243129Your lack of basic knowledge on the Cayce thread in General Discussion is glaring.
This is particularly ironic because it is your "knowledge" that is glaringly lacking, not mine, if your pathetic little post on P42 controls is what you mean here.
Certainly not worth $275 per hour
Well, not worth anything to the willfully ignorant. (Who, truth to tell, are not often the ones who are competent enough to pay me that.)
243129You don't intimate that you are an engineer?
See above reply, which I was trying to edit after I saw what you underlined. Sorry this response took so long, too, but this latest Kalmbach software will not reliably quote only part of a post, and of course the iPhone is notorious for being poor at selectively deleting blocks of text.
Short version: I was being hyperbolic, I thought a bit humorously but evidently you disagree, in saying my 'practical running experience does not compare to yours'. Of course it does not; I am not carded and have not run as an engineer at all. I trust this finally clears up any misperception that I was trying to 'intimate' anything.
Overmod Actually yes, I'm very seldom imperious, on the Internet or not, but I don't suffer either a bullying attitude or repeated nonsense very gladly. Not for want of trying, either. As I have said over and over again to you and others, read EO 24 to see how what you keep natteringly about is supposed to be done. If you had run an actual train since about 2005 this would be for better or worse obvious ... if you were interested in perhaps boring issues like Federal compliance. My practical running experience in no way compares to yours, nor would I hesitate to take your word without further investigation or cross-checking on a great many things, specifically including contemporary Amtrak training or certain aspects of their 'safety culture'. This however is a place where your experience does not apply, and some of your opinions and attitude fall short of explaining, let alone enlightening, this specific discussion. I don't pretend to assert that mine do, either, but I try to get some kind of objective understanding instead of picking the facts to suit the argument.
Actually yes, I'm very seldom imperious, on the Internet or not, but I don't suffer either a bullying attitude or repeated nonsense very gladly. Not for want of trying, either.
As I have said over and over again to you and others, read EO 24 to see how what you keep natteringly about is supposed to be done. If you had run an actual train since about 2005 this would be for better or worse obvious ... if you were interested in perhaps boring issues like Federal compliance.
My practical running experience in no way compares to yours, nor would I hesitate to take your word without further investigation or cross-checking on a great many things, specifically including contemporary Amtrak training or certain aspects of their 'safety culture'. This however is a place where your experience does not apply, and some of your opinions and attitude fall short of explaining, let alone enlightening, this specific discussion. I don't pretend to assert that mine do, either, but I try to get some kind of objective understanding instead of picking the facts to suit the argument.
You don't intimate that you are an engineer?
Your lack of basic knowledge on the Cayce thread in General Discussion is glaring. Certainly not worth $275 per hour
243129I would love to have a one on one discussion with you in person. I highly doubt than any of the veiled insults you have made here would surface during such a discussion.
You are of course welcome to do so via PM at any time; there should be no problem doing so except that I have trouble reading some people's PMs on a phone. You are also welcome to come down (or up or wherever) and discuss things over a burger or beer or whatever (we have some good barbecue).
You intimate that you are a locomotive engineer.
Self-deprecating sarcasm is evidently wasted on the dull and literal-minded. I have never 'intimated' any such thing, and in fact have specifically confirmed on some other threads (notably the second one where Euclid said he had experience and then started in insulting people who asked what it was) that I am not, and never have been, carded as an engineer (or even played one on a tourist railroad.)
Of course my 'practical running experience' is much less than yours; in fact it is limited to no more than a great many cab rides where I did no more than observe, record data, and keep notes.
I would also note ... but then again, of course I would ... that this has little bearing on my practical knowledge of locomotive design or effective control, specifically regarding the artificial-intelligence/expert system implementation of good engineer action as part of automatic train control.
So what in your opinion caused this disaster?
I have changed this slightly, and have gone repeatedly on record as saying we still don't have a great deal of critical information to figure out 'cause' beyond the fact that a dispatcher gave an engineer authority to run 59mph up to a mislined switch. In the absence of any 'third party' the required procedure to release track authority contains a confirmation that switches were personally lined and checked by the crew -- but a critical one was mislined half an hour later. Beyond that we have to wait for the interviews where the people involved tell their sides.
Are you qualified on the Florence Division?
Two answers: (1) Of course not!, and (2) no less than you are. In fact I suspect you have read neither the current CSX rules or an employee timetable for that division, as I have, so I regret to tell you that your badgering has failed yet again.
Explain EO 24 to me.
I get $275 per hour to explain technical things to people who were supposed to understand them as part of their job but for some reason didn't read the documentation or just can't figure out the English. Upon successful deposit of your retainer to your account I will be happy to explain most of the genesis as well as practical import of EO 24 to you. I think I have already adequately covered it, as it applies here so far, in posts to the non-professional non-experts who have already politely asked in good faith about it.
Overmod 243129 I have run many trains since 2005 and long before and have never been out of "Federal compliance". On your engineer's card, maybe ... but EO 24 applied to you, the language you were supposed to have read answers the question you kept asking ... what else can I "conclude"? I was not aware you could as an engineer pick and choose the rules that applies to you, or decide that not reading them would let you off having to explain them -- that too would appear to be experience I lack. You didn't specify what definition of 'actual train' to use, and I'd just wind up quoting something like the current section in NORAC. So your somewhat pathetic attempt to one-up people with kindergarten-level questioning is something of a fail. Let's just say that when you start asking technical questions for objective reasons I think I can substantiate the correctness, sense, and usually relevance of my answers -- or admit if I am wrong, which I have already done a couple of times with respect to developing awareness of what happened in the Amtrak 91 accident. I would submit that the truth in a reply, especially on an Internet board, is far more relevant than any 'credentials' demanded of everyone with whom we may disagree. And is also more valid than trying to have the last word in an argument or discussion, either.
243129 I have run many trains since 2005 and long before and have never been out of "Federal compliance".
On your engineer's card, maybe ... but EO 24 applied to you, the language you were supposed to have read answers the question you kept asking ... what else can I "conclude"? I was not aware you could as an engineer pick and choose the rules that applies to you, or decide that not reading them would let you off having to explain them -- that too would appear to be experience I lack.
You didn't specify what definition of 'actual train' to use, and I'd just wind up quoting something like the current section in NORAC. So your somewhat pathetic attempt to one-up people with kindergarten-level questioning is something of a fail. Let's just say that when you start asking technical questions for objective reasons I think I can substantiate the correctness, sense, and usually relevance of my answers -- or admit if I am wrong, which I have already done a couple of times with respect to developing awareness of what happened in the Amtrak 91 accident. I would submit that the truth in a reply, especially on an Internet board, is far more relevant than any 'credentials' demanded of everyone with whom we may disagree. And is also more valid than trying to have the last word in an argument or discussion, either.
Nice dodge. I would love to have a one on one discussion with you in person. I highly doubt than any of the veiled insults you have made here would surface during such a discussion. You intimate that you are a locomotive engineer."My practical running experience". Is this so? So what in your opinion caused this disaster? Are you qualified on the Florence Division? Explain EO 24 to me.
BaltACDSwitching moves are not to be handled on the Dispatcher's Radio channel. While Dispatchers MAY monitor the Road Channel, overhearing a crews end to end communications is no authority to release a block authority.
This is why I noted 'tuned to the wrong channel'.
For this to be a 'cause' in the present accident the dispatcher would have to be distracted to some extent and perhaps not be following full normal radio protocol; we will certainly find out the extent of any confusion in the upcoming interviews.
OvermodOne of the EXPLICIT concerns in the discussion leading up to EO 24 was radio communication that 'seemed' to be a release of track authority, but was not so meant particularly with respect to complete safe relining of switches. One example of this might be a radio call 'head end clear of the main' during a shove back when the power passed the fouling point with the radio left tuned to a wrong channel. That is one underlying reason to specify a standard, unambiguous procedure to relinquish track authority, and a documented and trackable backup to confirm it was fully safe to do so.
Switching moves are not to be handled on the Dispatcher's Radio channel. While Dispatchers MAY monitor the Road Channel, overhearing a crews end to end communications is no authority to release a block authority. To report clear a crew would initiate the ring tone that tells the Dispatcher that someone in the field is trying to contact the Dispatcher. Once contact is acknowledged by each party, information then gets exchanged. If the Dispatcher has a authority to issue or some other form of involved communication to take place with the crew, the crew will be instructed to meet the Dispatcher on the Dispatcher's radio channel. The Dispatchers channel is used so that there won't be interuptions that would happen on the road radio channel. The channels are specified in the employee timetable - they take into account that there are multiple railroads in any geographical area and each railroad needs to have reliable communiction between THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES, without other railroads employees participating in the communication process.
In my time Dispatcher's compliance with Radio Rules was one of the most tested of Efficiency Test by company officers - both from the ease with which the testing could be conducted as well as the requirement of Dispatcher's radio communications to be clear, consice and in proper form and the resulting importance of that communication.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
To get this discussion back on a factual footing: one of the questions that needs to be answered is what the dispatcher received which convinced her to give 91 full 59mph authority though the section including Silica Siding. The post-Graniteville procedure clearly requires reference to completion of all switch lining involved before a dispatcher can grant such authority, but the fact of the mislined switch indicates 'something fell through the cracks' that is difficult to explain without detailed interview explanations ... hopefully forthcoming from the NTSB soon as they said the relevant interviews themselves had been largely conducted before Sumwalt's recent briefing.
There should be no way a dispatcher could receive a 'verbal release' of authority, or act on any received message she might assume was intended as such a release, without confirmation. Whether or not we like Government gobbledygook, that is supposed to include a statement that a SPAF has been signed by every crewman for every switch that had been thrown away from proper default lining. This in turn assumes that the crew is honest in signing this form by actually so lining and locking the switch(es) first, so there is no point in asking both 'did you line all your switches back' and 'did you sign the form that confirms you lined them'.
One of the EXPLICIT concerns in the discussion leading up to EO 24 was radio communication that 'seemed' to be a release of track authority, but was not so meant particularly with respect to complete safe relining of switches. One example of this might be a radio call 'head end clear of the main' during a shove back when the power passed the fouling point with the radio left tuned to a wrong channel. That is one underlying reason to specify a standard, unambiguous procedure to relinquish track authority, and a documented and trackable backup to confirm it was fully safe to do so.
Somewhere, the strength of the procedures in force was insufficient that night. As far as I'm concerned it is far less important to find and punish all those with any 'culpability' as it is to figure out what went wrong and rewrite that rule appropriately, with the fresh blood, so that no more can be shed in such circumstances again.
243129I have run many trains since 2005 and long before and have never been out of "Federal compliance".
I have run many trains since 2005 and long before and have never been out of "Federal compliance". So you seem to have all the answers so tell us what you think the cause of this accident was and define what an "actual train" is?
There is such a thing as trust--trust that when an employee says that a certain procedure has been followed that process has been followed.
WIthout trust, railroad operations in dark territory would come to a stop.
As has been said, by one employee of another road, those who sign such a form keep the form for 90 days.
Johnny
Overmod 243129 "willfully ignorant"? You were one who kept arguing that paper-form compliance was irrelevant. The ONLY way the conductor 'could have told the dispatcher the switch was aligned' would be by confirming from the SPAF that it was aligned. Perhaps you ex-New Haven guys don't think much of Federally mandated operational procedures, but they are there anyway. So either there is a SPAF with two signatures on it that, essentially, the conductor lied about, or the dispatcher misunderstood some other kind of communication improperly. Your reliance on a newsworker's language in a press story over what the FRA has mandated for over a decade is really little more than compounded ignorance in context, and your continued assertion that this somehow 'proves' your belief is wilful. So yes, I regrettably continue to support saying that. Let me make it clear that I am NOT saying that the conductor didn't contact the dispatcher in good faith releasing authority, or that the dispatcher was stupid in subsequently granting 59mph authority to 91. The point, the essential point, is that post-Graniteville the risk of just such mistaken release and reassignment was deemed so important by FRA that they established formal procedures to make mistakes less possible. And it increasingly appears that these more stringent procedures were not followed here, with the accident a direct and not circumstantial consequence.
243129 "willfully ignorant"?
You were one who kept arguing that paper-form compliance was irrelevant.
The ONLY way the conductor 'could have told the dispatcher the switch was aligned' would be by confirming from the SPAF that it was aligned. Perhaps you ex-New Haven guys don't think much of Federally mandated operational procedures, but they are there anyway.
So either there is a SPAF with two signatures on it that, essentially, the conductor lied about, or the dispatcher misunderstood some other kind of communication improperly.
Your reliance on a newsworker's language in a press story over what the FRA has mandated for over a decade is really little more than compounded ignorance in context, and your continued assertion that this somehow 'proves' your belief is wilful. So yes, I regrettably continue to support saying that.
Let me make it clear that I am NOT saying that the conductor didn't contact the dispatcher in good faith releasing authority, or that the dispatcher was stupid in subsequently granting 59mph authority to 91. The point, the essential point, is that post-Graniteville the risk of just such mistaken release and reassignment was deemed so important by FRA that they established formal procedures to make mistakes less possible. And it increasingly appears that these more stringent procedures were not followed here, with the accident a direct and not circumstantial consequence.
Your imperious and condescending attitude is annoying. I'm sure the only place you display it is on the internet.
So tell me how the paper form compliance is delivered to the dispatcher and while you are at it tell me that verbal clearance is not required. After that you can give me your resume on your railroad operations experience.
I have never purported to be proficent in CSX procedure but it is/was perfectly clear that the CSX crew must have reported clear of the main line or the dispatcher assumed that they were clear of the main line in order to allow 91 in to the block.
243129"willfully ignorant"?
243129 My guess is that the CSX crew reported clear of the main line but failed to restore the switch.
My guess is that the CSX crew reported clear of the main line but failed to restore the switch.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/02/06/incorrect-information-from-csx-employee-led-to.html?ana=yahoo&yptr=yahoo
"After the CSX conductor on site told a dispatcher that the switch was properly aligned, the dispatcher gave the go-ahead for the Amtrak train, which was carrying 139 passengers and eight crew members bound from New York to Miami, to proceed."
"willfully ignorant"?
Overmod Aviation has used dry language or even military-industrial jargon-speak to describe mishaps for many years, a common one being 'controlled flight into terrain'. Granted the use here is probably just poor training in English and rhetoric.
Aviation has used dry language or even military-industrial jargon-speak to describe mishaps for many years, a common one being 'controlled flight into terrain'.
Granted the use here is probably just poor training in English and rhetoric.
Yah, I remember one show where they were talking to a test pilot just before a dangerous flight. He was dryly told "don't hit the ground."
"Amtrak's Silver Star makes contact with a CSX train and derails." OMG, what a way to state it. It reminds me of a retired NTSB investigator on the Discovery Channel about a forest fire retardent plane saying "the aircraft made contact with the ground when both wings separated from the fuselage." Basiclly, the wings fell off and the plane crashed. Made contact? Sounds like "Close Encounters of the 3rd kind" when an alien spaceship landed at Devil's Tower, Wyo. It was a head on collision -- a wreck, plain and simple, not making contact. Is this the new government speak?
Please, kids, play nice.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
243129 n012944 243129 n012944 243129 Overmod 243129 Given the above post I guess it would be safe to say your answer was that of one who is uninformed. That would certainly be the attitude of one even more uninformed. I realize that it may be frustrating that you are failing in the Procrustean effort of making this somehow part of your perpetual jeremiad about Amtrak training and general crew awareness. But it is insulting in this context, and I would advise that you stop. Your flowery rhetoric is not the least bit impressive and your snarky aside falls flat. It is obvious by his post that BaltACD knows as much about the Florence Division and it's rules as I do. As for your advice............. CSX rules are CSX rules, regardless of the division you are on. If you were qualifed on them you would know that. Do you work for CSX and if so in what capacity? Yes I do, and it is none of your buisness. There is no shame in being a car cleaner.
n012944 243129 n012944 243129 Overmod 243129 Given the above post I guess it would be safe to say your answer was that of one who is uninformed. That would certainly be the attitude of one even more uninformed. I realize that it may be frustrating that you are failing in the Procrustean effort of making this somehow part of your perpetual jeremiad about Amtrak training and general crew awareness. But it is insulting in this context, and I would advise that you stop. Your flowery rhetoric is not the least bit impressive and your snarky aside falls flat. It is obvious by his post that BaltACD knows as much about the Florence Division and it's rules as I do. As for your advice............. CSX rules are CSX rules, regardless of the division you are on. If you were qualifed on them you would know that. Do you work for CSX and if so in what capacity? Yes I do, and it is none of your buisness.
243129 n012944 243129 Overmod 243129 Given the above post I guess it would be safe to say your answer was that of one who is uninformed. That would certainly be the attitude of one even more uninformed. I realize that it may be frustrating that you are failing in the Procrustean effort of making this somehow part of your perpetual jeremiad about Amtrak training and general crew awareness. But it is insulting in this context, and I would advise that you stop. Your flowery rhetoric is not the least bit impressive and your snarky aside falls flat. It is obvious by his post that BaltACD knows as much about the Florence Division and it's rules as I do. As for your advice............. CSX rules are CSX rules, regardless of the division you are on. If you were qualifed on them you would know that. Do you work for CSX and if so in what capacity?
n012944 243129 Overmod 243129 Given the above post I guess it would be safe to say your answer was that of one who is uninformed. That would certainly be the attitude of one even more uninformed. I realize that it may be frustrating that you are failing in the Procrustean effort of making this somehow part of your perpetual jeremiad about Amtrak training and general crew awareness. But it is insulting in this context, and I would advise that you stop. Your flowery rhetoric is not the least bit impressive and your snarky aside falls flat. It is obvious by his post that BaltACD knows as much about the Florence Division and it's rules as I do. As for your advice............. CSX rules are CSX rules, regardless of the division you are on. If you were qualifed on them you would know that.
243129 Overmod 243129 Given the above post I guess it would be safe to say your answer was that of one who is uninformed. That would certainly be the attitude of one even more uninformed. I realize that it may be frustrating that you are failing in the Procrustean effort of making this somehow part of your perpetual jeremiad about Amtrak training and general crew awareness. But it is insulting in this context, and I would advise that you stop. Your flowery rhetoric is not the least bit impressive and your snarky aside falls flat. It is obvious by his post that BaltACD knows as much about the Florence Division and it's rules as I do. As for your advice.............
Overmod 243129 Given the above post I guess it would be safe to say your answer was that of one who is uninformed. That would certainly be the attitude of one even more uninformed. I realize that it may be frustrating that you are failing in the Procrustean effort of making this somehow part of your perpetual jeremiad about Amtrak training and general crew awareness. But it is insulting in this context, and I would advise that you stop.
243129 Given the above post I guess it would be safe to say your answer was that of one who is uninformed.
That would certainly be the attitude of one even more uninformed.
I realize that it may be frustrating that you are failing in the Procrustean effort of making this somehow part of your perpetual jeremiad about Amtrak training and general crew awareness. But it is insulting in this context, and I would advise that you stop.
Your flowery rhetoric is not the least bit impressive and your snarky aside falls flat. It is obvious by his post that BaltACD knows as much about the Florence Division and it's rules as I do. As for your advice.............
CSX rules are CSX rules, regardless of the division you are on. If you were qualifed on them you would know that.
Do you work for CSX and if so in what capacity?
Yes I do, and it is none of your buisness.
There is no shame in being a car cleaner.
I agree, keep your head up and don't let anyone tell you different.
An "expensive model collector"
Car cleaners would have been among the first ex-CSX employees upon the arrival of EHH. Customers you are running off don't need clean cars.
Overmod I propose we settle this by confirming directly what any special instructions on the Florence division, specifically those current at the time of the signal suspension, actually might be.
I propose we settle this by confirming directly what any special instructions on the Florence division, specifically those current at the time of the signal suspension, actually might be.
The territory and special instructions where those rules apply are not the same. Do you work for CSX and if so in what capacity?
Well, to start with he knows about EO 24, about which you are not only clueless but willfully ignorant. I would suspect his knowledge of CSX rules in general will get him far closer to what is current on the Florence Division than anything you are likely to assert, and I would also suspect he has a more direct line to finding what he might not know than you do.
I doubt you would let decency get in the way of a good rant opportunity, but fortunately we can let that issue go. The unfortunate part is that I agree with you on the relevance of Amtrak training in most other respects, particularly the 501 wreck and (perhaps unjustly on my part) the 188 wreck just now back in the news. I have been concerned over the last few hours that there's an attempt being made to shunt some of the blame onto the dead (for going too fast, not responding effectively, etc.) in the 91 wreck, and perhaps that is bothering me more than it should.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.