I think a lot has been determined by the NTSB. But much of what they have found has not been passed along to the Trains forum. What's up with that?
Still in training.
Euclid BaltACD Euclid Okay, but why hold a passenger train for that freight switching work? Why not have the freight job release their block authority and give authority to 91 before it arrives? Then after 91 passes without being delayed, give block authority back the the freight job so they can finish their work? In your perfect world that would happen. This is the real world of railroading - there are only 24 hours of track time to get everything done. Sometimes a move has to wait for track time to be able to continue their run. When the Dispatcher gave the CSX crew the block to perform what they had to do, he was probably told that the crew could do what they needed to do in 'XX' minutes, which would have had them clear for 91 without delay - the crew didn't get their move accomplished in 'XX' minutes and 91 was held until the Dispatcher got the block back. Okay, I see. If they took the block away from the freight, gave it to 91, and then had to give it back to the freight, it might have taken up more of the 24 hour track time than just holding 91 to let the freight finish. Then maybe somewhere in that urgent process, perhaps a mistake was made.
BaltACD Euclid Okay, but why hold a passenger train for that freight switching work? Why not have the freight job release their block authority and give authority to 91 before it arrives? Then after 91 passes without being delayed, give block authority back the the freight job so they can finish their work? In your perfect world that would happen. This is the real world of railroading - there are only 24 hours of track time to get everything done. Sometimes a move has to wait for track time to be able to continue their run. When the Dispatcher gave the CSX crew the block to perform what they had to do, he was probably told that the crew could do what they needed to do in 'XX' minutes, which would have had them clear for 91 without delay - the crew didn't get their move accomplished in 'XX' minutes and 91 was held until the Dispatcher got the block back.
Euclid Okay, but why hold a passenger train for that freight switching work? Why not have the freight job release their block authority and give authority to 91 before it arrives? Then after 91 passes without being delayed, give block authority back the the freight job so they can finish their work?
In your perfect world that would happen. This is the real world of railroading - there are only 24 hours of track time to get everything done. Sometimes a move has to wait for track time to be able to continue their run.
When the Dispatcher gave the CSX crew the block to perform what they had to do, he was probably told that the crew could do what they needed to do in 'XX' minutes, which would have had them clear for 91 without delay - the crew didn't get their move accomplished in 'XX' minutes and 91 was held until the Dispatcher got the block back.
Okay, I see. If they took the block away from the freight, gave it to 91, and then had to give it back to the freight, it might have taken up more of the 24 hour track time than just holding 91 to let the freight finish. Then maybe somewhere in that urgent process, perhaps a mistake was made.
Some things never change. Maybe, perhaps, ya but. A sign of a Euclid/Buckey thread.
A dispatcher does not "take a block away" from a train crew. The train crew releases the block back to the dispatcher. There is a difference.
An "expensive model collector"
EuclidOkay, I see. If they took the block away from the freight, gave it to 91, and then had to give it back to the freight, it might have taken up more of the 24 hour track time than just holding 91 to let the freight finish. Then maybe somewhere in that urgent process, perhaps a mistake was made.
n012944 beat me to it, but I'll leave this here, anyhow.
The dispatcher can't take the block away from the freight, although he can certainly be adamant about getting it back. The freight has to give it up. And that's not supposed to happen until they are in the clear and switches are restored.
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...
LithoniaOperatorI think a lot has been determined by the NTSB. But much of what they have found has not been passed along to the Trains forum. What's up with that?
The NTSB doesn't report to the Trains Forum.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Euclid tree68 Euclid I thought it was interesting because I would not have expected that #91 was stopped short of the collision site and waiting for a go-ahead. What was the reason for holding #91? Why would they not have had given #91 authority to pass through the area without stopping? If the reason is not known, is there a typical reason for holding #91 under these circumstances? The article says it was done per protocol. What is that protocol? It is possible that 91 was held where it was for two reasons. First, the CSX crew may not have given up their track yet. Second, 91 may have been held at an established "block station," oftimes simply a sign beside the track. If 91 were held at that location because it was an established “block station,” why would the fact that it was an established block station require holding the train there? Just to clarify; I am not asking for the basis for choosing the location to hold the train. I am asking for the reason to hold the train.
tree68 Euclid I thought it was interesting because I would not have expected that #91 was stopped short of the collision site and waiting for a go-ahead. What was the reason for holding #91? Why would they not have had given #91 authority to pass through the area without stopping? If the reason is not known, is there a typical reason for holding #91 under these circumstances? The article says it was done per protocol. What is that protocol? It is possible that 91 was held where it was for two reasons. First, the CSX crew may not have given up their track yet. Second, 91 may have been held at an established "block station," oftimes simply a sign beside the track.
Euclid I thought it was interesting because I would not have expected that #91 was stopped short of the collision site and waiting for a go-ahead. What was the reason for holding #91? Why would they not have had given #91 authority to pass through the area without stopping? If the reason is not known, is there a typical reason for holding #91 under these circumstances? The article says it was done per protocol. What is that protocol?
It is possible that 91 was held where it was for two reasons. First, the CSX crew may not have given up their track yet. Second, 91 may have been held at an established "block station," oftimes simply a sign beside the track.
If 91 were held at that location because it was an established “block station,” why would the fact that it was an established block station require holding the train there?
Just to clarify; I am not asking for the basis for choosing the location to hold the train. I am asking for the reason to hold the train.
23 17 46 11
Is it possile that the freight train actually was involved with 2 separate crews. One parking the train on the siding and the last crew being a road crew or to continue switching ? If so possibilities completely change as to what happened .
blue streak 1 Is it possile that the freight train actually was involved with 2 separate crews. One parking the train on the siding and the last crew being a road crew or to continue switching ? If so possibilities completely change as to what happened .
I was wondering if this crew might have had a brakeman or was working with a utility brakeman. I noticed in one of the many news links that one reported that a trainmaster had also been interviewed by the NTSB Could this trainmaster have restored a different switch (they're not supposed to do such things, but with CSX cutbacks and wanting to do things faster with less...) and then notified the crew. The crew thinking that it was the main track switch was restored, then released their authority?
Jeff
n012944 Euclid BaltACD Euclid Okay, but why hold a passenger train for that freight switching work? Why not have the freight job release their block authority and give authority to 91 before it arrives? Then after 91 passes without being delayed, give block authority back the the freight job so they can finish their work? In your perfect world that would happen. This is the real world of railroading - there are only 24 hours of track time to get everything done. Sometimes a move has to wait for track time to be able to continue their run. When the Dispatcher gave the CSX crew the block to perform what they had to do, he was probably told that the crew could do what they needed to do in 'XX' minutes, which would have had them clear for 91 without delay - the crew didn't get their move accomplished in 'XX' minutes and 91 was held until the Dispatcher got the block back. Okay, I see. If they took the block away from the freight, gave it to 91, and then had to give it back to the freight, it might have taken up more of the 24 hour track time than just holding 91 to let the freight finish. Then maybe somewhere in that urgent process, perhaps a mistake was made. Some things never change. Maybe, perhaps, ya but. A sign of a Euclid/Buckey thread. A dispatcher does not "take a block away" from a train crew. The train crew releases the block back to the dispatcher. There is a difference.
Picky, picky. I did not mean to take the block away from the freight job without their consent. I assume that the dispatcher has the authority to require the freight job to release their block back in order to give it to 91. And if he asks them to give up the block, they will comply and restore the switches and be in the clear. Obviously that was my point.
Euclid Obviously that was my point.
Not the way I read it. And it appears not the way several others read it. "Yes, but..."
tree68 Euclid Obviously that was my point. Not the way I read it. And it appears not the way several others read it. "Yes, but..."
Euclid n012944 Euclid BaltACD Euclid Okay, but why hold a passenger train for that freight switching work? Why not have the freight job release their block authority and give authority to 91 before it arrives? Then after 91 passes without being delayed, give block authority back the the freight job so they can finish their work? In your perfect world that would happen. This is the real world of railroading - there are only 24 hours of track time to get everything done. Sometimes a move has to wait for track time to be able to continue their run. When the Dispatcher gave the CSX crew the block to perform what they had to do, he was probably told that the crew could do what they needed to do in 'XX' minutes, which would have had them clear for 91 without delay - the crew didn't get their move accomplished in 'XX' minutes and 91 was held until the Dispatcher got the block back. Okay, I see. If they took the block away from the freight, gave it to 91, and then had to give it back to the freight, it might have taken up more of the 24 hour track time than just holding 91 to let the freight finish. Then maybe somewhere in that urgent process, perhaps a mistake was made. Some things never change. Maybe, perhaps, ya but. A sign of a Euclid/Buckey thread. A dispatcher does not "take a block away" from a train crew. The train crew releases the block back to the dispatcher. There is a difference. Picky, picky. I did not mean to take the block away from the freight job without their consent. I assume that the dispatcher has the authority to require the freight job to release their block back in order to give it to 91. And if he asks them to give up the block, they will comply and restore the switches and be in the clear. Obviously that was my point.
BS you meant what you said and what you said was WRONG!
Dispatchers ARE PICKY, PICKY, PICKY. Not being picky and following proper procedure get you run off in short order. Cavalier use of words get one in trouble from the word go!
BaltACD BS you meant what you said and what you said was WRONG! Dispatchers ARE PICKY, PICKY, PICKY. Not being picky and following proper procedure get you run off in short order. Cavalier use of words get one in trouble from the word go!
My point was to ask why you cannot interrupt the freight operation to let the Amtrak train through. The freight is in the clear already, and all that needs to be done is re-line the switch for 91. Why did the freight work have to be completely finished before letting 91 through?
If I might suggest something to keep the quotefest under control for us phone users, the point here is not to pile on over Euclid being wrong, but pointing out specifically and factually why he is wrong.
Please correct me if I myself am wrong, but I do not believe that a dispatcher can compel a crew to surrender authority once granted, either by taking it away (as Euclid said he didn't mean) or by forcing compliance (as he now says he assumes). While I'm sure there are all kinds of insubordination charges that would come out of not honoring a dispatcher's request to surrender authority 'as needed to run the railroad' that isn't the point: the crew with authority must relinquish it, and only after assuring it is fully safe to do so.
BaltACDBS you meant what you said and what you said was WRONG!
Fully agree.
Very typical - say something, then when it's shown to be wrong, backpedal and say "what I really meant..."
Not the first time we've seen that. Probably won't be the last.
BuckyWhy did the freight work have to be completely finished before letting 91 through?
Who said the freight work had to be completely finished? What had to be completely finished was the freight getting in the clear and restoring the switch(es), then giving up their authority. Until that was complete, 91 wasn't going anywhere.
At this point, we don't know that the freight wasn't planning to come back out after 91 cleared so they could get track again.
Euclid tree68 Euclid Obviously that was my point. Not the way I read it. And it appears not the way several others read it. "Yes, but..." Well maybe you and others want to read it just a certain way so you can use it just a certain way.
Well maybe you and others want to read it just a certain way so you can use it just a certain way.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
BaltACDDispatchers ARE PICKY, PICKY, PICKY. Not being picky and following proper procedure get you run off in short order. Cavalier use of words get one in trouble from the word go!
Murphy SidingTo be fair, what you're trying to say is not always obvious to folks that aren't you. Maybe you could reread your posts for clarity before hitting the submit button.
And maybe, every now and then, admitting "I didn't understand how that worked" would be useful, instead of claiming everyone else doesn't understand you.
It's said that if everyone around you seems to be the problem, maybe they aren't the problem at all...
tree68What had to be completely finished was the freight getting in the clear and restoring the switch(es), then giving up their authority. Until that was complete, 91 wasn't going anywhere. At this point, we don't know that the freight wasn't planning to come back out after 91 cleared so they could get track again.
So why not complete that so 91 could continue without delay? And then if need be, the freight could go back to finish their work under new authority after 91 passes.
EuclidMy point was to ask why you cannot interrupt the freight operation to let the Amtrak train through.
Do you remember the moves involved? Forward out of the auto loading siding onto the main. Backing into the siding on the other side of the main. So until the work is completed the main is fouled. The only way to "interrupt it is to let it not even start.
Euclid The freight is in the clear already, and all that needs to be done is re-line the switch for 91. Why did the freight work have to be completely finished before letting 91 through?
The way I understand it the work is complete when the CSX train is in the siding, the switch realigned to normal and the authority given back to the dispatcher.
Or did I misunderstand your question?Regards, Volker
Euclid tree68 What had to be completely finished was the freight getting in the clear and restoring the switch(es), then giving up their authority. Until that was complete, 91 wasn't going anywhere. At this point, we don't know that the freight wasn't planning to come back out after 91 cleared so they could get track again. So why not complete that so 91 could continue without delay? And then if need be, the freight could go back to finish their work under new authority after 91 passes.
tree68 What had to be completely finished was the freight getting in the clear and restoring the switch(es), then giving up their authority. Until that was complete, 91 wasn't going anywhere. At this point, we don't know that the freight wasn't planning to come back out after 91 cleared so they could get track again.
That - to my mind - is what was actually being done. CSX crew was to shove in the siding and clear, lining the switches for MAIN TRACK MOVEMENTS for 91 and while waiting for 91 secure the cut of auto racks. After 91 would CLEAR THE BLOCK (not just pass the CSX Crew on the siding), the CSX crew 'most likely' would be given the block so that the engines could leave the siding and return to the yard and then release the blocks.
The 'WORK' crews perform is not done at the snap of a finger - it takes time - 60 seconds to the minute time, 60 minutes to the hour and the clock is always ticking; and at the expiration of 720 minutes the crew can no longer work.
VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid My point was to ask why you cannot interrupt the freight operation to let the Amtrak train through. Do you remember the moves involved? Forward out of the auto loading siding onto the main. Backing into the siding on the other side of the main. So until the work is completed the main is fouled. The only way to "interrupt it is to let it not even start. Euclid The freight is in the clear already, and all that needs to be done is re-line the switch for 91. Why did the freight work have to be completely finished before letting 91 through? The way I understand it the work is complete when the CSX train is in the siding, the switch realigned to normal and the authority given back to the dispatcher. Or did I misunderstand your question?Regards, Volker
Euclid My point was to ask why you cannot interrupt the freight operation to let the Amtrak train through.
Volker,
I don't know if you misunderstood my question. I had to go back and look at how this recent exchange began. I asked a question and Balt answered it. Here is the question and answer.
Euclid said:
Okay, but why hold a passenger train for that freight switching work? Why not have the freight job release their block authority and give authority to 91 before it arrives? Then after 91 passes without being delayed, give block authority back the freight job so they can finish their work?
Balt said:
edblysard No, he does not have the authority to “take a block away” The crew may release it, but he has no authority to “take” it in any way. He can ask for it, or suggest they get out of the way, but he can never take it. Either the crew released it or they didn’t, nothing in between and in no way could the dispatcher take it from them without their permission.
Where do people come up with the idea that I was saying that the dispatcher could take the block away without permission? What if the crew gives the block to the dispatcher and the dispatcher "takes" it from them?
Euclid - were you to enact 'your rules of operation' on any Class 1's property - you would be fired so fast you head would not stop spinning.
What I understood Euclid to be asking, a bit 'between the lines', was why the dispatcher, with 91 moved up and holding the barest distance away, did not ask the CSX job to pause as soon as they were clear of the fouling point, reline the switch right then, and take the additional steps to release track authority before continuing the shove. That would have gotten 91 by well before any need of the CSX crew to come anywhere near the main, or need authority to be there, again.
BaltACD Euclid - were you to enact 'your rules of operation' on any Class 1's property - you would be fired so fast you head would not stop spinning.
Overmod What I understood Euclid to be asking, a bit 'between the lines', was why the dispatcher, with 91 moved up and holding the barest distance away, did not ask the CSX job to pause as soon as they were clear of the fouling point, reline the switch right then, and take the additional steps to release track authority before continuing the shove. That would have gotten 91 by well before any need of the CSX crew to come anywhere near the main, or need authority to be there, again.
Euclid Well maybe you and others want to read it just a certain way so you can use it just a certain way.
Stop digging.
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
Overmod,
Yes, that is basically what I was asking, but you have provided a bit more detail. Why the need to hold the passenger train for the freight job when there is room to get by?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.