BaltACD Oil train (Nominally 100 cars +/-) = 14400 tons moving a reported 42 MPH Brake it to Zero in a controlled manner so as not to derail your train.
Oil train (Nominally 100 cars +/-) = 14400 tons moving a reported 42 MPH
Brake it to Zero in a controlled manner so as not to derail your train.
Except for in an emergency when the risk of collision is higher than the risk of the emergency application derailing the train. The "emergency" application function does have a legitmate purpose even though it can cause a derailment. Obviously, the purpose was 100% justitified and appropriate in this Casselton wreck. In fact, an emergency application was finally made, but only after delaying it for 49 seconds.
Read the rule I posted on the previous page and tell me what it means. I have been told that I never listen to the experts' explanations. I posted the rule, offered my interpretation, and asked some questions. Yet I got nothing from the experts.
The rule calls for immediate action on just the possibility of fouling equiment. The rule does not worry about immediate action derailing your train.
If I am misinterpreting that rule, let me know.
EuclidExcept for in an emergency when the risk of collision is higher than the risk of the emergency application derailing the train.
So, should crews carry a card with that info, or is that in the rulebook somewhere? And can I have next week's powerball numbers, please?
You're still interpreting the rules to how *you* think they should be. You're also determining what your actions would have been in the same situation based on hindsight. That's fine, but until it's your (or my) hand on the throttle and your (my) ass in the seat in real time, it means very little. Hey, you have every right to ponitificate until the cows come home. But many of us that do this day in and day out are not going to sit here and debate your countless "what-if" scenarios. It gets tiring. We (at least I) don't mind sharing our expierences or thoughts, but the manner in which you do it makes rules class seem like a rave party.
That's how I see it. Class dismissed. At least for me.
PS. I'm no "expert". I wish not to be referred to as such.
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
Euclid BaltACD Oil train (Nominally 100 cars +/-) = 14400 tons moving a reported 42 MPH Brake it to Zero in a controlled manner so as not to derail your train. Except for in an emergency when the risk of collision is higher than the risk of the emergency application derailing the train. The "emergency" application function does have a legitmate purpose even though it can cause a derailment. Obviously, the purpose was 100% justitified and appropriate in this Casselton wreck. In fact, an emergency application was finally made, but only after delaying it for 49 seconds. Read the rule I posted on the previous page and tell me what it means. I have been told that I never listen to the experts' explanations. I posted the rule, offered my interpretation, and asked some questions. Yet I got nothing from the experts. The rule calls for immediate action on just the possibility of fouling equiment. The rule does not worry about immediate action derailing your train. If I am misinterpreting that rule, let me know.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Electroliner 1935Euclid. As has been asked before, could you provide some background on your comtinuing this discussion of the timing of the Casselton Oil Train Wreck? Are you suggesting failures by the engineers to follow the rules in a timely manor. That they were complicet and could have prevented the collision if they had only followed the rules. Or are you just nit picking and having your idea of fun with the other posters. I await your answer, sir.
I am not nit-picking just to tweak the other posters. The NTSB has published the facts that they have discovered in this derailment. I assume they welcome public discussion of those facts, and that they agree that the public has the right to ask questions. I am familiar with this type of collision and rules that try to prevent it. So when I read about the facts, some questions jump out at me.
I am suggesting that the engineers may have failed to follow the rules, but I have not come to a firm conclusion because I do not know for certain what rules applied. That is my main question, and I brought it here to ask the experts.
So far, the NTSB has said nothing about violating “Rule 6.23 Emergency Stop or Severe Slack Action.” Neither have they said anything about the delay in warning the oil train. As I understand it, the NTSB has not completed this report, so they may say something about this rule and the actions of the crew as they finish the report.
Euclid Electroliner 1935 Euclid. As has been asked before, could you provide some background on your comtinuing this discussion of the timing of the Casselton Oil Train Wreck? Are you suggesting failures by the engineers to follow the rules in a timely manor. That they were complicet and could have prevented the collision if they had only followed the rules. Or are you just nit picking and having your idea of fun with the other posters. I await your answer, sir. I am not nit-picking just to tweak the other posters. The NTSB has published the facts that they have discovered in this derailment. I assume they welcome public discussion of those facts, and that they agree that the public has the right to ask questions. I am familiar with this type of collision and rules that try to prevent it. So when I read about the facts, some questions jump out at me. I am suggesting that the engineers may have failed to follow the rules, but I have not come to a firm conclusion because I do not know for certain what rules applied. That is my main question, and I brought it here to ask the experts. So far, the NTSB has said nothing about violating “Rule 6.23 Emergency Stop or Severe Slack Action.” Neither have they said anything about the delay in warning the oil train. As I understand it, the NTSB has not completed this report, so they may say something about this rule and the actions of the crew as they finish the report.
Electroliner 1935 Euclid. As has been asked before, could you provide some background on your comtinuing this discussion of the timing of the Casselton Oil Train Wreck? Are you suggesting failures by the engineers to follow the rules in a timely manor. That they were complicet and could have prevented the collision if they had only followed the rules. Or are you just nit picking and having your idea of fun with the other posters. I await your answer, sir.
edblysard PSA time! I’m not really a freight train conductor, I just play on one TV…but I want to join with all the other TV train conductors in telling you it’s time to get your annual BS meter check up. It’s quick, easy and covered by most health care plans…..so there is no excuse not get it checked!
Probably won't be covered soon, as it is clearly a chronic, pre-existing condition.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
EuclidAre you suggesting failures by the engineers to follow the rules in a timely manor. That they were complicet and could have prevented the collision if they had only followed the rules.
Ok. Two options: 1, They didn't follow the rules. So what does that mean. Are you suggesting that had they followed the rules, the collision would not have happened? Or should they be punished for not following the rules. Period?
2. They followed the rules and the rules allowed them to continue into the collision. Or they followed the rules and it would not have made any difference in the outcome?
Did you see the movie Sully?
Euclid I am not nit-picking just to tweak the other posters.
I am not nit-picking just to tweak the other posters.
Murphy Siding I've read on these very forums that if you were to suddenly throw a loaded train into an emergency stop situation that you run the risk of derailing the train, making a big mess, and perhaps getting someone killed. Now beuclid wants the engineer to dump the air on a loaded, volatile oil train because the engineer was made away that a grain train had done so. It sounds like a recipe for disaster.
I've read on these very forums that if you were to suddenly throw a loaded train into an emergency stop situation that you run the risk of derailing the train, making a big mess, and perhaps getting someone killed. Now beuclid wants the engineer to dump the air on a loaded, volatile oil train because the engineer was made away that a grain train had done so. It sounds like a recipe for disaster.
So you would choose to not dump the air because that might derail your train and start a big fire. However, not dumping the air guarantees that you will run into a loaded grain hopper, which will derail your train and start a big fire. But you can claim you made the right choice by assuring us that dumping the air would not have stopped your train in time anyway.
Euclid ...........I think there is a good chance that 59 seconds would have been enough time to stop the oil train short of the fouling car.............
...........I think there is a good chance that 59 seconds would have been enough time to stop the oil train short of the fouling car.............
Euclid I don’t know if there was time to stop the oil train short of the derailed car. ............ I think there is a good chance that 59 seconds would have been enough time to stop the oil train short of the fouling car.............
I don’t know if there was time to stop the oil train short of the derailed car. ............ I think there is a good chance that 59 seconds would have been enough time to stop the oil train short of the fouling car.............
Euclid Murphy Siding I've read on these very forums that if you were to suddenly throw a loaded train into an emergency stop situation that you run the risk of derailing the train, making a big mess, and perhaps getting someone killed. Now beuclid wants the engineer to dump the air on a loaded, volatile oil train because the engineer was made away that a grain train had done so. It sounds like a recipe for disaster. So you would choose to not dump the air because that might derail your train and start a big fire. However, not dumping the air guarantees that you will run into a loaded grain hopper, which will derail your train and start a big fire. But you can claim you made the right choice by assuring us that dumping the air would not have stopped your train in time anyway.
Well get out your popcorn and lets watch the actual crash video courtesy of the NTSB, from both trains. I'll bet it even ends the argument above............
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhraoVIJ1OE
Electroliner 1935 Ok. Two options: 1, They didn't follow the rules. So what does that mean. Are you suggesting that had they followed the rules, the collision would not have happened? Or should they be punished for not following the rules. Period? 2. They followed the rules and the rules allowed them to continue into the collision. Or they followed the rules and it would not have made any difference in the outcome?
Electroliner 1935,
As I mentioned, I do not know what rules applied so I cannot conclude that any rules were violated. I suspect that Rule “Rule 6.23 Emergency Stop or Severe Slack Action” may apply because it fits the scenario, but I do not know for sure it if does apply to the location of the Casselton wreck on the BNSF.
I also do not understand why two parts of the rule appear to be in conflict with each other. But if a rule was in place that called for immediate radio notification to the oil train, then I would conclude that the engineer of the grain train did not comply with that rule. I also, do not know if the radio use by the maintainer prevented the engineer of the grain train from warning the oil train engineer sooner.
I do not know if the oil train engineer broke any rules because I do not know what the rules called for him to do in response to the warning. This is because part of the rule calls for the crew of the disabled train to use a fusee to flag the approaching oil train; and another part of the rule allows the engineer to pass the disabled train without stopping if it runs at restricted speed. With that rule, if there is not time to get down to restricted speed before passing the disabled train, I do not know how that issue is to be addressed.
I do know that the total time available to react to the danger was 59 seconds, and that 49 of those 59 seconds were not used for reaction to the danger. Of course, I do not know if 59 seconds was enough time to stop the oil train, but in my opinion, there is a very good chance that it would have been enough time. But I doubt that any definitive answer to the stopping time needed for the oil train will be forthcoming without a very good test using an identical train on that same track, in the same weather.
Murphy Siding Euclid I don’t know if there was time to stop the oil train short of the derailed car. ............ I think there is a good chance that 59 seconds would have been enough time to stop the oil train short of the fouling car............. Yes- the answer is no. Do you proofread your posts before you hit the button?
Yes- the answer is no. Do you proofread your posts before you hit the button?
There is no conflict in what I said there. When I say that I think there is a good chance of stopping within 59 seconds, it is just my opinion. When I say I don't know if 59 seconds was enough time, I mean just that. I have an opinion, but I am not asserting it as fact. The words mean exactly what I intend. And yes, I did proofread those phrases.
Others have said "there is no way that oil train would have stopped in time." That is an assertion of fact, and I am not doing that. I would ask those who are so sure that they assert it as fact, to prove it if they are so sure.
ALL:
As a retired professional railroader, both trains were handled properly--in other words things just happen and the opposing train crew had no time to react. An example of this was the 1953 triple derailment at Conneaut, Ohio.
An engineer told me that he was handling the NCL on double track between Northtown and Staples. He was a distance (he did not tell how much) when an opposing freight told me they went into emergency. The NCL did manage to stop in time to avoid hitting derailed freight cars.
Ed Burns
I should have added that sometimes a derailed car is dragged some distance before the car breaks the train line. There was a derailment at Coon Creek some years ago where a train off the Hinckley Sub dragged a car along straight train before derailing in the switches at Coon Creek.
In that CSX derailment in Maryville, TN, a couple years ago, the car was dragged nine miles and caught fire along the way.
Video indicates that Grain train was derailed 15 seconds before the Emergency Application. At the time of the UDE the Oil train was 'visually' approximately 1/4 mile from the head end of the Grain Train and reported to be moving a 42 MPH.
Head End of the Oil train passes the Head End of the Grain Train 38 seconds after the derailment and 23 seconds after the Grain Train went into emergency. While time is critical - there is no way the laws of physics prevent the Oil Train from striking the derail car in the Grain Train - even if full 'foresight' was conveyed between all the parties involved instanteously. Human beings take a little longer to recognize their situation and then communicate it to others.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDWhile time is critical - there is no way the laws of physics prevent the Oil Train from striking the derail car in the Grain Train - even if full 'foresight' was conveyed between all the parties involved instanteously.
To be certain, you would have to know how many seconds it would have taken to stop the oil train with an emergency application at 42 mph.
Since you are certain, please tell me how many seconds the stop would have required starting with an emergency application at 42 mph.
Euclid BaltACD To be certain, you would have to know how many seconds it would have taken to stop the oil train with an emergency application at 42 mph. Since you are certain, please tell me how many seconds the stop would have required starting with an emergency application at 42 mph.
BaltACD
A damn sight more than was available. Stopping distance for 14K + tons even in emergency is well over 1 train length. A 100 car Oil train has a length of approximately 6200 feet.
BaltACD Stopping distance for 14K + tons even in emergency is well over 1 train length.
From what speed at start of emergency application?
Snapping Turtles are known to be tenacious and not let go. They are pikers compared to Bucky.
Norm
Euclid BaltACD From what speed at start of emergency application?
From keyboard speed.
Norm48327 Snapping Turtles are known to be tenacious and not let go. They are pikers compared to Bucky.
Johnny
BaltACD Euclid BaltACD To be certain, you would have to know how many seconds it would have taken to stop the oil train with an emergency application at 42 mph. Since you are certain, please tell me how many seconds the stop would have required starting with an emergency application at 42 mph. A damn sight more than was available. Stopping distance for 14K + tons even in emergency is well over 1 train length. A 100 car Oil train has a length of approximately 6200 feet.
Here is how zardoz answered the question about stopping distance in 2006:
“A full service application will stop a loaded coal train going 50mph on flat ground in about 1.5 miles; an emergency application will stop it in about half of that distance.”
So that would be ¾ mile stopping distance at 50 mph. If that is true, it should be well under ¾ mile when starting from 42 mph. The oil train at Casselton had .688 miles available for stopping. So it looks like stopping would have been quite possible.
But, in any case, the rules do not give the option of not taking action just because you speculate that there is not enough distance to stop short of the obstruction.
Folks, folks, folks. We all know that Bucky has all the answers. No amount of facts or real-life experience will stand in the way of his conclusions.
As tough as it is to ignore him, perhaps that's the best course of action...
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...
Euclid even with ECP on Air Discs like what Amtrak runs on their passenger cars there is no way in hell that Oil train was going to stop short of that collision from the time they realized that the main was FOULED or heard that the other train had gone into Emergency. Short of stopping on the main when the other train came into sight there was ZERO chance of this collision not happening. No train made can stop as fast as you think it can. You need to quit trying to make physics do things that are impossible. Your like some of the brokers I deal with they think I can get a driver 200 miles away to a shipper in less than 30 mins before the place closes.
EuclidThe oil train at Casselton had .688 miles available for stopping.
Unfortunately, the derailed hopper was only .666 miles away.
Euclid BaltACD Stopping distance for 14K + tons even in emergency is well over 1 train length. From what speed at start of emergency application?
An "expensive model collector"
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.