Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
David Benton wrote:...can you imagine saying to a police officer you didn't slow down for a speed limit/curve because you had only driven the route once or twice?...That probably happens all the time. I had it happen to me on Rt 17 in New Jersey a few years ago. A traffic light where I didn't expect one and a yellow light of much shorter duration than I expected given the fairly high speed limit. I knew I wasn't going to be able to stop in time and the light was red when I went through the intersection. I was pulled over by a local police officer, he lit me up right away. I told him by the time I saw the light was yellow etc. The officer acted very professionally but he let me off with a verbal warning. Maybe it helped that this was in New Jersey and my plates and driver's license showed I was a New Yorker.
The locomotive engineer told investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board that he knew a sharp curve was coming up, but as filtered through the NTSB, he said he "didn't recall" seeing the advance speed limit sign..."In the five weeks preceding the derailment, the engineer had qualified on the Point Defiance Bypass section of track following the completion of seven to 10 observational trips in the locomotive as well as three trips operating the equipment, two northbound and one southbound," said the NTSB investigative update released Thursday. Link
David Benton wrote:Sorry, but The Engineer missed a speed advisory, and approaching sharp curve until the last minute. With no apparent distractions or defects. Millions of motorists drive new routes regularly, can you imagine saying to a police officer you didn't slow down for a speed limit/curve because you had only driven the route once or twice?. I can't see how it is a training issue.If a engineer was on a new route ,I would expect them to be more vigilant than usual.Cars also operate on-sight. If you're traveling faster than you can see to stop, then you're going way too fast. Trains, unless under restricted speed, operate much faster than they can see to stop. Route knowledge becomes far more important. Try running a train simulator without any of the helper tools that tell you the next speed and signal. It's still nowhere near like the real thing, but that's as close as most of us will get.
MCL1981 wrote:Is actually driving the train on the route under supervision only once normal? Serious question, not implying anything. I have no clue what goes into qualifying for a route.I'll weigh in that whatever the training is - and it sounds sparse - it wasn't nearly adequate. I spend a lot of time in heavy machinery and good training pays dividends to the company by avoiding costly injuries, equipment damage, downtime, and product damage.
Tadman wrote:Y'all know my politics. I am The. Last. Guy. to be blaming stuff on the company, but this bugs me. People cut corners here in my professional opinion. And this is the kind of corner cutting that leads to more regulations, lots more. Betcha the FRA comes out with a new rule here that states a minimum run time or hours on a new route before qualification is achieved.I think it'll be more than that, at least an NTSB recommendation for at least three runs per direction, both directions, to qualify.
Tadman wrote:Betcha the FRA comes out with a new rule here that states a minimum run time or hours on a new route before qualification is achieved.The primary focus will be on positive bear control (oops, PTC). The "Train Simulator" helper in the cab that is familiar with the route and is less likely to forget where the train is and what the train should be doing. I'll bet that the NTSB ruling and the FRA response to this incident will say much more about PTC than qualifying.
People cut corners here in my professional opinion. And this is the kind of corner cutting that leads to more regulations, lots more.I don't know if you can really accuse Amtrak or Washington DOT of cutting corners. None of the agencies make any profit. That seems to me to point to the underlying problem: funding. How can they schedule training if they don't have money budgeted to pay for it? All of these agencies are in a constant battle to make due with the resources they have. I don't know what the industry standard is here. The NTSB reports:
"In the five weeks preceding the derailment, the engineer had qualified on the Point Defiance Bypass section of track following the completion of seven to 10 observational trips in the locomotive as well as three trips operating the equipment, two northbound and one southbound."Is that considered enough? How many severe speed restrictions were there on this route? The Port Defiance Bypass is only 14.5 miles long. You would presume slowing for the curve over I-5 and the Nisqually River would be a major issue, that an engineer would have uppermost in his mind, "Slow down for that curve." The speed limit on the curve is 30 mph and the rule of thumb is, you can only go twice the posted speed limit without overturning. The authorized top speed approaching the curve was 79 mph so if an engineer doesn't reduce speed they're not going to make it around the curve. That was the criteria Amtrak used years ago on the NEC in deciding where to put speed enforcement in for permanent speed restrictions like curves. Wherever the restricted speed was less than half the authorized speed approaching the curve, that location was coded into ACSES.
Tommy Meehan wrote:I think you can cut corners to curb your losses just as much as you can cut corners to enhance profits. Look at Penn Central when they were losing buckets of money - they cut all kinds of corners. Repairs were deferred, trackwork deferred, janitorial tasks eliminated etc...People cut corners here in my professional opinion. And this is the kind of corner cutting that leads to more regulations, lots more.I don't know if you can really accuse Amtrak or Washington DOT of cutting corners. None of the agencies make any profit. That seems to me to point to the underlying problem: funding. How can they schedule training if they don't have money budgeted to pay for it? All of these agencies are in a constant battle to make due with the resources they have. I don't know what the industry standard is here.
Tadman wrote: As for what the industry standard is, it's becoming apparent that there isn't one. That's crazy. You have to have significant hours in a sim to change planes as a pilot, how is it they don't have this for engineers? If it's "too costly" to do familiarization rides, a sim could accomplish this as well.Changing airplane types and changing locomotive types is apples and oranges. A different airplane type has different flight characteristics. But a locomotive is largely a locomotive. There may be some control differences but they're not significant in most cases. Different airplanes have different controls as well but that's not the main reason for type ratings; it's the flight characteristic differences (at an airline, to the extent that two planes of the same type have differences in the controls or systems, that's covered in Differences Training, not a separate type rating). Consider that on a train, if you have an issue you can't figure out, you stop; that's not an option when you're in a plane in the air.
