EuclidWell there are a lot of other reasons to operate at restricted speed besides the failure of PTC. So let PTC govern restricted speed while PTC is working, and if it fails, proceed at restriced speed without PTC. That would be safer than never enfording restricted speed with PTC. It would catch crews who have fallen asleep while moving at restricted speed, for instance. That would save lives when running at restricted speed during all those times that PTC is working.
Absolute RED STOP signal and the need for a train to pass it, constitue PTC Failure. PTC cannot work when it has failed. PTC cannot work where it is not intended to work.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Euclid BaltACD zugmann Euclid Why couldn’t PTC be made to slow an engine or train down to the very lowest restricted speed when approaching another train? That way PTC would prevent serious collisions at restricted speed while still allowing equipment to couple at restricted speed. Maybe you could have PTC normally stop a train short of another train after slowing to coupling speed. But, then if you actually did want to couple, you could manually override the automatic stop normally imposed by PTC, and let the approaching train come ahead and couple. The term restricted speed is not a speed, but a method of operation. It is also the ONLY speed and method of operation that depends on employee line of sight to handle the train safely. All other speeds that are authorized by signal indicatrion or holding Track Warrant Authority have trains operating at speeds where the train cannot be stopped, normally, within the crew's line of sight. I am not sure I understand how this bears on what I said. It seems to me that for PTC to cover all situations during restricted speed running, it would have to know about all the situations. That would require total optical sensing that could tell if anything was out of place and required stopping short of. Someone brought up trains as something that needed to be stopped short of, and Dave Husman said that if PTC did that, you would not be able to couple to standing trains because PTC would stop you short in the normal course of preventing a collision. This all goes back to the premise that PTC cannot prevent collisions when running at restricted speed. I did not quite get the reason why that has to be so. The mandate did not order PTC to be effective at Restricted Speed. In as much as ANYTHING made by man will fail - there has to be a way to operate when PTC has failed. Restricted Speed is that speed and method of operation.
Euclid BaltACD zugmann Euclid Why couldn’t PTC be made to slow an engine or train down to the very lowest restricted speed when approaching another train? That way PTC would prevent serious collisions at restricted speed while still allowing equipment to couple at restricted speed. Maybe you could have PTC normally stop a train short of another train after slowing to coupling speed. But, then if you actually did want to couple, you could manually override the automatic stop normally imposed by PTC, and let the approaching train come ahead and couple. The term restricted speed is not a speed, but a method of operation. It is also the ONLY speed and method of operation that depends on employee line of sight to handle the train safely. All other speeds that are authorized by signal indicatrion or holding Track Warrant Authority have trains operating at speeds where the train cannot be stopped, normally, within the crew's line of sight. I am not sure I understand how this bears on what I said. It seems to me that for PTC to cover all situations during restricted speed running, it would have to know about all the situations. That would require total optical sensing that could tell if anything was out of place and required stopping short of. Someone brought up trains as something that needed to be stopped short of, and Dave Husman said that if PTC did that, you would not be able to couple to standing trains because PTC would stop you short in the normal course of preventing a collision. This all goes back to the premise that PTC cannot prevent collisions when running at restricted speed. I did not quite get the reason why that has to be so.
BaltACD zugmann Euclid Why couldn’t PTC be made to slow an engine or train down to the very lowest restricted speed when approaching another train? That way PTC would prevent serious collisions at restricted speed while still allowing equipment to couple at restricted speed. Maybe you could have PTC normally stop a train short of another train after slowing to coupling speed. But, then if you actually did want to couple, you could manually override the automatic stop normally imposed by PTC, and let the approaching train come ahead and couple. The term restricted speed is not a speed, but a method of operation. It is also the ONLY speed and method of operation that depends on employee line of sight to handle the train safely. All other speeds that are authorized by signal indicatrion or holding Track Warrant Authority have trains operating at speeds where the train cannot be stopped, normally, within the crew's line of sight.
zugmann Euclid Why couldn’t PTC be made to slow an engine or train down to the very lowest restricted speed when approaching another train? That way PTC would prevent serious collisions at restricted speed while still allowing equipment to couple at restricted speed. Maybe you could have PTC normally stop a train short of another train after slowing to coupling speed. But, then if you actually did want to couple, you could manually override the automatic stop normally imposed by PTC, and let the approaching train come ahead and couple. The term restricted speed is not a speed, but a method of operation.
Euclid Why couldn’t PTC be made to slow an engine or train down to the very lowest restricted speed when approaching another train? That way PTC would prevent serious collisions at restricted speed while still allowing equipment to couple at restricted speed. Maybe you could have PTC normally stop a train short of another train after slowing to coupling speed. But, then if you actually did want to couple, you could manually override the automatic stop normally imposed by PTC, and let the approaching train come ahead and couple.
The term restricted speed is not a speed, but a method of operation.
It is also the ONLY speed and method of operation that depends on employee line of sight to handle the train safely. All other speeds that are authorized by signal indicatrion or holding Track Warrant Authority have trains operating at speeds where the train cannot be stopped, normally, within the crew's line of sight.
I am not sure I understand how this bears on what I said. It seems to me that for PTC to cover all situations during restricted speed running, it would have to know about all the situations. That would require total optical sensing that could tell if anything was out of place and required stopping short of.
Someone brought up trains as something that needed to be stopped short of, and Dave Husman said that if PTC did that, you would not be able to couple to standing trains because PTC would stop you short in the normal course of preventing a collision.
This all goes back to the premise that PTC cannot prevent collisions when running at restricted speed. I did not quite get the reason why that has to be so.
The mandate did not order PTC to be effective at Restricted Speed. In as much as ANYTHING made by man will fail - there has to be a way to operate when PTC has failed. Restricted Speed is that speed and method of operation.
Well there are a lot of other reasons to operate at restricted speed besides the failure of PTC. So let PTC govern restricted speed while PTC is working, and if it fails, proceed at restriced speed without PTC. That would be safer than never enforcing restricted speed with PTC. It would catch crews who have fallen asleep while moving at restricted speed, for instance. That would save lives when running at restricted speed during all those times that PTC is working.
jeffhergert PTC enforces the top end of restricted speed. It will make a penalty application if speed rises above 21MPH. (I've noticed the PTC speedometer, that goes by GPS, is usually 1 to 2 mph slower than the locomotive's speedometer.) Since PTC doesn't know where the obstruction is in the block, it can't stop you short. It only keeps the collision at a relatively slow speed. But still fast enough to cause damage that can lead to, and has led to, fatalities. It will query the position of facing point switches. Which requires the engineer to select the correct position. If no position is selected or the open position is selected, the PTC will then stop the train short. Jeff
PTC enforces the top end of restricted speed. It will make a penalty application if speed rises above 21MPH. (I've noticed the PTC speedometer, that goes by GPS, is usually 1 to 2 mph slower than the locomotive's speedometer.) Since PTC doesn't know where the obstruction is in the block, it can't stop you short. It only keeps the collision at a relatively slow speed. But still fast enough to cause damage that can lead to, and has led to, fatalities. It will query the position of facing point switches. Which requires the engineer to select the correct position. If no position is selected or the open position is selected, the PTC will then stop the train short.
Jeff
To refresh everyone's memory.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
EuclidWhy couldn’t PTC be made to slow an engine or train down to the very lowest restricted speed when approaching another train? That way PTC would prevent serious collisions at restricted speed while still allowing equipment to couple at restricted speed. Maybe you could have PTC normally stop a train short of another train after slowing to coupling speed. But, then if you actually did want to couple, you could manually override the automatic stop normally imposed by PTC, and let the approaching train come ahead and couple.
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
dehusmanIf PTC always stops equipment on the main track before it touches, how do I add a helper engine to the rear of the train? How do I double a pick up back to my train? If the train ahead or behind stalls, how do you get another engine coupled into it if PTC prohibits engines from different trains to couple at restricted speed?
There's a button for that.
dehusman VOLKER LANDWEHR I thought PTC knows the location of any locomotive from GPS? If it knows the locomotive's location it should be possible to know where the rear end is in an occupied block. If PTC always stops equipment on the main track before it touches, how do I add a helper engine to the rear of the train? How do I double a pick up back to my train? If the train ahead or behind stalls, how do you get another engine coupled into it if PTC prohibits engines from different trains to couple at restricted speed?
VOLKER LANDWEHR I thought PTC knows the location of any locomotive from GPS? If it knows the locomotive's location it should be possible to know where the rear end is in an occupied block.
I thought PTC knows the location of any locomotive from GPS? If it knows the locomotive's location it should be possible to know where the rear end is in an occupied block.
If PTC always stops equipment on the main track before it touches, how do I add a helper engine to the rear of the train?
How do I double a pick up back to my train?
If the train ahead or behind stalls, how do you get another engine coupled into it if PTC prohibits engines from different trains to couple at restricted speed?
Why couldn’t PTC be made to slow an engine or train down to the very lowest restricted speed when approaching another train? That way PTC would prevent serious collisions at restricted speed while still allowing equipment to couple at restricted speed. Maybe you could have PTC normally stop a train short of another train after slowing to coupling speed. But, then if you actually did want to couple, you could manually override the automatic stop normally imposed by PTC, and let the approaching train come ahead and couple.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
rdamon, thanks for posting the BNSF/Herzog Rail Train in Action at Ludlow, CA.
This video permits us to visualize what happened when a train was operating on the same track as the Herzog rail tran. Why it happened is yet to be determined.
never can we wait for the official pronouncement of what happened …… so we start speculating ….. as the video posted shows …… IT CAN WORK ….. and it should have worked
Not gonna say what I think happened, but speculation sure puts the blame on one who made “this meet” work successfully in the video OR a crew was not obeying signals and then the old situational awareness (distracted by sleep or whatever) was the cause.
(Can't help it) ......Just guessing that it is the latter, due to automation of signals, but of course we are just talkin and guessing. Someone will have to live w/memory of what took the life of a MOW, poor fellow, just doin’ his job.
RR work is dangerous work that the world takes for granted and certainly depends on the employees looking out for each other. Only other occupation more so, would be in combat when bullets are a flyin’ endmrw0612181150
situational awareness …… what a great subject to discuss …… in the case of the pilots who loose situational awareness ……. let me be so bold as to suggest ….. in a way the pilot is taught this …….. the pilot is depending on the instruments and what the computer is telling her/him …… is NOT the safest way to fly except when normal conditions exist
In our discussions, situation awareness is usually the “situation” of someone NOT paying attention to the task at hand. This is the reverse. The plane is failing out of the sky. BUT they are depending on automation and not paying attention to HOW TO FLY AN AIRPLANE, forget the fancy stuff. Turn it off. fly the airplane.
Going to a video narrated by an airline pilot, who is teaching about the problem of Children of Magenta …. (a term created by the airline for “the after action” seminars) …….. he describes what he has seen. A plane develops a problem and the pilots start punching info in the computer. He advises: Turn the darn computer off. Fly by the seat of your pants. You know how to fly an airplane. Stop depending on the automation. In times of trouble, just maybe the problem is CAUSED by the automation. Don’t depend on automation when you have skills that DO NOT require automation. This is the problem called Children of Magenta
Is this where we are going w/PTC? endmrw0612181121
Of course this is the phrase used by another blogger ….. my two cents aint worth a plug nickel ….. just sayin …… PTC has costed how many zillions …… how is that going to prevent the (recent newswire posting) guilty charge against the DRUNK person that caused the congressional train tragedy?
To me the more less costly safety measures of the past could have been instituted nationwide to assure safety. But then from what I have been told by an active engineer on BNSF ….. this is getting close to total automation, he said especially with the fuel optimizer equipment.
I have said for years the “Children of Magenta problem” that the airline industry had faced will creep into the RR operations via PTC. There needs to be a human who can consciously consider, what to do, when something goes wrong. Exactly the problem w/airline pilots who ignore situation awareness and depend on automation.
In closing, why is TRAINS newswire not saying anything about this accident (BNSF/Herzog/AZ)? endmrw0612181104
This video at about the 9:05 mark show a stack train passing the rail train.
petitnj When are we gonna stop with the euphamisms like "situational awareness" and admit that the stack crew was asleep and woke up just in time to see a red signal? They couldn't stop. I hate to raise the ire of the group, but fatigue continues to be challenge and no added rules nor training will help.
When are we gonna stop with the euphamisms like "situational awareness" and admit that the stack crew was asleep and woke up just in time to see a red signal? They couldn't stop. I hate to raise the ire of the group, but fatigue continues to be challenge and no added rules nor training will help.
Evidence of this is?
charlie hebdo BaltACD SD70Dude Why the stack train was not moving at restricted speed and properly protecting against the worktrain is a whole other issue. Why a 'through' stack train was on the same track as a 'work train' dropping rail is the BIGGER QUESTION. There was a BIG mistake made somewhere. Isn't it the job of the dispatcher to place trains correctly and keep track of them? Or is that someone else's job? Or the rulebook's? Or nobody's responsibility? Just "lack of situational awareness?"
BaltACD SD70Dude Why the stack train was not moving at restricted speed and properly protecting against the worktrain is a whole other issue. Why a 'through' stack train was on the same track as a 'work train' dropping rail is the BIGGER QUESTION. There was a BIG mistake made somewhere.
SD70Dude Why the stack train was not moving at restricted speed and properly protecting against the worktrain is a whole other issue.
Why a 'through' stack train was on the same track as a 'work train' dropping rail is the BIGGER QUESTION. There was a BIG mistake made somewhere.
Isn't it the job of the dispatcher to place trains correctly and keep track of them? Or is that someone else's job? Or the rulebook's? Or nobody's responsibility? Just "lack of situational awareness?"
Off the little bit of information that has been published about this incident - I cannot let the Dispatcher off the hook. More information is necessary to make any realistic assessment of fault.
https://youtu.be/sF-ohYBqwGU is linked to Herzog's site. It's a brief 70 second overview of the Rail Unloading Machine (RUM) in operation.
I've also been wondering if this part of the Transcon had PTC up and running yet. BNSF said that they've made mucho progress in implementation, but still have work to do.
Probably not the case here.
zugmann mudchicken Chico's grapevine is hearing that a relief crew on a stack train had a situational awareness issue that cost a work train and a track department contract operator dearly. (Human error either with the train crew or the DS having a train flag an absolute signal) Why would a stack train be in the same block as a mow crew? I've run plenty of locals on track owned by MOW foremen (pretty common where I am, actually), and I've run some trains where MOW had the track out for work adjacent to the right-of-way, but for a stack train and rail train to be working the same stretch? Something went wrong.
mudchicken Chico's grapevine is hearing that a relief crew on a stack train had a situational awareness issue that cost a work train and a track department contract operator dearly. (Human error either with the train crew or the DS having a train flag an absolute signal)
Why would a stack train be in the same block as a mow crew? I've run plenty of locals on track owned by MOW foremen (pretty common where I am, actually), and I've run some trains where MOW had the track out for work adjacent to the right-of-way, but for a stack train and rail train to be working the same stretch?
Something went wrong.
On another site, BNSF person said he heard that Herzog was shoving east, the stack train going west running on a restricting signal. He thought from pictures he saw that they met in a curve. Not much discussion on the other site about it.
SD70DudeWhy the stack train was not moving at restricted speed and properly protecting against the worktrain is a whole other issue.
RDG467 The rail train I saw had 4 GE's on the head end. The Hertzog truck on the rear would grab a stick with the crane and feed it to the rail threader. Then, they'd spool out enough rail to almost hit the ground & radio the head end to pull fwd. Essentially, they pulled the train out from under the rail and dropped it 1 foot or so from the edge of the ties.
The rail train I saw had 4 GE's on the head end. The Hertzog truck on the rear would grab a stick with the crane and feed it to the rail threader. Then, they'd spool out enough rail to almost hit the ground & radio the head end to pull fwd. Essentially, they pulled the train out from under the rail and dropped it 1 foot or so from the edge of the ties.
That makes more sense. In the past CN used to assign a second locomotive and Locomotive Engineer to the tail end of rail trains for the same purpose.
While that practice ended because of cost cuts, there was at least one incident where a string broke free and smashed into the locomotive cab, killing the Engineer. On the rail trains I have worked in recent years the string is first anchored to the track (by bolting it to the current rail), and the train then pulled ahead slowly.
I can easily see a large Brandt-type truck being used for the same purpose.
Why the stack train was not moving at restricted speed and properly protecting against the worktrain is a whole other issue.
Seems as if FACTS have not been escaping the Arizona desert heat.
charlie hebdoAgain with the euphemism "lack of situational awareness." Translates to an engineer not paying attention to where he is and what he supposed to be doing. Goofing off?
A common finding in firefighter line of duty deaths is - lack of situational awareness. Sometimes that does fall directly on the firefighters in question. But sometimes it's a matter of simply not being able to see/sense the "big picture." If you and your team are inside a building trying to put a fire out, you don't have time to step outside and see how the over all effort is going - that's the job of the command officers. And you certainly aren't goofing off.
Firefighters are known to reply to an order to back out of a building with "we've almost got it chief - five more minutes" not knowing that the whole building is now lit up. They are situationally aware of their direct surroundings - but only their direct surroundings.
There were two tracks in the pictures I saw of the scene. Clearly the IM was on the wrong one. Or the MOW crew was. The question is why, and who knew.
As to whether the crew was goofing off - we don't have enough information. What was the sight distance? If the IM had been placed on the wrong track, the engineer may have been secure in his belief that he "owned" the track and was running accordingly.
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...
I guess we would have to go back to Chico's grapevine and ask to know their source for hearing that a relief crew on a stack train had a situational awareness issue.
charlie hebdo zugmann mudchicken Chico's grapevine is hearing that a relief crew on a stack train had a situational awareness issue that cost a work train and a track department contract operator dearly. (Human error either with the train crew or the DS having a train flag an absolute signal) Why would a stack train be in the same block as a mow crew? I've run plenty of locals on track owned by MOW foremen (pretty common where I am, actually), and I've run some trains where MOW had the track out for work adjacent to the right-of-way, but for a stack train and rail train to be working the same stretch? "Something went wrong." Again with the euphemism "lack of situational awareness." Translates to an engineer "not paying attention" to where he is and what he supposed to be doing. "Goofing off?" But this human error sounds more like what Zug is saying. " Something went very wrong" to put them on the same stretch.
zugmann mudchicken Chico's grapevine is hearing that a relief crew on a stack train had a situational awareness issue that cost a work train and a track department contract operator dearly. (Human error either with the train crew or the DS having a train flag an absolute signal) Why would a stack train be in the same block as a mow crew? I've run plenty of locals on track owned by MOW foremen (pretty common where I am, actually), and I've run some trains where MOW had the track out for work adjacent to the right-of-way, but for a stack train and rail train to be working the same stretch? "Something went wrong."
"Something went wrong."
Again with the euphemism "lack of situational awareness." Translates to an engineer "not paying attention" to where he is and what he supposed to be doing. "Goofing off?"
But this human error sounds more like what Zug is saying. " Something went very wrong" to put them on the same stretch.
As just a bystander, and casual reader, while not wanting to put words in another's mouth... It seems, each of the Posters were simply [and professsionally(?)]. Not trying to assign blame, but to use terms to euphamistically, describe what sadly took place in Arizona on that isolated stretch of track.
There are other descriptive terms(aronyms) that come out of a military life, and its' cynicism; descriptors, used most commonly there, and occasionally, in professional and civilian lives.
I give you, starting at a low level of happenstance: SNAFU, SUSFU, FUBAR,FUBU, followed closely by the term BOHICA. While from Naval Services TARFU. Leaving the individual reader to put their meanings together.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.