jeffhergert Does BNSF use "remote authority" (has Uncle Pete calls it) where MOW/Signal forces can get track authority sent direct to laptops? You can also release via the computer. If they do, I'd be wondering if someone, or a malfunction nadvertently released the rail train's authority. Allowing the dispatcher to line a through train into the working limits.
Does BNSF use "remote authority" (has Uncle Pete calls it) where MOW/Signal forces can get track authority sent direct to laptops? You can also release via the computer. If they do, I'd be wondering if someone, or a malfunction nadvertently released the rail train's authority. Allowing the dispatcher to line a through train into the working limits.
CN calls that E-TOP (TOP = Track Occupancy Permit in Canadianese).
It has a lot of bugs and freezes regularly. This has led to quite a bit of confusion when trains cannot contact a Foreman who is not near his radio because the E-TOP screen (a reproduction of the Dispatcher's CTC panel) showed no trains near him.
Our rules allow for the Dispatcher to light a train into a Foreman's limits after giving the crew a written "protect against" authority. If you forget or get your limits wrong the results can be fatal.
I hope that is not what happened in Arizona.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
mudchicken Balt: You are getting closer to what's left Chico's tribe in shock. The operating and maintenance folks BOTH can't understand how a regular train was allowed inside working limits of a work train and work equipment. There is another issue out there still not resolved, but I'm off the normal territory trying to clean up a CSX mess that EHH only compounded. I won't get home for days. Everybody is wondering why somebody didn't shut it all down. (or were they not aware of each other and the road freight being allowed into track time and limits?) Any experienced railroader's skin has been crawling over this; PTC is irrelevant here for the most part. (*) I wouldn't be surprised if the problem goes higher than just the trick DS.
Balt: You are getting closer to what's left Chico's tribe in shock. The operating and maintenance folks BOTH can't understand how a regular train was allowed inside working limits of a work train and work equipment. There is another issue out there still not resolved, but I'm off the normal territory trying to clean up a CSX mess that EHH only compounded. I won't get home for days.
Everybody is wondering why somebody didn't shut it all down. (or were they not aware of each other and the road freight being allowed into track time and limits?) Any experienced railroader's skin has been crawling over this; PTC is irrelevant here for the most part.
(*) I wouldn't be surprised if the problem goes higher than just the trick DS.
Just speculating here.
Jeff
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
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?
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.
The less paranoid folks among us are ok with waiting for confirmed facts from the official investigation, while those wanting to push some agenda will always find an excuse to do so.
points to ponder for Balt as we discuss other incidents it has been pointed out by him that my comments were irrelavant
true the incident the blog is based on is Herzog/BNSF………..
but when someone mentioned fatigue, you got out your hammer and started nailing away……………..
thus you opened that door………………
I personally have not mentioned fatigue as being the cause of #1……………………
you on the other hand seem so offended if ever fatigue is mentioned………………………
gimma a break, these poor shuttle airline pilots are run ragged like train crews are and they too have the “fatigue excuse”, the NTSB said as much after fatal airplane crashes………………………
oh by the way this is a good quote “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.
personal attacks always help the discussion ……….. like when you discredited me ‘cause I was from Arkansas. Balt, please, let’s stay on topic and stop the slurs…………………
.another good quote ………The information currently available does not indict or clear any party. thus why are you so adamant about being the only one that can speculate on the incident??????
good ideas here, but watch out for the man that has the hammer lookin’ for a nail, this might be it, he will find something wrong here ………..another blog post: reference ALERTER………. The problem with most is that they are too predictable or too easy to manipulate. The 2012 FRA system allows to monitor throttle movements and that seem doable even half asleep. ……… ghee the following seems not all that much a problem, then circus acts and hoods will not have to be worn ....... post quote again: Making alerters unpredictable by random time intervals between alerts might help to make the systems better.
Balt, question: 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. …….. You know this for an actual fact, ghee since there is such NON news about this, how did you obtain this information?
I don’t have a hammer lookin’ for a nail, just interjecting factual information and personal observations, ghee whiz, chill, Balt,after all we are just talking about possibilities……………………. just sayin endmrw0615181335
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDRemember the incident under discussion took place at 3 PM - three in the afternoon - not the circadian prime time for sleeping at the controls.
Yeah, that has crossed my mind with respect to crew fatigue as well. When and if a full accident report comes out (likely it will, given the fatality) there will be a complete discussion of rested status of every person involved: crew, DS, MOW foreman, etc., if past reports are any indication. Facts vs. speculation...an interesting comparison. I guess that's why we have thorough investigations and formal reports.
EuclidYou seem to be fighting progress. It won't require a cast iron head hood to monitor eye movements.
It is not new that the rail industry is very reluctant to implement safety features as long as they cost. They had to be mandated. If better safety is a by-product of a change that provides better operations and saving money it seems easier.Regards, Volker
BaltACDAh yes - a virtual reality hood to measure eye movements
There are easier ways: FOVIO vision technology
That's what GM/Cadillac use as drowsiness detection with an infrared camera: http://www.seeingmachines.com/blog/2018/04/17/seeing-machines-fovio-driver-monitoring-technology-features-in-gm-cadillac-ct6-super-cruise/
http://www.seeingmachines.com/technology/
Other drowsiness detection systems in car industry are based on unusual driver behavior by monitoring steering or in-lane movements not usable in trains.
BaltACD said:What is your definition of alert and what form of real world controls to demonstrate that level of alertness are you proposing that WILL NOT take the individuals attention away from what the individual is to be alert about.
Since 2007 AAR required alerters in all freight locomotives, since 2012 FRA for both passenger and freight locomotives operating faster than 25 mph. Here is an interesting read about the development of alerter systems: https://mvl.mit.edu/sites/default/files/BiblioPDF/OmanAlerterTechAssessmentTRBRailOpSafety7.20.13.pdf
The problem with most is that they are too predictable or too easy to manipulate. The 2012 FRA system allows to monitor throttle movements and that seem doable even half asleep.
Making alerters unpredictable by random time intervals between alerts might help to make the systems better.Regards, Volker
EuclidNow that we know that the Cayce collision was caused by PTC, does that mean that this collision was caused by new rail?
Now that we know that the Cayce collision was caused by PTC, does that mean that this collision was caused by new rail?
BaltACD Euclid BaltACD What is your definition of alert and what form of real world controls to demonstrate that level of alertness are you proposing that WILL NOT take the individuals attention away from what the individual is to be alert about. The alertness detection would monitor crewmembers somehow, maybe eye movment, or a combination of factors. If the detection senses insufficient alertness, it would beep with the requirement that alertness must be re-established, or brakes will apply. It would not require any other acknowledgement. Since the alerter can detect insufficient alertness, it can also tell when sufficient alertness returns. So it does not require any further alerter acknowledgement test for the crewmember. It does not even require re-setting the alerter as acknowledgement. Ah yes - a virtual reality hood to measure eye movements
Euclid BaltACD What is your definition of alert and what form of real world controls to demonstrate that level of alertness are you proposing that WILL NOT take the individuals attention away from what the individual is to be alert about. The alertness detection would monitor crewmembers somehow, maybe eye movment, or a combination of factors. If the detection senses insufficient alertness, it would beep with the requirement that alertness must be re-established, or brakes will apply. It would not require any other acknowledgement. Since the alerter can detect insufficient alertness, it can also tell when sufficient alertness returns. So it does not require any further alerter acknowledgement test for the crewmember. It does not even require re-setting the alerter as acknowledgement.
BaltACD What is your definition of alert and what form of real world controls to demonstrate that level of alertness are you proposing that WILL NOT take the individuals attention away from what the individual is to be alert about.
The alertness detection would monitor crewmembers somehow, maybe eye movment, or a combination of factors. If the detection senses insufficient alertness, it would beep with the requirement that alertness must be re-established, or brakes will apply. It would not require any other acknowledgement. Since the alerter can detect insufficient alertness, it can also tell when sufficient alertness returns. So it does not require any further alerter acknowledgement test for the crewmember. It does not even require re-setting the alerter as acknowledgement.
Ah yes - a virtual reality hood to measure eye movements
You seem to be fighting progress. It won't require a cast iron head hood to monitor eye movements.
Cotton Belt MP104 Ah yes your point is to have the locomotive control operator perform Cirque de Sole' acrobatic movements between each Alerter timeout to 'prove' he is awake and in the mean time be vigilent and perform all his other reqirements of safely operating his train. Point has been nailed even though it is in the wrong location. Balt …………well, if the solution to timeout alerter proof, need be acrobatics, so be it, but I thought all the VIGILENT PERFORMANCES were enough to satisfy the alerter……….fact is, …….it does NOT........ seem to be enough……..but the question to you is,............ if my point is nailed in the wrong location, what is the correct location.????? ……….. don’t know how it works but someone has suggested if a car so equipped, “catches you not alert”, it vibrates the steering wheel, something like that might work, ever how that one does work, ………Come on let’s be serious and not go crazy with the Cirque de Sole’ bit. .........Can we get serious about a serious problem that you don’t seem to want to accept…….. just sayin’ endmrw0614182107
Balt …………well, if the solution to timeout alerter proof, need be acrobatics, so be it, but I thought all the VIGILENT PERFORMANCES were enough to satisfy the alerter……….fact is, …….it does NOT........ seem to be enough……..but the question to you is,............ if my point is nailed in the wrong location, what is the correct location.????? ……….. don’t know how it works but someone has suggested if a car so equipped, “catches you not alert”, it vibrates the steering wheel, something like that might work, ever how that one does work, ………Come on let’s be serious and not go crazy with the Cirque de Sole’ bit. .........Can we get serious about a serious problem that you don’t seem to want to accept…….. just sayin’ endmrw0614182107
What is your definition of alert and what form of real world controls to demonstrate that level of alertness are you proposing that WILL NOT take the individuals attention away from what the individual is to be alert about.
Remember the incident under discussion took place at 3 PM - three in the afternoon - not the circadian prime time for sleeping at the controls. While fatigue may be involved - whose fatigue? Crew of the stacker? Crew of the rail train? Dispatcher? MofW employee in charge of the rail dropping activity?
Ah yes your point is to have the locomotive control operator perform Cirque de Sole' acrobatic movements between each Alerter timeout to 'prove' he is awake and in the mean time be vigilent and perform all his other reqirements of safely operating his train. Point has been nailed even though it is in the wrong location.
[/quote]
Cotton Belt MP104 tree68 Cotton Belt MP104 it is not the crew, but the conditions and lack of some mechanism that could be installed to thwart the lapse of attention i.e. deadman pedal was an attempt but there has to be more comprehensive There is such a mechanism - it's called the alerter. If not reset periodically, it will enact a penalty brake application. Cotton Belt MP104 mechanisms present day I have a friend, who from personal observation as a conductor, witnessed an incident that is hard to imagine possible. His engineer was asleep and snoring loudly while operating all functions of the loco/train This phenomenon was noted in a story in Trains or Classic trains a while back. Not only was the engineer doing all the engineer things he should be doing, in his sleep, but was blowing for crossings when appropriate. He apparently really knew his territory. alerter, gotcha,.......................... but after a crash on the Hoxie sub here locally, the engineer input moves to cancel the alerter was changed (NTSB finding and suggestion implemented) ..............in that the alerter was in operation and was “fooled”. i.e. due to fatigue........................... the crew would make habitual moves and were not ALERT enough to not run against RED from siding into the side of a the train on the main. ................................ HENCE my suggestion that more comprehensive ALERTER if you will. ..........................You missed my point. ............................ There are safeguards in place, BUT OBVIOUSLY are not comprehensive enough. ................................. GET MY POINT? ........................ Sorry I am one of those “fatigue hammers” and you are NOT the nail but I do have a point. ........................ Did you get my point? endmrw0614182043 ............................... your second comment only proves the point i am trying to make.......please ......let us not go so far as to call this a "phenomenon".......get real....... there was another phenomenon here where the phenomenon caused the UP train to T-bone a BNSF and during the crash it took out a highway overpass........since it is so phenomenonal there surely is a phenomenonal aspect to the alerter system that can preclude this phenomenon of fatigue.........I have said over and over again I get it, the difficulities of being a RR crewman is really a strain, but please lets be real with the actual problem
tree68 Cotton Belt MP104 it is not the crew, but the conditions and lack of some mechanism that could be installed to thwart the lapse of attention i.e. deadman pedal was an attempt but there has to be more comprehensive There is such a mechanism - it's called the alerter. If not reset periodically, it will enact a penalty brake application. Cotton Belt MP104 mechanisms present day I have a friend, who from personal observation as a conductor, witnessed an incident that is hard to imagine possible. His engineer was asleep and snoring loudly while operating all functions of the loco/train This phenomenon was noted in a story in Trains or Classic trains a while back. Not only was the engineer doing all the engineer things he should be doing, in his sleep, but was blowing for crossings when appropriate. He apparently really knew his territory.
Cotton Belt MP104 it is not the crew, but the conditions and lack of some mechanism that could be installed to thwart the lapse of attention i.e. deadman pedal was an attempt but there has to be more comprehensive
There is such a mechanism - it's called the alerter. If not reset periodically, it will enact a penalty brake application.
Cotton Belt MP104 mechanisms present day I have a friend, who from personal observation as a conductor, witnessed an incident that is hard to imagine possible. His engineer was asleep and snoring loudly while operating all functions of the loco/train
This phenomenon was noted in a story in Trains or Classic trains a while back. Not only was the engineer doing all the engineer things he should be doing, in his sleep, but was blowing for crossings when appropriate. He apparently really knew his territory.
alerter, gotcha,.......................... but after a crash on the Hoxie sub here locally, the engineer input moves to cancel the alerter was changed (NTSB finding and suggestion implemented) ..............in that the alerter was in operation and was “fooled”. i.e. due to fatigue........................... the crew would make habitual moves and were not ALERT enough to not run against RED from siding into the side of a the train on the main. ................................ HENCE my suggestion that more comprehensive ALERTER if you will. ..........................You missed my point. ............................ There are safeguards in place, BUT OBVIOUSLY are not comprehensive enough. ................................. GET MY POINT? ........................ Sorry I am one of those “fatigue hammers” and you are NOT the nail but I do have a point. ........................ Did you get my point? endmrw0614182043 ...............................
your second comment only proves the point i am trying to make.......please ......let us not go so far as to call this a "phenomenon".......get real....... there was another phenomenon here where the phenomenon caused the UP train to T-bone a BNSF and during the crash it took out a highway overpass........since it is so phenomenonal there surely is a phenomenonal aspect to the alerter system that can preclude this phenomenon of fatigue.........I have said over and over again I get it, the difficulities of being a RR crewman is really a strain, but please lets be real with the actual problem
Cotton Belt MP104it is not the crew, but the conditions and lack of some mechanism that could be installed to thwart the lapse of attention i.e. deadman pedal was an attempt but there has to be more comprehensive
Cotton Belt MP104mechanisms present day I have a friend, who from personal observation as a conductor, witnessed an incident that is hard to imagine possible. His engineer was asleep and snoring loudly while operating all functions of the loco/train
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...
RDG467Chuck, those coordinates are more exact than what i found on Google Maps. Or, I just truncated the numbers on the screen when I copied them down.
Actually, I extracted those numbers from some XML gobbledygook of a pin I placed at the suspected location, that is to say the one that seemed to line up with the topography and vegetation in the referenced picture. Interesting to note that in the Google Earth image, there are concrete ties scattered north of the tracks where depicted in the picture.
RDG467There's an S curve leading into the east end of Crozier Canyon and the impact point was just past where the 'S' curved back to the right after passing Truxton Spring. The spot with the *worst* visibility possible.....
That was my take as well, worst being a good description of the visibility. There are crossovers about six and a fraction miles east of the suspected site and as noted above, also at Valentine just west of the site.
The picture does seem to depict rail on the north side of M1 but it's not clear whether its west end is near the collision point. The linked video suggests that when the rail falls out of the rollers that the rail train does need to back up a bit before starting to put the next piece on the ground.
Not mentioned (at least here) is the impact this may have on planned relay projects this summer, as not having the "re-kitted" equipment associated with the truck basically takes that rail train out of service. Talk about an extended Maalox™ moment!
Valentine is west of the accident scene and the rail train would have to have pulled downgrade to Valentine to clear Main 1, the occupied track in rdamon's photo above.
Looks like the closest crossover and siding is in Valentine.
ChuckCobleigh Possible location of the collision, based on the overhead photo in the article: 35.43225934393215 -113.6301297092179 Better (larger) image of the same photo here.
Possible location of the collision, based on the overhead photo in the article:
35.43225934393215 -113.6301297092179
Better (larger) image of the same photo here.
ChuckCobleigh rdamon Not much recent news .. found this with a overhead photo. http://www.thesalemnewsonline.com/news/article_a85f235e-6a81-11e8-b9eb-6b0dee9f678c.html Possible location of the collision, based on the overhead photo in the article: 35.43225934393215 -113.6301297092179 Better (larger) image of the same photo here.
rdamon Not much recent news .. found this with a overhead photo. http://www.thesalemnewsonline.com/news/article_a85f235e-6a81-11e8-b9eb-6b0dee9f678c.html
Not much recent news .. found this with a overhead photo.
http://www.thesalemnewsonline.com/news/article_a85f235e-6a81-11e8-b9eb-6b0dee9f678c.html
Picture indicates that the area is multiple track and that the lead BNSF engine sustained minor damage. The Herzog truck unit sustained catastrophic damage.
rdamon BaltACD In today's world of main line railroading - track time is critical for every user - trains and MofW - it is a constant competition. For MofW the reality is that they have to accomplish more work in a shorter period of time - thus we have the Herzog assisted rail dropping operation. This time crunch has also resulted in the Herzog GPS contolled ballast train to be able to spread ballast on the right of way at 12-20 MPH; rather than the traditional hopper with its door chained partially open and spreading the contents pocket by pocket at 'maybe' 1 MPH, if that fast. I would not be suprised if they were shoving their way to get off the main and tie down as their time was up.
BaltACD In today's world of main line railroading - track time is critical for every user - trains and MofW - it is a constant competition. For MofW the reality is that they have to accomplish more work in a shorter period of time - thus we have the Herzog assisted rail dropping operation. This time crunch has also resulted in the Herzog GPS contolled ballast train to be able to spread ballast on the right of way at 12-20 MPH; rather than the traditional hopper with its door chained partially open and spreading the contents pocket by pocket at 'maybe' 1 MPH, if that fast.
In today's world of main line railroading - track time is critical for every user - trains and MofW - it is a constant competition. For MofW the reality is that they have to accomplish more work in a shorter period of time - thus we have the Herzog assisted rail dropping operation.
This time crunch has also resulted in the Herzog GPS contolled ballast train to be able to spread ballast on the right of way at 12-20 MPH; rather than the traditional hopper with its door chained partially open and spreading the contents pocket by pocket at 'maybe' 1 MPH, if that fast.
With or without permission?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.