Norm48327 n012944 It has been answered, then reasked by you with slightly different wording, reanswered, and so on. Quite frankly some of us are sick of answering the same question over and over. That has been Bucky's standard procedure for years. Keep moving the goal posts so no one can discover where he wants the conversation to go. It's a troll's standard maneuver. n012944 Now since we are talking about questions that posters have refused to answer, what is your railroading background again? Hey, I wish you luck getting that question answered. I can't enumerate how many times the troll has been asked what his qualifications are only to have the question totally ignored. Based on his unwillingness to give even a remote hint of his background in railroading it's an extremely safe bet he has absolutley none except for what he has read on line, and the veracity of some of that is in serious doubt.
n012944 It has been answered, then reasked by you with slightly different wording, reanswered, and so on. Quite frankly some of us are sick of answering the same question over and over.
That has been Bucky's standard procedure for years. Keep moving the goal posts so no one can discover where he wants the conversation to go. It's a troll's standard maneuver.
n012944 Now since we are talking about questions that posters have refused to answer, what is your railroading background again?
Hey, I wish you luck getting that question answered. I can't enumerate how many times the troll has been asked what his qualifications are only to have the question totally ignored. Based on his unwillingness to give even a remote hint of his background in railroading it's an extremely safe bet he has absolutley none except for what he has read on line, and the veracity of some of that is in serious doubt.
Oh Norm, give me a break. Like I should spit out a bunch of credentials, and you would just clear me of suspicion and go back to your little cave. Get real. Why all the hate? Like YOU of all people should be complaining about trolling. That’s a hoot.
EuclidI 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.
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...
A thought about...manners(?), I guess? For the most part, on internet forums, it's kind of an unwritten rule that the poster who starts a thread should have some say in what direction those thread progresses. Common manners would suggest that if I didn't like what a particular poster was saying, promoting, spewing, advocating, regurgitating, etc. , I should just figure it’s his thread, not mine, and move on. I view it like my neighbor’s yard and his garden. If that’s how he wants his yard and garden to look, he can have at it. I’ll move on. In the years I’ve been on this forum- and other forums, not train related- I’ve found that forum members can be split into two broad categories. The first type of members is folks who have a shared interest in a certain subject. I fall into that category. My internet forum presence is involved with trains, sprint car racing and local dirt track racing on three forums. The second type of members has no real interest in the subject at hand. They are only there to play “the game”. You know what I’m talking about. Every forum has at least a few, and most forums have a standout member whose sole purpose for being on the forum is to garner as much attention as possible by trying to raise other people’s blood pressure. When I was a kid, a common thing we were told was “Ignore him. He’s just trying to get your goat”. Whether we admit it or not, we all tend to stoop to goat-baiting at times on forums. It takes the true piece of work to make a life’s vocation out of it. I have the ability to put any forum member on my own mental *ignore that poster* list. It’s my own fault that I let myself overrule that quarantine. Anybody want to talk about sprint cars, local dirt track racing or trains?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
EuclidOh Norm, give me a break. Like I should spit out a bunch of credentials, and you would just clear me of suspicion and go back to your little cave. Get real. Why all the hate? Like YOU of all people should be complaining about trolling. That’s a hoot.
AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW Bucky. Does the truth hurt?
Norm
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.
For some time I have thought of him as a lawyer preparing a case by grilling his witnesses and experts. Everything is black and white, right or wrong. Note that he counts the seconds, notes the actions of each subject at the specific times they occur, then researches the rules to see which one applies when, then judges the actions to determine where the failures to comply are.
Euclid, one thing puzzles me: why did you say Larry said "prohibit" when he didn't, then when he said he didn't say "prohibit" you said he said "prohibit" and when he said he never said "prohibit" you said he said "prohibit"?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
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. For some time I have thought of him as a lawyer preparing a case by grilling his witnesses and experts. Everything is black and white, right or wrong. Note that he counts the seconds, notes the actions of each subject at the specific times they occur, then researches the rules to see which one applies when, then judges the actions to determine where the failures to comply are. Euclid, one thing puzzles me: why did you say Larry said "prohibit" when he didn't, then when he said he didn't say "prohibit" you said he said "prohibit" and when he said he never said "prohibit" you said he said "prohibit"?
Thank you.
Johnny
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
“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. Nice try.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
EuclidWhat 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
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...
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.
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:
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.
An "expensive model collector"
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Then why do you keep playing his game?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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.
schlimmLeave 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.
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.
Of course! But that may be many months away. And as night follows day, another silly thread may erupt.
The final report by the NTSB will be released within a month from now.
Guys - just let it go. You can't win. He enjoys the battle too much. Just smile, nod, and move on.
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.