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]
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
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
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?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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
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
You seem to be fighting progress. It won't require a cast iron head hood to monitor eye movements.
Now that we know that the Cayce collision was caused by PTC, does that mean that this collision was caused by new rail?
EuclidNow 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.
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Just speculating here.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
EuclidWell 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 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.
Your statement is contradictory.
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.
Euclid There was no flaw in this overall method if the rules were followed.
Exactly.
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
EuclidI 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..
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.
I guess sleep apnea and fatigue are technically two different items
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
They sorta seem to be similar and for sure are among what is cited as accident causes
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
Jeff H had a startling statistic that was quoted from a railway publication
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.
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
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.