That is the lawyers version of things, not necessarily the truth.
jim pastorius posted:That is the lawyers version of things, not necessarily the truth.
Agreed. One facet of our legal system that I have NEVER understood; All persons who testify are each SWORN TO TELL THE TRUTH! Except for the attorneys. Why is that?
Because lawyers make the rules !!
Hot Water posted:jim pastorius posted:That is the lawyers version of things, not necessarily the truth.
Agreed. One facet of our legal system that I have NEVER understood; All persons who testify are each SWORN TO TELL THE TRUTH! Except for the attorneys. Why is that?
Attorneys are required to tell the truth in court. The problem is that there are often several different versions of the "truth". Juries are tasked with the always difficult and sometimes impossible task of sorting out which "truth" actually happened. This is the basis of our adversarial legal system.
This law firm appears to be a typical ambulance chaser firm that is creating fear in people's minds where little or no damage may have happened. Of course, some people may have suffered actual damage and deserve to be compensated.
It is often difficult to sort all this out without a trial. BNSF has massive amounts of insurance and it is often less costly to settle than to go to trial and risk losing. The law firm that represents the insurance company often takes the lead in determining whether to settle or to go to trial.
Contingency law firms generally hope that BNSF or any other deep pockets defendant will settle because it will get a large cut of the settlement - sometimes more than 70% when all costs and fees are counted. The reason that law firms advertise for clients in this manner is that they are hoping to generate a large settlement and large fees for themselves. It is more about the money than justice but that is our legal system.
Critics always claim that this legal system is unfair. It can be but sometimes it does produce justice. In nations where this kind of legal system does not exist, these kinds of disputes are settled with a gun. A gun settlement is always more expensive than a court settlement. I will take our legal system any day, no matter how flawed, over the gun system.
NH Joe
Hot Water posted:jim pastorius posted:That is the lawyers version of things, not necessarily the truth.
Agreed. One facet of our legal system that I have NEVER understood; All persons who testify are each SWORN TO TELL THE TRUTH! Except for the attorneys. Why is that?
Judges and lawyers are "officers" of the court!
But I am concerned about something. I think evidence, including statements, should be isolated. We do have trial by jury. How can you have a "pure" jury if this stuff is out there. Some of the stuff I am seeing is "lynch mob" stuff. Then again, most people do not now how our government works. Or read the "We the People" paper....... AFTER THE TRIAL, then open this stuff up.
Hot Water posted: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?
This is the stuff which makes the legal system look bad. Why is a law firm or the Railway, the NSTB?
Don't think there is anything here we don't already know, but from the horse's month and certainly better than from a lawyer's press release!
I received this information from a friend by email for what it is worth:
I saw another website post an exerpt from that NTSB report which had more detail. Apparently the Eastbound train (which was supposed to stop and hold the main at the East end of Panhandle siding) blew through the approach signal at the West end of Pandhandle siding at 62mph and through the stop signal at the East end of Panhandle siding at 65mph, the collision happened a HALF MILE past the stop signal on single main. The opposing Westbound train was lined into the siding at Panhandle and supposedly was going 45mph at the time of impact. That in and of itself seems suspicious. The westbound should have been going no more than 30mph, as on BNSF, an approach indication, which they should have gotten prior to entering the siding, requires a train to slow to 30mph in advance of the next signal. Alerter on the Eastbound reporting, brakes never set, train not in emergency. So it's possible both crews were asleep the way i read the data presented. One of the crewmembers on the Westbound bailed. It's not specifically stated, but you have to assume he dumped air before he bailed.
Who knows, it's tragic, but it also looks like it was crew error (sleeping) that caused it
New Haven Joe posted:One of the crewmembers on the Westbound bailed. It's not specifically stated, but you have to assume he dumped air before he bailed.
Do you have to assume this? I can easily imagine looking up, seeing the opposing train coming to kill you, with just enough time to join the birds, then sprinting for the nearest door from the cab.
The same type of accident happened at Longview Junction, WA on Nov. 11, 1993. All 5 crew were killed and the general consensus is all of them were asleep at the time.
New Haven Joe posted:The opposing Westbound train was lined into the siding at Panhandle and supposedly was going 45mph at the time of impact. That in and of itself seems suspicious. The westbound should have been going no more than 30mph, as on BNSF, an approach indication, which they should have gotten prior to entering the siding, requires a train to slow to 30mph in advance of the next signal.
What makes you think that they were running on an "Approach" signal? I don't know about BNSF signals, but, on the NS if a train is lined into a siding the preceding signal may be an "Approach Diverging" which only requires the train to proceed prepared to take a diverging route at the next signal.
New Haven Joe posted:I received this information from a friend by email for what it is worth:
I saw another website post an exerpt from that NTSB report which had more detail. Apparently the Eastbound train (which was supposed to stop and hold the main at the East end of Panhandle siding) blew through the approach signal at the West end of Pandhandle siding at 62mph and through the stop signal at the East end of Panhandle siding at 65mph,
How about 67 MPH.
the collision happened a HALF MILE past the stop signal on single main.
Incorrect.
The opposing Westbound train was lined into the siding at Panhandle and supposedly was going 45mph at the time of impact. That in and of itself seems suspicious.
Why? In fact, the combined impact speed was 102 MPH, thus the westbound train, which was preparing to enter the passing siding at the prescribed speed of 40, since it was a 40 MPH turnout, was already down to about 35 mPH, in full emergency.
The westbound should have been going no more than 30mph, as on BNSF, an approach indication, which they should have gotten prior to entering the siding, requires a train to slow to 30mph in advance of the next signal.
Again, you do not know what you are talking about.
Alerter on the Eastbound reporting, brakes never set, train not in emergency. So it's possible both crews were asleep the way i read the data presented.
Surely, you must be joking!
One of the crewmembers on the Westbound bailed. It's not specifically stated, but you have to assume he dumped air before he bailed.
Yes, he did, well prior to him jumping off the rear of the lead unit.
Who knows, it's tragic, but it also looks like it was crew error (sleeping) that caused it
There is no possible way that BOTH crew members of the eastbound train were "asleep", and STILL were constantly able to keep resetting the alertness device.
This is a terribly tragic event that has several very important unanswered questions.
Something was dreadfully wrong for the eastbound train to do what it did, but what?
Andre
Did they ever find any remains of the conductor who was missing. Funny that they would just say "She was incinerated" and not try to find something.
laming posted:Something was dreadfully wrong for the eastbound train to do what it did, but what?
Andre
Some people might read your statement and think it was a platitude included by someone who wants to be part of the conversation, but I know you are a railroad man and what you say isn't as nebulous as it may sound to others. Those of us who have worked in the cab are saying "how could this happen?"
A former Frisco engineer shared with me a BNSF safety briefing that answered two big questions I have had since the day it occurred: 1. was the EB crew called on their rest? and 2. did they experience a long terminal delay leaving Amarillo? This question would imply they had a very early call that morning. From the safety briefing, the answer to both questions is NO. If anybody should have been fatigued it would have been the WB crew from Wellington.
I had planned to be quiet on this conversation because it is something I don't like to jump on, but your brief remark wasn't trite; it says all you can say about this tragedy with the facts at hand...and I thought you ought to know that.
Rob Leese posted:Those of us who have worked in the cab are saying "how could this happen?" ...
I had planned to be quiet on this conversation because it is something I don't like to jump on, but your brief remark wasn't trite; it says all you can say about this tragedy with the facts at hand...and I thought you ought to know that.
Yes, as one that derives his living from handling trains, I am absolutely baffled at how this happened in the magnitude it did.
As tragic as it was, once the facts uncovered, sorted out, and findings released (by the NSTB/FRA), we (as in those in railroading) can often learn and apply preventatives once the events that led up to this catastrophic accident are understood.
Did both locos have surviving cameras which faced out of the cab?
And if this was under CTC, are there electronic records recorded at the DS Center concerning signals and train locations?
1. Jesse Quackenbush is a local plaintiff attorney. He is not a specialized railroad accident attorney, and his statements on this matter are incorrect.
2. New Haven Joe, the westbound Engineer was complying with applicable rules, including signal rules. He only had to reduce speed to 30 MPH (the maximum authorized turnout speed was 40 and the signal aspect displayed at the turnout required slowing to 30 MPH while preparing to stop at the following signal [at the west end of the siding]) to enter the siding. Diverging Approach (red over yellow) was the aspect displayed at the siding turnout before the opposing train passed the opposing signal. Prior to that he had passed an Advance Approach (yellow over green) signal, which only required him to approach the siding signal at a speed prepared to take a diverging route (into the siding) at the prescribed speed for the turnout. He is a solid as they come, and is always alert and compliant with operating and safety rules. He only had about 15 seconds to jump after he realized that the opposing train was not going to stop. Instead of trusting your friend's email, it would have been better to rely on the NTSB Preliminary Report. NTSB carefully parses and proofreads the text of its reports.
3. Surviving cameras? Nothing survived anything on either leading unit. Even the engine block of one was destroyed. One of the trailing units of the westward train did have a camera that survived and showed the Engineer jumping off at about 35 MPH and scrambling to safety with containers falling around him. On the offending train, the only surviving event recorders were on the remote Distributed Power consist.
4. Alertor information is only recorded on the controlling unit of a consist. The offending train was equipped with and operating with Fuel Optimizer equipment, which is similar to cruise control on a car. When Engineers are using this feature (it is mandatory whenever possible) they typically acknowledge the alertor more often than they would if they were manually operating the train, as they are not manually moving the throttle (which resets the alertor). The alertor HAD to be acknowledged manually (by depressing the mushroom button in response to the in-cab strobe light or siren, or by sounding the whistle as would normally be done for road crossings). Otherwise, it would have caused a penalty brake application and the train would have been brought to a normal stop before the brakes could have been released. Think long and hard about this before you assume that the crew was asleep or incapacitated. They had been observed by many people at the crew change point 30 miles back. Nobody took any exception to their condition. Either the Engineer or the Conductor should have been able to stop the train. And, if you think that a Conductor would just sit there and talk about sports while the Engineer ran the train past an approach signal at a speed 30 MPH faster than permitted, you are dreaming.
5. Signal aspect recording is done in the field, not in the Dispatching Office. Equipment inside the relay house or cabinet at each signal location records the actual color aspects displayed by signals at that location, the time that the aspect changed color, the time the approach circuit was occupied, and the time and approximate speed at which the train passed the signal. In the Dispatching office, equipment records the time the Dispatcher lines up a movement, the time a train occupies a detector section, and voice communication - if any - with the train. It does not record the actual information displayed in the field.
6. The NTSB Preliminary Report clearly stated that the offending (eastward) train failed to comply with two consecutive signals approaching the collision, that the signals were operating as intended, and that the non-offending (westward) train was being operated in compliance with signal rules at a proper speed. The NTSB has determined the sequence of events and that the direct cause was improper operation of the eastward train. Since there are no surviving witnesses to what went on inside the cab behind the smoked glass side windows of that train as it operated form Amarillo to Panhandle, they cannot, and never will be able to, definitively explain the behavior of the Engineer and the Conductor. Instead, they may - in their Final Report - identify what they believe to be most likely.
7. Never assume. Investigate and develop facts.
Thanks for the info. Well written and clear.
Number 90,
That was a very informative and well written reply,thanks.
Douglas
Agreed, well written and very informative....thank you.
Number 90 posted:
3. Surviving cameras? Nothing survived anything on either leading unit. Even the engine block of one was destroyed. One of the trailing units of the westward train did have a camera that survived and showed the Engineer jumping off at about 35 MPH and scrambling to safety with containers falling around him. On the offending train, the only surviving event recorders were on the remote Distributed Power consist.
4. Alertor information is only recorded on the controlling unit of a consist. The offending train was equipped with and operating with Fuel Optimizer equipment, which is similar to cruise control on a car. When Engineers are using this feature (it is mandatory whenever possible) they typically acknowledge the alertor more often than they would if they were manually operating the train, as they are not manually moving the throttle (which resets the alertor). The alertor HAD to be acknowledged manually (by depressing the mushroom button in response to the in-cab strobe light or siren, or by sounding the whistle as would normally be done for road crossings). Otherwise, it would have caused a penalty brake application and the train would have been brought to a normal stop before the brakes could have been released. Think long and hard about this before you assume that the crew was asleep or incapacitated. They had been observed by many people at the crew change point 30 miles back. Nobody took any exception to their condition. Either the Engineer or the Conductor should have been able to stop the train. And, if you think that a Conductor would just sit there and talk about sports while the Engineer ran the train past an approach signal at a speed 30 MPH faster than permitted, you are dreaming.
Every time something like this happens be it train, plane, or truck, it makes folks wonder why there are no operator facing cameras. Like an aircraft black box, this is the type of crash the recorders need to be designed to survive. Tom, if the crew was alert, does it lead towards stuck cruise control or suicide then? A very sad ending to what should have been just another day at work for all involved.
Has there been any notion that Carbon Monoxide might be a cause?
Dominic Mazoch posted:Has there been any notion that Carbon Monoxide might be a cause?
Just were would carbon monoxide come from on a diesel electric locomotive?
While CO poisoning is less likely from diesel engines, there are cases of it happening, particularly with drivers of diesel trucks. The CO can build up in an enclosed space resulting in lethal levels.
I had originally wondered about CO2, but as Hotwater, Number 90 and others point out, if the alerter button isn't pressed, the train is brought to a stop.
Mark RNJD posted:While CO poisoning is less likely from diesel engines, there are cases of it happening, particularly with drivers of diesel trucks. The CO can build up in an enclosed space resulting in lethal levels.
Had thought about that. At 60 plus MPH could the leaking exhaust system on one of these allow the CO to make it into the cab? Wouldn't it just get blown away rearward from the engine compartment? Guessing here there must be some airflow into and out of the engine compartment.
Thanks Number 90, as others said, very detailed and helpful.
My expertise is on the medical side, not the train side. I too assume it would ventilate out of a moving locomotive.
BobbyD posted:Mark RNJD posted:While CO poisoning is less likely from diesel engines, there are cases of it happening, particularly with drivers of diesel trucks. The CO can build up in an enclosed space resulting in lethal levels.
Had thought about that. At 60 plus MPH could the leaking exhaust system on one of these allow the CO to make it into the cab?
No, because the engine exhaust system is BEHIND the operators cab. Plus, there is a central air filtration compartment between the rear of the electrical cabinet and the engine room partition. The central air compartment provides FILTERED air for pressurization of the electrical components within the electrical cabinet, which is also the rear cab wall. The cab has its separate complete HVAC unit, mounted under the cab floor, which provides filtered cooled/heated air for the cab occupants.
Wouldn't it just get blown away rearward from the engine compartment?
Yes.
Guessing here there must be some airflow into and out of the engine compartment.
Yes. The filtered cooling air blown into the main generator is then exhausted into the engine room, and the out to atmosphere.
Unfortunately the exact cause of the accident will probably never be known which raises the possibility of it happening again. No system is 100% safe including the new one.
BobbyD posted:Tom, if the crew was alert, does it lead towards stuck cruise control or suicide then? A very sad ending to what should have been just another day at work for all involved.
Unfortunately, you will just have to draw your own conclusions about that, as there are no surviving witnesses to interview, or test for toxicology. It was not stuck cruise control, I'll guarantee you that much.
I don't know about Amtrak's policies of active video cameras, but I'm pretty sure both BNSF and UP have active video cameras on any and all units so equipped in a consist, no matter what direction they are facing. Remember seeing that video from the rear locomotive cab, facing rearward at the freight train, when it was struck by a tornado and stuff began derailing?
This video is from another head on back in 2007, I don't know where it was taken and apparently no was killed but it does give you an idea on how little time one has to react in this type of situation.
Note the person jumping off the oncoming train, when they suddenly realized that they had run past the red absolute stop signal and were about to get struck by the train taking the siding.
The video cameras on BNSF units record, regardless of the unit's position within the consist. Trailing units usually record the unit coupled to the front of the recording unit, plus a little of the view surrounding it. Usually, it is of no value, except in the case of something like viewing the Engineer scrambling to get away as the wreck was piling up around his location.
Once, we got really good video from a trailing unit, of an Engineer carrying a baseball bat, walking around the rear of the unit in front, crossing over to the recording unit, and you can hear him thrashing the interior of the cab with the bat. He was going through a messy divorce and had been seeing the employee assistance counselor, who intervened and we did not fire him. Oh, well, not my decision.
Tom,
Do you know what BNSF's policy is on having dispatchers tell the crews where they are going to meet trains?
Too little too late? 
Gregg posted:This video is from another head on back in 2007, I don't know where it was taken and apparently no was killed but it does give you an idea on how little time one has to react in this type of situation.
Madera, CA, 2006. All survived.
