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).
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.
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...
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
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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?
If only 175's station stop in Baltimore had taken two minutes longer!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidYou make the assumption that the two victims were completely without situational awareness, and never looking back.
And you make the assumption that they "must have" been situationally aware. You make the assumption that given more time, they might have saved themselves.
The fact that that they were walking on live track, with their back to the flow of traffic, says quite plainly that they were not situationally aware. If they realized the potential implications of walking on a 90MPH track with their backs to the flow of traffic, one would think a rational person would have removed themselves from that situation. Clearly they did not. If they had, they would not have been struck.
As has been pointed out, we have no what of knowing what they were thinking. If we were, we might be able to learn why they placed themselves in harms way.
Everything else is conjecture - coulda, woulda, shoulda. Would even a first service application have been enough to allow them to save themselves? Maybe - if they saw the oncoming train. Would a full service application been enough to allow them to save themselves? Maybe, if they saw the oncoming train. Would a full-on emergency application have been enough to allow them to save themselves? Maybe, if they saw the oncoming train.
In the fifteen seconds from first sighting to impact, they never looked. They didn't see the oncoming train. They had fully fifteen seconds, even without an emergency application, to save themselves. But they never looked. They were not situationally aware.
tree68 243129 Where does it say it would not have saved their lives? Given their lack of situational awareness, any slowing of 175 that did occur (which would have been minimal) would simply have delayed their demise ever so slightly. At 85 MPH, 175 would travel 1875' in 15 seconds. Given reaction time of the engineer, and the time it took for the brakes to actually apply, the train would have travelled nearly a third of that before the brake shoes actually made contact with the wheels or disks. Someone else can do the actual math of how much speed would come off in the remaining 1200 or so feet. Given that it's been pretty well established that a passenger train at speed will take upwards of a mile to stop, I'm guessing it's not going to have slowed much in that 1200 feet.
243129 Where does it say it would not have saved their lives?
Given their lack of situational awareness, any slowing of 175 that did occur (which would have been minimal) would simply have delayed their demise ever so slightly.
At 85 MPH, 175 would travel 1875' in 15 seconds. Given reaction time of the engineer, and the time it took for the brakes to actually apply, the train would have travelled nearly a third of that before the brake shoes actually made contact with the wheels or disks.
Someone else can do the actual math of how much speed would come off in the remaining 1200 or so feet. Given that it's been pretty well established that a passenger train at speed will take upwards of a mile to stop, I'm guessing it's not going to have slowed much in that 1200 feet.
You make the assumption that the two victims were completely without situational awareness, and never looking back. Then you asert that any extra time would have only delayed their demise. You seem to conclude that no extra time could have saved them because they were completely oblivious. Yet this only your assumed narrative. You have no way of knowing if any of that is true.
I do not know what the result of extra time would have been nor now much extra time was possible according to the physics. Neither do you.
Murphy Siding Euclid ............There are a lot of things that the NTSB report does not say. That does not mean that they are not a fact....... Awe, come on man. Now you're just making up stuff on the fly to support whatever you are pushing as your truth. Once you take that stance, you can believe anything that you want to believe.
Euclid ............There are a lot of things that the NTSB report does not say. That does not mean that they are not a fact.......
............There are a lot of things that the NTSB report does not say. That does not mean that they are not a fact.......
Awe, come on man. Now you're just making up stuff on the fly to support whatever you are pushing as your truth. Once you take that stance, you can believe anything that you want to believe.
You would see what I mean if you took the time to carefully read the report and the many associated documents such as the interviews with the three engineers. The report is full of ambiguous statements. It has conflicting statements. One of them is an error, and they have never corrected it. It is not subjective or debatable. It right there in written text. They say the cause was the two victims walking on the track without protection. They seem to say that protection was not available. They say they wish it was. They conclude by recommending that CSX make it avaiable. They say the two victims were not prohibited from walking on the live track, even though they say the cause was them walking on the live track without protection. The report is filled statements that can be interpreted in multiple ways. Read it a few times, and you will see what I mean.
243129 Murphy Siding That sounds pretty straightforward. Are you saying that Amtrak's training doesn't include what to do in such a situation? I am not a victim of Amtrak's training regimen but when you have the unknowing teaching the unknowing it is a safe bet to say it does not include that.
Murphy Siding That sounds pretty straightforward. Are you saying that Amtrak's training doesn't include what to do in such a situation?
I am not a victim of Amtrak's training regimen but when you have the unknowing teaching the unknowing it is a safe bet to say it does not include that.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
So you "opine" that 175's engineer acted acceptably by not applying the brakes in emergency until after impact.
243129Where does it say it would not have saved their lives?
Again. The two CSX employees are primarily responsible for their demise. CSX is also culpable for poor training and poor supervison. The Amtrak engineer's poor judgement and lack of experience is due in large part to Amtrak's vetting and training procedures. Amtrak has people running trains who should not be running trains.
charlie hebdoThere's another one or two disgraceful agendas at work here.
Murphy SidingThat sounds pretty straightforward. Are you saying that Amtrak's training doesn't include what to do in such a situation?
charlie hebdoWhere in the report does it say the 175 engineer was required to apply emergency brakes as soon as the CSX crew were seen (was that ~15seconds prior to impact)?
Where does it say it was an option?
charlie hebdoWhere does it say that would have saved their lives?
Where does it say it would not have saved their lives?
243129 Murphy Siding 243129 . I think we all kind of understand how you feel about Amtrak's training ("Poor vetting ,poor training , poor supervision, and lack of common sense coupled with inexperience and bad decisions on the parts of the CSX crew and Amtrak 175 engineer") etc. Can you walk us through this event? If you are the engineer in this situation, what is the sequence of events and what should an engineer who had 'all the right stuff' have done?-Thanks Two people walking on my track with their backs to me with a train on one side and an oncoming on the other signals disaster to me. Instantaneous emergency brake application and all the noise that I can possibly make.
Murphy Siding 243129 . I think we all kind of understand how you feel about Amtrak's training ("Poor vetting ,poor training , poor supervision, and lack of common sense coupled with inexperience and bad decisions on the parts of the CSX crew and Amtrak 175 engineer") etc. Can you walk us through this event? If you are the engineer in this situation, what is the sequence of events and what should an engineer who had 'all the right stuff' have done?-Thanks
243129 .
I think we all kind of understand how you feel about Amtrak's training ("Poor vetting ,poor training , poor supervision, and lack of common sense coupled with inexperience and bad decisions on the parts of the CSX crew and Amtrak 175 engineer") etc. Can you walk us through this event? If you are the engineer in this situation, what is the sequence of events and what should an engineer who had 'all the right stuff' have done?-Thanks
Two people walking on my track with their backs to me with a train on one side and an oncoming on the other signals disaster to me. Instantaneous emergency brake application and all the noise that I can possibly make.
charlie hebdo1. It does not say the emergency brake could have saved their lives. The NTSB is far more expert and experienced in accident determinations than you or anyone else on here. You state that it is a fact. That is not a fact, only your opinion. 2. The NTSB did not say applying the emergency brake was required or even recommended.
2. The NTSB did not say applying the emergency brake was required or even recommended.
Common sense and logic is all that is needed to conclude that an emergency application made earlier as opposed to making it later could save lives. A person could realize their peril at any moment and escape the danger. So the more time they have to do so, the more likely they will do so. And that is all I said. It is a fact, not an opinion. I am not saying that it would have made a difference, only that it could have.
There are a lot of things that the NTSB report does not say. That does not mean that they are not a fact. The NTSB report publishes conflicting information on that very point of when the engineer of 175 made the emergency application. In one place, they say the application was made upon seeing the two men. In another place, they say it was made upon impact. The engineer said she made it upon impact. The NTSB does not necessarily turn over every stone in their investigations.
EuclidObviously, they did not look back sufficiently. I never said otherwise. You say you opine that the evidence shows they did not look back. Define your terms. Do you mean never looked back at all during the walk? There is no evidence to show that. Or do you mean never looked back when 175 was within view of their location? I agree that evidence does show that. In fact, I would say that evidence proves that. I have said that several times in this thread. What is it that you disgree with?
....
Nah.
tree68 Euclid Well, you did not think it was moot when you brought it up as an issue in the second post from the top of this page. Not really - If they had looked sufficiently, they'd be alive. They're not. Whether they looked back is, at this point, nothing but speculation. I would opine that the evidence shows that they did not.
Euclid Well, you did not think it was moot when you brought it up as an issue in the second post from the top of this page.
Not really - If they had looked sufficiently, they'd be alive. They're not. Whether they looked back is, at this point, nothing but speculation. I would opine that the evidence shows that they did not.
Obviously, they did not look back sufficiently. I never said otherwise. You say you opine that the evidence shows they did not look back. Define your terms. Do you mean never looked back at all during the walk? There is no evidence to show that.
Or do you mean never looked back when 175 was within view of their location? I agree that evidence does show that. In fact, I would say that evidence proves that.
I have said that several times in this thread. What is it that you disgree with?
tree68 charlie hebdo Where in the report does it say the 175 engineer was required to apply emergency brakes as soon as the CSX crew were seen (was that ~15seconds prior to impact)? Where does it say that would have saved their lives? It doesn't. But if you're trying to pin the blame on someone other that the people who were fouling a ~90MPH track, with their backs to the flow of traffic, without indications of situational awareness, then such a claim becomes important.
charlie hebdo Where in the report does it say the 175 engineer was required to apply emergency brakes as soon as the CSX crew were seen (was that ~15seconds prior to impact)? Where does it say that would have saved their lives?
Where in the report does it say the 175 engineer was required to apply emergency brakes as soon as the CSX crew were seen (was that ~15seconds prior to impact)? Where does it say that would have saved their lives?
It doesn't. But if you're trying to pin the blame on someone other that the people who were fouling a ~90MPH track, with their backs to the flow of traffic, without indications of situational awareness, then such a claim becomes important.
Yep, you nailed it.
Euclid charlie hebdo Where in the report does it say the 175 engineer was required to apply emergency brakes as soon as the CSX crew were seen (was that ~15seconds prior to impact)? Where does it say that would have saved their lives? Nobody can know that it would have saved their lives. But it is a fact that it could have saved their lives. Nobody can say what the odds of saving their lives would have been had an emergency application been made as early as possible. What would be a good reason not to take that chance?
Nobody can know that it would have saved their lives. But it is a fact that it could have saved their lives. Nobody can say what the odds of saving their lives would have been had an emergency application been made as early as possible. What would be a good reason not to take that chance?
1. It does not say the emergency brake could have saved their lives. The NTSB is far more expert and experienced in accident determinations than you or anyone else on here. You state that it is a fact. That is not a fact, only your opinion.
2. The NTSB did not say applying the emergency brake was required or even recommended. Yet some on here appoint themselves as experts. Nonsense.
There's another one or two disgraceful agendas at work here.
EuclidWell, you did not think it was moot when you brought it up as an issue in the second post from the top of this page.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.