Shadow the Cats owner 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.
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.
I never suggested what you said in my red highlight above. It was the engineer of the oil train who first realized that his track was fouled, and that was only 10 seconds from impact. From the time of the annoucement that the grain train had experienced a UDE was 28 seconds from impact. From the point where the UDE was recognized was 59 seconds from impact.
I don't know if the oil train could have stopped in 59 seconds, but I find it strange that there is so much desperation here to insist that it was impossible. How do you know that? You don't know it was impossible, and I don't know it was possible. But I am not insisting that it was possible while you and others are insisting that was not possible.
There is a rule involved with how this played out. I am beginning to wonder if I am the only one who realizes this.
CMStPnP 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
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
Did you even bother to read the first post of this thread? It has the video links in it, and the video is the basis for Euclid's argument.
An "expensive model collector"
Euclid Shadow the Cats owner 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. I never suggested what you said in my red highlight above. It was the engineer of the oil train who first realized that his track was fouled, and that was only 10 seconds from impact. From the time of the annoucement that the grain train had experienced a UDE was 28 seconds from impact. From the point where the UDE was recognized was 59 seconds from impact. I don't know if the oil train could have stopped in 59 seconds, but I find it strange that there is so much desperation here to insist that it was impossible. How do you know that? You don't know it was impossible, and I don't know it was possible. But I am not insisting that it was possible while you and others are insisting that was not possible. There is a rule involved with how this played out. I am beginning to wonder if I am the only one who realizes this.
Reality never intrudes into your world does it Bucky!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Euclid Under this circumstance, it seems to me that safe train handling would have called for an emergency application to cut speed as quickly as possible. The risk of the emergency application causing a derailment or other problem would be less than the risk of heading into a blind spot that is known to contain a problem which might be fouling equipment. The rule calls for immediate action to prevent this type of collision. When the UDE indicated the possibility of a fouling car, there was a total of 59 seconds available to stop short of that car. A delay in reacting used up 49 of the 59 seconds available.
Under this circumstance, it seems to me that safe train handling would have called for an emergency application to cut speed as quickly as possible. The risk of the emergency application causing a derailment or other problem would be less than the risk of heading into a blind spot that is known to contain a problem which might be fouling equipment.
The rule calls for immediate action to prevent this type of collision. When the UDE indicated the possibility of a fouling car, there was a total of 59 seconds available to stop short of that car. A delay in reacting used up 49 of the 59 seconds available.
From the BNSF train handling rule book.
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:
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.
23 17 46 11
I called a close friend of mine a retired BNSF and ATSF Roadmaster that started his career with the ATSF in 1972 he and my husband have been friends for about 30 years. I asked him flat out if based on current rules he retired last year after 44 years in if the Oil train could have stopped from the point if the Grain train had announced it had been in emergency from the second the UDE occured. His answer was a FLAT OUT NO WAY IN HELL even with ECP was that sucker going to stop even in Emergency from 42 MPH. So unless you have more exp than he does running trains all over the USA and he ran them from Chicago to LA on the Transcon where ever he was needed for 44 years. He gets tired of as he says keyboard experts that have zero clue how air brakes react when the weather is below 32 degrees also.
EuclidThere is a rule involved with how this played out. I am beginning to wonder if I am the only one who realizes this.
You must be. We bow down to your awesome powers of perception.
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
In Bucky's world 14K ton trains have the braking distance of a F1 race car.
zugmann Euclid There is a rule involved with how this played out. I am beginning to wonder if I am the only one who realizes this. You must be. We bow down to your awesome powers of perception.
Euclid There is a rule involved with how this played out. I am beginning to wonder if I am the only one who realizes this.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
edblysardWe all understand the rule you seem to be hung up on…yes, the grain train should have announced the UDE the instant it occurred…they didn’t because they didn’t know what caused it.
Why should they care what caused it? The point is that a derailment might have caused the UDE, and that possibility alone is enough for the rule to require protective action. The main point of the rule is to protect trains that might be approaching very close, so there is no time to find out what caused the emergency application.
All that the rule requires is for the emergency application to have happened. From there, it requires instant action no matter what caused the application. If the rule allowed time to find out what caused it, there would be no point for the rule.
GCOR rule 6.23 Emergency Stop or Severe Slack Action
When a train or engine is stopped by an emergency application of the brakes or severe slack action occurs while stopping, take the following actions:
Obstruction of Main Track or Controlled Siding
If an adjacent main track or controlled siding may be obstructed, immediately:
• Warn other trains by radio, stating the exact location and status of the train and repeat as necessary.
• Place lighted fusees on adjacent tracks.
• Notify the train dispatcher or control operator and, when possible, foreign line railroads if necessary.
They lost, what - 30 seconds there? Check the stand/guages - find out what's going on, take a look down the train, reach for the radio. It takes a few moments.
Under normal circumstances, that's more than fast enough to be "immediate."
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...
To members of this forum. I came across this and thought it might apply to Euclid. While the title says Silence, I think the arguments are relative. What do you think.
If you think you’re going to have a thoughtful discussion with someone who is toxic, be prepared for epic mindfuckery rather than conversational mindfulness.
Malignant narcissists and sociopaths useword salad, circular conversations, ad hominem arguments, projection and gaslighting to disorient you and get you off track should you ever disagree with them or challenge them in any way. They do this in order to discredit, confuse and frustrate you, distract you from the main problem and make you feel guilty for being a human being with actual thoughts and feelings that might differ from their own. In their eyes, you are the problem if you happen to exist.
Spend even ten minutes arguing with a toxic narcissist and you’ll find yourself wondering how the argument even began at all. You simply disagreed with them about their absurd claim that the sky is red and now your entire childhood, family, friends, career and lifestyle choices have come under attack. That is because your disagreement picked at their false belief that they are omnipotent and omniscient, resulting in a narcissistic injury.
Remember: toxic people don’t argue with you, they essentially argue with themselves and you become privy to their long, draining monologues. They thrive off the drama and they live for it. Each and every time you attempt to provide a point that counters their ridiculous assertions, you feed them supply. Don’t feed the narcissists supply – rather, supply yourself with the confirmation that their abusive behavior is the problem, not you. Cut the interaction short as soon as you anticipate it escalating and use your energy on some decadent self-care instead.
Malignant narcissists aren’t always intellectual masterminds – many of them are intellectually lazy. Rather than taking the time to carefully consider a different perspective, they generalize anything and everything you say, making blanket statements that don’t acknowledge the nuances in your argument or take into account the multiple perspectives you’ve paid homage to. Better yet, why not put a label on you that dismisses your perspective altogether?
On a larger scale, generalizations and blanket statements invalidate experiences that don’t fit in the unsupported assumptions, schemas and stereotypes of society; they are also used to maintain the status quo. This form of digression exaggerates one perspective to the point where a social justice issue can become completely obscured. For example, rape accusations against well-liked figures are often met with the reminder that there are false reports of rape that occur. While those do occur, they are rare, and in this case, the actions of one become labeled the behavior of the majority while the specific report itself remains unaddressed.
These everyday microaggressions also happen in toxic relationships. If you bring up to a narcissistic abuser that their behavior is unacceptable for example, they will often make blanket generalizations about your hypersensitivity or make a generalization such as, “You are never satisfied,” or “You’realways too sensitive” rather than addressing the real issues at hand. It’s possible that you are oversensitive at times, but it is also possible that the abuser is also insensitive and cruel the majority of the time.
Hold onto your truth and resist generalizing statements by realizing that they are in fact forms of black and white illogical thinking. Toxic people wielding blanket statements do not represent the full richness of experience – they represent the limited one of their singular experience and overinflated sense of self.
In the hands of a malignant narcissist or sociopath, your differing opinions, legitimate emotions and lived experiences get translated into character flaws and evidence of your irrationality.
Narcissists weave tall tales to reframe what you’re actually saying as a way to make your opinions look absurd or heinous. Let’s say you bring up the fact that you’re unhappy with the way a toxic friend is speaking to you. In response, he or she may put words in your mouth, saying, “Oh, so now you’re perfect?” or “So I am a bad person, huh?” when you’ve done nothing but express your feelings. This enables them to invalidate your right to have thoughts and emotions about their inappropriate behavior and instills in you a sense of guilt when you attempt to establish boundaries.
This is also a popular form of diversion and cognitive distortion that is known as “mind reading.” Toxic people often presume they know what you’re thinking and feeling. They chronically jump to conclusions based on their own triggers rather than stepping back to evaluate the situation mindfully. They act accordingly based on their own delusions and fallacies and make no apologies for the harm they cause as a result. Notorious for putting words in your mouth, they depict you as having an intention or outlandish viewpoint you didn’t possess. They accuse you of thinking of them as toxic – even before you’ve gotten the chance to call them out on their behavior – and this also serves as a form of preemptive defense.
Simply stating, “I never said that,” and walking away should the person continue to accuse you of doing or saying something you didn’t can help to set a firm boundary in this type of interaction. So long as the toxic person can blameshift and digress from their own behavior, they have succeeded in convincing you that you should be “shamed” for giving them any sort of realistic feedback.
I have omitted parts that may not be relative to this. But the whole list is at
http://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you/
Electroliner 1935 To members of this forum. I came across this and thought it might apply to Euclid. While the title says Silence, I think the arguments are relative. What do you think. 20 Diversion Tactics Highly Manipulative Narcissists, Sociopaths And Psychopaths Use To Silence You Shahida Arabi Toxic people such as malignant narcissists,psychopaths and those with antisocial traits engage in maladaptive behaviors in relationships that ultimately exploit, demean and hurt their intimate partners, family members and friends. They use a plethora of diversionary tactics that distort the reality of their victims and deflect responsibility. Although those who are not narcissistic can employ these tactics as well, abusive narcissists use these to an excessive extent in an effort to escape accountability for their actions. 3. Nonsensical conversations from hell. If you think you’re going to have a thoughtful discussion with someone who is toxic, be prepared for epic mindfuckery rather than conversational mindfulness. Malignant narcissists and sociopaths useword salad, circular conversations, ad hominem arguments, projection and gaslighting to disorient you and get you off track should you ever disagree with them or challenge them in any way. They do this in order to discredit, confuse and frustrate you, distract you from the main problem and make you feel guilty for being a human being with actual thoughts and feelings that might differ from their own. In their eyes, you are the problem if you happen to exist. Spend even ten minutes arguing with a toxic narcissist and you’ll find yourself wondering how the argument even began at all. You simply disagreed with them about their absurd claim that the sky is red and now your entire childhood, family, friends, career and lifestyle choices have come under attack. That is because your disagreement picked at their false belief that they are omnipotent and omniscient, resulting in a narcissistic injury. Remember: toxic people don’t argue with you, they essentially argue with themselves and you become privy to their long, draining monologues. They thrive off the drama and they live for it. Each and every time you attempt to provide a point that counters their ridiculous assertions, you feed them supply. Don’t feed the narcissists supply – rather, supply yourself with the confirmation that their abusive behavior is the problem, not you. Cut the interaction short as soon as you anticipate it escalating and use your energy on some decadent self-care instead. 4. Blanket statements and generalizations. Malignant narcissists aren’t always intellectual masterminds – many of them are intellectually lazy. Rather than taking the time to carefully consider a different perspective, they generalize anything and everything you say, making blanket statements that don’t acknowledge the nuances in your argument or take into account the multiple perspectives you’ve paid homage to. Better yet, why not put a label on you that dismisses your perspective altogether? On a larger scale, generalizations and blanket statements invalidate experiences that don’t fit in the unsupported assumptions, schemas and stereotypes of society; they are also used to maintain the status quo. This form of digression exaggerates one perspective to the point where a social justice issue can become completely obscured. For example, rape accusations against well-liked figures are often met with the reminder that there are false reports of rape that occur. While those do occur, they are rare, and in this case, the actions of one become labeled the behavior of the majority while the specific report itself remains unaddressed. These everyday microaggressions also happen in toxic relationships. If you bring up to a narcissistic abuser that their behavior is unacceptable for example, they will often make blanket generalizations about your hypersensitivity or make a generalization such as, “You are never satisfied,” or “You’realways too sensitive” rather than addressing the real issues at hand. It’s possible that you are oversensitive at times, but it is also possible that the abuser is also insensitive and cruel the majority of the time. Hold onto your truth and resist generalizing statements by realizing that they are in fact forms of black and white illogical thinking. Toxic people wielding blanket statements do not represent the full richness of experience – they represent the limited one of their singular experience and overinflated sense of self. 5. Deliberately misrepresenting your thoughts and feelings to the point of absurdity. In the hands of a malignant narcissist or sociopath, your differing opinions, legitimate emotions and lived experiences get translated into character flaws and evidence of your irrationality. Narcissists weave tall tales to reframe what you’re actually saying as a way to make your opinions look absurd or heinous. Let’s say you bring up the fact that you’re unhappy with the way a toxic friend is speaking to you. In response, he or she may put words in your mouth, saying, “Oh, so now you’re perfect?” or “So I am a bad person, huh?” when you’ve done nothing but express your feelings. This enables them to invalidate your right to have thoughts and emotions about their inappropriate behavior and instills in you a sense of guilt when you attempt to establish boundaries. This is also a popular form of diversion and cognitive distortion that is known as “mind reading.” Toxic people often presume they know what you’re thinking and feeling. They chronically jump to conclusions based on their own triggers rather than stepping back to evaluate the situation mindfully. They act accordingly based on their own delusions and fallacies and make no apologies for the harm they cause as a result. Notorious for putting words in your mouth, they depict you as having an intention or outlandish viewpoint you didn’t possess. They accuse you of thinking of them as toxic – even before you’ve gotten the chance to call them out on their behavior – and this also serves as a form of preemptive defense. Simply stating, “I never said that,” and walking away should the person continue to accuse you of doing or saying something you didn’t can help to set a firm boundary in this type of interaction. So long as the toxic person can blameshift and digress from their own behavior, they have succeeded in convincing you that you should be “shamed” for giving them any sort of realistic feedback. I have omitted parts that may not be relative to this. But the whole list is at http://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you/
Nit picking and changing the subject fit right in.
Norm
I swear arguing with Euclid is the best treatment for me right now. Why called I just got off the phone with 2 seperate DOT officiers why my driver was cited in an accident for failure to reduce speed for an accident for a cop car that brake checked him 5 feet in front of him and now the cop is SUING my boss. Oh yeah it led to a hazmat incident and a few other issues for my carrier. They are trying to say he did not brake check the driver and did not cut him off even though he is caught on not 1 but 2 seperate cameras doing it. Our atty got ahold of his dash cam and he goes well here is my chance to win the lottery. Not the greatest thing to say on a dash cam in a police car. Yet the DOT officers will not budge on the ticket that the court convicted our dirver on. We are appealing it for him. Let's just say the State of MA and I are going to be at War before this month is over.
n012944 Euclid Under this circumstance, it seems to me that safe train handling would have called for an emergency application to cut speed as quickly as possible. The risk of the emergency application causing a derailment or other problem would be less than the risk of heading into a blind spot that is known to contain a problem which might be fouling equipment. The rule calls for immediate action to prevent this type of collision. When the UDE indicated the possibility of a fouling car, there was a total of 59 seconds available to stop short of that car. A delay in reacting used up 49 of the 59 seconds available. From the BNSF train handling rule book. 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: 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.
As I have mentioned, I have no idea what rules may have applied to the crews involved in the Casselton derailment. Although GCOR Rule 6.23 seems to fit the circumstances of that wreck. What is your knowledge of how the BNSF train handling rule that you posted above applies to the Casselton derailment?
Where's the facepalm emoticom when you need it?
Euclid n012944 Euclid Under this circumstance, it seems to me that safe train handling would have called for an emergency application to cut speed as quickly as possible. The risk of the emergency application causing a derailment or other problem would be less than the risk of heading into a blind spot that is known to contain a problem which might be fouling equipment. The rule calls for immediate action to prevent this type of collision. When the UDE indicated the possibility of a fouling car, there was a total of 59 seconds available to stop short of that car. A delay in reacting used up 49 of the 59 seconds available. From the BNSF train handling rule book. 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: 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. As I have mentioned, I have no idea what rules may have applied to the crews involved in the Casselton derailment. Although GCOR Rule 6.23 seems to fit the circumstances of that wreck. What is your knowledge of how the BNSF train handling rule that you posted above applies to the Casselton derailment?
17 seconds elapsed between the Grain Trains UDE (which is the Grain Trains FIRST indication of anything being amiss) and the engines of the Oil Train's starting to pass (at 42 MPH) the Grain Train's engines (that were still moving at 16 MPH) and would strike the 45th car (roughly 2600 feet from the engines of the Grain Train that was still moving that car closer to the Oil Train).
Had the Grain train instantaneously announced their UDE and specific location (which would have taken between 5 & 10 seconds) and had the announcement been received and instantly understood and acted upon - a full service application would have been initiated by the Oil Train at about the time the engines passed the Grain train's engines, the engineer would have been waiting for the brake exhaust to end and slack to be stablized when impact with the derailed car happened.
Interesting that the Oil train engines continued moving for 10 seconds after impact (speed not indicated) while being 'braked' by tearing up the ground (a much higher rate of decelleration than normal or emergency on track braking) - what is not stated in the video is how much longer after initial impact the momentum of the Oil train's cars continued impacting the derailed cars until all the kinetic energy of the train was disappated.
Viewing the Grain Train's speed that decreased from 37 to 31 MPH prior to the car being indicated as derailed, it is appearant that the Grain Train was ascending some degree of grade, likewise the Oil Train would have been descending that same grade.
tree68 Where's the facepalm emoticom when you need it?
Amen! Bucky either doesn't get it or refuses to acknowledge he is the problem, not the solution.
BaltACDHad the Grain train instantaneously announced their UDE and specific location (which would have taken between 5 & 10 seconds) and had the announcement been received and instantly understood and acted upon - a full service application would have been initiated by the Oil Train at about the time the engines passed the Grain train's engines,...
Why a full service application instead of an emergency application?
EuclidWhy a full service application instead of an emergency application?
Why would you expect an emergency application? At that point, there is no known obstruction on the tracks. The derailed car was nearly a half mile away from the head end.
tree68 Euclid Why a full service application instead of an emergency application? Why would you expect an emergency application? At that point, there is no known obstruction on the tracks. The derailed car was nearly a half mile away from the head end.
Euclid Why a full service application instead of an emergency application?
Well for about the tenth time: The rule does not care if there is a known obstruction.
It calls for action if there may be an obstruction in order to save time in case there is an obstruction. Read the rule:
And people complain about my threads. Geez, someone needs to put this discussion out of it's agony.
Per the BNSF the grade profile around there is varying almost rolling ascending .4 percent westbound and desending the same eastbound.
CMStPnP Geez, someone needs to put this discussion out of it's agony.
We try, but the "yes, buts..." just keep on coming...
Bucky - you've cited two different rules here. One has to do with a train experiencing a UDE (GCOR rule 6.23 Emergency Stop or Severe Slack Action), the other has to do with a train making an unplanned stop (103.6.5 Unplanned Stop). I suspect you are mixing the two.
tree68 Bucky - you've cited two different rules here. One has to do with a train experiencing a UDE (GCOR rule 6.23 Emergency Stop or Severe Slack Action), the other has to do with a train making an unplanned stop (103.6.5 Unplanned Stop). I suspect you are mixing the two.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
tree68 CMStPnP Geez, someone needs to put this discussion out of it's agony. We try, but the "yes, buts..." just keep on coming... Bucky - you've cited two different rules here. One has to do with a train experiencing a UDE (GCOR rule 6.23 Emergency Stop or Severe Slack Action), the other has to do with a train making an unplanned stop (103.6.5 Unplanned Stop). I suspect you are mixing the two.
I posted the Rule 6.23 because it seems to fit the scenario at Casselton. It is a rule intended to prevent exactly what happened at Casselton. But I did say several times that I do not know for sure that it applies to Casselton. There may be something that completely overrides Rule 6.23 at Casselton.
Then somebody else posted the rule on Unplanned Stop. I realize that the two rules conflict with each other, so I asked the person who posted Unplanned Stop rule to tell me how it applies to Casselton. I asked him that because he did not say. The rule itself does not say exactly where it applies or define Unplanned Stop. Any emergency application whether commaned or unintended, might be considered to be an unplanned stop. Is stopping because a hopper car is laying on your track an unplanned stop?
But of course, I did not get any answer to my question from the person who posted it.
So let me ask this: At the Casselton derailment, which rule appled? Was it Rule 103.6.5 or was it Rule 6.23. I don't see how it can be both of them.
EuclidI don't see how it can be both of them.
Unless I miss my guess, 6.23 would apply to the grain train.
Rule 103.6.5 would apply to the oil train, at least up to the point where more drastic action was indicated.
Full service is a CONTROLLED brake application.
EMERGENCY is a uncontrolled brake application that makes no attempt to account for slack action within the train. Emergency also eliminates Dynamic Braking on the locomotives if it is being used. Engines remain under power for a period of time (I think 30 seconds) in a programmed 'attempt' to have the head end of a separated train 'run away' from the rear portion of a separated train so as to prevent a derailment when/if the rolling rear portion of the trains runs into the STOPPED front portion of the train.
It makes no difference if the EMERGENCY application is initiated by the Engineer or the Train. EMERGENCY brake applications are uncontrolled.
CMStPnP And people complain about my threads. Geez, someone needs to put this discussion out of it's agony.
If that is the goal, then folks should stop feeding him responses.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
tree68 Euclid I don't see how it can be both of them. Unless I miss my guess, 6.23 would apply to the grain train. Rule 103.6.5 would apply to the oil train, at least up to the point where more drastic action was indicated.
Euclid I don't see how it can be both of them.
Okay, I see. Rule 6.23 calls for warning and flag protection to other trains to be carried out by the crew of the disabled train, so the rule definitely applies to the the grain train. I interpret the call to place lighted fusees at both ends of the disabled train to mean that the intent is to stop any approaching trains until it is known that the adjcent track is not fouled. So the intent would be to stop the oil train before it began passing the grain train. If the fusees do not mean stop, what is the point of placing them?
If they do mean stop; and if there is not enough distance to stop with a service application; why would a rule require a service application and forbid an emergency application?
Certainly the Unplanned Stop rule is not intended to eliminate the use of the emergency application. Rule 6.23 addresses a dire situation. It is so dire that the rule assumes the track is fouled until it can be proven not to be fouled. So when a UDE happens on double track, it instantly creates an emergency situation on the adjacent track. If an approaching train is three miles away, then fine, stop it with a service application. But if the train is too close to the potential foul condition to stop with a serivice application, then I cannot believe that rule 103.6.5 would forbid using an emergency application.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.