Derailing Train by Dumping Air at Grade Crossings

[Norm48327]

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.

[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?

[BigJim]

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.

[Euclid]

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.    

 

[Norm48327]

Euclid

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.

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.

[BaltACD]

[Euclid]

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. 

[Euclid]

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. 

[Norm48327]

BaltACD

Time to operate more than a keyboard!

 

 

Armchair experts/monday morning quarterbacks are always right. Don't believe it? Just ask them.

[BaltACD]

Time to operate more than a keyboard!

[Euclid]

BaltACD

A 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. 

[BaltACD]

A littel dose of reality vs. theory

[Euclid]

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. 

[dehusman]

Euclid

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.

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.  

[Murphy Siding]

-*-

[daveklepper]

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

[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.

[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. 

 

[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

[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]

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]

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...

 

[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]

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. 

[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.

[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]

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.          

 

[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."

[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). 

[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.