48 gets delayed courtesy of the NS, but not for trains

ryanov wrote:What kind of accident, for example, could result from this particular violation? Are there any previous examples?

When a train is delayed in the block, the protection provided by the signal displayed upon entering that block is compromised. In other words, conditions may have changed during that period -- such as a switch has been opened, and/or a train has occupied or fouled that track.

(Note: in-cab signals that continuously display the condition of track ahead are the best way to avoid the need for restricted speed when "delayed in the block.")

That's where the "track is known to be clear" portion comes in. If one can visually observe the entire length of track up to the next signal displaying a signal to proceed, then it's safe to increase above that speed requiring the ablity to stop within half the range of vision, etc..

I can't cite specific accidents from this violation, but I'm certain there have been many.

The only "banners" I've ever seen were large, bright orange objects that couldn't be missed if the crew were to be vigilant ahead as required by the rule. FRA initiated this test after determining that there were inadequate methods in place. Previously, officers would simply shoot radar and confirm that speed was below 15 mph -- not a true test of being able to stop short!

All of this is similar, but not the same as speed limts on roads for automobiles. Keeping trains from colliding with each other (which has happened far too often over the years, and continues to happen!) is the main point of these procedures. Stopping quickly is impossible at normal speeds, and there is no steering mechanism for avoiding an object on the track ahead.

Train 48(26) left Chicago 1:55 late and arrived NYP 9:02 late.

The last two banner tests that I took part in the banner was yellow and red stood about 3ft tall with red flags for "arms" and a flashing red light for a "head", hence our nick name for it "the stick man."
As for breaking distances on the railroad for example a train traveling 65mph would take a mile or more to stop depending on rail condition braking power of the train and over all condition of the brakes. Passenger trains maybe a little less because of the "blended brake" which is a little different than the direct release brake system freight trains use.

While the FRA has delegated enforcement of Rules compliance to the railroads themselves, that railroad operating officers engage in what could be called entrapment activities, the following "brief passage" from an article appearing in Today's Wall Street Journal (unable to provide a link; site access is by subscription) should be of interest:

"With budgets under pressure, police across the country are using some unorthodox tactics to ticket people who speed or run red lights. There are several burgeoning categories of enforcement. The most familiar is the cameras that catch speeders and red light runners: These highly effective tools are being deployed at many more intersections across the country. Police are also increasingly teaming up with officers from other towns to blanket a particular area with ticket-writing officials.

But in a more unusual approach to law enforcement, policemen are starting to don an array of disguises in order to track speeding drivers without attracting attention. Since November, officers in Wilmington, N.C., have dressed up as golfers looking for their ball at the edge of a golf course and disguised themselves as construction workers fixing street lights."

"Police and transportation officials say that at a time when budgets have been cut and some resources diverted to federal homeland-security initiatives, these new tactics present a more effective way to curb aggressive driving and make the roads safer. But some argue that the motivation behind the new vigilance on traffic violations is more revenue-driven than safety-oriented. In some small towns, traffic ticket revenues make up a decent chunk of the budget".

Meanwhile back on the rails; I note Mr. Railjunkie's comments. It is one thing for an errant Engine crew to "take out" stickman and get a thirty day unpaid vacation in the process. But I hope while on that vacation, the crew members would be thinking "what if that were FRED we "took out"....or worse?"

RMadisonWI wrote:Train 48(26) left Chicago 1:55 late and arrived NYP 9:02 late.

Two hours x Chicago
Two hours around Toledo
One hour somewhere else in Ohio
Thats' Five.
He was TEN hours x Depew and ran off one hour.
What else happened?

Mr Norman,

After your 30 day or longer vacation the crew will sometimes have to talk to all other T&E crews about there rules violation, once you do something like that you do think what if and Im sure they wont forget that rule again. Speaking from expereince...

videobruce,

#48 sat in Cleveland Station for about 3' waiting for an Amtrak relief crew that was reported to have deaheaded by taxi from Buffalo.

Apparently, NS refused to provide a relief crew.

(shlustig) NS crews are prohibited by labor agreements to run Amtrak crews. If a NS crew were used to move a Amtrak train it would have been cause for timeclaims and possible strike.

dutchrailnut,

First off, my error: that was CSX and not NS that didn't provide a relief crew.

There are always emergency circumstances which have to be taken into consideration. In this case, the train should have been moved and the claims discussed later.

When we had supervisory efficiency testing (Mohawk-Hudson Div., later Albany Div. of Conrail), we usually had two road foremen in the group so that a similar situation could be handled without screwing the passengers or unnecessarily delaying the freight. If we had a full 6-man team, this permitted the testing to continue even if 2 of us ended up moving a train if a relief crew was not available. However, this happened rarely as our crews complied with the operating rules and avoided out-of-service violations. We did issue letters of reprimand, and there was the occasional formal investigation, but the vast majority of test results were compliances.

As far as claims went, they were approved if valid.

How, Mr. Lustig, did you pull off getting a Road Foreman to handle the locomotive after an Engine Crew was held from service.

Not sure if that would constitute an emergency; at least on my property (MILW); guarantee the claims would " have been touched by King Midas".

However, reviewing the suppositions (not saying they aren't true; they simply are not facts until established as such at the investigation) as they have been set forth here regarding the instant matter (I was in Labor Relations, for 3/11 of my RR career, lest we forget), where Chessie appeared to act in an "arbitrary and capricious manner" was holding the relief crew from service, I grant they were under pay, but they were not operating the locomotive.

I wouldn't mind having a ticket of admission as an observer to that hearing room, bet you the relief crew goes back to work; hopefully for the carrier with no remuneration for time lost. If someone assesses dismissal, that one will "go off the property", and if the arbitrators at the PLB are anything like what they were "back in my day", someone will have have a fat pocketbook.

Likewise, those who took out "stickman", need a little "hard time' to lament his demise.

Mr. Norman,

If the alleged violation was serious, then not removing the crew from service or even allowing them to operate under direct supervision beyond the point of the alleged violation would have compromised the position of the carrier in any ensuing investigation.

Depending upon the location of the alleged violation and the availability of other crews in the immediate area, we could either tie the train involved down and await a relief crew or use supervision to move it to a better location or terminal. Regardless, a relief crew would be ordered up "for quick" (i.e.: not a standard 2' call).

Again, depending on the location at which we were testing, another option was to order an extra travelling switcher to work as required between certain limits, taxi them out to a field location, and await results.

However, it was understood that if an Amtrak train was involved, it would be moved as promptly as possible so as to minimize the inconvenience to the passengers.

Incidentally, other Conrail divisions routinely let Amtrak trains pass through the test site without being tested. On one of our first tests (at Syracuse Jct.) we stopped Amtrak trains and were told that "it was about time that somebody paid attention to them" since they were operating over our territory.

Mr.Lustig if CSX or NS were to move an Amtrak train and anything happens with equipment and or passengers the courts would have a field day.
First question for offending crew: how often do you move passenger trains, or what is your experience handelling passenger trains.
second question: when did you get qualified on P32/)42 locomotives ???
etc etc.

Are you or have you been a Local or General Chairman, Mr. Dutch?

Dutchrailnut,

At one time there may have been a substantial difference between the qualifications for freight and passenger service. Heck, in the good old days of yore, there were even superqualifications for passenger engineers to be approved for service on the 20th Century Ltd. on the former New york Central.

However, just how much difference is there today? We are not talking about the differences between Electric MU-equipment or special trainsets such as Acela or TurboTrains. We are dealing with standard equipment, and the Road Foremen of the territory had better be qualified on all types of equipment on his railroad. He (or a craft employee) may not be comfortable running at track speed, and that would be understandable, especially if higher-speed territory was involved.

Now, why do you use the term "offending crew" in your description, and what do you envision happening to the passengers and/or equipment?

Well I might as well add my two cents to this interesting discussion.
Freight railroad crews are likely not qualified on Amtrak locomotives,
passenger train handling and maybe not passenger train speeds either.
After the split first occurred in 1983 in the case of Metro-North, Amtrak
and Conrail, Amtrak and Metro-North borrowed engineers from each
other for a time as New Haven engineers were qualified on both the
territory and equipment.
After only a very few days of this, the practice was stopped but I do not
recall who was responsible.
I remember in Selkirk while I was working there between 1987 and 1997,
only a rare occasion would a Conrail engineer be used to operate an
Amtrak train and when it occurred, it seems to me it was either on the
Mohawk or the B. & A. The Conrail Local Chairman at the time contacted
the engineers who ran Amtrak trains and told them not to do it again.
The feeling in the union was we run our trains and you run your trains.
In the Northeast Corridor, engineers still to this day have flow-back rights
between former Conrail and Amtrak and can move every six months with
proper notice to both companies. I do not believe that this occurs very
much anymore. In a case like that, a freight engineer could be fully
qualified to run an Amtrak train but that would be about it. In the past few years, to the best of my knowledge, there has been very little free
flow between Amtrak and former Conrail.
As for a Road Foreman, Amtrak has their own Road Foremen just about
everywhere so I kind of doubt that a freight railroad Road Foreman would
be fully qualified to operate an Amtrak train although I am not sure about
that. I would say this, if a freight railroad Road Foreman who is also a
certified engineer were to run an Amtrak train and something were to
happen (god forbid at this point) it is possible that it could prove to be
difficult for all concerned.
Noel Weaver