http://www.youtube.com/user/pavabo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulvbox
to put it plainly the BNSF has the dispatch computers to show a real life time display of the territory that the dispatcher is responsible for. The dispatcher can view large segments of the region or smaller more localized areas. On these screens are tracks, track ID, signal locations, signal ID, turnouts, sidings, crossovers, foreign rail lines that run in to or cross over the tracks, train ID, train direction, train code, and train speed. This is all relative to the GPS device on the locomotives that updates with location info at regular intervals. I've been at the BNSF seen the computers several times, such as in the southern or northern california regional division dispatchers office. A lot of road foremen, etc have portable laptops that contain the same setup that allows them to request track and time via a small window dialoge box much like an IM screen on a computer. This is good 2 fold; one it saves uneeded chatter over the PBX, phone, etc to raise the dispatcher on the horn and wait to get a response, the other is you can get a response in as little as a few seconds as they are almost always looking at or are near the monitor they are stationed at. I have seen this system on the Needles Sub, Mojave Sub, Cajon Sub, Bakersfield Sub San Diego Sub, and throughout the LA and SF area. It works great for me when I need call for track and time and do visual inspections or perform ultrasound inspections on rail. Or when I get to do ride along pilots in the track inspection cars. I currently work for the BNSF on the Cajon Sub as a MOW RCO crew foreman/track inspector.
As for the railroad you work for I have no idea what goes on there as there is no exact set rules governing how railroads should be alike in operation procedures. I have been on small shortline railroads like the Arizona and California Railroad, Arizona and Eastern Railroad, San Joaquin Valley Railroad. Each of these railroads are shortline systems and all have different methods of operation. The Arizona and California railroad uses hand written track orders and updates from a PBX system or cell phone as silly as that sounds but when you run as few of trains they do and arent as regulated you tend to get away with things like that. Last I heard the Arizona and Eastern still runs two trains at night one in each direction and they met and run around each other at a yard out in the middle of nowhere one train with car loads the other is mostly empties. I cant really say much about the San Joaquin. They have their own signals scattered throughout the BNSF's and UP's territory at interchange points
Hi everyone I am an engineer for BNSF every time their is an authority violation we all must watch the video of the wreck.
1. On the approach signal you will see a yellow over a yellow, proceede and advance on diverging route at prescribed speed through the turn out not exceeding 40 mph.
2. At first at the control point you see a red over yellow and then after the opposing train clears the other end you see a red over green this signal is a diverging clear.
3. The opposing train missed a few signals and was not ready to stop.
4. The track they are on is CTC.
5. It is easy being a Monday morning qb, but untill you are sitting in the right hand seat with the controls in you hand you just do not understand what can and does happen when the authority is violated.
Rodney
derailedtrainofthought wrote: From my experience on dealing with the dispatchers, division engineers, locomotive engineers, and so on..... there is a couple of things wrong in this picture. The crew of the locomotive that blew their limits should have had the emergency applied long before they came up to that cross over. The locomotive has a safety feature installed where it will sound a bell or buzz that the locomotive operator has to acknowledge. If the operator doesn't respond in time to the buzz or ring the locomotive will apply emergency brakes and the train will come to a stop.
From my experience on dealing with the dispatchers, division engineers, locomotive engineers, and so on..... there is a couple of things wrong in this picture. The crew of the locomotive that blew their limits should have had the emergency applied long before they came up to that cross over. The locomotive has a safety feature installed where it will sound a bell or buzz that the locomotive operator has to acknowledge. If the operator doesn't respond in time to the buzz or ring the locomotive will apply emergency brakes and the train will come to a stop.
Here we go again. Yes nearly all locomotives are equipped with alerters. However, much like the snooze bar on your alarm clock, it's possible to acknowledge the alerter without fully waking up.
To my knowledge the dispatcher is just as at fault then the crew of the train that blew their limits. In most cases there are 2 to 3 signals ahead warning a crew to slow down, or stop a train. If the crew fails to act in time to these signals the dispatcher would see it on their screens as a train that isn't slowing down or otherwise adhering to the signals instructions.
Unless BNSF's dispatching system is different then mine, the only signals the dispatcher can "see" are the CP signals he controls. The only way the DS knows a crew "blew his limits" as you say would be when the train knocked down a CP signal. Our dispatching system contains no provision for monitoring the speed of a train.
If the dispatcher doesn't receive word ASAP he will contact the division engineer to see if they can raise the train another way basically at this point the dispatcher will put the train in emergency if there is no answer.
Why would he call the division engineer? Again unless BNSF's organization is radically different then the rest of the industry, the division engineer is responsible for right of way and buildings and bridges. Do you mean the Division Road Foreman, the Chief Dispatcher, or maybe the STO/DTO/MTO?
All BNSF units are equiped with GPS navigation so the railroad has a real life location of the train, direction, tonnage, train number, etc. Once the dispatcher realizes the train isn't responding to being raised on the PBX or any other means then the dispatcher has to assume that the train isn't under control and sends the emergency all stop to that locomotive from the computer terminal from the regional dispatch headquaters.
Umm...really? When did all this happen? I wasn't aware the FRA had approved any GPS based control programs. And I've heard nothing about this in the Railroad Press. Any other BNSF people care to comment?
Perhaps you work in one of the areas BNSF is testing Positive Train Control. If that's the case, what you describe COULD be true of your territory. But that level of control is limited to the test locations, and is far from common place.
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
spikejones52002 wrote: I only got to view the video once. Then a message came on telling me that the video was removed and is not available.I shot many video out the front window. None looked like this.I think this is a train simulator video.Does anyone have actual facts of just could be/have happened.
I only got to view the video once. Then a message came on telling me that the video was removed and is not available.
I shot many video out the front window. None looked like this.
I think this is a train simulator video.
Does anyone have actual facts of just could be/have happened.
And you all wonder why railroaders don't like railfans? I saw this video in one of our safety meetings. This video should have never made it out of the BNSF hands because this is still in court from what the roadforeman told me. First thing i want to say to spikejones52002 is, how dare you even think this was a simulator video! To the person who put this on youtube, you have no respect for human life, you have no respect for others, you have no respect for yourself! And if you are a railroader, you have NO RESPECT for your job, the company who feeds your family, yours or anyones safety, and you sure as heck do not care for your brothers who you work with everyday! If your upset with the railroad who gave YOU a job and YOU chose to hire on and deal with what comes with the life do it at your own exspence!
I remember how the old SOO LINE railroaders and the CNW railroaders would treat me when i would go to their yards and watch them work and they were so nice to me and would talk to me, even let me operate a locomotive. I know times have changed but i will never forget that and i give back as much as i can. When it comes to railroaders i'm the type that will send you a wave, have a talk with you, etc. but i also need to draw the line. This video was taken off because it had no right to be here nor youtube and i thank TRAINS.COM for that.
I hope no one thinks i'm being a jerk or against railfans cause i'm not like that. When it comes to the trains we operate and the cars we switch out every day and night..well, they are unforgiving. I already lost a brother and i ALWAYS protect the other guy i'm with.
My point is.....have a heart and don't treat it or other things like this like a joke or some conversation topic.
Thank you to ALL the railfans who watch us everyday and night.
From my experience on dealing with the dispatchers, division engineers, locomotive engineers, and so on..... there is a couple of things wrong in this picture. The crew of the locomotive that blew their limits should have had the emergency applied long before they came up to that cross over. The locomotive has a safety feature installed where it will sound a bell or buzz that the locomotive operator has to acknowledge. If the operator doesn't respond in time to the buzz or ring the locomotive will apply emergency brakes and the train will come to a stop. If that particular locomotive didn't have that feature on board the dispatcher for that area would have known what was going on once the train blew its limits or didn't adhere to the signals that it went past to get to the opposing boards in front of the cross over.
The BNSF has insulated joints "IJ's" on either side of every cross over that is governed by signals, or any form of signals or signal boards which acts as a last chance safety barrier for anything down the line. To my knowledge the dispatcher is just as at fault then the crew of the train that blew their limits. In most cases there are 2 to 3 signals ahead warning a crew to slow down, or stop a train. If the crew fails to act in time to these signals the dispatcher would see it on their screens as a train that isn't slowing down or otherwise adhering to the signals instructions. Imediately following that the dispatcher would try and get ahold of the crew on the PBX channel for the area the train is in. After a few calls to the locomotive and no answer it is imperative that the dispatchder call out to anyone that has been able to see the condition of the train and try and raise the crew. Such as a MOW vehicle crew, and so on. If the dispatcher doesn't receive word ASAP he will contact the division engineer to see if they can raise the train another way basically at this point the dispatcher will put the train in emergency if there is no answer.
All BNSF units are equiped with GPS navigation so the railroad has a real life location of the train, direction, tonnage, train number, etc. Once the dispatcher realizes the train isn't responding to being raised on the PBX or any other means then the dispatcher has to assume that the train isn't under control and sends the emergency all stop to that locomotive from the computer terminal from the regional dispatch headquaters. This would all be thought of long before the train has a chance to cause a head on. There was a lot more at fault then is being seen. I have worked on the BNSF for a few years now and have been thoughout most of BNSF's south western territories from San Fransico down to San Diego and east as far as Gallup N.M.
cordon wrote: In the video are some hissing sounds that someone said are probably the horn controller. As I was pouring coffee in the 7/11 I noticed that the soft drink machine makes repeated hissing sounds very much like the ones in the video. I speculate that that particular sound is something common to compressed gas controllers.
In the video are some hissing sounds that someone said are probably the horn controller. As I was pouring coffee in the 7/11 I noticed that the soft drink machine makes repeated hissing sounds very much like the ones in the video. I speculate that that particular sound is something common to compressed gas controllers.
The air sounds you hear are the horn and/or bell magnet valve engaging and venting and any airbrake action, such as automatic, independent and actuation. The GE LocoCAM systems are very good at picking up horn, bell, and brake action sounds. There is no recording of crew conversation in the cab. Since the mic is in the airbrake compartment below the floor, the only time you might pick up voice is if you were standing on the ground below the engineer's window and were shouting up at him. Even then it would be garbled.
Shows the true toughness of a dash 9!
"Lionel trains are the standard of the world" - Jousha Lionel Cowen
Dan
Now, you've just seen the 4479 sitting on its fuel tank, all torn up on the conductor's side. I would have thought that it was toast and scrap fodder, but this picture is of how the 4479 looks today -
Here's a couple video slide shows of still photos of the BNSF Kismet crash.
BNSF slide show
Number two
MP173 wrote: So, is it very common for crewmembers to fall asleep? ed
So, is it very common for crewmembers to fall asleep?
ed
Unfortunately, it's all too common. Especially in areas with high traffic volumes, and low crew availability, where the crews are turning on their rest.
As to signal calling, I can only speak to proceedures in my area...
Monitoring the crew's signal calling is the Road Foreman or Trainmaster's job, not the dispatchers. We have: a road channel, the crews use for signal calling, performing work, and talking to each other; a dispatcher's channel, the crews use to talk to the dispatcher; and a third and sometimes fourth channel for the yard. In addition, unless his territory is REALLY small, the dispatcher can't listen to his entire territory at once. He can only listen to the base station he has tuned in.
I have three radios in my tower, to monitor Road 1, Yard 1 and Yard 2.
edblysard wrote: Don't know if it is a requirement down here or not, but you hear the dispatchers at Spring asking some crews "where ya sitting?" all the time.Then again, this is a very crowded complex, the Metroplex has something like 8 yards just on the east side of the city, so it just might be the dispatchers keeping tabs on the local yard to yard guys...or it just might be the Spring dispatchers personal preference to keep a ear open on stuff.
Don't know if it is a requirement down here or not, but you hear the dispatchers at Spring asking some crews "where ya sitting?" all the time.
Then again, this is a very crowded complex, the Metroplex has something like 8 yards just on the east side of the city, so it just might be the dispatchers keeping tabs on the local yard to yard guys...or it just might be the Spring dispatchers personal preference to keep a ear open on stuff.
So that is why the spring dispatchers on the BNSF hate talking to crews in Sherman. Takes there ears away from Houston area.
I know the UP is the same way here in Dallas. Any time you pick the radio up and just say FDGNO Dallas west dispatcher he 9 times out of ten will answer you right away.
23 17 46 11
edblysard wrote: You can bet your bottom dollar the dispatcher involved with this accident got his or her fanny in a wringer because they didn't pick up on the opposing crew not calling their signals, and didn't call them up asking why.
You can bet your bottom dollar the dispatcher involved with this accident got his or her fanny in a wringer because they didn't pick up on the opposing crew not calling their signals, and didn't call them up asking why.
I'm not sure how BNSF's dispatchers do it, but at CSX that would be a non issue. CSX's dispatchers are not required to listen to the road channel and would not know is the road crew was calling them out or not. I would think that BNSF would be close to the same. Besides most dispatchers have far too many things going on to monitor trains calling signals all over their territory.
An "expensive model collector"
CNW 6000 wrote:Couldn't the railroads (on the GPS front) take a cue from the trucking industry? My neighbor is an OTR driver for a steel carrier. There's a system on his rig that can either tune his truck via radio signal for more HP or shut it down with the proper coded sequence if the truck goes too far into a place it's not supposed to be. Say a RR had an engine with this system on it that is supposed to be holding a main to wait for an oncoming train to be diverted into a siding. If the train passes a couple of signals without slowing or reacting properly the disp could contact the train via radio or phone (if allowed). With no response they could apply brakes and/or even shut down the engine. Problem solved?
Couldn't the railroads (on the GPS front) take a cue from the trucking industry? My neighbor is an OTR driver for a steel carrier. There's a system on his rig that can either tune his truck via radio signal for more HP or shut it down with the proper coded sequence if the truck goes too far into a place it's not supposed to be.
Say a RR had an engine with this system on it that is supposed to be holding a main to wait for an oncoming train to be diverted into a siding. If the train passes a couple of signals without slowing or reacting properly the disp could contact the train via radio or phone (if allowed). With no response they could apply brakes and/or even shut down the engine. Problem solved?
Railroads have been there for 20 years! -- but this is not cheap or easy to implement. FRA regulations require that microprocessor-based train-control systems have to be proven both by the railroad and the equipment manufacturer to be better than existing systems, and that is fearsomely expensive to do.
The previous post mentions BNSF's ETMS system, which is a Communications-Based Train-Control (CBTC) system overlay on existing TWC and CTC control systems. ETMS includes positive enforcement of authority violations and overspeeds, including predictive braking. In territories where it is implemented it will prevent most of the train-to-train collisions, train overspeed derailments, and train-to-MOW collisions that might occur. CBTC systems use a variety of inputs (depending upon manufacturer and configuration), including GPS, to determine train location.
I do not know enough about the collision cited here to state unequivocally that ETMS or CBTC would have prevented it specifically.
S. Hadid
Wyonate wrote:There is another head on wreck on youtube.com. Search for BNSF. It should be the first one on the list.
The first two are about BNSF wrecks!
My Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/JR7582 My Flickr Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wcfan/
Based only on what the video shows...had I been the conductor in the camera train...the engineer would have had more than a mouse in his pocket... in fact, he would have been in a tight jam against the control stand...but I would have rode her out....
The only way off either of those locomotives would be out the rear door on the engineers side...and if either one of them rolled over, they would land on you, so....
Railfan1 wrote: What do railroads teach about riding it out or bailing? What would you do if you were to "go by the books"?
What do railroads teach about riding it out or bailing? What would you do if you were to "go by the books"?
It's really up to you, but current school of thought is to get down behind the control stand, and ride it out.
You can get just as hurt, or hurt worse bailing off. Especially, if you roll off the walkway behind the engineer's door.
MP173 wrote: edbenton:I certainly understand your position on drug and alcohol free. I agree. I am amazed the widow was successful in the lawsuit. What kind of quirk was involved in that settlement?Here in Indiana, both CSX and NS crews call signals. There was a STB ruling on a similar accident in NS territory (Georgia perhaps) from the early 90's in which there was a strong recommendation to call signals. Also, there was a really nasty accident in my area (near Knox, In) in the same time in which a crew fell asleep. The CN (ex GTW) does not call signals. Perhaps the BNSF will rethink this rule, as will the UP. The UP it seems has had a number of head ones in recent years.So, to you operating crews....does signal calling help stay alert, or not?ed
edbenton:I certainly understand your position on drug and alcohol free. I agree. I am amazed the widow was successful in the lawsuit. What kind of quirk was involved in that settlement?
Here in Indiana, both CSX and NS crews call signals. There was a STB ruling on a similar accident in NS territory (Georgia perhaps) from the early 90's in which there was a strong recommendation to call signals. Also, there was a really nasty accident in my area (near Knox, In) in the same time in which a crew fell asleep. The CN (ex GTW) does not call signals. Perhaps the BNSF will rethink this rule, as will the UP. The UP it seems has had a number of head ones in recent years.
So, to you operating crews....does signal calling help stay alert, or not?
Unless there is a local exception in effect, UP crews (conductor usually) have to call any signal more restrictive than an Approach over the radio. Also, in Track Warrant Control territory they have to announce when entering the limits and when within 2 miles of the end of the limits of their track warrant authority.
It can be helpful at times to hear what other trains are doing. That's assuming that the train calling the signal has a radio, or condr's microphone, that can be heard. There are quite a few that transmit weak and about the time you turn up the volume to hear the dispatcher comes on a base station and blasts you out of your seat.
There are a few times or locations when it can be more of an annoyance or hazard. Too many people needing to use the radio. That's why local exceptions are allowed, although not every place that should have an exception do.
I'm not sure if in a case like Kismet, how the calling of signals would keep such things from happening. Say the conductor on the train that overran the stop signal had been dozing, woke up in time to call the last appoach, looked over at the engineer thought he was awake and alert and then dozed off again, when infact the engineer was not awake and alert. If I'm on the other train and I hear an opposing train call that they are appoaching a point where they should stop, what do I do? I'm running on signal indications, do I slow down in case the other crew went to sleep? Or do I continue to operate my train within the limits that my signals allow?
Calling signals can be helpful, but isn't the panacea many think it is.
Jeff
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.