Convicted OneLike Euclid, I don't expect any perfect solution exists that could totally eliminate this sort of thing, but merely writing it off to "stupid animals!! oh well" doesn't appear to be a responsible outcome, either.
Conservation officials here in northern New York are concerned about reduced numbers of hunters. That translates into a reduced take, and an increase in the numbers of car/deer collisions.
Had a gentleman bag a nice five point with the front of his car the other day. I was going to take the deer (law enforcement can issue a tag just for that), but when you factor in the possibly totalled car, that's some expensive meat for the freezer...
Just another point of view.
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...
Murphy SidingSerious question- if the train had been able to slow down to 30 mph / antelope speed, wouldn't they just be following the herd along at antelope speed? The animals are on the track because the snow isn't as deep.
Seriously, I believe if the train had managed as you propose, that would have given more animals opportunity to "peel off" as the video indicates some were doing. Reducing the waste.
Just speaking from my personal perspective, the most disturbing thing of all about the video is the appearance that the locomotive appears to remain under power throughout the episode, as though no effort whatsoever was made to mitigate the carnage.
Like Euclid, I don't expect any perfect solution exists that could totally eliminate this sort of thing, but merely writing it off to "stupid animals!! oh well" doesn't appear to be a responsible outcome, either.
Euclid Murphy Siding Serious question- if the train had been able to slow down to 30 mph / antelope speed, wouldn't they just be following the herd along at antelope speed? The animals are on the track because the snow isn't as deep. If the horns didn't scare them off, they'd probably want to keep on running on the tracks. I don't know what would have happened in that case. Maybe the animals could take siding somewhere.
Murphy Siding Serious question- if the train had been able to slow down to 30 mph / antelope speed, wouldn't they just be following the herd along at antelope speed? The animals are on the track because the snow isn't as deep. If the horns didn't scare them off, they'd probably want to keep on running on the tracks.
I don't know what would have happened in that case. Maybe the animals could take siding somewhere.
They could do that - or - the train could swerve around them! [/sarcasm]
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Murphy SidingWhat do the pilots do now? A jet traveling at 500 mph covers 8-1/3 miles in a minute's time. I don't think tapping the brakes when you see a flock of geese will gain you much.
I suppose you could pull a "Kenneth Arnold" and blame it on forces beyond your comprehension...
I've 'chased' deer or coyotes for miles on a few occasions, if the snow is deep the track provides the easiest (only) trail for them.
This was also on a branchline where we were doing less than 30 mph in the first place, and with short trains where slowing down was not such a big deal.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Euclid Nobody is suggesting that all animal strikes must be eliminated. So why offer the choice of either fencing all the railroads; or intentionally running down and killing a heard of wild animals? When I look at this video, I see no attempt to slow down. The train appears to be traveling about 50 mph, and the animals at 30 mph. The train closes that gap in about 10 seconds, so it has traveled 730 ft. The video begins with the animals in plain sight, so they had to have been observed on the track prior to the start of the video. It seems reasonable to conclude that there was at least another ten seconds in the visual approach prior to the start of the video. So that is 20 seconds or 1460 feet of reaction time to reduce speed by 20 mph, which would have let the animals escape. The defensive claim that the train could not stop in time is nonsense. There was no need to stop. The need was to reduce speed from 50 mph to 30 mph over a course of 1460 feet. Anyone with experience would know that the animals would see their only option would be to try to outrun the train.
Nobody is suggesting that all animal strikes must be eliminated. So why offer the choice of either fencing all the railroads; or intentionally running down and killing a heard of wild animals?
When I look at this video, I see no attempt to slow down. The train appears to be traveling about 50 mph, and the animals at 30 mph. The train closes that gap in about 10 seconds, so it has traveled 730 ft.
The video begins with the animals in plain sight, so they had to have been observed on the track prior to the start of the video. It seems reasonable to conclude that there was at least another ten seconds in the visual approach prior to the start of the video.
So that is 20 seconds or 1460 feet of reaction time to reduce speed by 20 mph, which would have let the animals escape.
The defensive claim that the train could not stop in time is nonsense. There was no need to stop. The need was to reduce speed from 50 mph to 30 mph over a course of 1460 feet.
Anyone with experience would know that the animals would see their only option would be to try to outrun the train.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
On most trains even emergency braking wouldn't slow you from 50 to 30 mph in less than 1500 feet.
And then there is the issue of train delay and blaming the crew for taking such unusual action.
Murph, one thing that planes can do that trains can't is alter the flight path in any one of four different directions, hopefully gradually enough not to wreak havoc with the passengers and/or flight attendants...
Brian (IA) http://blhanel.rrpicturearchives.net.
Convicted One Murphy Siding I guess it would be prudent then to ask airplanes to reduse their speed by 1/3rd or more whenever there are birds in the area? Hey, in a modern reality where police budget cuts are expected to make us safer, I don't see your suggestion as completely without merit. So if you were flying an airliner with 300 passengers, and came up on the tail of a large flock of geese, what would you do? Notch 8 and yell "YEE HAA!"?
Murphy Siding I guess it would be prudent then to ask airplanes to reduse their speed by 1/3rd or more whenever there are birds in the area?
Hey, in a modern reality where police budget cuts are expected to make us safer, I don't see your suggestion as completely without merit.
So if you were flying an airliner with 300 passengers, and came up on the tail of a large flock of geese, what would you do? Notch 8 and yell "YEE HAA!"?
Convicted One Euclid I assume they do have such a rule that prohibits any attempt to yield to animals. Why else would this have happened? Obviously, the engineer resented it. What else would explain it other than a rule? I doubt that it is spelled out that blatently, What I was thinking.....actually something more along the lines of a prohibition against a crew "knowingly impeding" employer's primary mission, or " failure to execute employee's duty in the most expeditious manner possible",,,,,with a verbal instruction that stopping for animals is seen as such an instance. But yeah, I agree, the video is very likely some form of protest by a disgruntled whistleblower.
Euclid I assume they do have such a rule that prohibits any attempt to yield to animals. Why else would this have happened? Obviously, the engineer resented it. What else would explain it other than a rule?
I doubt that it is spelled out that blatently, What I was thinking.....actually something more along the lines of a prohibition against a crew "knowingly impeding" employer's primary mission, or " failure to execute employee's duty in the most expeditious manner possible",,,,,with a verbal instruction that stopping for animals is seen as such an instance.
But yeah, I agree, the video is very likely some form of protest by a disgruntled whistleblower.
That would be called "Delaying Trains."
It's a catch-all for running too slow for their liking, not taking off from a stop fast enough or even stopping when not otherwise required. Like malicious compliance, it's threatened more often than actually used.
Jeff
Murphy SidingI guess it would be prudent then to ask airplanes to reduse their speed by 1/3rd or more whenever there are birds in the area?
Our current rulebook and operating manual does not say anything about animal strikes, one way or the other. The instructions I referenced about reporting animal strikes are from a specific bulletin that only applies to the trackage within Jasper National Park.
I believe there used to be instructions requiring crews to report accidents involving livestock, but this was so the farmer could be compensated, and had nothing to do with animal welfare.
The biggest step railways, car owners and shippers could do to reduce animal strikes would be to fix leaking grain hopper gates and quit spilling grain on top of the cars. It is this free food that lures so many animals to the track.
I used to work a branchline that didn't have any grain traffic, and animal strikes were very rare there.
Euclid caldreamer Would blowing the horn have made any difference, since it might scare the pronghorn sheep? Caldreamer They were blowing the horn and the animals were scared. But their main impluse is to stay in the shallow snow and try to outrun the train. So the only thing that would have likely prevented it was to slow down, reducing speed by about 20 mph. Otherwise the outcome was inevitable.
caldreamer Would blowing the horn have made any difference, since it might scare the pronghorn sheep? Caldreamer
Would blowing the horn have made any difference, since it might scare the pronghorn sheep?
Caldreamer
They were blowing the horn and the animals were scared. But their main impluse is to stay in the shallow snow and try to outrun the train. So the only thing that would have likely prevented it was to slow down, reducing speed by about 20 mph. Otherwise the outcome was inevitable.
OvermodI suspect it may be as simple as referencing the time-honored "the safe course must always be followed"
Perhaps coupled with a little ~institutional knowledge~ that -" Ol' Billy-Bob stopped for some sheep a few years back and got a 30 day vacation, as a reward"-?
Animals have occupied the land long before 'property rights' and migrate to follow their food sources over the course of a year.
All the calls to erect fences and wall act in a negative manner to the historical inhabitants of the land - inhabitants that have been a part of the land from long before the creation of man made history.
Convicted OneWhat I was thinking.....actually something more along the lines of a prohibition against a crew "knowingly impeding" employer's primary mission, or " failure to execute employee's duty in the most expeditious manner possible",,,,,with a verbal instruction that stopping for animals is seen as such an instance.
Probably the only real effective 'mitigation' is to do as in Britain and fence the whole of the line against intrusion. That's laughable to consider in most of the West, just for starters.
The idea of long-range monitoring and, perhaps, the option of more controlled stopping or 'airborne persuasion' remains interesting if it can be made cost-effective and reliable -- probably, as I noted, by being 'piggybacked' on other, more important or 'rewarding, functionality.
EuclidI assume they do have such a rule that prohibits any attempt to yield to animals. Why else would this have happened? Obviously, the engineer resented it. What else would explain it other than a rule?
Overmod... In particular I remember one result of a fuel-truck collision, between a gasoline truck and an IC E8 with the E8-style curved glass numberboards, where both the numberboards and the windshields had promptly fractured in the impact and let flaming gasoline in torrents straight into the cab. That image has stuck with me over the years and significantly influenced my thinking on even medium-speed locomotive crash resistance -- its potential relevance here being that two decades or more after the FT era, GM cab-unit windshields were still minimally impact-resistant in applicable terms.
In particular I remember one result of a fuel-truck collision, between a gasoline truck and an IC E8 with the E8-style curved glass numberboards, where both the numberboards and the windshields had promptly fractured in the impact and let flaming gasoline in torrents straight into the cab. That image has stuck with me over the years and significantly influenced my thinking on even medium-speed locomotive crash resistance -- its potential relevance here being that two decades or more after the FT era, GM cab-unit windshields were still minimally impact-resistant in applicable terms.
The accident is described in HE 1780 .A34 no. NTSB-RHR-71-7. It can be accessed through https://dotlibrary.specialcollection.net/Home . The form of the site has been changed and makes it harder to access accident reports if you are 'fishing', The accident happened on the Illinois Central Railroad on January 24, 1970.
I might add that while trying to find the above accident, I stumbled across a IC accident when a tank car load of nitromethane exploded. At the time nitromethane was not considered a hazardous material. ???????? Rules written in blood.
Electroliner 1935Did early Diesels have safety glass?
On the other hand, laminated armored glass was well known by 1939, and I believe substantial work into aircraft windshields had been done beginning in the early '30s. I would expect that railroads engaging in high-speed streamlined design (many of which would involve E units) would be concerned with things like birdstrike or foreign-object penetration and design windshields and mountings accordingly.
However, while my knowledge is both sketchy and anecdotal, it does not appear that either armored glass or appropriate cushioned sealed mounts in the windshield and cab/nose framing were used on 'production' E units right up to cessation of production circa 1964. In particular I remember one result of a fuel-truck collision, between a gasoline truck and an IC E8 with the E8-style curved glass numberboards, where both the numberboards and the windshields had promptly fractured in the impact and let flaming gasoline in torrents straight into the cab. That image has stuck with me over the years and significantly influenced my thinking on even medium-speed locomotive crash resistance -- its potential relevance here being that two decades or more after the FT era, GM cab-unit windshields were still minimally impact-resistant in applicable terms.
Convicted One Euclid So the only thing that would have likely prevented it was to slow down, reducing speed by about 20 mph. I have to wonder if the railroad has an official policy that would prohibit doing so? Where the engineer was forced to either hit the animals, or answer to disciplinary action?
Euclid So the only thing that would have likely prevented it was to slow down, reducing speed by about 20 mph.
I have to wonder if the railroad has an official policy that would prohibit doing so? Where the engineer was forced to either hit the animals, or answer to disciplinary action?
I assume they do have such a rule that prohibits any attempt to yield to animals. Why else would this have happened? Obviously, the engineer resented it. What else would explain it other than a rule?
Since this thread is about amimal - vehicle colisions, I have a queation.
When I was in high school (early '50s), I was in a study hall and my English lit book had a short story of a new freight diesel locomotive (FT?) on a demonstration trip somewhere in the plains (like Kansas) and I was reading it. As the story was telling the story every thing was interesting and then I came to where the locomotive hits a qrouse that smashed through the windshield and lands agains the back of the cab. The crew looked back at it and as they did, it threw up over thedeck. At this point I started laughing and could not stop. Teacher and all the other classmates were looking at me and I could not stop. The image was just more than I could repress. Did early Diesels have safety glass?
BackshopMost commercial, inexpensive drones have limited range and endurance.
Nothing was said about how the drone pilots would be linked, but I suspect at least some of the 'flight' activity would be comparable to Predator missioning ... which can be deployed to a reasonable level of control for the purposes in this thread over reasonably low-latency satellite links.
There have been a couple of threads about launch and recovery from the locomotive under prospective inclement conditions; I suspect that the state of the art in semiautonomous drone guidance as BNSF is considering it has only improved since then.
Ulrich Here's an idea.. perhaps drones could be used to fly ahead of trains in areas where large animal herds have been known to congregate.. the drones would relay back to crews and to the train dispatch center.. " herd two miles ahead".. engineer may then apply the brakes and avoid killing a bunch of animals. Or perhaps better yet, drones could be used to shepard herds off the tracks and to safety.
Here's an idea.. perhaps drones could be used to fly ahead of trains in areas where large animal herds have been known to congregate.. the drones would relay back to crews and to the train dispatch center.. " herd two miles ahead".. engineer may then apply the brakes and avoid killing a bunch of animals. Or perhaps better yet, drones could be used to shepard herds off the tracks and to safety.
dwill49965 And then I opened this months newly arrived Trains Magazine, and see on the cover "How to kill a railroad career" (I haven't read it yet though).
A fire service site I follow refers to the modern version of this as "SMACSS," or Social Media Assisted Career Suicide Syndrome.
Often known as putting your foot in your mouth...
SD70Dude addressed some of these issues earlier in the thread, and his points make sense.
However, in this case - flat, straight Prairie track, good visibility for miles, and a bright, clear sunny day - it seems to me that earlier prudent slowing action without endangering lives or equipment, or significantly affecting the train's schedule could have been taken. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, will come of the "review", and if the public will hear about it.
I also noted SD70Dude's claim that the facebook poster would probably face disciplinary action. And then I opened this months newly arrived Trains Magazine, and see on the cover "How to kill a railroad career" (I haven't read it yet though). Timely.
Flintlock76I'll go quietly...
Got a call from my manager a few years ago...
"Wayne, I need you to take some of Steve's service calls."
"Why? What happened?"
"He hit a deer, and his truck's all messed up."
"Wait a minute, did he hit the deer, or did the deer hit him?"
"Deer hit him."
"OK, that figures. Steve's a nice guy, he'd never throw the first punch!"
I'll go quietly...
Murphy Siding How do you propose they reduce speed by about 20 mph?
By shutting off power and applying brakes.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.