A federal investigation found an engineer was unqualified to operate the train involved in a derailment in Williams last summer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F36vRS0_pw&ab_channel=AZFamily|ArizonaNews
I checked my FRA Certificate, my engineer’s license. It says I’m qualified as a #1 train service engineer, #6 remote control operator (It’s been years since I’ve touched the box) and #8 conductor.
Nowhere does it say anything about type or length of train.
I think the SMART-TD representative was referring to training provided new-hire trainmen/switchmen. Not those going into engine service.
On another note. All those autoracks, and everyone that has as much as a wheel off the track will have the load scrapped.
Jeff
Had a Engineer that ran from A to C for years tell me he wasn’t qualified to operate at train from C to A.
Nobody else paused the video to read the page the excerpt was from?
FRA took issue with the engineer’s certification simulator ride being a simulated IM train with 4,000 tons and 5600 feet. Also the lack of any type of equipment inspection which was left blank on the score sheet. I mean, I guess you could walk around the computer monitor?
I wouldn’t be surprised if FRA severely limits or bans the use of simulators for re-cert. When I last did a recert, the RFE told me they were going back to in-person rides. We’ll see if it happens, either by choice or force.
My cards say I’m qualified as an engineer and as a conductor, and my territory sheet tells what territories I’m qualified on. And the back side of the cards shows my check rides, not to mention files at “the office.”
Nowhere does it get any more detailed than that - like train length.
My last cert ride was on the simulator. Normal sized train and on a fictional subdivision based kinda on one in Kansas.
Of course they give easy trains for the cert ride, they want you to pass. They’ll wait for another day to fire you on a slopped together 20k ton, 16k foot manifest with 75% of the cars equipped with cushioned drawbars.
Jeff
Which I think the FRA is starting to take issue with.
Training as a whole is so not great anymore.
Feature the carriers are using simulators to fast track and short cut the efforts required for signing off ‘Check Rides’, rather than as a training aid to improve the skills of parctitioners of the craft.
When I was working, CSX would take the downloads from locomotives and the train consist of a derailed train that was suspected of being a Train Handling derailment and run them through their simulators - to assess if train handling was causative, and if so how the train handling could have been changed to prevent the derailment.
Train handling is unique to each territory as the grades, curvature, signal locations and speed restriction location are unique to each territory. Humps and sags and curves all impart elements to the slack action that exists in a train, the longer the train the more slack action that needs to be controlled - and the engineer must control slack action within his train.
I’m probably late to this party, but does anybody know the cause of this accident? Was it train handling or mechanical failure or something else? And are the media and the union rep oversensationalizing when they raise the spectre East Palestine?
Inasmuch as East Palestine had nothing to do with train handling, as such, I’d go with oversensationalizing, which is the impression I got when I watched the video.
I suppose it could be concluded that poor train handling could cause such a disaster. Nonetheless…
An answer to your question: " What caused E. Palestine,Oh. Train Wreck ?" Is contsined in the NTSB Report at the following linked site:
@ https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20230214.aspx
Drilling down past the other questions mentioned, is the answer. {over heated bearing…etc.}
I believe he’s asking about the Williams incident.
Every train, repeat EVERY TRAIN, is unique from all other trains the moment it is created. No two cars, nor two engines respond EXACTLY the same every time they are used singlely or in concert with more equipment, especially merchandise (non-unit train) trains. In merchandise trains various cars have different types of draft gear that create situations in train handling as that draft gear does what it is designed to do but in concert with the hundreds of other cars that all have differing draft gear actions.
At its most basic level, Train Handling is operating the train within the speed characteristics of the territory including both permanent, temporary and signal induced speed restriction and to control the slack in the train while complying with those changes in speed. In general, increasing speed develops Draft Forces in the train; reducing speed develops Buff Forces in the train. The lay of the land and the track upon the land can creat both Buff and Draft forces within the train at the same time as the train traverses the territory.
Even in handling Unit Trains, where the car make up of the train remains constant, individual cars can develop mechanical conditions that can affect the handling characteristics of the train, even as the train moves from one train handling situation to the next - thus not allowing, for whatever the reason, the anticipated train handling action(s). Each piece of railroad equipment is constructed of thousands of unique pieces, each of which can fail and cause issues.
Yes, I’m asking about the Williams accident. I get the impression the media and union rep are assigning blame before facts are known. So I’m asking whether you (all) know something I don’t. I don’t want to be unfair here.
Oversensationalizing? I’m sure to a point. Media seems to like to sensationalize things anyway. The trainmen’s union spokesman is using it to reveal how training, although not directly stated, for new hires is being shorted. (Our new hires aren’t getting as much on the job training has I did 25 years ago. I had a new hire conductor who had been on his own for a couple of weeks who asked me how to release a wheel type hand brake when there was no release lever.) While training for trainmen and switchmen is different from engineers, to the general public all railroad crafts are the same. The incident is a vehicle to expose what the companies are doing training wise.
Just saying they’re cutting back on training, maintenance of way, maintenance of equipment, maintenance of signals, just doesn’t grab the public’s attention. Bringing up East Palestine does. A lot of companies are cutting back where they can, cheapening their product or services to save a buck. So your meal at your favorite restaurant doesn’t seem as good as it used to. So your bag or box of some consummable has shrunk in volume for the same price. No big deal. Railroad cuts back and wipes out a town, bigger deal.
As to who’s fault for the derailment? There’s no doubt that bad train handling can cause a derailment. However, if the engineer did something wrong, even if it didn’t cause or contribute to the severity of the derailment, they will do their utmost to blame him/her rather than equipment or infrastructure.
About 2
If I had five bucks for every time I’ve been asked (while onboard in uniform as conductor) “If you’re here, who’s driving the train…”
If I am not mistaken, the NTSB has not stated the cause of the East Palestine derailment. They seem to imply that it was caused by the failing bearing and said they will announce the cause at the end of their investigation. Meanwhile, there have been various reports of events very near the time of the derailment as follows:
The failing bearing was spotted by a security camera shortly prior to the derailment.
The failing bearing was spotted by a hot bearing detector shortly before the derailment.<
The news report re Williams makes it sound like the engineer hadn’t passed some test, like it was an automobile accident caused by someone who didn’t have a driver’s license. From what I gather, the engineer was in fact certified to run trains, but that some now believe his training should have been better - that a higher standard needs to be set re today’s much longer / heavier trains.
You’ll never get much of anywhere until you understand the actual mechanics and consequences of bearing failure in three-piece freight trucks, and what was observed during the East Palestine accident.
There are two tapered roller bearings on the axle end: one ‘inner’ and one ‘outer’. These are often mounted as a ‘package’ and grease-lubricated (AAR spec) for supposed long life without ‘breaking’ for maintenance.
The inner bearing is, relatively, the more important of the two, as its failure will be more likely to progress to axle breakage, or seizure causing wheel failure, than the outer.
But the outer is the only one whose failure would be readily detected by the usual kinds of ‘hot bearing detector’, which are IR scanning to distinguish the relatively ‘point’ source of a hot end cap from the larger signature of an overheated wheel (for example due to a sticking manual brake).
Any catastrophic failure of the inner bearing (you will find reports online describing what causes these, and how rapidly they can develop) easily proceeds to axle-damaging temperature before enough heat passes out to the endcap to show the temperature rise that triggers current response.
The source of all the fire in the camera records leading up to the East Palestine derailment was NOT A HOT BEARING. You can even see on the doorbell-camera footage that the truck itself has skewed and is dragging, producing sparks and flame between the rails.
The crew, not being fools or trained poorly, thought they understood the best way to stop a long train in the presence of an overheating bearing – not realizing what was actually happening back there. The sensible thing is precisely what they did: put the train in dynamic to slow it without additional heat, drag. or risk of seizure from brakeshoe application. Now, you of all people should be sensitive to the issue of what followed:
The train was kept from
You’ll never get much of anywhere until you understand the actual mechanics and consequences of bearing failure in three-piece freight trucks, and what was observed during the East Palestine accident.
There are two tapered roller bearings on the axle end: one ‘inner’ and one ‘outer’. These are often mounted as a ‘package’ and grease-lubricated (AAR spec) for supposed long life without ‘breaking’ for maintenance.
The inner bearing is, relatively, the more important of the two, as its failure will be more likely to progress to axle breakage, or seizure causing wheel failure, than the outer.
But the outer is the only one whose failure would be readily detected by the usual kinds of ‘hot bearing detector’, which are IR scanning to distinguish the relatively ‘point’ source of a hot end cap from the larger signature of an overheated wheel (for example due to a sticking manual brake).
Any catastrophic failure of the inner bearing (you will find reports online describing what causes these, and how rapidly they can develop) easily proceeds to axle-damaging temperature before enough heat passes out to the endcap to show the temperature rise that triggers current response.
The source of all the fire in the camera records leading up to the East Palestine derailment was NOT A HOT BEARING. You can even see on the doorbell-camera footage that the truck itself has skewed and is dragging, producing sparks and flame between the rails.
The crew, not being fools or trained poorly, thought they understood the best way to stop a long train in the presence of an overheating bearing – not realizing what was actually happening back there. The sensible thing is precisely what they did: put the train in dynamic to slow it without additional heat, drag. or risk of seizure from brakeshoe application. Now, you of all people should be sensitive to the issue of what followed:
The train was kept from