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.
The starting assumption of my question is that it pertains to cases where making an emergency application will make a difference.
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.
Norm,
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.
Norm
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.
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...
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:
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 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.
In a recent thread, we had a discussion where it was claimed that engineers, when confronted with a possible grade crossing collision, might refrain from making an “Emergency” application of air brakes because doing so might derail the train.
See this thread: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/258449.aspx
I was skeptical of this claim, so we had some debate on the matter. Out of curiosity, I posed this question to the FRA as follows:
Notice that this is a yes-or-no question because it asks if it is ever advisable to do as described in the question. So if it is advisable just once, the answer has to be yes. If it is never advisable, or if it happens to be prohibited; the answer has to be no.
The general consensus in the thread discussion was that the question is too complex to have a fixed answer. It was said that countless variables enter into the answer, and only the engineer can process all those variables in a split second and come up with the perfect answer.
I understand that point, but it does not exist if the answer is no. Only if the answer is yes, does it open the door to the countless variables, and the need to choose whether or not to refrain from making an “Emergency” application. If the answer is no, there is no need to choose whether or not to refrain from making an “Emergency” application. And if there is no need to choose, the countless variables are irrelevant.
My contention has been that the answer is no; it is never advisable, so all I asked to begin with, is whether the answer is yes or no.
The FRA representative that responded to my question told me that the answer to my question is no. He said no railroad has a rule or policy that governs the matter. 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.
He said that there is less than a 1% chance that making an “Emergency” application will derail the train; and in those rare cases, the reason is most likely due to bad train makeup. He said that in cases of trains with distributed power, and also having a poor train makeup, an engineer would resolve ahead of time that, if an “Emergency” application were required, he or she would make the application from the locomotive on the rear of the train. In that way, the application would create tension throughout the train rather than compression which would result if the application was being made from the head end locomotive. He said that the reasoning would be that tension is less likely to cause a derailment than compression.
Thus the answer from the FRA is no to my above question in bold. That is, that it is never advisable, proper, or permissible to refrain from making an “Emergency” application because it might derail the train; both in the context of my question about grade crossings, and for any other type of emergency that justifies making an “Emergency” application.
Therefore, 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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.