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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I know I work in the wrong industry and do not even drive the trucks. However I asked several of my drivers all with 20+ years of hauling some of the nastiest stuff that is pulled all over the USA how fast they can stop in an emergency. They all answered me with 2 questions do you want the truck upright or on its side with the load all over the freaking place. In what happened in Casseleton regardless of whatever that crew did whenever they applied the brakes on that oil train the second they saw the grain car was fouling their tracks they were coming off the tracks plain and simple. It is simple physics you had a 125 ton derail on the mainline and regradless of what you did nothing short of a transporter from Star Trek was going to stop it from crashing.
You can argur what the crew did wrong until the cows come home not one thing is going to change that fact that regardless of what they did that CBR train was going to be derailed. The momentum of the train and the facts are nothing was going to stop it. This was that one accident that even PTC could NOT have prevented from all indincations the way it looks like. Just think about that the ultimate safety system would not have prevented this one on the mainline in ND from happening. So quit arguing that this crew was wrong on this rule or that rule. Yes mistakes where made all around. Just be glad it was not a train carrying a tanker full of Chorline Gas that derailed and went up in Downtown Chicago. Yes it was a bad accident however it was not as bad as it could have been.
tree68But you should care how he runs his train. Because he's here to tell you how things are, not how you think they should be.
That's ok. I really don't care if he cares how I run my train, either. I'll run it to the best of my abilities while following all safety rules, regualtions, orders, etc. This site is the last thing on my mind when I'm doing real RR work. I post here when I'm bored at home.
23 17 46 11
I don't have to run trains anymore. Too easy to get killed....
I've had enough misadventures.
Randy
EuclidNo I don't care how you run your train.
But you should care how he runs his train. Because he's here to tell you how things are, not how you think they should be.
And that's pretty much been the point - someone who knows tells you how things really are, and you come back with a "yes, but..."
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...
Been down this path with Bucky too many times before to get involved in this one. However, I think he should add a signature line that says
"Disclaimer: These posts are the [unqualified] opinion of the author and are for entertainment purposes only".
Norm
Electroliner 1935 I may be sorry I am adding to this thread but I am reminded of the movie "SULLEY" and the questioning of whether he had time to divert to an other airport rather than land in the Hudson River. Decision making includes the time to react to an event. It's why the magician can drop the dollar bill through your fingers before you can squeeze them and catch the bill. Some reactions can be automatic but unexpected events take a few secconds. 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 may be sorry I am adding to this thread but I am reminded of the movie "SULLEY" and the questioning of whether he had time to divert to an other airport rather than land in the Hudson River. Decision making includes the time to react to an event. It's why the magician can drop the dollar bill through your fingers before you can squeeze them and catch the bill. Some reactions can be automatic but unexpected events take a few secconds.
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.
23/17/46/11
Kinetic energy is directly proportional to the mass of the object and to the square of its velocity: K.E. = 1/2 m v2. If the mass has units of kilograms and the velocity of meters per second, the kinetic energy has units of kilograms-meters squared per second squared.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
zugmann You think that was flying off the handle? Whatever you say, Senpai.
Well actually I have seen worse flying off the handle now that you mention it.
Euclid Well I can't help that. You ask me a question, I answer it with no disrespect, and then you fly off the handle and say I am lecturing you.
Well I can't help that. You ask me a question, I answer it with no disrespect, and then you fly off the handle and say I am lecturing you.
You think that was flying off the handle? Whatever you say, Senpai.
Euclid zugmann Euclid Do we really have a non-engineer lecturing engineers how to run their trains? No I don't care how you run your train. But if you have some pressing issue with what I am saying, I will be glad to respond. It's not a lecture.
zugmann Euclid Do we really have a non-engineer lecturing engineers how to run their trains?
Euclid
Do we really have a non-engineer lecturing engineers how to run their trains?
No I don't care how you run your train. But if you have some pressing issue with what I am saying, I will be glad to respond. It's not a lecture.
Run that keyboard! It is the only thing you can run, qualified or not.
EuclidNo I don't care how you run your train. But if you have some pressing issue with what I am saying, I will be glad to respond. It's not a lecture.
Sure sounds like a lecture.
zugmann Euclid Just because you believe the collision is going to occur, it does not relieve you from the rule to take immediate action to slow down as much as possible. Do we really have a non-engineer lecturing engineers how to run their trains?
Euclid Just because you believe the collision is going to occur, it does not relieve you from the rule to take immediate action to slow down as much as possible.
No I don't care how you run your train. But if you have some pressing issue with what I am saying, I will be glad to respond. It's not a lecture. It's not even an insult.
EuclidJust because you believe the collision is going to occur, it does not relieve you from the rule to take immediate action to slow down as much as possible.
tree68 Let's see - a train doing 28 MPH at the time of the UDE, and dragging a derailed car, takes 35 seconds to stop. The derailed car was 45 deep (~2250 feet). How long will it take a 102 car loaded train doing 43 MPH, with nothing dragging, to stop? That collision was going to occur. Period.
Let's see - a train doing 28 MPH at the time of the UDE, and dragging a derailed car, takes 35 seconds to stop. The derailed car was 45 deep (~2250 feet).
How long will it take a 102 car loaded train doing 43 MPH, with nothing dragging, to stop?
That collision was going to occur. Period.
I don't know if 59 seconds was enough to stop the oil trail or not. Do you? I do know that it would have slowed down a lot more in 59 seconds than in the 10 seconds it utilized.
Just because you believe the collision is going to occur, it does not relieve you from the rule to take immediate action to slow down as much as possible.
EuclidWell, it would not be good train handling if you could slow to restricted speed without going into emergency.
My God you are all over the map in that explanation. Pretty apparent you have no experince as an engineer. So stop pretending you know what's best. It's downright pathetic.
zugmann Euclid He should have dumped the air as soon as he heard the warning. That's not how you reduce your speed to restricted following safe train handling procedures, now is it?
Euclid He should have dumped the air as soon as he heard the warning.
That's not how you reduce your speed to restricted following safe train handling procedures, now is it?
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.
Please review rules 1,2,3,and 4 posted above
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
EuclidWhy do you think these facts require suspending the laws of physics?
It's not the facts - it's your conclusions of how things should have been...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.