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.
Cotton Belt MP104I would love to point out two individuals that seem to know it all about things RR. They seem to own this blog and recently they used the same metaphor to describe us who are “no nuttins’” I have been personally chastised by them both and we who are not in the “click” seem to have no “bidness” giving our view w/o smack down just sayin’ endmw0614181118
Am I one of these two people? Just curious.
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
RDG467 BaltACD RDG467 BaltACD If - The rail train was actively dropping rail - NO other train should have been occupying that particular track segment. <snip> There is a stick of rail on the outside (North side) of Main 1, the WB track which both trains were occupying. You can see it curving around the lead unit of SMEMSCO1-02L, which was heading WB downgrade towards Valentine, AZ, in the picture from the Salem News. IDK if the rail train had just dropped that stick and was backing up to drop another one on the S side of Main 1 or if that stick was dropped previously and the rail train should've been on Main 2. The collision occured between W. Peach Springs (MP 467.4), which was the end of a siding for WB trains only and E. Valentine (MP 484.0) which has a siding for EB's only. The closest set of crossovers from Main 1 to Main 2 to the east of the derailment appear to be at Cherokee (MP 473.8). As Captain Obvious would say "One train was on the wrong track." The question remains, which one??? The Herzog equipment is capable of unloading strings of rail on both sides of the track it is working on....as such there would be no need to back up to unload a string on the other side of the track being worked on. BaltACD, that is true. They may have done that here and it's just not visible in any of the views I've seen. However, BNSF *may* prefer to drop one rail at a time on curving stretches of track, like this one in Crozier Canyon. IDK their operating procedures in situations like that.
BaltACD RDG467 BaltACD If - The rail train was actively dropping rail - NO other train should have been occupying that particular track segment. <snip> There is a stick of rail on the outside (North side) of Main 1, the WB track which both trains were occupying. You can see it curving around the lead unit of SMEMSCO1-02L, which was heading WB downgrade towards Valentine, AZ, in the picture from the Salem News. IDK if the rail train had just dropped that stick and was backing up to drop another one on the S side of Main 1 or if that stick was dropped previously and the rail train should've been on Main 2. The collision occured between W. Peach Springs (MP 467.4), which was the end of a siding for WB trains only and E. Valentine (MP 484.0) which has a siding for EB's only. The closest set of crossovers from Main 1 to Main 2 to the east of the derailment appear to be at Cherokee (MP 473.8). As Captain Obvious would say "One train was on the wrong track." The question remains, which one??? The Herzog equipment is capable of unloading strings of rail on both sides of the track it is working on....as such there would be no need to back up to unload a string on the other side of the track being worked on.
RDG467 BaltACD If - The rail train was actively dropping rail - NO other train should have been occupying that particular track segment. <snip> There is a stick of rail on the outside (North side) of Main 1, the WB track which both trains were occupying. You can see it curving around the lead unit of SMEMSCO1-02L, which was heading WB downgrade towards Valentine, AZ, in the picture from the Salem News. IDK if the rail train had just dropped that stick and was backing up to drop another one on the S side of Main 1 or if that stick was dropped previously and the rail train should've been on Main 2. The collision occured between W. Peach Springs (MP 467.4), which was the end of a siding for WB trains only and E. Valentine (MP 484.0) which has a siding for EB's only. The closest set of crossovers from Main 1 to Main 2 to the east of the derailment appear to be at Cherokee (MP 473.8). As Captain Obvious would say "One train was on the wrong track." The question remains, which one???
BaltACD If - The rail train was actively dropping rail - NO other train should have been occupying that particular track segment. <snip>
If - The rail train was actively dropping rail - NO other train should have been occupying that particular track segment. <snip>
There is a stick of rail on the outside (North side) of Main 1, the WB track which both trains were occupying. You can see it curving around the lead unit of SMEMSCO1-02L, which was heading WB downgrade towards Valentine, AZ, in the picture from the Salem News. IDK if the rail train had just dropped that stick and was backing up to drop another one on the S side of Main 1 or if that stick was dropped previously and the rail train should've been on Main 2.
The collision occured between W. Peach Springs (MP 467.4), which was the end of a siding for WB trains only and E. Valentine (MP 484.0) which has a siding for EB's only. The closest set of crossovers from Main 1 to Main 2 to the east of the derailment appear to be at Cherokee (MP 473.8).
As Captain Obvious would say "One train was on the wrong track." The question remains, which one???
The Herzog equipment is capable of unloading strings of rail on both sides of the track it is working on....as such there would be no need to back up to unload a string on the other side of the track being worked on.
BaltACD, that is true. They may have done that here and it's just not visible in any of the views I've seen. However, BNSF *may* prefer to drop one rail at a time on curving stretches of track, like this one in Crozier Canyon. IDK their operating procedures in situations like that.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
disclaimer: I do NOT work on the RR. I have dear friends that do. I have followed RR for over 50 years and have many friends thus have a SOLID/SINCERE interest in their lives and safety. I have worked as a contract crew carrier and seen the shock to individuals who were RR crews involved in fatal accidents.
that said, I have interest in observing folks on this blog who are active/retired RR folks
their reactions are interesting in that they seem to get very riled when a finger is pointed to something that they would rather not happen and want to ignore
causes of accidents right here in my region have been cause by a touchy subject of fatigue
why be shy about accepting that as a possible problem to be addressed?
the conditions the RR crew faces is almost impossible to avoid fatigue!
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 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
I would love to point out two individuals that seem to know it all about things RR. They seem to own this blog and recently they used the same metaphor to describe us who are “no nuttins’”
I have been personally chastised by them both and we who are not in the “click” seem to have no “bidness” giving our view w/o smack down just sayin’ endmw0614181118
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?
reference Eculid news blackout suggestion Might Be Good, but Not advocated by him…………………..
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN………………………
………………………I hear ya
…………………………I guess the worst of all was the occasion when US Marines landed ashore during conflict in Somalia years ago. Okay they are going ashore to “correct” some “misdeeds” of “some” locals
………………………..reference Black Hawk down
………………………..WHAT? all the news services over the world were there to cover the “action”
………………………….What is wrong w/THIS picture ………Nothing? Okay, if that is your view, this is a free country we are fortunate to live in …….. to me this is a disgrace ……. too much news coverage in this case in MY view
…………………………..On the other hand news blackout on a fatal RR accident …… what national security is at stake here? In fact what is at stake at all for revealing details?
……………………………Now the IMPORTANT reason for this posting
……………………………OF ALL PEOPLE to suggest a blackout ……..SOME people takes each and all incidents and RUNS w/said incident to the extent that there is NO END to speculation of the CAUSE/CURE.
……………………………Okay, we are all allowed to speculate, but this News Blackout suggestion is certainly happening in the Herzog/BNSF incident, but a person to SUGGEST it is plausible ……. are you trying to help out w/”the PROBLEM” that some on this blog site have? Comments Infinium w/o known facts or details. ……………………………. just sayin’ endmrw0614181052
Yes a news ban would be an effective way of controlling speculation. But as you see, that hasn't stopped us. Media need spectacular events to get attention. In the case of this accident, it was remote enough that few people heard about it. I really don't know how to control speculation, but I think that controlling the news is far more dangerous than our ramblings.
petitnj Are you being sarcastic or serious? The unions don't want blame to go on their members and have members required to have more sleep (fewer hours). Companies don't want to hire any more crew -- they thrive on operating ratio. Any change in the hours of service will bring out the lawyers. How the railroads can expect crews to work on irregular hours is beyond me! The rules for pilots are amazing complex but hours of rest are 12 between service and 25 hours of flight each week (roughly). In today's aircraft the pilot is almost redundant. That will be the case for train crews in a few years. (let the diatribe begin).
Are you being sarcastic or serious? The unions don't want blame to go on their members and have members required to have more sleep (fewer hours). Companies don't want to hire any more crew -- they thrive on operating ratio. Any change in the hours of service will bring out the lawyers. How the railroads can expect crews to work on irregular hours is beyond me! The rules for pilots are amazing complex but hours of rest are 12 between service and 25 hours of flight each week (roughly). In today's aircraft the pilot is almost redundant. That will be the case for train crews in a few years. (let the diatribe begin).
Not much recent news .. found this with a overhead photo.
http://www.thesalemnewsonline.com/news/article_a85f235e-6a81-11e8-b9eb-6b0dee9f678c.html
ChuckCobleigh zugmann Not saying fatigue wasn't a factor or a cause, but let's get some real answers. Actual information has been hard to find on this incident, unusual for a mainline fatality. On the other hand, speculation and opinions have been plentiful.
zugmann Not saying fatigue wasn't a factor or a cause, but let's get some real answers.
Actual information has been hard to find on this incident, unusual for a mainline fatality. On the other hand, speculation and opinions have been plentiful.
petitnjThe silence of the investigation is the main indicator of a human incident. If it were the signalling system, FRA would have issued a rule on inspection of signals. If it were a permission issue, FRA would have issued a change in the permission rules. I can go on, but once human caused all parties will be silenced until NTSB finishes their investigation in a year. They are quiet because if ruled human caused, FRA will have to issue another rule. That rule may require all crew to be sleep tested. I cannot understand why my car will rattle the steering wheel if I doze, but railroads have not figured this out. BTW an easy fix would be safety glasses that buzzed if your head goes down. Just saying and I know this will cause a stir. It is time to cause a stir and make some real progress on the fatigue issue.
Appearently you are a fatigue hammer and every incident you see is a nail.
The silence of the investigation is the main indicator of a human incident. If it were the signalling system, FRA would have issued a rule on inspection of signals. If it were a permission issue, FRA would have issued a change in the permission rules. I can go on, but once human caused all parties will be silenced until NTSB finishes their investigation in a year. They are quiet because if ruled human caused, FRA will have to issue another rule. That rule may require all crew to be sleep tested. I cannot understand why my car will rattle the steering wheel if I doze, but railroads have not figured this out. BTW an easy fix would be safety glasses that buzzed if your head goes down. Just saying and I know this will cause a stir. It is time to cause a stir and make some real progress on the fatigue issue.
zugmannNot saying fatigue wasn't a factor or a cause, but let's get some real answers.
petitnjThe cause was fatigue. All these other causes require major failure of the dispatching system and the dispatcher. The railroad and unions will fight to make the cause some obscure failure, but the intermodal crew fell asleep. At those speeds you can fall asleep for a minute, pass an approach and wake up just in time to blow by a red signal.
Yeah, we get it. Everything is fatigue. Even if the cause is something else in reality - you will call it fatigue. I'm all for fatigue management reform as the next guy, but arbitrarily assigning it as the cause for every incident is not going to help with acheiving real reform.
Not saying fatigue wasn't a factor or a cause, but let's get some real answers.
I just want to point out that there at least three GCOR rules that can be used to authorize a train and work equipment within the same track segment in CTC territory:
Rule 10.3.1.4: Track permit behind a train
Rule 10.3.3: Joint track permits
Rule 15.2: Track Bulletin Form B
Of course all of these come with various requirements that, if applied correctly, will prevent collisions.
The point is - without more information, it's impossible to assign fault.
IF you assume that the PTC overlay worked as designed, then you can rule out two possibilities: that the train just blew by a Stop signal and into the MOW track and time limits, or that the train crew totally forgot about the existence of a Form B. Pre-PTC, you would have said that these were the most obvious suspects. But there are still lots of possibilities left.
Dan
(BNSF employee, speaking for myself only, with absolutely NO inside knowledge about this incident.)
The cause was fatigue. All these other causes require major failure of the dispatching system and the dispatcher. The railroad and unions will fight to make the cause some obscure failure, but the intermodal crew fell asleep. At those speeds you can fall asleep for a minute, pass an approach and wake up just in time to blow by a red signal.
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.
If - The rail train was actively dropping rail - NO other train should have been occupying that particular track segment.
If - The rail train was making reverse move one of two conditions should have been in place - the rail train should have been granted permission to work in BOTH directs within the track segment or IF it was making a one time reverse move it should have been granted specific permission to make that move. No other trains should have been permitted to follow it on the track segment.
In this particular incident - absent of any other information. I would have to throw the ultimate cause of this incident to poor Dispatching that may have been caused by poor communication and job briefing between the Rail Train and the Dispatcher. With the Rail train moving into that specific track segment, the Dispatcher should have set a Track Block using his CADS equipment. A Track Block prevents the Dispatcher from 'mindlessly' lining a signal for a following or opposing train into the track segment. A side function in creating the Track Block is identifying the reason the Track Block is being created to protect. The crux of the incident is - Did the Rail Train notify the Dispatcher they were going to be working in the track segment and would require protection. If they did - the Dispatcher is on the hook; If they didn't then the Rail Train crew is on the hook, as in the absence of information to the contrary the Dispatcher would expect the Rail Train to act like any other through train and line other trains to follow it.
SD70DudeIn congested (normal) mainline operations it is a regular occurrence for two trains to end up on the same track in close proximity to each other, so long as they are both proceeding in the same direction.
That would also assume that both trains were operating at normal speeds (as governed by the appropriate signal indications, etc.).
As I see it, the issue here is that the work train should have had some sort of working limits established, which would preclude other trains not involved with the work at hand from being on said track.
Situational awareness has been mentioned, but I would think that the only thing the IM train needed to be aware of was the possibility of a work train being on an adjacent track. The IM should have had clear sailing, other than reacting properly to the work train on the adjacent track.
Instead, they found the work train "in their lane..."
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...
blue streak 1Restricted speed. Does the concept of 1/2 the visible distance come from the idea of 2 restricted speed trains approaching each other at the max restricted speed of the track being able to stop just inches from each other ?
That is the concept. The maximum allowed speed applies to locations with unrestricted vision. The more restricted the vision, they slower 1/2 the range of vision becomes. Just because the rule states 20 MPH as the maximum, doesn't authorize 20 MPH when operating over territory with 10 degree curves that cannot be seen around. If your vision is 1000 feet, a speed that will permit stopping the train in 500 feet is required.
blue streak 1
Yes
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Restricted speed. Does the concept of 1/2 the visible distance come from the idea of 2 restricted speed trains approaching each other at the max restricted speed of the track being able to stop just inches from each other ?
In congested (normal) mainline operations it is a regular occurrence for two trains to end up on the same track in close proximity to each other, so long as they are both proceeding in the same direction.
What is not not normal is for them to be heading towards each other.
Under our (Canadian) rules both trains would of course be operating at restricted speed, and for the rail train to change direction or enter a controlled block toward the stack train both movements would have to be given written authorities by the Dispatcher to "protect against" each other, and also protect against the foreman operating the Brandt-type truck.
All 3 parties would then have to talk to each other before either train would be allowed to move.
And I cannot emphasize this enough, none of that relieves either train crew from having to operate at restricted speed.
Maybe BNSF's rules are different, but it is far more likely that someone forgot about their authority limits and failed to properly obey restricted speed. The details of how that happened should be very interesting.
Has Chico's grapevine said anything more on this subject?
VOLKER LANDWEHR tree68 The biggest red flag should be how both trains ended up on the same track... PTC or no, that simply should not have happened. You are completely right. On the other hand PTC was mandated to reduce the impact of human errors. Apparently not this kind of error.Regards, Volker
tree68 The biggest red flag should be how both trains ended up on the same track... PTC or no, that simply should not have happened.
You are completely right.
On the other hand PTC was mandated to reduce the impact of human errors. Apparently not this kind of error.Regards, Volker
I recently read, I think in Railway Age, that the AAR figures that PTC is designed to prevent 4% of all railroad incidents that happen. The ones that don't happen everyday, but make the headlines on the nightly news when they do.
Jeff
tree68The biggest red flag should be how both trains ended up on the same track... PTC or no, that simply should not have happened.
The biggest red flag should be how both trains ended up on the same track... PTC or no, that simply should not have happened.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.