charlie hebdo If “full service and blended 7” application. is NOT equal to an Emergency Application on the Siemens loco or any other type he had used, then what strikes me are the following. 1. The engineer was employed previously in the same role on BNSF, correct? 2. He must have been exposed to the information about brake applications earlier (training, operating manual) and had extensive "hands on" experience with braking. 3. He was hired by Amtrak as an experienced engineer, correct? 4. If he had worked at BNSF, do we know what their training is? Good, adequate or deficient? 5. Was this man ever screened/evaluated at promotion to engineer on BNSF or by Amtrak to determine if he possessed suffiecient cognitive ability to learn and remember important info? 6. If #5 is true, then is it possible this man had some sort of memory impairment? 7. If either #6 is true or #5 is false, then all the training in the world would not matter.
If “full service and blended 7” application. is NOT equal to an Emergency Application on the Siemens loco or any other type he had used, then what strikes me are the following.
1. The engineer was employed previously in the same role on BNSF, correct?
2. He must have been exposed to the information about brake applications earlier (training, operating manual) and had extensive "hands on" experience with braking.
3. He was hired by Amtrak as an experienced engineer, correct?
4. If he had worked at BNSF, do we know what their training is? Good, adequate or deficient?
5. Was this man ever screened/evaluated at promotion to engineer on BNSF or by Amtrak to determine if he possessed suffiecient cognitive ability to learn and remember important info?
6. If #5 is true, then is it possible this man had some sort of memory impairment?
7. If either #6 is true or #5 is false, then all the training in the world would not matter.
#1 Not sure.
#2 One would assume so.
#3 Amtrak does not have personnel qualified to assess a candidate's acumen for the position of locomotive engineer.
#4 We do not.
#5 See #3
#6 See #3
#7 Cannot discern the meaning of#7. Expound.
Question: You have referred to Fred Frailey as Fred "Hidden Agenda" Frailey. Could you expound on that also?
In addition to my desire for the NTSB to tell us how fast the train would have entered the curve had an emergency application been made, I would like the NTSB to tell us how fast the train should have been traveling when it entered the curve after the engineer made his “full service and blended 7” application.
I would also like the NTSB to tell us what they found in testing to attempt to verify the engineer’s testimony that the “full service and blended 7” application he made did not take hold. That alone is a stunning new detail.
243129 Euclid ns145 6 A. Well, number one, we're trained that full service and blended 7 is the equivalent of an emergency brake. So I was in the maximum 8 braking. Is this true? No it is flat out wrong! "we're trained that full service and blended 7 is the equivalent of an emergency brake." TRAINED that full service is equivalent to an emergency application???? That in itself should indict Amtrak's training procedures. From the testimony of Steven Brown it is obvious he did not have the acumen for the position of locomotive engineer and Amtrak does not have the personnel to determine whether or not a person possesses the acuity for the position.
Euclid ns145 6 A. Well, number one, we're trained that full service and blended 7 is the equivalent of an emergency brake. So I was in the maximum 8 braking. Is this true?
ns145 6 A. Well, number one, we're trained that full service and blended 7 is the equivalent of an emergency brake. So I was in the maximum 8 braking.
Is this true?
No it is flat out wrong!
"we're trained that full service and blended 7 is the equivalent of an emergency brake."
TRAINED that full service is equivalent to an emergency application????
That in itself should indict Amtrak's training procedures.
From the testimony of Steven Brown it is obvious he did not have the acumen for the position of locomotive engineer and Amtrak does not have the personnel to determine whether or not a person possesses the acuity for the position.
This detail about the final braking began to emerge when we were told by the NTSB that the engineer was observed making a service application rather than an emergency application. At the time, I was not sure if he had yet realized how close to the curve he was, and therefore was just slowing the train slightly to get back down the speed limit in response to the overspeed warning he had just received.
Then this point was again brought up more recently in conjuction with the engineer's interview and cab conversation. So, now by his own testimony, the engineer has confirmed his intentional compromised braking in the face of the dire emergency.
I would like the NTSB to tell us how fast the train would have been traveling when it entered the curve if the engineer had made an emergency application at the point where he first realized he was approaching the curve earlier than he had anticipated. I would also like them to tell us whether the train would have derailed at that speed.
I would also like the NTSB to tell us if it is true that Amtrak trains engineers that "full service and blended 7 is the equivalent of an emergency brake."
And I would like the NTSB to tell us why Amtrak gives that instruction to its engineers.
ns1456 A. Well, number one, we're trained that full service and blended 7 is the equivalent of an emergency brake. So I was in the maximum 8 braking.
Yes, that is what disturbes all of us. And the question is why did he react as he did. One would have expected differently.
The speculation is about this question.Regards, Volker
Euclid zugmann Euclid Why do you think he did not perform that natural reaction? Why do you think he did not perform that natural reaction? I think a plausible reason is that he was in denial and thus did not accpet the full gravity of the situation. Another plausible reason is that he was embarrassed by his mistake and felt that the service application might save him without drawing as much attention to it as would be the case if he made an emergency application. The emgency application would stop him even if the train stayed on the rails, whereas the other type of application would have slowed him down and the let him keep going-- if the train stayed on the rails. Another plausible reason is that he felt an emergency application risked derailing the train, so the added stopping advanatage was not worth the risk that came with it.
zugmann Euclid Why do you think he did not perform that natural reaction? Why do you think he did not perform that natural reaction?
Euclid Why do you think he did not perform that natural reaction?
Why do you think he did not perform that natural reaction?
I think a plausible reason is that he was in denial and thus did not accpet the full gravity of the situation.
Another plausible reason is that he was embarrassed by his mistake and felt that the service application might save him without drawing as much attention to it as would be the case if he made an emergency application. The emgency application would stop him even if the train stayed on the rails, whereas the other type of application would have slowed him down and the let him keep going-- if the train stayed on the rails.
Another plausible reason is that he felt an emergency application risked derailing the train, so the added stopping advanatage was not worth the risk that came with it.
In this case, instead of engaging in endless speculation, we have in the NTSB interview transcript the answer to this question that engineer Steve Brown gave to FRA interviewer John Mayser on page 69. Mr. Brown's answer seems a little strange to me, but I am not a locomotive engineer. Anyway, here is the excerpt from the transcript:
1 Q. When you were coming up to the 30-mile-an-hour restriction
2 and you knew you were really close to the curve, did it occur to
3 you maybe to go to emergency?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Can you explain?
6 A. Well, number one, we're trained that full service and blended
7 is the equivalent of an emergency brake. So I was in the maximum
8 braking. And I thought the brakes were going to grab and bring
9 the train down and I was going to spill some coffee.
10 Q. Gotcha. And I've never -- I was an engineer in the past but
11 I never ran the Charger. It's a neat looking motor, by the way.
12 What's your understanding of how the sanding system operates?
13 A. I have no understanding of the sanding operation.
14 Q. Do you think if you manually applied sand it may have helped
15 you, or was it just things happening too fast.
16 A. Everything happened so fast that I went full service, and I
17 remember going farther than full service because I wasn't feeling
18 anything grab. I was really shocked that there was no tug. I
19 didn't feel anything.
20 Q. Do you think perhaps the grade may have had something to do
21 with that, or maybe was the rail wet?
22 A. I don't know.
23 MR. MAYSER: Steve, thanks for your time. That's it for me
24 right now.
25 MR. BROWN: Sure. Thank you.
EuclidWhy do you think he did not perform that natural reaction?
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
243129 Euclid 243129 So what do you folks think will be contained in the final NTSB report as to the cause(s) of this disaster? Try not to let your 'romance of the rails' cloud your opinions. I have no idea. The NTSB reminds us that everything in their preliminary reports is subject to change. So it is not just that the preliminary report does not contain all of the information. It is also the case that what it states as fact may later be changed. So, as a practial matter, the preliminary report tells us nothing. It is just part of the mosaic of information coming from news reports and witnesses. One question that I would like answered is why the engineer did not make an emergency application which I understand would have produced the maximum possible deceleration rate. In an interview, the engineer said he believed that the braking application he made would have been sufficient to get the train around the curve without derailing. But he sounded somewhat uncertain of that, and it did prove to be far from adequate to prevent the derailment. An emergency application may likewise have been inadequate to prevent the derailment, but why did this engineer choose the second best braking response? I think I know the answer, but I want to hear with others think. An emergency application should have been a natural reaction when he had his 'oh sh!t' moment.
Euclid 243129 So what do you folks think will be contained in the final NTSB report as to the cause(s) of this disaster? Try not to let your 'romance of the rails' cloud your opinions. I have no idea. The NTSB reminds us that everything in their preliminary reports is subject to change. So it is not just that the preliminary report does not contain all of the information. It is also the case that what it states as fact may later be changed. So, as a practial matter, the preliminary report tells us nothing. It is just part of the mosaic of information coming from news reports and witnesses. One question that I would like answered is why the engineer did not make an emergency application which I understand would have produced the maximum possible deceleration rate. In an interview, the engineer said he believed that the braking application he made would have been sufficient to get the train around the curve without derailing. But he sounded somewhat uncertain of that, and it did prove to be far from adequate to prevent the derailment. An emergency application may likewise have been inadequate to prevent the derailment, but why did this engineer choose the second best braking response? I think I know the answer, but I want to hear with others think.
243129 So what do you folks think will be contained in the final NTSB report as to the cause(s) of this disaster? Try not to let your 'romance of the rails' cloud your opinions.
So what do you folks think will be contained in the final NTSB report as to the cause(s) of this disaster?
Try not to let your 'romance of the rails' cloud your opinions.
I have no idea. The NTSB reminds us that everything in their preliminary reports is subject to change. So it is not just that the preliminary report does not contain all of the information. It is also the case that what it states as fact may later be changed. So, as a practial matter, the preliminary report tells us nothing. It is just part of the mosaic of information coming from news reports and witnesses.
One question that I would like answered is why the engineer did not make an emergency application which I understand would have produced the maximum possible deceleration rate. In an interview, the engineer said he believed that the braking application he made would have been sufficient to get the train around the curve without derailing. But he sounded somewhat uncertain of that, and it did prove to be far from adequate to prevent the derailment.
An emergency application may likewise have been inadequate to prevent the derailment, but why did this engineer choose the second best braking response? I think I know the answer, but I want to hear with others think.
An emergency application should have been a natural reaction when he had his 'oh sh!t' moment.
An emergency application should have been a natural reaction when he had his 'oh' moment.
VOLKER LANDWEHR I don't know if his explanation is right or made up. Perhaps the unfamiliarity with the Charger played a role. If he really believed in the service brake application he might have thought the Charger's disk brake would make the difference. For the first time he had a locomotive disk brakes on an also disk brake equipped Talgo train, but didn't have any experience with it. But it is just speculation. And that might stay unsolved as it depends on the engineers word.Regards, Volker
I don't know if his explanation is right or made up. Perhaps the unfamiliarity with the Charger played a role.
If he really believed in the service brake application he might have thought the Charger's disk brake would make the difference. For the first time he had a locomotive disk brakes on an also disk brake equipped Talgo train, but didn't have any experience with it.
But it is just speculation. And that might stay unsolved as it depends on the engineers word.Regards, Volker
He had made a couple of stops with the locomotive and train - for passengers and red signals - prior to the incident. What he learned from those brake applications is open to question.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidAn emergency application may likewise have been inadequate to prevent the derailment, but why did this engineer choose the second best braking response? I think I know the answer, but I want to hear with others think.
In the short available time it must have been an instinctive reaction, a terrible misjudgement.
Electroliner 1935 How long are you guys going to play this trolls game?
How long are you guys going to play this trolls game?
Who is the "troll" and what is the "game"?
Until it's not fun anymore.
Or until this thread quits running around in the same old circle pulverizing the dearly departed equine.
I'm betting the fun ends first.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
243129Really?Hmm
When you got nothing else - play the victim card.
SD70Dude 243129 Seems to me I've 'interloped' a good old boy forum. I'm not old, and how do you know I am a boy? I am offended by your presumptions. I'll take 'sniper' though, truth be told I'm not a bad shot!
243129 Seems to me I've 'interloped' a good old boy forum.
Seems to me I've 'interloped' a good old boy forum.
I'm not old, and how do you know I am a boy? I am offended by your presumptions.
I'll take 'sniper' though, truth be told I'm not a bad shot!
Really?
No one likes to be told that their program is inadequate but if they cared enough about their product(they do not) they would listen to their experienced employees for suggestions. The only reason the meeting took place was because the V.P. Operations ordered them to hold it. I presented my program in a straightforward lucid manner at the morning session. They displayed the appropriate corporate countenance along with faux interest. They let me talk and asked no questions. Sensing their disinterest I politely informed CTO Nichols that any further discussion would be an exercise in futility. As Fred Frailey stated in his blog I was up against the 'not invented here mentality'. So now I speak my mind and sugar coat nothing (big boy talk). Jonathan Hines and Charles Beatson are guilty of gross incompetence and should be dismissed.
243129Okay so we have Volker who cannot take 'big boy talk', the usual 'snipers',
Well, "big boy talk" is something else. When you don't like an argument you try to make yourself look superior to the others with what I cited to make the argument look less believable. I call it rude.Regards,Volker
BaltACD VOLKER LANDWEHR BaltACD Okay so we have Volker who cannot take 'big boy talk', the usual 'snipers', Well, "big boy talk" is something else. When you don't like an argument you try to make yourself look superior to the others with what I cited to make the argument look less believable. I call it rude.Regards,Volker Please don't attribute 'big boy talk' to me, only to it's rightful mouth.
VOLKER LANDWEHR BaltACD Okay so we have Volker who cannot take 'big boy talk', the usual 'snipers', Well, "big boy talk" is something else. When you don't like an argument you try to make yourself look superior to the others with what I cited to make the argument look less believable. I call it rude.Regards,Volker
BaltACD Okay so we have Volker who cannot take 'big boy talk', the usual 'snipers',
Please don't attribute 'big boy talk' to me, only to it's rightful mouth.
I'm sorry, I can't explain why I replied to your post.
I deleted the wrong post and added the correct on commenting Joe's (234129) original post.I appologize for the confusion.Regards, Volker
Post edited
The substandard forum software strikes again!!
Deleted
Joe,
The only person or agency that gave any (initially positive) response was Fred "Hidden Agenda" Frailey several years ago, but nothing lately, plus Amtrak. You were given a hearing by them, perhaps as a courtesy to you for your years of service. But you blew it by walking out and ignoring the invitation for a luncheon. You apparently see your behavior as not kissing ass (big boy talk), but most folks who want to persuade others would call your behavior self-destructive rudeness, i.e., a violation of ordinary manners and burning your bridges. Of course Amtrak might have seen your proposal as rather short on substance. On here, you were unable to give much in the way of specificity, but plenty of negativity.
243129Okay so we have Volker who cannot take 'big boy talk', the usual 'snipers', a guy who cannot spell, being 'rude' (according to Volker) and a guy who makes baseless allegations backing up the guy who cannot spell. Do I have that right? Seems to me I've 'interloped' a good old boy forum. Now back on topic Amtrak is an accident waiting to happen again.
The reality of the world - the next accident is always waiting to happen. Be that Amtrak's, BNSF's, Gulf & Warrior Barge Line, White Star Line, United Airlines, I-95 - as humans, we try to learn from the mistakes and undertake efforts from preventing them happening again and then we move on, until the next accident happens. Not everybody will agree with what was learned from the accidents or what the proper steps to fix the errors are going forward. Such is life.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.