Knowing of derailment

bigkid posted:

GP 40 posted:

It is worth noting that technology has, in many ways, compensated for the decline of both on board and wayside visual inspections by railroad personnel. Major rail lines today use many different types of sophisticated wayside devices to monitor conditions on a moving train. Hundreds of Equipment Defect Detectors of many types such as hot box, dragging equipment, WILD (wheel impact load detector), acoustical bearing, high/wide and others are currently in service. These are placed at specific locations and intervals in order to detect conditions and prevent accidents caused by rolling equipment failures. Many Operating Rules and Procedures governing their use are in effect.  

A rail that breaks under the weight of a passing train (the cause of this particular derailment .... sparking this thread) could not have been detected by crew members, or any other existing technology that I am aware of,  regardless of their location on the train.

C.J.

True, but montoring technology could tell the engineer that something happened, if the engineer sees the rear of the train is tracking funny, sparking, throwing up dirt from a derailed truck, they can stop the train soon after it happens. 

You truly do not understand railroading, and what the Engineer & Conductor are experiencing on the job.

bigkid posted:

GP 40 posted:

It is worth noting that technology has, in many ways, compensated for the decline of both on board and wayside visual inspections by railroad personnel. Major rail lines today use many different types of sophisticated wayside devices to monitor conditions on a moving train. Hundreds of Equipment Defect Detectors of many types such as hot box, dragging equipment, WILD (wheel impact load detector), acoustical bearing, high/wide and others are currently in service. These are placed at specific locations and intervals in order to detect conditions and prevent accidents caused by rolling equipment failures. Many Operating Rules and Procedures governing their use are in effect.  

A rail that breaks under the weight of a passing train (the cause of this particular derailment .... sparking this thread) could not have been detected by crew members, or any other existing technology that I am aware of,  regardless of their location on the train.

C.J.

True, but montoring technology could tell the engineer that something happened, if the engineer sees the rear of the train is tracking funny, sparking, throwing up dirt from a derailed truck, they can stop the train soon after it happens. 

Technology..........19th century air brake technology to be exact, did stop the train..... when the air hoses parted between the cars.

Rusty Traque posted:

bigkid posted:

The technology involved is not pie in the sky or rocket science, the kind of technology that I am talking about has been around a long time and is not exotically expensive. Heads up displays are not rocket science or exotic, and they have been using them on fighter planes where a pilot is surrounded by a lot of information yet functions, because the displays are designed to work with the job, where the pilot doesn't have to take his eyes off all the things he/she needs.  You wouldn't design a display the engineer had to sit and stare at constantly, it would be a display that would allow him to look at the road ahead while having a view in his/her peripheral vision they could glance at, not stare at.

 

Using the FRA rules with cellphones is basically apples and oranges, cell phones whether talking on them or texting because of the nature of what you are doing draws total attention to it, it requires it or impels it.  When you text on the screen you have to totally look at it to both read it and text, if you are talking with a cell phone in your hand you are distracted from the road (hands free devices are better, not having the phone in your hand makes it less likely you will look away, down, etc), all verified by studies, using a cell phone forces you to look at a very tiny screen away from what is enfolding in front of you.  When they designed the heads up displays on fighter aircraft and the like, they were designed using studies and experiments to alllow the pilot to see what they need to while not being distracted (and this I know for a fact, my dad worked on fighter aircraft like the F4 and F15 as an engineer for Bendix, worked in the industry for 20 years). 

It might offend some sensibilities to suggest that technology can solve the problem, but it can, and given despite the hopes of many with so many things, the 1950's are not returning, the days of solutions involving a lot of people are gone, and given the need for safety the only solution likely is going to be technology.  If the display is designed to work with the operators work flow, unlike cell phones, the FRA wouldn't have any problems with it. Drones are more pie in the sky, unless they use drones with sophisticated AI to keep it flying and also avoid hazards like light poles, tunnel portals, signals, wires, etc, not a very practical solution. 

 

 

 

The thing about aircraft systems is they are all within the confines of the aircraft being monitored, not a mile back.

So, the question becomes, where does one place these cameras? 

Left side? Right side?  Top of car? Bottom of car?  All four locations?  Every car?  Last car?  Permanently attached or placed by the crew?  Will the camera(s) have the ability to transmit to the locomotive without interference?  What about interference from other trains?  Interference from the surrounding terrain? Will freight cars have to be equipped with video cables?  What about batteries?  What about image quality in heavy rains or snows?  Will there be spares in the locomotives?  Who's going to be responsible for maintaining the system?  Who is going to clean the lens en route?  If more than one camera, will the display auto-select or will the engineer/conductor select the "view."  Does the train go into emergency if a camera stops transmitting?  Does the crew go out into the dark if night in the middle of nowhere if a camera fails in order to repair/replace?  Will they have to run at a restricted speed if they don't?

Or, do we just simply tack on a "video caboose" to the end of the train?

There's probably a hundred other questions that need to be asked before a video monitoring system can be devolped.

Rusty

Those are good questions and would be how they would have to go about implementing it. In terms of bad weather, almost any monitoring system, whether it is the rearview mirror someone claimed solved the problem, or a video system of some sort, would be impacted by bad visual conditions, but if a video system was hindered so would a system relying on the engineer looking at a mirror, for example, it also would have affected the crew in the cupola of a caboose trying to see at night, in fog/rain, in snow, etc.......the technical challenges would be real, but I don't think they would be impossible either if someone was interested in doing it. Camera technology has improved tremendously, and wireless transmission can be made pretty bullet proof, I have mentioned similar solutions and had someone talk about how the wifi in his house wasn't consistent, bluetooth was limited, as if that represented state of the art. If you are talking a mile train, things like for example the rear end of the train being around a curve could be addressed by having repeaters between the cars (not rocket science) as a thrown out there thought, you also likely wouldn 't need cameras on the whole train, might only be ever X feet, so a mile long train might have 50 cameras on it (or 50 camera segments).   Like any system on a train, it likely would have fall backs, if the video system fails they might have rules that the engineer falls back to the old visual system like the rear mirror for example.  Put it this way, what would happen if the rearview mirror someone mentioned fell off the train, would they stop the train, or would they keep going? 

Speaking only for myself, I am  not saying that anything could make trains perfectly safe, but a manual system relying on an engineer glancing at a rear view mirror or whatnot has major limitations, too, some unique to it, some the same as a video system might have. Thing is, though, if we have cameras ever let's say 100 feet as a hypothetical, in bad visibility given it is covering a smaller area than a mirror trying to see the tail end of a train a mile back, it those 50 cameras would give the engineer a better view of the train than the mirror would, if visibility is 500 feet a mirror would see only 500 feet back, my camera scenario would likely be working okay for its service range ie 100 feet......

A fighter aircraft isn't just about what is in the cockpit. Modern fighter jets have video systems on them, given the visibility that you have in a cockpit, flying by visual acuity alone is a long gone era, they have video displays of what surrounds the aircraft, plus they have of course radar and tracking systems that lets them 'see' aircraft from 100 miles out and can track a large number as well......not gonna argue a fighter aircraft is the same as the cab of a train, but my point is simply that in modern air combat pilots need displays that let them 'see' what is going on while not taking them away from other things they need to see, a well designed display system would allow an engineer to monitor his/her train while keeping their eyes on the road at the same time, it is all about a good design. 

Hot Water posted:

bigkid posted:

GP 40 posted:

It is worth noting that technology has, in many ways, compensated for the decline of both on board and wayside visual inspections by railroad personnel. Major rail lines today use many different types of sophisticated wayside devices to monitor conditions on a moving train. Hundreds of Equipment Defect Detectors of many types such as hot box, dragging equipment, WILD (wheel impact load detector), acoustical bearing, high/wide and others are currently in service. These are placed at specific locations and intervals in order to detect conditions and prevent accidents caused by rolling equipment failures. Many Operating Rules and Procedures governing their use are in effect.  

A rail that breaks under the weight of a passing train (the cause of this particular derailment .... sparking this thread) could not have been detected by crew members, or any other existing technology that I am aware of,  regardless of their location on the train.

C.J.

True, but montoring technology could tell the engineer that something happened, if the engineer sees the rear of the train is tracking funny, sparking, throwing up dirt from a derailed truck, they can stop the train soon after it happens. 

You truly do not understand railroading, and what the Engineer & Conductor are experiencing on the job.

Okay, so englighten me why I am wrong, what I don't understand? I am not saying you replace an engineer or conductor, I am not talking a self driving train (though that day is coming sooner than most people think), I am talking systems that add to what they do, not replace them. Are you saying what they are doing is so complex that no technology could possiblty help them? 

Big Jim posted:

bigkid posted:

Using the FRA rules with cellphones is basically apples and oranges, cell phones whether talking on them or texting because of the nature of what you are doing draws total attention to it, it requires it or impels it. 

And looking at a monitor for defects doesn't require total attention to it? 
Why do you think engineers are not allowed to take any kind of orders over the radio while the train is moving?

No, it doesn't. have you ever seen how a true heads up display works? In effect, it is projected in front of the user, and allows them to view it while watching attentively at something else. On cars they did things like display the speed of the car and the like on the windshield, but they can do a lot more than that. You could have a video display that shows views of the train (probably alternating like a security monitor will alternate shots from different cameras). The whole point of these displays is the engineer is not paying total attention to them like texting on a cell phone, they are designed to blend in with the main focus of the operator, it is how they work on fighter jets, technology that is now like 50 years old +. 

The reason engineers are not allowed to take orders over the train while it is moving is the same reason they aren't supposed to use a cell phone while driving, the act of speaking on a phone or radio pulls focus away from the job of watching forward. It is why the 'hands free' cell phone use in cars is problematic, it is better than doing it holding it to the ear, but the act of having a conversation, hands free or not, distracts the operators focus, he/she may be staring out the windshield but in  processing the sound, thinking about what to say in reply, you lose focus (don't believe me, look up the work on music and the brain by Daniel Lativin at McGill university, he also talks about what processing sound does in the brain). Even having a conversation in the cab of an engine can distract the operator, it is why on buses they tell you not to talk to the driver while he is driving.

A heads up display is visual, not aural, and it doesn't have the same level of distraction to the human brain, it is part of the same thing being processed. You don't need to stare at a video display because the idea is not microsecond response to problems,  the engineer would 'see' a problem because of peripheral vision capabilities we have, we aren't talking something subtle here, if a train derails or catches fire or whatnot, peripheral vision will pick it up (read up on how we actually see, it is really interesting. Among other things, think about how a batter hits a baseball that is coming in at 100 mph over a distance of 60 feet, our ability to 'see' is a lot more than "I see the baseball and hit it). Again, I am talking about a display that is designed not to distract from the primary function of looking ahead, something talking on the radio or phone does inherently. The old joke about walking and chewing gum at the same time comes to mind, that we have real problems with talking and maintaining focus visually when talking on radio or the phone, this has been observed since we had phones and radio and the like. 

Also, there are, except for a few locations, no more crewed towers which would give the railroad another set of eyes and ears.

Never driven a train.  But was legally in a UP mobile simulator once.  Even with a short 10 car train, you have to have a discipline of mental focus.

I would note that if eyes focus on a heads up display, they are not focused for distance viewing. 

And to think, I started all this with a simple question.

The ban on prohibiting carrying cell phones is idiotic. The problem is private conversations that go as a distraction. What if you hit somebody in the wilderness and have to speak directly with fire or police and not play relay? Or call a doctor or hospital when a medical issue arrises? Did you ever play telephone in the second grade? Relayed info gets garbled more and more withbeach person relaying. Judicious use of cell phones should not be prohibited because of the abuse of a few. A dedicated company phone for official use that would record all conversations available to management should be no problem. In a derailment in certain instances should leave the crew with the option to speak directly with local authorities.

Some train  crews  already have company issued cell phones. 

Tommy posted:

The ban on prohibiting carrying cell phones is idiotic.

Make no mistake, the FRA ban on the use of personal cell phones and electronic devices by operating personnel in certain situations is a necessary rule in today's environment. Remember it came about after the Chatsworth, CA Metrolink vs. UP headon collision, killing 28 passengers and the Metrolink Engineer (who was found to be texting at the time) and injuring  over 125 other passengers. The first documented accident in which the use of cellular phones may have played a causal role occurred on May 28, 2002, near Clarendon, Texas, where two BNSF Railway trains collided, resulting in two fatalities. There are many other instances of operating employees being  injured, some fatally, while using personal cell phones/devices.

The problem is private conversations that go as a distraction. What if you hit somebody in the wilderness and have to speak directly with fire or police and not play relay? Or call a doctor or hospital when a medical issue arrises? Did you ever play telephone in the second grade? Relayed info gets garbled more and more withbeach person relaying. Judicious use of cell phones should not be prohibited because of the abuse of a few. A dedicated company phone for official use that would record all conversations available to management should be no problem. In a derailment in certain instances should leave the crew with the option to speak directly with local authorities.

FRA regulations allow for the use of cell phones in the event of an emergency and other situations when certain criteria is met. Individual carriers may or may not allow for these provisions, depending on their particular rule. The carrier may make an FRA Regulation more restrictive, but they cannot lessen it.

Tommy posted:

The ban on prohibiting carrying cell phones is idiotic. The problem is private conversations that go as a distraction. What if you hit somebody in the wilderness and have to speak directly with fire or police and not play relay? Or call a doctor or hospital when a medical issue arrises? Did you ever play telephone in the second grade? Relayed info gets garbled more and more withbeach person relaying. Judicious use of cell phones should not be prohibited because of the abuse of a few. A dedicated company phone for official use that would record all conversations available to management should be no problem. In a derailment in certain instances should leave the crew with the option to speak directly with local authorities.

Likely the companies did this because they don't trust their crews to not use them to text or call for non emergency reasons, and by banning them they are helping to remove a major liability if there is a lawsuit and it is found that the crew member involved was texting or was on the phone for a non emergency reason.  I am not a lawyer, but I have enough business law training that in the event of a lawsuit, if a company is not found to take reasonable precautions or establish rules, they can be held liable. By banning cell phones from the cab and making that rule clear (ie it is in the formal rules of operation), if an engineer then is found to be on a cell phone it was because he violated a rule that clearly was in place, and it takes a certain amount of liablity off the corporation. It is the same way that companies often have strict rules about things that should be obvious (for example, drinking on the job, sexual harassment, verbal assault), by having written rules it helps lessen liability, because the company can argue, rightfully, that the employee was breaking clearly defined rules, and the plaintiff cannot argue "a reasonable person (ie jury member) could find that the company didn't do enough". 

The railroads who allow them to have company provide cellphone are doing so because a)it likely will not be a smartphone with all the apps most people have on their personal ones,including ones that if they use a data connection can do so anonymously  b)since it is company owned, it can be fed through company servers (it is how blackberry originally distinguished itself, they allowed corporate clients to have the traffic routed through their own servers so they could monitor use of the phones, specifically for industries with heavy compliance recording, like the brokerage and financial trading industries) and knowing that users of the phone would be a lot more reluctant to use the phone for personal reasons, knowing it was being watched by the company (yes, cell phone activity is recorded by the ISP, but people using them often don't think about that, assume it is 'private'), so that is a deterrent to inappropriate use and c)it is a lot less likely the employee would be giving out the number of the company phone and thus would be a lot less likely to answer an incoming call or text. Studying cell phone use they have found that people are a lot more likely to use a cell phone illegally (such as in a car not hands free) with an incoming call or text than originating one themselves, so the company phone deters that. 

The sad reality with cell phones is that many people are so addicted to them that they feel any call is important, that they absolutely have to make that call right now or accept it, and don't think when using it.  I fortunately ride a commuter bus that bans cell phone calls by passengers (text only), but before that they had a rule 'emergency calls only', and you should have heard the inane conversations people were still having.....I would bet that with the incidences where people were found to be texting or talking on the cell phone that caused accidents, they might not even be aware they were using the phone, it is just so ingrained in so many people. 

bigkid posted:

Tommy posted:

The ban on prohibiting carrying cell phones is idiotic. The problem is private conversations that go as a distraction. What if you hit somebody in the wilderness and have to speak directly with fire or police and not play relay? Or call a doctor or hospital when a medical issue arrises? Did you ever play telephone in the second grade? Relayed info gets garbled more and more withbeach person relaying. Judicious use of cell phones should not be prohibited because of the abuse of a few. A dedicated company phone for official use that would record all conversations available to management should be no problem. In a derailment in certain instances should leave the crew with the option to speak directly with local authorities.

Likely the companies did this because they don't trust their crews to not use them to text or call for non emergency reasons, and by banning them they are helping to remove a major liability if there is a lawsuit and it is found that the crew member involved was texting or was on the phone for a non emergency reason. 

To be clear, the railroads did not ban the use of cell phones in the cabs of locomotives, the Federal Railroad Administration did! A direct result of a commuter passenger train Engineer passing a red signal indication and running head on into an opposing UP freight train, near Chatsworh, California, all the while he was texting. Killed himself and LOTS of passengers! 

Hot Water posted:

bigkid posted:

Tommy posted:

The ban on prohibiting carrying cell phones is idiotic. The problem is private conversations that go as a distraction. What if you hit somebody in the wilderness and have to speak directly with fire or police and not play relay? Or call a doctor or hospital when a medical issue arrises? Did you ever play telephone in the second grade? Relayed info gets garbled more and more withbeach person relaying. Judicious use of cell phones should not be prohibited because of the abuse of a few. A dedicated company phone for official use that would record all conversations available to management should be no problem. In a derailment in certain instances should leave the crew with the option to speak directly with local authorities.

Likely the companies did this because they don't trust their crews to not use them to text or call for non emergency reasons, and by banning them they are helping to remove a major liability if there is a lawsuit and it is found that the crew member involved was texting or was on the phone for a non emergency reason. 

To be clear, the railroads did not ban the use of cell phones in the cabs of locomotives, the Federal Railroad Administration did! A direct result of a commuter passenger train Engineer passing a red signal indication and running head on into an opposing UP freight train, near Chatsworh, California, all the while he was texting. Killed himself and LOTS of passengers! 

 

Um, no, GP40 posted this several posts back:

"FRA regulations allow for the use of cell phones in the event of an emergency and other situations when certain criteria is met. Individual carriers may or may not allow for these provisions, depending on their particular rule. The carrier may make an FRA Regulation more restrictive, but they cannot lessen it."

The FRA allows cell phones to be used in an emergency, but also individual carriers may translate this into a total ban. 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/1593 has the acutal rules, which are pretty common sense. For personal devices, it mandates they be turned off when the train is moving and other situations where the engineer has to be totally aware, can't have an earpiece in, etc. Doesn't ban personal devices, only that they be turned off.

An employee can have a work device, but it only can be used for work related issues and only within the safety parameters specified (no moving train, etc). It also forbids using work cell phones for personal business. 

About the only thing a personal cell phone can be used for is to take pictures of an accident if they don't have a work device to do that. 

And yes, it allows train companies to ban cell phones in the cab, but it isn't the FRA doing it.