The personification of a little knowledge being dangerous.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
edblysard schlimm dehusman schlimm Then why do you keep playing his game? I know. My concern is that somebody will read his misinformation and, not knowing any better, actually think he knows what he is talking about. Euclid is pretty hopeless, he'll never change. I just hate to see so much gobbledy gook spewed out across the internet. He starts with reasonably factual information, such as the NTSB report, but belabors points to death, whether with one of you or with himself. He's not evil or badly intentioned, such as some litigation lawyer looking for free tutorials as one member surmised. Rather, he cannot help himself, as it is a deeply rooted personality style that he is compelled to follow. Leave it alone and the thread will die on its own. Ya know, at the risk of scaring myself, I think this is one thing we agree on across the board!
schlimm dehusman schlimm Then why do you keep playing his game? I know. My concern is that somebody will read his misinformation and, not knowing any better, actually think he knows what he is talking about. Euclid is pretty hopeless, he'll never change. I just hate to see so much gobbledy gook spewed out across the internet. He starts with reasonably factual information, such as the NTSB report, but belabors points to death, whether with one of you or with himself. He's not evil or badly intentioned, such as some litigation lawyer looking for free tutorials as one member surmised. Rather, he cannot help himself, as it is a deeply rooted personality style that he is compelled to follow. Leave it alone and the thread will die on its own.
dehusman schlimm Then why do you keep playing his game? I know. My concern is that somebody will read his misinformation and, not knowing any better, actually think he knows what he is talking about. Euclid is pretty hopeless, he'll never change. I just hate to see so much gobbledy gook spewed out across the internet.
schlimm Then why do you keep playing his game?
Then why do you keep playing his game?
I know. My concern is that somebody will read his misinformation and, not knowing any better, actually think he knows what he is talking about. Euclid is pretty hopeless, he'll never change. I just hate to see so much gobbledy gook spewed out across the internet.
He starts with reasonably factual information, such as the NTSB report, but belabors points to death, whether with one of you or with himself. He's not evil or badly intentioned, such as some litigation lawyer looking for free tutorials as one member surmised. Rather, he cannot help himself, as it is a deeply rooted personality style that he is compelled to follow. Leave it alone and the thread will die on its own.
Ya know, at the risk of scaring myself, I think this is one thing we agree on across the board!
Thank you, Ed. BTW, no hard feelings re: some past kertuffles.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The problem with Bucky is that he makes the same mistake that many armchair railroaders, admirals, military tacticians, etc. have made over the years. He looks at a situation with the 20-20 vision of hindsight and wonders why the situation occurred the way it did while he is blissfully unaware that the people on the scene AT THAT TIME did not have all the information at hand that he (months or years later) has.
23 17 46 11
tree68Well, there you go folks. Ol' Bucky has taken everything we've told him and regurgitated it back like he's the one who's the expert.
It sounds like you are now saying that my position is what you have been trying to tell me all along. I don’t how you arrive at that conclusion. What I said in my post that you have quoted above is not at all what you have been saying all along. Our positions on this are diametrically opposed and have been from the start.
You have said all along that the rule called for a service application of the oil train unless the fouling object could be seen. And only then would an emergency application have been proper. I have consistently disagreed with that, and plainly said so above.
You have also said that the situation called for reducing to restricted speed for passing the disabled train. Then you modified that, saying that the situation called for execution of the unplanned stop rule. I don’t know why you changed to favor the unplanned stop procedure because either that or restricted speed would have called for a service application to slow the train down, as you prefer. But there was not time to slow the train down, so I called for an emergency application. That is the difference in our positions.
The train was heading into a restricted speed zone at excessive speed with a possibility of the zone containing fouling equipment. So there was a critical need slow it down. A service application would not have fulfilled that need, so I said I would have preferred an emergency application. But you said that the risk of an emergency application was too high because it might derail the train. I believe the risk and consequences of striking fouling equipment from a derailment would have been worse than the risk of an emergency application derailing the oil train.
The conductor of the oil train said that the approaching grain train was enveloped in a cloud of blowing snow, and he said that he did not like heading into that snow cloud without the ability to see what was in front of him. Yet they did head into the blinding snow cloud, and as soon as it cleared a little, they saw the hopper car laying on the track in front of them with no hope of stopping short of hitting it. They both lay down on the cab floor and waited for what was sure to come.
My basic point about this has always been that the UDE of the grain train on double track called for the immediate protection for the oil train against the possibility that the grain train had derailed and fouled the other track. Your first position was that no protective action should be taken until it was known that there was a fouling. I disagree with that because it defies the whole point of the rule calling for “immediate” protective action just on the basis that the other track might be fouled.
In this type of situation, another train may be only minutes or seconds away. Protecting that train must be the first priority because time is of the essence. The point of the rule is to prevent another train from passing the disabled train at track speed without knowing whether the disabled train has derailed and fouled the track of the passing train.
Obviously, the status of the disabled train will eventually be discovered, but until it is, you don’t want to risk passing it with another train that is moving too fast to stop short of any suddenly discovered fouling condition. The outcome of the Casselton incident is exactly what GCOR rule 6.23 Emergency Stop or Severe Slack Action is intended to prevent.
Considering these dangerous circumstances of being unable to reduce to a safe speed as quickly as required with the prospect of not being able to stop short of a possible collision due to excessive speed—it is my opinion that this constituted a real emergency that called for an emergency application to reduce the speed as quickly as possible. I base that on this rule:
103.8 Emergency Brake Applications
When conditions warrant, use an emergency brake application without hesitation if any condition occurs in which there is doubt that service applications can control train speed and anytime maximum authorized speed is exceeded by 5 MPH or more.
At Casselton, you have an urgent requirement to reduce to a speed at which you can stop short of a possible obstruction in a blinding snow cloud. Certainly there is doubt that a service application can control the speed by adequately reducing it in the short time available before entering that blinding snow cloud. So what do you do? You “use an emergency brake application without hesitation,” just as the rule says.
Euclid The train was heading into a restricted speed zone at excessive speed with a good possibility of the zone containing fouling equipment.
The train was heading into a restricted speed zone at excessive speed with a good possibility of the zone containing fouling equipment.
My last comment on this thread. Please show me the stats that show a UDE results in a "good possibility" of fouling equipment. As a railroader I have trains suffer a UDE just about every day. I can count on one hand how many times they have resulted in a derailment. I take it that you have had different informantion that I do. Can you share them? After all, if you can speak with such authority on this matter, you should share how you came about such knowledge.
Or do you again refuse that request?
An "expensive model collector"
zugmann Guys - just let it go. You can't win. He enjoys the battle too much. Just smile, nod, and move on.
Guys - just let it go. You can't win. He enjoys the battle too much. Just smile, nod, and move on.
Amen.
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...
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
The final report by the NTSB will be released within a month from now.
BaltACD schlimm Leave it alone and the thread will die on its own. Until the final NTSB report comes out and then it will start all over again.
schlimm Leave it alone and the thread will die on its own.
Until the final NTSB report comes out and then it will start all over again.
Of course! But that may be many months away. And as night follows day, another silly thread may erupt.
schlimmLeave it alone and the thread will die on its own.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Norm48327 Let's face it guys. We should be showing Ron some respect. He [claims he] has railroad experience and is well educated in all related subject matter. Of course he has many degrees; among them are a BS, MS, and PHD. We all know what the BS stands for; it's self-explanatory. MS is for More of the Same, and PHD represents Piled Higher and Deeper. Ya gotta respect those credentials. Caution: sarcasm intended.
Let's face it guys. We should be showing Ron some respect. He [claims he] has railroad experience and is well educated in all related subject matter.
Of course he has many degrees; among them are a BS, MS, and PHD. We all know what the BS stands for; it's self-explanatory. MS is for More of the Same, and PHD represents Piled Higher and Deeper. Ya gotta respect those credentials.
Caution: sarcasm intended.
Norm
Euclid I am afraid that you are the one who is changing what the rule says. As I said, it clearly applies to every train handling situation as an open option. It does not exclude anything, so I assume that includes all train handling situations, as I stated. Obviously if a situation does not present a need to stop as quickly as possible without an emergency application, the engineer would not choose to exercise the option. Nothing in the rule says that it ONLY applies to the encounter of a sudden block signal change or when being signaled to stop by a flagman or other person. Those are just examples of where it can apply. The words, “such as” mean “for example.” Read the rule: 103.6.5 Unplanned Stop In order to stop in the shortest possible distance without using an emergency brake application, such as when encountering a sudden block signal change or when being signaled to stop by a flagman or other person, the following procedure must be followed:…” The rule is just an optional procedure that may be applied to any situation where it may be desired. And there is no requirement to apply the rule to any situations including the situations that the rule cites as examples. It is purely an option for a method of stopping as fast as possible where the faster stopping of an emergency application may not be needed. Also, the words, “must be followed” do not mean that the rule must be applied to the encounter of a block signal change or a signal to stop by a flagman or other person, or any other situation. “Must be followed” refers to the exact procedure that the rule prescribes for stopping if an engineer chooses to stop as fast as possible without an emergency application. If the unplanned stop procedure option is chosen by an engineer, then the procedure must be followed. Also, there are emergency situations where the option of rule 103.6.5 would be overridden by a requirement to make an emergency application. Rule 103.6.5 applied to the Casselton wreck like it applies to all train handling situations, as an option. But at Casselton, the option was not chosen.
I am afraid that you are the one who is changing what the rule says. As I said, it clearly applies to every train handling situation as an open option. It does not exclude anything, so I assume that includes all train handling situations, as I stated. Obviously if a situation does not present a need to stop as quickly as possible without an emergency application, the engineer would not choose to exercise the option.
Nothing in the rule says that it ONLY applies to the encounter of a sudden block signal change or when being signaled to stop by a flagman or other person. Those are just examples of where it can apply. The words, “such as” mean “for example.” Read the rule:
103.6.5 Unplanned Stop
In order to stop in the shortest possible distance without using an emergency brake application, such as when encountering a sudden block signal change or when being signaled to stop by a flagman or other person, the following procedure must be followed:…”
The rule is just an optional procedure that may be applied to any situation where it may be desired. And there is no requirement to apply the rule to any situations including the situations that the rule cites as examples. It is purely an option for a method of stopping as fast as possible where the faster stopping of an emergency application may not be needed.
Also, the words, “must be followed” do not mean that the rule must be applied to the encounter of a block signal change or a signal to stop by a flagman or other person, or any other situation. “Must be followed” refers to the exact procedure that the rule prescribes for stopping if an engineer chooses to stop as fast as possible without an emergency application. If the unplanned stop procedure option is chosen by an engineer, then the procedure must be followed.
Also, there are emergency situations where the option of rule 103.6.5 would be overridden by a requirement to make an emergency application.
Rule 103.6.5 applied to the Casselton wreck like it applies to all train handling situations, as an option. But at Casselton, the option was not chosen.
Well, there you go folks. Ol' Bucky has taken everything we've told him and regurgitated it back like he's the one who's the expert. Of course, that makes him the railroad king, and the rest of us are mere peons who don't know squat.
I don't know how we dare even address him, much less question his limitless knowledge.
Bucky - This'll make your head explode, but railroading is a dynamic activity. There are rules, usually written in blood, but situations can and do change on a moment to moment basis. That means the rules that apply can change on a moment to moment basis. Railroaders know this, and make the necessary adjustments.
You've proven time and time again in all of your threads - as already noted in this one - that you have a need for things to be black and white. They aren't. There are thousands of shades of gray - and I don't mean the movie.
It's like talking to a wall...
dehusmanThis is whats so frustrating, you post the rule then immediately turn around not two or three paragraphs later and completely ignore what the rule says, making up your own iterpretation. NO. It does not apply to every train handling situation. The rule specifically says it does not apply to every situation. The rule says: "In order to stop in the shortest possible distance without using an emergency brake application, such as when encountering a sudden block signal change or when being signaled to stop by a flagman or other person, " It applies in situations where the engineer does not choose to use an emergency application and situations such as a sudden block signal change or being signalled by a flagman. That's what it covers. Nowhere in there does it imply that this applies to ALL train handling situations. It specifically says it applies to a very narrow range of situations.
52 years ago when I hired out - the first thing I was required to do was to 'write the rule book'. ie. take the printed rule book and write out in my own long hand each and every rule in the book into a work book that was designed for the purpose.
Exercise eliminated the excuse 'I never saw that rule'. However, the reality is that having read and written the rule I had no idea how and under what circumstance any of the rules were applied and how the operated in conjunction with each other. It took me the better part of the next five years of my career until I felt confident enough of my knowledge and understanding of the rules and how they were applied to be able to apply for the opportunity to qualify as a Extra Train Dispatcher. (Note-with my former carrier Extra Train Dispatcher is now considered a entry level position - the rule book has been vastly simplified as there is no longer timetable & trainorder form of operation - the proper operation of the CADS system provides a backstop to prevent 99.99% of mistakes - there is a dedicated training program for Train Dispatchers BEFORE they get 4 to 6 months of OJT on various dispatching desks on all tricks.
Bucky is at the level I was on my 1st day on the railroad except he thinks he is already qulified and should be holding the rules examination.
Euclid tree68 Euclid I have asked you, Dave H, and the dispatcher from Indiana to clarify this implication Aha! You feel the unplanned stop rule implies that an emergency application is prohibited. Once again, you are mistaken. I see that you have carefully extracted a quote from part of my sentence in order to accuse me of saying or believing something that I have never said. The full sentence was this comment directed at you on the previous page: “I have asked you [Larry], Dave H, and the dispatcher from Indiana to clarify this implication that the Unplanned Stop rule imposed conditions on the oil train.” The implication came from you and the dispatcher from Indiana, not from me. Why would I have wanted to imply that? I was the one who advocated an emergency application. Why would I want to imply that an emergency application was illegal? The implication came from you and Indiana, and it was that an emergency application was not allowed because the Unplanned Stop rule offers a procedure to stop as fast as possible without using an emergency application. I was asking for clarification on how the Unplanned Stop rule governed the Casselton derailment because you and Indiana said that it did apply to the oil train. I never believed that it did. I call it an implication because neither you, the dispatcher from Indiana, or Dave H. were willing to explain how the rule imposed conditions on the oil train, as you and the dispatcher from Indiana implied, but refused to clarify when asked. So it is not I who is saying that there is an implication that the Unplanned Stop rule prohibits an emergency application. You and the dispatcher from Indiana have laid that implication on the table, and now you seem to be running away from it and trying to say I did it.
tree68 Euclid I have asked you, Dave H, and the dispatcher from Indiana to clarify this implication Aha! You feel the unplanned stop rule implies that an emergency application is prohibited. Once again, you are mistaken.
Euclid I have asked you, Dave H, and the dispatcher from Indiana to clarify this implication
Aha! You feel the unplanned stop rule implies that an emergency application is prohibited. Once again, you are mistaken.
I see that you have carefully extracted a quote from part of my sentence in order to accuse me of saying or believing something that I have never said. The full sentence was this comment directed at you on the previous page:
“I have asked you [Larry], Dave H, and the dispatcher from Indiana to clarify this implication that the Unplanned Stop rule imposed conditions on the oil train.”
The implication came from you and the dispatcher from Indiana, not from me.
Why would I have wanted to imply that? I was the one who advocated an emergency application. Why would I want to imply that an emergency application was illegal? The implication came from you and Indiana, and it was that an emergency application was not allowed because the Unplanned Stop rule offers a procedure to stop as fast as possible without using an emergency application.
I was asking for clarification on how the Unplanned Stop rule governed the Casselton derailment because you and Indiana said that it did apply to the oil train. I never believed that it did.
I call it an implication because neither you, the dispatcher from Indiana, or Dave H. were willing to explain how the rule imposed conditions on the oil train, as you and the dispatcher from Indiana implied, but refused to clarify when asked.
So it is not I who is saying that there is an implication that the Unplanned Stop rule prohibits an emergency application. You and the dispatcher from Indiana have laid that implication on the table, and now you seem to be running away from it and trying to say I did it.
EuclidEuclid said: What is the "emergency stop rule" that you refer to? How did it apply? What did it require?
Unplanned stop rule, as already discussed. My error - I used the wrong term. This whole discussion is getting a little foggy.
As noted, there is undoubtely a rule concerning emergency applications, too...
Euclid103.6.5 Unplanned Stop In order to stop in the shortest possible distance without using an emergency brake application, such as when encountering a sudden block signal change or when being signaled to stop by a flagman or other person, the following procedure must be followed: Make a brake pipe reduction immediately before making a throttle change. After the initial brake pipe reduction and train slack has adjusted, throttle must be gradually reduced to IDLE position. The independent brake must not be allowed to apply while still applying power. Here is my interpretation of the unplanned stop rule: Rule 103.6.5 Unplanned Stop This rule applies to every train handling circumstance, but only as an option to stop as quickly as possible without using an emergency application of brakes.
Unplanned Stop In order to stop in the shortest possible distance without using an emergency brake application, such as when encountering a sudden block signal change or when being signaled to stop by a flagman or other person, the following procedure must be followed:
Make a brake pipe reduction immediately before making a throttle change.
After the initial brake pipe reduction and train slack has adjusted, throttle must be gradually reduced to IDLE position.
The independent brake must not be allowed to apply while still applying power.
Here is my interpretation of the unplanned stop rule:
Rule 103.6.5 Unplanned Stop
This rule applies to every train handling circumstance, but only as an option to stop as quickly as possible without using an emergency application of brakes.
This is whats so frustrating, you post the rule then immediately turn around not two or three paragraphs later and completely ignore what the rule says, making up your own iterpretation.
NO. It does not apply to every train handling situation. The rule specifically says it does not apply to every situation. The rule says:
"In order to stop in the shortest possible distance without using an emergency brake application, such as when encountering a sudden block signal change or when being signaled to stop by a flagman or other person, "
It applies in situations where the engineer does not choose to use an emergency application and situations such as a sudden block signal change or being signalled by a flagman. That's what it covers. Nowhere in there does it imply that this applies to ALL train handling situations. It specifically says it applies to a very narrow range of situations.
Read the rule.
Because the rule applies as an option, there is no requirement to use the procedure in lieu of an emergency application. So from a practical standpoint, the rule had no effect on the oil train engineer.
Correct end, but for the wrong reason. The rules applies when the engineer is given an unexpected stop signal. At NO time during the event was the engineer given an unexpected stop signal. There was no block signal that dropped in his face, there were no fusees on the track, there was no flagman, there was NO stop signal given. Since there was NO stop signal given, a rule that explains what to do when you encounter those signals does not apply.
Once again, read the rule.
When the engineer saw the obstruction, the proper response was to put the train in emergency because a collision was imminent. The engineer intended to put the train in emergency. Since Rule 103.6.5 concerns situations when the engineer does NOT want to put the train in emergency, once again rule 103.6.5 does not apply.
Once again, read the rule. and stop changing what it says.
tree68Euclid said: What is the "emergency stop rule" that you refer to? How did it apply? What did it require? You're right - we haven't discussed that. But I'm sure if you go through the GCOR train handling rules, you'll be able to find it.
You're right - we haven't discussed that. But I'm sure if you go through the GCOR train handling rules, you'll be able to find it.
Well you just brought up the "Emergency stop rule" four posts above this one. I don't want to go looking for it to try to figure out why you brought it up. So why don't you explain what you meant when you said this:
tree68 said: "This is what we've been telling you right along - with one exception - until the engineer of the oil train knew there was a reason to dump the train, the emergency stop rule did apply."
Euclid said: What is the "emergency stop rule" that you refer to? How did it apply? What did it require?
EuclidWhat is the "emergency stop rule" that you refer to? How did it apply? What did it require?
EuclidBut the main point is that I never said the rule prohibits an emergency application as you have contended in your last couple posts.
And neither did we.
You sure were adamant about knowing why we felt there was a prohibition there. And you were told repeatedly that there was no such prohibition. Why did you keep pressing the question?
For that matter, can you provide quotes where anyone said as much?
I'm not going to pore over the entire thread for the "unplanned stop," but in the normal flow of things, it is a logical step. It emphasizes good train handling over an emergency application when the situation is appropriate. Given more time (ie, minutes, not seconds), the engineer of the oil train would have followed the guidance for an "unplanned stop," right up until he got the train down to restricted speed, and/or saw the obstruction on the tracks.
You're the one who insisted that the extra few seconds during which the grain train engineer did not announce his UDE would have made a major difference. The first step toward that would have been the guidance in the "unplanned stop" rule.
tree68You also admit that it is your interpretation of our postings that makes you think that we have said that an emergency application is prohibited. And again, you interpreted things incorrectly.
Fine, so what was the point of bringing up the rule? It changed nothing. None of you would explain why you brought up the rule when I asked each of you. I may have interpreted you and Indiana incorrectly, but I am not sure what you mean by interpreted "things incorrectly". But the main point is that I never said the rule prohibits an emergency application as you have contended in your last couple posts.
tree68This is what we've been telling you right along - with one exception - until the engineer of the oil train knew there was a reason to dump the train, the emergency stop rule did apply.
What is the "emergency stop rule" that you refer to? How did it apply? What did it require?
Paul of Covington Actually, I've been enjoying this thread as a spectator. As trying as Euclid can be, I find the vicious personal attacks against him more annoying.
I would not call it a personal attack to ask what Ron's qualifications are when he leads everyone to believe he has railroad experience and knowledge but flatly refuses to say what those qualificitions might be. If he had some he should be willing to share that. Therefore it is safe for other posters to assume he has none. Telling those who work in the industry they are wrong does not sit well with those who do know of what they speak.
He frequently gets challenged on some of his posts regarding their veracity and the fact he will twist other's post to his line of thinking. His trolling gets old in a hurry.
Call it what you like. I call it seeking the truth.
Euclid Johnny, I used the word "prohibit" to characterize the position of Larry and Indiana which seemed to indicate (implied) that the oil train was prohibited from using an emergency application due to the Unplanned Stop rule which both Indiana brought up seemingly to discredit my suggestion that an emergency application would have been a good idea to get the train speed down as soon as possible even if it was not yet known that the track was fouled.
Johnny,
I used the word "prohibit" to characterize the position of Larry and Indiana which seemed to indicate (implied) that the oil train was prohibited from using an emergency application due to the Unplanned Stop rule which both Indiana brought up seemingly to discredit my suggestion that an emergency application would have been a good idea to get the train speed down as soon as possible even if it was not yet known that the track was fouled.
So - you finally admit that none of us has used the word "prohibit." Thank you.
You also admit that it is your interpretation of our postings that makes you think that we have said that an emergency application is prohibited. And again, you interpreted things incorrectly.
"...seemingly to discredit..." Yet again, it is your interpretation of our responses. You get very defensive when someone pokes a hole in your suppositions.
And here is the crowning glory, right here:
EuclidThis rule applies to every train handling circumstance, but only as an option to stop as quickly as possible without using an emergency application of brakes. Because the rule applies as an option, there is no requirement to use the procedure in lieu of an emergency application. So from a practical standpoint, the rule had no effect on the oil train engineer.
This is what we've been telling you right along - with one exception - until the engineer of the oil train knew there was a reason to dump the train, the emergency stop rule did apply. The fact that the interval between first notification and discovery of the car fouling the track was measured in seconds doesn't change that.
Of course, that doesn't square with your belief that the engineer of the oil train should have made an emergency application immediately regardless, so you won't buy it.
Here is the unplanned stop rule:
In order to stop in the shortest possible distance without using an emergency brake application, such as when encountering a sudden block signal change or when being signaled to stop by a flagman or other person, the following procedure must be followed:
It is and has always been my opinion that this rule does NOT impose a condition on the oil train that says this stopping procedure was required, and that an emergency application was therefore not allowed.
To be fair, neither Larry nor Indiana actually said that the rule imposes this requirement on the oil train. Both have refused to explain why they brought up the rule. So that is why I say they implied it.
This rule applies to every train handling circumstance, but only as an option to stop as quickly as possible without using an emergency application of brakes. Because the rule applies as an option, there is no requirement to use the procedure in lieu of an emergency application. So from a practical standpoint, the rule had no effect on the oil train engineer.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.