zugmann Paul of Covington Doesn't it give you a nice warm fuzzy feeling knowing that management is so concerned about your well-being? Another one tells us to use flashlights and glowsticks over candles in case of power outages. Or was it in case of emergency raves?
Paul of Covington Doesn't it give you a nice warm fuzzy feeling knowing that management is so concerned about your well-being?
Another one tells us to use flashlights and glowsticks over candles in case of power outages. Or was it in case of emergency raves?
So fusees are out, too?
Jeff
BaltACD instructions and bulletins are what they are - nothing more, nothing less.
who has said otherwise?
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
EuclidHey I am just the messenger here. I didn’t write the message. But I do have a pretty good idea of the routine instructions and bulletins that are issued.
Your every comment indicates that you have no idea. Every instruction or bulletin issued is no 'the Magna Carta' or the 'Constitution' - instructions and bulletins are what they are - nothing more, nothing less.
Your final statements are a Tucker Carlson type of bull.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Euclid jeffhergert I finally read the full, linked notice. Except for the part of recent derailments, it reads like standard train handling instructions/rules. I think Euclid is reading more into this notice. I don't think BNSF had a big jump in derailments due to improper dynamic brake operation. They obviously had some so they issued a bulletin. Four years ago. The notice also says improper dynamic operation "contributed" to the derailments. It doesn't say how much of the derailments was being placed on improper dynamic operation as opposed to other factors. It could be that the supervisory manager, while reviewing the download, noted the improper use and assigned more of the blame to the engineer rather than nonhuman contributing factors. They all like to blame their employees whenever possible. Jeff I don’t think I am reading anything into the bulletin by BNSF. It may have the feel of just standard train handling instructions, but the whole page focuses in detail on just this one point that begins with the first sentence, which says this: “Engineers making rapid adjustments of dynamic brakes while attempting to slow/control train speed or attempting to stop have contributed to several recent derailments. In all events, the slack was not adequately gathered before advancing to the higher-braking notches therefore causing a severe run-in event and subsequent derailment. Proper planning and train-handling techniques are a must when using dynamic brakes for slowing and stopping.” I did notice their use of the word “contributed” instead of “caused,” as you mention. I was not sure what to make of that except for the common saying that there is never just one cause of a disaster. In any case, the bulletin makes it sound like the derailment would not have occurred had it not been for the “contribution” of the engineer. In any case, I am not blaming the engineers for these derailments. Since the BNSF seems to be adopting a teaching moment about how to avoid this problem, they have apparently concluded that these derailments are occurring because the engineers were not aware of the instructions as they apply to this issue. So the cause was not carelessness or recklessness. It could have been a lack of training. It could also have something to do to the increasing train lengths making slack control more challenging. I completely agree with your points that I highlighted in red. Euc - you have never worked on the railroad and have no idea of the routine instructions and bulletins that are issued - issued with the knowledge that there are continually new employees that weren't around the last time the instruction or bulletin was issued.
Euclid jeffhergert I finally read the full, linked notice. Except for the part of recent derailments, it reads like standard train handling instructions/rules. I think Euclid is reading more into this notice. I don't think BNSF had a big jump in derailments due to improper dynamic brake operation. They obviously had some so they issued a bulletin. Four years ago. The notice also says improper dynamic operation "contributed" to the derailments. It doesn't say how much of the derailments was being placed on improper dynamic operation as opposed to other factors. It could be that the supervisory manager, while reviewing the download, noted the improper use and assigned more of the blame to the engineer rather than nonhuman contributing factors. They all like to blame their employees whenever possible. Jeff I don’t think I am reading anything into the bulletin by BNSF. It may have the feel of just standard train handling instructions, but the whole page focuses in detail on just this one point that begins with the first sentence, which says this: “Engineers making rapid adjustments of dynamic brakes while attempting to slow/control train speed or attempting to stop have contributed to several recent derailments. In all events, the slack was not adequately gathered before advancing to the higher-braking notches therefore causing a severe run-in event and subsequent derailment. Proper planning and train-handling techniques are a must when using dynamic brakes for slowing and stopping.” I did notice their use of the word “contributed” instead of “caused,” as you mention. I was not sure what to make of that except for the common saying that there is never just one cause of a disaster. In any case, the bulletin makes it sound like the derailment would not have occurred had it not been for the “contribution” of the engineer. In any case, I am not blaming the engineers for these derailments. Since the BNSF seems to be adopting a teaching moment about how to avoid this problem, they have apparently concluded that these derailments are occurring because the engineers were not aware of the instructions as they apply to this issue. So the cause was not carelessness or recklessness. It could have been a lack of training. It could also have something to do to the increasing train lengths making slack control more challenging. I completely agree with your points that I highlighted in red.
jeffhergert I finally read the full, linked notice. Except for the part of recent derailments, it reads like standard train handling instructions/rules. I think Euclid is reading more into this notice. I don't think BNSF had a big jump in derailments due to improper dynamic brake operation. They obviously had some so they issued a bulletin. Four years ago. The notice also says improper dynamic operation "contributed" to the derailments. It doesn't say how much of the derailments was being placed on improper dynamic operation as opposed to other factors. It could be that the supervisory manager, while reviewing the download, noted the improper use and assigned more of the blame to the engineer rather than nonhuman contributing factors. They all like to blame their employees whenever possible. Jeff
I finally read the full, linked notice. Except for the part of recent derailments, it reads like standard train handling instructions/rules. I think Euclid is reading more into this notice. I don't think BNSF had a big jump in derailments due to improper dynamic brake operation. They obviously had some so they issued a bulletin. Four years ago.
The notice also says improper dynamic operation "contributed" to the derailments. It doesn't say how much of the derailments was being placed on improper dynamic operation as opposed to other factors. It could be that the supervisory manager, while reviewing the download, noted the improper use and assigned more of the blame to the engineer rather than nonhuman contributing factors.
They all like to blame their employees whenever possible.
Euc - you have never worked on the railroad and have no idea of the routine instructions and bulletins that are issued - issued with the knowledge that there are continually new employees that weren't around the last time the instruction or bulletin was issued.
zugmann We also get notices about drinking water and avoiding bees in the summer time.
We also get notices about drinking water and avoiding bees in the summer time.
Doesn't it give you a nice warm fuzzy feeling knowing that management is so concerned about your well-being?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
I don't doubt they had some derailments back then where improper dynamic usage was observed. They then put out a notice as a reminder for other engineers to not screw up. Partly as education, partly to reinforce that it was a human caused factor in the derailments, whether it was the biggest factor or not.
EMS, since it can't read, can handle throttle and dynamics however it sees fit. And it doesn't always use proper techniques.
zugmann Euclid The Safety Bulletin says to wait 10 seconds before transitioning from power to dynamic brake. That's been printed on the dynamic brake handle since there were dynamic brakes.
Euclid The Safety Bulletin says to wait 10 seconds before transitioning from power to dynamic brake.
That's been printed on the dynamic brake handle since there were dynamic brakes.
With the coming of EMS auto control, it's been changed for us to only do the pause for DC locomotives. The pause requirement doesn't apply to AC engines. EMS still waits 10 seconds before going to/from power and dynamic braking.
The pause is related to the electrical equipment rather than train handling.
EuclidBut then, the Bulletin also says this: “At all speeds, it is imperative engineers plan in advance of where to slow/control train speeds and know the state of the slack in their train before advancing to higher braking notches.”
In other words, you have to know your territory. Hills, valleys, hogbacks, curves - there are many things that will have an effect on how a train is running. Understanding that is a key to clean train running.
One reason for waiting that ten seconds is because many locomotives take that time to adjust from power to braking. It's nothing new.
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...
Paul of Covington Euclid Make the controller unable to advance to the higher braking notches until the slack is adequately gathered. How complicated can that be? How would the controller know when the slack is adequately gathered?
Euclid Make the controller unable to advance to the higher braking notches until the slack is adequately gathered. How complicated can that be?
How would the controller know when the slack is adequately gathered?
daveklepper Possibly they are running trains too long?
Possibly they are running trains too long?
EuclidMake the controller unable to advance to the higher braking notches until the slack is adequately gathered. How complicated can that be?
BaltACD Euclid BaltACD Euclid CSSHEGEWISCH It comes under the heading of experience. Well then what is causing the derailments that BNSF is talking about? Lack of experience. Us 'boomers' that hired out in the 60's through the early 80's, that have carried the carriers for decades - are retiring and being replaced with newly hired employees. The path from hiring off the street to have one behind a engineers console on a locomotive is realtively rushed. When I was working, people were hired off the street to become Conductors and after nominally ONE YEAR of working as a Conductor they were tapped in seniority order to take Engineer's training. I am not totally conversant the aspects of Engineer Training before they are 'graduated' and marked up as Engineer Trainee and paired with 'experienced' engineer on a call by call basis as the ET board moves in realtion to the Engineer's Board. Promotion to Engineer is greatly influenced by the ability of the existing Engineer's Board to satisfy the level of business - if business is going great balls of fire, the Road Foreman of Engines are more likely to Qualify a Trainee to be a working Engineer than if business is slack and layoffs may be in to offing. If the BNSF cannot hire enough people who have enough training or experience to avoid causing derailments from poor handling of dynamic braking, how can management overcome that problem? The BNSF Safety Update says the problem is caused by this: “Engineers making rapid adjustments of dynamic brakes while attempting to slow / control train speed or attempting to stop have contributed to several recent derailments. In all events, the slack was not adequately gathered before advancing to the higher-braking notches therefore causing a severe run-in event and subsequent derailment.” If BNSF cannot hire enough people who can learn and apply the proper procedure to eliminate the problem described above, Why not just solve the problem with a technical modification of the dynamic brake controls? If the problem is that engineers do not adequately gathering the slack before advancing to the higher braking notches, do this: Make the controller unable to advance to the higher braking notches until the slack is adequately gathered. How complicated can that be? It seem like a reasonable solution to a problem that can derail a train just because the controls were not operated quite right. Any control that delays what it was commaded to do is more dangerous than one that performs what it is requested to do when it is requested. The delay is percieved by the operator that the control is not working and in panic because the operator is not getting the response he asked for he will tend to increase the magnitude of the control he is requesting. There is only ONE WAY to get experience - doing it day in and day out, getting the seat of the pants feel of what the response to the command is at a particular geographic location on the line. Euc - your inability to understand train handling dynamics is legendary.
Euclid BaltACD Euclid CSSHEGEWISCH It comes under the heading of experience. Well then what is causing the derailments that BNSF is talking about? Lack of experience. Us 'boomers' that hired out in the 60's through the early 80's, that have carried the carriers for decades - are retiring and being replaced with newly hired employees. The path from hiring off the street to have one behind a engineers console on a locomotive is realtively rushed. When I was working, people were hired off the street to become Conductors and after nominally ONE YEAR of working as a Conductor they were tapped in seniority order to take Engineer's training. I am not totally conversant the aspects of Engineer Training before they are 'graduated' and marked up as Engineer Trainee and paired with 'experienced' engineer on a call by call basis as the ET board moves in realtion to the Engineer's Board. Promotion to Engineer is greatly influenced by the ability of the existing Engineer's Board to satisfy the level of business - if business is going great balls of fire, the Road Foreman of Engines are more likely to Qualify a Trainee to be a working Engineer than if business is slack and layoffs may be in to offing. If the BNSF cannot hire enough people who have enough training or experience to avoid causing derailments from poor handling of dynamic braking, how can management overcome that problem? The BNSF Safety Update says the problem is caused by this: “Engineers making rapid adjustments of dynamic brakes while attempting to slow / control train speed or attempting to stop have contributed to several recent derailments. In all events, the slack was not adequately gathered before advancing to the higher-braking notches therefore causing a severe run-in event and subsequent derailment.” If BNSF cannot hire enough people who can learn and apply the proper procedure to eliminate the problem described above, Why not just solve the problem with a technical modification of the dynamic brake controls? If the problem is that engineers do not adequately gathering the slack before advancing to the higher braking notches, do this: Make the controller unable to advance to the higher braking notches until the slack is adequately gathered. How complicated can that be? It seem like a reasonable solution to a problem that can derail a train just because the controls were not operated quite right.
BaltACD Euclid CSSHEGEWISCH It comes under the heading of experience. Well then what is causing the derailments that BNSF is talking about? Lack of experience. Us 'boomers' that hired out in the 60's through the early 80's, that have carried the carriers for decades - are retiring and being replaced with newly hired employees. The path from hiring off the street to have one behind a engineers console on a locomotive is realtively rushed. When I was working, people were hired off the street to become Conductors and after nominally ONE YEAR of working as a Conductor they were tapped in seniority order to take Engineer's training. I am not totally conversant the aspects of Engineer Training before they are 'graduated' and marked up as Engineer Trainee and paired with 'experienced' engineer on a call by call basis as the ET board moves in realtion to the Engineer's Board. Promotion to Engineer is greatly influenced by the ability of the existing Engineer's Board to satisfy the level of business - if business is going great balls of fire, the Road Foreman of Engines are more likely to Qualify a Trainee to be a working Engineer than if business is slack and layoffs may be in to offing.
Euclid CSSHEGEWISCH It comes under the heading of experience. Well then what is causing the derailments that BNSF is talking about?
CSSHEGEWISCH It comes under the heading of experience.
It comes under the heading of experience.
Well then what is causing the derailments that BNSF is talking about?
Lack of experience.
Us 'boomers' that hired out in the 60's through the early 80's, that have carried the carriers for decades - are retiring and being replaced with newly hired employees.
The path from hiring off the street to have one behind a engineers console on a locomotive is realtively rushed. When I was working, people were hired off the street to become Conductors and after nominally ONE YEAR of working as a Conductor they were tapped in seniority order to take Engineer's training. I am not totally conversant the aspects of Engineer Training before they are 'graduated' and marked up as Engineer Trainee and paired with 'experienced' engineer on a call by call basis as the ET board moves in realtion to the Engineer's Board.
Promotion to Engineer is greatly influenced by the ability of the existing Engineer's Board to satisfy the level of business - if business is going great balls of fire, the Road Foreman of Engines are more likely to Qualify a Trainee to be a working Engineer than if business is slack and layoffs may be in to offing.
Any control that delays what it was commaded to do is more dangerous than one that performs what it is requested to do when it is requested. The delay is percieved by the operator that the control is not working and in panic because the operator is not getting the response he asked for he will tend to increase the magnitude of the control he is requesting.
There is only ONE WAY to get experience - doing it day in and day out, getting the seat of the pants feel of what the response to the command is at a particular geographic location on the line.
Euc - your inability to understand train handling dynamics is legendary.
Well, if you were to read the Safety Update, you would find that acting too fast (at least at the time of its publication) was causing derailments. The Bulletin stresses the point of slowing the time between increases of dynamic braking, and the fact that they have engineers that are not doing that; and thus are causing derailments. The Safety Bulletin is attempting to teach their employees how to properly operate dynamic braking in order to reduce the number of derailments.
But according to you, I guess the way to teach them is only by “seat of the pants.” “Seat of the pants” leaning seems to be what is causing the mistake rather than somthing that could eliminate the mistake.
I doubt that even engineers with too little “seat of the pants” learning would panic if they encountered a delay between calling for control action and receiving it—as you say. Engineers would have no trouble dealing with a control response that was intentionally slowed to the proper spacing. If necessary, the system could even display the action and its reason.
BaltACD The engines powering the propellers would still require air flow to operate. I imagine that this could be blocked by a slug of ground up bird bodies. Gramp CSSHEGEWISCH It comes under the heading of experience. Kind of like knowing how to land a plane safely in the Hudson River after a group of birds have laid waste to your engines. Which then leads to another question - If that Hudson River flight had been propeller driven instead of jet propelled. Would the propellers have chopped their way through the bird flock vs. the jet engines ingesting the birds and causing the gets to flame out and stop?
The engines powering the propellers would still require air flow to operate. I imagine that this could be blocked by a slug of ground up bird bodies.
Gramp CSSHEGEWISCH It comes under the heading of experience. Kind of like knowing how to land a plane safely in the Hudson River after a group of birds have laid waste to your engines.
Kind of like knowing how to land a plane safely in the Hudson River after a group of birds have laid waste to your engines.
Which then leads to another question -
If that Hudson River flight had been propeller driven instead of jet propelled. Would the propellers have chopped their way through the bird flock vs. the jet engines ingesting the birds and causing the gets to flame out and stop?
It's been a long time since those going through the engineer's training program having actually worked as an engineer for us. We started running engineer's training programs in my area last year. Because we don't force guys in seniority order, as long as someone younger in seniority willing to go, they don't force someone. When they do start forcing people, it's those at the bottom of the trainmen's seniority that meet the required time qualifications (I think now it's 2 years) that get forced. They will credit previous railroad experience from other companies to meet the minimum time requirement. I've had a few trainees who had previous experience from other railroads.
Our company, and I imagine others, like a reserve that can be called as-needed to fill engineer spots. (Since they are working set-back as conductors, it works out better than having a reserve of furloughed trainmen.) This means that someone goes through the training program, gets certified as an engineer, then never touches a throttle again for a few years. Unless they find an engineer willing to let them have some throttle time. Assuming the set back person wants throttle time.
So you have an engineer, on paper, who's been engineer qualified for 3 to 5 years but in reality has 6 to 8 months training and experience who gets an emergency call to work as an engineer.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.