Cotton Belt MP104If 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.
Yeah, but those 4% include wrecks like Chatsworth, Frankford Jct., Spuyten Devil, and Dupont WA. The ones that get headline news attention.
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
zugmann The ones that get headline news attention.
The ones that get headline news attention.
And kill lots of people.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Cotton Belt MP104I guess sleep apnea and fatigue are technically two different items
They are. A person who suffers from sleep apnea may be chronically fatigued. However, an otherwise healthy person (ie, no sleep apnea) may be fatigued due to an irregular schedule. The result is the same, but dealing with the causes requires two very different approaches.
Combine the two for a double whammy.
Cotton Belt MP104What 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.
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.
No disagreement there. And that's why there's so much attention on sleep apnea and irregular hours. Examples serve to show that the problem exists.
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...
So this morning there was a 'tour' bus with 46 passengers that rear ended a 18 wheeler on I-70 Eastbound during the morning 'rush' hour near Hagerstown. No fatalities, however, 36 were injured.
So was the driver fatigued at the approximately 7-8 AM happening? Did he lose situational awareness account personal electronic devices? Did he suffer from sleep apena? Was he subject to irregular work periods? Was he proceeding at a speed faster than his ability to stop within 1/2 the range of vision? Did he get caught out losing traffic ahead of him in the direct glare of the morning Sun?
Are there hammers for these nails? Do we need to develop technology that this incident (which probably happens daily somewhere in the US) doesn't happen again?
We have 40K highway deaths a year! Which is the bigger problem to society - highway accidents or railroad accidents?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD So this morning there was a 'tour' bus with 46 passengers that rear ended a 18 wheeler on I-70 Eastbound during the morning 'rush' hour near Hagerstown. No fatalities, however, 36 were injured. So was the driver fatigued at the approximately 7-8 AM happening? Did he lose situational awareness account personal electronic devices? Did he suffer from sleep apena? Was he subject to irregular work periods? Was he proceeding at a speed faster than his ability to stop within 1/2 the range of vision? Did he get caught out losing traffic ahead of him in the direct glare of the morning Sun? Are there hammers for these nails? Do we need to develop technology that this incident (which probably happens daily somewhere in the US) doesn't happen again? We have 40K highway deaths a year! Which is the bigger problem to society - highway accidents or railroad accidents?
Highway accidents are a bigger problem. But there will be attempts to reduce all types of accidents. It is a business opportunity if nothing else. As I have mentioned before, I think that PTC is something that will never be finished. It will constantly be given more capabilities and upgraded. Certainly PTC is a business opportunity, and that alone will drive it forward. But what we call PTC today is just a tiny, primitive form of what it will become. Some form of PTC will be applied to highway accidents. Some form of it will be applied to sleep and attention problems. Some facet will be applied to train operation. It will be applied to grade crossings and to cars and trucks. Maybe it will eventually just be called Positive Control.
BaltACDDo we need to develop technology that this incident (which probably happens daily somewhere in the US) doesn't happen again?
You don't need to develop a technology there is already one. It is called Advanced Emergency Brake Assit. It monitors the distance to in front driving vehicles and brakes automatically if needed. https://youtu.be/JPIg42pQ1f0 or https://youtu.be/8Q5tVnzJj_s
It is mandatory in new trucks in the European Union since November 2015. It is a longterm solution as older truck don't need have to be re-equipped yet.
BaltACDWe have 40K highway deaths a year! Which is the bigger problem to society - highway accidents or railroad accidents?
Why weighing highway accidents and railroad accidents against each other. Each accidident casualty is one to many.
Or better wait until the according rule/mandate is written with enough blood?
With some foresight a lot of blood doesn't need to be shed or could have been spared in the past, I think.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR BaltACD Do we need to develop technology that this incident (which probably happens daily somewhere in the US) doesn't happen again? You don't need to develop a technology there is already one. It is called Advanced Emergency Brake Assit. It monitors the distance to in front driving vehicles and brakes automatically if needed. https://youtu.be/JPIg42pQ1f0 or https://youtu.be/8Q5tVnzJj_s It is mandatory in new trucks in the European Union since November 2015. It is a longterm solution as older truck don't need have to be re-equipped yet. BaltACD We have 40K highway deaths a year! Which is the bigger problem to society - highway accidents or railroad accidents? Why weighing highway accidents and railroad accidents against each other. Each accidident casualty is one to many. Or better wait until the according rule/mandate is written with enough blood? With some foresight a lot of blood doesn't need to be shed or could have been spared in the past, I think.
BaltACD Do we need to develop technology that this incident (which probably happens daily somewhere in the US) doesn't happen again?
BaltACD We have 40K highway deaths a year! Which is the bigger problem to society - highway accidents or railroad accidents?
With some foresight a lot of blood doesn't need to be shed or could have been spared in the past, I think.
Rules "written in blood" has the sound of conviction and doing what is needed. But it is actually a sign of failure. It says that the safety problem was obvious, but those in charge were in denial about it. So it required the safety problem to spill a lot of blood before those in charge were forced by popular demand to make it stop.
Those skilled in the art should see safety problems and correct them before blood gets spilled.
Volker: spot on about safety
zug: spot on with 4% critique = more blood, more likely news
But yet on the other hand one blogger had the following to say: ………….We have 40K highway deaths a year! Which is the bigger problem to society - highway accidents or railroad accidents?..............my question is, why have any…………………wait a minute, wait a minute …………..it is NOT a perfect world and there will ALWAYS be accidents ………..for a while I worked for an OEM and there was NO WAY we could make the machine IDIOT proof as much as we tried …………….. but the point is WE TRIED ……. why can’t any effort for safety be TRIED ………….but as I have pointed out before ………legislation gets news and votes but is rarely the true answer ……..NO BLOWBACK is ever considered ……..just make a law and all will be well
This is not really train related........... but Shadow made an interesting contribution regarding skirts on trailers OTR drag. Yep sounds good. No problem. AWWWWW shucks them thar insurance companies are just too touchy as they see an increase in claims ………..w/tractors hooked to skirted trailers……..who wud a thunk………….oh my, now we are getting’ into the area of aerodynamics of container trains ………….i’ll stop
Elec.1935: yep, ya better be careful of comments or hornets will??? ………. your blog intro, ref: “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.”
Some fellow bloggers just think this blog is for them and no others need suggest anythin’
And the mind blowing comment: “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……………………”….. IMHO this comment has missed the whole point of what was being said about “PTC, causing the accident,” how on earth can it be denied that the IMPLEMENTATTION of PTC was NOT the cause. Seems splitting hairs that a calling out on the statement is another example of the “hammer hittin’ the nail”
As BNSF is leading in the PTC install race…….I asked a signal man there and he said that when they go do install……it is no different than MOW call for Track/Time…….they do their thing and are gone ……. its done …… no big deal. At the same situation on CSX/Cayse, …. Jeff H pointed out that it is probably much more complicated in that the equipment there is so old that present rules dictate new equipment (i.e. no moving parts as in old target signals). They have a much more complicated/time involved project. That ‘splains a lot about why they went dark
Why do we have to have oversight and splitting hairs on comments (I have been through that ordeal……..there was NO WAY I could make a suggestion about permission/authority from Dispatch…….I was wrong, wrong, wrong…………even though Jeff H cited verbatim his rule book ……still the owners of the blog said , blah blah blah, even once a personal slam about where my residence was my reason for being wrong……….here is another example
…………Your statement is contradictory. …………………….. Amtrak could not get a clear signal into the switch because there were no signals. ……………………. 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.
These two guys own Trains General Discussion Blog. Notice Balt “hit the ceiling” and called out what Tree admitted (see #4). see #2. These are some of the guys that own the “hornets nest”. There are others
Honestly, I have enjoyed over the years reading this blog. There have been peripheral discussions that have been fascinating. But here lately, last several years, such bickering and bad attitude, it has been pitiful. …………… Example: I cited the poor attitude about the Cayce accident postings, when it degenerated into getting drunk and playing wack a mole. When questioning the postings in my view ……poor taste ………I was told to go start my own thread if I wanted it to be serious ……. a fatal crash ……. go start my own thread …what??????……who is in CHARGE of this blog …….I’ll tell ya who, a bunch who think they own this blog just sayin’ endmrw0616181111
Gee - I don't know whether to be honored, or what. Never thought of myself "owning" the forum.
Anyhow, anyone who thinks I think I "own" this forum, forget it. I post on threads on which I have in interest on the topic. Sometimes they are topics on which I have knowledge. Sometimes threads cause me to go out and learn more about a topic.
It's all about sharing information.
EuclidRules "written in blood" has the sound of conviction and doing what is needed. But it is actually a sign of failure. It says that the safety problem was obvious, but those in charge were in denial about it. So it required the safety problem to spill a lot of blood before those in charge were forced by popular demand to make it stop. Those skilled in the art should see safety problems and correct them before blood gets spilled.
You are not really correct here. Yes, typically blood was spilled and created a new rule. But often times in the past, and the phrase dates way, way, back, the safety problem was not obvious. The rule book evolved as occasional accidents revealed potential loopholes that needed plugging. The permutations and combinations of the various factors sooner or later would line up just wrong and, after analysis, a rule would be added or refined.
With PTC we see a new operating environment and rules to go with its operation. "Obviously..those in charge" have written rules to cover all foreseen contingencies but I am sure with experience we will see at least one situation that results in blood being spilt. This is not because they were in denial.
I do agree that the fatigue issue is an obvious safety problem. Better solutions can be found, but both management and unions share responsibility for implementing them. They will likely result in slightly extra cost for the company and slightly reduced earnings for the men; as a result both sides are in denial.
As to the Arizona collision, I did wonder if the rail train had ended its work for the day and was now clearing, but there was miscommunication about which direction it would be going. Mere ignorant speculation on my part, of course. I prefer to wait for facts.
Cotton Belt MP104 These two guys own Trains General Discussion Blog. Notice Balt “hit the ceiling” and called out what Tree admitted (see #4). see #2. These are some of the guys that own the “hornets nest”. There are others
If I 'own' this forum (it isn't a blog) I guess you must owe me a fee for particpating. [/sarcasm]
I don't own this Forum!
I only comment from the viewpoint of a 50+ year career in Class 1 railroad operations in both craft and management positions.
Wow.Moses only had 10 items on his power point presentation..........I'll keep mine even shorter.*This isn't a blog. A blog is one person talking, like a lecture or a sermon. A blog is one way communication*This is a forum- 2-way communication. As such, you may read things you don't agree with. That doesn't automatically mean the other person is wrong.*Because this is a public forum, you may run accross people you just don't like or get along with- just like at home, work, school and life in general.*I'm willing to give more weight to the opinions of those who actually work for a railroad.*Being on this forum is a recreational pursuit for me. It's interesting and I get to learn some things using some of the disposable brainpower that's not needed for other things like earning a living.*I pity those people who don't have a sense of humor. People who can't laugh at things now and then will take this forum too seriously get their blood pressure up for nothing.*I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn last night, but I will take ownership of the whack-a- mole comment.*If Balt & Tree own the forum, I want my fair share.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
cx500You are not really correct here. Yes, typically blood was spilled and created a new rule. But often times in the past, and the phrase dates way, way, back, the safety problem was not obvious.
I think Euclid is correct, not for all rules but for a lot. Before the Federal Employer's Liabillity Act there was no financial risk for railroads with work accidents. And it shows. The Janney coupler was patented in 1873, Westinghouse invented the automatic air brake in 1872. Both had to be mandated by Congress in 1893's Railway Safety Appliance Act because of the horrendous number of accident casualties.
PTC is another example. The technology was there for a long time but again it had to be mandated by Congress.
This has nothing to do with the Arizona accident, it was just the response to a sidetrack.Regards, Volker
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.
Jeff
Not sure if we are talking about AZ much here either
VOLKER LANDWEHR cx500 You are not really correct here. Yes, typically blood was spilled and created a new rule. But often times in the past, and the phrase dates way, way, back, the safety problem was not obvious. I think Euclid is correct, not for all rules but for a lot. Before the Federal Employer's Liabillity Act there was no financial risk for railroads with work accidents. And it shows. The Janney coupler was patented in 1873, Westinghouse invented the automatic air brake in 1872. Both had to be mandated by Congress in 1893's Railway Safety Appliance Act because of the horrendous number of accident casualties. PTC is another example. The technology was there for a long time but again it had to be mandated by Congress.
cx500 You are not really correct here. Yes, typically blood was spilled and created a new rule. But often times in the past, and the phrase dates way, way, back, the safety problem was not obvious.
Volker and Euclid are bth correct. Our railroads have not exactly been in the vanguard historically in regards to adopting new technology and rules that reduce accidents and injuries and deaths, as anybody who studies this would know. But that begs the question: why so slow? Is it something inherent in the culture? Whether the adoption of airbrakes and Janney couplers in the 19th C or PTC recently, it has often required a mandate from those hated bureaucrats to make progress.
Murphy Siding*I'm willing to give more weight to the opinions of those who actually work for a railroad.
Fair enough, but primarily in their area of specialization and not to the exclusion of outside opinions or even treating them with contempt or passive aggressive dismissal, such as sarcasm* which seems to be used for for making ad hominem attacks rather than deal directly with the substance of a comment, at the same time avoiding responsibility, much like using symbols for letters in expletives to skate around forum rules.
* sarcasm Irony employed in the service of mocking or attacking someone is sarcasm. Sarcasm is sometimes used as merely a synonym of irony, but the word has a more specific sense: irony that's meant to mock or convey contempt. This meaning is found in its etymology. In Greek, sarkazein meant "to tear flesh; to wound." When you use sarcasm, you really tear into them.
charlie: bravo, thanks for a confirmation of what some of us think
as for the RR active/retired ………. verses …… dare I say the word …….foamer ……….. I hope I can say that, since eye R one…….. a post on a thread long ago, was just for the purpose of letting folks interested in RR but not working there know some things that the outside world would not know or even imagine. Wow did I get a ton of corrections, rebukes, out right denials that I knew what I was talking about.
the biggest kicker was an active RR person cited the rules he operated under and where I was coming from ……… and THEY still did not want to accept what I had talked about
TRAINS is becoming a little of a disappointment, but I have been a subscriber for a long long time and think the world of it when it arrives in the mail.
I did subscribe to another source and was well informed there,...... especially the photos were awesome. I let it drop (subscription), but guess what is my request for Father’s Day. Just guess endmrw0616181534
Cotton Belt MP104 …………Your statement is contradictory. …………………….. Amtrak could not get a clear signal into the switch because there were no signals. ……………………. 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.
Cotton Belt MP 104,
If you find a comment to be wrong headed, inaccurate, or something that you disagree with, I suggest that you just make a post that details why you feel that way. Doing that will let others know of your concern, and they may not have noticed the same issue had you not mentioned it.
That is what I did in regard to the comment that I quote above which you posted as as a quote of a response to me on the previous page. I just explained why what I had said to Balt was not a contradiction, and tried to add some further clarification to the point I was making to Balt. That’s all I can do. Let others be the judge.
For the most part, I find the Trains' Forums interestng until the (I'll call it petty) sniping or nit picking begins. The retired and/or working (Thanks Jeff, Larry, Balt, as examples) railroaders are the most appreciated resource on the forums, IMHO. I also appreciate the Shadow and the Cat's trucking knowledge.
But back to the Arizona accident, I suspect we will have to wait until the NTSB provides us with some "official" information such as the Dispatch voice logs and the locomotive camera videos. A supposition on my part (how to be wrong in one easy step) is that the frieght was cleared into the block on a VFR restricting speed clearance to be looking for the Herzog rail train expecting it to be moving in the same direction to get in the clear. PTC was not involved because the train was operating below the speed where it would activate. And that the train exceeded the speed to be able to stop within line of sight as it came around the curves. My impression from the photos is that it was a low speed coliision as only a few cars are displaced. But a Herzog truck cab is no match for a 4000 HP locomotive.
So is there any way that PTC or any system can make a train that has to approach another train (say to couple to it) or an end of track (like Hoboken) stop yet allow it to get up close to the point it needs to get to? When coupling to a car, the engineer typically makes a safety stop before the fimal couple of feet. When stopping at a terminal platform, the engineer usually stops a few feet short of the bumping post. I am unaware of any system except one like the track trip system in NYC's subway that uses an approach speed time to determine that the train is under control (to "clear track trips) and then if it passes the last fixed track trip dumps the brakes.
Lastly, can any railoader tell me what can be done to break the stalemate over meaningful contract changes that can improve sleep periods for workers on call? And/or tell me what are the proposals and counter proposals to improve the situation.
charlie hebdoWhether the adoption of airbrakes and Janney couplers in the 19th C or PTC recently, it has often required a mandate from those hated bureaucrats to make progress.
Money, pure and simple. Plus the occasional disbelief in the technology ("You propose to stop my trains with wind?)
Who cares if you're losing a brakeman daily? There are hundreds out there willing to take his place, and aside from perhaps a small stipend to the wife, there is no cost to speak of.
Changing over to Janney couplers and air brakes cost the railroad's money, and they could not see an economic advantage to either. Hindsight has pretty much proved them wrong, but hindsight is generally 20-20.
I would opine that PTC is in much the same boat. It's been pointed out here that PTC will prevent perhaps 4% of the incidents, albeit usually those with the highest profile.
If PTC had been sold as a way to increase the bottom line (after the initial capital expense) the railroads might have bought in at the beginning. Even now we hear little about how PTC will benefit the railroads economically. I'm sure features like moving blocks would be a good thing for the railroads, particularly on busy routes, but I believe it's been noted that moving blocks are not included in the current iteration of PTC.
rdamonEL1935 I agree with you thoughts, but got confused when it was mentioned that they were in a shoving maneuver. Only written accounts were from the AP and maybe there is confusion thinking that the Herzog equipment was pushing the rail train, not that there were locomotives on the other end. If they were maintaining visual separation those curves would be a challenge. However if they were following, was the rail train stopped? Things do not add up.
Videos that have been published indicate that the Herzog equipment is coupled to the rear end of the rail train that (in the videos) are being pulled by locomotives. I sincerely doubt that the Herzog equipment would have sufficient tractive effort to actually move a loaded rail train.
BaltACD Videos that have been published indicate that the Herzog equipment is coupled to the rear end of the rail train that (in the videos) are being pulled by locomotives. I sincerely doubt that the Herzog equipment would have sufficient tractive effort to actually move a loaded rail train.
Fully agree ... If they were moving 'in reverse' it would be from the locomotives on the other end. Just speculating that the media does not fully understand the operation.
It also seems that the other train would be ringing their bell and whistling freely. If it was warm I am sure the cab of the Herzog rig is nice and quiet with great A/C and they may not have heard anything.
rdamonIf they were maintaining visual separation those curves would be a challenge. However if they were following, was the rail train stopped?
good posts on this THREAD appreciate the civility
…………..If it was warm I am sure the cab of the Herzog rig is nice and quiet with great A/C and they may not have heard anything.
While very true and good for the poor deceased Herzog fellow, everyone will agree he should not have to listen for whistle and bells
……………..Videos that have been published indicate that the Herzog equipment is coupled to the rear end of the rail train that (in the videos) are being pulled by locomotives. I sincerely doubt that the Herzog equipment would have sufficient tractive effort to actually move a loaded rail train.
while so true………….some long time ago on this thread it was mentioned before the Herzog way of “unloading”……….. I thought I read that the “free end was bolted down to allow the rail train unload by forward movement”. But that has been replaced with the Herzog hook-up. Too I have heard it said that this job of unloading ribbon rail is one of the most dangerous jobs on the RR. i.e. normal day of operations and not the crash situation
……………….but got confused when it was mentioned that they were in a shoving maneuver. Only written accounts were from the AP and maybe there is confusion thinking that the Herzog equipment was pushing the rail train, not that there were locomotives on the other end.
wow, how many times have we read NEWS accounts that were way off base with descriptions endmrw0616181836
tree68 It's been pointed out here that PTC will prevent perhaps 4% of the incidents, albeit usually those with the highest profile.
Where does that 4% number come from?
EuclidWhere does that 4% number come from?
Good question - someone else posted it in this thread.
tree68 Euclid Where does that 4% number come from? Good question - someone else posted it in this thread.
Euclid Where does that 4% number come from?
Jeff posted the following several pages ago:
"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."
ChuckCobleigh tree68 Euclid Where does that 4% number come from? Good question - someone else posted it in this thread. Jeff posted the following several pages ago: "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."
Thanks, I will see if I can look that up. Four percent makes it sound like it is not worthwhile.
Four percent of all the accidents might be a much higher percentage of the total cost of all the accidents.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.