-*-
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
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.
A littel dose of reality vs. theory
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
Time to operate more than a keyboard!
BaltACD Time to operate more than a keyboard!
Norm
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.
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.
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.
Norm,
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.
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.
.
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?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
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?
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.
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?
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.
Murphy SidingGood lord! You're now play both sides of the arguement. Who wins when you play ping-pong against yourself at home?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Norm48327You know, if I were the only one you might have a point. You ignore the fact others are telling you the same thing.
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...
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 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...
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.
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?
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...
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.