Sorry so you did, I lost track of who was saying no collisions and all the exaggerations.
2 UP Freight Trains Collide in Arkansas
- Thread starter davesnow
- Start date
- Status
Sorry so you did, I lost track of who was saying no collisions and all the exaggerations.
Good job!
See Cascader-- that's a cite we can all check into. I know your internet and computer are slow, but remember: "Google is your Friend" and Opinions are like Arse-holes... everyone has one, and they all stink. // Frank
Hi everybody.
I stated in an earlier posting in this thread the following:-
norfolk southern then asked the following question
The answer is quite simple for those of us who work in industrial safety. We proceed by way of one basic rule, that being THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ACCIDENT, SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE IS ALWAYS RESPONSIBLE. therefore Norfolk southern that foregoing basic rule would apply as equal in this tragic incident as it does in any other incident and there I draw my most certain conclusion.
With regard to your comment regarding the size of the British rail network, obviously it does not match the geographic size of the United States. However, the UK network is over 90% passenger orientated with over one and a half billion rail journeys made by passengers in 2013 from within a total population of 63 million.
Train movements on most of the networks mainlines these days are approximately one every 3 to 5 minutes in both directions (many being HST’consists) which means they are operating at maximum capacity on all working days.
Also since the opening of the Channel Tunnel the British rail network is connected directly to the networks of France, Germany, Holland, Italy and many other European countries through the control of the European Union transport commission. The foregoing makes it a very large continent wide rail network but I would not claim to know how it compares with the United States.
Perhaps that continent wide network is something you had not noticed NS
Bill
I stated in an earlier posting in this thread the following:-
norfolk southern then asked the following question
The answer is quite simple for those of us who work in industrial safety. We proceed by way of one basic rule, that being THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ACCIDENT, SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE IS ALWAYS RESPONSIBLE. therefore Norfolk southern that foregoing basic rule would apply as equal in this tragic incident as it does in any other incident and there I draw my most certain conclusion.
With regard to your comment regarding the size of the British rail network, obviously it does not match the geographic size of the United States. However, the UK network is over 90% passenger orientated with over one and a half billion rail journeys made by passengers in 2013 from within a total population of 63 million.
Train movements on most of the networks mainlines these days are approximately one every 3 to 5 minutes in both directions (many being HST’consists) which means they are operating at maximum capacity on all working days.
Also since the opening of the Channel Tunnel the British rail network is connected directly to the networks of France, Germany, Holland, Italy and many other European countries through the control of the European Union transport commission. The foregoing makes it a very large continent wide rail network but I would not claim to know how it compares with the United States.
Perhaps that continent wide network is something you had not noticed NS
Bill
Last edited:
The derailments, such as they are that are not necessarily reported, are very minor. A split switch comes to mind, or a rail that rolls over on a tight curve without spilling any cargo. Neither of those causes loss of product or injury, merely loss of productivity. As such, they do not end up in the news.
Are they frequent? With over 125,000 miles of track to look over, more than 1,250,000 pieces of rolling stock inching towards 40 years old and some exceptions to 60, and 50,000 locomotives of wildly varying ages, I would expect a good number of rather insignificant incidents.
Are the financial impacts significant? I know for a fact that a 300-ton crane rental on firm flat ground with usable road access runs $44,000 a day. The railroads do make every effort to prevent such problems. But with increasing volumes, train frequencies, and rate of speed, the number of large wrecks per year is very difficult to contain, simply because they are quite unpredictable. Mitigation efforts have been in place for over a century and a half, and each occurrence brings with it a new method to limit the potential for a future accident.
Case in point: Saluda Hill on the Southern Railway. Two runaways had to occur before it was realized that Interstate coal cars comprised the majority of tonnage in those trains. Reason: brake cylinder arms were shorter and wheels were of a different alloy than standard. The potential for future runaways was significantly reduced when it was ordered that Interstate coal cars comprise no more than 50% of any given trains' total tonnage.
Would we have noticed the reduced braking power without the wrecks before? Unlikely, because the Interstate cars still met ICC regulations. Similar note: if a crew receives "adequate rest" of 8 hours after a 12 hour shift, can they still operate a train safely? I'd say slim chance, because they still have to get home from the terminal, have dinner, shower, maybe pay the most recent bill. That leaves 6 hours of sleep before they are called for the next turn. But legally, the crew received "adequate rest".
Are they frequent? With over 125,000 miles of track to look over, more than 1,250,000 pieces of rolling stock inching towards 40 years old and some exceptions to 60, and 50,000 locomotives of wildly varying ages, I would expect a good number of rather insignificant incidents.
Are the financial impacts significant? I know for a fact that a 300-ton crane rental on firm flat ground with usable road access runs $44,000 a day. The railroads do make every effort to prevent such problems. But with increasing volumes, train frequencies, and rate of speed, the number of large wrecks per year is very difficult to contain, simply because they are quite unpredictable. Mitigation efforts have been in place for over a century and a half, and each occurrence brings with it a new method to limit the potential for a future accident.
Case in point: Saluda Hill on the Southern Railway. Two runaways had to occur before it was realized that Interstate coal cars comprised the majority of tonnage in those trains. Reason: brake cylinder arms were shorter and wheels were of a different alloy than standard. The potential for future runaways was significantly reduced when it was ordered that Interstate coal cars comprise no more than 50% of any given trains' total tonnage.
Would we have noticed the reduced braking power without the wrecks before? Unlikely, because the Interstate cars still met ICC regulations. Similar note: if a crew receives "adequate rest" of 8 hours after a 12 hour shift, can they still operate a train safely? I'd say slim chance, because they still have to get home from the terminal, have dinner, shower, maybe pay the most recent bill. That leaves 6 hours of sleep before they are called for the next turn. But legally, the crew received "adequate rest".
Apologies from me Davesnow, I was deliberately not trying to start an argument in your thread but just respectfully point out the inaccuracies and misjudgements in norfolksouthern posting with regard to myself.
Again apologies and as you will see in my original posting I have placed my condolences to the family and friends of the deceased
Bill
cascaderailroad
New member
How I wish it was so simple to look up, year, by year ... exactly how many head on collisions occur in every single one of those yearly reports by the NTSB. I'm sure there is an official site database.
Last edited:
norfolksouthern37
what's a normal map?
Whoa hang on now. I never said anything about the size of the British rail network, or its size in comparison to the US rail network or anything even remotely like that.
My question was why does this seem to be taken as being close to or in the same area as another accident of the same nature, because it most certainly is not. The last UP accident that this seems to be related to occurred 700 miles away and 2 years prior. I just don't think it is fair to say they happened in the 'same area'. That had nothing to do with UK rail at all, I merely pointed out that distance gap is the same as your country measured from 'top' to 'bottom'...
Guys, this is a forum where we exchange thoughts through typed words. It wouldn't hurt to actually read the posts before 'pointing out inaccuracies and misjudgements'.
cascaderailroad
New member
What caused this is still unknown ... but when this same thing happens over, and over, time, and time again ... It gets my britches all bunched up in a wad when several crew members are killed.
I did read a report on how train crews are forced to work repeated shifts, long hours, and are drunk from overwork exhaustion, unfit for the drive ... (finding that link)
http://www.angelsontrack.org/rrsafety.html
http://utu.org/2005/04/24/fatigue-killing-railroad-crews/
A 1997 survey of more than 1,500 freight crew members by the North American Rail Alertness Partnership — a group of industry, government and union officials — found that about 80% had reported to work while tired, extremely tired or exhausted.
Many put in 60 to 70 hours a week, sometimes more. They can be called to work any time during the day or night, constantly disrupting their sleep patterns.
The irregular shifts often place bleary-eyed crews at the controls between 3 and 6 a.m., when experts say the body’s natural circadian rhythm produces maximum drowsiness.
The United Transportation Union countered that the railroad was severely understaffed in the area and many conductors were exhausted from working for weeks — sometimes months — without a day off.
“We were running with a skeleton crew,” said union official Greg Haskin. “Guys were burned out and calling in sick. They were working 12- to 16-hour days up to 90 days straight. You can’t expect people to work like that and be safe.”
Moreover, it is legal under the act for engineers, conductors and brake operators to work up to 432 hours a month. In contrast, truckers can drive no more than 260 hours a month under federal law, while commercial pilots are restricted to 100 hours of flying a month.
Just because multiple train crash sites are separated by County or State boundary lines, or are on multiple separate rail lines, or involve multiple railroad companies ... That does not mean that they are not happening in the same "general area" ... a "general area" can mean, ie: "The Midwest US" or the "Mississippi River to California coast".
More than likely all the blame will be easily put on the deceased crew members, "operator error" ... even though the CTC might have been defective, that will all be covered up by falsification by RR company legal crews.
1) https://www.ble-t.org/pr/archive/headline031500c.html
2) http://www.insiderexclusive.com/jus...f-railroads-24-million-dollar-cover-up-part-i
3) https://www.google.com/search?q=bns...ing+fatalities&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
I did read a report on how train crews are forced to work repeated shifts, long hours, and are drunk from overwork exhaustion, unfit for the drive ... (finding that link)
http://www.angelsontrack.org/rrsafety.html
http://utu.org/2005/04/24/fatigue-killing-railroad-crews/
A 1997 survey of more than 1,500 freight crew members by the North American Rail Alertness Partnership — a group of industry, government and union officials — found that about 80% had reported to work while tired, extremely tired or exhausted.
Many put in 60 to 70 hours a week, sometimes more. They can be called to work any time during the day or night, constantly disrupting their sleep patterns.
The irregular shifts often place bleary-eyed crews at the controls between 3 and 6 a.m., when experts say the body’s natural circadian rhythm produces maximum drowsiness.
The United Transportation Union countered that the railroad was severely understaffed in the area and many conductors were exhausted from working for weeks — sometimes months — without a day off.
“We were running with a skeleton crew,” said union official Greg Haskin. “Guys were burned out and calling in sick. They were working 12- to 16-hour days up to 90 days straight. You can’t expect people to work like that and be safe.”
Moreover, it is legal under the act for engineers, conductors and brake operators to work up to 432 hours a month. In contrast, truckers can drive no more than 260 hours a month under federal law, while commercial pilots are restricted to 100 hours of flying a month.
Just because multiple train crash sites are separated by County or State boundary lines, or are on multiple separate rail lines, or involve multiple railroad companies ... That does not mean that they are not happening in the same "general area" ... a "general area" can mean, ie: "The Midwest US" or the "Mississippi River to California coast".
More than likely all the blame will be easily put on the deceased crew members, "operator error" ... even though the CTC might have been defective, that will all be covered up by falsification by RR company legal crews.
1) https://www.ble-t.org/pr/archive/headline031500c.html
2) http://www.insiderexclusive.com/jus...f-railroads-24-million-dollar-cover-up-part-i
3) https://www.google.com/search?q=bns...ing+fatalities&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
Last edited:
Hold on... Before we start blaming corporate America for a cover-up... Much of this issue has changed due to the enforcement of the newer (2007-plus) Hours of Service Act which sets the railroad worker's hours to far less than what they had worked previously. The act also requires more time off between shifts to allow for a longer rest period, and for train crew members to have more time before being called back to work. In other words they can't be off for less than a larger minimum number of hours and called back immediately such as used to occur in the past without any rest at all. This was the cause of a major head on collision and other elsewhere such as on the British Columbia Railroad (Pacific Great Eastern) back in the 1980s between a freight and a passenger train. The crew had fallen asleep and did not see the signals for the opposing traffic, and the train plowed right through the siding and head on into the oncoming passenger train.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0001
A search for the law produced this here on freight operations... which I downloaded as the PDF because it wouldn't load on my system...
http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L04876
There are also documents for passenger operations and other aspects of railroad work.
John
norfolksouthern37
what's a normal map?
I would fully agree, however that is all relative. This all took place on planet earth too.
I don't agree that this makes the accidents related other that they were of similar nature. The general opinion seemed to be "didn't this just happen in the same area?" mostly because of the comment that you yourself made. If it had, then yes I would also speculate that something must be wrong with the track or systems governing it or some other related factor between the two, but this has not been shown to be the case.
Not that I place blame on JCitron directly for coming to this conclusion, but it would be easy to be mislead to believe that this was actually the case when the wreck sites were very far from each other.
Last edited:
Yes, I will take the blame! That was, however, my interpretation of the news article. I am sorry for the furor that followed.
John
ryanstrains
Moderator
Thread closed at the request of the OP.
- Status