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 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.
CSSHEGEWISCHI 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.
CSSHEGEWISCHWhen 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.
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.
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.
tree68I 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?
tree68Given 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?
tree68What 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 ?
tree68You 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.
tree68As 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.
tree68It 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.)
243129So 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'?
243129How 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.
243129So her experience indicated that they would probably move?
According to what Bucky posted, yes.
243129Where human lives are involved there is no 'gray area' you err on the side of caution so to speak.
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...
243129So 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.243129So 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.
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.
tree68So, 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).
tree68I'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?
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?
OvermodThe 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.
In this case, there was apparently a fifteen second window.
Horn, bell, knock off power, start applying brakes (blended braking was mentioned - how long is the set-up for dynamic braking on that locomotive?), start applying brakes. This all takes time.
Are they reacting? No? Time to dump the brakes. Oops - your 15 seconds is up.
Overmod 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.)
Overmod,
I wish you would explain what you mean when you say I have been dancing around what I mean with using the emergency brake in these situations.
At least a thousand times, in several different threads, I have made the point that the mere chance of saving a life is worth more than the cost of any damage to the train or the schedule. In black and white terms, I stand completely opposed to the belief that an emergency application, when it could be beneficial to saving a life; should be withheld until impact to make sure the application is not made in vain.
tree68That the crew apparently never saw 175 right up to the point of impact says that two more seconds would have made no difference.
"two more seconds would have made no difference."????
So why bother eh? Take away any chance that those two more seconds might have made a difference.
You are an engineer?
I am a science-fiction fan. One of the stories I hate the worst in the whole canon is one titled "The Cold Equations" in which an inhuman action has to be taken essentially because the designers of a transportation system colossally misdesigned it. (The author's point was supposed to be different, but if you read it you'll probably start agreeing with me...)
One of the points here is that a similar premise is involved: the idea that you must have an irreversible emergency-braking run, or much less capable maximum service brake rate, but not a reversibly-activated "maximum possible deceleration rate" that is triggered with a locking control, but can be released without stopping if desired.
It might be interesting to have a technical discussion about how to implement such a thing with existing Amtrak brake systems ... probably in a different thread from this one. It seems to me that it would facilitate some significant changes in potential training.
243129"two more seconds would have made no difference."????
We operate in some pretty curvy territory - there are spots where 15 seconds would be a luxury in terms of spotting trespassers. And we do get them. There have been some close calls for myself, and most of our other engineers.
tree68At seventy-five miles per hour (110 feet per second), probably not.
243129 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?
tree68 I believe she acted within the the scope of her training and experience.
tree68 Given the apparent situation, I don't believe anything she could have done would have changed the outcome.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding 243129 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? I presume this will rub you the wrong way, but someone has to say it, so here goes: The tone you are using is not condusive to any real "discussion" of the topic at hand. I was expecting one of your questions to be "Did you stop beating your wife"? This is a lively and interesting topic. There are several knowledgable people involved in the discussion, and a fair amount of interested parties. How 'bout we all try to shelve our attitudes- me included?
I presume this will rub you the wrong way, but someone has to say it, so here goes: The tone you are using is not condusive to any real "discussion" of the topic at hand. I was expecting one of your questions to be "Did you stop beating your wife"? This is a lively and interesting topic. There are several knowledgable people involved in the discussion, and a fair amount of interested parties. How 'bout we all try to shelve our attitudes- me included?
I think you are imagining a bad tone. I see nothing unreasonable in that exhange that you quoted. It seems like entirely fair and reasonable questions and answers. You seem to be objecting to there being disagreement on the the subject. There nothing insulting in that quote.
What is it that you object to?
EuclidAt least a thousand times, in several different threads, I have made the point that the mere chance of saving a life is worth more than the cost of any damage to the train or the schedule. In black and white terms, I stand completely opposed to the belief that an emergency application, when it could be beneficial to saving a life; should be withheld until impact to make sure the application is not made in vain.
This is not the issue here, and never was. I would like to think that Amtrak 'training' does not teach 'go to emergency after you hit somebody because then you know you have to stop' -- there are a couple of things I perceive to be pointless in that action, but absent specific teaching materials or policies I can't say that was something Amtrak condoned rather than something Sahara rationalized.
The 'dancing' is about how quickly the emergency brake gets applied in an accident like this -- obviously it makes no sense to apply it 'upon impact' if it is going to be applied at all, other than in some kind of rationalization. You went to considerable pains, at considerable length, to argue with many folks that prompt use of the emergency brake as soon as the conductors came into view was the 'correct thing to do.' Then you started qualifying the idea for some reason, as if you'd never said that prompt use of the brake was what you'd been so avidly advocating, and at least to me trying to claim you'd never said you'd advocated prompt use of the brake as a default response.
I'm not going to pretend that my opinion on this subject hasn't changed over the course of discussion of this accident: I was initially not in favor of using full emergency in a 'hopeless case' and have come to agree in principle with both you and Joe that the 'moral' thing to do is to go to emergency as early as observing you don't get a recognition from 'whistling and lights', in part for the stated reason that 'even a short additional time for reaction might preserve life', and in part to assuage conscience that everything that might have mattered has been tried. Will you be as specific in noting when you would, or would not, advocate application of the emergency brake during one of these events -- as a one-time clear statement of what you believe?
tree68 Overmod The only argument is how long you give the horn, lights, warning on the radio... before you go to the conscience-based emergency brake. Horn, bell, knock off power, start applying brakes (blended braking was mentioned - how long is the set-up for dynamic braking on that locomotive?), start applying brakes. This all takes time.
Overmod The only argument is how long you give the horn, lights, warning on the radio... before you go to the conscience-based emergency brake.
But the times overlap, as do the actions (to an only slightly lesser extent)
For reference, watch (and consult with as necessary) the details in the P42 orientation video -- note their reference to making a 'safe, on-time trip every time': while the controls on an ACS64 may work a bit differently, they wouldn't take any longer time to 'de-actuate.'
So: You see what looks like employees in vests where they shouldn't be. Hit the horn and the lights (the bell comes on automatically and would sound until manually stopped) -- ah, what? Maybe a second for reaction time, and a second or two if you tap on the horn button a few times? Another 3/4 second or so to see they aren't reacting at all ... that's when your brake "prioritization" comes in. Note the description of what you do on a P42 to get blended braking vs. emergency: hint: it ain't very difficult to get emergency from full blended.
She wasn't motoring (in suppression for a speed restriction) so that added, what? a half second to pull the power off? doesn't apply. (In any case it would drop out in emergency...)
If it takes anyone 15 seconds to accomplish those actions... although I'm not an engineer, I'd suggest you need to be in a decidedly different range of employment.
Oops - your 15 seconds is up.
But, as I said to Euclid, that's not the point here. We're not concerned with whether you'll inevitably hit them if they don't jump -- that was a foregone conclusion from the moment you could actually resolve them at any practical distance. You're trying, for moral reasons, to extend the possible recognition time they have to get clear of you. That's the reason for the perhaps 3% 'improvement' given by full emergency over full blended. Not that you stop, but that you did anything possible under the circumstances.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Overmod The 'dancing' is about how quickly the emergency brake gets applied in an accident like this -- obviously it makes no sense to apply it 'upon impact' if it is going to be applied at all, other than in some kind of rationalization. You went to considerable pains, at considerable length, to argue with many folks that prompt use of the emergency brake as soon as the conductors came into view was the 'correct thing to do.' Then you started qualifying the idea for some reason, as if you'd never said that prompt use of the brake was what you'd been so avidly advocating, and at least to me trying to claim you'd never said you'd advocated prompt use of the brake as a default response. Will you be as specific in noting when you would, or would not, advocate application of the emergency brake during one of these events -- as a one-time clear statement of what you believe?
Will you be as specific in noting when you would, or would not, advocate application of the emergency brake during one of these events -- as a one-time clear statement of what you believe?
"Then you started qualifying the idea for some reason, as if you'd never said that prompt use of the brake was what you'd been so avidly advocating, and at least to me trying to claim you'd never said you'd advocated prompt use of the brake as a default response."
When you say I "began qualifying the idea for some reason..." When did I do that? Where did I say anything like that?
Maybe it was in disussion with Tree. I had characterized his position as wanting to withhold an emergency application until after impact, or maybe just use a service applcaition, but in any case, not using an emergency application prior to impact.
Then he characterized my position as advocating always always making an emergency application as early as possible. So I went to pains to clarify that there is a range in the distant approach to seeing a potential conflict in which I would not avocate making an emergency application. The reason is that it is too far away to be practical prevention of collisions. For one thing, if a person would react that far away, there would be no need for the braking to be an emergency application. A service application would suffice. And at that distance, I don't know how the need for stopping to avoid a collision would even be defined.
But prior to this discussion with Tree, a page or two back, I thought it went without saying that I was not suggesting that an emergency applicaition should be made as soon as any slight, distant potential conflict appears at the earliest sighting.
But I will think about this and see if I can write a rule. I will make it black and white, like a railroad rule.
I find I must have been traumatized by these people as a child, as I still have a strong response to this when I see it:
I dind't care for licorice as a child. I still don't like coming across black jelly beans in mix. It was a particular betrayal that love of railroads had to be associated with That Darn Taste.
Complicating this was that the same company, in a very similar box, offered a delicious product called Good 'N Fruity -- but did they ever railroad with that? Oh no!
Betrayal, I tell you.
And of course you can bet I got teased with the 'choo choo' monicker from time to time, too, although I did get the last laugh in high school... good thing I'm not serious, right?
EuclidAt least a thousand times, in several different threads, I have made the point that the mere chance of saving a life is worth more than the cost of any damage to the train or the schedule.
Do you believe the same 'rule' should apply to freight operations?
What if the dumping of air causes a derailment and the opposing train crashes into your derailment? Are the innocent lives of the crewmen in that train less important that the life of some scumbag vandal?
Sorry, Euclid, but your (quite understandable) lack of understanding of the realities of train operations becomes apparent in the types of questions you propose and the statements you sometimes make.
Euclid Murphy Siding 243129 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? I presume this will rub you the wrong way, but someone has to say it, so here goes: The tone you are using is not condusive to any real "discussion" of the topic at hand. I was expecting one of your questions to be "Did you stop beating your wife"? This is a lively and interesting topic. There are several knowledgable people involved in the discussion, and a fair amount of interested parties. How 'bout we all try to shelve our attitudes- me included? I think you are imagining a bad tone. I see nothing unreasonable in that exhange that you quoted. It seems like entirely fair and reasonable questions and answers. You seem to be objecting to there being disagreement on the the subject. There nothing insulting in that quote. What is it that you object to?
Overmod I find I must have been traumatized by these people as a child, as I still have a strong response to this when I see it: I dind't care for licorice as a child. I still don't like coming across black jelly beans in mix. It was a particular betrayal that love of railroads had to be associated with That Darn Taste. Betrayal, I tell you. And of course you can bet I got teased with the 'choo choo' monicker from time to time, too, although I did get the last laugh in high school... good thing I'm not serious, right?
I can empathize accurtely with you. Although I loved rich, juicy black licorice as a youngster (Switzers, wrapped in cellophane was my prefered brand) the Good n Plenty marque was a different story. I don't really know how many times I was teased using their little jingle about "Choo choo Charlie" to my dismay. It didn't help that there were those creations of Madison Avenue, using my moniker, the jingle for "Wildroot Cream Oil" and numerous commercials for Starkist tuna.
OvermodIf it takes anyone 15 seconds to accomplish those actions... although I'm not an engineer, I'd suggest you need to be in a decidedly different range of employment.
Considering the newest loco I run is well over 50 years old... Blended braking, if I'm not already in dynamics, will take upwards of 20 seconds to set up...
Now that we've introduced the moral aspect into the discussion, I'll agree that whatever the engineer can do to make it look like he/she did something will carry a lot of weight with the jury, and perhaps assuage some of the guilt the engineer may feel.
Even if it doesn't change the outcome.
I would opine that 175's engineer was making an effort, even if she hadn't reached that part of the "algorithm" that calls for going into emergency until after the collision. I doubt she "withheld" said application.
I, for one, would probably be extremely angry at the victims for putting me in that posistion. They made a bad choice, and now I would have to suffer for it.
And, before you pillory me for having that opinion - I've been in fire and EMS for over 40 years. I have come to find it difficult to feel sorry for a drunk who has piled into a tree and killed himself, and even harder if that drunk kills or injures other people in the process. Their family, yes.
tree68Considering the newest loco I run is well over 50 years old... Blended braking, if I'm not already in dynamics, will take upwards of 20 seconds to set up...
I'm surprised you can get it at all -- my understanding was that if you went hard into the air the dynamics dropped off the line to preclude wheelslide, and you'd have to do something like bail off the independent to get DB back.
I should have been much more clear that the situation involved modern Amtrak power, modern Amtrak brakes ... and nominal Amtrak procedure for using the brake, which I'm still waiting to see delineated. The blended braking here is carefully programmed and computer-regulated precisely so that high-speed braking is as prompt and effective as possible.
I would opine that 175's engineer was making an effort, even if she hadn't reached that part of the "algorithm" that calls for going into emergency until after the collision...
I don't think there is part of the algorithm that says you do -- 66 on the other side didn't, and there is nothing to be gained ... but a few things to be lost ... by going to emergency only after striking someone. It's that, not the level of care she showed before the impact, that I have the issue with.
I, for one, would probably be extremely angry at the victims for putting me in that position.
I'd get down off the engine and scream at them. Get the police and press charges to 'enhance the experience' so they'll never, ever, ever do something so stupid again.
If they lived through it. And, as you say, if they didn't:
They made a bad choice, and now I would have to suffer for it.
Reason #1 for the emergency brake when it matters: it was their bad choice and you gave them every chance to survive it.
Without regard to the actions or inactions of any other parties - the deaths of the CSX employees were the result of their lack of demonstrated situational awareness when in the foul/kill zone of another carrier with whom protection for their safety had not not been established, nor had the CSX employees requested it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.