How many locomotives now use electrically controlled air valves for the braking vs the old control stand hand operated brake valve of old? It seems like a new point of failure. While more sophisticated, more points of failure. And if the electrically controlled braking system fails, ie doen't vent the brake pipe, do the locomotives have a "back up" manually operated valve. I realalize this would not prevent a case of "pissing away" the air but not knowing what the failure was and the comments about a defective air valve mad we wonder what options the crew has. I would think that if the engineer initiated a brake pipe pressure reduction and the pressure guage didn't reflect one, he would take additional actions.
Also suspect that the electronic controls are supposdly designed to be "Fail Safe" but how that is done, I have no knowledge.
Nothing has been officially said. There has been talk going around that the train ran away. That they had somehow lost the ability to control the train, either by piddling away their air or some problem in the air brake system.
I'm starting to wonder now if the first report I heard via a local manager about both neither PTC and CCS being used is true. It's possible if there was a problem (either crew or mechanical) and air pressure dropped low enough, even a penalty or emergency application from PTC or CCS would have no effect.
It reminds me of a rear end collision about 13 years ago where the train's locomotive had a defective air brake valve. It had been reported as having problems a few days before the collision and was allowed to stay in service. I remember my supervisor (since retired) at the time had told me on one of their conference calls that others were saying that the crew had tampered with the brake valve. When the FRA report came out, the crew took the brunt of the responsiblity for the accident. The defective brake valve was mentioned, but almost as an after thought. For that one the FRA certainly seemed to be, as some coworkers say, the railroad's lapdog.
Jeff
And once again, the signal/PTC/Cab/etc. system was not working. Since the crew was always awoken by these things before, now when they fall asleep, the outcome is disaster. More reason to remove the crew from driving the train and only run when PTC like systems operate.
Murphy Siding zardoz jeffhergert Not stand up, lay down on the floor next to back wall. If something the engine hits rides up and over the front, it usually seems to go through the cab at an angle. There's been a few collisions where the least affected parts of the cab was the floor next to the back wall. Wouldn't that be lay corrected?
zardoz jeffhergert Not stand up, lay down on the floor next to back wall. If something the engine hits rides up and over the front, it usually seems to go through the cab at an angle. There's been a few collisions where the least affected parts of the cab was the floor next to the back wall.
jeffhergert Not stand up, lay down on the floor next to back wall. If something the engine hits rides up and over the front, it usually seems to go through the cab at an angle. There's been a few collisions where the least affected parts of the cab was the floor next to the back wall.
Wouldn't that be lay corrected?
In school, I was told that hens "lay" and humans "lie"! But I always thought that some lie more convincingly than others.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
I think he's about to go fetal.
zardoz jeffhergert Not stand up, lay down on the floor next to back wall. If something the engine hits rides up and over the front, it usually seems to go through the cab at an angle. There's been a few collisions where the least affected parts of the cab was the floor next to the back wall. Good point! I sit corrected.
Good point! I sit corrected.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
jeffhergertNot stand up, lay down on the floor next to back wall. If something the engine hits rides up and over the front, it usually seems to go through the cab at an angle. There's been a few collisions where the least affected parts of the cab was the floor next to the back wall.
(Edit) Actually, I was refering to an impact from the rear, with no specification regarding equipment in front. However, in a head-on, you are absolutely correct.
DeggestyI am puzzled by your reference to "Chian"?
The old head UP guys used to write "Cheyenne" as "Chian". Much less to type.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
jeffhergert zardoz Euclid Regarding how jumping might have applied to the U.P. train, I have never head of a head end crew jumping off of the engine in anticipation of being hit from behind by a following train. Indeed. There would be no reason whatsoever to jump from a locomotive of a standing train that was about to be hit, unless the striking train vastly outweighed the stopped train and was moving quickly, and the stopped train was relatively short and light. If the above scenario was not the case, and if you had sufficient notice that you were about to be struck, your best bet would be to simply stand up and plaster yourself against the back wall of the cab. Not only would simply standing against the bulkhead take far less time than going all the way down the steps and getting away from the potential of scattering debris, you would retain the protection of the cab. As strong as today's cabs are, jumping would rarely seem to be the best option. Not stand up, lay down on the floor next to back wall. If something the engine hits rides up and over the front, it usually seems to go through the cab at an angle. There's been a few collisions where the least affected parts of the cab was the floor next to the back wall. Jeff
zardoz Euclid Regarding how jumping might have applied to the U.P. train, I have never head of a head end crew jumping off of the engine in anticipation of being hit from behind by a following train. Indeed. There would be no reason whatsoever to jump from a locomotive of a standing train that was about to be hit, unless the striking train vastly outweighed the stopped train and was moving quickly, and the stopped train was relatively short and light. If the above scenario was not the case, and if you had sufficient notice that you were about to be struck, your best bet would be to simply stand up and plaster yourself against the back wall of the cab. Not only would simply standing against the bulkhead take far less time than going all the way down the steps and getting away from the potential of scattering debris, you would retain the protection of the cab. As strong as today's cabs are, jumping would rarely seem to be the best option.
Euclid Regarding how jumping might have applied to the U.P. train, I have never head of a head end crew jumping off of the engine in anticipation of being hit from behind by a following train.
Indeed. There would be no reason whatsoever to jump from a locomotive of a standing train that was about to be hit, unless the striking train vastly outweighed the stopped train and was moving quickly, and the stopped train was relatively short and light.
If the above scenario was not the case, and if you had sufficient notice that you were about to be struck, your best bet would be to simply stand up and plaster yourself against the back wall of the cab. Not only would simply standing against the bulkhead take far less time than going all the way down the steps and getting away from the potential of scattering debris, you would retain the protection of the cab.
As strong as today's cabs are, jumping would rarely seem to be the best option.
Not stand up, lay down on the floor next to back wall. If something the engine hits rides up and over the front, it usually seems to go through the cab at an angle. There's been a few collisions where the least affected parts of the cab was the floor next to the back wall.
I think he was reffering to the crew of a parked train that was about to be rear ended (rather than the striking train). They could be at risk of whiplash (if the train suddenly moved forward), and bracing one's head could prevent that.
Yes, the collision apparently did take place in two-track territory, just west of Borie--I doubt that the two trains were descending the ten mile longer single track that was constructed in the fifties.
Johnny
Deggesty BaltACD Deggesty dehusman Euclid In this U.P. wreck, it was reported that the crew of the lead train had gotten off their engine while they were stopped. Chian is a crew change. At some point EVERY train stops and EVERY crew gets off their train. I am puzzled by your reference to "Chian"? Do you mean Cheyenne? This event took place 18 miles west of Cheyenne, and thus was not at a crew change point. IF UP was having crew issues - and most carriers are having crew issues at some locations of their systems - the lead train may have been held at it's location pending the avilability of a crew with the original crew on the train having, or about to go on the Hours of Service and having been removed from the train so as not to accrew 'Limbo Time' being transported from the train after their HOS time. The size of trains being operated these days prevent, in many cases, from moving and holding the train at a crew change location account blocking road crossings. Thanks, Balt. That does make sense. I had not thought that CHeyenne would be so congested.
BaltACD Deggesty dehusman Euclid In this U.P. wreck, it was reported that the crew of the lead train had gotten off their engine while they were stopped. Chian is a crew change. At some point EVERY train stops and EVERY crew gets off their train. I am puzzled by your reference to "Chian"? Do you mean Cheyenne? This event took place 18 miles west of Cheyenne, and thus was not at a crew change point. IF UP was having crew issues - and most carriers are having crew issues at some locations of their systems - the lead train may have been held at it's location pending the avilability of a crew with the original crew on the train having, or about to go on the Hours of Service and having been removed from the train so as not to accrew 'Limbo Time' being transported from the train after their HOS time. The size of trains being operated these days prevent, in many cases, from moving and holding the train at a crew change location account blocking road crossings.
Deggesty dehusman Euclid In this U.P. wreck, it was reported that the crew of the lead train had gotten off their engine while they were stopped. Chian is a crew change. At some point EVERY train stops and EVERY crew gets off their train. I am puzzled by your reference to "Chian"? Do you mean Cheyenne? This event took place 18 miles west of Cheyenne, and thus was not at a crew change point.
dehusman Euclid In this U.P. wreck, it was reported that the crew of the lead train had gotten off their engine while they were stopped. Chian is a crew change. At some point EVERY train stops and EVERY crew gets off their train.
Euclid In this U.P. wreck, it was reported that the crew of the lead train had gotten off their engine while they were stopped.
Chian is a crew change. At some point EVERY train stops and EVERY crew gets off their train.
I am puzzled by your reference to "Chian"? Do you mean Cheyenne? This event took place 18 miles west of Cheyenne, and thus was not at a crew change point.
IF UP was having crew issues - and most carriers are having crew issues at some locations of their systems - the lead train may have been held at it's location pending the avilability of a crew with the original crew on the train having, or about to go on the Hours of Service and having been removed from the train so as not to accrew 'Limbo Time' being transported from the train after their HOS time. The size of trains being operated these days prevent, in many cases, from moving and holding the train at a crew change location account blocking road crossings.
Thanks, Balt. That does make sense. I had not thought that CHeyenne would be so congested.
Crew issues CAN create congestion where one would otherwise never expect it. While I believe UP to be multiple tracked where this event happened, on single track railroads crew issues can easily have trains backed up 100 miles in either direction of the actual crew change point.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidIn this U.P. wreck, it was reported that the crew of the lead train had gotten off their engine while they were stopped.
dehusman Euclid I have never head of a head end crew jumping off of the engine in anticipation of being hit from behind by a following train. How would the head end crew even know they were going to be hit?
Euclid I have never head of a head end crew jumping off of the engine in anticipation of being hit from behind by a following train.
How would the head end crew even know they were going to be hit?
I don't know. In many cases, the crew might not know they are going to be hit, but otherwise they might be notified of the impending collision or see the following train approaching. But as I said, I have never heard of a head end crew jumping off the engine to avoid injury from being struck from behind by a following train. Whereas, jumping from an engine of a train about to run into another train is quite common. Although, I understand that railroads have advised against this in the last few decades.
In this U.P. wreck, it was reported that the crew of the lead train had gotten off their engine while they were stopped. I doubt that this means they got off to avoid the effect of the collision with the rear of their train.
In this video, you can see one of the head end crew jump just as the train with the video enters the switch points:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5wh1q3f5No
EuclidRegarding how jumping might have applied to the U.P. train, I have never head of a head end crew jumping off of the engine in anticipation of being hit from behind by a following train.
EuclidI have never head of a head end crew jumping off of the engine in anticipation of being hit from behind by a following train.
The body of the missing crew member was recovered on Saturday.
Murphy Siding At what point does an engine crew decide to just jump out of a moving locomotive as that seems to be the least awful of the only 2 options available?
At what point does an engine crew decide to just jump out of a moving locomotive as that seems to be the least awful of the only 2 options available?
Jumping has been a common practice, especially with steam locomotives because the crew riding in the articulation between the engine and tender are highly vulnerable to being crushed; and also vulnerable to being trapped and scalded to death by steam escaping from broken pipes and components. So with steam, especially if the speed is relatively low, it is easy to choose jumping. There is an historical account of a fireman stepping off of a locomotive in Colorado at around 80 mph and surviving, while others stayed in the cab and were killed.
Jumping has also been common in this diesel era. I know of three wrecks on the C&NW in Minnesota where the crewmembers jumped short of a collision. In two of them, they survived with minor injuries. In two of those cases, damage to the cab indicated that they would have been relatively uninjured if they had stayed in the cab. In one of the three wrecks, the one member of the head end crew jumped short of a head on collision. It was in deep snow and he jumped, but landed rather close to the train, in the snow cut made by passing trains. He slid down the side of the snow cut and under the train, and was killed.
Regarding how jumping might have applied to the U.P. train, I have never head of a head end crew jumping off of the engine in anticipation of being hit from behind by a following train. Does anyone know of such a case? It probably has happened, especially if the struck train was very short.
Jeff, you gave me a little more information concerning my last trip through Denver. We detoured because of a forest fire somewhere between Denver and Salt Lake. It took some time to arrange the detour, including calling UP pilots. I thought we would have a UP engine--but I did not see one on the point during daylight hours. We crept up to Utah Junction and then over to the Denver Pacific. Our progress to Borie was sporadic, but from there on we moved steadily (I went to sleep about Laramie and woke a little above Salt Lake City. We may have had a UP engine put on somewhere west of Laramie, for it took a little less than 12 hours from Borie (I make it to be a about 508 miles from Borie to SLC). I think we changed crews in Green River--that is where the changes were made when the detour was planned in advance.
This was on 13-14 September.
UPENG95 petitnj At track speed, if the moving crew fell asleep, there is nothing to stop them from hitting the train ahead. They missed cab signals, wayside signals, and any PTC warnings that might have cropped up. Not true. Cab signals have to be acknowledge. If they are not a penalty brake application will happen. PTC will automatically stop the train ”before“ passing a red absolute signal. At a red intermediate signal PTC will enforce restricted speed. You must be below 16mph to enter a restricted speed block and braking enforcement happens at 21mph.
petitnj At track speed, if the moving crew fell asleep, there is nothing to stop them from hitting the train ahead. They missed cab signals, wayside signals, and any PTC warnings that might have cropped up.
At track speed, if the moving crew fell asleep, there is nothing to stop them from hitting the train ahead. They missed cab signals, wayside signals, and any PTC warnings that might have cropped up.
Not true. Cab signals have to be acknowledge. If they are not a penalty brake application will happen. PTC will automatically stop the train ”before“ passing a red absolute signal. At a red intermediate signal PTC will enforce restricted speed. You must be below 16mph to enter a restricted speed block and braking enforcement happens at 21mph.
From what a local manager said, the train - for whatever reason - didn't have either system active. Just running on wayside block signal indications. In that event, UP usually requires an absolute block in advance of movement, even with wayside signals. (With an inoperative cab signal the rules allow running on wayside indications without an absolute block, not exceeding 40mph. But they don't like to run that way.)
Simply put, it's going to come down to either a failure of the crew or the signal system. Even if there was some contributing mechanical issue that the crew failed to catch until it was too late, the official blame will still fall on the crew.
UPENG95 petitnj At track speed, if the moving crew fell asleep, there is nothing to stop them from hitting the train ahead. They missed cab signals, wayside signals, and any PTC warnings that might have cropped up. Not true. Cab signals have to be acknowledged. If they are not a penalty brake application will occur. PTC will automatically stop the train ”before“ passing a red absolute signal. At a red intermediate signal PTC will enforce restricted speed. You must be below 16mph to enter a restricted speed block and braking enforcement happens at 21mph.
Not true. Cab signals have to be acknowledged. If they are not a penalty brake application will occur. PTC will automatically stop the train ”before“ passing a red absolute signal. At a red intermediate signal PTC will enforce restricted speed. You must be below 16mph to enter a restricted speed block and braking enforcement happens at 21mph.
And when both systems are 'cut out', nothing happens.
BaltACD The safest place for the crew of the lead train is staying on the locomotives - all that steel around them provides much more protection than their work clothes and boots. Or had the crew of the lead train been removed from the train that was still waiting for track(s) or crew for it's ultimate handling. Cheyenne is one of UP's major terminals isn't it?
The safest place for the crew of the lead train is staying on the locomotives - all that steel around them provides much more protection than their work clothes and boots. Or had the crew of the lead train been removed from the train that was still waiting for track(s) or crew for it's ultimate handling. Cheyenne is one of UP's major terminals isn't it?
1. If you’re about to be rear-ended the slack run-in could be severe. If you’re stopped it would be best to get off of the locomotive and move to safe location, that is only if you have been warned in advance.
2. “All that steel” can be bent, torn, and mashed in an accident.
3. Cheyenne isn’t considered a “major” terminal.
The answers to those questions could also absolve the crew. It just depends.
BaltACD Immediately, we have cast guilt on the following train's crew......
Immediately, we have cast guilt on the following train's crew......
MP173Does UP train crews "call signals" on the radio? The one report indicated the crew of the stopped train had left their locomotive...if correct, they were aware of something bad was about to occur. Ed
The one report indicated the crew of the stopped train had left their locomotive...if correct, they were aware of something bad was about to occur.
Ed
How long was the lead train? Somewhere I heard that the combined trains amounted to 362 cars.
Does UP train crews "call signals" on the radio?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.