Amtrak crash interesting take

Laidoffsick posted:

Things happen (go by) very very fast when you're having a conversation in the cab, especially at maximum authorized speed. We can only speculate, but I believe it was all human factor, whatever was being discussed between the two men in that cab, it passed them right by in a matter of seconds. Like it usually does.

Good point. I have no doubt there is a sign 2 miles before the bridge as has bene reported several times, but having spent a great deal of time between the nearest grade crossing and the bridge since the line was rebuilt, I don't recall seeing any speed signs other than the 10MPH freight speed limit sign at the block signal near the golf course (immediately south of the I-5 on ramp) and the one for passenger trains immediately at the approach for the bridge itself.

bigkid posted:

It raises an interesting question (and not being a railroad professional, it may be a stupid one), but you kind of have to wonder in this day and age why they haven't applied GPS technology, which isn't exactly rocket science these days.

That is EXACTLY what PTC is all about, except that Amtrak has not yet made it "operational" in that part of the country, even though both the BNSF and UP freight trains have, and use, PTC between Portland, OR and Seattle.

Similar to the nav systems on cars, or the nav systems with built in nautical charts, couldn't they have something with the route map built in that shows the engineer where they are at any given time? So if he didn't know where he was, he could see, for example, he was between mile market X and Y, and the chart could have the speed restriction zones. From a technical aspect there is no reason something like this couldn't be in the cab, does  anyone know if railroads have anything like this?

Again, that is what PTC is all about.

I am not blaming the lack of this technology for the crash or trying  to absolve or condemn anyone, just curious if this kind of thing exists. It isn't PTC, it is simply an aid to an engineer to know where they are. 

All well and good, except that railroad Engineers have enough "distractions" in the cab now, without adding GPS. Besides, an Engineer fully qualified on his/her territory, should know EXACTLY where he/she is at all times anyway, and shouldn't be paying attention to a GPS unit in the cab.

You can slice this salami any way you want but it still tastes the same-BAD !!   Poor management, poor training and engineers not up to the job. Three men died, don't forget.

For approximately $500, I can build a very primitive solar-battery supported, short-range, signal indication RF transmitter, using COTS (commercial off the shelf) parts. A $50 receiver in the cab could receive the warning that a restrictive signal is coming up.

Instead of waiting for PTC, why not install a few of these around the country at the points along the ROW where speed limits are reduced drastically on Amtrak lines?

Yes, yes, I know, it's got to be gov't approved and built to incredibly robust standards by the lowest biider. Tell that to the next-of-kin.

Hot Water posted:

bigkid posted:

It raises an interesting question (and not being a railroad professional, it may be a stupid one), but you kind of have to wonder in this day and age why they haven't applied GPS technology, which isn't exactly rocket science these days.

That is EXACTLY what PTC is all about, except that Amtrak has not yet made it "operational" in that part of the country, even though both the BNSF and UP freight trains have, and use, PTC between Portland, OR and Seattle.

Similar to the nav systems on cars, or the nav systems with built in nautical charts, couldn't they have something with the route map built in that shows the engineer where they are at any given time? So if he didn't know where he was, he could see, for example, he was between mile market X and Y, and the chart could have the speed restriction zones. From a technical aspect there is no reason something like this couldn't be in the cab, does  anyone know if railroads have anything like this?

Again, that is what PTC is all about.

I am not blaming the lack of this technology for the crash or trying  to absolve or condemn anyone, just curious if this kind of thing exists. It isn't PTC, it is simply an aid to an engineer to know where they are. 

All well and good, except that railroad Engineers have enough "distractions" in the cab now, without adding GPS. Besides, an Engineer fully qualified on his/her territory, should know EXACTLY where he/she is at all times anyway, and shouldn't be paying attention to a GPS unit in the cab.

 

From what I understand about PTC, it is well beyond a gps display in the engine cab, it involves the train being  monitored and for example, if it is going too fast the external system sends a command to the train to stop/slow down, overriding the engineer (kind of like the collision avoidance and emergency braking systems cars now are starting to have). 

The point about having a gps system in the  cab is not to replace the engineer knowing where he/she is, not being in full control of the train, and no an engineer shouldn't be "staring at a gps", any more than someone using a nav system in a car shouldn't be staring at it if they are driving. The point of any such system is as a tool that if the engineer loses track, if they get distracted, it is a safeguard, in this example if the guess is correct and the engineer didn't know where he was, a glance at the screen would remediate that. In theory you could have a heads up display  on the train where the milemarker or other information is available to the engineer as he watches the track ahead, again this is not  pie in the sky billion dollar military technology, basic heads up display would be pretty easy and would work along with the engineer watching the track ahead, augment his vision. Ultimately the responsibility is with the engineer, but engineers are human beings and will make mistakes, and all the lawsuits and liability and other consequences don't change that, the engineer knows  the consequences of what they do, what a mistake means, but no matter how diligent, no matter how intently he/she stares, they can foul up..and a gps or any technology would be to make fully human slips even less likely. Kind of stupid to be honest to be in the 21st century where such kinds  of redundancy are mundane technology and relying totally on the engineer, on his/her eyes, the way they did in the 19th century in a steam engine because that is all they had. You rely on their judgement and eyes but also augment it. Not having  that is like having a jet fighter whose flight surfaces are run by cables, rather than being controlled via pilot input with computers executing the actual maneuver (most modern fighter jets could not fly without computer systems, literally). 

p51 posted:

Laidoffsick posted:

Things happen (go by) very very fast when you're having a conversation in the cab, especially at maximum authorized speed. We can only speculate, but I believe it was all human factor, whatever was being discussed between the two men in that cab, it passed them right by in a matter of seconds. Like it usually does.

Good point. I have no doubt there is a sign 2 miles before the bridge as has bene reported several times, but having spent a great deal of time between the nearest grade crossing and the bridge since the line was rebuilt, I don't recall seeing any speed signs other than the 10MPH freight speed limit sign at the block signal near the golf course (immediately south of the I-5 on ramp) and the one for passenger trains immediately at the approach for the bridge itself.

Perhaps more signs are needed like along a highway.  Of course, many auto drivers may not be familiar with the road that they are driving on and will need more reminders and guidance from signs.  Train engineers through training and experience should know the route and all its grades and curves.    

Maybe PTC will eliminate the need for signs on a railroad all together?  

NH Joe

New Haven Joe posted:

p51 posted:

Laidoffsick posted:

Things happen (go by) very very fast when you're having a conversation in the cab, especially at maximum authorized speed. We can only speculate, but I believe it was all human factor, whatever was being discussed between the two men in that cab, it passed them right by in a matter of seconds. Like it usually does.

Good point. I have no doubt there is a sign 2 miles before the bridge as has bene reported several times, but having spent a great deal of time between the nearest grade crossing and the bridge since the line was rebuilt, I don't recall seeing any speed signs other than the 10MPH freight speed limit sign at the block signal near the golf course (immediately south of the I-5 on ramp) and the one for passenger trains immediately at the approach for the bridge itself.

Perhaps more signs are needed like along a highway.  Of course, many auto drivers may not be familiar with the road that they are driving on and will need more reminders and guidance from signs.  Train engineers through training and experience should know the route and all its grades and curves.    

Maybe PTC will eliminate the need for signs on a railroad all together?  

No, as that is not what PTC is all about. The concept of PTC is to "make a correction" if and when the Engineer does something wrong. Thus, there would be no requirement for additional "signs", as experienced/qualified Engineers know where they are at all times.

NH Joe

The PTC screen shows a map based on GPS location. It shows you the grade, crossings, Form As, Form Bs, and signals. It CAN make a new engineer very lazy because he runs the train based on what he sees on the screen, instead of learning and knowing the territory. Look at it like using Google Maps to go some place you have been to 100 times. Know your territory and pay attention.

Many problems existed during the implementaion of PTC because some of the mile post locations were not correct, based on GPS location. You could go right past a red block because PTC map showed the signal being 600' further down the track. All this had to be tested and corrected. Its not as easy as some people think.

So like HotWater said..... PTC is your GPS system.....but you can NOT rely on it to do YOUR JOB.

Laidoffsick posted:. It CAN make a new engineer very lazy because he runs the train based on what he sees on the screen, instead of learning and knowing the territory.

Thanks for the post....You're probably sick of me saying it but the engineman I worked with could go over the road blind folded .... I still know the names of all the sidings and almost all the CTC  signal numbers on the territory I worked from 25 years ago... PS.... the signals numbers are the actually   mileage from the initial station on that subdivision...

Gregg posted:

Laidoffsick posted:. It CAN make a new engineer very lazy because he runs the train based on what he sees on the screen, instead of learning and knowing the territory.

PS.... the signals numbers are the actually   mileage from the initial station on that subdivision...

 

True but when the tracks are re-aligned numerous times, sometimes those numbers are out of wack

A supt. in the MoW dept of NS told me that about the Pgh mainline.

One last comment .... I think the days of highly qualified  Engineman  are over. Engineers who can handle a 15 thousand ton freight one day and  a crack hot shot passenger train  the next day...

I suppose today you're either  a freight  hogger  or work for Amtrak as a passenger hogger......  Oh well I'm glad to be retired as well. 

Gregg posted:

One last comment .... I think the days of highly qualified  Engineman  are over. Engineers who can handle a 15 thousand ton freight one day and  a crack hot shot passenger train  the next day...

Well, even "back in the day", it really didn't work THAT way, at least in the U.S.. Pretty much only promoted and experienced  senior "Passenger Engineers" could hold down passenger train assignments.

I suppose today you're either  a freight  hogger  or work for Amtrak as a passenger hogger...... 

That pretty well covers it.

Oh well I'm glad to be retired as well. 

Hot.... I was thinking of the engineman's spare board.. Any job, anytime.

Gregg posted:

Hot.... I was thinking of the engineman's spare board.. Any job, anytime.

Not unless they were  "Passenger Qualified".

Hot Water posted:

Gregg posted:

One last comment .... I think the days of highly qualified  Engineman  are over. Engineers who can handle a 15 thousand ton freight one day and  a crack hot shot passenger train  the next day...

Well, even "back in the day", it really didn't work THAT way, at least in the U.S.. Pretty much only promoted and experienced  senior "Passenger Engineers" could hold down passenger train assignments.

I suppose today you're either  a freight  hogger  or work for Amtrak as a passenger hogger...... 

That pretty well covers it.

Oh well I'm glad to be retired as well. 

 

Even assuming engineers could do both freight and passenger, that hasn't existed for a long time I would assume, once the railroads dropped passenger service in the late 60's and Amtrak was formed,  you were either one or the other,I would assume either you were a freight engineer working a private railroad (or Conrail later) or you worked for Amtrak doing passenger traffic, I don't think engineers were allowed to work for both Amtrak and a freight railroad, the only way they could do both in the post Amtrak world. 

https://history.amtrak.com/blo...ak-year-by-year-1986

@gregg thanks for the posting, didn't know that Amtrak was using engineers and such under contract, would figure that the engineers running the passenger trains before the Amtrak takeover would move over..but this makes sense, given the complexities of negotiating new contracts and such, that it would take that long before Amtrak became fully its own employer.