Probably not the case here.
BaltACD SD70Dude Why the stack train was not moving at restricted speed and properly protecting against the worktrain is a whole other issue. Why a 'through' stack train was on the same track as a 'work train' dropping rail is the BIGGER QUESTION. There was a BIG mistake made somewhere.
SD70Dude Why the stack train was not moving at restricted speed and properly protecting against the worktrain is a whole other issue.
Why a 'through' stack train was on the same track as a 'work train' dropping rail is the BIGGER QUESTION. There was a BIG mistake made somewhere.
Isn't it the job of the dispatcher to place trains correctly and keep track of them? Or is that someone else's job? Or the rulebook's? Or nobody's responsibility? Just "lack of situational awareness?"
https://youtu.be/sF-ohYBqwGU is linked to Herzog's site. It's a brief 70 second overview of the Rail Unloading Machine (RUM) in operation.
I've also been wondering if this part of the Transcon had PTC up and running yet. BNSF said that they've made mucho progress in implementation, but still have work to do.
charlie hebdo BaltACD SD70Dude Why the stack train was not moving at restricted speed and properly protecting against the worktrain is a whole other issue. Why a 'through' stack train was on the same track as a 'work train' dropping rail is the BIGGER QUESTION. There was a BIG mistake made somewhere. Isn't it the job of the dispatcher to place trains correctly and keep track of them? Or is that someone else's job? Or the rulebook's? Or nobody's responsibility? Just "lack of situational awareness?"
Off the little bit of information that has been published about this incident - I cannot let the Dispatcher off the hook. More information is necessary to make any realistic assessment of fault.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
petitnj When are we gonna stop with the euphamisms like "situational awareness" and admit that the stack crew was asleep and woke up just in time to see a red signal? They couldn't stop. I hate to raise the ire of the group, but fatigue continues to be challenge and no added rules nor training will help.
When are we gonna stop with the euphamisms like "situational awareness" and admit that the stack crew was asleep and woke up just in time to see a red signal? They couldn't stop. I hate to raise the ire of the group, but fatigue continues to be challenge and no added rules nor training will help.
Evidence of this is?
This video at about the 9:05 mark show a stack train passing the rail train.
Of course this is the phrase used by another blogger ….. my two cents aint worth a plug nickel ….. just sayin …… PTC has costed how many zillions …… how is that going to prevent the (recent newswire posting) guilty charge against the DRUNK person that caused the congressional train tragedy?
To me the more less costly safety measures of the past could have been instituted nationwide to assure safety. But then from what I have been told by an active engineer on BNSF ….. this is getting close to total automation, he said especially with the fuel optimizer equipment.
I have said for years the “Children of Magenta problem” that the airline industry had faced will creep into the RR operations via PTC. There needs to be a human who can consciously consider, what to do, when something goes wrong. Exactly the problem w/airline pilots who ignore situation awareness and depend on automation.
In closing, why is TRAINS newswire not saying anything about this accident (BNSF/Herzog/AZ)? endmrw0612181104
situational awareness …… what a great subject to discuss …… in the case of the pilots who loose situational awareness ……. let me be so bold as to suggest ….. in a way the pilot is taught this …….. the pilot is depending on the instruments and what the computer is telling her/him …… is NOT the safest way to fly except when normal conditions exist
In our discussions, situation awareness is usually the “situation” of someone NOT paying attention to the task at hand. This is the reverse. The plane is failing out of the sky. BUT they are depending on automation and not paying attention to HOW TO FLY AN AIRPLANE, forget the fancy stuff. Turn it off. fly the airplane.
Going to a video narrated by an airline pilot, who is teaching about the problem of Children of Magenta …. (a term created by the airline for “the after action” seminars) …….. he describes what he has seen. A plane develops a problem and the pilots start punching info in the computer. He advises: Turn the darn computer off. Fly by the seat of your pants. You know how to fly an airplane. Stop depending on the automation. In times of trouble, just maybe the problem is CAUSED by the automation. Don’t depend on automation when you have skills that DO NOT require automation. This is the problem called Children of Magenta
Is this where we are going w/PTC? endmrw0612181121
never can we wait for the official pronouncement of what happened …… so we start speculating ….. as the video posted shows …… IT CAN WORK ….. and it should have worked
Not gonna say what I think happened, but speculation sure puts the blame on one who made “this meet” work successfully in the video OR a crew was not obeying signals and then the old situational awareness (distracted by sleep or whatever) was the cause.
(Can't help it) ......Just guessing that it is the latter, due to automation of signals, but of course we are just talkin and guessing. Someone will have to live w/memory of what took the life of a MOW, poor fellow, just doin’ his job.
RR work is dangerous work that the world takes for granted and certainly depends on the employees looking out for each other. Only other occupation more so, would be in combat when bullets are a flyin’ endmrw0612181150
rdamon, thanks for posting the BNSF/Herzog Rail Train in Action at Ludlow, CA.
This video permits us to visualize what happened when a train was operating on the same track as the Herzog rail tran. Why it happened is yet to be determined.
VOLKER LANDWEHR I thought PTC knows the location of any locomotive from GPS? If it knows the locomotive's location it should be possible to know where the rear end is in an occupied block.
I thought PTC knows the location of any locomotive from GPS? If it knows the locomotive's location it should be possible to know where the rear end is in an occupied block.
If PTC always stops equipment on the main track before it touches, how do I add a helper engine to the rear of the train?
How do I double a pick up back to my train?
If the train ahead or behind stalls, how do you get another engine coupled into it if PTC prohibits engines from different trains to couple at restricted speed?
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusman VOLKER LANDWEHR I thought PTC knows the location of any locomotive from GPS? If it knows the locomotive's location it should be possible to know where the rear end is in an occupied block. If PTC always stops equipment on the main track before it touches, how do I add a helper engine to the rear of the train? How do I double a pick up back to my train? If the train ahead or behind stalls, how do you get another engine coupled into it if PTC prohibits engines from different trains to couple at restricted speed?
Why couldn’t PTC be made to slow an engine or train down to the very lowest restricted speed when approaching another train? That way PTC would prevent serious collisions at restricted speed while still allowing equipment to couple at restricted speed. Maybe you could have PTC normally stop a train short of another train after slowing to coupling speed. But, then if you actually did want to couple, you could manually override the automatic stop normally imposed by PTC, and let the approaching train come ahead and couple.
dehusmanIf PTC always stops equipment on the main track before it touches, how do I add a helper engine to the rear of the train? How do I double a pick up back to my train? If the train ahead or behind stalls, how do you get another engine coupled into it if PTC prohibits engines from different trains to couple at restricted speed?
There's a button for that.
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
EuclidWhy couldn’t PTC be made to slow an engine or train down to the very lowest restricted speed when approaching another train? That way PTC would prevent serious collisions at restricted speed while still allowing equipment to couple at restricted speed. Maybe you could have PTC normally stop a train short of another train after slowing to coupling speed. But, then if you actually did want to couple, you could manually override the automatic stop normally imposed by PTC, and let the approaching train come ahead and couple.
The term restricted speed is not a speed, but a method of operation.
zugmann Euclid Why couldn’t PTC be made to slow an engine or train down to the very lowest restricted speed when approaching another train? That way PTC would prevent serious collisions at restricted speed while still allowing equipment to couple at restricted speed. Maybe you could have PTC normally stop a train short of another train after slowing to coupling speed. But, then if you actually did want to couple, you could manually override the automatic stop normally imposed by PTC, and let the approaching train come ahead and couple. The term restricted speed is not a speed, but a method of operation.
Euclid Why couldn’t PTC be made to slow an engine or train down to the very lowest restricted speed when approaching another train? That way PTC would prevent serious collisions at restricted speed while still allowing equipment to couple at restricted speed. Maybe you could have PTC normally stop a train short of another train after slowing to coupling speed. But, then if you actually did want to couple, you could manually override the automatic stop normally imposed by PTC, and let the approaching train come ahead and couple.
It is also the ONLY speed and method of operation that depends on employee line of sight to handle the train safely. All other speeds that are authorized by signal indicatrion or holding Track Warrant Authority have trains operating at speeds where the train cannot be stopped, normally, within the crew's line of sight.
BaltACD zugmann Euclid Why couldn’t PTC be made to slow an engine or train down to the very lowest restricted speed when approaching another train? That way PTC would prevent serious collisions at restricted speed while still allowing equipment to couple at restricted speed. Maybe you could have PTC normally stop a train short of another train after slowing to coupling speed. But, then if you actually did want to couple, you could manually override the automatic stop normally imposed by PTC, and let the approaching train come ahead and couple. The term restricted speed is not a speed, but a method of operation. It is also the ONLY speed and method of operation that depends on employee line of sight to handle the train safely. All other speeds that are authorized by signal indicatrion or holding Track Warrant Authority have trains operating at speeds where the train cannot be stopped, normally, within the crew's line of sight.
I am not sure I understand how this bears on what I said. It seems to me that for PTC to cover all situations during restricted speed running, it would have to know about all the situations. That would require total optical sensing that could tell if anything was out of place and required stopping short of.
Someone brought up trains as something that needed to be stopped short of, and Dave Husman said that if PTC did that, you would not be able to couple to standing trains because PTC would stop you short in the normal course of preventing a collision.
This all goes back to the premise that PTC cannot prevent collisions when running at restricted speed. I did not quite get the reason why that has to be so.
Euclid BaltACD zugmann Euclid Why couldn’t PTC be made to slow an engine or train down to the very lowest restricted speed when approaching another train? That way PTC would prevent serious collisions at restricted speed while still allowing equipment to couple at restricted speed. Maybe you could have PTC normally stop a train short of another train after slowing to coupling speed. But, then if you actually did want to couple, you could manually override the automatic stop normally imposed by PTC, and let the approaching train come ahead and couple. The term restricted speed is not a speed, but a method of operation. It is also the ONLY speed and method of operation that depends on employee line of sight to handle the train safely. All other speeds that are authorized by signal indicatrion or holding Track Warrant Authority have trains operating at speeds where the train cannot be stopped, normally, within the crew's line of sight. I am not sure I understand how this bears on what I said. It seems to me that for PTC to cover all situations during restricted speed running, it would have to know about all the situations. That would require total optical sensing that could tell if anything was out of place and required stopping short of. Someone brought up trains as something that needed to be stopped short of, and Dave Husman said that if PTC did that, you would not be able to couple to standing trains because PTC would stop you short in the normal course of preventing a collision. This all goes back to the premise that PTC cannot prevent collisions when running at restricted speed. I did not quite get the reason why that has to be so.
The mandate did not order PTC to be effective at Restricted Speed. In as much as ANYTHING made by man will fail - there has to be a way to operate when PTC has failed. Restricted Speed is that speed and method of operation.
jeffhergert PTC enforces the top end of restricted speed. It will make a penalty application if speed rises above 21MPH. (I've noticed the PTC speedometer, that goes by GPS, is usually 1 to 2 mph slower than the locomotive's speedometer.) Since PTC doesn't know where the obstruction is in the block, it can't stop you short. It only keeps the collision at a relatively slow speed. But still fast enough to cause damage that can lead to, and has led to, fatalities. It will query the position of facing point switches. Which requires the engineer to select the correct position. If no position is selected or the open position is selected, the PTC will then stop the train short. Jeff
PTC enforces the top end of restricted speed. It will make a penalty application if speed rises above 21MPH. (I've noticed the PTC speedometer, that goes by GPS, is usually 1 to 2 mph slower than the locomotive's speedometer.) Since PTC doesn't know where the obstruction is in the block, it can't stop you short. It only keeps the collision at a relatively slow speed. But still fast enough to cause damage that can lead to, and has led to, fatalities. It will query the position of facing point switches. Which requires the engineer to select the correct position. If no position is selected or the open position is selected, the PTC will then stop the train short.
Jeff
To refresh everyone's memory.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
BaltACD Euclid BaltACD zugmann Euclid Why couldn’t PTC be made to slow an engine or train down to the very lowest restricted speed when approaching another train? That way PTC would prevent serious collisions at restricted speed while still allowing equipment to couple at restricted speed. Maybe you could have PTC normally stop a train short of another train after slowing to coupling speed. But, then if you actually did want to couple, you could manually override the automatic stop normally imposed by PTC, and let the approaching train come ahead and couple. The term restricted speed is not a speed, but a method of operation. It is also the ONLY speed and method of operation that depends on employee line of sight to handle the train safely. All other speeds that are authorized by signal indicatrion or holding Track Warrant Authority have trains operating at speeds where the train cannot be stopped, normally, within the crew's line of sight. I am not sure I understand how this bears on what I said. It seems to me that for PTC to cover all situations during restricted speed running, it would have to know about all the situations. That would require total optical sensing that could tell if anything was out of place and required stopping short of. Someone brought up trains as something that needed to be stopped short of, and Dave Husman said that if PTC did that, you would not be able to couple to standing trains because PTC would stop you short in the normal course of preventing a collision. This all goes back to the premise that PTC cannot prevent collisions when running at restricted speed. I did not quite get the reason why that has to be so. The mandate did not order PTC to be effective at Restricted Speed. In as much as ANYTHING made by man will fail - there has to be a way to operate when PTC has failed. Restricted Speed is that speed and method of operation.
Well there are a lot of other reasons to operate at restricted speed besides the failure of PTC. So let PTC govern restricted speed while PTC is working, and if it fails, proceed at restriced speed without PTC. That would be safer than never enforcing restricted speed with PTC. It would catch crews who have fallen asleep while moving at restricted speed, for instance. That would save lives when running at restricted speed during all those times that PTC is working.
EuclidWell there are a lot of other reasons to operate at restricted speed besides the failure of PTC. So let PTC govern restricted speed while PTC is working, and if it fails, proceed at restriced speed without PTC. That would be safer than never enfording restricted speed with PTC. It would catch crews who have fallen asleep while moving at restricted speed, for instance. That would save lives when running at restricted speed during all those times that PTC is working.
Absolute RED STOP signal and the need for a train to pass it, constitue PTC Failure. PTC cannot work when it has failed. PTC cannot work where it is not intended to work.
SD70Dude jeffhergert PTC enforces the top end of restricted speed. It will make a penalty application if speed rises above 21MPH. (I've noticed the PTC speedometer, that goes by GPS, is usually 1 to 2 mph slower than the locomotive's speedometer.) Since PTC doesn't know where the obstruction is in the block, it can't stop you short. It only keeps the collision at a relatively slow speed. But still fast enough to cause damage that can lead to, and has led to, fatalities. It will query the position of facing point switches. Which requires the engineer to select the correct position. If no position is selected or the open position is selected, the PTC will then stop the train short. Jeff To refresh everyone's memory.
When we say "PTC can't do such and such," that sounds like PTC, as a concept, cannot do that. But apparently what is intended by the statement is that PTC, as it is currently embodied or mandated can't do that. So all of these statements about what PTC can and cannot do have to be qualifed by whether it cannot do it as a concept, or it cannot do it as presently mandated.
There is no doubt in my mind that PTC the concept will be modifed with extended capabilities eternally once the orignial mandate has been put into operation. But saying that it cannot do this or that makes it sound like it will never be able to do it.
Euclid SD70Dude jeffhergert PTC enforces the top end of restricted speed. It will make a penalty application if speed rises above 21MPH. (I've noticed the PTC speedometer, that goes by GPS, is usually 1 to 2 mph slower than the locomotive's speedometer.) Since PTC doesn't know where the obstruction is in the block, it can't stop you short. It only keeps the collision at a relatively slow speed. But still fast enough to cause damage that can lead to, and has led to, fatalities. It will query the position of facing point switches. Which requires the engineer to select the correct position. If no position is selected or the open position is selected, the PTC will then stop the train short. Jeff To refresh everyone's memory. When we say "PTC can't do such and such," that sounds like PTC, as a concept, cannot do that. But apparently what is intended by the statement is that PTC, as it is currently embodied or mandated can't do that. So all of these statements about what PTC can and cannot do have to be qualifed by whether it cannot do it as a concept, or it cannot do it as presently mandated. There is no doubt in my mind that PTC the concept will be modifed with extended capabilities eternally once the orignial mandate has been put into operation. But saying that it cannot do this or that makes it sound like it will never be able to do it.
SD70Dude jeffhergert PTC enforces the top end of restricted speed. It will make a penalty application if speed rises above 21MPH. (I've noticed the PTC speedometer, that goes by GPS, is usually 1 to 2 mph slower than the locomotive's speedometer.) Since PTC doesn't know where the obstruction is in the block, it can't stop you short. It only keeps the collision at a relatively slow speed. But still fast enough to cause damage that can lead to, and has led to, fatalities. It will query the position of facing point switches. Which requires the engineer to select the correct position. If no position is selected or the open position is selected, the PTC will then stop the train short. Jeff To refresh everyone's memory. When we say "PTC can't do such and such," that sounds like PTC, as a concept, cannot do that. But apparently what is intended by the statement is that PTC, as it is currently embodied or mandated can't do that. So all of these statements about what PTC can and cannot do have to be qualifed by whether it cannot do it as a concept, or it cannot do it as presently mandated.
Railroaders that have had any association with PTC understand that it is NOT a MAGIC BULLET that solves any and every situation that may happen where the technology is installed.
The unknowing have been fed bovine excrement by the politians and the media that PTC is THE MAGIC BULLET and that ALL train accidents will stop.
As has been noted - restricted speed is a method of operation. For us, the timetable allows us a maximum 20 MPH on the mainline when running restricted speed. In the yard, it's 10 MPH.
The key phrase for restricted speed is "line of sight." There are many potential obstructions that will not otherwise trigger the sensing systems used by PTC. A boulder on the track, f'rinstance, if it doesn't break the rail.
If I place a fusee to test an engineer, he/she must run at restricted speed for a mile. Unless I've somehow set that up in PTC (and it shows up after the crew encounters the fusee), the cab indication will show track speed.
If I put up a banner, or a second fusee, the engineer still has to stop within half the distance.
We're seeing how driverless cars are doing with seeing obstacles ahead...
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...
BaltACD Euclid SD70Dude jeffhergert PTC enforces the top end of restricted speed. It will make a penalty application if speed rises above 21MPH. (I've noticed the PTC speedometer, that goes by GPS, is usually 1 to 2 mph slower than the locomotive's speedometer.) Since PTC doesn't know where the obstruction is in the block, it can't stop you short. It only keeps the collision at a relatively slow speed. But still fast enough to cause damage that can lead to, and has led to, fatalities. It will query the position of facing point switches. Which requires the engineer to select the correct position. If no position is selected or the open position is selected, the PTC will then stop the train short. Jeff To refresh everyone's memory. When we say "PTC can't do such and such," that sounds like PTC, as a concept, cannot do that. But apparently what is intended by the statement is that PTC, as it is currently embodied or mandated can't do that. So all of these statements about what PTC can and cannot do have to be qualifed by whether it cannot do it as a concept, or it cannot do it as presently mandated. There is no doubt in my mind that PTC the concept will be modifed with extended capabilities eternally once the orignial mandate has been put into operation. But saying that it cannot do this or that makes it sound like it will never be able to do it. Railroaders that have had any association with PTC understand that it is NOT a MAGIC BULLET that solves any and every situation that may happen where the technology is installed. The unknowing have been fed bovine excrement by the politians and the media that PTC is THE MAGIC BULLET and that ALL train accidents will stop.
No, it is not a magic bullet. But it is also not fundamentally limited in the ways that many are saying either.
EuclidSo let PTC govern restricted speed while PTC is working,
How do you propose to do that?
Let him pay for that with his day job.
Euclid BaltACD Euclid SD70Dude jeffhergert PTC enforces the top end of restricted speed. It will make a penalty application if speed rises above 21MPH. (I've noticed the PTC speedometer, that goes by GPS, is usually 1 to 2 mph slower than the locomotive's speedometer.) Since PTC doesn't know where the obstruction is in the block, it can't stop you short. It only keeps the collision at a relatively slow speed. But still fast enough to cause damage that can lead to, and has led to, fatalities. It will query the position of facing point switches. Which requires the engineer to select the correct position. If no position is selected or the open position is selected, the PTC will then stop the train short. Jeff To refresh everyone's memory. When we say "PTC can't do such and such," that sounds like PTC, as a concept, cannot do that. But apparently what is intended by the statement is that PTC, as it is currently embodied or mandated can't do that. So all of these statements about what PTC can and cannot do have to be qualifed by whether it cannot do it as a concept, or it cannot do it as presently mandated. There is no doubt in my mind that PTC the concept will be modifed with extended capabilities eternally once the orignial mandate has been put into operation. But saying that it cannot do this or that makes it sound like it will never be able to do it. Railroaders that have had any association with PTC understand that it is NOT a MAGIC BULLET that solves any and every situation that may happen where the technology is installed. The unknowing have been fed bovine excrement by the politians and the media that PTC is THE MAGIC BULLET and that ALL train accidents will stop. No, it is not a magic bullet. But it is also not fundamentally limited in the ways that many are saying either.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
zugmann Euclid So let PTC govern restricted speed while PTC is working, How do you propose to do that?
Euclid So let PTC govern restricted speed while PTC is working,
As I was saying, it seems to me that for PTC to cover all situations during restricted speed running, it would have to know about all the situations. That would require total optical sensing that could tell if anything was out of place and required stopping short of. It would be like self-driving vehicles, as someone said. But I don't think that would impose insurmoutable problems. If anything, total sensing the railroad right of way for hazards would probably be simpler than sensing roads with lots of other cars and people running around on them. If the crew can see a track hazard, the sensor will be able to see it. I seem to recall that railroad managers have made statements about PTC having the potential to lead to fully automatic running. If that is the case, I can't see why running under PTC control at restricted speed should be that difficult to accomplish.
EuclidIf the crew can see a track hazard, the sensor will be able to see it.
What if I'm shoving?
zugmann Euclid If the crew can see a track hazard, the sensor will be able to see it. What if I'm shoving?
Euclid If the crew can see a track hazard, the sensor will be able to see it.
What if the hazard is something that is not railroad-related (compared to say an open switch), like a stuck ATV or snowmobile?
For that matter, would this observation system be able to distinguish between deer (ok to hit) and people (not so much), and how well would it do it?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.