Derailing Train by Dumping Air at Grade Crossings

[Euclid]

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.

 

 

Norm,

 

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 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.

 

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.  

 

 

[tree68]

Euclid

What 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]

Euclid

The 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.

[Euclid]

Norm48327

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.

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. 

[tree68]

Euclid

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. 

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?  

 

[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:

1. Whether or not, making the emergency application in Decision Part One will cause the train to derail.

2. 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.  

[Norm48327]

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:

1. Whether or not, making the emergency application in Decision Part One will cause the train to derail.

2. 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.

[tree68]

Euclid

My 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...

[Electroliner 1935]

tree68

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.

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? 

[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. 

[tree68]

Electroliner 1935

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.

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...

[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?

[BaltACD]

tree68

Electroliner 1935

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.

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...

 

[Euclid]

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.

[samfp1943]

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?

 

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'. 

[Norm48327]

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. 

 

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.

[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.   

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]

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."

[Euclid]

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.   

 

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.          

 

[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?

[BaltACD]

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.

[Euclid]

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?

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. 

[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.

[tree68]

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...

 

[Electroliner 1935]

tree68

One 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. 

[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.... 

[SD70M-2Dude]

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.... 

You mean this one?  Actually pretty good, Arnie and DeVito go great together onscreen.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNfsJuv0bJU

[Euclid]

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.

 

 

I really like your dry sense of humor Norm. 

 

[CMStPnP]

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?

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.

[daveklepper]

I wish simply to state my respect for the FRA man with whom you questioned.