charlie hebdoGiven his background, a lack of vetting or training seem minor factors for the senior conductor.
Not to tar-baby-tize ... and thoroughly understanding the awful hell I may generate by saying this now ... I personally think there is a severe lack-of-training fault. One that is not even possible to address with all the 'rules classes' CSX might care to outsource or impose -- in fact, not one that CSX as an owner/manager could even meaningfully address. All the aspects of awareness and safety training pertaining strictly to individual well-being are not the things the rules really address, cute little mandatory 'safety meetings' and "Safety First" painted on footboards and so on notwithstanding. Those rules make 'getting trains through' the priority, keeping the 'human capital' working as cheaply as possible net of having to vet and train replacements for the maimed and dead. What is needed is effective training by and for the railroaders ... which might theoretically even be 'legislatable" or mandated, just not something that would ever be particularly practical if the railroads themselves or the Government tried to do it.
Earlier I brought up the hypothesis that attention and vigilance may have been reduced because there were two people walking together. This could have two negative factors. One, the distraction of talking with one another, and two, and more likely to be significant, the diffusion of responsibility for vigilance.
In a sense, I see this as the evil side of the 'buddy system': if you get yakkin' with your wingman you both might stop watching your sixes together. I don't see any way this could be addressed in rules without destroying much of the point behind a buddy system in the first place.
Meanwhile, and I think you can both comment on and research this better than I can, I have to wonder if some of the psychophysics behind road rage are operative here. The state of mind of those two, walking back where and when they were, is I think a critical thing here, and while of course we can't "know" it, we could certainly check discipline records, ask friends and family, and so forth about whether either or both men had a predilection or tendency to lose some aspects of critical thinking when agitated or distracted.
(Now, I understand this to be one of the specific things that Joe talks about when he mentions 'vetting', and I doubt that current CSX (or Amtrak, or other) railroad hiring policy specifically asks whether prospective employees remain calm under fire or frustration (as opposed to 'foaming' on company time or the like!) which is one of the things NTSB might actually suggest to help with 'default prevention' of this kind of accident in the future. Again, a good union-based behavioral program might be able to instill this kind of reflex -- the more frustrating the work, the more professional discipline gets observed as a conscious response. You won't get the necessary buy-in by employees if there is any mistrust whatsoever when doing this, though.
[/quote]
charlie hebdoEarlier I brought up the hypothesis that attention and vigilance may have been reduced because there were two people walking together. This could have two negative factors. One, the distraction of talking with one another, and two, and more likely to be sugnuficant, the diffusion of responsibility for vigilance.
I think there is a lot of validity in this theory, whether or not it actually applies in this case.
Overmod: I think you brought up some very pertinent questions and observations. Given his background, a lack of vetting or training seem minor factors for the senior conductor. Earlier I brought up the hypothesis that attention and vigilance may have been reduced because there were two people walking together. This could have two negative factors. One, the distraction of talking with one another, and two, and more likely to be sugnuficant, the diffusion of responsibility for vigilance.
EuclidDo you have an opinion as to why the engineer of 175 put the train into emergency after impact, rather than stopping with a service application?
I have an opinion. It isn't pretty, and it has words I won't use on this forum, and I keep it to myself as (1) it doesn't change anything, and (2) it contributes little meaningful to this discussion.
As I have said, as a decided non-railroader I'd have done much what she did, in inching toward full service as soon as I became aware of people in the gauge (which is where the engineer of 66 said he saw them, and no one here or at the NTSB so far has controverted that -- I hope they do) rather than going to prompt emergency with the train (as I recall) around a fairly sharp curve. Were I a railroader I might have gone to emergency as Joe thinks right, for the reasons he thinks right (and, if I recall correctly, some of the reasons Euclid has argued for in his past discussions of the use of emergency).
But a focus on shoulda-woulda-coulda on the part of the engineer, who everyone acknowledges couldn't possibly have stopped, or even gotten significant way off the train, in the time she had, extends exactly as far as a prospective rule that says you apply emergency whenever you see people in the gauge or fouling expected clearance including wind (or people in vests there, if 'safeguarding our own'). I consider it within the NTSB's scope to recommend this, and perhaps within the FRA's to implement it. Whether it is sentiment or sentimentality would depend on particular accidents, but it certainly does offer milliseconds of potential salvation and better moral recovery for an engineer in even an unavoidable collision (they know they did 'all they could') vs. other considerations that are, more or less, related to quicker railroad operations for the benefit of the investors.
The issue we need to concentrate on, as far as a response here, has far less to do with brakes or horns or momentum than it does with maintaining situational awareness at all times, particularly those times when exasperation or a 'red mist' make judgment impaired. Go back if necessary and read the interviews, particularly to get a context of what those conductors had experienced, particularly with regard to the set-out car handling, as that's much more relevant here than most of the discussion considers it. We're tacitly insulting the dead by saying the senior conductor -- who came from a railroad family and almost certainly knew to 'expect a train on any track at any time' by the time he was weaned -- somehow mistrained his Padawan learner into lethal ignorance ... and yet, there they were, and didn't even look around before the moment of collision. We need to look carefully into what the probable reasons for that might be, and what strategies and approaches might best prevent 'this sort of thing' from happening again.
P.S. it is highly unlikely to be more or better 'rules' printed in lawyerese. Look how well that worked at Cayce.
243129 AnthonyV What is the logic of going into emergency after impact? There isn't any.
AnthonyV What is the logic of going into emergency after impact?
There isn't any.
Do you have an opinion as to why the engineer of 175 put the train into emergency after impact, rather than stopping with a service application?
AnthonyVWhat is the logic of going into emergency after impact?
Electroliner 1935Now you believe that the engineer of #175 did not start to react to seeing the two men on the track and wasted time before slaming the throttle shut and reaching for the brake handle or so I think you are claiming that from the report. To repeat your favorite words, "HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?
It is in her (175's engineer) testimony.
BTW you do not have to slam the throttle shut, an emergency application would cut off traction power.
Ask me how I know that.
Overmod She inched the brake toward service, thinking they would see her train and react. Said she only went to emergency when she knew she would have to stop after the impact. It's in the testimony.
She inched the brake toward service, thinking they would see her train and react. Said she only went to emergency when she knew she would have to stop after the impact. It's in the testimony.
What is the logic of going into emergency after impact?
After all that work I did to find and post the link to Sahara's NTSB interview which contains her firsthand account of what she did. Shame on you.
girarddepotIf the Wall St. Jourtnal is tobe believed, there is a serious problem with street drug use among Amtrak employees. In the case of these fatalities, small amounts of cocaine were found on one and cocaine plus meth on the other--not enough to be high but enough to impair judgement and reaction time. In any case, it's still a tragedy to have serious injury or loss of life.
I have not read anything stating that the CSX employees involved had any street drugs in their system. I suggest the individual that wrote the article for WSJ may have his own street drug problems.
I have no knowledge of what the percentage of drug failures that Amtrak experiences on their random drug testing (random drug testing is required of all railroads by the FRA - When a company's failure rate goes above a certain percentage of all tests - the testing proceeds to another level.) My understanding at the time I was employed by CSX, their failure rate was below whatever the rate necessary to invoke the 'enhanced' testing. In 18 years of working in Jacksonville, I was never tested. In 8 years of working in Baltimore on the same job I was working in Jacksonville I was tested 3 times - all without failing.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
243129So you are traveling in your auto and someone steps in front of you you will not bother to jam on the brake because you are going to hit them anyway?
When I was much much younger, I used to have an open bottle of cola on the front seat in the notch between the seat backs. I wondered whether I would try to keep it from spilling if I had to stop suddenly. Going down a narrow street with cars on both sides at about 25 mph, I saw a baseball roll out between the cars about five cars lengths ahead of me. The cola went all over the floor as I reacted as I wanted to giving a good feeling, particularly as a small boy came out after the ball. So yes, I will apply the brake.
243129You do not think it possible that by affording the subject a millisecond that they could possibly escape?
Now you believe that the engineer of #175 did not start to react to seeing the two men on the track and wasted time before slaming the throttle shut and reaching for the brake handle or so I think you are claiming that from the report. To repeat your favorite words, "HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?
girarddepot If the Wall St. Jourtnal is tobe believed, there is a serious problem with street drug use among Amtrak employees. In the case of these fatalities, small amounts of cocaine were found on one and cocaine plus meth on the other--not enough to be high but enough to impair judgement and reaction time. In any case, it's still a tragedy to have serious injury or loss of life.
If the Wall St. Jourtnal is tobe believed, there is a serious problem with street drug use among Amtrak employees. In the case of these fatalities, small amounts of cocaine were found on one and cocaine plus meth on the other--not enough to be high but enough to impair judgement and reaction time. In any case, it's still a tragedy to have serious injury or loss of life.
Just so I am sure I understand you:
Are you saying that those drugs were found in the systems of the two CSX employees who were killed at Ivy City?
I am confused, as you began by commenting on drug issues at Amtrak.
243129 Convicted One If I read the report correctly, I don't believe that the CSX train was occupying either the crossover, nor the main closest to the Amtrak main, when the inspection began. You did not read the report correctly.Read it again and then we can discuss it.
Convicted One If I read the report correctly, I don't believe that the CSX train was occupying either the crossover, nor the main closest to the Amtrak main, when the inspection began.
You did not read the report correctly.Read it again and then we can discuss it.
When the train was initially stopped for inspection it was ALL on CSX #1 Main track - the track furtherest from Amtrak. Crew was instructed by CSX Mechanical personnel in Jacksonville that the car they had been instructed to inspect, MUST be set out. After consultation with the Dispatcher and others involved in the decision, it was decided that the car would be SET OUT on CSX #2 Main track, the track adjacent to Amtrak. Train was lined by the Train Dispatcher through the crossovers at Control Point F Tower from #1 Main to #2 Main with the Conductor and trainee staying on CSX property East of F Tower to make the cut beind the car that was going to be set out. Before the cut was made, CSX Mechanical changed their instructions and said the car could continue to the next terminal on the train's route (Brunswick, MD). With the change in plans, the Conductor and Trainee began their walk back to the locomotives.
Convicted OneAnd, supposing you did, and the foreign line responded that it would be considerable time before they could comply, what do you do? Sit however long is required BEFORE begining the inspection of your own train?
Yes.
Convicted OneIf I read the report correctly, I don't believe that the CSX train was occupying either the crossover, nor the main closest to the Amtrak main, when the inspection began.
243129Did CSX have a procedure in place for inspecting BOTH sides of a train when one side is adjacent to a foreign railroad ?
If I read the report correctly, I don't believe that the CSX train was occupying either the crossover, nor the main closest to the Amtrak main, when the inspection began. So, if you have an entire main that your own railroad controls between the train to be inspected, and the foreign main....would you request protection on the foreign line on that basis?
And, supposing you did, and the foreign line responded that it would be considerable time before they could comply, what do you do? Sit however long is required BEFORE begining the inspection of your own train?
Electroliner 1935They were dead whether she applied the brakes or not.
How do you know that?
So you are traveling in your auto and someone steps in front of you you will not bother to jam on the brake because you are going to hit them anyway?
You do not think it possible that by affording the subject a millisecond that they could possibly escape?
You are traveling 75+ MPH southbound, freight train to your right, northbound train to your left, two pedestrians on your track and you hesitate to apply the brakes in emergency? GMAFB.
Once and for all. If your train was adjacent to a foreign railroad's main line where trains passed in excess of 100MPH and you were required to inspect both sides of your train would you not want some form of protection while you accomplish that task? Common sense would dictate that you afford yourself some sort of protection which is readily available from Amtrak, in this case, in the form of foul time or a 'hold' on said track. None of this took place. The conductor had five years on the job and the trainee was a new hire. Did CSX have a procedure in place for inspecting BOTH sides of a train when one side is adjacent to a foreign railroad ? As I have stated previously the root causes for this tragedy are poor vetting, poor training and poor supervision and in this case you had the unknowing 'teaching' the unknowing. The two employees are 'victims' of CSX's hiring, training and supervisory procedures.
Overmod Euclid If an employee were to ask for this protection, would they be guaranteed to receive it? This is a fair question, and Balt likely knows the answer better than I do. I personally don't think Amtrak would deny the conductors 'protection' if they asked: on the other hand they might let CSX know they'd be 'on the hook' for damages associated with delays, stoppages, etc. since the request is for unnecessary access. I think in all likelihood there would have been a quick conference on the radio, with the 'upshot' being that the conductors quietly crossed to the opposite side of the train to prevent the "difficulties" involved with issuing formal protection. As I noted, there will also be delays, not as long as the 4 hours Balt was discussing but certainly not sooner than passage of 175 and perhaps 66, before the track in question could be guaranteed traffic-free: Amtrak is not going to require traffic on that part of the NEC to stop completely unless there is a real emergency, not to suit the convenience of a couple of disgruntled people who want an easier walk for a few car lengths, so I'd expect them to say 'we'll provide protection but don't foul UNTIL we tell you you can.' If we are discussing a 'safest' course here, it might be deemed necessary to put any track adjacent to a known-stopped train out of service until the stoppage is remedied (and all crew are safely aboard or out of danger). This would not involve much that couldn't be formalized between dispatchers -- the question then becoming who pays for the inconvenience to operations? Personally, I'm tempted to agree with Joe that what's essentially necessary here is a behavior-based program run by the unions for the benefit of the rank and file, which would inculcate the right kinds of situational awareness at all times, regardless of frustration or weather or immortal youth, as a precondition of working on the railroad. Most everything else railroad organizations might do through 'rules' is at best a Band-Aid on necessary personal responsibility.
Euclid If an employee were to ask for this protection, would they be guaranteed to receive it?
This is a fair question, and Balt likely knows the answer better than I do.
I personally don't think Amtrak would deny the conductors 'protection' if they asked: on the other hand they might let CSX know they'd be 'on the hook' for damages associated with delays, stoppages, etc. since the request is for unnecessary access. I think in all likelihood there would have been a quick conference on the radio, with the 'upshot' being that the conductors quietly crossed to the opposite side of the train to prevent the "difficulties" involved with issuing formal protection.
As I noted, there will also be delays, not as long as the 4 hours Balt was discussing but certainly not sooner than passage of 175 and perhaps 66, before the track in question could be guaranteed traffic-free: Amtrak is not going to require traffic on that part of the NEC to stop completely unless there is a real emergency, not to suit the convenience of a couple of disgruntled people who want an easier walk for a few car lengths, so I'd expect them to say 'we'll provide protection but don't foul UNTIL we tell you you can.'
If we are discussing a 'safest' course here, it might be deemed necessary to put any track adjacent to a known-stopped train out of service until the stoppage is remedied (and all crew are safely aboard or out of danger). This would not involve much that couldn't be formalized between dispatchers -- the question then becoming who pays for the inconvenience to operations?
Personally, I'm tempted to agree with Joe that what's essentially necessary here is a behavior-based program run by the unions for the benefit of the rank and file, which would inculcate the right kinds of situational awareness at all times, regardless of frustration or weather or immortal youth, as a precondition of working on the railroad. Most everything else railroad organizations might do through 'rules' is at best a Band-Aid on necessary personal responsibility.
If protection was asked for it would be granted - that being said - they may been told that they will have to wait for the passage of one or more trains which will be identified to them. Dispatchers/Control Point Operators can only provide protection by withholding signals and/or track authority from trains. Trains that are already by the 'Protecting Control Point' will continue to operate, trains that have Track Warrant Authority through the area of track will continue to operate.
Not knowing the Amtrak Control Points - I am guessing, had the CSX employees asked for protection on Amtrak they would have been told - "After 175 Eng 6xx goes South and after 66 Engine 6xx goes North we will block off for your protection. Contact us after you view 66 and 175 past your location."
The communication chain for this request would most likely have been - Conductor (on a Handset) to CSX Engineer on the engine radio to CSX Dispatcher to K Tower Operator to Amtrak Dispatcher and then back down the chain.
EuclidIf an employee were to ask for this protection, would they be guaranteed to receive it?
Overmod BaltACD IF protection were requested by the employees on the ground through the CSX Train Dispatcher - the Amtrak K Tower Operator would have been contacted - what procedures the K Tower Operator would use in establishing and granting protection with the Amtrak Train Dispatcher are unknown to me. After K Tower would advise that protection has been provided the CSX crew on the ground would be notified. How long it would take to move through that chain of communications is always problematical. It's so much fun to watch how procedures designed for MOW utterly fail when even considered for T&E. Consider this accident. A likely tired, grumpy pair of conductors walk up the side of their train, until close to the head end where space to the adjacent track (a track known to belong to a different, and high-speed railroad) gets tight. Let's see what would be involved here. Conductors stop, get on the radio to their tower. They request 'foul time'. Exactly what does this consist of? someone will have to specify a precise window of time for the protection to be active. That will certainly be more than the few minutes to walk the rest of the way up to the cab ... or request 3-step to cross to the other side and continue there. Now we relay this over to Amtrak, who then has to contact all the trains that will be operating within the foul time, and do ... what? As I recall one of Amtrak's principles was to avoid traffic on the track 'adjacent' to potential fouling, at least for maintenance purposes. So something would have had to be done with 175 to take it off that track before it reached the location in question, which in practice would have almost certainly meant Amtrak telling the K operator that foul time would not be granted until all the traffic had been correctly routed ... something that I doubt would be easily and quickly arranged in a few minutes without stopping trains or throwing them without warning down to full restricted speed. I can picture some of the blue language that would 'eventuate' if the K operator explained exactly why 'emergency' foul time (e.g., not prescheduled hours or days ahead of time) was being requested. This is the best possible case; there may be actual procedures that are different but none that would be properly effective with any greater speed. Meanwhile, our hypothetical conductors, who remember are already fed up with procedures, are expected to ... what? Wait in that 4' or so until someone gets back to them on the radio? Look forward to being called on the carpet for delaying Amtrak traffic, perhaps seriously, for... tell me again what the nominal safety reason for this was?
BaltACD IF protection were requested by the employees on the ground through the CSX Train Dispatcher - the Amtrak K Tower Operator would have been contacted - what procedures the K Tower Operator would use in establishing and granting protection with the Amtrak Train Dispatcher are unknown to me. After K Tower would advise that protection has been provided the CSX crew on the ground would be notified. How long it would take to move through that chain of communications is always problematical.
It's so much fun to watch how procedures designed for MOW utterly fail when even considered for T&E.
Consider this accident. A likely tired, grumpy pair of conductors walk up the side of their train, until close to the head end where space to the adjacent track (a track known to belong to a different, and high-speed railroad) gets tight. Let's see what would be involved here.
Conductors stop, get on the radio to their tower. They request 'foul time'. Exactly what does this consist of? someone will have to specify a precise window of time for the protection to be active. That will certainly be more than the few minutes to walk the rest of the way up to the cab ... or request 3-step to cross to the other side and continue there. Now we relay this over to Amtrak, who then has to contact all the trains that will be operating within the foul time, and do ... what? As I recall one of Amtrak's principles was to avoid traffic on the track 'adjacent' to potential fouling, at least for maintenance purposes. So something would have had to be done with 175 to take it off that track before it reached the location in question, which in practice would have almost certainly meant Amtrak telling the K operator that foul time would not be granted until all the traffic had been correctly routed ... something that I doubt would be easily and quickly arranged in a few minutes without stopping trains or throwing them without warning down to full restricted speed. I can picture some of the blue language that would 'eventuate' if the K operator explained exactly why 'emergency' foul time (e.g., not prescheduled hours or days ahead of time) was being requested.
This is the best possible case; there may be actual procedures that are different but none that would be properly effective with any greater speed. Meanwhile, our hypothetical conductors, who remember are already fed up with procedures, are expected to ... what? Wait in that 4' or so until someone gets back to them on the radio? Look forward to being called on the carpet for delaying Amtrak traffic, perhaps seriously, for... tell me again what the nominal safety reason for this was?
If an employee were to ask for this protection, would they be guaranteed to receive it?
Paul of Covington It got to the point where the attackers were more annoying than their target.
Absolutely the truth!!
Convicted One tree68 They, and they alone are responsible for their fate. I'm no so sure about that anymore. After reading Charlie Hebdo's cooment about two people, in some instances, being easier to mislead than one.....the surviving family members of the conductor trainee will likely have a claim against CSX. The trainee's inferior status to the CSX employee training him would give him some reasonable expectation that the teacher being provided to him by his employer is competent..so there may well be a "contributory" level of failure there. CSX being the deep pocket that it is, I'd be shocked if someone doesn't pursue that angle.
tree68 They, and they alone are responsible for their fate.
I'm no so sure about that anymore. After reading Charlie Hebdo's cooment about two people, in some instances, being easier to mislead than one.....the surviving family members of the conductor trainee will likely have a claim against CSX.
The trainee's inferior status to the CSX employee training him would give him some reasonable expectation that the teacher being provided to him by his employer is competent..so there may well be a "contributory" level of failure there.
CSX being the deep pocket that it is, I'd be shocked if someone doesn't pursue that angle.
Actually, I agree with that. A running thought I've had is that they were, f'rinstance, discussing yesterday's game, or something like that.
But it remains that they were masters of their fate at that moment, and no one else.
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...
tree68hey, and they alone are responsible for their fate.
I'm no so sure about that anymore. After reading Charlie Hebdo's comment about two people, in some instances, being easier to mislead than one.....the surviving family members of the conductor trainee will likely have a claim against CSX.
Lithonia OperatorSome other forums I go to have a beating-dead-horse emoji. We need one.
Don't get 'em started. Several years ago we had threads where I got tired of seeing cartoon pictures of a dead horse getting beaten. It got to the point where the attackers were more annoying than their target.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Some other forums I go to have a beating-dead-horse emoji. We need one.
Also, NEWS FLASH, we have a troll here. It will always have the last word. Don't feed it.
QUOTE:
Posted by Electroliner 1935 on Tuesday, June 25, 2019 3:21 PM
243129 It certainly does matter whether she applied the brakes before or after impact. Milliseconds matter and not applying the brakes in emergency took those milliseconds away from the victims.
REPLY TO QUOTE:
I can explain this. It is not sufficient to conclude that just because the train could not have stopped time, there was no point in dumping the air prior to impact.
The point of braking prior to imapct is that starting braking early begins slowing the train, and that deceleration lenthens the time interval leading up to impact. The longer the time interval, the more time the two conductors would have had to possbly become aware of the train coming up behind them. In this case, they did not become aware in time to evade impact, but it would have only taken a split second for them to do that. So every extra split second that is made available is infinitely valuable for its potential to provide time for the potential victim to somehow become aware of the danger and evade the impact.
Granted, it would not have made much difference in adding more time to the approach in this accident, but that is the principle of braking as early as possible. Still this is a judgment call because people are often on the track and the move off in time. So each case has to be read for what is likely to happen, and discretion applied.
However, in this case, the behavior of the two conductors would have given a very strong read that they did not realize the train was behind them and were therefore very unlikely to have an intention to move just in time.
charlie hebdo Euclid charlie hebdo Major logical fallacy. Perhaps you need a course in logic? Perhaps you should explain what you mean. Why? You seem unable to understand and accept simple sentences and concepts.
Euclid charlie hebdo Major logical fallacy. Perhaps you need a course in logic? Perhaps you should explain what you mean.
charlie hebdo Major logical fallacy. Perhaps you need a course in logic?
Perhaps you should explain what you mean.
Why? You seem unable to understand and accept simple sentences and concepts.
243129It certainly does matter whether she applied the brakes before or after impact. Milliseconds matter and not applying the brakes in emergency took those milliseconds away from the victims.
They were dead whether she applied the brakes or not. The train was doing over 75 mph when she could have first seen the men. The ability to see them was affected by the effect of #66's headlight. If she had for some reason, put the train in emergency as soon as she could see them the brakes would have still been just starting to slow the train when impact occurred. And I hope you will not use your frequent response of How do you know that.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.