If only 175's station stop in Baltimore had taken two minutes longer!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
243129 charlie hebdo There's another one or two disgraceful agendas at work here. One of them is yours.
charlie hebdo There's another one or two disgraceful agendas at work here.
One of them is yours.
Most of us are appalled at your unfounded attacks on the engineer of 175. I have asked where the NTSB says she was required to apply emergency brakes. Only you have claimed that without any citation. I also asked where, other than in Bucky's world, does it say applying the brakes would have saved their lives. The NTSB doesn't say that either.
You attack Amtrak training etc. But you portray yourself as superior to their current engineers. If you are such an expert, why aren't you training the new generation?
Murphy SidingWith all due respect, that sounds like the kind of round-de-round answer that euclid would give. I understand that it's your opinion that don't feel that current Amtrak engineers up to the standards you believe they should be.
No "round-de-round here just facts. If it were not for PTC disasters such as this would be frequent. I have ridden trains since retirement and being familiar with the territory I have 'felt' PTC running the train. That denotes being poorly qualified on the part of the engineer.
I have worked alongside of these Amtrak 'trained' engineers and conductors and I have first hand knowledge of what they don'tknow. It is scary.
Murphy Siding What exactly do you mean that you weren't a victim of Amtrak's training regimen? Who did train you?A predecessor railroad?
I hired in engine service as a fireman in 1963 and was promoted to engineer in 1970. I received OJT from experienced engineers in all classes of service. I consider that an apprenticeship. Amtrak feels they can teach you from a book with minimal OJT. The failure in that concept is evident in their many human error disasters since these 'grads',both train and engine, from their training programs have been loosed on the traveling public.
charlie hebdoMost of us are appalled at your unfounded attacks on the engineer of 175.
Oh I see you are the forum spokesman?
charlie hebdoI have asked where the NTSB says she was required to apply emergency brakes.
You would not take every action i.e. jamming on the brakes to avoid hitting a pedestrian even if you felt you were going to hit them any way?
charlie hebdoOnly you have claimed that without any citation.
51 years in engine service on a Class 1 railroad in all classes of service is "without citation"?
charlie hebdoyou portray yourself as superior to their current engineers.
No, just better trained and qualified. As I said before they are 'victims' of Amtrak's hiring and training procedure.
charlie hebdoIf you are such an expert, why aren't you training the new generation?
I would if they would let me but I have experience and that is not required. Amtrak and Trump have the same supervisory hiring procedure. No experience required.
BaltACDIf only 175's station stop in Baltimore had taken two minutes longer!
15 seconds longer or shorter would have put the 'meet' around a curve one way or the other, and resolved the ambiguity with horns and lights that some people here think was the dominant cause.
I still think my idea of a 2-mode horn with mandated tones keyed to that day’s direction of travel is a sound idea.
(No pun intended.)
If the directions shown in my PC ETT's of 1968 still hold, the direction of travel on a New York to Washington train changes at Phiadelphia from westbound to southbound. Besides, a two-mode horn would require some extra maintenance to keep it working properly
CSSHEGEWISCH If the directions shown in my PC ETT's of 1968 still hold, the direction of travel on a New York to Washington train changes at Phiadelphia from westbound to southbound. Besides, a two-mode horn would require some extra maintenance to keep it working properly
Well, one designation could be south/west, and the other north/east.
Compared to other normal maintenance, this doesn’t seem that pricey. Maybe simpler would be just two different horns; the engineer would be required, at the beginning of each run, to report to the dispatcher that the proper horn is in use, and the other disabled; and/or maybe sign something to that effect.
Lithonia OperatorCompared to other normal maintenance, this doesn’t seem that pricey.
RS3's had two horns, one on either side of the cab, mounted on the short hood and long hood. And two different cords to sound them. Same model horn, though.
Adding the piping and controls for a second horn wouldn't be cheap, but wouldn't break the bank, either.
If there's a problem, it can be heard on virtually any rail cam - even the same make and model of horn can sound different, depending on condition of the diaphrams, bells, etc. Keeping the horns in proper repair and properly tuned would be the issue.
Further, how many among us can tell the difference between a Nathan, a Prime, and a Leslie and the models thereof? I know I can't. A horn is a horn is a horn.
Not to mention that the suggested solution would be wasted on someone with a "tin ear..."
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...
This discussion is getting downright dumb.
My idea was simply to have different modulations for the directions, combined with enough 'silence' that it would be possible to distinguish the two patterns if heard together. (For PTC you get the direction, and the UTC offset for the timing and silence, out of the GPS core) To the extent that a 'different horn' timbre is concerned, it would be done simply by subtracting bells (e.g. via solenoid on a K5LA manifold) rather than adding some special horn.
Direction for the modulation is a convention, one pattern for timetable north and east, the other for south and west, and it is not 'difficult' to install an emergency control or function that, for example, sends the 'coded' signal and delay timing for an interval of time when the brakes go into emergency.
There is as far as I have seen nothing in all this palaver that does any part of the horn signal any better than my approach.
tree68RS3's had two horns, one on either side of the cab, mounted on the short hood and long hood. And two different cords to sound them. Same model horn, though.
On CNJ's 6-motor units, which operated long-hood-forward, the two horns blew different pitches, and the rear-facing one (lower in pitch) was specifically used to communicate with the crew 'behind' (i.e. in the caboose or out flagging).
Different modulations for different directions of travel--the direction would not make any difference between Boston and Washington--but if such had been in use back when the Southern was running the Carolina Special, the engineer would have had to make a change at Harriman Junction, in Tennessee, where the direction of travel changed from south to east for the train to Charleston, and from west to north for the train to Cincinnati.(the train came into Harriman Junction as #27, and left as #28 ).
Johnny
charlie hebdo 243129 charlie hebdo There's another one or two disgraceful agendas at work here. One of them is yours. Most of us are appalled at your unfounded attacks on the engineer of 175. I have asked where the NTSB says she was required to apply emergency brakes. Only you have claimed that without any citation. I also asked where, other than in Bucky's world, does it say applying the brakes would have saved their lives. The NTSB doesn't say that either. You attack Amtrak training etc. But you portray yourself as superior to their current engineers. If you are such an expert, why aren't you training the new generation?
I doubt that it has ever been codified in rules. It is more in the training. The reason is that it is much more complicated than just making an emergency application as soon as possible whenever a potential collision is recognized. That would be an uncomplicated technique, but it would result in many emergency applications made when the interfering person or vehicle ends up clearing in time to escape without being struck. And as you know, an emergency application, once made, cannot be withdrawn, so the train will stop, and the brakes will have to be recovered. So if the person or vehicle escapes without being struck, the unneeded emergency application creates a delay and may raise questions as to why the train was stopped.
Good training will teach engineers how to read each situation for visual cues that may indicate the reason why a pedestrian is fouling the track ahead. Many pedestrians cut it close, but obviously don’t want to get hit. They look at the train and hurry. Some are daredevils playing a game for the thrill seeing how close they can cut it. If they don’t look at the train and seem casual, that is a good indication that they are not aware of the train. This means that they cannot hear the train in addition to not seeing it. If they are walking erratically, they may be impaired. There is body language for every motive including suicide. All of these actions develop at different rates. Some develop so abruptly, that there is no significant time for any slowing down of the train. Yet stalled vehicles can appear in front of a slow train with minutes of warning.
But while reacting to the uncertainty of these cues is as much art as it is science, there is one method that that is completely certain. That is to resolve not to make an emergency application until impact has occurred. This is the safe and convenient philosophy for engineers. Often, the person using this philosophy will justify it on the basis eliminating all emergency applications that are not proven necessary by impact for two different reasons:
The train can’t stop in time anyway.
There is a risk that emergency applications will derail a train.
Railroad training instructors advise against this philosophy. They instruct to use the emergency application when it seems called for even if there is a chance that the vehicle or pedestrian will clear in time. They will advise not to not worry about an emergency application derailing the train because the need for an emergency application is more important. They also advise that withholding the emergency application until impact in order to be certain that it is needed is a big risk legally because, in court, they will be asked if everything possible was done to avoid or mitigate the collision. They also advise to consider your own feelings if you withhold the emergency application and someone happens to be killed or seriously injured. I suggest that if you want verification on any of this, you should call the FRA. They have experts with practical knowledge and hands-on experience in train handling who will gladly discuss these matters. Operation Lifesaver also has some practical experts that you can talk to.
It is the situation of a pedestrian apparently not seeing or hearing the train that is most benefitted by any amount of extra time afforded by making the emergency application as early as possible. This is because the cues mean that the person is not just being a daredevil or waiting until the last moment. So there may be no chance that they will suddenly get clear for the purpose of saving their life.
These visual cues were observed by the engineer of #175. The NTSB bore down on this in the interview with the engineer. They asked if the two victims ever looked back or acknowledged the train horn with a hand wave. They asked questions to get clarification on whether the engineer made the emergency application immediately upon seeing the two men on the track or when the train struck them.
I am not advocating that the engineer of 175 share the cause of this accident. The NTSB accident report is released to the public and it goes into detail about the actions of the people involved in the accident. The NTSB interviewed the three engineers and made these interviews public. In the interviews, the engineer of the Amtrak train that struck the two victims described in detail her locomotive operating and braking methods and actions near the timeframe of her train #175 striking the two victims. It is typical that not everyone will agree with whether such actions were proper. These are opinions about public information, and everyone has the right to express their opinions on this public information. Opinions here regarding the operating technique of the engineer of #175 are not a personal attack on her.
Deggestybut if such had been in use back when the Southern was running the Carolina Special, the engineer would have had to make a change at Harriman Junction, in Tennessee...
There are likely many more examples of this sort of thing, including how backing or wying might affect the pattern the locomotive produces.
The key 'operational' thing is to ensure that at any given point on a given route, trains moving opposite each other sound complementary signals. It does add something to have crews recognize how the 'directions' relate to railroad (or compass) designations ... but most of the importance of the basic idea is conveyed just by ensuring that the locomotives sound, and are silent, complementarily.
At one time I thought that a sort of collision protocol (in the Ethernet sense of the term) could be used: one locomotive could 'listen' to others and arrange not to blow when another is sounding a coded signal. There are control and implementation problems with that, and I wouldn't want to stand up in court and say yes, I had a system that kept my horn off in certain emergency conditions...
OvermodMy idea was simply to have different modulations for the directions, combined with enough 'silence' that it would be possible to distinguish the two patterns if heard together.
So you're saying that in one direction it would be, f'rinstance, three shorts and a long, repeated as necessary, and the other direction it would be long, short, long, short, etc?
OvermodTo the extent that a 'different horn' timbre is concerned, it would be done simply by subtracting bells (e.g. via solenoid on a K5LA manifold) rather than adding some special horn.
Which is fine, until a bell gets fouled.
In the end, being alert for trains in any direction, at any time, and not walking on a 90MPH live track with your back to oncoming traffic makes all of these solutions moot.
tree68 Overmod My idea was simply to have different modulations for the directions, combined with enough 'silence' that it would be possible to distinguish the two patterns if heard together.
Overmod My idea was simply to have different modulations for the directions, combined with enough 'silence' that it would be possible to distinguish the two patterns if heard together.
... until a bell gets fouled.
The coding would work with all bells going, of course, as well as it would with a couple of the five available bells muted; you'd want to provide socks or some other plugging protection in winter, but I don't think it's *too* likely that only the bells that got plugged would be the ones that the cutoff left sounding at full intensity.
(On thinking about this, I think rather than cutting off the air supply to the diaphragms, I'd mute via the passage from the chamber to the bell, so if there is a 'failure' of some of the bells the muting could be manually disconnected.)
Yes ... would that training, vetting, and coaching could make this more and more emphasized. As I noted, railroad rules are a crappy way to do this sort of awareness enhancement: I propose to have the unions provide or contract for it as far as railroad employees are concerned.
243129 charlie hebdo: I have asked where the NTSB says she was required to apply emergency brakes. 243129: You would not take every action i.e. jamming on the brakes to avoid hitting a pedestrian even if you felt you were going to hit them any way? charlie hebdo: Only you have claimed that without any citation. 243129: 51 years in engine service on a Class 1 railroad in all classes of service is "without citation"?
charlie hebdo: I have asked where the NTSB says she was required to apply emergency brakes.
243129: You would not take every action i.e. jamming on the brakes to avoid hitting a pedestrian even if you felt you were going to hit them any way?
charlie hebdo: Only you have claimed that without any citation.
243129: 51 years in engine service on a Class 1 railroad in all classes of service is "without citation"?
It would help reduce confusion if you had read my two sentences consecutively, as I wrote, rather than separately, which totally changes the meaning.
1. What I would do is irrelevant to the discussion. I am not a train engineer. And the stopping distance of a car is far less than that of a train going ~90 mph.
2. What I said was that you stated that use of the emergency brake by the engineer on #175 was required i.e., mandatory. You appear to be unable to find or offer a citation from the NTSB report.
To clarify a bit more for you, a citation here would mean your giving a clear reference to the text (author, name of article or book, page number) of another's material so that the reader can compare and be enlightened.
OvermodIn the end, being alert for trains in any direction, at any time, and not walking on a 90MPH live track with your back to oncoming traffic makes all of these solutions moot. Yes ... would that training, vetting, and coaching could make this more and more emphasized. As I noted, railroad rules are a crappy way to do this sort of awareness enhancement: I propose to have the unions provide or contract for it as far as railroad employees are concerned.
It's not rocket science. It's pretty much common sense, i.e., something most folks observe or are taught more formally by age 10. If there is no sidewalk, face the oncoming traffic so you can see its approach. Don't have vehicles come up from behind. This was emphasized even more when walking at night.
Would it be correct to assume that if all four tracks were owned by CSX (or Amtrak) that there crew or at least the dispatcher would have know about the additional traffic?
rdamonWould it be correct to assume that if all four tracks were owned by CSX (or Amtrak) that there crew or at least the dispatcher would have know about the additional traffic?
If all track were of one company's ownership - AND one dispatcher's territory you would be right.
There have been instances where CSX has had paralell territories on different dispatchers - there have been issues - issues that created the 'tags' being placed on all road crossings with the FRA ID of the crossings (Garden City, GA). Local authorities reported vehicle on a road crossing to one CSX Division's Dispatcher - who promptly blocked off the traffic HE controlled. The car was on a track controlled by a Dispatcher on another CSX Division who was NOT NOTIFIED - vehicle was struck by train operating at track speed. After this incident CSX increased their efforts for Dispatcher's to know when their territory was immediately adjacent to another Dispatcher's territory and for them to communicate when there are issues where the territories are adjacent.
Overmod Yes ... would that training, vetting, and coaching could make this more and more emphasized. As I noted, railroad rules are a crappy way to do this sort of awareness enhancement: I propose to have the unions provide or contract for it as far as railroad employees are concerned.
Euclid Overmod Yes ... would that training, vetting, and coaching could make this more and more emphasized. As I noted, railroad rules are a crappy way to do this sort of awareness enhancement: I propose to have the unions provide or contract for it as far as railroad employees are concerned. That is an interesting idea. Have an independent service contractor come in and train new employees. It would be like Hulcher coming in to pick up derailments. We have talked a lot about Amtrak having poor training. How exactly is training done at Amtrak? Who actually does the training and how is it done? I'll bet an independent training service could do a better job than Amtrak, and do it cheaper. When they are not training new hires, they could be out following trains and replacing knuckles.
However, I have a possible solution: Locomotive Firemen! A year or two of OJT would be so much better than a simulator/classroom; both do have a place in training, but they are hardly sufficient, as we have seen in Washington with the Talgos, and the numerous other incidents we have read about.
Nothing beats experience!
Independent Training Contractor are about the WORST IDEA I have heard of - they have 'no skin in the game' they are just there for the money.
Up until the PSR age of CSX, they had their REDI Center in Atlanta for preliminary training and vetting of new hires and new transfers between crafts. The 'instructors' were all former working personnel in the craft being trained - people that from their personal experiences knew what the demands for the positions being trained are. As a part of this preliminary training, periodical testing was a part of each cirriculum, fail the testing an your employment opportunity has been washed away. The amount of time spent at the REDI Center for preliminary training varied by craft being trained. Successful completion of the REDI program then allowed the employee to go to what was intended to be their 'duty stations' for a period of OJT. The period of time spent in OJT also varied by craft and testing would be performed during the OJT period - failure would lead to loss of employment in that craft.
EHH and PSR disbanded the REDI Center.
zardozHowever, I have a possible solution: Locomotive Firemen! A year or two of OJT would be so much better than a simulator/classroom; both do have a place in training, but they are hardly sufficient, as we have seen in Washington with the Talgos, and the numerous other incidents we have read about. Nothing beats experience!
Agree!
"All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience."- Mao Tse Tung
243129 zardoz However, I have a possible solution: Locomotive Firemen! A year or two of OJT would be so much better than a simulator/classroom; both do have a place in training, but they are hardly sufficient, as we have seen in Washington with the Talgos, and the numerous other incidents we have read about. Nothing beats experience! Agree! "All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience."- Mao Tse Tung
zardoz However, I have a possible solution: Locomotive Firemen! A year or two of OJT would be so much better than a simulator/classroom; both do have a place in training, but they are hardly sufficient, as we have seen in Washington with the Talgos, and the numerous other incidents we have read about. Nothing beats experience!
Says the man who repeatedly quotes with admiration a mass murderer.
charlie hebdoSays the man who repeatedly quotes with admiration a mass murderer.
Says the man WHO NAMES HIMSELF AFTER A MASS MURDER!
BaltACD Euclid Overmod Yes ... would that training, vetting, and coaching could make this more and more emphasized. As I noted, railroad rules are a crappy way to do this sort of awareness enhancement: I propose to have the unions provide or contract for it as far as railroad employees are concerned. That is an interesting idea. Have an independent service contractor come in and train new employees. It would be like Hulcher coming in to pick up derailments. We have talked a lot about Amtrak having poor training. How exactly is training done at Amtrak? Who actually does the training and how is it done? I'll bet an independent training service could do a better job than Amtrak, and do it cheaper. When they are not training new hires, they could be out following trains and replacing knuckles. Independent Training Contractor are about the WORST IDEA I have heard of - they have 'no skin in the game' they are just there for the money.
They would have plenty of skin in the game. They have to produce or they get sent packing. That is the beauty of an independent contractor. I'll bet they could get the job done for less cost and better quality than the having it done in house with all the job entitlement and overhead. But I am considering this mainly for Amtrak since they seem to be falling down on the job of training.
EuclidThey have to produce or they get sent packing.
I suspect you'd have the same problem we have in the fire prevention business. It's almost impossible to measure every possible situation.
We spend most of a day each year talking to the kids at the local elementary school and demonstrating fire-safe behaviors. Yet we can't tell if we've been successful because we don't know if a given family hasn't had a fire because of the lessons the kids learned, or because they just haven't had a fire.
So you may teach a new engineer how to best handle this particular situation, but if they don't encounter this particular situation, you won't know if they successfully learned the subject matter.
This is where the experience comes in. If the crewmembers had cleared the tracks in time without the engineer having to make an emergency application, the engineer would have learned, from experience, that dumping the train probably wasn't necessary, and next time she was faced with a similar situation, she would react exactly the same.
In fact, there's no saying she hadn't already encountered a similar situation, and her reaction in that case was sufficient.
Euclid BaltACD Euclid Overmod Yes ... would that training, vetting, and coaching could make this more and more emphasized. As I noted, railroad rules are a crappy way to do this sort of awareness enhancement: I propose to have the unions provide or contract for it as far as railroad employees are concerned. That is an interesting idea. Have an independent service contractor come in and train new employees. It would be like Hulcher coming in to pick up derailments. We have talked a lot about Amtrak having poor training. How exactly is training done at Amtrak? Who actually does the training and how is it done? I'll bet an independent training service could do a better job than Amtrak, and do it cheaper. When they are not training new hires, they could be out following trains and replacing knuckles. Independent Training Contractor are about the WORST IDEA I have heard of - they have 'no skin in the game' they are just there for the money. They would have plenty of skin in the game. They have to produce or they get sent packing. That is the beauty of an independent contractor. I'll bet they could get the job done for less cost and better quality than the having it done in house with all the job entitlement and overhead. But I am considering this mainly for Amtrak since they seem to be falling down on the job of training.
The 'Independent Contractor' in education and training is one of the recent scams to hit the country. Their motto is fake it till you make it and file for bankruptcy just ahead of being charged by the authorities for fraud. ITT Tech, Education Corporation of America have followed this scheme - others are sucking in 'student loans' and putting their students in debt without providing salable skills.
tree68 This is where the experience comes in. If the crewmembers had cleared the tracks in time without the engineer having to make an emergency application, the engineer would have learned, from experience, that dumping the train probably wasn't necessary, and next time she was faced with a similar situation, she would react exactly the same. In fact, there's no saying she hadn't already encountered a similar situation, and her reaction in that case was sufficient.
She said it happens all the time. She said she was taken aback because the two conductors did not move as she expected. It seems that she expects every person on the track to move out of the way before the train gets to them. If you do that, by the time you find out they won't move, it is too late to dump the air.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.