Murphy Siding Euclid Murphy Siding Off the top of my head I am able to list 26 forum members that are current or former railroaders. Ten of those have been active in this thread. I believe they are much more knowledgable about this topic than people with zero railroad experience like me, or like Euclid. Speak for yourself. You know nothing about my experience background. You are absolutely correct. Neither does anyone else on the forum. In your 4358 posts as Euclid and probably 4358 posts before as Bucyrus you have never given anyone reason to believe that you have any railroad background other than saying you do.
Euclid Murphy Siding Off the top of my head I am able to list 26 forum members that are current or former railroaders. Ten of those have been active in this thread. I believe they are much more knowledgable about this topic than people with zero railroad experience like me, or like Euclid. Speak for yourself. You know nothing about my experience background.
Murphy Siding Off the top of my head I am able to list 26 forum members that are current or former railroaders. Ten of those have been active in this thread. I believe they are much more knowledgable about this topic than people with zero railroad experience like me, or like Euclid.
Speak for yourself. You know nothing about my experience background.
You are absolutely correct. Neither does anyone else on the forum. In your 4358 posts as Euclid and probably 4358 posts before as Bucyrus you have never given anyone reason to believe that you have any railroad background other than saying you do.
Oh, I don't think it is as bad as all that. I think you exaggerate. Frankly, I do not obsess over what people have on their resumes, and doubt that many others do either. I know what I know, and through that lens, I judge what others say. But you seem to be able to put people into neat little boxes. Some have all the answers and some don't have any answers at all.
tree68 ruderunner so assuming passenger cars at roughly 85' werew looking at an 850 foot sight distance correct? Or if you're referring to 40' boxcars then 400'. Most freight folks these days think in terms of a 50 foot car, so that would put it around 500 feet, more or less. No one has questioned the 250' figure. Only how much braking can occur in the three seconds that would elapse between seeing a misaligned switch and then reaching it at near 60 MPH.
ruderunner so assuming passenger cars at roughly 85' werew looking at an 850 foot sight distance correct? Or if you're referring to 40' boxcars then 400'.
Most freight folks these days think in terms of a 50 foot car, so that would put it around 500 feet, more or less.
No one has questioned the 250' figure. Only how much braking can occur in the three seconds that would elapse between seeing a misaligned switch and then reaching it at near 60 MPH.
On the contrary larrL, I see lots of folks questioning the 250' statement. Even the fellow who posted that number clearly acknowledges that the extra distance wouldn't be worth much in preventing or minimizing the accident.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
Electroliner 1935While immaterial, it is possible. It is thinking good things that may be atributed to the engineer. But isn't this continuing the discussion of "what ifs" that keep us chasing our tails and have little of significance.
It is a try to understand the unusual order, at least for me. I would suspect the emergency brake application before the switch but perhaps they knew the emergency brake application wouldn't bring much up to the switch.
So a warning seemed more important to the crew. If they had realized the locomotive before the warning every yard for braking would have counted.
If or how it might have changed everything doesn't interest me. I can't change history. But as Mr. Zumwalt had said the investigation starts when looking for the reasons behind the primary findings and what to change.
So I think it can be important:Regards, Volker
ruderunner tree68 ruderunner so assuming passenger cars at roughly 85' werew looking at an 850 foot sight distance correct? Or if you're referring to 40' boxcars then 400'. Most freight folks these days think in terms of a 50 foot car, so that would put it around 500 feet, more or less. No one has questioned the 250' figure. Only how much braking can occur in the three seconds that would elapse between seeing a misaligned switch and then reaching it at near 60 MPH. On the contrary larrL, I see lots of folks questioning the 250' statement. Even the fellow who posted that number clearly acknowledges that the extra distance wouldn't be worth much in preventing or minimizing the accident.
I posted that number of 250' and have mentioned that I consider it to be about minimum, so a fair working number.
But the real point is that the 250' should not be dismissed as irrelevant just because the relatively little braking will occur in that distance. The actual relevant distance for braking, according to my caluculations, was 909 feet. That is 250' in advance of the switch + 659' NTSB stated distance from the switch to point of impact.
I would like to know how much 909 feet of emergency application would have slowed the train. But I don't see any possible reliable reference to that information. Apparently the speed approaching the switch was 56 mph. That was reduced to 50 mph by the time of impact.
NDG found, and has linked over in String Lining, a video if a train going through a facing-point switch into standing covered hoppers. At least one knowledgeable railroad source says the 'reaction distance' was 3 car lengths or a bit less, which is even less than the revised figure Euclid has been using. At track speed even the most modern blended braking will not get you much speed reduction in the associated time (call it, conservatively, 80fps at the beginning of the braking curve) and even if reaction time is more direct here than in automobile braking (which I think it is) you will not have much way off the train until the head end is through the whole 'reverse curve' represented by the switch and siding end.
I have seen plenty of discussion and some kinematic analysis noting that it can be dangerous to apply full emergency in switches or crossovers, especially if initial setup to braking engagement happens with some of the wheels relatively unloaded. From some of the observed cab motion in video of things like unexpected track buckles, there might have been some 'discombobulation' for a moment throwing the engineer away from the brake control.
I have not seen 'cab ride' views of this track, but a substantial highway bridge with wide piers close to the track is located just before the point of impact and I think it did shield view of the standing CSX train until right around the time the emergency button was pushed.
NDG found, and has linked over in String Lining, a video if a train going through a facing-point switch into standing covered hoppers. At least one knowledgeable railroad source says the 'reaction distance' was 3 car lengths or a bit less, which is even less than the revised figure Euclid has been using. At track speed even the most modern blended braking will get you much reduction in the associated time (call it, conservatively, 80fps at the beginning of the braking curve) and even if reaction time is more direct here than in automobile braking (which I think it is) you will not have much way off the train until the head end is through the whole 'reverse curve' represented by the switch and siding end.
I have not seen 'cab ride' views of this track, but a substantial highway bridge with wide piers close to the track is located just before the point of impact and I think it did shield view of the standing CSX train until right around the time the emergency button was pushed. I do have the pure supposition that since there was no visible train close to the fouling point or indeed on any part of the track they could see, they assumed just that someone had mislined the switch by mistake and the train could be stopped in blended full service. I sure wish I could know that by hearing from Mr Kempf himself...
EuclidI would like to know how much 909 feet of emergency application would have slowed the train. But I don't see any possible reliable reference to that information. Apparently the speed approaching the switch was 56 mph. That was reduced to 50 mph by the time of impact.
I believe that answer is available for the deduction. Seems like I read here somewhere that it's been established that an emergency application was made/occurred after the locomotive passed through the switch, which would square with the idea that the crew didn't immediately see the standing train and thought they had room to work with.
Using that tidbit, and the 909 feet from switch to standing consist, one may deduce that the emergency application occurred about 800 feet out, more or less.
In that 800 feet, the train lost just six miles per hour of headway. I would opine that even with an additional ~300 feet of braking (ie, from that 250 feet from the switch visible point) the train would still have been running over 40 MPH at the point of impact.
Short of a computer program that will plot the dynamics of that particular train, however, this is all merely speculation. The FRA may have that available, and may share their results, if they compute them. We'll have to see.
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...
ruderunner So, what is a real world estimate of the sight distance? Let's pretend for right now that this is straight level track, dark but clear. We can account for the curve from there. Y'all are spending the time to claim Euclid doesn't know what he's saying but I haven't seen any other estimates
So, what is a real world estimate of the sight distance?
Let's pretend for right now that this is straight level track, dark but clear. We can account for the curve from there.
Y'all are spending the time to claim Euclid doesn't know what he's saying but I haven't seen any other estimates
If I were to offer my own "estimate" then I would be violating the same principle I find Euclid to be in contempt of: speak only as an authority where you actually are one.
We still have no basis other than "I think that sounds like a decent number" unto this issue. Which, as pointed out, it probably not much of a matter in it all anyways, unless we want to play another 50-page game of conjecture like these pages did for Lac Megantic.
I only ask that people only speak as authorities when they are one, or wholly qualify their statements as otherwise - and that includes not holding endless rebuttals when shown to be non-authorities.
It is very clear that Euclid has no intention of ever revealing what experience he doesn't have, and I might add that it's clear it has nothing to do with ever having made a real decision on the fly, since otherwise he wouldn't be questioning the actions of two men who found out they probably had less than 10 seconds to live.
Now I haven't been in that situation either, but an elementary understanding of how the human mind works will tell you that "fight or flight" does different things to different people, and so no matter how much we litigate "coulda shoulda woulda" with regards to when to actuate the E-brake, the ultimate ending is the same.
The real solution is to figure out how to prevent a repeat, rather than question operating employees who are only human and did the best they could.
*Maybe* an extra 200' of braking distance would have helped a little, but who cares? Are you going to indict them for negligence? They're literally the ones who paid the price after all - and probably were going to pay that price at 40mph just the same.
Tree, use Sumwalt's provided numbers. They are taken directly from the EDR and I think represent the best source data - likewise the 659' from 'the switch'.
The initial application of brake works out to about 2 seconds inside the siding. I did not see any indication of an application before that. Note that the 'throttle automatically goes to zero' when the blended brake is applied, but by definition the locomotive dynamic brakes will be as fully optimized as possible. This did not produce substantial reduction in the perhaps 4 seconds (really needs to be rescaled to ms; that will come later with better data fusion). This done presumably with the little stalk handle.
Train put in emergency 3 sec ahead of 'termination of EDR record' using the special control provided on a P42 (see the orientation video if the control layout and function is unclear to you. I would consider at this point that all slack and take up was out of the brakes, and the speed was reduced from the figure given at the time of emergency application to 50 mph in that three seconds or about 230 feet (I have not done a precise calculation as there is little point if it's a few tens of feet longer).
i think it is fairly clear that Mr. Kempf realized death was there only when he hit that emergency button; he made no further attempt at heavier braking with a harder application of blended brake nstead. It was the only decision to make at that point, and it may have required an effort for him to reach it, but he tried.
Overmod i think it is fairly clear that Mr. Kempf realized death was there only when he hit that emergency button; he made no further attempt at heavier braking with a harder application of blended brake nstead. It was the only decision to make at that point, and it may have required an effort for him to reach it, but he tried.
"Emergency button"???? Why "reach" for that when you have an emergency feature on the automatic brake?? "My practical running experience" You intimate that you are a locomotive engineer, are you?
If you were not quite as dumb as you keep trying to demonstrate you are, you would look at a P42 cab, something I now see you never have done, and inspect the emergency-brake arrangement actually on the locomotive type in question.
No, I'm not an engineer, as explained in the many other places you have tried to bring it up as an insult. So you may as well stop trying, and spend your time actually learning some of the things you are so glib to post about as an 'engineer'.
Overmod If you were not quite as dumb as you keep trying to demonstrate you are, you would look at a P42 cab, something I now see you never have done, and inspect the emergency-brake arrangement actually on the locomotive type in question. No, I'm not an engineer, as explained in the many other places you have tried to bring it up as an insult. So you may as well stop trying, and spend your time actually learning some of the things you are so glib to post about as an 'engineer'.
To anyone with experience operating trains you would be the one coming off as "dumb". Why would an engineer reach for the "button" as you describe it, when there is an emergency feature on the 26L brake? Try and answer civilly and not like some prepubescent schoolgirl.
Did you or did you not allude to running trains?
Is this quote attributed to you? "My practical running experience"
243129 Overmod If you were not quite as dumb as you keep trying to demonstrate you are, you would look at a P42 cab, something I now see you never have done, and inspect the emergency-brake arrangement actually on the locomotive type in question. No, I'm not an engineer, as explained in the many other places you have tried to bring it up as an insult. So you may as well stop trying, and spend your time actually learning some of the things you are so glib to post about as an 'engineer'. To anyone with experience operating trains you would be the one coming off as "dumb". Why would an engineer reach for the "button" as you describe it, when there is an emergency feature on the 26L brake? Try and answer civily and not like some prepubescent schoolgirl. Did you or did you not allude to running trains? Is this quote attributed to you? "My practical running experience"
To anyone with experience operating trains you would be the one coming off as "dumb". Why would an engineer reach for the "button" as you describe it, when there is an emergency feature on the 26L brake? Try and answer civily and not like some prepubescent schoolgirl.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding 243129 Overmod If you were not quite as dumb as you keep trying to demonstrate you are, you would look at a P42 cab, something I now see you never have done, and inspect the emergency-brake arrangement actually on the locomotive type in question. No, I'm not an engineer, as explained in the many other places you have tried to bring it up as an insult. So you may as well stop trying, and spend your time actually learning some of the things you are so glib to post about as an 'engineer'. To anyone with experience operating trains you would be the one coming off as "dumb". Why would an engineer reach for the "button" as you describe it, when there is an emergency feature on the 26L brake? Try and answer civily and not like some prepubescent schoolgirl. Did you or did you not allude to running trains? Is this quote attributed to you? "My practical running experience" To be fair, shouldn't you be applying this same type of scrutiny to Euclid?
To be fair, shouldn't you be applying this same type of scrutiny to Euclid?
Euclid is not an imperious condescending twit.
I haven't looked at the P42 cab set up, but I highly doubt it is equipped with a 26L brake valve. I expect (without looking) that the controls look different, and may operate differently, than what is used in freight service, desk top, original or retro style control stand. Although I would expect the automatic brake valve to have an emergency position.
Now I'm off to find the link and actually take a look.
Jeff
(The Amtrak detours I've had always had a freight engine tacked on in front of the Amtrak power. And we operated with the brake valve set to "freight" mode, no graduated release for us.)
243129 Murphy Siding 243129 Overmod If you were not quite as dumb as you keep trying to demonstrate you are, you would look at a P42 cab, something I now see you never have done, and inspect the emergency-brake arrangement actually on the locomotive type in question. No, I'm not an engineer, as explained in the many other places you have tried to bring it up as an insult. So you may as well stop trying, and spend your time actually learning some of the things you are so glib to post about as an 'engineer'. To anyone with experience operating trains you would be the one coming off as "dumb". Why would an engineer reach for the "button" as you describe it, when there is an emergency feature on the 26L brake? Try and answer civily and not like some prepubescent schoolgirl. Did you or did you not allude to running trains? Is this quote attributed to you? "My practical running experience" To be fair, shouldn't you be applying this same type of scrutiny to Euclid? Euclid is not an imperious condescending twit.
It is really rather simple, even for bullying blustering buffoons (to keep this in the spirit of your recent posting style)
1) See P42 technical material, for the button
2) read Sumwalt's report, and the EDR telemetry, both of which refer explicitly to the button being pressed.
You have nothing better than that, do you, except some insults and what I'm increasingly suspecting to be decades-old experience.
if you want to continue your MO to denigrate me, take it to PM. If you want a kinder reception for your posting, make it at least more accurate and read before you post. I think you have a great deal of experience and plenty of wisdom, so do not think I am going after you personally except that I have never seen a positive result from tolerating a bullying attitude in group discussions.
OK, I've looked at some pictures of the P42 cab interior. Actually very similiar to freight equipment with desk top controls. I could even run it without having to read the manual.
I guess I figured it was more modern, probably thinking of the electrics and high speed trains.
"I haven't looked at the P42 cab set up, but I highly doubt it is equipped with a 26L brake valve. "
You are correct Jeff it is a 30cdw. That was an error on my part. Talking GE and thinking EMD.
Overmod It is really rather simple, even for bullying blustering buffoons (to keep this in the spirit of your recent posting style) 1) See P42 technical material, for the button 2) read Sumwalt's report, and the EDR telemetry, both of which refer explicitly to the button being pressed. You have nothing better than that, do you, except some insults and what I'm increasingly suspecting to be decades-old experience. if you want to continue your MO to denigrate me, take it to PM. If you want a kinder reception for your posting, make it at least more accurate and read before you post. I think you have a great deal of experience and plenty of wisdom, so do not think I am going after you personally except that I have never seen a positive result from tolerating a bullying attitude in group discussions.
Scroll back and see who set the tone for this discussion. Stop playing the victim.
Now once again can this quote be attributed to you? My practical running experience"
ALL:
I am a retired professional railroader, a clerk, who walked tracks, took injured workers to the local hospital, filled out reports, made out timerolls, worked in the Material Department at Northtown, and rode trains and engines whenever I could. These two brave me had no chance to react--as simple as that.
I think that "Trains" should shut down this thread and remember that two railroaders will not be returning home. Yes, I did see a few fatalities in my 38 years of service.
Ed Burns (my real name).
Murphy Siding 243129 Murphy Siding 243129 Overmod If you were not quite as dumb as you keep trying to demonstrate you are, you would look at a P42 cab, something I now see you never have done, and inspect the emergency-brake arrangement actually on the locomotive type in question. No, I'm not an engineer, as explained in the many other places you have tried to bring it up as an insult. So you may as well stop trying, and spend your time actually learning some of the things you are so glib to post about as an 'engineer'. To anyone with experience operating trains you would be the one coming off as "dumb". Why would an engineer reach for the "button" as you describe it, when there is an emergency feature on the 26L brake? Try and answer civily and not like some prepubescent schoolgirl. Did you or did you not allude to running trains? Is this quote attributed to you? "My practical running experience" To be fair, shouldn't you be applying this same type of scrutiny to Euclid? Euclid is not an imperious condescending twit. I went to high school with a kid named Randy Groves who felt he had to find different ways to insult people and call them names in order to bolster his own self-esteem. Is that you Randy? If not, I feel you're being quite hypocritical.
I went to high school with a kid named Randy Groves who felt he had to find different ways to insult people and call them names in order to bolster his own self-esteem. Is that you Randy? If not, I feel you're being quite hypocritical.
Why do you feel the need to get involved? Are you related to Overmod?
Well, it's not at the engineer's position, but:
OTOH, the image I found on the same page of the engineer's seat did show a console style brake, and it did have emergency labelled for the full forward position.
So everybody is right...
No everyone is not right. The engineer would have to leave his seat to "push the emergency button".
Thanks for the pictures.
243129 Murphy Siding 243129 Murphy Siding 243129 Overmod If you were not quite as dumb as you keep trying to demonstrate you are, you would look at a P42 cab, something I now see you never have done, and inspect the emergency-brake arrangement actually on the locomotive type in question. No, I'm not an engineer, as explained in the many other places you have tried to bring it up as an insult. So you may as well stop trying, and spend your time actually learning some of the things you are so glib to post about as an 'engineer'. To anyone with experience operating trains you would be the one coming off as "dumb". Why would an engineer reach for the "button" as you describe it, when there is an emergency feature on the 26L brake? Try and answer civily and not like some prepubescent schoolgirl. Did you or did you not allude to running trains? Is this quote attributed to you? "My practical running experience" To be fair, shouldn't you be applying this same type of scrutiny to Euclid? Euclid is not an imperious condescending twit. I went to high school with a kid named Randy Groves who felt he had to find different ways to insult people and call them names in order to bolster his own self-esteem. Is that you Randy? If not, I feel you're being quite hypocritical. Why do you feel the need to get involved? Are you related to Overmod?
Tree and/or 243129- can you explain the orientation of the cab equipment that would cause 243129 to say that the engineer would have to leave his seat?
I am reactive not proactive. Scroll back in this thread and the thread in Passenger and you will see who set the tone. I understand the forum mentality and it's attendant clique so try to be objective in your search.
243129No everyone is not right. The engineer would have to leave his seat to "push the emergency button".
Still arguing against reality when he runs out of people. The locomotive says someone pushed the button to put the train in emergency. Sumwalt says someone pushed the button. You were not there, have only just now seen where things are, and think your opinion supersedes the actions of the people who were there in the emergency? Next you'll be saying Amtrak trained them badly because somebody shouldn't have 'reached' for the button they thought necessary to push.
Yes, the button is located away from the engineer's seat. If I had to guess before seeing the interior camera footage I'd say the conductor, with a longer view ahead around the curve and through the bridge, was actually the one pushing the button.
i have yet to see anything indicating the blended brake was moved to emergency before the button was pushed. That does not mean it wasn't; only that the effect of the button would likely override any subsequent action of the engineer's control.
243129 I am reactive not proactive. Scroll back in this thread and the thread in Passenger and you will see who set the tone. I understand the forum mentality and it's attendant clique so try to be objective in your search.
Murphy SidingTree and/or 243129- can you explain the orientation of the cab equipment that would cause 243129 to say that the engineer would have to leave his seat?
The red button on the engineer's side is the "Cab Signal Acknowledge" button. Enlarge the picture to read the label.
The engineer moves the brake handle all the way forward to put the brakes in emergency, just like on any other automatic brake valve.
.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.