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.
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.
mudchickenChico'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)
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
[quote user="Shadow the Cats owner"]
The odds of the BNSF scrapping a less than 2 year old ES44C4 locomotive slim to none that has minor damage. The only damage that would get her scrapped would be a broken frame.
[/quote above]
Or a bent frame
Balt:
Point well taken. The photo doesnot show all the damage to the 4283, however a three years old X-GN GE was scrapped at Sheridan, Wyoming in 1971 the result of running into the rear of coal hoppers. They were not going at restricted speed in yard limits--Rule 93.
Ed Burns
EuclidWhen MOW and trains are operating on the same track under the directions of the MOW emplyee in charge, what does that emoplyee do to make sure the conflicting operations stay clear of each other?
Under the rules that I operated with. When MofW has the Authority to occupy a segment of track, they hold EXCLUSIVE authority to that track segment. MofW personnel may verbally authorize 'work trains' with specific operating instructions to enter the limits MofW occupies; Such as 'Proceed at Restricted Speed to MP A640 and STOP and await further instructions". Dispatchers have no authority on the track segment after it has been given to MofW with the exception of authorizing trains past Absolute Stop signals (normally authority limits do not include absolute signals); Dispatchers will normall contact the MofW employee in charge to make sure such a move will not interfere with MofW operations.
Trains are never pulled by highway style trucks; only MofW equipment.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD charlie hebdo Looks like the rules are unclear or in conflict, depending on who is using the trackage. The rules for train operation and MofW operations are clear - the operations are not supposed to be on the same track EXCEPT under the directions of the MofW employee in charge. The days of MofW operating on a 'Track Car Lineup' protecting themselves against trains are long, long gone.
charlie hebdo Looks like the rules are unclear or in conflict, depending on who is using the trackage.
The rules for train operation and MofW operations are clear - the operations are not supposed to be on the same track EXCEPT under the directions of the MofW employee in charge.
The days of MofW operating on a 'Track Car Lineup' protecting themselves against trains are long, long gone.
When MOW and trains are operating on the same track under the directions of the MOW emplyee in charge, what does that emoplyee do to make sure the conflicting operations stay clear of each other?
charlie hebdoLooks like the rules are unclear or in conflict, depending on who is using the trackage.
Looks like the rules are unclear or in conflict, depending on who is using the trackage.
This all leads to one BIG question. Was the Herzog equipment operating as a Train or as a piece of MofW equipment. Different sets of rules goven the operation of the different characters of operation.
Which train had the right to be there?
ChuckCobleigh CB, I guess this needed a flaming tank car to become newsworthy anywhere but Arizona. Apparently this afternoon a BNSF stack/piggyback train went on the ground near Medill MO taking both tracks out of service and apparently forcing a reroute of ATK #3 somehow. Tough week for ATK managers, it would seem.
CB, I guess this needed a flaming tank car to become newsworthy anywhere but Arizona. Apparently this afternoon a BNSF stack/piggyback train went on the ground near Medill MO taking both tracks out of service and apparently forcing a reroute of ATK #3 somehow. Tough week for ATK managers, it would seem.
Judging from the photo [linked by a previous poster]. The Herzog truck-tractor was definitely the point of impact..It was the Herzog employee who was killed, and another seriously injured. It is apparently their practice to use the Herzog T/T to pull the CWR train, and the on-board crane steers the rails off the train to the point where it is placed trackside(?). When this Herzog train has been operating in this area, placing rails; there are generally, other workers standing or walking, along the various cars, moving, and removing the blocks used to stabelize the rails when the train is in-transit(?). So it was certainly lucky that there were no more injuries to the MOW workers with the CWR train.
The traffic in this area has certainly seen a reduction; in both directions, since this was first reported.[ Generally, through here, normal, about 60 trains, a day. ]
I have been looking and not found anything on the Trains Newswire about the BNSF/Herzog crash. Of course they can not cover each and every rail accident, but it would seem that this one should be covered. Just wondering if I missed it? endmrw0608181758
NP EddieALL: The Bullhead City Bee photograph is excellent! It looks like the BNSF 4283 will be scrapped, due to the damage to the front, cab, and frame. I await the NTSB report. Ed Burns
The Bullhead City Bee photograph is excellent! It looks like the BNSF 4283 will be scrapped, due to the damage to the front, cab, and frame. I await the NTSB report.
Unless there is significant damage we can't see in the photo (and the photo shows very little of the engine) the locomotive is easily repairable.
link
https://thebee.news/train-crash-leaves-one-dead-one-injured/
The one-piece fender & hood section of the semi (which I believe is aluminum) was 'collected' by the front handrails of the lead unit as the semi was sent flying over the cab during the collision. My prayers go out to the family of that Herzog employee.....
ALL:
And, the Bullhead City Bee newspaper has an on-the-ground pic on their FB page.
The rear of the rail train has a modified semi-truck with an attached crane and rail threading equipment to drop CWR along the ROW. The frame can be seen in an aerial view taken by KTAR-TV.
I got lucky enough to see one in action in San Diego last year. The motorists at the blocked crossings probably didn't feel the same way.....
And when the Head end crosses over its rear end at Tehachapi - will the train be its own collision?
Photos show the BNSF train striking the rear of a train loaded with continous welded rail that was being operated by a contractor. The location was a place that was difficult to access with no visable roadways shown. MC's sources may be the best info until some official information becomes available.
Shadow the Cats owner Never think GPS in failsafe when it comes to proving where something is at. We just had one go goofy on our Sat dispatch system. It said a truck carrying acid was in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on the bottom of the Mariana's trench and had been there for 2 days. The truck had made the delivery in PA and come back to the yard.
Never think GPS in failsafe when it comes to proving where something is at. We just had one go goofy on our Sat dispatch system. It said a truck carrying acid was in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on the bottom of the Mariana's trench and had been there for 2 days. The truck had made the delivery in PA and come back to the yard.
Johnny
PTC may know the position of the loco, and may know how far away the end of the train may be, but would it know what track it is on if the train was part way thru a cross-over?
mudchickenIf half a football field is good enough, then maybe you have acceptable precision. The GPS myths still abound with those who buy-in to thev original false pretext.
I know it is not that precise. That is one of the reasons it is not used in the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS).
I think for a breaking curve under restricted speed you don't need the exact train end location. Take the EOT's GPS location or the calculated train end location and add a sufficient safety margin (perhaps 500 ft) and you have something to work with. But as Balt said it adds to the complexity.
If PTC ever gets developed into system allowing moving block this will be a by-product.Regards, Volker
The locomotive knows where it is, the back office computer knows where the head end was. The rear end could maybe be approximated from data in the system.
If half a football field is good enough, then maybe you have acceptable precision. The GPS myths still abound with those who buy-in to thev original false pretext. GPS in autonomous mode is never going to get you the level of precision, much less accuracy that is being falsely promoted. You'd need another locomotive carbody full of computers, numerous more relay and a whole slew of HARN stations to get the post-processed precision you want, even with the p-code fully accessible. (This is the railroad GPS/PTC version of the emperor's new clothes continuing to play out )....We haven't even gotten into the grid to ground conversion or how we get off the geoid into the real world thing.
- With the locomotive, you have to know if the speed is calibrated to wheel diameter or the ground radar sensor in your wheel slip sensor in the traction motor case housing)...both can be "off" under normal wear and use.
...and still have not seen reference to the third vehicle involved yet or if some of the other questions causing so much heartburn at BNSF.
PTC continues to be the panacea pushed by techno-muggles that will never do what all these wrongheaded clowns with unrealistic expectations think it already does. It might get there, but not in my lifetime. (I hope I'm wrong, but reality is what it is. Quantum leaps in the technology are still needed and those solutions are hardly predictable as to when they show up.)
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. This knowledge has to be available if not now at latest when the overlay PTC would be developed in a system allowing moving block. If that ever happens?Regards, Volker
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.
This knowledge has to be available if not now at latest when the overlay PTC would be developed in a system allowing moving block. If that ever happens?Regards, Volker
The locomotive knows where it is, the back office computer knows where the head end is. The rear end could be approximated from data in the system. However, the actual position could vary by up to a few hundred feet. I've seen GPS up to 75 feet off. When initiaizing PTC, we are to make sure the PTC consist totals equals the paper train list totals. If the PTC numbers are different we are to edit the PTC consist. (Usually it's the length that needs changing. The PTC number is usually shorter than the paperwork by a car length or two.) A mistake somewhere in the process (man or machine) could set up an incident.
Until rear DP units and EOTs are brought into the system, the position of the rear end is an educated guess.
Our east Iowa side had the PTC suspended for about five or six weeks recently. The reason given was there were so many temporary speed restrictions that it overwhelmed the system. I don't know if they cut down the number of slows or fixed a bug in the system. More complexety can lead to more problems, at least in the short term.
Jeff
VOLKER LANDWEHRI 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. This knowledge has to be available if not now at latest when the overlay PTC would be developed in a system allowing moving block. If that ever happens?Regards, Volker
That would be adding another two levels of complexity.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.