result from the derailment. From his calculation made in Decision Part One, he will know the numerical probability of striking the vehicle, and extent of death and injury that will result.
Then all he has to do is compare the two numerical probabilities. If the numerical probability of Decision Part One is greater than that of Decision Part Two; the engineer makes the emergency application. But if the numerical probability of Decision Part One is less than that of Decision Part Two; the engineer refrains from making the emergency application.
Bear in mind that an engineer must perform this mental calculation in as little as one second of time.
My only contention is that Decision Part Two is a myth. It is never part of the process. The “Emergency” application is there for emergencies, and emergencies do not allow time for all the navel-gazing required in the worry that the emergency application might derail the train.
I don't know what you're smokin' but you ain't no Okie. They don't smoke that in Muskogee. Your only contention is whatever you want to change it to to fit the moment of your madness.
EuclidHere is a fact that I want: Show me one case in which an engineer, after striking a vehicle, claimed that he withheld or delayed an “Emergency” application because he thought it might derail his train.
You're not likely to find one - I doubt it would be phrased that way. That doesn't mean that no engineer has ever withheld an emergency application in the face of an impending collision, only that he/she did so to avoid a derailment.
I've seen plenty of accounts that indicated that the engineer determined that an emergency application wouldn't change the outcome, so settled for a full service - in order to make a controlled stop (wait - wouldn't that include avoiding a derailment?).
Unfortunately, the card index for my brain doesn't keep all those instances filed.
You seem to have plenty of time. Why don't you take a random sample of grade crossing incidents from across the country and see what they say?
Norm48327So you object to the idea that an engineer may have to make the decision of taking a life or two by hitting a vehicle vs the risk of killing many more by derailing a trainload of hazmat. Do you not think that is on an engineer's mind when faced with an either/or decision? Derail the train to save a life and kill several more in the process doesn't add up for rational people.
It may be on the engineer’s mind, but there is no practical way to make the decision, so nobody would make that decision. Some people might say they would make that decision, but nobody actually would. It is a fantasy.
Here is a fact that I want: Show me one case in which an engineer, after striking a vehicle, claimed that he withheld or delayed an “Emergency” application because he thought it might derail his train.
EuclidThe message stated by Jeff that you say I won’t accept has nothing to do with the topic of this thread,
Sorry to disagree with you Ron, but it has everything to do with this thread. You simply won't accept the fact that other's opinions that disagree with yours may be correct. You simply don't have the capability or the maturity to admit you may be wrong.
What I object to is the contention that an engineer must ALSO factor into the decision is the possibility that an emergency application to avoid hitting a vehicle on the crossing might cause the train to derail. It is an entirely different concern than what is happening with the possibility of hitting the vehicle on the crossing.
So you object to the idea that an engineer may have to make the decision of taking a life or two by hitting a vehicle vs the risk of killing many more by derailing a trainload of hazmat. Do you not think that is on an engineer's mind when faced with an either/or decision? Derail the train to save a life and kill several more in the process doesn't add up for rational people.
You always say that you want all the facts and that I am not giving facts or not proving what I say are facts. And yet you don’t even bother to read the words well enough to understand the points that are being made.
Again, many of the "facts" you provide turn out to be so only in your own mind. You see the world only as you wish to see it. I do not have a reading comprehension problem. You, sir, have a problem understanding what others are saying and accepting that they are right and you may be wrong.
EuclidWhat I object to is the contention that an engineer must ALSO factor into the decision, the possibility that an emergency application to avoid hitting a vehicle on the crossing might cause the train to derail. It is an entirely different concern than what is happening with the possibility of hitting the vehicle on the crossing.
Yes, but - this is exactly one of the considerations an engineer must factor into his decision. The problem is that in most cases it's not a matter of if the train is going to hit that vehicle on the crossing, but how hard.
I found a "rule of thumb" formula for emergency application stopping distance in a discussion on Trainorders.com. That poster used a fairly simple formula that applies only on flat track - simply square the speed. At 60 MPH, that's 3600 feet - nearly seven tenths of a mile. At 25 MPH, it's 625 feet, or two football fields. And that assumes dry, level track. OLI says a train doing 55 MPH will require some 5000 feet to stop.
So, if a train rounds a curve at 60 MPH and finds a car on the crossing a quarter mile away, the train is going to hit the car, and even if the engineer dumps the train it won't stop for nearly a half mile after the impact.
And the decelleration is not a constant. The train will slow less quickly at first.
So - if an emergency application will make an appreciable difference in the speed of the train when it reaches the crossing, sure - go ahead.
But if said application will not lessen the impact, and making the application introduces the possibility of even a 1% chance of a derailment, maybe dumping the train isn't a good idea.
Another consideration is twofold. First, what are we going to hit? If it's a box van semi-trailer, the danger of taking a life is relatively small. The collision might be spectacular, but the danger to life could be fairly small. On the other hand, if it's a loaded school bus, I'm probably gonna do everything but jump off and dig my feet into the ballast trying to get the train stopped.
The second "fold" has to do with what's around the tracks. What do we gain if we hit that empty car at a lower speed, but the derailed (non-hazmat) cars take out an occupied building?
You want a black and white answer. There are none to be had here.
Norm48327 jeffhergert But he assured me that, in all cases where an “Emergency” application was called for, no engineer would ever refrain from making the application because of the possibility that it might derail the train. Maybe the wrong question is being asked. Maybe the question is when the Emergency situation begins. That is really the judgement call. Since I seemed to start it off before, I still stand beside what I wrote. Are there other times when I would be willing to dump the air? Yes. Before an actual collision occurred? Yes. Even if I knew the train was a heavy, slopped together (although it meets system make-up requirements.) manifest? Yes. It depends on the circumstances at that particular moment. Jeff That is the message Ron seems incapable of getting or accepting.
jeffhergert But he assured me that, in all cases where an “Emergency” application was called for, no engineer would ever refrain from making the application because of the possibility that it might derail the train. Maybe the wrong question is being asked. Maybe the question is when the Emergency situation begins. That is really the judgement call. Since I seemed to start it off before, I still stand beside what I wrote. Are there other times when I would be willing to dump the air? Yes. Before an actual collision occurred? Yes. Even if I knew the train was a heavy, slopped together (although it meets system make-up requirements.) manifest? Yes. It depends on the circumstances at that particular moment. Jeff
But he assured me that, in all cases where an “Emergency” application was called for, no engineer would ever refrain from making the application because of the possibility that it might derail the train.
Maybe the wrong question is being asked. Maybe the question is when the Emergency situation begins. That is really the judgement call.
Since I seemed to start it off before, I still stand beside what I wrote. Are there other times when I would be willing to dump the air? Yes. Before an actual collision occurred? Yes. Even if I knew the train was a heavy, slopped together (although it meets system make-up requirements.) manifest? Yes. It depends on the circumstances at that particular moment.
Jeff
That is the message Ron seems incapable of getting or accepting.
The message stated by Jeff that you say I won’t accept has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, nothing to do the related discussion in a previous thread that I referenced in my first post here, and nothing to do with the question I asked the FRA. Jeff even clarifies this in the beginning of his post that you quoted when he said “maybe the wrong question is being asked.” The “wrong question” that Jeff refers to is what is highlighted in red in his quote of what I said.
He then goes on to refer to an alternate question which deals with the decision of whether or not to make an emergency application based on the events that suggest that a vehicle is fouling or about to foul the crossing, and not clear in time to avoid being hit by the train. When Jeff said, “It depends on the circumstances at that particular moment,” he was referring to that alternate question.
I have never disagreed with his points in making that reference. Where on earth do you find evidence that I am “incapable of getting or accepting” anything about what Jeff said, as you blurt out above?
What have I stated here as fact that you feel needs verification?
I just think it is hilarious someone called and bothered the FRA on this.
I guess I don't ever see myself parking on the railroad tracks when a train is comming or buidling a house right next to the tracks where trains derail.
RME,
I work in an industry where facts and data rule. No wiggle room when you have to deal with the feds. That said, I don't expect railfans to be 100%accurate on every post they make, but I do expect them to make a reasonable effort to be factual. I have neither the time nor the inclination to verify the veracity of each poster. One soon finds out who is credible and who is simply blowing smoke.
BTW, it is never disgraceful for one, includin myself, to admit a mistake.
Norm48327 ... the point I'm trying to make is that Ron is never willing to back up what he says with hard data or names of contacts. He's also unwilling to disclose his "experience" in railroading when asked. Those two items alone lend credence to the opinion of some that he is less then truthful about his credentials in his postings and that some of his stories are just that; stories.
Those are valid concerns, and I would certainly prefer that Ron just provide the information or give his experience when he posts. We should go by what's in a post, and not the supposed expertise behind who made it; there are plenty of sources even on the Net of a thousand lies to be able to confirm or deny truth in a posting, or line of argument, or piece of information in context. And appeals to authority are, aside from being fallacies, irritating in some of their assumptions.
I do have to break out the aspirin bottle for a few of the ongoing comments, but on the whole I'd rather go through the points, and independently confirm or deny them, isolated from considerations of the Bucylid source or the Bucylid language sometimes used to confusticate or bebother people here. It's good for the soul to love the sinner, hate the sin.
RME Norm48327 C'mon Ron. Name your source. I'm sure he has information others may be interested in. It's not classified information. I'd PM this, but I'll say it for anyone still following this repartee. Call the FRA (202-493-6015) and ask to be connected to someone that will answer the question as asked. I wouldn't be surprised to find that person would be the same one under discussion here, or know who that ex-locomotive-engineer might be. I also suspect that people at the FRA will remember talking with Ron Travis about grade crossing safety, and you might have a highly interesting subsequent discussion about that. Here are some other possibilities for independent verification of the information: Yu-Jiang Zhang Manager of Data Collection and Retention(202) 493-6460; Yujiang.Zhang@dot.gov Joseph E. RileyActing Director of Track Structures, Office of Railroad Safety (202) 493-6357; Joseph.E.Riley@dot.gov James Payne Track Specialist, ATIP, Office of Railroad Safety(202) 493-6005James.Payne@dot.gov (These are people who have volunteered (internally) to be contacted by the public concerning matters involving the FRA.)
Norm48327 C'mon Ron. Name your source. I'm sure he has information others may be interested in. It's not classified information.
I'd PM this, but I'll say it for anyone still following this repartee.
Call the FRA (202-493-6015) and ask to be connected to someone that will answer the question as asked. I wouldn't be surprised to find that person would be the same one under discussion here, or know who that ex-locomotive-engineer might be. I also suspect that people at the FRA will remember talking with Ron Travis about grade crossing safety, and you might have a highly interesting subsequent discussion about that.
Here are some other possibilities for independent verification of the information:
Yu-Jiang Zhang Manager of Data Collection and Retention(202) 493-6460; Yujiang.Zhang@dot.gov
Joseph E. RileyActing Director of Track Structures, Office of Railroad Safety (202) 493-6357; Joseph.E.Riley@dot.gov
James Payne Track Specialist, ATIP, Office of Railroad Safety(202) 493-6005James.Payne@dot.gov
(These are people who have volunteered (internally) to be contacted by the public concerning matters involving the FRA.)
I will keep those contacts in mind.However, the point I'm trying to make is that Ron is never willing to back up what he says with hard data or names of contacts. He's also unwilling to disclose his "experience" in railroading when asked. Those two items alone lend credence to the opinion of some that he is less then truthful about his credentials in his postings and that some of his stories are just that; stories.
I don't think I'm alone in my thoughts regarding this.
Norm48327C'mon Ron. Name your source. I'm sure he has information others may be interested in. It's not classified information.
Euclid tree68 As Norm notes - the FRA guy gave you as non-committal answer as possible based on your question. I wouldn't have been surprised if he had told you that he simply couldn't answer your question. The question here is about holding off on an emergency application that could mitigate a crossing collision because that emergency application might derail the train thereby causing greater death and injury than the crossing collision. I asked the FRA rep if that is advisable or proper. He said no. He said that no engineer would compromise the safety of the first person needing it in order to save someone else that may or may not need it if the train should happen to derail as a consequence of braking for the first person. How is that non-committal? Why would you think that he would not want to answer my question? He sounded perfectly confident in his answer of no. In no way did it sound non-committal or hesitant.
tree68 As Norm notes - the FRA guy gave you as non-committal answer as possible based on your question. I wouldn't have been surprised if he had told you that he simply couldn't answer your question.
The question here is about holding off on an emergency application that could mitigate a crossing collision because that emergency application might derail the train thereby causing greater death and injury than the crossing collision. I asked the FRA rep if that is advisable or proper. He said no.
He said that no engineer would compromise the safety of the first person needing it in order to save someone else that may or may not need it if the train should happen to derail as a consequence of braking for the first person.
How is that non-committal?
Why would you think that he would not want to answer my question? He sounded perfectly confident in his answer of no. In no way did it sound non-committal or hesitant.
C'mon Ron. Name your source. I'm sure he has information others may be interested in. It's not classified information.
It is non-committal because you can't make a commitment without knowing specifics of the conditions being encountered - sightline, train speed, train makup and tonnage. With track speeds greater than 10 MPH very few sight lines will permit stopping todays 14K feet 15K ton or greater trains to avoid an impact.
tree68As Norm notes - the FRA guy gave you as non-committal answer as possible based on your question. I wouldn't have been surprised if he had told you that he simply couldn't answer your question.
EuclidWho is it that you think would believe it is OK to kill those people on the crossing?
Really? Really?
I would think by now that you would realize that absolutely no one here (or anywhere else) thinks it would be OK to kill people at a crossing. Millions of dollars and thousands of hours have been spent trying to prevent such incidents.
Those who have been involved in grade crossing incidents would give just about anything if there were some way to go back and prevent those collisions.
What we're talking about here is pure physics. As Balt notes, trains don't stop on a dime. A half mile to a mile stopping distance would not be an unusual expectation for most trains. And that's regardless of how the brakes are applied.
As Norm notes - the FRA guy gave you as non-committal answer as possible based on your question. I wouldn't have been surprised if he had told you that he simply couldn't answer your question.
Euclid tree68 It really comes down to whether making the emergency application will make any difference. If it won't change the outcome, why bother? Make a safe, controlled stop. The starting assumption of my question is that it pertains to cases where making an emergency application will make a difference.
tree68 It really comes down to whether making the emergency application will make any difference. If it won't change the outcome, why bother? Make a safe, controlled stop.
The starting assumption of my question is that it pertains to cases where making an emergency application will make a difference.
Considering most sightlines, maximum track speeds and train size of todays trains - there are very few instances where an emergency application would make any difference.
EuclidNorm, The FRA rep said he used to be a locomotive engineer. You say he was CYA because he could not admit officially that it would be OK to kill those people on the crossing. Who is it that you think would believe it is OK to kill those people on the crossing?
Tell ya what, Bucky. Give me his name and phone number. I'd really like to hear his qualifications straight from the horse's mouth and have some discussion with him on the topic.
tree68It really comes down to whether making the emergency application will make any difference. If it won't change the outcome, why bother? Make a safe, controlled stop.
Norm48327Bucky, that man was playing CYA. Had he answered your question with "yes" he could have been accused of saying it was OK to kill those people on the crossing. That would not go over well with either his boss or the general public. Engineer: OK. mechanical, chemical, electrical? Ya gotta dig a little deeper in the well to find his qualifications before taking his answer as gospel.
Engineer: OK. mechanical, chemical, electrical? Ya gotta dig a little deeper in the well to find his qualifications before taking his answer as gospel.
The FRA rep said he used to be a locomotive engineer.
You say he was CYA because he could not admit officially that it would be OK to kill those people on the crossing. Who is it that you think would believe it is OK to kill those people on the crossing?
EuclidIn a case where making an “Emergency” air brake application would slow or stop the train to mitigate or prevent colliding with a vehicle at a grade crossing; is it ever advisable, proper, or permissible for an engineer, to refrain from making that “Emergency” application because of the danger arising from the possibility of the application causing the train to derail? The FRA gave me a black and white, yes or no answer. They answered my question with “no”.
Bucky, that man was playing CYA. Had he answered your question with "yes" he could have been accused of saying it was OK to kill those people on the crossing. That would not go over well with either his boss or the general public.
EuclidHe told me he used to be an engineer before going to work for the FRA.
I know of an engineer who decided to get rid of his wife and kids using carbon monoxide. He got rid of the wife and kids, but didn't factor in the fact that the entire garage would be full of CO, so also died himself.
My Dad helped investigate the incident.
Did this fellow say he was a locomotive engineer, or just an engineer?
It really comes down to whether making the emergency application will make any difference. If it won't change the outcome, why bother? Make a safe, controlled stop.
If you're not currently travelling through heavy curves or crossovers the likelihood of a train derailing is almost nonexistent.
Just dump the air. There are few circumstances where not using emergency would be better.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
tree68In the previous thread, you kept wanting a black and white answer - and were repeatedly told that such an answer wasn't possible. So back to my question - a car pauses on a crossing in front of your train. Do you dump the train, or not? Remember, the FRA said there was no reason not to do so.
So back to my question - a car pauses on a crossing in front of your train. Do you dump the train, or not? Remember, the FRA said there was no reason not to do so.
The FRA never “said there was no reason not to do so” in reference to dumping the air if there was a good chance of hitting a vehicle on a crossing. That has never been the point in any discussion in either thread, or in my question and response from the FRA. Of course the decision as to whether to dump the air in such cases requires evaluating the chance for a collision. Nobody has ever suggested otherwise.
The point is whether the decision to dump the air should also factor in the likelihood of the emergency application causing the train to derail, which might be a danger greater than a grade crossing collision. The FRA said that possibility should not be factored into the decision to dump the air.
If you look at my question to the FRA, notice that it assumes, as a starting point, that all evaluation has already been made regarding the choice of whether dumping the air is justified. That starting point assumption is in red:
The FRA gave me a black and white, yes or no answer. They answered my question with “no”.
Euclid Norm48327 Was the FRA guy talking about a train of hazmat in a congested area? Derailing one of those could create a situation far worse than hitting a vehicle. Yes we talked about the hazards of an emergency application derailing hazmat train. He said the an Emergency application that was called for would not be withheld even if the risk of derailing the train included relatively dangerous cargo.
Norm48327 Was the FRA guy talking about a train of hazmat in a congested area? Derailing one of those could create a situation far worse than hitting a vehicle.
Was the FRA guy talking about a train of hazmat in a congested area? Derailing one of those could create a situation far worse than hitting a vehicle.
Yes we talked about the hazards of an emergency application derailing hazmat train. He said the an Emergency application that was called for would not be withheld even if the risk of derailing the train included relatively dangerous cargo.
IOW, he's willing to take a chance on derailing a train load of toxic inhalation hazmat in a heavily populated area in order to save the lives of the persons on the crossing? I would opine he has his priorities mixed up.
EuclidTherefore, if withholding an “Emergency” application to avoid derailing the train is never done, there is no reason to weigh the consequences of the application in terms of causing a derailment. So, there is no reason to evaluate the effect of the countless variables that might contribute to a greater likelihood of an “Emergency” application causing a derailment.
Here's what you wrote - you don't indicate that you are quoting the FRA official, who you did say said there was no reason to avoid making an emergency application. So in that context, it is necessary to answer my question with a yes or no reply.
In the previous thread, you kept wanting a black and white answer - and were repeatedly told that such an answer wasn't possible.
If you didn't support the FRA's answer to your question, you wouldn't have posted it here.
tree68 Euclid So, there is no reason to evaluate the effect of the countless variables that might contribute to a greater likelihood of an “Emergency” application causing a derailment. So if a car pauses on a crossing ahead of me, I should dump the train, right? Your reply options are limited to "yes" and "no."
Euclid So, there is no reason to evaluate the effect of the countless variables that might contribute to a greater likelihood of an “Emergency” application causing a derailment.
So if a car pauses on a crossing ahead of me, I should dump the train, right?
Your reply options are limited to "yes" and "no."
That is not at all what I said. Read it again. The yes or no has nothing to do with the choice of whether or not to dump the air. You still have to make that choice.
The question assumes that the circumstances of the crossing incursion call for dumping the air. The answer to the question as no refers to the fact that circumstances of deciding whether to dump the air should not include the risk of the application causing a derailment.
EuclidSo, there is no reason to evaluate the effect of the countless variables that might contribute to a greater likelihood of an “Emergency” application causing a derailment.
tree68 Did your contact at the FRA happen to mention how much seat time he has?
Did your contact at the FRA happen to mention how much seat time he has?
He told me he used to be an engineer before going to work for the FRA.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.