(Video) Grinding Rail the Hard Way...

@Rich Melvin posted:

Tom, that is the best explanation of the sad state of "engineer training" in the railroad industry that I've ever read. You comment, "...The Company training programs are designed to teach processes, not skills..." perfectly describes the problem with the training provided to new and inexperienced engineers today. The industry today does not want their engineers to think or develop train handling skills, they just want them to follow the process.

Unfortunately, the above described "training" style is becoming, if not the already the norm in many other professions.  Today, more often than not, companies no longing use comprehensive and extended training/apprentice programs to pair younger, less experienced candidates with more experienced/master (often older) employees to learn and be able to think through, adapt if needed and successfully complete a task.  Sadly, the companies often will pull someone up from the lower ranks just before the skilled employee is to willingly or not retire and learn the job from that point on.  Obviously or arguably (depending on you opinion), this just in time "cost saving" replacement method can often have various pitfalls to the company and those newbies.

@JohnActon posted:

Let me ask one of our experts.   I have sat at crossings blocked by a train watching the train try and pull away, unable to do so, the engineer would set the brakes in the rear of the train then back the train up compressing the couplers draft gear. Then when starting forward the locos were starting one car at a time. Could the young lady grinding wheels and track in the video have used this technique to get her train started ?          j

There are a lot of variables that need to be addressed to answer your question. In what you have described seeing for yourself at the crossings, what do you actually know about what was going on before your eyes? Why did the train stop? Did they pick up or set off any cars? What kind of grade was involved? Had all of the brakes released on the rear of the train? Did they stop on a rail greaser? Was there any unit trouble? Was there anyone to protect the rear of the train if it moved backwards?
In the case OP's video, when the video starts, the train was moving. So your question really doesn't pertain to the video.

The practice of setting the brake (and BTW you don't set the brakes on the rear of the train, you set the brakes on the entire train) can get a little dicey. This "you better be careful of what you are doing" increases exponentially as the grade increases. Today's units with their types of braking equipment and composition shoes combined with the tonnages being hauled, there is a point where the engines can't hold the train with only the engine brake applied. And, that gradient isn't all that steep. So what I am getting at here is, when you go shoving slack into a tonnage train, you better darn well know what the heck you are doing because if you do it wrong when you release the brakes the units and train are going back the wrong way and that is downhill!
The next thing is, if you do this, you are risking breaking the train in two. If you get to pulling when the slack is rolling out in the other direction, you could break a knuckle or worse jerk out a drawhead! 
So, this is a practice better suited more for flat or very slight grades. It is not something that I did on a grade. As I said, there are a lot of variables involved. I could talk for hours about this whole thing and all of the scenarios involved, but, I'm not going to write a book about it here...sorry.

Jim, I know you don't want to write a book about it here, but that would be a good read.  It's fascinating to contemplate all the variables when running multiple powered units and hauling millions of pounds of rolling stock, I can only imagine the gobs of things that can go very wrong if you screw up!

@JohnActon posted:

Let me ask one of our experts.   I have sat at crossings blocked by a train watching the train try and pull away, unable to do so, the engineer would set the brakes in the rear of the train then back the train up compressing the couplers draft gear. Then when starting forward the locos were starting one car at a time. Could the young lady grinding wheels and track in the video have used this technique to get her train started ?          j

Perhaps, but it doesn't appear so, in this case.  There was abundant tractive effort and horsepower on the head end of this train, so there was probably just too much train for that.

Gathering slack to get started usually is best used when a small locomotive is trying to start a long train.  More train and big locomotives can enable coupler troubles.  The Engineer has to precisely take the slack out at the same rate that the release is propagating from the front toward the rear of the train, to prevent the rear end from rolling backward.

(The brakes on the whole train do not release at once.  When the Engineer releases the brakes, the brake valve raises air pressure in the brake pipe [connected by hoses between cars] and the brakes on individual cars release in response to it.  The pressure increase gets "pushed" toward the rear, where the cars release several seconds after those closest to the locomotive.)

On a long train that is stopped, then I hear a "whoose" of air going from the front to rear.  Is the brake line being pressurized?

@Dominic Mazoch posted:

On a long train that is stopped, then I hear a "whoose" of air going from the front to rear.  Is the brake line being pressurized?

A loud "whoosh" of air sounds like the train brakes going into emergency, not being released. Releasing the brakes does not generate much sound. However, an emergency application exhausts air direct to the atmosphere from every car. That's the sound you are probably hearing.

This sound could be generated if the locomotives uncoupled from the train. As soon as the air hose comes apart during the uncoupling process, the train brakes will go into emergency.

The situation that I described happened back around 69-70 if that gives you an insight to the equipment of the day. I am fairly sure that the locomotive was a single GP something. I walked that stretch of track as a kid, the grade is slight well under 1%. though if a car were cut free along that stretch and the brake was not set it would roll downhill on it own.  I got stopped at that particular grade crossing at least once a week usually on my way home from work.  I took a different route in the morning. Usually the train was not stopped but moving slow. This particular time the train stopped and had a difficult time getting started.  Unable to start it backed up and I could see ,and hear, the space between the cars closing, the train came to a stop then started in forward again. Then I could see the space between cars opening back up and the sound of the couplers stretching out.  The train proceeded without stopping again.   All this leads to  a second question. I have heard, and read, the term setting the brakes on the rear of the train most of my life. After your responses, am I correct when, I think that the engineer has two brake controls one for the locomotive and one for the train they can be applied separate or together.  So setting the brakes on the rear of the train is simply setting the train brake and using timing as the brake is removed to compress the train before the brakes on the rear of the train release.  This leads me to ask,  is there a rule of thumb how long it takes for the brakes at the rear of the train to react to the brake on /brake off application. Obviously it takes longer on a one hundred car train than on a twenty car train. So does the engineer assume one second per car, one half second, or what ?                                    j

@JohnActon posted:

 This leads me to ask,  is there a rule of thumb how long it takes for the brakes at the rear of the train to react to the brake on /brake off application. Obviously it takes longer on a one hundred car train than on a twenty car train. So does the engineer assume one second per car, one half second, or what ?                                    j

Don't know, you'll have to ask the seat of his pants!  

Tom and Big Jim,     I can relate, in a smaller way, to what you lay out.  Never sat in the seat of a main line engine, but an the streetcars in downtown OKC for some time.  There was one particular stretch of track that was entirely uphill, over a 2% grade.  But, that was the way tracks had to run, following city streets.  At the bottom of the grade, you had a signal for traffic and at times had to begin from a stop, on a curve, and look out for pedestrians crossing in front.  Timed right with the next traffic light (we had both, train signals and traffic lights to direct travel), you could proceed through the intersection, no problem.  But, if not happening, you had to stop and hold the streetcar on the grade, being careful to not roll back as you had personal cars in traffic directly behind you, usually with no space more than two feet.  Going into full brake was not good, a streetcar would always start roll back as the brake and throttle are all in one dead-man stick.  I usually did best by maintaining a good "hold position" with use of correct throttle on the traction motors.  And, naturally, it required use of sanding when proceeding up-grade in the right type of weather conditions.  As I said, not as big, streetcar only weighs in at 88,000 lbs.  But, throw in the revenue passengers and auto traffic (along with disgruntled persons in both categories), it could get very interesting.  And don't even get me started on the idiots with those electric scooters and skate boarders...…..    But, thoroughly enjoyed it every day until retiring and do miss the fun aspect of it, along with good friends.

Jesse   TCA  12-68275

That's a pretty slick ride Jesse!

Nice looking set of wheels Jesse, that looks to be pretty new.

While I believe the situation could’ve been handled better by the engineer, being fired seems to be way over the top especially when considering some of the egregious shenanigans others have gotten into and managed to stay on property despite destruction of property way above this example.  That runaway Canadian coal train back in the late 70’s comes to mind.   So long as she didn’t lie, steal or exhibit bad intent, a more reasonable response would’ve been a temporary suspension of her duties while undergoing additional training.  If she was fired, I hope she sues.  

I’m NOT a railroader but doesn’t the FRA, management and BLE work under a Safety Management System?  

As for the guy who recorded this and put everything in motion including destroying someone’s career, if true, then I’m not allowed to articulate here what I think of him or his actions.  

@PRR 5841 posted:

 

While I believe the situation could’ve been handled better by the engineer, being fired seems to be way over the top especially when considering some of the egregious shenanigans others have gotten into and managed to stay on property despite destruction of property way above this example.  That runaway Canadian coal train back in the late 70’s comes to mind.   So long as she didn’t lie, steal or exhibit bad intent, a more reasonable response would’ve been a temporary suspension of her duties while undergoing additional training.  If she was fired, I hope she sues.  

I’m NOT a railroader but doesn’t the FRA, management and BLE work under a Safety Management System?  

As for the guy who recorded this and put everything in motion including destroying someone’s career, if true, then I’m not allowed to articulate here what I think of him or his actions.  

 

Your well-meaning moral outrage is understandable, but we can't really make that kind of a judgment from a YouTube video.

1. Is there any verification that the Engineer was actually dismissed from service?
2. Was there only a suspension or a reprimand or remedial training instead of a dismissal?
3. Was any discipline actually assessed?
4. What did the Engineer's previous discipline record look like?  
5. Had the Engineer consistently displayed an uncooperative attitude?

Dismissal does not occur after a single incident, except in the cases of theft of property or wages, or severe workplace violence, or malingering on a workplace injury, or causing a severe wreck through gross negligence.  Any other dismissal would occur as the ultimate step in progressive discipline after an employee has had repeated incidents of unacceptable work for which he or she had been assessed increasingly severe discipline in steps, with opportunities to improve.  And Norfolk Southern, more so than most railroads, is aware that it has to carefully document steps leading up to any dismissal.  NS was previously censured for harsh discipline, especially where employee injuries were reported.  Among Officials of other railroads, Norfolk & Western was colloquially known as a plantation railroad when it came to its strict discipline practices.

The Railway Labor Act protects employees from being assessed excessive discipline, and gives employees remedies for appealing unreasonable discipline.  So, if this Engineer was actually dismissed after this incident, there was more to the story.

And the video merely showed what the railroad knew from the event recorders aboard the locomotives. The rail damage guaranteed that it would not have gone undiscovered.  The video only added a picture.  The railfan is not the Judas Iscariot in this.

To add to what Tom just posted, above, there is another question:

1) what did the locomotive event recorder reveal?

Thank you, Jim and John.  Yes, the car shown is brand new, having been delivered just the afternoon before.  The technicians from Brookville, the manufacturer from Brookville, Pa., were in early and checking it out with access to all the programs and other electronics.  The car had not been lettered yet, but is car #201806.  2018 year of in service, and 06, sequence number of delivery.  There would be one more to come, total of seven, with six in constant revenue and one car in reserve.  Each car is 68ft length, 88,000 lb weight; cost, 24 million.  Operated on 760 vdc, from overhead wire and from onboard lithium batteries.  Portions of track had overhead and used pantograph, not only for running, but also for recharge to the batteries. Due to existing utilities and other obstacles, overhead was only in two sectors of blocks.  It is operator responsibility to raise and lower pantograph as needed.  And, if NOT lowered, it happened, conflict with the Union Pacific overpass really did a bad thing to pantographs....  I never forgot to lower and have impacts, but did miss raising when on Uptown route to charge batteries.  Of course, when at station where you lowered, realized the pantograph position.  Well, had a very good testing of lithium battery power capacity and reserve.....   Operators really had learn about distractions (passengers. traffic, pedestrians, etc.) and concentrate on timing and raise/lower of pantograph.  As for more specifics of traction effort, etc. can be obtained from Brookville web site. The Brookville techs appreciated the lithium battery test, actually.  They said that was one they could mark off their list!  As for when pantographs impacted the UP bridge, the techs said that was nothing, pantographs were repaired.  However, in Detroit, they told me, there was a big pile of destroyed pantographs.  Along with having to throw turnouts per routing from the cab, running in downtown traffic during morning and afternoon rush hour, etc.     LOVED IT!!!!

Jesse   TCA  12-68275

I'm a bit surprised that with today's technology, they didn't have the pans automatically controlled for fixed route obstructions.

That did become an available option on a later date.  It was discussed and weighted against cost of repairing pantographs, etc.  However, in any incident of impact, the entire line had to shut down, or sometimes was able to reroute over a bypass track.  But with one incident, impact was more "pronounced" than before. The line had to shut down until UP inspectors could verify bridge integrity was not compromised.  As to whether the automated raise and lower of pantographs, at specific station stops, was ever purchased and utilized, I do not know.  As of the time I retired, it had not been performed.  

Jesse   TCA

Well, I knew it was a good idea Jesse, I guess I wasn't alone.

Tom,

If I may refer to by your first name, thank you for your well written response.  Of course, you’re correct, there is much more to this story, most of which we will never know.  I came to the party late and did not read every post, in fact I’m still wondering how you guys figured out it was a “She” to begin with.  I got a laugh out of your “Plantation Railroad” comment as my uncle (dec.) a retired engineer for the PRR, used to refer to NS management (N&W at that time) as people of questionable lineage though his wording was a bit more simplified.  My moniker, “PRR 5841” reflects the road number (An E7) of the very first cab ride on the NY&LB a very long time ago, that he took me on.

Interesting to know that the railroad, through some clever detective work, would be able to know who and when the rail damage had occurred even without the Youtube video.  Makes perfect sense as it is their business to know such things.  
In your opinion, did the damage to the rail possibly create a threat to subsequent  trains?  Also, would the locomotive wheel sets involved require truing if not outright replacement?  Your previous comment about using brakes while starting to clean the wheels to enable better traction is something I’ve never heard before, very interesting.  

Thanks,

Chris

John...  Hmmmmmm… wouldn't that be a great addition to model railroads?  Something better than just the track trips used in the PW era?    I know there are some such, infra red activators, etc.  But, to have one, or more, to activate features on engines, streetcars, etc.   Some factors they had to consider with the OKC streetcars, beyond downtime and expense for each, installation of trackside sensors, software programming, additional training and maintenance, etc.  All on a public transportation budget.

Jesse   TCA 

@PRR 5841 posted:

Tom,

If I may refer to by your first name, thank you for your well written response.  Of course, you’re correct, there is much more to this story, most of which we will never know.  I came to the party late and did not read every post, in fact I’m still wondering how you guys figured out it was a “She” to begin with.  Interesting to know that the railroad, through some clever detective work, would be able to know who and when the rail damage had occurred even without the Youtube video.  Makes perfect sense as it is their business to know such things.  
In your opinion, did the damage to the rail possibly create a threat to subsequent  trains?  Also, would the locomotive wheel sets involved require truing if not outright replacement?  Your previous comment about using brakes while starting to clean the wheels to enable better traction is something I’ve never heard before, very interesting.  

Thanks,

Chris

Chris, I'll be glad to give you a personal reply to all of this.  Just look on my profile for my email address and send me yours, and, if you're willing, your cell phone number.