Large Scale Central

More or Less Train Wrecks Today?

Prototypes
#1

I was reading the story on the latest train wreck in Philly involving an Amtrak train and thought those poor people who were killed and injured.

From the photos it looked like the cars that went off the tracks held together well enough unlike train cars of the past. Do modern day train cars have crumple zones like autos do that aide in distributing the force and slowing the crash effects down?

Another thought. It seems that there is some type of train wreck every few weeks. is it the aging infrastructure or something else? In the hey day of trains when most people and freight moved over tracks were there more wrecks or less than today.

It seems like there were more trains moving back then, less trains today but they have more accidents.

Thoughts?

#2

Society seems to have to find blame and reason for everything and if its constructive, I don’t have a problem with it. The government will say more tax money is needed. Maybe its just an accident. Equipment ages, tracks eventually wear out, things happen. Hopefully, it won’t take a “grant” to figure out what went wrong. Life holds chances and uncertainty, not everything has a simple answer. Trauma and drama are parts of Life, some live it and then some just watch it on continuous 24 hour news coverage. GOD be with the victims and the rescue workers.

#3

I think news travels so fast today, and is accessible to so many. Back in the day (Grandkids hate that phrase) I would have read about that in the next day’s newspaper. World events would take days to spread.

Back when I was a kid, news broadcasts were 15 minutes long. (Oh, great, now you got him started) You would get the world news. Anything closer to home was in the newspaper, or on the local radio station (that was news with no pictures).

We take it granted today because the world is so connected electronically. There may have been as many or more train wrecks, but we only knew about local ones, or massive disasters.

Yes, I’m old.

#4

So do you think if we took the amount of trains that ran say from 1900-1960 VS 1960 to today the percentage of trains running and the train wrecks would be the same or would it have been more before 1960 but it wasn’t reported as much or as widely?

#5

I just don’t know if their was a central railroad organization that could compile accidents. Then too, it would have been higher before Mr. Westinghouse invented the Air Brake.

#6

I think its less now but because of instant news outlets nothing slips by.

#7

I’m guessing there were more wrecks in the old days, simply because railroads were a big deal, literally. For example, look at classification yards in any big city, back in say, the Fifties. These facilities were huge! Now all you see is empty ballast where the tracks used to run. Plus, going back to the railroad song days, engineers were more daring (reckless?). Sure, some got dressed down or fired for their transgressions, but only if they survived.

#8

With Computerized Train Control, in cab signals, and GPS tracking, I would think that the percentage of train wrecks per ton mile has dropped. But as has been said, we get instant news now. In the past, if a freight train went into the ditch, and it didn’t wipe out a town, would we even hear about it?

As for rail-cars, I do not believe they have crumple zones. The steel under-frames of the cars have to withstand enormous stresses in everyday use, so I doubt that would crumple much in a crash.

Way way back when the cars were made of wood, they were eventually outlawed in interchange service, because wooden cars would telescope, or splinter in a crash.

#9

David Maynard said:

With Computerized Train Control, in cab signals, and GPS tracking, I would think that the percentage of train wrecks per ton mile has dropped. But as has been said, we get instant news now. In the past, if a freight train went into the ditch, and it didn’t wipe out a town, would we even hear about it?

CTC stands for Centralized Traffic Control. GPS tracking doesn’t do much unless it’s tied into the cab signals and PTC (Positive Train Control).

#10

Craig, ok. I don’t know all the terms and how it all works. I just know there are more wiz bangs now to keep trains apart and control their movements. And as Dave Bodner can attest, the wiz bang train control stuff works all the time, and always prevents train wrecks. (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)(http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-undecided.gif)

#11

David,

Just trying to correct a common misunderstanding. If anything, I think that less wrecks are happening, but they are ‘headlines’ because they are so rare. Imagine if every time a vehicle got into a wreck it made the headlines… Trains and planes are statistically much safer than cars, but it generates ‘clicks’ on websites.

The other really interesting discussion that I keep seeing online and hearing from my former colleagues is the way that trains are being run. I left the industry in 2011, so I can’t say much about 2011-present, but a shift was definitely afoot back in 2008-2011 to start changing the way engineers could run. All of the fancy equipment in locomotives has eliminated the skill or human knowledge that is required to correctly run a train. Engineers now are taught to only use dynamic brakes, and not to touch the air. This sets up a pattern where engineers don’t know how to use air, and are often afraid to use it because they have been taught that’s a no-no. Learning how to run a train on air alone is a great skill that I’m glad I learned, and used quite often. This is something that the public has not been aware about, and it could be a possible reason why some trains are derailing at a higher frequency than others. The other thing is that the FRA did have a mandate that you couldn’t be an engineer unless you had 3 years of experience as a trainman (conductor, brakeman, switchman), but somehow I think this mandate has either be ignored or rewritten. Now you have engineers that have 6 months experience as a conductor that are going to ‘hoghead’ school, and they think they know everything.

#12

Craig, newbies thinking they know everything. Tried and true skills not being taught. Sounds like every industry I have worked in.

Dynamics fail, and dynamics wont stop a train as quickly as air. Not teaching that skill sounds like a recipe for disaster.

#13

Sounds like the issue with airline pilots losing their flying skills with the newer airliners capable of flying themselves, even landing themselves, OK until an emergency requires them to take control and actually fly it.

#14

David Maynard said:

Craig, newbies thinking they know everything. Tried and true skills not being taught. Sounds like every industry I have worked in.

Dynamics fail, and dynamics wont stop a train as quickly as air. Not teaching that skill sounds like a recipe for disaster.

It’s not that the skills are even taught, but they aren’t allowed to be used! The railroads have invested huge sums of money into “trip optimizers” which basically tell the engineer what throttle position he should be in at that exact second to save fuel money. If the engineer does something different, the computer sends a message to a desk the HQ, where that message then gets sent back to the local road foreman who asks the engineer why did you do that? Micro management of engineers skills equal no skills taught or even used. Recently I got into a discussion with a newbie engineer about running a train without dynamics. I said, give me any train with any type of power, and I’ll successfully get it over the territory without dynamic brakes. He was utterly shocked that a train could be safety taken down the 2.2% grade without the use of dynamic brakes.

In train forces are a huge thing, and every single time you use the dynamic brakes it sets up a situation where in train forces are moving around. Now add 110 cars of sloshing liquid (oil trains) and you have a recipe for an easy derailment.

Here’s an interesting briefing given to Congress by the BLET chairman.

http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2015-06-02-pierce.pdf

The most interesting part…

"But the increased efficiency and productivity due in part to various technologies are increasingly being offset by heightened safety risks:

• The use of “distributed power” or DP locomotives — which are strategically placed in the middle or at the rear of freight trains even though they are controlled by the engineer on the lead locomotive — allows railroads to run much longer and heavier trains with one crew … that’s good in terms of efficiency and productivity. However, the engineer must divide his attention in order to monitor and control those sets of locomotives separately, including constantly making separate mental calculations to operate each set of locomotives … and that increases risk.

• A large number of locomotives are equipped with “fuel saver” technology, which optimizes fuel consumption through a series of computer calculations … again, good for efficiency and productivity. However, the system records all locomotive activity and if the engineer substitutes his or her professional judgment and experience for the computer algorithm, the engineer could suffer employment sanctions … again, there is increased risk because the system punishes exercises of professional judgment and experience.

• Virtually every locomotive in America is equipped with an “event recorder” that records dozens of locomotive activities … which, once more, is good for efficiency and productivity. However, event recorder data is routinely downloaded during a trip, and then analyzed by a computer program that looks for — among things — rapid manipulation of the throttle that increases fuel usage or rapid braking that more quickly wears out brake shoe on locomotives and cars. When an anomaly is discovered, the computer automatically notifies someone in railroad management, which leads to a more in-depth investigation and, all too often, causes the engineer to suffer employment sanctions even when no accident or incident results … once more, risk is increased because the system punishes exercises of professional judgment and experience.

"A typical workday for today’s freight locomotive engineer consists of up to12 hours of monitoring and operating multiple train control systems, all the while doing his or her best to avoid the pitfalls presented by fuel saver and event recorder technologies, all of which distracts the engineer from focusing on the external environment in which the train is operating. Similar distractions exist for passenger and commuter engineers, who have to account for every minute of delay during their trip, even if the train’s schedule allows that time to be made up when the train arrives at its final destination.

“Today’s operating environment also increases risk because engineers are punished for taking steps to avert a potential emergent situation.”