This picture practically explains it all:
Nope, not jumper cables for my Abrams.
You just clamp them on opposing rails, and that simulates a car/train for the detection system. It thinks there's something there (which there is) and goes "red".
Ed
7j43k tree68 7j43k I would say it is an exceptionally reliable form of protection. It would have told the signal detection the block was occupied, and the oncoming locomotive would have been informed of that by the signals. It is, at best, a secondary means of protection. Balt outlined the primary method. It looks like the "primary" method is also an "at best". Because it didn't work. Yes a shunt is secondary, in that it is a safety back-up. But calling it "secondary" and "at best" doesn't negate that it would very likely have saved two people's lives. Would YOU decline to use a shunt under these same circumstances? Because it's secondary? Ed
tree68 7j43k I would say it is an exceptionally reliable form of protection. It would have told the signal detection the block was occupied, and the oncoming locomotive would have been informed of that by the signals. It is, at best, a secondary means of protection. Balt outlined the primary method.
7j43k I would say it is an exceptionally reliable form of protection. It would have told the signal detection the block was occupied, and the oncoming locomotive would have been informed of that by the signals.
It is, at best, a secondary means of protection. Balt outlined the primary method.
It looks like the "primary" method is also an "at best". Because it didn't work.
Yes a shunt is secondary, in that it is a safety back-up. But calling it "secondary" and "at best" doesn't negate that it would very likely have saved two people's lives.
Would YOU decline to use a shunt under these same circumstances? Because it's secondary?
When you are dealing with amatuers that have no respect for the rule - you have nothing. The Night Foreman did not do his job and permitted workers under HIS PROTECTION to occupy a track that he was giving back to the Train Dispatcher for unrestricted movement. A totally amatuer action that did not respect the rules or his subordinates.
Main Tracks and the signals that control them are the TRAIN DISPATCHER'S responsibility. If a signal maintainer wants to perform ANY kind of test of the signal system or place a shunt on a track - He MUST get the PERMISSION of the TRAIN DISPATCHER. MofW personnel other than Signal Maintainers do not have authority to place shunts on tracks.
Cowboy railroading is UNSAFE in every respect.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
7j43kThis picture practically explains it all: Nope, not jumper cables for my Abrams. You just clamp them on opposing rails, and that simulates a car/train for the detection system. It thinks there's something there (which there is) and goes "red". Ed
Authority is REQUIRED use them; MofW do not have the authority!
AnthonyVI agree. As a layman, it's insane for someone to be on the tracks relying soley on others for protection. Whether they have the "authority" to be on the tracks is irrelevant. The shunt acts as an additional layer of protection in case there is a screw up. Shunting brings to everyone's attention that someone is on the tracks, whether they should be there or not.
EVERYBODY on track depends upon the TRAIN DISPATCHER for their protection. Trains and MofW personnel.
If you have more than one position controling protection - you have NOBODY controlling protection.
BaltACD 7j43k This picture practically explains it all: Nope, not jumper cables for my Abrams. You just clamp them on opposing rails, and that simulates a car/train for the detection system. It thinks there's something there (which there is) and goes "red". Ed Authority is REQUIRED use them; MofW do not have the authority!
7j43k This picture practically explains it all: Nope, not jumper cables for my Abrams. You just clamp them on opposing rails, and that simulates a car/train for the detection system. It thinks there's something there (which there is) and goes "red". Ed
Then they should have refused to work until such authority was given.
If they had chosen to be "cowboys", and put a shunt on, they'd be alive today. They'd also have saved a number of people from injury, a lot of money for Amtrak, and avoided a very embarrasing event for Amtrak. Whoopy-ki-yi!
The below report on the Chester, PA crash by NTSB is interesting reading. Note their mention of "shunt". And their ever so slightly critical statements about Amtrak management and workers.
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/pr20171114.aspx
BaltACDEVERYBODY on track depends upon the TRAIN DISPATCHER for their protection. Trains and MofW personnel. If you have more than one position controling protection - you have NOBODY controlling protection.
So why not let the guy who's life is on the line use a shunt? Everybody is always talking about the need for redunancy. A shunt is redundancy, so why not allow it? If people are to just rely on the proper, single authority, amatuers get involve and get somebody killed.
From the report:
The NTSB also noted the Federal Railroad Administration’s failure to require redundant signal protection, such as shunting, for maintenance-of-way work crews contributed to this accident.
People are also not recognizing the difference between taking a track out of service, vs. having a foul (NTSB included).
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
7j43k BaltACD 7j43k This picture practically explains it all: Nope, not jumper cables for my Abrams. You just clamp them on opposing rails, and that simulates a car/train for the detection system. It thinks there's something there (which there is) and goes "red". Ed Authority is REQUIRED use them; MofW do not have the authority! Then they should have refused to work until such authority was given. If they had chosen to be "cowboys", and put a shunt on, they'd be alive today. The below report on the Chester, PA crash by NTSB is interesting reading. Note their mention of "shunt". And their ever so slightly critical statements about Amtrak management and workers. https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/pr20171114.aspx Ed
If they had chosen to be "cowboys", and put a shunt on, they'd be alive today.
NTSB has been throwing out Red Herrings for the past decade.
You have CONTROL of a railroad or you don't. Control takes a safety culture to implement and sustain everyone's compliance with rules. Compared to the Class 1 carriers Amtrak has never had a Safety Culture. The incidents they continue to have over the years demonstrate it.
Not to belittle the Chester incident but it is nothing different than two trains having overlapping authorities on the same track. The Night Foreman removed the authority for his employee to occupy the track without their knowledge. Had not the Day Foreman attempted to warn the employee on the track structure most likely there would only have been a single fatality.
Work in heavy industries such as railroading, operating heavy equipment and any number of other occupations require TRUST in your fellow employees to do the correct acctions when those actions are required.
In the case of Chester the proper procedures were not followed and a horrible price was paid. That is the 'funny' thing about rules on the railroads - THEY ARE ALL WRITTEN IN THE BLOOD of someone who was trapped by the failure to comply with other previously written rules.
Regarding the Washington Amtrak derailment, this is all becoming clear now. The engineer had his train moving at about 80 mph in a zone where the maximum permissible speed is 79 mph. Suddenly, the engineer received an automatic warning that he was exceeding the 79 mph limit by one or two mph.
So he commented on this to the person next to him and then proceeded to make a light independent brake application to apply a little braking as quickly as possible in order to satisfy the warning by knocking off a couple mph from his speed.
As this happened, he was about 700 feet from the point where he would enter a speed restriction where the maximum permissible speed is 30 mph for a sharp curve. However, He had forgotten this critical detail despite the fact that he passed an advance warning sign about two miles back.
So while he responsibly addressed the modest need to reduce from 80 to 79, he completely overlooked the dire need to reduce from 80 to 30 in the next six seconds or risk putting the train in the ditch.
Euclid,
I have not seen any credible source address the question of what the speed limit was/is above the curve. The media has talked about this being a 79MPH line. All that means is that there is some distance where the maximum authorized speed is 79 MPH. You may be correct in assuming that MAS above the curve was 79 MPH, or you may not.
At six seconds out and 80 MPH plus 1 or 2 or 3 MPH the enginer's goose was cooked regardless of what he did.
The question that needs to be answered is what he did, or did not, do in the 90 seconds before he hit the curve. Obviously he did not reduce speed for the curve. What we do not know is if anything happened, other than him not paying attention to business.
Mac
BaltACD NTSB has been throwing out Red Herrings for the past decade.
I look forward to your revelation of the Red Herrings in this report.
Euclid Regarding the Washington Amtrak derailment, this is all becoming clear now. The engineer had his train moving at about 80 mph in a zone where the maximum permissible speed is 79 mph. Suddenly, the engineer received an automatic warning that he was exceeding the 79 mph limit by one or two mph. So he commented on this to the person next to him and then proceeded to make a light independent brake application to apply a little braking as quickly as possible in order to satisfy the warning by knocking off a couple mph from his speed. As this happened, he was about 700 feet from the point where he would enter a speed restriction where the maximum permissible speed is 30 mph for a sharp curve. However, He had forgotten this critical detail despite the fact that he passed an advance warning sign about two miles back. So while he responsibly addressed the modest need to reduce from 80 to 79, he completely overlooked the dire need to reduce from 80 to 30 in the next six seconds or risk putting the train in the ditch.
Well, it's a little early to make such a declaration. But it does fit beautifully at this time.
EuclidSo he commented on this to the person next to him and then proceeded to make a light independent brake application to apply a little braking as quickly as possible in order to satisfy the warning by knocking off a couple mph from his speed.
Source?.
Nevermind, Found it on the newswire.
PNWRMNM Euclid, I have not seen any credible source address the question of what the speed limit was/is above the curve. The media has talked about this being a 79MPH line. All that means is that there is some distance where the maximum authorized speed is 79 MPH. You may be correct in assuming that MAS above the curve was 79 MPH, or you may not. At six seconds out and 80 MPH plus 1 or 2 or 3 MPH the enginer's goose was cooked regardless of what he did.
I am not an expert in railroading, but it appears the speed limit was 79 MPH right up to the curve, when it became 30 MPH.
You appear to be implying that there should have been a steadily decreasing speed limit (not at all unreasonable). But there was, apparently, no indication that that was in effect. There were not, I believe, little "count down" signs with steadily decreasing numbers.
The question that needs to be answered is what he did, or did not, do in the 90 seconds before he hit the curve. Obviously he did not reduce speed for the curve. What we do not know is if anything happened, other than him not paying attention to business. Mac
I wondered where that 90 seconds came from. Turns out that's how much earlier he passed his warning sign.
I agree that it would be useful to see what he did or did not do in that minute and a half. I look forward to being made aware of that information. It should be very interesting.
Does anyone here think we will ever see that video?
Thanks!
Still in training.
7j43k I am not an expert in railroading, but it appears the speed limit was 79 MPH right up to the curve, when it became 30 MPH. You appear to be implying that there should have been a steadily decreasing speed limit (not at all unreasonable). But there was, apparently, no indication that that was in effect. There were not, I believe, little "count down" signs with steadily decreasing numbers. I wondered where that 90 seconds came from. Turns out that's how much earlier he passed his warning sign. I agree that it would be useful to see what he did or did not do in that minute and a half. I look forward to being made aware of that information. It should be very interesting. Does anyone here think we will ever see that video? Ed
Ed,
I did not mean to imply that there should have been a series of progressively lower speed limits, with signs, coming into this curve. I was pointing out that Euclid is speculating about what the speed limit is approacing the curve. It may have been 79, it may have been something less. I have not seen anything on the point from a trustworthy source.
The 90 seconds is my private estimate of when the engineer should have started taking action to reduce his speed for the curve, based on an initial speed in the 60-80 MPH range. That the location where that would be is about where the speed sign would be at 80 MPH is simple coincidence.
PNWRMNMI did not mean to imply that there should have been a series of progressively lower speed limits, with signs, coming into this curve. I was pointing out that Euclid is speculating about what the speed limit is approacing the curve. It may have been 79, it may have been something less. I have not seen anything on the point from a trustworthy source.
The engineer did acknowledge that he was speeding during the approach by responding to an automatic over-speed warning system on the locomotive. I assume, based on limited knowledge, that the warning device warns when the train is something like 2 mph over the legal limit. If that is true, then the speed limit would be approximately 78 mph. Since 79 is the maximum limit on the line, the speed warning seems likely to confirm that he was in a 79 mph speed limit section.
BaltACD AnthonyV I agree. As a layman, it's insane for someone to be on the tracks relying soley on others for protection. Whether they have the "authority" to be on the tracks is irrelevant. The shunt acts as an additional layer of protection in case there is a screw up. Shunting brings to everyone's attention that someone is on the tracks, whether they should be there or not. EVERYBODY on track depends upon the TRAIN DISPATCHER for their protection. Trains and MofW personnel. If you have more than one position controling protection - you have NOBODY controlling protection.
AnthonyV I agree. As a layman, it's insane for someone to be on the tracks relying soley on others for protection. Whether they have the "authority" to be on the tracks is irrelevant. The shunt acts as an additional layer of protection in case there is a screw up. Shunting brings to everyone's attention that someone is on the tracks, whether they should be there or not.
Trouble was that wonderful 'system' of yours failed, no matter how hard you try to rationalize. A shunt might have saved lives rather than relying on a flawed 'system' of rules and centalized authority.
I will stipulate that the overspeed limit on the locomotive was about 80 MPH.
What you do not understand is that the locomotive overspeed DOES NOT know what the speed limit is at any given point. Imagine that you have and 80 MPH overspeed on your auto. It will happily let you blow thru a 25 MPH speed limit at 75. It is happy because you did not exceed 80. The town cop will not be happy and if you hit somebody your insurance company will not be happy.
You can not assume speed limit at any particular point based on the locomotive over speed set point. The two are totally independent of each other.
In a earlier post I linked the google streetview image of the 30mph warning sign that is 2 mi from the speed limit change at the curve. Speed limit was 79 mph up to the point of the horizontal T30/P30 signs at the curve as seen in the news photos.
The diagonal T30/P30 signs was his warning to slow down.
PNWRMNM Euclid, I will stipulate that the overspeed limit on the locomotive was about 80 MPH. What you do not understand is that the locomotive overspeed DOES NOT know what the speed limit is at any given point. Imagine that you have and 80 MPH overspeed on your auto. It will happily let you blow thru a 25 MPH speed limit at 75. It is happy because you did not exceed 80. The town cop will not be happy and if you hit somebody your insurance company will not be happy. You can not assume speed limit at any particular point based on the locomotive over speed set point. The two are totally independent of each other. Mac
I understand what you are saying. The over-speed indicator does not indicate speed limit. In thinking about this further and reading what you said and what Overmod said below, I now realize that the overspeed indicator only indicates when the top speed of the line is exceeded.
However, I am considering your point about the speed limit, prior to the curve limit of 30, not being known. What difference does this really make to my speculation on the engineer's reaction to the speed warning that I wrote above in the 6th post from the top? You seem to be objecting to my comments there in your post which follows mine. Obviously the engineer was exceeding the maxium speed limit on the line. What difference does it make if the speed limit where he received the warning is actually lower than 79?
Just to add a bit:
The speed limit on ANY part of that line is "79" mph, by Federal law since the early '20s and reinforced by ICC order in the late '40s. That may change when functional PTC is deployed, but there is no point in future discussion now.
As such, the locomotive can be and is set up to recognize overspeed above 79 and engage its own internal overspeed trip; someone who has read the SC44 manual will know how to configure this and what the limits used were. We've seen 3mph permitted, which seems reasonable.
Note that this is an internal limiter, like the governor on a truck. It does NOT know anything about track restrictions, slow orders, civil work, etc., and while 'technically' you could set a system up in a LEADER-like fashion with reference to GPS and a scrolling map to recognize upcoming restrictions, I have a suspicion this was deprecated in favor of 'coming' full PTC if it had ever been actively considered by Amtrak.
Yes, even something like the original Vogt system from the 1880s that broke a glass tube to apply the air brake would have "prevented" the likely cause of this accident. But when a better system was spec'd, designed, and installed at high cost but the line politically fully opened with it still not quite installed (and as such, kept completely inoperative!) there would be little point in, say, rigging fixed magnets or inductors or transferring Amtrak engines with something like ITCS to use as trailing power/control reception in the interim. Expect to hear the usual whining about why that was not done 'anyway' ... and in the wake of apparent stupidity of true Pepsi magnitude, who am I to say the whiners would be wrong?
Here's a link to a story on KIRO that's reasonably factual. Nice to see the media not trying to sensalationize.
http://www.kiro7.com/news/south-sound-news/railroad-investigator-says-its-wrong-to-point-a-finger-at-train-engineer/668115816
Norm
I could almost stop reading this story at John Hiatt's 'credentials' - but I am glad I stuck around for the Amtrak material at the end.
Best to wait for the NTSB formal report than to pile Hiatt-style BS deeper and deeper ... we have enough of that tendency here already.
PNWRMNM I will stipulate that the overspeed limit on the locomotive was about 80 MPH. Mac
Matt from Anaheim, CA and Bayfield, COClick Here for my model train photo website
all the talk of losing situational awareness kind of reminds me of a story from the 1971 Indy 500(I think it was that race)
The race would pick a celebrity driver for the pace car and that driver would practice entering the pit Lane prior to the races. In this instance the driver entered perfectly many times. Then on race day he lost it and crashed into a small grandstand.
Why?
After some investigating it was found that the point of reference he used for braking and entering the pit Lane had disappeared! The whole week prior there had been a cone alongside the track that he used for reference. On race day that cone had been removed.
Could something similar have happened here? In Philly? Maybe something like a memorable billboard had the advertisement changed and they no longer recognized it? A particular tree was cut down? A distinctly colored house was repainted?
I don't know about you but I don't bother reading street signs to find my way home. They're small and hard to read at 50mph (and for some reason often missing). But the blue farmhouse in the big Field is very easy to see and indicates my turn is coming up.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
Euclid I understand what you are saying. The over-speed indicator does not indicate speed limit. In thinking about this further and reading what you said and what Overmod said below, I now realize that the overspeed indicator only indicates when the top speed of the line is exceeded. However, I am considering your point about the speed limit, prior to the curve limit of 30, not being known. What difference does this really make to my speculation on the engineer's reaction to the speed warning that I wrote above in the 6th post from the top? You seem to be objecting to my comments there in your post which follows mine. Obviously the engineer was exceeding the maxium speed limit on the line. What difference does it make if the speed limit where he received the warning is actually lower than 79?
What I am objecting to is that in your post of 12-23 at 9:42PM you are assuming facts not in evidenece, specifically that the speed limit approaching the curve was 79 MPH.
If the speed limit was 60 MPH, it implies to me that the engineer was lost/distracted for longer than if the limit was 79.
The main issue is what went wrong. The TV story about the Safety Investigator who was a locomotive engineer is highly, and in my opinion rightly assuming his tale is correct, critical of ATK's training practices as actually conducted on this route.
If what he is saying is true, I am not much suprised with the notion that the engineer was lost. If what he is saying is true, ATK bosses should be criminally liable for failure to train their engineers sufficiently. I also suspect it is likely that WSDOT paper pushers were in a "hurry up" mode that may have contributed to ATK training failure.
What the engineer did in the last few seconds is irrelevant EXCEPT that if he made a light application of the independent to shut up the overspeed indicator, it is further evidence that he was lost. By that time the curve was staring him in the face and should have gone to emergency, but it was too late to do anything to save the situation.
Southwest Chief Quick question. Can you easily change the overspeed in a locomotive for the specific route? Say for the Southwest Chief where 90mph is max speed in some territories? Or on the NEC with over 100mph sections?
I am not able to answer that qustion.
Hiatt:
"These guys were trained in darkness. All of them. They couldn't get availability to the track during the daytime, so that's part of the factor."
Except that the crash happened 19 minutes before sunrise. That would appear to be the same darkness that they were trained in.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.