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.
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?
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).
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.
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...
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 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. 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...
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
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.
Cotton Belt MP104Please do not forget MY POINT, deadly serious discussion = silly injection points = lost respect for the point of discussion in my view Zugman, Tree68 you guys are, in my personal opinion, on the list of prolific, competent, good posters. I learn very interesting stuff here. It is so boring to see personal back and forth, but that is okay, ‘cause we are friends, with a common interest. It is infuriating to see demeaning comments, chill. I will go on to say “disrespectful” kinda approaches the area I was complaining about HOWEVER: Posted by zugmann on Saturday, February 10, 2018 2:24 PM “You know, some of us discussing the issues are the same ones that run trains in dark territory. So, yes we understand the issues as it could happen to us.” Electroliner said it well …… this is deadly serious …….. therefore your discussion of dark territory is deadly serious, but as HE pointed out, I agree, NO ROOM for any kind of silliness. No offense meant just a thought to impart on this sad/serious story endmrw0219181443 Please do not forget MY POINT, deadly serious discussion = silly injection points = lost respect for the point of discussion in my view Zugman, Tree68 you guys are, in my personal opinion, on the list of prolific, competent, good posters. I learn very interesting stuff here. It is so boring to see personal back and forth, but that is okay, ‘cause we are friends, with a common interest. It is infuriating to see demeaning comments, chill. I will go on to say “disrespectful” kinda approaches the area I was complaining about HOWEVER: Posted by zugmann on Saturday, February 10, 2018 2:24 PM “You know, some of us discussing the issues are the same ones that run trains in dark territory. So, yes we understand the issues as it could happen to us.” Electroliner said it well …… this is deadly serious …….. therefore your discussion of dark territory is deadly serious, but as HE pointed out, I agree, NO ROOM for any kind of silliness. No offense meant just a thought to impart on this sad/serious story endmrw0219181443Please do not forget MY POINT, deadly serious discussion = silly injection points = lost respect for the point of discussion in my view Zugman, Tree68 you guys are, in my personal opinion, on the list of prolific, competent, good posters. I learn very interesting stuff here. It is so boring to see personal back and forth, but that is okay, ‘cause we are friends, with a common interest. It is infuriating to see demeaning comments, chill. I will go on to say “disrespectful” kinda approaches the area I was complaining about HOWEVER: Posted by zugmann on Saturday, February 10, 2018 2:24 PM “You know, some of us discussing the issues are the same ones that run trains in dark territory. So, yes we understand the issues as it could happen to us.” Electroliner said it well …… this is deadly serious …….. therefore your discussion of dark territory is deadly serious, but as HE pointed out, I agree, NO ROOM for any kind of silliness. No offense meant just a thought to impart on this sad/serious story endmrw0219181443
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
tree68And in the snow, where the only indication of switch position is the target.
.
As a further note: most of the 'action' here will be, as I continue to try to establish, between the CSX crew and the dispatcher. I have seen one potentially explaining rumor (which I hesitated to post here) that a signal-department employee may have been present at the switch around this time and 'might' have said something to the CSX crew along the lines of "I've got it". If this is so, it calls for an immediate revision of the EO 24 form to include signatures of ALL persons responsible for the switch, or at least addition of a section that lets the crew delegate responsibility to certain kinds of worker BUT only after giving full and unconfined notice to the dispatcher that the switch MUST be considered in the most restricting sense until further documented release by the worker(s) assuming responsibility.
Dude, calm down. Nobody is telling you to shut up.
Cotton Belt MP104Murphy 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. Point well taken although not in the forum rules recently posted. This forum is only for you 26 active RR guys. We should shut up an listen. Oh yes I did read from the very first page of this 11 page list, but I forgot, we non active RR guys have no business w/opinions. I will try to keep them to myself. By the way to show my concern and research ……. Yeah what a bummer when a switch was vandalized and there was a recording of the mysterious person who did so. I quoted the FRA investigation. Last point, I was crew carrier for a while and carried many of you active guys that had been relieved because of fatal grade crossings. Don’t DARE impugn my sympathy for the working RR crew endmrw0210181502 sad overmod one more respected blogger comic relief not now please ooops I forgot guess ur one of the acceptable bloggers and I am not sorry
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
Let's put it this way, for now. This is likely far from the last time a train runs improperly or unexpectedly through a facing-point switch, regardless of EOs or the best rules procedures crews can remember (and to paraphrase 1066 and all that, any other rules defeat themselves). It appears from the initial telemetry that a different sequence of control actions may have resulted in lower impact forces; this matter bears further thought and study independent of the 'facts' of this particular wreck. I agree that shoulda-woulda-coulda here is, at best, part of the 'dealing with grief' steps between denial and acceptance. But wisdom for 'the next time' is important, too.
For some of the righteous indignant judges here, who seem to be complaining about lack of apparent compassion, these dead had names but so far you haven't seen fit to call their memory as men instead of job descriptions. For almost a week now. For the record, the 'engineer' is Michael Kempf, and the 'conductor' is Michael Cella. May they rest in peace, and someday their families feel less grief. And may we work the best we can to keep other men and women and their families from a similar horror.
Euclid Speak for yourself. You know nothing about my experience background.
EuclidSpeak for yourself. You know nothing about my experience background.
And you could provide it but won't. Does it have any hands on railroad component?
zugmann Euclid Speak for yourself. You know nothing about my experience background. Well, some of your lack of background is obvious. Not that it matters.
Well, some of your lack of background is obvious. Not that it matters.
There are those that will believe anything.
Well, some of your lack of background is obvious. Not that it matters. Lot of things I don't know about, either.
OvermodBut I think it's better to look at ways this situation could be prevented 'in future' including perhaps different practical decisions in train handling. Add Quote to your Post
By who, the Amtrak crew was operating under the authority given to them and operating at the authorized speed. I don't think there is any train handling issue there. The CSX freight crew parked their freight. And cleared up their authority. But did they incorrectly fail to leave the switch lined for the main. Is this what you are calling train handling? By the Dispatcher who accepted the clearance and then gave the authority to #91's crew. He doesn't "handle" a train. Your question confuses me. Please rephrase it.
If the snow isn't too deep.
Cotton Belt MP104amen, and to add to the insensitivity of the subject there have been discussions/arguments about airlines customer service, getting drunk and playing wack a mole sad those who argue for argument sake let'em dry out in the wind = no resposce they tire when no counter argument is given endmrw0210181421
zugmannYou know, some of us discussing the issues (and injecting silliness) are the same ones that run trains in dark territory.
And in the snow, where the only indication of switch position is the target.
EuclidSumwalt's abbreviated timeline goes back 7 seconds prior to impact. That would seem to place it about 100-200 feet into the siding from the switch, depending on where the stipulated 659 feet was measured from.
That is correct, but what I'm referring to would include the timeline back to around the supposed release of authority by the CSX crew, nominally in accord with the terms of EO 24, and then the unrestricted reassignment of authority to 91 sometime later.
The disparcher's timeline is one of the critical things that needs to be carefully resolved. In no small part because, no matter how it resolves, it's something where positive action is still relevant to future safety.
It's part of human nature to try to find ways that damage or danger could have been mitigated 'if only' different choices had been taken. It's not "wrong" to discuss some of them, as long as we don't start blaming the dead who can't defend themselves. But I think it's better to look at ways this situation could be prevented 'in future' including perhaps different practical decisions in train handling.
VOLKER LANDWEHRBeside question at which distance the misaligned switch was visible how early were the parked CSX locomotive visible? Is it possible that the Amtrak crew realized the misaligned train, gave a three second horn signal to warn the people of a rough ride through the switch and only then recognized the CSX locomotive and applied the emergency brake? Regards, Volker
While 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.
VOLKER LANDWEHR Beside question at which distance the misaligned switch was visible how early were the parked CSX locomotive visible? Is it possible that the Amtrak crew realized the misaligned train, gave a three second horn signal to warn the people of a rough ride through the switch and only then recognized the CSX locomotive and applied the emergency brake?Regards, Volker
Beside question at which distance the misaligned switch was visible how early were the parked CSX locomotive visible?
Is it possible that the Amtrak crew realized the misaligned train, gave a three second horn signal to warn the people of a rough ride through the switch and only then recognized the CSX locomotive and applied the emergency brake?Regards, Volker
I think that is possible. I would consider the open switch alone to be the emergency.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.