[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: (erielack) Akron / Windham accident
When I worked for Amtrak in Zone 5, we ran on the RF&P.....a railroad
very similar to the DL&W. It was highly engineered doubletrack and I noticed
right away that almost all switches were trailing point when you ran WITH
the current of traffic. When running AGAINST the current of traffic I.E.
running north on the southbound track, you had to approach switches at
RESTRICTED speed....(prepared to stop in an assured clear distance). They
assumed you KNEW where the switches were. Little story
here............running #90 (The Palmetto) we had a notorious official from
Richmond in the cab with us & the dispatcher crossed us to the S/B track at
Fredricksburg. We proceeded at (I believe) 50 mph (another restriction when
running against the current of traffic).
We came upon a switch and neither I nor the other engineer (who had been an
RF&P man before coming to amtrak) thought to slow to restricted speed. The
official didn't say anything until we were by the switch then said "You both
are in a lot of trouble!!". He got off at DC and shortly we got a notice to
appear for a hearing in Richmond (too bad for Yankees like me). Luckily the
RF&P had another rule in the book that in cases like this made "The most
senior person in the engine cab primarily responsible for violations of this
sort". Mine WAS an error of OMISSION, but the VPs was done ON PURPOSE. He
just waited until we were by the switch then said something - rather than
preventing the problem by reminding us - something I've done many times on
the EL to prevent a problem. The RF&P decided to drop the whole matter even
though it would probly have been fun for them to have a smart-alec YANKEE to
torture in the old capitol of the Confederacy.
Regards,
Walt Smith
>From: "Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>
>Reply-To: "Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>
>To: "EL Mailing List" <erielack_@_lists.elhts.org>
>Subject: Re: (erielack) Akron / Windham accident
>Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:56:01 -0500
>
>Chris and List,
>
>I was going to post much the same question. Specifically, I wonder if in
>general, an industrial switch lined for the diverging route will break the
>circuit and turn that block signal red? Obviously, regardless of the
>answer, it wouldn't help a train "running against the current of traffic".
>I agree that Finding #6 could have been more precisely worded. The signal
>system did not prevent the accident, but potentially could be useful by
>giving a restricting signal indication to a conflicting movement operating
>with current of traffic. I don't think the investigator was intentionally
>obfuscating the picture as regards the limitations of the signal system, as
>any implicit recommendation to change operations or upgrade RR signal
>systems would have been so disruptive as to be a practical impossibility.
>
>Paul B
>
>Chris Thurner said:
>
> >>6. The signal system served no useful purpose in the detour operation
>of Extra 3657 East.<<
>
>
>Now, does this apply in a general sense to operation of eastbounds against
>the current of traffic (i.e. the operation of the system for opposite
>current of traffic flow is not designed / working properly for it's most
>basic function, or what is was designed for, in other words, irrespective
>of the alignment of the switch)?
>
>Or, did it apply to addressing whether or not the signal system would have
>given any indication that the switch was lined for the diverging route
>(i.e. a more narrow observation that it would not have given the operator
>in the cab an indication of a dangerous situation and an accident about to
>happen)?
>
>Any thoughts. At first glance, I tend to read (i.e.interpret) this as the
>former is the case. Why say 'served no useful purpose in the detour
>operation'? I think they would have said something along the lines of
>'served no useful purpose in the detour operation of alerting the crew of a
>dangerous condition / alignment of track'.
>
>If the later was what was intended to be communicated, I think the
>author(s) or the report would have made a connection in this statement to
>address the link between the signal system and the switch alignment and
>that the signal failed to indicate or could not indicate (by design) the
>alignment.
>
>But again, as this report refers to the accident, maybe it is just simply a
>statement that the system was not designed or intended to communicate the
>switch (turnout) position?
>
>
> The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
> Sponsored by the ELH&TS
> http://www.elhts.org
> To Unsubscribe: http://lists.elhts.org/erielackunsub.html
_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month.
Intro*Terms http://www.NexTag.com
The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
Sponsored by the ELH&TS
http://www.elhts.org
To Unsubscribe: http://lists.elhts.org/erielackunsub.html
------------------------------