Trains.com

CSX Fatalities Probable Cause, Ivy City, DC

18662 views
729 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,836 posts
Posted by 243129 on Thursday, August 1, 2019 8:31 AM

tree68
I'm an engineer, too. I don't have the years and miles you do, but I do know how long it takes a train to react - 15 seconds would not have made an appreciable difference in speed.

 

It would have made 'some' difference would it not?

tree68
So, you're saying that the answer is dump the train, regardless?

Each situation is different. The situation must be instantly assessed and proper action taken. If there is any doubt apply the emergency brake.

tree68
243129 So her experience indicated that they would probably move?

According to what Bucky posted, yes.

Do you assume that every trespasser or employee will move?

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, August 1, 2019 8:27 AM

tree68
So, you're saying that the answer is dump the train, regardless?

Not to put words in his mouth, but "You try getting their attention with horn and lights, and if they don't respond in a reasonable period of 'reaction time' you put the brakes on 'as hard as possible' to give them as long a time to react as you can -- even if you know you can't possibly miss them."

The only argument is how long you give the horn, lights, warning on the radio like Ricky Gates tried if you know they're employees, before you go to the conscience-based emergency brake.

Situation's different with a freight train (I can actually speak from some 'experience' here because proper PTC involves modulated 'penalty' braking, unless you're an idiot excuse for a design engineer, on many kinds of freight consist) but this wasn't a freight train, nor was the engineer trained as one.  (Which is really a red herring in this discussion, although I might have to beat the horsecorpse too much to make a bit clearer why I think that is so).

 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Thursday, August 1, 2019 8:26 AM

243129
So you contend that Amtrak trained her not to "dump" the train until impact?

I have no idea what Amtrak trained her (or didn't) to do and make no claims to that end.  I can only opine that whatever she was trained to do, combined with her experience, however limited, resulted in what actions she took.

243129
So you are advocating not erring on the side of caution and providing any chance at all that applying the brakes in emergency might afford escape time no matter how remote that possibility?

Not at all.  She apparently was taking action to slow the train.  Fifteen seconds isn't much time to work with.  Even Bucky has said that going into emergency might only provide a couple more seconds before impact.  That the crew apparently never saw 175 right up to the point of impact says that two more seconds would have made no difference.

What I have a problem with is the idea that making an emergency application should be a rote reaction.  

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Thursday, August 1, 2019 8:14 AM

243129
How do you know that ?

I'm an engineer, too.  I don't have the years and miles you do, but I do know how long it takes a train to react - 15 seconds would not have made an appreciable difference in speed.

243129
So her experience indicated that they would probably move?

According to what Bucky posted, yes.

243129
Where human lives are involved  there is no 'gray area' you err on the side of caution so to speak.
So, you're saying that the answer is dump the train, regardless?

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, August 1, 2019 8:08 AM

243129
So you are advocating not erring on the side of caution and providing any chance at all that applying the brakes in emergency might afford escape time no matter how remote that possibility?

This raises an ugly speculation, which I won't go further than to pose as I don't know Amtrak procedures, but...

If you're a new engineer, and repeatedly go to emergency if you see trespassers who don't quickly move (thereby stopping the train, tying up the main line, producing late arrivals, etc.) are you going to be disciplined for the results?  Are you going to become the victim of 'strict scrutiny' or selective rules persecution for what is sometimes euphemistically called 'behavior modification'?  

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, August 1, 2019 8:03 AM

tree68
It was reported that she was moving toward a brake application.

You'd do well to actually pull up the interview and read it.

She was already in the process of decelerating to a lower speed.  What she was 'inching' toward was a full service brake application.  I believe this would be full blended braking (e.g. dynamic and friction braking combined) and someone more interested than I am can probably provide braking curves for 175's particular consist and load that day.

The is not a situation like the lawyers' presentation in the Midnight Rider case, indicating the engineer didn't bother to brake significantly until after the impact.   

Therefore, it's not a reach to suggest that if her experience instead indicated that an emergency application was appropriate, she would have made one almost immediately. I would also opine that such a thought process is probably prevalent in such situations, leading engineers to wait until it is clear that the obstruction will not move before dumping the brakes.

This, of course, is part of what Joe keeps reminding us about training failures.  It is very likely that if Sahara had been trained in the idea of going to emergency 'promptly' when she saw trespassers who didn't react after reasonable horn and lights, as Joe says he had been, that's what she would have done.  (As noted, this wouldn't have saved the conductors in this accident, but Sahara could have slept at night knowing she did everything she could...)  

Likewise the argument about 'thought process' is one that training needs to address: it's difficult to prioritize schedule-keeping or reduction of damage to equipment against 'best effort' to preserve human life.  I wish Euclid would stop dancing about what he means with using the emergency brake in these situations, because this would have to be resolved before any particular further discussion of the "proper" responses to this kind of presenting emergency makes much sense.  (Yes, that's a gentle hint.)

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,836 posts
Posted by 243129 on Thursday, August 1, 2019 8:01 AM

tree68
What I have said is that, in this case, even dumping the train when the crew members were first spotted would have had no appreciable effect on the outcome of the incident.

How do you know that ?

tree68
You have stated that the engineer of 175 said she had been in similar situations before, and that she said she'd never had anyone not move off the tracks. Therefore, I would opine that she acted based on her experience, which apparently led her to believe that no emergency application was immediately necessary.

So her experience indicated that they would probably move? Her hesitation increased the chances that they would die.

She had been an engineer for 8 months, woefully inexperienced, did not/could not assess the situation properly.

tree68
As I said earlier - you tend toward black and white "if this, then that" solutions. Unfortunately, the world operates in many shades of gray.

Where human lives are involved  there is no 'gray area' you err on the side of caution so to speak.

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,836 posts
Posted by 243129 on Thursday, August 1, 2019 7:49 AM

tree68
I believe she acted within the the scope of her training and experience.

So you contend that Amtrak trained her not to "dump" the train until impact?

tree68
Given the apparent situation, I don't believe anything she could have done would have changed the outcome.

So you are advocating not erring on the side of caution and providing any chance at all that applying the brakes in emergency might afford escape time no matter how remote that possibility?

  • Member since
    May 2019
  • 1,768 posts
Posted by MMLDelete on Thursday, August 1, 2019 7:43 AM

Quoting tree68:

At no point have I said that I advocate any specific action.  It all depends on the situation.

What I have said is that, in this case, even dumping the train when the crew members were first spotted would have had no appreciable effect on the outcome of the incident.

You have stated that the engineer of 175 said she had been in similar situations before, and that she said she'd never had anyone not move off the tracks.  Therefore, I would opine that she acted based on her experience, which apparently led her to believe that no emergency application was immediately necessary.  It was reported that she was moving toward a brake application.

Therefore, it's not a reach to suggest that if her experience instead indicated that an emergency application was appropriate, she would have made one almost immediately.

I would also opine that such a thought process is probably prevalent in such situations, leading engineers to wait until it is clear that the obstruction will not move before dumping the brakes.

As I said earlier - you tend toward black and white "if this, then that" solutions.  Unfortunately, the world operates in many shades of gray. anyone not move off the tracks.  Therefore, I would opine that she acted based on her experience, which apparently led her to believe that no emergency application was immediately necessary.  It was reported that she was moving toward a brake application.

Therefore, it's not a reach to suggest that if her experience instead indicated that an emergency application was appropriate, she would have made one almost immediately.

I would also opine that such a thought process is probably prevalent in such situations, leading engineers to wait until it is clear that the obstruction will not move before dumping the brakes.

As I said earlier - you tend toward black and white "if this, then that" solutions.  Unfortunately, the world operates in many shades of gray.

Well said, tree.

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,836 posts
Posted by 243129 on Thursday, August 1, 2019 7:43 AM

CSSHEGEWISCH
I have observed that the numbered one vents long and hard about the deterioration of training and supervisory standards at Amtrak for reasons unknown.

"reasons unknown"? How about Chatsworth, Frankford Jct. Dupont WA for starters.

CSSHEGEWISCH
When pressed for proposed solutions, he suddenly clams up and says that he's not responsible for that matter.

Please substantiate your allegation that I clam up and say that I'm not responsible for that matter.

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,836 posts
Posted by 243129 on Thursday, August 1, 2019 7:37 AM

charlie hebdo

And he repeats the same stuff over and over,  occasionally engaging in circular reasoning.  This thread is dead,  killed by Bucky and Joe with logorrhea. 

 

And each time I have confronted you with a question or to prove your allegations you have run as is your M.O.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Thursday, August 1, 2019 7:24 AM

Euclid
So generally, I advocate early in the final approach, while you advocate waiting until the end of the final approach.

At no point have I said that I advocate any specific action.  It all depends on the situation.

What I have said is that, in this case, even dumping the train when the crew members were first spotted would have had no appreciable effect on the outcome of the incident.

You have stated that the engineer of 175 said she had been in similar situations before, and that she said she'd never had anyone not move off the tracks.  Therefore, I would opine that she acted based on her experience, which apparently led her to believe that no emergency application was immediately necessary.  It was reported that she was moving toward a brake application.

Therefore, it's not a reach to suggest that if her experience instead indicated that an emergency application was appropriate, she would have made one almost immediately.

I would also opine that such a thought process is probably prevalent in such situations, leading engineers to wait until it is clear that the obstruction will not move before dumping the brakes.

As I said earlier - you tend toward black and white "if this, then that" solutions.  Unfortunately, the world operates in many shades of gray.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Thursday, August 1, 2019 7:09 AM

I have observed that the numbered one vents long and hard about the deterioration of training and supervisory standards at Amtrak for reasons unknown.  When pressed for proposed solutions, he suddenly clams up and says that he's not responsible for that matter.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Thursday, August 1, 2019 6:57 AM

243129
So tell me tree, do you believe that 175's engineer acted properly?

I believe she acted within the the scope of her training and experience.  Given the apparent situation, I don't believe anything she could have done would have changed the outcome.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 10:34 PM

I for one am disgusted with all their nonsense.  Time for a forum holiday.  If it weren't for having  seen Big Boy twice,  I'm not sure if I would have continued this waste of time. 

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 10:24 PM

charlie hebdo

And he repeats the same stuff over and over,  occasionally engaging in circular reasoning.  This thread is dead,  killed by Bucky and Joe with logorrhea. 

 

Yes "Learned a new word today.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 10:12 PM

And he repeats the same stuff over and over,  occasionally engaging in circular reasoning.  This thread is dead,  killed by Bucky and Joe with logorrhea. 

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 10:10 PM

tree68
 
Euclid
You are mistating what I said in order to make it more logical to disagree with.  I never said that an emergency application is always justified. 

 

Au Contraire - You've been arguing that there is no reason to "withhold" an emergency application in this thread, and in others that had nothing to do with this incident.

You constantly challenge anybody and everybody to explain the justification for "withholding" said application.  That sounds to me like you're advocating for an emergency application "no matter what."

 

 

You have repeatedly made the case that the emergency application should be withheld right up to the point of impact for a variety of reasons such as passenger injuries or possibly derailing the train.  I disagree with your ideas about that because I believe it often results in withholding an emergency application that has a possibility doing a lot of good.  At the same time, I do not believe that the actual risk of derailment or injuring passengers is high enough to justify forgoing the benefit that might come from making the emergency before impact.  That is what we disagree about. 

I am talking about the action somewhere in the range of the final approach where the train is close enough for the situation to be seen and interpreted by the engineer, but distant enough for emergency braking to potentially have benefit by either slowing the train or giving more time for the person or vehicle to clear.  So when I talk about there being no reason to “withhold an emergency application,” I mean no reason to withhold it from starting at some point within that final approach.

But there are many cases in which some incidental fouling or potential fouling can be observed developing 2000 feet away.  Often it looks like it will clear in time.  If not, it may pay to keep an eye on it.  But most of those situations would not justify making an emergency application that far away.  I have never intended to advocate doing that.  If you think I have, please let me know where.    

So generally, I advocate early in the final approach, while you advocate waiting until the end of the final approach.

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 10:10 PM

Maybe you see this as a game to play out your resentment towards Amtrak as Murphy said.   I don't really care. You are a disruptive, embittered person.

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,836 posts
Posted by 243129 on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 9:11 PM

charlie hebdo

 

 
243129

 

 
charlie hebdo

 

 
243129

 

 
BaltACD
Aaha - the old "The older you get the greater you were syndrome." Happens to retirees all the time, in every profession.

 

Not at all my record/career speaks for itself.  No "syndrome" involved just facts. The tone of your reply indicates that you are looking 'engage'. Is this so?

 

 

 

There's nothing to engage. 

 

 

 

I wasn't talking to you.

 

 

 

Who cares? You don't control this thread, though given your admiration for your hero Mao,  you'd love having dictatorial powers. 

 

 

You can't behave yourself can you charlie? I guess you don't want to play nice.

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,836 posts
Posted by 243129 on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 9:09 PM

Murphy Siding
I'm thinking about the timeline here. If I read this right, you were a passenger engineer for a railroad before Amtrak came along in 1971. Then you became an Amtrak engineer. Am I right so far? You seem to indicate that once Amtrak took over the passenger business, everything went to hell in a handbasket. It appears to me- and this is just my opinion- that you don't have thing against the Amtrak engineer we are discusing so much as you have a thing for Amtrak. They came in and changed your world, and you've held a grudge against them since 1971.

You read it wrong.

I was an engineer in all classes of service for the following companies,  NY.NH.&H,PennCentral,Conrail, Metro North and Amtrak which did not assume their own employees on the NEC until 1983.  Once Amtrak took over then training and operations "went to hell in a hand basket".

What you promote as a grudge is a clarion call for oversight of Amtrak's dangerous hiring and training procedures.

The Amtrak engineer that we are discussing is a 'victim' of said hiring and training practices

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 9:08 PM

I was asked if my post a little while ago were my first post on this thread. I do not remember if it is was or not, and I do not know what difference it would make had that been my first post, but I have beeen reading the thread since it was first posted, and have seen how contentious certain people are. I did not call any names.

Johnny

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 9:08 PM

243129

 

 
charlie hebdo

 

 
243129

 

 
BaltACD
Aaha - the old "The older you get the greater you were syndrome." Happens to retirees all the time, in every profession.

 

Not at all my record/career speaks for itself.  No "syndrome" involved just facts. The tone of your reply indicates that you are looking 'engage'. Is this so?

 

 

 

There's nothing to engage. 

 

 

 

I wasn't talking to you.

 

Who cares? You don't control this thread, though given your admiration for your hero Mao,  you'd love having dictatorial powers. 

 

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,836 posts
Posted by 243129 on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 8:56 PM

charlie hebdo

 

 
243129

 

 
BaltACD
Aaha - the old "The older you get the greater you were syndrome." Happens to retirees all the time, in every profession.

 

Not at all my record/career speaks for itself.  No "syndrome" involved just facts. The tone of your reply indicates that you are looking 'engage'. Is this so?

 

 

 

There's nothing to engage. 

 

I wasn't talking to you.

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 8:56 PM

243129

 

 
Murphy Siding
Whether you mean to or not, the vibe you give off is that none of the current Amtrak engineers can live up to how good you were back in the good old days.

 

Not just me...us. Today's engineers do not have the benefit of the "genuine knowledge" passed on to my era by those who have experienced it. In my time as a fireman I had a chance to experience many incidents i.e. fatalities, grade crossing accidents, freight derailments, knuckles, drawbars, hot boxes, manual block and on and on. I had much experience to pass on but Amtrak, in their still existent arrogance, had a 'better idea'. Wilmington training center. All hat no cattle. Railroading is a unique industry that cannot be learned from a book or at a university, only from those who have experienced it. Amtrak chose not to use this resource and the results are evident in the many human error accidents that have occured since they have hired/assumed their own T&E employees.

I am very proud of my career as a locomotive engineer. No discipline, no knuckles, no drawbars. That being said I do not consider myself any better than anyone else just better trained. If you detect any bitterness it is against Amtrak and how they have eroded railroad operations with their 'we have a better way' system. They do not as is in evidence with their numerous human error disasters. Amtrak is in dire need of oversight but no one seems to care.

 

 
Murphy Siding
Have you worked alongside Amtrak engineers who were vetted, trained, experienced etc. up to the levels you feel they should have been?

 

Not by Amtrak but some recognized the value of experience and would ask questions/advice which myself and my peers were happy to impart.

 

I'm thinking about the timeline here. If I read this right, you were a passenger engineer for a railroad before Amtrak came along in 1971. Then you became an Amtrak engineer. Am I right so far? You seem to indicate that once Amtrak took over the passenger business, everything went to hell in a handbasket.

      It appears to me- and this is just my opinion- that you don't have thing against the Amtrak engineer we are discusing so much as you have a thing for Amtrak. They came in and changed your world, and you've held a grudge against them since 1971. 

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,836 posts
Posted by 243129 on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 8:55 PM

tree68

 

 
Euclid
You are mistating what I said in order to make it more logical to disagree with.  I never said that an emergency application is always justified. 

 

Au Contraire - You've been arguing that there is no reason to "withhold" an emergency application in this thread, and in others that had nothing to do with this incident.

You constantly challenge anybody and everybody to explain the justification for "withholding" said application.  That sounds to me like you're advocating for an emergency application "no matter what."

 

 

So tell me tree, do you believe that 175's engineer acted properly?

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,836 posts
Posted by 243129 on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 8:49 PM

Electroliner 1935
ou get repititious and tiring. So much so that I feel it is getting painful. I am not a moderator. I am ready for this thread to be closed.

Poor vetting, poor training, poor supervision.

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,836 posts
Posted by 243129 on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 8:39 PM

Deggesty
I am ready for the contentious people to grow up;.

Ah never mind.Indifferent

 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 8:32 PM

Euclid
You are mistating what I said in order to make it more logical to disagree with.  I never said that an emergency application is always justified. 

Au Contraire - You've been arguing that there is no reason to "withhold" an emergency application in this thread, and in others that had nothing to do with this incident.

You constantly challenge anybody and everybody to explain the justification for "withholding" said application.  That sounds to me like you're advocating for an emergency application "no matter what."

 

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 8:13 PM

Electroliner 1935

 

 
243129

 Electroliner 1935

If you are a masochist. The masochist told the sadist, "Hit Me", and the sadist replied "No" 

Do you (ever) have anything to offer on topic? Other than your 'asides' I cannot ever remember you offering anything of substance on any  threads I have participated in .

 

This was in response to Paul of Covington's saying this string is "FUN"

You get repititious and tiring. So much so that I feel it is getting painful. I am not a moderator. I am ready for this thread to be closed. 

 

I am ready for the contentious people to grow up;.

Johnny

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy