[quote=]
You are obviously correct, it doesn't mean anything about speed. There is one aspect that might come into play though, an engine in Run 8 will be making a lot of noise. So it's typically going to be louder than say a light engine drifting downgrade. Whether or not that matters at all depends on the situation.

Now, back on topic, what throttle position was 844 in at the time and what did the crew do to stop as quickly as possible?[/quote]

That is absolutely meaningless in this case, but for the record, the grade there is very slightly upgrade, probably less than .1% or thereabouts.



The second instinct (after big-holing the brakes) any engineer has is to immediately
"bail off" the independent brakes, both to prevent flat wheels on the locomotive(s) and
a severe slack run-in.



Which is precisely what this crew did in Texas a few years back that resulted in flat drivers on 844. I'm sure they learned a lesson from that.



Here again, for a seasoned engineer, instinct takes over. He might not bother with the reverse gear, but he will probably open the cylinder cocks.



Not if you are paying attention to what you are doing. See above.

I'm reading a lot of comments in the thread about the public being unaware about the overhang of a train. If only there were places where the public could interact with trains in a controlled environment. And if only the people who run these places could set up safety displays explaining train overhang, and if these places were run by people like the ones on this forum... boy woulden't that be something. /sarcasm

Tom F, What your not considering is the way the UP legal dept might see the 844 accident. They could easily say enough is enough and end the heritage program. UP is in no way obligated to run these steam trips for the public and could easily decide not to because the risks of someone getting killed is too great.

Robert

.

In most cases and under normal operations, I'd agree. However, if I'm about to strike a person, or just have struck a person, I would not release the independent, no matter what happens to the drivers. When somebody's life is possibly as stake, minimizing equipment damage is not your priority. Stopping as quickly as possible is Granted, it didn't matter in this case, but you don't know that when it's happening.

Wholly wrong. Lincoln Penn is correct. Normal operation includes putting your train in emergency when the need arises. And the engineer's duty is ALWAYS to stop the train SAFELY.

In a circumstance like this, be it a person or a vehicle on a crossing, the train is going to hit the obstacle. It is not going to stop in time. The lawyers may sometimes argue about bailing off, but any reasonably qualified person can successfully argue that sliding drivers are less effective at stopping an engine than properly controlled braking, and the safety of the train and its multiple passengers or large and potentially dangerous cargo (and the need to prevent a larger disaster) far out outweigh the (false) advantages of locked up drivers. The train, which has far more braking effort than the locomotive drivers, will still be in emergency. As long as the engineer cuts power and properly manages the independent, which will still be providing proper braking effort, everything will be much better than simply dumping it and riding it out.

And yes, you do know when it's happening. That's what a real engineer gets paid for.

Yes, tightlock couplers eliminate knuckle slack, about 1" per coupling. But there is still the slack controlled by the draft gear, several inches per car, which will run in an emergency application, since the brakes apply first at the head end.

You misread the context of "Granted, it didn't matter in this case, but you don't know that when it's happening."

I wasn't saying you don't know if you're sliding the drivers, of course you would know that. I meant that you don't know whether the person is injured or killed. If you knew, for certain, that they died on impact, you might just take a full service application rather than going into emergency, the same as you probably would for an inanimate object on the track. If you don't know the extent of their injuries, and are worried they may be further injured by being struck by the rest of the train, you'd want to stop faster.

Well, for a little lighter fare I have a funny story to tell....

My Dad (NYCRR class of 1941) was operating a freight train through Upstate NY around about Lyons NY. He saw a clearly inebriated trespasser walking along the tracks carrying a sack. He blew the horn, bell etc. As the cab approached the trespasser the individual appeared to fall away from the tracks and into the clear. Dad thought "Thank God we missed him..."

Then the brakes where applied by the crew in the Caboose... Shortly after the train came to a halt the fire whistle at the local small town fire hall started going off.

Dad thought; "dang we hit him after all". So Dad made his way to the rear end (this was before all trains had radios to communicate with the "hind end").

By the time he got back there the Sheriff was there, they were waiting for an ambulance/coroner to arrive and make things "official" so they could move the body and the train. Dad asked were the victim was, the Sheriff said; "over there, but don't look, its an awful sight, his guts are hanging out".

But Dad went over anyway... Turns out the drunk was carrying a bag of sausages and spaghetti sauce and had indeed fallen clear of the tracks which caused him to hit his head and pass out cold and the groceries broke open and made a pretty good impression of a sliced open abdomen...

(this is a true story and happened before the widespread availability of trained EMT's and ambulances in rural areas, back in the 1960's. Apparently the Sheriff and onlookers took one look at the tomatoes and "guts" splashed on a human who was not moving at all and had apparently been hit by a moving train and wrongly assumed (at first) that the drunk was dead)

So, my Dad completed 49 years of service with no fatalities, except for a trespassing bag of sausages with spaghetti sauce... And, after an investigation it turned out Dad's train never touched the drunk....

Still very unfortunate about the "844" incident under discussion, so sorry for the families involved (both the General Public and the Railroad Crews).

Kevin.

Didn't misread it at all. If you hit someone with a train, regardless of the fact that in every state I know that it's trespassing if someone's on the track when a train is present (specifics of local laws differ, of course), you are now at the scene of a personal injury accident (automatically assumed) and are under a legal duty to stop if you are aware of it. There's no way to know the extent of the trespasser's injuries, it doesn't matter at all, and the engineer must always stop safely to prevent further, and bigger, problems. I could put forth quite a few stories, and have made people walk away in horror from the details when they've asked in the past, but the basics always come down the same. The only real variable is the quality of the legal representation, on both sides.

If we were to follow the logic regarding whether or not the crew knows if it was a fatality (without the legal requirements), one could probably stretch that to say that if you were certain it was a fatality the train wouldn't need to stop at all since there was no saving the trespasser. That's a ludicrous train of thought IMO.

So here we are, with a trespasser fatality, who's family will miss her, will probably sue UP, the crew, maybe the the local authorities, the phone/camera manufacturer and anyone else they can think of. There will very likely be a lawsuit (or two or three), whether the family wants it or not, because that's what the lawyers and insurance companies want, so we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.

Kevin - Thanks for the story. Lyons is always good for some RR-style entertainment....

Yep, sure, that's exactly what I was thinking. Just keep on going, screw 'em. Hard to argue with logic like that, so I won't bother trying.

I will agree on that one. There was many FRA rules where putting the train into emergency would likely cause a major derailment. This was especially true if you had lightweight empties (such as empty container cars, flat cars, etc,) in the middle of the train and a bunch of loaded cars behind it. In in a emergency this would likely jackknife the empties in the middle of the train. I also remember we were not supposed to have any more than 4200 tons behind any empty flat cars in the middle of the train under any circumstances. The rules also said emergency braking should be avoided on sharp curves, tunnels, and on bridges.

In this circumstance with this woman. I would agree that bailing off on the steam locomotives brakes would be the correct course of action. Flat spots on the steam locomotives drivers could be so severe it could be in violation with FRA rules. It would sit immobile blocking the main line for who knows how long. In my experience locomotive brakes rarely have enough force to lock up the wheels. That is probably why you never hear locomotives with flat spots on the wheels. Most of the engineers I have watched almost always put the locomotives into full braking about 20 feet from the car being coupled traveling at around 5MPH. If they time it right it will couple just right.

Sometimes we win.

Here's a link to an article about a cop who saved somebody from being hit by an NJT train near Perth Amboy last Thursday (7-19-2018):

https://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/ ... oad_t.html

Phil Mulligan

I was literally a front-seat witness, as a passenger, to a suicide attempt while riding a SEPTA MU just over a year ago. The train was at about 5 MPH, slowing down for a station stop at the Philadelphia Airport, when I saw a flash of blue and green cloth go past the front windows at about a 45 degree angle, and maybe five feet ahead of the train.

The train operator (SEPTA's term-)immediately dumped the air, and I heard her radio the dispatcher that we had just struck a person. The operator came out of the cab quite visibly shaken. I assured her that I saw the whole thing, and there was nothing that she could have done differently. I also pointed out the forward facing camera, which would have recorded everything, as would have the event recorder.

As a witness, I was interviewed by several police, airport and SEPTA officials, as rescue personnel removed the suicidal woman from under the train, amazingly with only cuts and bruises. She apparently landed square in the gauge, the rail was heavy, and the ballast was not above the ties. (She was having some sort of mental or drug issues, telling the first responders that cannibals were about to eat her).

In conversation with the operator and one of the SEPTA officials, the operator mentioned that this was her first time in 16 years on the railroad that she had hit someone. The trainmaster (or transportation manager, again SEPTA uses different titles) replied that sadly it may not be her last time, which is probably my point in telling this story.

I was only a witness to this one, not running the train, but if I can still visualize blue and green clothing going past the windshield, I'm sure that operator can too. And the same would hold true for any other engine crew member or conductor that has hit a person or vehicle on the track. Its a vision that won't go away too easily.

Good evening folks,

This evening I had a thought pop into my head regarding this horrible tragedy. So, ....

I have a question for those who are more proficient with the use of their smart phones than I am.

It is my understanding that the cameras in today's smart phones can take photos in both forward and mirror image.

My question is, .... Is it possible that an older (not so tech savvy) person might not realize their phone was in "mirror" image capture, as opposed to "normal" image capture?

The reason I ask this question is simple: At the location of the accident there were "two" tracks present. Might it be possible that she was looking at the view screen in mirror image mode and not realized what she was watching in her viewfinder was actually inverted?

If so, is it possible she might have thought the train was on the "other track" because of the selfie / mirror image feature on her cell phone camera?

This might well explain the strange reaction from the deceased right before impact.

Since I believe I am the last person on the face of the planet that believes a cell phone is actually a telephone (and thus, I only use mine as such), I'm embarrassingly unfamiliar with the various features of the newer cell phone cameras.

I figured I would throw the idea out here and see if those who are far more proficient with their cell phone cameras might be able to answer the questions posed.

Thanks in advance.