BNSF Arizona Collision on Transcon, One Dead

[rdamon]

EL1935

I agree with you thoughts, but got confused when it was mentioned that they were in a shoving maneuver. Only written accounts were from the AP and maybe there is confusion thinking that the Herzog equipment was pushing the rail train, not that there were locomotives on the other end.

 

If they were maintaining visual separation those curves would be a challenge. However if they were following, was the rail train stopped?

 

Things do not add up.

[Electroliner 1935]

For the most part, I find the Trains' Forums interestng until the (I'll call it petty) sniping or nit picking begins. The retired and/or working (Thanks Jeff, Larry, Balt, as examples) railroaders are the most appreciated resource on the forums, IMHO. I also appreciate the Shadow and the Cat's trucking knowledge.

But back to the Arizona accident, I suspect we will have to wait until the NTSB provides us with some "official" information such as the Dispatch voice logs and the locomotive camera videos. A supposition on my part (how to be wrong in one easy step) is that the frieght was cleared into the block on a VFR restricting speed clearance to be looking for the Herzog rail train expecting it to be moving in the same direction to get in the clear. PTC was not involved because the train was operating below the speed where it would activate. And that the train exceeded the speed to be able to stop within line of sight as it came around the curves. My impression from the photos is that it was a low speed coliision as only a few cars are displaced. But a Herzog truck cab is no match for a 4000 HP locomotive.

So is there any way that PTC or any system can make a train that has to approach another train (say to couple to it) or an end of track (like Hoboken) stop yet allow it to get up close to the point it needs to get to? When coupling to a car, the engineer typically makes a safety stop before the fimal couple of feet. When stopping at a terminal platform, the engineer usually stops a few feet short of the bumping post. I am unaware of any system except one like the track trip system in NYC's subway that uses an approach speed time to determine that the train is under control (to "clear track trips) and then if it passes the last fixed track trip dumps the brakes. 

 

Lastly, can any railoader tell me what can be done to break the stalemate over meaningful contract changes that can improve sleep periods for workers on call? And/or tell me what are the proposals and counter proposals to improve the situation. 

 

[Euclid]

Cotton Belt MP104

  

1. …………Your statement is contradictory.  …………………….. Amtrak could not get a clear signal into the switch because there were no signals.  ……………………. There is no question that the signals being suspended account the PTC installation was a factor.  As Balt notes, the reversed switch would have given Amtrak a stop signal.

•  

 

Cotton Belt MP 104,

If you find a comment to be wrong headed, inaccurate, or something that you disagree with, I suggest that you just make a post that details why you feel that way.  Doing that will let others know of your concern, and they may not have noticed the same issue had you not mentioned it.  

That is what I did in regard to the comment that I quote above which you posted as as a quote of a response to me on the previous page.  I just explained why what I had said to Balt was not a contradiction, and tried to add some further clarification to the point I was making to Balt.  That’s all I can do.  Let others be the judge. 

[Cotton Belt MP104]

 

1.  charlie: bravo, thanks for a confirmation of what some of us think

2. as for the RR active/retired ………. verses …… dare I say the word …….foamer ……….. I hope I can say that, since eye R one…….. a post on a thread long ago, was just for the purpose of letting folks interested in RR but not working there know some things that the outside world would not know or even imagine.  Wow did I get a ton of corrections, rebukes, out right denials that I knew what I was talking about.  

3. the biggest kicker was an active RR person cited the rules he operated under and where I was coming from  ……… and THEY still did not want to accept what I had talked about

4. TRAINS is becoming a little of a disappointment, but I have been a subscriber for a long long time and think the world of it when it arrives in the mail.

5. I did subscribe to another source and was well  informed there,......  especially the photos were awesome. I let it drop (subscription), but guess what is my request for Father’s Day.   Just guess   endmrw0616181534

 

[charlie hebdo]

Murphy Siding

*I'm willing to give more weight to the opinions of those who actually work for a railroad.

Fair enough, but primarily in their area of specialization and not to the exclusion of outside opinions or even treating them with contempt or passive aggressive dismissal, such as sarcasm* which seems to be used for for making ad hominem attacks rather than deal directly with the substance of a comment, at the same time avoiding responsibility, much like using symbols for letters in expletives to skate around forum rules.  

* sarcasm  Irony employed in the service of mocking or attacking someone is sarcasm. Sarcasm is sometimes used as merely a synonym of irony, but the word has a more specific sense: irony that's meant to mock or convey contempt. This meaning is found in its etymology. In Greek, sarkazein meant "to tear flesh; to wound." When you use sarcasm, you really tear into them.

[charlie hebdo]

VOLKER LANDWEHR

 

 

cx500

You are not really correct here. Yes, typically blood was spilled and created a new rule. But often times in the past, and the phrase dates way, way, back, the safety problem was not obvious.

 

 

I think Euclid is correct, not for all rules but for a lot. Before the Federal Employer's Liabillity Act there was no financial risk for railroads with work accidents. And it shows. The Janney coupler was patented in 1873, Westinghouse invented the automatic air brake in 1872. Both had to be mandated by Congress in 1893's Railway Safety Appliance Act because of the horrendous number of accident casualties.

PTC is another example. The technology was there for a long time but again it had to be mandated by Congress.

Volker and Euclid are bth correct. Our railroads have not exactly been in the vanguard historically in regards to adopting new technology and rules that reduce accidents and injuries and deaths, as anybody who studies this would know.  But that begs the question: why so slow?  Is it something inherent in the culture? Whether the adoption of airbrakes and Janney couplers in the 19th C or PTC recently, it has often required a mandate from those hated bureaucrats to make progress.

[rdamon]

jeffhergert

 

 

zugmann

I don't think it's a news ban -just a loss of interest.  It's a collision that resulted in the death of a railroad (contractor) worker.  No public deaths, no massive hazmat release, so it falls by the wayside.  When school shootings barely warrant front page news anymore, do we really think a wreck in the middle of nowhere is going to bring that much media attention?

 

 

 

 

 

On another site, mostly frequented by current or former railroaders, it was mentioned on the BNSF portion.  Just a few posts, hardly any discussion last time I checked.  It's just not, except for those on this site, on most people's radar.

Jeff

 

Not sure if we are talking about AZ much here either 

[Anonymous]

cx500

You are not really correct here. Yes, typically blood was spilled and created a new rule. But often times in the past, and the phrase dates way, way, back, the safety problem was not obvious.

I think Euclid is correct, not for all rules but for a lot. Before the Federal Employer's Liabillity Act there was no financial risk for railroads with work accidents. And it shows. The Janney coupler was patented in 1873, Westinghouse invented the automatic air brake in 1872. Both had to be mandated by Congress in 1893's Railway Safety Appliance Act because of the horrendous number of accident casualties.

PTC is another example. The technology was there for a long time but again it had to be mandated by Congress.

This has nothing to do with the Arizona accident, it was just the response to a sidetrack.
Regards, Volker

[Murphy Siding]

Wow.

Moses only had 10 items on his power point presentation..........


I'll keep mine even shorter.
*This isn't a blog. A blog is one person talking, like a lecture or a sermon. A blog         is one way communication
*This is a forum- 2-way communication. As such, you may read things you don't          agree with. That doesn't automatically mean the other person is wrong.
*Because this is a public forum, you may run accross people you just don't like or        get along with- just like at home, work, school and life in general.
*I'm willing to give more weight to the opinions of those who actually work for a            railroad.
*Being on this forum is a recreational pursuit for me. It's interesting and I get to         learn some things using some of the disposable brainpower that's not needed         for other things like earning a living.
*I pity those people who don't have a sense of humor. People who can't laugh at         things now and then will take this forum too seriously get their blood pressure       up for nothing.
*I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn last night, but I will take ownership of the
     whack-a- mole comment.
*If Balt & Tree own the forum, I want my fair share. 

[BaltACD]

Cotton Belt MP104

•  These two guys own Trains General Discussion Blog.   Notice Balt “hit the ceiling” and called out what Tree admitted (see #4).  see  #2.  These are some of the guys that own the “hornets nest”. There are others

If I 'own' this forum (it isn't a blog) I guess you must owe me a fee for particpating. [/sarcasm]

I don't own this   Forum!

I only comment from the viewpoint of a 50+ year career in Class 1 railroad operations in both craft and management positions.

[cx500]

Euclid

Rules "written in blood" has the sound of conviction and doing what is needed. But it is actually a sign of failure. It says that the safety problem was obvious, but those in charge were in denial about it. So it required the safety problem to spill a lot of blood before those in charge were forced by popular demand to make it stop. Those skilled in the art should see safety problems and correct them before blood gets spilled.

You are not really correct here.  Yes, typically blood was spilled and created a new rule.  But often times in the past, and the phrase dates way, way, back, the safety problem was not obvious.  The rule book evolved as occasional accidents revealed potential loopholes that needed plugging.  The permutations and combinations of the various factors sooner or later would line up just wrong and, after analysis, a rule would be added or refined. 

With PTC we see a new operating environment and rules to go with its operation.  "Obviously..those in charge" have written rules to cover all foreseen contingencies but I am sure with experience we will see at least one situation that results in blood being spilt.  This is not because they were in denial.

I do agree that the fatigue issue is an obvious safety problem.  Better solutions can be found, but both management and unions share responsibility for implementing them.  They will likely result in slightly extra cost for the company and slightly reduced earnings for the men; as a result both sides are in denial.

As to the Arizona collision, I did wonder if the rail train had ended its work for the day and was now clearing, but there was miscommunication about which direction it would be going.  Mere ignorant speculation on my part, of course.  I prefer to wait for facts.

[tree68]

Gee - I don't know whether to be honored, or what.  Never thought of myself "owning" the forum.

Anyhow, anyone who thinks I think I "own" this forum, forget it.  I post on threads on which I have in interest on the topic.  Sometimes they are topics on which I have knowledge.  Sometimes threads cause me to go out and learn more about a topic.

It's all about sharing information.

[Cotton Belt MP104]

 

1. Volker:  spot on about safety

2. zug:  spot on with 4% critique =  more blood, more likely news

3. But yet on the other hand one blogger had the following to say:  ………….We have 40K highway deaths a year! Which is the bigger problem to society - highway accidents or railroad accidents?..............my question is, why have any…………………wait a minute, wait a minute …………..it is NOT a perfect world and there will ALWAYS be accidents ………..for a while I worked for an OEM and there was NO WAY we could make the machine IDIOT proof as much as we tried  …………….. but the point is   WE TRIED  ……. why can’t any effort for safety be TRIED  ………….but as I have pointed out before ………legislation gets news and votes but is rarely the true answer ……..NO BLOWBACK is ever considered ……..just make a law and all will be well

4. This is not really train related........... but Shadow made an interesting contribution regarding skirts on trailers OTR drag.  Yep sounds good. No problem.  AWWWWW shucks them thar insurance companies are just too touchy as they see an increase in claims ………..w/tractors hooked to skirted trailers……..who wud a thunk………….oh my, now we are getting’ into the area of aerodynamics of container trains  ………….i’ll stop

5. Elec.1935:     yep, ya better be careful of comments     or    hornets will???    ………. your blog intro,  ref:  “Hope I'm not poking a stick into a hornets nest here but I am concerned that a way be found to schedule crews so they are well rested at the begining of their going on duty. Crews need to have rest before going on duty and it seems that the inability of the railroads and the unions to be able to find a common ground on how to arrange schedules that allow for the operating irregularities of a railroad is the issue.”    

6. Some fellow bloggers just think this blog is for them and no others need suggest anythin’

7. And the mind blowing comment:    “So those that lost their lives in the building of the Golden Gate bridge were not casualties of the Bridge.  They were just victims of a sudden stop after a long fall and the fact that they were involved in building the bridge doesn't coung against the bridge……………………”….. IMHO this comment has missed the whole point of what was being said about “PTC, causing the accident,” how on earth can it be denied that the IMPLEMENTATTION of PTC was NOT the cause.  Seems splitting hairs that a calling out on the statement is another example of the “hammer hittin’ the nail”

8. As BNSF is leading in the PTC install race…….I asked a signal man there and he said that when they go do install……it is no different than MOW call for Track/Time…….they do their thing and are gone  ……. its done …… no big deal.  At the same situation on CSX/Cayse, …. Jeff H pointed out that it is probably much more complicated in that the equipment there is so old that present rules dictate new equipment (i.e. no moving parts as in old target signals).  They have a much more complicated/time involved project.  That ‘splains a lot about why they went dark

9. Why do we have to have oversight and splitting hairs on comments (I have been through that ordeal……..there was NO WAY I could make a suggestion about permission/authority from Dispatch…….I was wrong, wrong, wrong…………even though Jeff H cited verbatim his rule book ……still the owners of the blog said , blah blah blah, even once  a personal slam about where my residence was my reason for being wrong……….here is another example  

10. …………Your statement is contradictory.  …………………….. Amtrak could not get a clear signal into the switch because there were no signals.  ……………………. There is no question that the signals being suspended account the PTC installation was a factor.  As Balt notes, the reversed switch would have given Amtrak a stop signal.

11.  These two guys own Trains General Discussion Blog.   Notice Balt “hit the ceiling” and called out what Tree admitted (see #4).  see  #2.  These are some of the guys that own the “hornets nest”. There are others

12. Honestly, I have enjoyed over the years reading this blog.  There have been peripheral discussions that have been fascinating.  But here lately, last several years, such bickering and bad attitude, it has been pitiful.  ……………  Example: I cited the poor attitude about the Cayce accident postings, when it degenerated into getting drunk and playing wack a mole.  When questioning the postings in my view ……poor taste ………I was told to go start my own thread if I wanted it to be serious  ……. a fatal crash ……. go start my own thread  …what??????……who is in CHARGE of this blog  …….I’ll tell ya who, a bunch who think they own this blog      just sayin’  endmrw0616181111

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Euclid]

VOLKER LANDWEHR

 

BaltACD

Do we need to develop technology that this incident (which probably happens daily somewhere in the US) doesn't happen again?

 

 

You don't need to develop a technology there is already one. It is called Advanced Emergency Brake Assit. It monitors the distance to in front driving vehicles and brakes automatically if needed. https://youtu.be/JPIg42pQ1f0 
or https://youtu.be/8Q5tVnzJj_s

It is mandatory in new trucks in the European Union since November 2015. It is a longterm solution as older truck don't need have to be re-equipped yet.

 

BaltACD

We have 40K highway deaths a year! Which is the bigger problem to society - highway accidents or railroad accidents?

 

 

Why weighing highway accidents and railroad accidents against each other. Each accidident casualty is one to many.

Or better wait until the according rule/mandate is written with enough blood?

With some foresight a lot of blood doesn't need to be shed or could have been spared in the past, I think.

 

Rules "written in blood" has the sound of conviction and doing what is needed.  But it is actually a sign of failure.  It says that the safety problem was obvious, but those in charge were in denial about it.  So it required the safety problem to spill a lot of blood before those in charge were forced by popular demand to make it stop. 

Those skilled in the art should see safety problems and correct them before blood gets spilled.

[Anonymous]

BaltACD

Do we need to develop technology that this incident (which probably happens daily somewhere in the US) doesn't happen again?

You don't need to develop a technology there is already one. It is called Advanced Emergency Brake Assit. It monitors the distance to in front driving vehicles and brakes automatically if needed. https://youtu.be/JPIg42pQ1f0 
or https://youtu.be/8Q5tVnzJj_s

It is mandatory in new trucks in the European Union since November 2015. It is a longterm solution as older truck don't need have to be re-equipped yet.

BaltACD

We have 40K highway deaths a year! Which is the bigger problem to society - highway accidents or railroad accidents?

Why weighing highway accidents and railroad accidents against each other. Each accidident casualty is one to many.

Or better wait until the according rule/mandate is written with enough blood?

With some foresight a lot of blood doesn't need to be shed or could have been spared in the past, I think.
Regards, Volker

[Euclid]

BaltACD

So this morning there was a 'tour' bus with 46 passengers that rear ended a 18 wheeler on I-70 Eastbound during the morning 'rush' hour near Hagerstown.  No fatalities, however, 36 were injured.

So was the driver fatigued at the approximately 7-8 AM happening?  Did he lose situational awareness account personal electronic devices?  Did he suffer from sleep apena?  Was he subject to irregular work periods?  Was he proceeding at a speed faster than his ability to stop within 1/2 the range of vision?  Did he get caught out losing traffic ahead of him in the direct glare of the morning Sun?

Are there hammers for these nails?  Do we need to develop technology that this incident (which probably happens daily somewhere in the US) doesn't happen again?

We have 40K highway deaths a year!  Which is the bigger problem to society - highway accidents or railroad accidents?

Highway accidents are a bigger problem.  But there will be attempts to reduce all types of accidents.  It is a business opportunity if nothing else.  As I have mentioned before, I think that PTC is something that will never be finished.  It will constantly be given more capabilities and upgraded.  Certainly PTC is a business opportunity, and that alone will drive it forward.  But what we call PTC today is just a tiny, primitive form of what it will become.  Some form of PTC will be applied to highway accidents.  Some form of it will be applied to sleep and attention problems.  Some facet will be applied to train operation.  It will be applied to grade crossings and to cars and trucks.  Maybe it will eventually just be called Positive Control.   

[BaltACD]

So this morning there was a 'tour' bus with 46 passengers that rear ended a 18 wheeler on I-70 Eastbound during the morning 'rush' hour near Hagerstown.  No fatalities, however, 36 were injured.

So was the driver fatigued at the approximately 7-8 AM happening?  Did he lose situational awareness account personal electronic devices?  Did he suffer from sleep apena?  Was he subject to irregular work periods?  Was he proceeding at a speed faster than his ability to stop within 1/2 the range of vision?  Did he get caught out losing traffic ahead of him in the direct glare of the morning Sun?

Are there hammers for these nails?  Do we need to develop technology that this incident (which probably happens daily somewhere in the US) doesn't happen again?

We have 40K highway deaths a year!  Which is the bigger problem to society - highway accidents or railroad accidents?

[tree68]

Cotton Belt MP104

I guess sleep apnea and fatigue are technically two different items

They are.  A person who suffers from sleep apnea may be chronically fatigued.  However, an otherwise healthy person (ie, no sleep apnea) may be fatigued due to an irregular schedule.  The result is the same, but dealing with the causes requires two very different approaches.

Combine the two for a double whammy.

Cotton Belt MP104

What I am confused about is one blogger here has called this NOT being ALERT but able to operate a train in spite of this condition, this is a phenomenon (a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question).

Seems to me there is NO QUESTION.  just sayin’  and it is a serious situation that needs be addressed and not accepted as, that’s life.

No disagreement there.  And that's why there's so much attention on sleep apnea and irregular hours.  Examples serve to show that the problem exists.  

[SD70Dude]

zugmann

The ones that get headline news attention.

And kill lots of people.

[zugmann]

Cotton Belt MP104

If only 4% accidents would be prevented by PTC ………. wow talk about unfunded mandates ……. this is unreal since the law was well intended but precludes big bucks that could be spent on ROW/equipment.

 

Yeah, but those 4% include wrecks like Chatsworth, Frankford Jct., Spuyten Devil, and Dupont WA.  The ones that get headline news attention.

[Cotton Belt MP104]

 

1. I guess sleep apnea and fatigue are technically two different items

2. If that is two separate subjects, okay, the “fatigue hammer” looking for a nail is one subject to be avoided when a medical condition is separate from being tired

3. They sorta seem to be similar and for sure are among what is cited as accident causes

4. What I am confused about is one blogger here has called this NOT being ALERT but able to operate a train in spite of this condition, this is a phenomenon (a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question).

5. Seems to me there is NO QUESTION.  just sayin’  and it is a serious situation that needs be addressed and not accepted as, that’s life

6. Jeff H had a startling statistic that was quoted from a railway publication

7. If only 4% accidents would be prevented by PTC  ………. wow talk about unfunded mandates ……. this is unreal since the law was well intended but precludes big bucks that could be spent on ROW/equipment.

8. Money could be spent on things that already exist and not on fancy stuff that are having to be invented to satisfy a knee jerk reaction to an awful accident

9. Can’t wait to see the major airlines be responsible to equip the antiquated air traffic control system with modern equipment…..of course we are not going to see that                            endmrw0615181954

 

[zugmann]

We can only operate under the rules in place at the time.

What if there's a 10mph speed restriction on a 50mph track and I blow by at 50 and wreck?  Should I argue "the track SHOULD have been good for timetable speed!"?

I could, but I'm not getting very far.  The rules were in place and were not followed.  That's all you can go by.  Sure you can argue contributing factors (many incidents are the result of several factors, as we all know), but we can pretty much guess the basic rules weren't followed* for this temporarily dark territory.  You'll drive yourself mad playing the what-if game, otherwise.

*pending final investigation, of course.

[BaltACD]

Euclid

I don't see how my statement is contradictory.  I said Amtrak did not get a clear signal into the switch.  I guess you might think it contradictory if by me saying that they did not get a clear signal, you interpret me to mean they did get a stop signal.  What I meant was they got no signal at all.  As I said, Amtrak was expected to pass the switch without a signal. 

I agree that there is no question that the signal suspension was due to the installation of PTC.  I just don’t think it is logical to conclude that PTC caused the Cayce collision.  That is absurd.    

The signals were suspended and replaced by another form of train control which was an adequate replacement.  The rules for properly lining the switch were also in place.  There was no flaw in this overall method if the rules were followed.  A signal indication assuring that the switch was lined properly was not needed under the system in place at the time. 

So those that lost their lives in the building of the Golden Gate bridge were not casualties of the Bridge.  They were just victims of a sudden stop after a long fall and the fact that they were involved in building the bridge doesn't coung against the bridge..

[zugmann]

Euclid

There was no flaw in this overall method if the rules were followed.

Exactly.

[Euclid]

tree68

 

Euclid

Yet Amtrak did not get a clear signal into the open switch.  They were expected to pass the switch without a signal; and to do that on the official and formal assurance that the switch was properly lined.

 

 

Your statement is contradictory.

 

Amtrak could not get a clear signal into the switch because there were no signals.  

What they did get was was authority to occupy the track (likely via an EC-1) - which is essentially the same as a clear signal.   And, as you note, they received that authority based on (apparent)  information that the switch was properly lined.  Clearly either the dispatcher was given incorrect information, or made an assumption that the switch was properly aligned.

There is no question that the signals being suspended account the PTC installation was a factor.  As Balt notes, the reversed switch would have given Amtrak a stop signal.

 

 

I don't see how my statement is contradictory.  I said Amtrak did not get a clear signal into the switch.  I guess you might think it contradictory if by me saying that they did not get a clear signal, you interpret me to mean they did get a stop signal.  What I meant was they got no signal at all.  As I said, Amtrak was expected to pass the switch without a signal. 

I agree that there is no question that the signal suspension was due to the installation of PTC.  I just don’t think it is logical to conclude that PTC caused the Cayce collision.  That is absurd.    

The signals were suspended and replaced by another form of train control which was an adequate replacement.  The rules for properly lining the switch were also in place.  There was no flaw in this overall method if the rules were followed.  A signal indication assuring that the switch was lined properly was not needed under the system in place at the time. 

[BaltACD]

Euclid

Well what about the rule that called for the mainline switch to be restored?  That rule was in effect despite the suspension of signals.  If you have two rules that combine to prevent collisions, and one rule is suspended and the other rule is violated, do you blame the cause on the one rule being suspended, and ignore the violation of the other rule that would have prevented the collision?

You say that if the rules had not been suspended, Amtrak would not have gotten a clear signal into the open switch.  Yet Amtrak did not get a clear signal into the open switch.  They were expected to pass the switch without a signal; and to do that on the official and formal assurance that the switch was properly lined.

And yet you overlook that rules violation and blame the collision on the excuse that the signal rules had been suspended, which was necessitated to install PTC, and therefore you say the wreck was caused by PTC, blaming the basic PTC system in general.

The CSX crew reported to the Dispatcher that they were clear of the main and the switches were lined for Main Track movement when the released the EC-1 Authority that permitted them to put cars in the siding.  By TWC rules you don't release your authority unless your movement is clear of the territory and the switches have been lined for Main Track movement.  The release of the CSX crews Authority allowed the Train Dispatcher to give Amtrak EC-1 Authority to operate through that segment of track expecting all switches in the territory to be line for Main Track movements.

TWC operation is based on trust of all parties involved in doing what is required by TWC rules as there is no 'back up' to know if one of the parties has not complied with the TWC rules.

The CSX crew released their Authority WITHOUT having all switches restored for Main Track operation and is the responsible party for the incident.

[tree68]

And, I've heard of situations where crews worked 12 hours, the got 10 hours rest before going back on duty, repeatedly.  A 22 hour schedule and a 24 hour day means you're going to spend a substantial amount of time off your circadian rhythms.

And sleep apnea is a recognized problem.

Either or both could have been factors, or not.

[Electroliner 1935]

Hope I'm not poking a stick into a hornets nest here but I am concerned that a way be found to schedule crews so they are well rested at the begining of their going on duty. Crews need to have rest before going on duty and it seems that the inability of the railroads and the unions to be able to find a common ground on how to arrange schedules that allow for the operating irregularities of a railroad is the issue. I think FEC and the IC had a great idea of scheduling trains that would meet and swap crews so they could sleep in their home beds and thatwas the right idea. But that was in a small corridor. And only for certain trains. Not the variablity faced by the BNSF or NS. Does any one have any ideas as to how to schedule crews to give definitive start times that allow for well rested starts? This one day you turn in 12 hours and the next time you wait 35 hours for your next call has to have some method to get it under control and I would appreciate any input. 
Also, does anyone have any knowledge of the positions of Unions and Management on their suggestions for improving predictability of call times?

Separate issue is the sleep apnea issue. The Metro North accident engineer was on a scheduled run as was the Hoboken engineer. Their start times were known and they should have been rested except that they had sleep apnea issues. I sleep with a CPAP machine and so mine is under control. Were these engineers not aware or in denial of thier condition, afraid to "man up" to it. or else why did they operate in their condition. Again your thoughts. Thanks

[tree68]

Euclid

Yet Amtrak did not get a clear signal into the open switch.  They were expected to pass the switch without a signal; and to do that on the official and formal assurance that the switch was properly lined.

Your statement is contradictory.

Amtrak could not get a clear signal into the switch because there were no signals.  

What they did get was was authority to occupy the track (likely via an EC-1) - which is essentially the same as a clear signal.   And, as you note, they received that authority based on (apparent)  information that the switch was properly lined.  Clearly either the dispatcher was given incorrect information, or made an assumption that the switch was properly aligned.

There is no question that the signals being suspended account the PTC installation was a factor.  As Balt notes, the reversed switch would have given Amtrak a stop signal.

 

[Euclid]

BaltACD

 

Euclid

 

BaltACD

 

Euclid 

BaltACD 

Euclid

Now that we know that the Cayce collision was caused by PTC, does that mean that this collision was caused by new rail? 

It was cause by sombody - Dispatcher, Stacker Crew or Rail Train crew not properly applying the proper rules to what they were doing.

The information currently available does not indict or clear any party. 

When we were discussing Cayce, you concluded that the wreck was caused by PTC because it would not have happened had there been no signal suspension, and there would have been no signal suspension if PTC was not being installed.

If the Cayce wreck was thus caused by PTC, it was not caused by people not applying the proper rules such as restoring the mainline switch. 

So, why does that same logic not apply to this Arizona wreck?  It would not have happened if new rail was not being installed.  

Signals were not suspended on this segment of track - no rules were suspended with a differing set of rules being temporarily implemented to facilitate the dropping of rail.  In the Cayce incident the rules for signal operation had been suspended and the operation was operating under Track Warrant Control to allow for signal upgraded required to implement PTC.

If it had not been necessary to change the signal system to support PTC, the signal system would not have been disabled and a different method of operational control substituted.

I don't see the distinction.  The details are different, but the basic principle is precisely the same in both collisions.  There has been no confirmation that the substituted, temporary rules of the signal suspension at Cayce had anything to do with the cause of the collision let alone being the direct cause of it. 

Your conclusion of going back to PTC necessitating the signal suspension, and thus PTC causing the collision is no different that going back to the installation of the new rail in Arizona, requiring the presence of the Herzog train, and thus that train being the cause of that collision.    

 

 

Obviously, rules comprehension and compliance are beyond your ability to understand, good thing you never hired out - you would have been terminated prior to the end of the 90 day probationary period.

Man failure is the primary failure in each instance. 

In the Cayce incident, the CSX and Amtrak crews were operating under a different method of operation that was occasioned by rebuilding the signal equipement to facilitate PTC.  Had the normal method of operation remained in effect, Amtrak would have been operating on signal indication which would have not given Amtrak a Clear signal into the open switch - being at a Control Point, Amtrak would have gotten a Absolute STOP incication and would have contacted the Train Dispatcher.

Dropping rail is a every day operation at locations around the country and it takes place under existing rules.  No change in the method of operation is required to drop rail, it is done with the rules set that continues in operation before, during and after the operation of dropping rail.  Who the guilty party was that caused this incident remains to be seen as no guild can be speculated based on the limited information that has been released.

 

Well what about the rule that called for the mainline switch to be restored?  That rule was in effect despite the suspension of signals.  If you have two rules that combine to prevent collisions, and one rule is suspended and the other rule is violated, do you blame the cause on the one rule being suspended, and ignore the violation of the other rule that would have prevented the collision?

You say that if the rules had not been suspended, Amtrak would not have gotten a clear signal into the open switch.  Yet Amtrak did not get a clear signal into the open switch.  They were expected to pass the switch without a signal; and to do that on the official and formal assurance that the switch was properly lined.

And yet you overlook that rules violation and blame the collision on the excuse that the signal rules had been suspended, which was necessitated to install PTC, and therefore you say the wreck was caused by PTC, blaming the basic PTC system in general.