Dear lord help those people out.I don,t know what to think.A while back we had the same thing happen here csx.Just outside waxsaw nc people did die in that wreak.This happen on the main line trains move at a pretty good clip.I will be praying for them.
I thought the people in the cab had to have a yearly DOT physical? Even so, several have posted about having 2 crew members in the cab.
And besides the "dead man pedal", do BNSF locomotives have a system where a crew member has to "do" something every so many minutes to keep the crew alert? Are they required on ALL mainline locomotives.
Dominic Mazoch posted:I thought the people in the cab had to have a yearly DOT physical?
Not DOT but yes, company required physicals and eye & hearing exams.
Even so, several have posted about having 2 crew members in the cab.
Yes, all freight trains have two in the cab, i.e. the Engineer and the Conductor (remember that there are no longer any cabooses on long distance freight trains).
And besides the "dead man pedal", do BNSF locomotives have a system where a crew member has to "do" something every so many minutes to keep the crew alert?
Yes. The electronic "alerter" system, built into each and every locomotive, is active only in a leading unit when the independent brake is released and the reverser is placed in either direction. Depending the speed, the "alerter" must be acknowledged. The faster the speed, the shorter frequency of acknowledgement. However, it should be pointed out that there is more than enough documented evidence that crew members that may be "sleeping" still automatically acknowledge the "alerter" system repeatedly.
Are they required on ALL mainline locomotives.
Yes. Obviously only the lead/controlling unit is active.
RLHarner posted:Unfortunately we will probably find out it was fatigue that caused this accident. I've lived it. I used to watch engineers and conductors fall asleep a lot on a moving train. Unless you lived being called a different times to work you have no idea how this bad this life is!
Fatigue can be a problem to some. It all depends on what the person does in his off time. If he/she takes care of themselves and do not try to burn the candle at both ends, they are fine. It is the ones who do not take care of themselves who use the "fatigue" as an excuse. I have lived being called out at all times to work, and we did not have an HOS rule. Did, I miss out on some family things, yes, did the wife have to do a little more than usual some days, yes. We all know this went we asked them for a job. RRing is a 24/7 job and we all knew it going in.
I whole heartedly disagree with you. Have you ever worked a railroad extra board? I have! When you work without specific start times your body never has a routine. Your sleep patterns are completely off. I have slept all night woke up at 7 AM first out on the extra board. Called at 11 pm at night for a 12 hour road train. You cannot prepare for that!
You proved my point..
The reason I disagreed with you is that it has nothing to do with burning the candle at both ends. It's because the unpredictability of the railroad! You never know when you are called to duty! Taking care of yourself that's a laugh too. When you are constantly tired your body is naturally affected by this and your health declines. It's nothing more than a railroaders lifestyle! It sucks and can be dangerous as a result.
I worked for the RR for 37 years, so yes I do know.
Number 90 posted:Previously, I gave wrong timetable directions.
The trains were opposing each other and collided just east of the east switch of Panhandle siding.
The westbound train was preparing enter the CTC siding when the eastbound train collided with it head-on. The lone survivor was the Engineer of the westbound train, who saw that the opposing train was going too fast to stop and went out the front and joined the birds. He has injuries, because he jumped from a moving train approaching a 40 MPH turnout, but will recover within weeks.
The crew on the eastbound train originated at Amarillo and had run about 30 miles. The crew on the westbound train originated at Wellington, KS, and had run about 275 miles.
Tom has actually provided most of the information we need to understand what happened here. Given the location of the collision, there is only one conclusion that can be drawn: the westbound crew did nothing wrong. They were traveling at an appropriate speed prepared to take the siding and obeying the signals. My only question is, why was the conductor not right with the engineer in jumping?
This puts the cause of the accident squarely on the eastbound train, then the question is WHY? I see three possibilities here:
- Signal malfunction. This is highly unlikely, because when there is a problem with signals, they default to a more restrictive aspect. After the last green signal they would have seen red or dark, so they should have stopped in time.
- Brake system malfunction. The crew saw the signals, applied the brakes, but they did not slow the train as expected, causing it to slide past the red signal, through the east switch and into the path of the westbound train.
- Human error. This is the ugly one. As Hot Water stated earlier, there should have been 2 yellow signals prior to the red at the east switch, one a block in advance of the siding and one at the west switch. If they somehow missed the first yellow traveling at mainline speed, they may not have had enough stopping distance, again sliding past the red signal and through the east switch. There are some variations on this theme, but the results are all the same.
The data from the black box of the eastbound train will resolve these questions once and for all.
Big_Boy_4005 posted:My only question is, why was the conductor not right with the engineer in jumping?
it's a 50/50 shot either way, and you have no time to think it over, you react. The conductor and brakeman jumped in one of the Cajon Pass wrecks and both were buried in the pile up. The engineer rode it out and survived, although pretty messed up. It's easy to question after the fact.... but at the time, when you have to make that call....... I said it before, none of us ever want to have to make that decision. let alone be in that situation to have to make it.
The westbound conductor was female.
father.dragon posted:The westbound conductor was female.
Honest question - How is this relevant to the accident discussion?
Big_Boy_4005 posted:My only question is, why was the conductor not right with the engineer in jumping?
The in-cab video from a trailing units shows the Engineer AND the Conductor, BOTH exiting the rear cab door and running down the walkway. The Engineer climbed down the rear steps and "jumped", crawling on all fours towards the fence line in order to escape the flying containers & debris. Apparently the Conductor was not so luck and didn't make it.
I remember when my dad worked the board. After a few days of crazy call outs he started looking just plain tired. And although he was a great guy, my brothers and I learned to not get under foot of him when he worked like that.
I certainly don't know what the rules are these days, but I sure hope they have changed to eliminate those crazy call out procedures. Surely the powers to be must realize the effect of such work schedules has on a person't overall health not to mention being able to be clear headed and focused, etc. This is not limited to just railroads but other industries as well where employees are asked to work different shifts on either a daily or weekly timeframe.
I just hope that the cause is determined to be something other than fatigue or human error. After seeing some of the horrible pictures of the accident I can only imagine what the surviving engineer must be going through right now.
Ed
jhz563 posted:father.dragon posted:The westbound conductor was female.
Honest question - How is this relevant to the accident discussion?
i'am wondering the same thing.....seems it was thrown in out of nowhere.......
father.dragon posted:The westbound conductor was female.
Well sorry, but this is an offensive post to me! I have worked with, and trained, many female employees in both the operating professions and Mechanical Department professions of the railroads, and have NEVER found their sexual make up to be an issue.
Some people look for the slightest thing to get bent out of shape over. It was a statement of FACT, no opinion was expressed. I don't see it offensive at all. I have trained women, too, but not on the railroads. Some were good, others not so much. Just like men.
Now does the recording equipment have the ability to "tape" conversations in the cab? In fact, what type of info can be recorded with today's equipment?
Hot Water posted:Big_Boy_4005 posted:My only question is, why was the conductor not right with the engineer in jumping?
The in-cab video from a trailing units shows the Engineer AND the Conductor, BOTH exiting the rear cab door and running down the walkway. The Engineer climbed down the rear steps and "jumped", crawling on all fours towards the fence line in order to escape the flying containers & debris. Apparently the Conductor was not so luck and didn't make it.
Thank you Jack! That settles that issue. As for the WB conductor being a woman, she was doing her job perfectly, and shares no responsibility for this tragedy. I think the fact that it even came up in this conversation, just illustrates how much we still think of railroading as a man's job. To this day, it is unusual to have female train crew.
RLHarner posted:I whole heartedly disagree with you. Have you ever worked a railroad extra board? I have! When you work without specific start times your body never has a routine. Your sleep patterns are completely off. I have slept all night woke up at 7 AM first out on the extra board. Called at 11 pm at night for a 12 hour road train. You cannot prepare for that!
RLHarner posted:The reason I disagreed with you is that it has nothing to do with burning the candle at both ends. It's because the unpredictability of the railroad! You never know when you are called to duty! Taking care of yourself that's a laugh too. When you are constantly tired your body is naturally affected by this and your health declines. It's nothing more than a railroaders lifestyle! It sucks and can be dangerous as a result.
This reflects my thoughts also: that railroad crew scheduling methods with erratic hours are a recipe for fatigue. But when changes have been proposed, the unions fight it because the more senior people might lose money.
I am suspecting that human error and fatigue were factors in this accident, as in a number of other serious railroad accidents.
jim pastorius posted:Some people look for the slightest thing to get bent out of shape over. It was a statement of FACT, no opinion was expressed. I don't see it offensive at all. I have trained women, too, but not on the railroads. Some were good, others not so much. Just like men.
I am not easily offended, but the statement made no sense. While it may be fact, it was an irrelevant fact with no bearing on the issue at hand. This then begs the question of "why" it was posted. Just a question for you, but if the statement would have been that:
"The conductor was (insert race here)" would that be offensive? I believe it would, and for the same reason. While each could be facts, the are irrelevant to the discussion.
All the "easily offended" people are missing the point. The woman was out there putting her life on the line just like the men. Trying to earn a decent living like everyone else. Gender and race are totally different in case you don't know.
jim pastorius posted:All the "easily offended" people are missing the point. The woman was out there putting her life on the line just like the men. Trying to earn a decent living like everyone else. Gender and race are totally different in case you don't know.
Well, for what it's worth, I am rarely offended. However, the poster that made that "The westbound Conductor was female." statement, made me immediately think of the standard "Woman driver" statements/cliches.
Since this is apparently necessary for the easily defensive. From Merriam-Webster:
ir·rel·e·vant : not important or relating to what is being discussed right now : not relevant
I met an NS female conductor at a local train show. Very nice woman that was at an NS safety exhibit. Seemed very capable and in to her job. I took the remark of a female conductor as a compliment, maybe it should have been written differently. Really feel bad about her family dealing with it.
jim pastorius posted:All the "easily offended" people are missing the point. The woman was out there putting her life on the line just like the men. Trying to earn a decent living like everyone else. Gender and race are totally different in case you don't know.
They're are the same in this case as both are irrelevant to the accident. Women of all sorts put themselves out there in a plethora of jobs the same as men, how is this relevant to this accident? What does knowing this fact change as to the cause or outcome of this accident?
I'd like to hear from a engineer on what they think.
The discussion was why the conductor didn't jump with the engineer. The mention of the conductor being a female should maybe have been added with speculation that she was leery about jumping. Impossible to tell what she was thinking. God rest her soul.
I jumped to conclusion on the statement about the conductor too. But, in fairness, it can be read complimentary, derogatorily, or as a simple factual statement.
Relevant? Not likely 
Interesting? Only sort of 
Do we know where the west bound conductors remains where found? Was the conductor on board, or on the ground?
Now, say in CTC trackage, if a train passed an absolute stop signal, does any sort of "dive horn" go off in the dispatch office?
Do BNFS units have inward facing cameras? Any idea or word if the cameras and data recorders from the lead units survived the resulting fire?
Thanks,
Bob
And so now we get jumped on for failing the correct political speech code whatever that currently is. For what it is worth, the recent death of a lady police officer in Omaha while on duty got a whole lot more press and public sentiment than the usual male officer death. I have no problem with that. My point is that in occupations of danger, I think the public is still a lot more sensitive when a woman is the victim. That's how I took the comment anyway.
So far, there is about a dozen or so BNSF units with inward facing cameras.... still in the "testing" phase. Not even the new ET44s are showing up with them yet.
wb47 posted:For what it is worth, the recent death of a lady police officer in Omaha while on duty got a whole lot more press and public sentiment than the usual male officer death. I have no problem with that.
I think it's more of a 'Man bites dog' kind of a headline as it's still unusual for a woman to be in positions requiring high danger or (metaphorical) heavy lifting, so when they're hurt or killed in those roles, it's unusual enough to be news.
Simple as that.
Stating there was a woman conductor aboard was pretty benign.
Not like he inferred she was no lady.
NTSB will eventually get to the bottom of this . In the meantime, crews will have to put their trust in their fellow employees and Signalling system....(CTC) or stay home.
WeberCanyon4014 posted:
Sure didn't take long for the "ambulance chaser", did it? Without the NTSB and FRA investigation results/report, I wonder how far this will go?
WeberCanyon4014 posted:
The sharks smell blood.
Looks like some items were already purposely leaked or were obtained through some type of discovery proceeding (this early???).
