EuclidSo what benefit would withholding the emergency application have that would outweigh the benefit making the emergency application, if in doing so, there was a chance of saving two lives?
AnthonyV What is the responsibility of an engineer once he/she realizes impact with a vehicle, person, or another train is unavoidable?
What is the responsibility of an engineer once he/she realizes impact with a vehicle, person, or another train is unavoidable?
AnthonyVCan he/she decide to not take emergency action based on their conclusion that it would not make any difference?
Once the situation has passed the point of no return, the best action to take is whatever action will prevent the lawyers from nipping at your heels.
The only operating condition where trains are operated on a line of sight basis is restricted speed. Operating on Signal Indication at track speed, trains cannot be stopped within their range of vision.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Given the circumstances - withholding the emergency application would have had the same effect as making the emergency application.
As I noted (and as reported in the incident report), the two CSX crew members never looked back. Had they at least maintained sufficient situational awareness, then perhaps a second or three might have given them a fighting chance.
But they weren't paying attention. Even if the train had slowed to 45 MPH at the point of impact, it may well have killed them, or at least seriously injured them. And they still wouldn't have known what hit them.
So, the answer to your question is (and you must include both parts of this answer): There was no benefit to withholding the emergency application in this incident. Nor was there any benefit to making an emergency application in this incident.
By all indications, the two crew members never knew what hit them. No action by the engineer of 175, other than figuring out how to stop the train in a quarter mile or less, would have changed the outcome.
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...
Can he/she decide to not take emergency action based on their conclusion that it would not make any difference?
tree68 Euclid I want to know the answer. Then get out your tape measure, travel to Ivy City, and start measuring. When you have all of the exact measurements (after getting proper clearance from CSX and Amtrak), get the "tape" from the Amtrak locomotive so you know exactly how fast it was travelling as it rounded the curve north of the accident location. When you have all of that, get out your calculator, and using the theoritical braking information, ...
Euclid I want to know the answer.
Then get out your tape measure, travel to Ivy City, and start measuring. When you have all of the exact measurements (after getting proper clearance from CSX and Amtrak), get the "tape" from the Amtrak locomotive so you know exactly how fast it was travelling as it rounded the curve north of the accident location.
When you have all of that, get out your calculator, and using the theoritical braking information, ...
That is not the question that I asked you to answer. In the my previous post, I said this:
"Okay. You are saying that it is likely that making an emergency application immediately upon seeing the two victims would not have made a difference.
Your word likely means that it might have made a difference. I don't know whether it would have made a difference or not. However, in the chance that it would have made a difference, there would be a possible outcome of saving two lives. So what benefit would withholding the emergency application have that would outweigh the benefit making the emergency application, if in doing so, there was a chance of saving two lives?
It is not a rhetorical question. I want to know the answer."
The part in bold text is the question that I asked you to answer. It is a simple question that does not require tape measures and calculators. Your long explanation of how I should seek answers to a question of stopping distance, etc. will not answer the question I am asking you to answer. I have already sorted though all of those details in a post on the previous page. I concluded that there was no way to answer that question.
The question I am asking you is this:
So what benefit would withholding the emergency application have that would outweigh the benefit making the emergency application, if in doing so, there was a chance of saving two lives?
When you have all of that, get out your calculator, and using the theoritical braking information, calculate exactly how much speed should have been taken off the train in the time and distance involved. Don't forget that the braking curve is not linear. The reduction of speed in fps/ps is much less at 85 than it is at 25.
Or maybe you can get DOT's test center in Colorado to duplicate the situation for you.
And while you're waiting for CSX and Amtrak to get back to you on all that, take a few minutes to watch "Sully," particularly the hearing at the end where they take the simulations from theoretical to real.
Don't forget your checkbook.
In the meantime, consider this timeline: Engineer sees reflective vests near track. Instantly (3/4 second) recognizes it is two railroaders walking in the "kill zone." Reaches for brake handle and pushes it to Emergency (1-2 seconds). Brakes take 2-3 seconds to fully apply throughout train. Decelleration begins.
In that four to six seconds the train has travelled 500 to 750 feet, with no decrease in speed.
Now let's look at reality: Engineer spots employees possibly on track. "Is that someone on the tracks?" Confirms it is, Begins braking. We've now added several seconds to the overall reaction - at 125 feet per second.
And don't forget blowing the horn during this time. And while the power will dump if the train goes into emergency, the engineer taking the throttle to idle may also occur - and the engineer only has two hands.
While there is the possibility that the crewmen may have been alerted if they heard 175 dumping the brakes - remember that there were also two horns blowing - it's entirely possible they still would not have been alerted to the oncoming train behind them. IMHO, an extra second or three would simply have slightly delayed the impact.
Unless they were keeping an eye out behind them, like they should have been doing, in which case we wouldn't be having this discussion.
tree68I am also saying that in this particular circumstance, making an emergency application would likely have made no difference in the outcome.
Okay. You are saying that it is likely that making an emergency application immediately upon seeing the two victims would not have made a difference.
It is not a rhetorical question. I want to know the answer.
charlie hebdo tree68 Euclid And yet, there has been a lot of exaggeration of their alleged negligence. We have been told they required protection and acted without it, That was an option available to them. They did not use it. that they crossed over without 3-step protection, Hadn't that requirement been rescinded by EHH at that time? that they lacked common sense, I think awareness would be the better term, and as neither Amtrak engineer saw them look around, it's a pretty fair conclusion. and that they were trespassing. I believe that's been established as fact. And you think it is character assassination to question the brake response of the engineer? Beyond a certain point, yes. It was a rapidly evolving situation and none of us were sitting in that seat. And I believe that the information presented so far on stopping distance is an indication that little headway would have been taken off the train by an emergency application. The rate of decelleration is not linear. And the focus on the engineer of 175 is also an indication of another attempt to deflect blame from those who held their own fate in their hands. It's worse. Some folks are besmirching the character of the engineer on 175 who isn't here to defend herself. I think that is dishonorable at best. And they can throw a hissy fit. Who cares.? Not me. Engagement with their like is a waste.
tree68 Euclid And yet, there has been a lot of exaggeration of their alleged negligence. We have been told they required protection and acted without it, That was an option available to them. They did not use it. that they crossed over without 3-step protection, Hadn't that requirement been rescinded by EHH at that time? that they lacked common sense, I think awareness would be the better term, and as neither Amtrak engineer saw them look around, it's a pretty fair conclusion. and that they were trespassing. I believe that's been established as fact. And you think it is character assassination to question the brake response of the engineer? Beyond a certain point, yes. It was a rapidly evolving situation and none of us were sitting in that seat. And I believe that the information presented so far on stopping distance is an indication that little headway would have been taken off the train by an emergency application. The rate of decelleration is not linear. And the focus on the engineer of 175 is also an indication of another attempt to deflect blame from those who held their own fate in their hands.
Euclid And yet, there has been a lot of exaggeration of their alleged negligence. We have been told they required protection and acted without it,
That was an option available to them. They did not use it.
that they crossed over without 3-step protection,
Hadn't that requirement been rescinded by EHH at that time?
that they lacked common sense,
I think awareness would be the better term, and as neither Amtrak engineer saw them look around, it's a pretty fair conclusion.
and that they were trespassing.
I believe that's been established as fact.
And you think it is character assassination to question the brake response of the engineer?
Beyond a certain point, yes. It was a rapidly evolving situation and none of us were sitting in that seat.
And I believe that the information presented so far on stopping distance is an indication that little headway would have been taken off the train by an emergency application. The rate of decelleration is not linear.
And the focus on the engineer of 175 is also an indication of another attempt to deflect blame from those who held their own fate in their hands.
It's worse. Some folks are besmirching the character of the engineer on 175 who isn't here to defend herself. I think that is dishonorable at best. And they can throw a hissy fit. Who cares.? Not me. Engagement with their like is a waste.
So once again your snarkiness has surfaced. Like I said if you wish to engage I'll be more than happy to accommodate you. I see you are employing your dodge and run tactics again also. Don't forget Chuck you play nice I play nice. Your choice.
EuclidIt seems to me that you are saying exactly what Joe has asked you if you are saying.
Nope.
I'm not advocating not taking action because it will make no difference. Physics and passenger comfort notwithstanding, there would be no reason not to make an emergency application once it became clear that such action should likely be taken.
I am also saying that in this particular circumstance, making an emergency application would likely have made no difference in the outcome.
tree68 243129 Are you advocating not bothering because the end result will be the same? No - I'm saying that regardless of the actions of the engineer, the results would have been the same.
243129 Are you advocating not bothering because the end result will be the same?
No - I'm saying that regardless of the actions of the engineer, the results would have been the same.
I have no way of knowing if the results would have been the same or different. It could have been either outcome. Why would you assume that only one outcome was possible?
It seems to me that you are saying exactly what Joe has asked you if you are saying.
243129Are you advocating not bothering because the end result will be the same?
No - I'm saying that regardless of the actions of the engineer, the results would have been the same. The only difference would have been "at least she dumped the train yadda, yadda, yadda."
tree68I think awareness would be the better term, and as neither Amtrak engineer saw them look around, it's a pretty fair conclusion.
All the more reason for an immediate emergency application.
tree68 And you think it is character assassination to question the brake response of the engineer? Beyond a certain point, yes. It was a rapidly evolving situation and none of us were sitting in that seat.
It was a rapidly evolving situation that the engineer could not process rapidly.
"And I believe that the information presented so far on stopping distance is an indication that little headway would have been taken off the train by an emergency application. The rate of decelleration is not linear."
Are you advocating not bothering because the end result will be the same?
tree68And the focus on the engineer of 175 is also an indication of another attempt to deflect blame from those who held their own fate in their hands.
As I stated previously it was a 'perfect storm' of events that led to this tragedy with a major portion of the blame assigned to the two CSX employees.
charlie hebdo 243129 zugmann redacted. No it wasn't. RE: CSX Fatalities Probable Cause, Ivy City, DC Reply byzugmann Defamation of character is a real thing. It sure is.
243129 zugmann redacted. No it wasn't. RE: CSX Fatalities Probable Cause, Ivy City, DC Reply byzugmann Defamation of character is a real thing.
zugmann redacted.
redacted.
No it wasn't.
Reply byzugmann
Defamation of character is a real thing.
It sure is.
So tell me , chuck, how is it defamation?
EuclidAnd yet, there has been a lot of exaggeration of their alleged negligence. We have been told they required protection and acted without it,
charlie hebdo An attempt at an overt assassination of character of the Amtrak engineer seems to be occuring. She is not a public figure and one forum member who says he was an engineer expert has been snipping at her lack of what he deemed to be a required action. We also have another member of whom there have been suspicions that he is a (wannabee) researcher for tortious litigations. His questions suggest the possibility. If the CSX employees get a hold of this, it might be a problem in the courts. Amtrak has deep pockets, far deeper than the unfortunate engineer of #175.
An attempt at an overt assassination of character of the Amtrak engineer seems to be occuring. She is not a public figure and one forum member who says he was an engineer expert has been snipping at her lack of what he deemed to be a required action. We also have another member of whom there have been suspicions that he is a (wannabee) researcher for tortious litigations. His questions suggest the possibility. If the CSX employees get a hold of this, it might be a problem in the courts. Amtrak has deep pockets, far deeper than the unfortunate engineer of #175.
If you believe that questioning the actions of the engineer of #175 is character assassination, I don’t see how you can dismiss the placing of the entire blame for this tragedy on the two victims. All they did was make a minor mistake of distraction during the last ten seconds of their lives.
And yet, there has been a lot of exaggeration of their alleged negligence. We have been told they required protection and acted without it, that they crossed over without 3-step protection, that they lacked common sense, and that they were trespassing.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
charlie hebdoAn attempt at an overt assassination of character of the Amtrak engineer seems to be occuring. She is not a public figure and one forum member who says he was an engineer expert has been snipping at her lack of what he deemed to be a required action.
No overt attempt here chuck, just telling it like it is. She is a 'victim' of Amtrak's hiring and training regimens.
It is not what I deem a required action, IT IS A REQUIRED ACTION.
zugmann When running (esp on multi-track territory), it's not uncommon to see people (RRers) working alongside the track such as MOW, C&S, & other train crews.
When running (esp on multi-track territory), it's not uncommon to see people (RRers) working alongside the track such as MOW, C&S, & other train crews.
That is true but what's your point?
When you can stop you can't see. When you can see you can't stop.
Here are the essential elements of the question as it pertains to the braking response of #175:
Braking response range was distance from Point A, where victims were first visible to the engineer, to Point B, where victims were struck by the train.
The distance from Point A to Point B is not known, but the time it took to travel that distance is estimated by the engineer to have been 15-20 seconds. Evidence presented in the event recorder data suggests the travel time may have been 10-15 seconds.
If the travel time between Point A and Point B was 20 seconds as the engineer estimated as the longest end of the range, and if the train was averaging 78 mph, the distance from Point A to Point B was 2,288 feet.
The train was being slowed by braking as it traveled from Point A to Point B, but we do not know the rate of deceleration. From the general description of the purpose given by the engineer, I speculate that the deceleration from Point A to Point B was in the range of 3-8 mph reduction in speed.
We do know that the train was traveling 74 mph at Point B when it struck the two victims.
Therefore, if the deceleration between Point A and Point B was 8 mph, the speed at Point A was 82 mph.
The question:
If the engineer had made an emergency application, thus initiating maximum braking at Point A, how much longer would the time interval from Point A to Point B have been?
With the undefined variables involved here, plus the lack of techical specifications for the stopping distance of the train, I see no way to calculate or estimate the answer.
However, it seems to me that the answer to the question may be as high as 2-3 seconds, and extremely unlikely to have been as little as 3 milliseconds.
If an emergency application made at Point A took hold before the train reached Point B, we know there had to have been some lengthening of the time interval for traveling from Point A to Point B without making an emergency application at Point A. So in that case, the answer cannot possibly be zero. I think that some may prefer the answer to be zero, so they estimate a few milliseconds in order to give credibility to the answer being effectively zero.
However 2-3 seconds would have been ample time to recognize the approach of #175 and get clear of it. If the two victims were on the outer tie ends as the engineer of #175 said, they only had to move laterally approximately 2 feet.
Whatever the extra time would have been, we know it was not given.
Every situation is different.The engineer must assess the situation and take proper action.
Trains - operating on Signal Indication at track speed ARE NOT line of sight vehicles. There is no way for them to stop WHEN THEY CAN ACTUALLY SEE AND UNDERSTAND what the condition ahead is that will require braking.
A mile away, one can barely see a person, let alone if they are on the tracks, and even if you see them on the tracks, would it be proper to emergency brake the train? A half mile? A quarter mile? When and with what effect.
My only emergency braking experience was on a PRR Cincinnati to Chicago passenger train which struck an auto at a grade crossing NW of Hamilton OH. Train consist was E-8, three mail express, three coaches, diner. Knocked the auto into a field and took the MU air hoses off the pilot of the E-8. I was back in a P-70 coach and felt the brakes apply harder than a normal application but not sharply enough to throw anyone to the floor. Took us almost a mile to come to a stop. Two teen agers to the hospital, luckily no fatalities. Had to wait for a welder to arrive and cut a notch in the E-8's pilot which had been bent down to within a half inch of the rail. Watching the welder take pass after pass at that pilot made me realize how thick it was and know I never want to tangle with one. From that example, I comcur with the estimate of almost a mile to stop from 60 mph with brakes in emergency. Now those were iron brake shoes, don't know whether composition shoes have more force. Have had some emergency stops on Metra but they didn't seem any more forceful in their braking effort.
zardozCan't speak for 100mph, but I would have zero issues plugging it at 70mph (Metra's top speed).
Zardoz,
Can you provide an estimate of the stopping distance for the type of passenger train that you have run? What would be the stopping distance after making an emergency application on such a train traveling at 80 mph?
Can you also estimate the same for Amtrak #175?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.