I read that as meaning the Cayce incident.
Still in training.
EuclidEarly in the thread called, Misaligned Track Switches That Cause Wrecks, I suggested that during signal suspension, switches should be approached at “Restricted Speed.” But I was told no; that cannot be a proper solution because it would not permit meaningful transportation to take place. I was told that the switch position verification forms were all that is needed. Then as long as everyone does their job, everything will be okay.
There is a huge difference. This recommendation calls for only the first train past such a switch to approach at restricted speed, not all trains. And it only calls for such action on a switch that has been used, not all switches.
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...
BigJimNot the way that I read it. This is not specifically about the the SC accident. It is worded in a way to bring context to the NTSB recommendation. Unfortunately, you are confusing the different noted scenarios on other RR's and superimposing them [on] the SC incident.
Actually no, the NTSB report clearly states the engineer 'ran to safety' and that the conductor 'saw the Amtrak train approaching ... ran to the rear of the locomotive ... was thrown off the locomotive and sustained minor injuries.'
I see no way to read this other than, as the report indicates, referring to the specific accident at "Cayce".
243129When manual block rules were implemented, approaching all facing point switches at restricted speed was standard operating procedure on the railroads I worked for here in the northeast. I don't understand why this is not a nationwide requirement.
It is about to be, after a fashion.
Note the subtle difference: it is only the 'first' train or locomotive to approach the switch that has to use restricted speed. I'm pretty sure FRA will try to dictate a SPAF-like way to confirm and document the 'report to the dispatcher'.
Will be interesting to see what the FRA's new EO will explicitly call for the approaching crew to do if the switch in fact turns out to be mislined. Reading between the lines the approaching conductor might 'correctly line' the switch if they find it wrong ... but it might just as easily follow blue-flag procedure with the train waiting for the 'original' man who was supposed to have lined the switch to return and 'correct' it -- then the approaching crew reports that it is right before proceeding.
I think this represents reasonable common sense in the circumstances, where a railroad's management decides it has to keep switching during a suppression. It even covers the possibility of a signal-department or other employee changing the switch position after the original crew 'locks and docs' the switch.
Not as safe as either spiking or mandatory restricted-speed approach, though.
ruderunner to me it sounds like they were on the locomotive moments before and indeed the conductor was on board during impact. ThankflTha no longer in the cab. This tightens up the time window considerably.
to me it sounds like they were on the locomotive moments before and indeed the conductor was on board during impact. ThankflTha no longer in the cab.
This tightens up the time window considerably.
23 17 46 11
blue streak 1Does this mean that the CSX crew were on the CSX locos shortly before the collision ?
Posted by ruderunner on Saturday, February 17, 2018 7:38 AM to me it sounds like they were on the locomotive moments before and indeed the conductor was on board during impact. ThankflTha no longer in the cab. This tightens up the time window considerably.
Unfortunately, you are confusing the different noted senarios on other RR's and superimposing them into the SC incident.
.
Euclid Early in the thread called, Misaligned Track Switches That Cause Wrecks, I suggested that during signal suspension, switches should be approached at “Restricted Speed.” But I was told no; that cannot be a proper solution because it would not permit meaningful transportation to take place. I was told that the switch position verification forms were all that is needed. Then as long as everyone does their job, everything will be okay. Now, the NTSB has come to this conclusion: Recommendation As a result of this report, the National Transportation Safety Board makes the following urgent safety recommendation: To the Federal Railroad Administration: Issue an Emergency Order directing railroads to require that when signal suspensions are in effect and a switch has been reported relined for a main track, the next train or locomotive to pass the locationmust approach the switch location at restricted speed. After the switch position is verified, the train crew must report to the dispatcher that the switch is correctly lined for the main track before trains are permitted to operate at maximum-authorized speed. (R-18-005) (Urgent)
Early in the thread called, Misaligned Track Switches That Cause Wrecks, I suggested that during signal suspension, switches should be approached at “Restricted Speed.” But I was told no; that cannot be a proper solution because it would not permit meaningful transportation to take place. I was told that the switch position verification forms were all that is needed. Then as long as everyone does their job, everything will be okay.
Now, the NTSB has come to this conclusion:
Recommendation
As a result of this report, the National Transportation Safety Board makes the following urgent safety recommendation:
To the Federal Railroad Administration:
Issue an Emergency Order directing railroads to require that when signal suspensions are in effect and a switch has been reported relined for a main track, the next train or locomotive to pass the locationmust approach the switch location at restricted speed. After the switch position is verified, the train crew must report to the dispatcher that the switch is correctly lined for the main track before trains are permitted to operate at maximum-authorized speed. (R-18-005) (Urgent)
When manual block rules were implemented, approaching all facing point switches at restricted speed was standard operating procedure on the railroads I worked for here in the northeast. I don't understand why this is not a nationwide requirement.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
Does this mean that the CSX crew were on the CSX locos shortly before the collision ?
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RSR1801.pdf?utm_source=news&utm_medium=email&utm_content=railroad
The trial record and any appeal proceedings will be published if the trial is held in South Carolina; I don't know if there is public-records access before then. Mike Cella lived in Florida so it's possible some proceedings would be brought there.
Presumably you can find the specific name of the action (e.g. Cella v. CSX Transportation). In South Carolina multiple defendants are often subsumed under the name of the first one. Suspect some of the relevant points of South Carolina law would follow JT Baggerly v. CSX Transportation, which to me has multiple similarities.
Personally I don't think we have any real business mucking around in the next-of-kin's lives. It's pretty clear what the safety issues are without having to see what lawyers develop to capitalize on other people's pain.
The conductor’s widow’s lawsuit cites 28 safety issues with CSX and 9 with Amtrak. Is the public allowed access to such a complaint in a civil suit?
It would be interesting to see what these 37 points are. I believe that in such litigation, some (maybe many) points are real stretches, almost bargaining chips to give up in negotiation.
Perhaps we have an attorney or two out there to explain?
243129 Randy Stahl No argument there. I agree that is likely the CSX crew left a fatal trap for an unsuspecting crew. Next time you are on a P42 look at the top portion of the blue card and you will discover the air brake type and schedule. I won't be able to find out until tomorrow. Any P-42 I have been on was equipped with the CDW-30 brake valve.
Randy Stahl No argument there. I agree that is likely the CSX crew left a fatal trap for an unsuspecting crew. Next time you are on a P42 look at the top portion of the blue card and you will discover the air brake type and schedule. I won't be able to find out until tomorrow.
No argument there. I agree that is likely the CSX crew left a fatal trap for an unsuspecting crew.
Next time you are on a P42 look at the top portion of the blue card and you will discover the air brake type and schedule. I won't be able to find out until tomorrow.
Any P-42 I have been on was equipped with the CDW-30 brake valve.
Perhaps it's been several yearssince you've been on a P42. They were rebuilt several years ago using TIGER grant money. At that time they were upgraded to this:
http://www.nyabproducts.com/ccb-26/
All of the P42s were upgraded as far as I know. I'll check the list tomorrow. The old P40s did have WABCO 30CDW. The P40s were also at that time equipped with the GE IFD displays which require an electronic airbrake to interface with, 30 CDW is NOT an electronic airbrake.
ChuckCobleighPain possibly even lower than that while sitting and reading certain threads.
LithoniaOperator Firelock76 Absolutely, "Let's all sit down and take a deep breath." Totally. Just the act of standing at one's computer can cause lower back pain and make you cranky.
Firelock76 Absolutely, "Let's all sit down and take a deep breath."
Totally. Just the act of standing at one's computer can cause lower back pain and make you cranky.
Pain possibly even lower than that while sitting and reading certain threads!
Firelock76Absolutely, "Let's all sit down and take a deep breath."
Randy Stahl It is required per CFR. Also on full carbody engines an emergency valve must be in the end of the carbody.
It is required per CFR. Also on full carbody engines an emergency valve must be in the end of the carbody.
Thanks! Now, I don't have to look it up!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
All this superfluous speculation aside, human error is the most likely cause. Medical events and terrorism/vandalism can be considered. Someone reported clear of the main line or someone assumed (perhaps the dispatcher) that the main line was clear and consequently #91 was released.
On my home road when manual block rules were substituted for ABS rules we were required to approach all facing point switches prepared to stop.
Randy Stahl You did. You said it was 30CDW and it clearly isn't. It would have the WABCO logo on it if it did, not the KNORR logo.
You did. You said it was 30CDW and it clearly isn't. It would have the WABCO logo on it if it did, not the KNORR logo.
Pay attention, I was not referring to the image.
Randy Stahl 243129 Randy Stahl 243129 "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. No it is not WABCO 30 CDW. The Big "K" on the valve portion means its a Knorr (NYAB) AB probably CCAB2. The EPIC equipped engines would have the big "W" on them. 30CDW is also WABCO, just an upgraded 26L. Are you absolutely sure that Amtrak P-42 #47 is not equipped with the 30 cdw brake valve? Wabco equipment NEVER has the KNORR airbrake logo on it. 30 CDW is a WABCO product.
243129 Randy Stahl 243129 "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. No it is not WABCO 30 CDW. The Big "K" on the valve portion means its a Knorr (NYAB) AB probably CCAB2. The EPIC equipped engines would have the big "W" on them. 30CDW is also WABCO, just an upgraded 26L. Are you absolutely sure that Amtrak P-42 #47 is not equipped with the 30 cdw brake valve?
Randy Stahl 243129 "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. No it is not WABCO 30 CDW. The Big "K" on the valve portion means its a Knorr (NYAB) AB probably CCAB2. The EPIC equipped engines would have the big "W" on them. 30CDW is also WABCO, just an upgraded 26L.
243129 "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.
"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.
No it is not WABCO 30 CDW. The Big "K" on the valve portion means its a Knorr (NYAB) AB probably CCAB2.
The EPIC equipped engines would have the big "W" on them.
30CDW is also WABCO, just an upgraded 26L.
Are you absolutely sure that Amtrak P-42 #47 is not equipped with the 30 cdw brake valve?
Wabco equipment NEVER has the KNORR airbrake logo on it. 30 CDW is a WABCO product.
Who ever said it did ???
You are referring to the posted image.
No matter the emergency position is the same and does not require the engineer to "reach for a button".
Overmod For those of you who may be interested, here is an 'official' P42 video with some elementary discussion of controls. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRValOA7TZo The emergency application button is around 25 minutes in; I think it's intended as the 'assistant engineer's' way to put the train in emergency, as it nominally does the same thing as the 'emergency' position on the engineer's blended brake controller does. It releases by pulling.
For those of you who may be interested, here is an 'official' P42 video with some elementary discussion of controls.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRValOA7TZo
The emergency application button is around 25 minutes in; I think it's intended as the 'assistant engineer's' way to put the train in emergency, as it nominally does the same thing as the 'emergency' position on the engineer's blended brake controller does. It releases by pulling.
An emergency brake valve on the "other" side of the cab is standard on all locomotives. Might even be required in CFR...would have to look.
Good post from ccltrains.
Certainly we're all angry about this and so possibly what's going on here is just some old-fashioned venting of frustration.
At this point, really, what more is there to be said about this topic?
Absolutely, "Let's all sit down and take a deep breath."
Lets all sit down and take a deep breath. The name calling is not good and only makes enemies. I have some railroad experience in the management side. Done a few cab rides but in no way am I a novice let alone an expert on train operation. I am a retired professional engineer (oil and gas) and can do some pseudo educated analysis but I would not post them as knowing what is going on. I can talk about train operations to a person unfamiliar with them (my wife??) and she would think I am an expert. A knowledgable person could really poke holes in my story so I keep my mouth shut. Think we should wait for the professional analysis from the FRA to see what really happened. STOP THE NAME CALLING!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.