Euclid SD70Dude On a short passenger train a Automatic application will set quite quickly. Applying enough Independent to reduce speed right away would be akin to stomping on the brake pedal in your car, and even with the Talgo's articulated design would throw passengers around. What if the independent were applied lightly enough to avoid any slack reaction affecting passengers? I understand the points that it is poor train handling and possibly against the rules in this case. But I am trying to understand the engineer's motivation for braking in this manner. Does the system that generates the overspeed warning follow with a penalty brake application if the speed is not reduced in a very short amount of time? If it does, I wonder if the engineer used the independent brake for the purpose reducing speed by just a tiny bit in the shortest amount of time possible in order to avoid an automatic penalty application. We have been given scraps of official information. I am just trying to assemble them in ways that might show more about what happened in the last six seconds that #501 was on the rails.
SD70Dude On a short passenger train a Automatic application will set quite quickly. Applying enough Independent to reduce speed right away would be akin to stomping on the brake pedal in your car, and even with the Talgo's articulated design would throw passengers around.
What if the independent were applied lightly enough to avoid any slack reaction affecting passengers? I understand the points that it is poor train handling and possibly against the rules in this case. But I am trying to understand the engineer's motivation for braking in this manner.
Does the system that generates the overspeed warning follow with a penalty brake application if the speed is not reduced in a very short amount of time? If it does, I wonder if the engineer used the independent brake for the purpose reducing speed by just a tiny bit in the shortest amount of time possible in order to avoid an automatic penalty application.
We have been given scraps of official information. I am just trying to assemble them in ways that might show more about what happened in the last six seconds that #501 was on the rails.
I would say that if enough Independent was applied to slow the train more quickly than a Automatic application would have then the passengers will get a rough ride.
It is possible to gently and gradually apply the Independent, but that would not slow the train any better than a Automatic application would.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
243129As I have stated previously use of the independent brake to reduce speed, no matter the increment, on a 'live' passenger train is indicative of poor train handling and lack of or poor training.
Under the assumption that the engineer wanted to reduce speed to comply to 79 mph speed limit: Is it really poor train handling with semi-permanent coupled Talgo train and almost no slack that can run in? And the remaining slack is cushioned.
See links about Talgo equipment in my post ten posts back on previous page.Regards, Volker
I am not an engineer, but have rode some cabs, freight and passenger. Let me tell you a story about a midnight ride on #5.
In the mid 1960's #5 was the mail train from Spokane to Seattle, Washington. It was the fastest train over the two subdivisions, while making the same stops as the Empire Builder. It consisted of 2 or 3 of GN's passenger F units, a working baggage car where the train crew rode, an RPO. and a baggage for storage mail. There were usually three 50' express box cars on the rear. One was plucked off at Wenatchee, one at Everett, and one went through to Seattle. The middle portion was 5-10 roller bearing freight cars, one or two TOFC included most nights. From Fairchild to Quincy, about 100 miles across the Columbia Plateau, the line descends about 1,000 feet on ruling grades not over .8%.
I was in the trailing A unit and in the engineer's seat. My understanding of the independent was as described to date in this thread. Imagine my surprise in seeing that when speed got to 85 or 86, a light application of the independent to bring speed down to 80, with no throttle manipulation. I felt no slack run in. I do not think there was any. The engineer was just using the independent to shave off a bit of the pull of the power.
Given that, I can see an engineer using a light, short indepentent app to shave off 2-3 MPH. Yes he could set the automatic air and bail, but I suspect that would be more braking than he really wanted.
In freight, minimum service is a 7# reduction. I do not know if that is the case with modern passenger trains.
It can be a bad practice to use the independent brake when traveling at yard speed.
In Birmingham, the CSX crosses the NS just east of where the Terminal Station was, and the crossing was protected by a gate, complette with watchman. One morning 53 years ago , the watchman threw the gate across the then Southern track in front of a freight that was heading for Sheffield; the engineer hit the independent brake and clogged the entrance to the station as cars were derailed. There were no injuries, but trains into/out of the station had to detour through North Birmingham.
I was on a northbound passenger train in the station at the time.
Johnny
"What if the independent were applied lightly enough to avoid any slack reaction affecting passengers? "
That action, aside from being poor train handling, would not be quick enough to avoid a penalty. Penalties are suppressed with a full service application of the automatic brake or a service application if equipped with a timing reservoir accompanied by 'bailing off' the independent brake.
But I am trying to understand the engineer's motivation for braking in this manner.
Braking in this manner is either ignorance, laziness, poor training or a combination of all three. I go with poor training.
VOLKER LANDWEHR 243129 As I have stated previously use of the independent brake to reduce speed, no matter the increment, on a 'live' passenger train is indicative of poor train handling and lack of or poor training. Under the assumption that the engineer wanted to reduce speed to comply to 79 mph speed limit: Is it really poor train handling with semi-permanent coupled Talgo train and almost no slack that can run in? And the remaining slack is cushioned. See links about Talgo equipment in my post ten posts back on previous page.Regards, Volker
243129 As I have stated previously use of the independent brake to reduce speed, no matter the increment, on a 'live' passenger train is indicative of poor train handling and lack of or poor training.
Yes it is poor train handling especially with a locomotive on each end.
The poster Norm castigated another poster for having an agenda.
I don't know if the 'accused' poster has an agenda but I do know that I do.
My agenda is to help ensure that train travel is safe. Amtrak is in dire need of oversight. Their hiring and training procedures are dangerous as is in evidence by this and previous disasters.
Here is the timeline with apparent details for the six seconds preceding the derailment:
Zero Seconds: Engineer comments about overspeed condition.
One Second: Engineer reacts to overspeed condition and begins to set independent brake.
Two Seconds: Engineer continues to set independent brake.
Three Seconds: Engineer continues to set independent brake.
Four Seconds: Engineer completes setting independent brake and begins feeling the centrifugal force of the 30 mph curve while traveling at approximately 79 mph.
Five Seconds: Engineer is aware of imminent derailment and braces himself for it, and the video recording ends.
Six Seconds: The locomotive climbs the rail and derails.
******************************************************
Overall, I conclude that the engineer did not know about the curve at zero seconds, and learned of it four seconds later. If he would have known about the curve at zero seconds, he would have made an emergency application.
Euclid Here is the timeline with apparent details for the six seconds preceding the derailment: Zero Seconds: Engineer comments about overspeed condition. One Second: Engineer reacts to overspeed condition and begins to set independent brake. Two Seconds: Engineer continues to set independent brake. Three Seconds: Engineer continues to set independent brake. Four Seconds: Engineer completes setting independent brake and begins feeling the centrifugal force of the 30 mph curve while traveling at approximately 79 mph. Five Seconds: Engineer is aware of imminent derailment and braces himself for it, and the video recording ends. Six Seconds: The locomotive climbs the rail and derails. ****************************************************** Overall, I conclude that the engineer did not know about the curve at zero seconds, and learned of it four seconds later. If he would have known about the curve at zero seconds, he would have made an emergency application.
Those actions, if you want to call them that, denote that the engineer had absolutely no idea where he was. Where was supervision on the first revenue trip for this service? At the very least there should have been a road foreman on the engine to supervise this engineer on the new territory.
Here is a more concise time line.
Realized was going too fast.Said "Sh*t"Grabbed any lever (in this case the independent -- the wrong one)Flew off the rails.Engineer pin-balled around the cab and was unable to do anything else
and if it takes a Road Foreman to follow the rules and clearly marked speed limits, we have not trained the engineer correctly.
and what sort of "inward facing camera" dies with a little bouncing around? Looks like they bought a POS!
243129 Their hiring and training procedures are dangerous as is in evidence by this and previous disasters.
Why don't you tell what Amtraks does and what they do wrong or what they should do differently?Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR 243129 Their hiring and training procedures are dangerous as is in evidence by this and previous disasters. Why don't you tell what Amtraks does and what they do wrong or what they should do differently?Regards, Volker
To quote Mao Tse Tung, no I am not a 'follower', "All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience". On the job training and lots of it is the answer. I have submitted a training template to Amtrak. No surprise it was ignored.
Regards,
Joe
petitnjwe have not trained the engineer correctly.
My point exactly. I also agree with your other points.
petitnj Here is a more concise time line. Realized was going too fast.Said "Sh*t"Grabbed any lever (in this case the independent -- the wrong one)Flew off the rails.Engineer pin-balled around the cab and was unable to do anything else
I think he grabbed the lever he intended to grab because in his mind, at that point, the lever he grabbed was all he needed. He had another full two seconds to go before being set face to face with the curve.
When you are in that much trouble. Throw the big red handle (the automatic brake for the entire train). Don't worry about derailing in an emergency brake application. Once the brakes on the trailing locomotive take hold the train will stop. That's why I like the big red handle on the type 26 brake.
petitnj When you are in that much trouble. Throw the big red handle (the automatic brake for the entire train). Don't worry about derailing in an emergency brake application. Once the brakes on the trailing locomotive take hold the train will stop. That's why I like the big red handle on the type 26 brake.
He did not know he was in any trouble until after making the independent application. He had no reason to reach for the big red handle until two seconds before derailing. But for some reason, he declined making the emergency application. He might have been gobsmacked by the enormity of the problem. I doubt he was worried about derailing the train.
petitnj and what sort of "inward facing camera" dies with a little bouncing around? Looks like they bought a POS!
I don't think "black boxes" record events AFTER the crash.
Ed
7j43k I don't think "black boxes" record events AFTER the crash. Ed
blue streak 1 7j43k I don't think "black boxes" record events AFTER the crash. Ed Probably depends on their power source. Same on aircraft but almost all A/c loose all power in an incident. Just a WAG but maybe whenever reverser is inserted recordings start ? EDIT -- No that does not make sense since trailing loco also recorded.
Any idea of where the 'main electrical panel' and the battery boxes are located on the Chargers - When the NTSB mentions that the engine tilted, I suspect that tilt was it leaving the tracks AND heading down the embankment to I-5. Nose of the loco in pictures shows some damage and I suspect everything located under the carbody also suffered damage, if the battery boxes are under the carbody they could have been destroyed while going down the embankment and thus killed the power supply to the cameras and data recorders.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
7j43k petitnj and what sort of "inward facing camera" dies with a little bouncing around? Looks like they bought a POS! I don't think "black boxes" record events AFTER the crash. Ed
The NTSB said this:
• The recording ended as the locomotive was tilting and the crew was bracing for impact.
Of course, this does not tell us whether the impact the crew was bracing for was something specific like a tree as they rode through the woods; or just the potential for impact with any obstacle once the engine left the rails.
The tilting of the locomotive they refer to could have been the centrifugal force of speeding on the curve before derailing; or tilting as the locomotive bulldozed its way down the hill after derailing. So the statement telling us where the recording ended does not actually tell us where it ended.
Therefore, when they say the “recording ended”, I have to assume that they mean the NTSB narrative of the recording ends where the camera shows the crew bracing and the locomotive tilting. But I don’t believe the recording itself ends there.
The whole point of the cameras is to capture significant data, and nothing could be more significant than coverage after the locomotive left the rails. So I have to assume that the NTSB has coverage of the entire event up to where the locomotive came to rest on the highway.
BaltACDAny idea of where the 'main electrical panel' and the battery boxes are located on the Chargers
The batteries are placed at the end of the locomotive beneath the floor. See page 23 of the following link. On page 22 isometric layout drawings. The 1st Electrical Compartment is located directly behind the cab, the 2nd Electrical Compartment ist at the end of the locomotive. Sorry, it is in German:www.schienenfahrzeugtagung.at/download/PDF2016/MoN01_Schieber.pdf
The following model misses the bottom view but is in English. See page 5:www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/NGEC%20305_Presentation_Multi%20State_12015.pdfRegards, Volker
EuclidThe whole point of the cameras is to capture significant data, and nothing could be more significant than coverage after the locomotive left the rails.
Except, you know, what happened BEFORE the locomotive left the rails.
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
Euclid 7j43k petitnj and what sort of "inward facing camera" dies with a little bouncing around? Looks like they bought a POS! I don't think "black boxes" record events AFTER the crash. Ed The NTSB said this: • The recording ended as the locomotive was tilting and the crew was bracing for impact. Of course, this does not tell us whether the impact the crew was bracing for was something specific like a tree as they rode through the woods; or just the potential for impact with any obstacle once the engine left the rails. The tilting of the locomotive they refer to could have been the centrifugal force of speeding on the curve before derailing; or tilting as the locomotive bulldozed its way down the hill after derailing. So the statement telling us where the recording ended does not actually tell us where it ended. Therefore, when they say the “recording ended”, I have to assume that they mean the NTSB narrative of the recording ends where the camera shows the crew bracing and the locomotive tilting. But I don’t believe the recording itself ends there. The whole point of the cameras is to capture significant data, and nothing could be more significant than coverage after the locomotive left the rails. So I have to assume that the NTSB has coverage of the entire event up to where the locomotive came to rest on the highway.
And the whole point of the NTSB is to speak with factual clarity, which has not been done in the information released so far. Too many lawyers involved who want to couch everyting in 'weasel words', words that can mean a variety of things depending upon how the words are challenged. The NTSB over the past decade or more has become a champion of weasel words.
zugmann Euclid The whole point of the cameras is to capture significant data, and nothing could be more significant than coverage after the locomotive left the rails. Except, you know, what happened BEFORE the locomotive left the rails.
Euclid The whole point of the cameras is to capture significant data, and nothing could be more significant than coverage after the locomotive left the rails.
Funny, that's very similar to what I was going to say.
I do think it would be "nice" to know what happened after, but since the crash has already happened (or firmly headed in that direction), it's not too likely to reveal additional information on the cause. Except if it DOES. I do think it would be advisable to make a REASONABLE effort to design these things to keep recording a bit longer. For example, a small battery integral to the equipment, rather than needing continued power from the locomotive.
But it does appear that their basic approach works: store the accumulated data in a VERY STRONG BOX. The camera and microphone can be remote from that box. And MAYBE more vulnerable.
Yes, it is important to capture data before the derailment. The point I was trying to make is that what happened after the derailment is just as important as what happened before. It is all critically important. Therefore, I am certain that a locomotive as modern and capable as that one was, would have state of the art video that would capture all useful data, and would back it up in real time at secure remote locations; and the capture would continue through any amount of crash damage effect. I doubt the NTSB claim that the video data was in jeopardy of being lost due to crash damage.
EuclidYes, it is important to capture data before the derailment. The point I was trying to make is that what happened after the derailment is just as important as what happened before. It is all critically important. Therefore, I am certain that a locomotive as modern and capable as that one was, would have state of the art video that would capture all useful data, and would back it up in real time at secure remote locations; and the capture would continue through any amount of crash damage effect. I doubt the NTSB claim that the video data was in jeopardy of being lost due to crash damage.
I'd say "nice save", but it really wasn't.
Yeah, we know. You don't trust the NTSB. Conspiracies all around.
The loss of power to data recorders should be addressed. It has been a long time problem in the aircraft industry as well. NTSB has not addressed the problem. Consequently many aircraft accidents have had final seconds lost data. One example is the Swiss air fire that lost several minutes before the aircraft went into the water. Aircraft data recorders have a built in battery to power the pinger to help in locating orange boxes after crashes. A close by back up battery in airplanes is needed.
Since loco recorders can be easily be located a back up battery should be inside the recorder case to continue recording if main power is lost to recorder.
Apparently, the inward camera stops recording if it sees the crew bracing for impact.
I haven't noticed it lately, but someone on the forum used to have a signature that said something like any argument carried on long enough becomes a question of semantics.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Google came up with the following locomotive black box. It is dated 2015, but the picture says 2000. Video data is usualily stored in hard drives like in your computers, but since 2000 hard drives have increased in storage from megabytes to gigabytes to terrabytes. This black box will record 18 days of video at 4 frames per second. A small external USB connected hard drive sold today by Seagate with 1 terrabyte, has the ability to store 1000 hours or 41.6 days of video. Seagate didn't say at how many frames per second nor what amount of G force it could withstand. However, it is not a good idea to drop these hard drives, or you may damage the mechanism which moves the record and playback heads. There is also solid state memory in gigabytes, which if properly encapsulated, could take very high G forces. It is hard to say what technology of black box is in the new locomotive which crashed.
https://www.leidos.com/sites/default/files/responsive/Products/Transportation/Leidos-RailView-brochure-2015.pdf
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.