Train Driver an Engineer?

My point exactly! Tradition isn't consistant.

Have to look at the job title and description from the union contract.

Yes, specialized knowledge.

• Green Means go
• Red means stop
• Rabbit means fast
• Turtle means slow

Your confusing a job title to a profession. A job title that's a century old. That as Robin has pointed out goes back to the steam locomotive.

That being said there were about 800 deaths do to rail incidents and over 30,000 in autos in 2014. I wonder the number in auto deaths, if any were engineers. See any one can have a bad day.

Hey at least he didn't run it into a mountain side.

In this case it just means driver of the train....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/us/amtrak-derailment-philadelphia-engineer-brandon-bostian.html?_r=0

How about this one.

What Do They Call the Person Who Graduates Last in Medical School?

"Doctor"

Best pharmacist in the world....?

The automotive industry has an on board computer on every vehicle manufactured? Correct? Most every affordable car that has one can be purchased for under $30,000.00 and it records the last XX seconds of a vehicles operation prior to an accident.

Where is the Locomotive on board computer that records every movement and operation? The locomotive at $6.6 Million each, I would think that the on board computer would record the entire trip, no matter how long. Including video of the locomotive engineer, the controls, and every other recordable control option and sensor feedback!

Trains transport mega-tons of hazardous materials and munitions every day!

Where is the accountability!?!?

I remember probably 30 years ago, the train engineers would stop at a certain junction near my house where I grew up. A few classmates decided to take one for a joyride. (The engineer left it idling on a side track)

They effectively drove it approx. 5 miles down the siding and decided they didn't want to walk back that far so they drove the train back to about 1 mile away,stopped it, applied the brakes and ran like hell because they saw the train employees running towards the train in a panic. They thought the train had lost it brakes, but then realized it was going in reverse and then stopped. They quickly figured it was children playing on it and started searching the neighborhood for them. They were long gone by the time they started the search for them. This is still a common practice from what I've heard (Leaving it idling on a side track)!?

I don't know how common the practice is of leaving the engines running, but I do know that it is fairly common.

Locomotives do have "black boxes".

Amtrak engineer applied brakes while train hurtling at twice ...

True,

He applied the brakes!

But why was the train travelling at 106 MPH.

I kind of avoid the media news as it seems that all they report is the bad side of the news. I get frustrated by the lack of the common persons ability to effect change anymore! It seems that only politicians are getting what they want and we are getting less and less of what we NEED!

When will we find out the results of the black box?

Yes, why is the big question.

It had started moving just 10 minutes earlier. So, it is doubtful that the driver fell asleep.

I don't know how quickly a train of that size can accelerate to 105 MPH.

And what about the Dead-man's vigilance device - Wikipedia, the free ...

Didn't this locomotive have such a device?

So many questions, so few answers.

Lyn,

You are SO RIGHT!

So many questions, so few answers!?!?!

The locomotive engineer appeared to be vigilant and educated in the safety parameters of "HIS" locomotive.

Yes! WHY did it accelerate to such a high speed in such a short time?

Since a lot of you guys are " engineers" ( I use this term without malice because I done want to offend anyone who feels that you can only be a real engineer if registered), can I ask a question ? I have to put it into non engineering type lingo: You got a high performance car, you rev the engine, drop the clutch and the rpm guage says 10,000, . Now if the rpms were a true representation of actual speed you should be moving at 106 mph,immediately, but your not, because of slippage,. Is it possible that the train was not really going 106 mph, but guages indicated it was ? Is there a math formula to determine how long ( time & distance) would be required for the train to reach 106 mph & how does one determine the unknown variable of the trains mass, wind drag coefficient and surface friction to prove that 106 is the actual product ? ( I'm not sure if product is the correct word ).

The answer can be the hypothetical and / or based on actual conditions/parameters present.

I'll take a non-engineering crack at this.

If there were no mass(weight) to your hot rod, and no friction or wind resistance, it would go from 0=106 MPH almost instantly. But, you have to get the mass moving and that takes time. There are formula for this, but we'll leave them to those smarter than us. Same with the train, but far more complicated because of the many, many more variables involved. Such as number of wheels on the train, bearing/rolling resistance, mass and many other variables.

Now, to the meat of the question. Yes, drive wheels DO slip. This is known, but hard to determine because of local conditions of track, load being pulled, throttle setting relative to actual speed and other things I didn't mention.

A long time ago, I was told that locomotive wheel speed can be 10-15% higher than actual load car speed due to drive wheel slippage and rolling resistance of the load.

But, and this is important. The train did go off the tracks. It would not have gone off the tracks at 50, or ever 70 MPH, probably. The amount of damage done in the wreck is also much worse than a 50 MPH wreck would have produced.

The question still remains, why was the train going so fast??

Slippage of the steel wheels against the steel rails is controlled by applying small quantities of sand on the rails immediate prior to the passing of the wheels. This is stored within the engine and applied with compressed air down a tube which discharges in the front or back of the wheels whichever direction the locomotive is going. It requires so little sand that it can't usually be seen unless you are a few feet away. It also helps in stopping but not as much.

On steam locomotives the sand was stored in one of those half spherical domes on top of the boiler in the vicinity of the cab or smoke stack.

There is no "math formula" as such. There are charts/spreadsheets which give the variables and usual ranges for the items which affect the speed. Some are: number of engines and weight; number of MT cars and weight; number of full cars and weight (max is 286,000# ea); what type of cars; wind direction and speed; grade; quality of rails; roadbed conditions; horizontal angle of rails on curves; configuration of nose of leading engine, Amtrak ACS-64 vs. GE Dash 40-8W freight locomotive; terrain; temperature; altitude (power generation with diesels); and numerous others.

Maybe some where there is person extremely capable in the areas of train and math and geologist and engine operations and meteorologist and structural engineer and a lot of other ands who could do it but until one is found there is no simple answer nor accurate answer.

Also another facture is was it a diesel-electric engine or an electric with pantographs to overhead wires. The Phila crash was electric with pantographs.

Good Luck, Old Salt

I believe engines are left running to keep the air brakes activated and especially in cold areas, the engines have to be kept warm or they are hard to restart.

It also turns out that locomotives use no antifreeze in their cooling water.

So, if the temperature falls below 40°F the engines are started to keep the cooling water from freezing.

A friend of mine works for a German company that has connected large Webasto-type water heathers to the engines of about 1,000 locomotives worldwide. He says railroad companies can now stop their engines as long as needed making savings for about 80,000 $ / year / locomotive.

I believe the air brakes are fail safe. They are applied unless there is air pressure present. The air is used to release the brake, not the other way around.

Old Salt, Is there mention somewhere of the "Deadman switch" or the new name "operators disposition switch"? Anyway, thanks for the information.

Dead Man Switch- usually just a device that must be constantly held in one position to continue operating a device. It is a safety device to make sure a person is there and in control. Depending upon the device they can often be defeated by the weight of a lunch box or similar weight, duct tape, electrician's tape, pencils. These devices used to be used on trolley cars to prevent any situation where the operator was not in control. On these cars there is a pedal that must be pushed and maintained there for the car to move. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_man's_switch The San Francisco trolley cars may still have them.

A Dead Man's Vigilance Device is an expansion of the dead man's switch. It requires more of the attention of the engineer in order to avoid more operator problems. Very often a controller will speak or alarm the engineer and require him to push a button periodically. If there is no timely push it will eventually apply the brakes. Some will repeat the alarm more frequently and/or louder if there has been no timely response to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead-man%27s_vigilance_device

Simply speaking, the dead man switch is the simpler and most basic of the two. The dead man vigilance device is designed and operated with more physiological consideration. Someone once explained the difference to me as being like a checkers game vs. a chess game. The benefit of the vigilance device is that it requires more of the engineers attention and vigilance.

Good Luck, Old Salt

Read it as Dead Man Switch is easily defeated.

DMVD has to be physically manipulated periodically.

Yes and DMVD requires some mental work and not just all physical to correctly respond.

Good Luck, Old Salt

In the central control room, train monitoring facilities to be installed which will record speed of trains throughout their journey,stopping times,incidents etc and give an alarm to drivers if speed is exceeded,especially near/in corners and automatically apply brakes to slow down.

In the US there is a system which provides this information, control and recordings to both the control rooms and the cab of the engine. It is "Positive Train Control", PTC. It was first used on the Union Pacific RR in the early 1990's. The U.S. Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 requires it to be on almost all engines by Dec 11, 2015. It does all that has been stated and many other functions.

A typical PTC system involves two basic components:

• Speed display and control unit on the locomotive
• A method to dynamically inform the speed control unit of changing track or signal conditions.

Optionally, three additional components may exist:

• An on-board navigation system and track profile database to enforce fixed speed limits
• A bi-directional data link to inform signaling equipment of the train's presence
• Centralized systems to directly issue movement authorities to trains

Almost all trains also contain a "Black Box" recorder similar to those used in airplanes.

Good Luck, Old Salt

I understand the PTC has to be installed by the end of 2015 in all trains. However, it is old technology involving sensors on the track that communicate with a receiver on the train and is placed ahead of curves and other such places. Much maintenance!

That is what we knew back in 2007-08 when it was written. It is expensive and the owners want to use today's technology which would be simply GPS communication with the associated software to respond to specific locations etc. BUT, the law is on the books and of course Washington is unable to back down---it is not their style.

Democracy is wonderful but an extremely deliberate process. That cuts both ways.

What a bummer!!

But I expect many will like it - sadly!! Not knowing any better.....

In the USA depending on which state you work in, unless you are a PE you can not hold a title with Engineering in it. In Pennsylvania if you don't have a PE you can not legally have engineer in your job title.

In many countries there are engineers with one or more of the following qualifications: 4 year apprenticeship and proven experience,part time course in a technical college or City and Guilds exam(UK), passing exams conducted by utilities like electricity,water supply,irrigation,railway etc while working there,followed a diploma/degree course in engineering,got a P.Eng or C.Eng. But responsibilitirs and types of work handled differs vastly. For example an electrician becomes estimating engineer or project engineers,draughtsman becomes design engineer and so on.

I live in AZ right engineers without PE can only be used as a designer or"draftsman" and can not sign off on the design work unless he has his PE. As far as a title though a project engineer doesn't need a PE. PA if you put engineer in your title without a PE you could be sue by the engineering board.

I'm curious on what you base this statement.

I live/work in Arizona too, for the last (almost) 50 years.

I have never run across this specific requirement in any of the engineering positions I have held.

I've seen it in a few titles, mostly of those who like to use titles as badges of accomplishment. Read that as boasting.

Lyn can you stamp an engineering design that you are working on? I know for a fact none of our engineers that I work for can. The only ones that I know of that put there names to it is our PE. The other engineers run the projects.

Bakerjohn can you design a machine or a process that performs. I know a few PE that can't. Though they tried, You have to realize that the bottom line is an engineer that can design a machine or a process that performs, safe and is fiscally responsible does not always comes from a licensed engineer.

I fully understand. There seems to be a communication problem. What I was trying to get across is that in the US each state handles the title of engineer differently. PA on one spectrum states only a PE can have the title. The other spectrum AZ it doesn't matter. I also add that in AZ only a PE can stamp a design. I didn't say anything about PE being the only ones that can do designs. My experience is in environmental and civil engineering since I'm not a PE I can not sign off on or stamp any of my designs no local, state, or federal agency will except my design or anyone's else for a project without a stamp. I agree it sucks. I have 18 years in the field with four degrees 2 BS and 2 MS but without a PE, or RLA behind my name I have to rely on a kid with 2 years experience and a PE to approve it.

Hopefully this will help, I wasn't trying to argue or say having a PE is better.

Each state has their own licensing agency as you already know. The problem what I experienced, (WI, NY) whether licened or not, one has to challenge the project engineer. And never assume it's the project will perform, especially if it does not look or sound (explanation) right

I run into that a lot if we have a state project everything is designed and sign off by the state or their consulting firm. The designs are usually done by following standards, design details, etc. Problem we run into is that the designer has never been in the field to see the site and its particular issues. So I show up along with our project engineer with the states plans in hand and end up making all sorts of changes.

Bakerjohn, really. I suggest you get a smaller paint brush. The your using now is way too big.

The Arizona Revised Statute covering: Board of Technical Registration does, indeed, paint with a (far too) broad brush.

It claims to regulate: ARCHITECTS, ASSAYERS, ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS, HOME INSPECTORS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND SURVEYORS.

Home inspectors? Landscape Architects?

Thinking back over the years, I've hire hundreds of engineers. Over many highly technical disciplines.

Being a "Registered Professional Engineer" never scored any additional points with me and was never a hiring requirement.

I experience the same, at one point I considered a PE. But having worked with PE's does not guarantee competency. Actually the competency rate is the same as as none licensed engineers....

It's a title rather than a job description. Probably well established and nobody is mislead within the industry to which it applies.

Over here, you will find there are so many fully qualified doctors in our hospitals that surgeons distinguish themselves from the crowd by being called 'Mister'.

Similarly in the old days of my RAF National Service the lowly ranks addressed Warrant Officers as 'Sir, but the commissioned officers addressed then as 'Mister'.

It's just a name!

I have driven the real Flying Scotsman for half a mile out and back - and a model one on my train set with no problems - but the Auran Trainz virtual steam engines are totally beyond me.

Wife has a unique skill of deciding what to give me for my birthdays. Piloting a glider, operating a tug boat, parachute jumps, dinner at the restaurant of the old WTC, ride in a B-24, "working" at a USAF air show, etc. She outdid herself twice when she gave me trips on local "tourist" railroads in the cab of steam engines as the engineer!

Job title was "short-term engineer". Job description was 'that guy with the biggest smile ever seen about to jump up and down in delight! Yes, I bought a round of ice cream cones for everyone involved. Try the steam engine if there is one within a reasonable distance to you.

Thanks for bringing the memories back!

Good Luck, Old Salt

Piloting a glider- it was a two seat with the pilot telling me what to do. Of course he handled it during take off and landing (and much of the other time).

Operating a tug boat- The father of one of her students is a tug boat captain over on the east coast. While I was on a business trip there we had dinner. Unknown to me it was on his tug boat. I them operated it in the harbor.

Parachute jump was many years ago with her cousin. He was a parachuting instructor in the military.

Insurance- If that is the case, she is going to enjoy it with the next guy. I've enjoyed it in the past, am now and will until I take the trip to the pearly gates. I might as well enjoy myself with her "gifts" while I can. Certainly much more fun than arsenic!

Good Luck, Old Salt

Old salt: Salute to a fellow with a fantastic attitude! I only wish mine was that good!

I am somewhat surprised my wife has not offered up some really dicey hobbies for me to attempt: (1) left-handed electrician working live circuits, (2) high ladder work half on concrete, half mud, (3) wild rabid animal roundup, (4) Base jumping from a 40 foot cliff. Those are examples of ones I should expect from her.

During my visit to Chicago in year 1991 I was in same hotel wherein Amtrak drivers were lodged. They looked smart in in blue suits similar to airline pilots. I miss took them as Airline Pilots, till someone told me they are train drivers. Amtrak should have Engine Drivers along with asst. Engine Drivers like Pilots and co Pilots. If one fellow makes mistake, sleeps, or has heart attack at least other man can take care of train carrying hundreds of passengers.

There are many safety devices available which could have protected many passengers.This is not first accident which has taken place there was one more similar accident in New York. I hope all concerned authorities will wake up and avoid such accidents costing human lives.

From what I was taught the term in this instance is shortened from (stationary engineer) of which we still have the classification in use today. In Ontario we have the (Operating Engineers Act) that classifies these persons as to their competence or skills. I believe they are rated from Class 1-4. In the oil business the plant operators were called engineers after they reached a certain degree of competence and training and again class 1-4 was used.

I become a Vision Technician on the weekend, when the windows need cleaning.

The title of "Train Engineer" has been around for a very long time.

Does it really make a difference what they are called? I think not.

For many years now the trains have been and are controlled via PLC and/or DCS automation programming that the "Engineer" has no input to.

This has come about for risk & liability purposes so that the correct braking application curves and rate of speed for each track zone is based on the actual weight of the train, known mechanical conditions (worn brakes, worn wheels, worn out engines, etc.) and the ambient conditions (moisture, wind, ice, snow, steepness of grade, etc.) rather than depend on human train engineer WAGS. (Proactive instead of reactive control.)

The engineer is allowed in some instances to override the computer and take control of the train however it is normally allowed only during equipment malfunctions and/or emergency conditions.

Often when there is a bad train wreck, we the public are not allowed to see or hear the real "root-cause" or the circumstances leading up to the incident such as too many working overtime hours, poor train engine or car mechanical conditions, programming errors, lack of maintenance on the track, bridges, switches, or? . (It is always cheaper to replace an engineer or an entire train crew than suffer the cost of passenger and/or victim initiated lawsuits.)

"Hello dispatch", Yes, how can I help you? "This driver 8, southbound 102, Id like a wakeup call for 6:30 AM" Yes sir, 6:30 AM.

Disclaimer: I cannot really substantiate what I am about to say.

I recall or seem to recall that the train driver in this recent incident may have been hit in the head by an object (or by person(s) unknown just prior to the incident. We all have such rapid knee-jerk judgment of human operators that in any event the first suspect is always the operator. Somewhere back at the beginning of this event lies the truth. I can only hope the good people investigating this know how to go back to the beginning, and discover the actual truth of the events as they unfolded.

To me, it seems incredibly unlikely that someone who has had all the training, all the monthly safety debriefings, and operates under close supervision would be so cavalier as to leave a train in acceleration mode and not be in close control of the vehicle.

Something else must be related to the root cause of the event, other than a convenient scapegoat or usual suspect. Was it Voltaire who stated the maxim that applies here?

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

Or was it Sir Arthur Conan Doyle?

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." - Arthur Conan Doyle

The corollary to this: Once all the probable usual explanations have been ruled out, then no matter how seemingly impossible, the remainder is the truth, and the truth demands to be explored. - James Stewart Now before you jump all over me, please consider that I am not attempting to place myself in the same category as Voltaire, or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the Mahatma Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, or Einstein. I exist in my own category as a Texan. LOL

I (perhaps too vaguely) was responding to Shockiscan's information about the automation, with the Engineer setting around waiting for something to happen. I can see this as like watching paint dry. Same thing with the other "driverless unless something happens" systems seen here.

I did not mean to challenge the integrity of, from what I gathered, appears to be a person who was proud to be doing his job.

Like you said, we shall see.

There is a source of complete investigations for all serious train accidents: 10 most recent major http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/All-Investigations.aspx?office=Railroad and a list and reports for all 407 railroad accidents investigations since 1968

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/railroad.aspx

Glancing through the recent ten major railroad investigations indicates that THE MAJORITY OF ACCIDENTS WERE NOT DO TO OPERATOR ERROR. An automatic impression for some despite that the investigation has not determined that yet. You were correct in not making this pre-conclusion.

There is also a web site http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/2015_philadelphia_pa.aspx

dedicated to the recent Philadelphia accident. It includes videos of news conferences where information is given.

If anyone is interested in how to conduct and develop a report on an accident or other unplanned event, these reports are excellent examples of how to do them and document them. Especially of interest is the "Probably Cause" section. They also do them for aviation (AAR), highway (HA*), hazardous materials (HZ*), marine (MAB), pipeline (PAB), and railroad (RAB). Each category is listed by the date of the report, not the date of the accident. Classification of transportation means of accident as indicated above; - ; nn , two digit year of report; nn, two digit sequential number of the accident release of the year.

Good Luck, Old Salt

GA!

It occurs to me that there could have been another unknown person involved and this could possibly have been the result of a terrorist or a disgruntled employee (past or present) actions.

Hopefully the investigation is executed correctly and thoroughly so that the root-cause is properly identified.

There are some really good pictures of the Phila. accident at https://www.flickr.com/photos/ntsb/sets/72157650427698694

They were taken by the NTSB but they show that they actually get out there and get their "hands dirty" during the field investigation.

Those pictures of them are piddling compared to the train, locomotive, track and roadway damages. The forces that were needed to do the extensive destructive damage to the cars, engine, catenary, track and other things must have been beyond what most people and engineers would estimate or seem possible. It is surprising that more people were not fatalities or injuries in this event.

Found them very interesting, perhaps you will too.

Good Luck, Old Salt

I don't have flickr. Too bad.

Old salt, for the first large frame shot, do the wheels on that detached truck look ok to you? I don't see much of a flange.

I can't really say much about the flanges on the wheels. There is only a 1" flange on a "wreck-less" wheel, a radius of 1" greater than the "contact part" of the wheel.

The banking of the tracks does most of the control of the mass as it rounds a turn. Safer to rely on gravity and centrifugal forces than some steel that could wear out very quickly.
Good Luck, Old Salt

Often when there is a bad train wreck, we the public are not allowed to see or hear the real "root-cause" or the circumstances leading up to the incident.

There is a ready source for all facts, good or bad, about the serious train wrecks. Go to the NTSB publications for their reports on accident investigations: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/All-Investigations.aspx?office=Railroad

Good Luck, Old Salt

Sleepy Drivers?. We had one accident here near Mumbai. One large Patel family came to Mumbai to see off one of their relative who was going to U.S. They had hired mini bus. In the night while returning to Gujarat at 3.30 A.M, the bus driver went to sudden sleep and dashed against a tanker parked on the road. Around 14 person got killed including some Sr.Citizens. What a bad send off. There should be some device to see the driver is awake and not dozing.

There are various devices available now from the complicated to the simple. What's needed is legislation to enforce their use.

When I see the occasional story about a train accident, I wonder at Google et al taking on self-driving cars set in environments that don't have near the constraints of rail systems, and yet expecting to succeed!

According to the news media, the Train Driver hit the emergency brakes (presumably too late...) and then hit his head and blacked out...

That rules out someone hitting him in the head first, I think. It seems that most vehicles have such a power drive system that it can overpower the brakes. So using the emergency brakes when realizing that something was out of control would be nearly useless. I know that simply could not be the only way to stop a runaway situation on a Train. Cameras in the cab won't stop a wreck either.

It makes one wonder what kind of disaster preparation is included in qualifying someone as a .....Train Driver. Perhaps the rail road in due for some review by Safety Engineers! I didn't hear any mention of OSHA in the news either. Surely....

Application of the brakes in an emergency situation for a train such as his going on the tracks he was, would require about 1-1/2 miles to stop. At a minimum and with good prayers it might stop at approx. 1 mile. This is much greater than the entire length of the accident scene. The black box has confirmed that the emergency brakes were applied bringing the speed down to about 60mph.

On passenger trains there are emergency brake handles which will apply these brakes. They are only for the use of the train crew for obvious reasons.

Railroads have, among others, safety engineers, risk management personnel, safety auditors and the like. The railroad safety and personnel are inspected by both the OSHA inspectors (federal and state) and 400 inspectors of the Federal Railroad Agency (FRA). Among other things they enforce the: OSHA standards; the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) 49 U.S.C. §20109, http://uscode.regstoday.com/49USC_CHAPTER201.aspx#49USC20109

Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA) http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0395 and 49CFR Subtitle IV, part A- Rail and Subtitle V- Rail Programs http://uscode.regstoday.com/49USC.aspx

There are federal licensing requirements for railroad engineers. Although very encompassing and these are most often not as stringent as the railroads requirements. http://uscode.regstoday.com/49USC_CHAPTER201.aspx#49USC20135

The duties of the Engineer are provided in the second-half of post #18

News reports have detailed the training and experience of the engineer involved in the Phila. wreck. They have also included his commitment to safety. He has also been a very cooperative witness for the NTSB investigation. The NTSB investigation report will be the best evaluation of this incident. Unfortunately it will probably take a year to complete and post it on their web site.

Good Luck, Old Salt

What is purpose of having so many regulations and inspectors when accidents happen repeatedly?. Better to have some foolproof system. So many lives could have been saved.

Rail transportation is an extremely safe means of travel, second only to airplane. For comparison it is much safer than the rails of India. In India 15,000 people are killed annually while crossing railroad tracks. About 6,000 people die on Mumbai's crowded suburban rail network alone. Another 1,000 people die when they fall from crowded coaches, when trains collide or coaches derail. This does not include other types of railroad deaths there. India has a rate of 1,158 billon passenger-km and the United States 27.6 billion passenger-km but there were only 106 fatalities for all types of railroad accidents in 2014.

American railroads are making tremendous improvements in rail safety, see my other posts for statistics. One of the biggest reasons is legislation and those inspectors. Would there be people hanging out of windows and doors on DC to NYC trains? Would the people of the USA tolerate extremely high fatality rates?

Why does India have so many "Public Administrators"? Do they have any rail inspectors? So many lives could have been saved.

Good Luck, Old Salt

I am not comparing accidents in India with accidents in U.S. India is highly populated country and 2nd largest rail network in the world. Moreover it is developing country. Whereas U.S is rich country with large resources in the world. It has most advanced technologically. I expect much advanced safety devices and safe travel in the trains.

If the US is a rich country it isn't where I live, was born, worked, travelled to or vacationed. Most people, myself included, pay for what we have. I welcome the opportunity to host a tour for you of Mississippi, West Virginia, Alabama. South Carolina and New Mexico. Rich-no, hard working-yes.

The USA does have the most advanced technology, in some areas of expertise. Railroads are one area included in this. The advanced safety devices are now in operation and wider use every day. A clear example of this is the Positive Train Control. This country now has the most advanced safety devices and safe travel in the trains. This is being discussed and advanced every day on the railroads. Safety is the railroad companies most important part of their operations. Fewer accidents occur each year and they are striving for none. It's not perfect yet but they are working on that.

A direct comparison between countries is not workable since comparable numbers are not available.

Good Luck, Old Salt

At best, a statistical comparison belies the real situation on the ground. I agree with all here, that India has a tremendously large and sophisticated railway system, for the demands placed upon it, and the finances available with which to improve it. I also agree that the U.S.A has a good quality, reasonably safe, and advanced system, with far lower usage rate of passengers than even most EU countries. The trains in the EU and in Japan appear to me to be faster, more well used by the traveling public, and carefully engineered. I would wager that none of the faster trains has to make short radius turns! I would further wager that these trains do not travel over tracks above a maximum grade of rise or fall per mile.

There always has to be some sort of tension between what the project engineers of a railway system can design, and the allowable budget of such a project that begins to rule out some of the features that can save lives, accomodate more persons in transit safely, etc.

Trains like the French TGV & similar use dedicated tracks to suit their speed. In the UK we still use existing track, a lot of which was built in the Victorian era. That's why British Rail had to invest in tilting trains like the APT to allow increased speed.

Agree, but to blame the lower fatality and especially the lower accident rate on the advancements and more sophisticated railroad systems on the comparative higher per capita income of the US is showing somewhat that they have not made sure that their railroad system was safe from its conception. In the US, in general, as problems or unsafe things/practices became know there were attempt to correct them. Examples are the change from wooden rails to steel, the standardization of rail gauges, going from the pin couplers to the knuckle couplers, signals that can be seen, protected rail crossings and many others. India's creaking railway system is the world's fourth largest, ferrying more than 20 million people each day, but it has a poor safety record, with thousands of people dying in accidents every year............Successive Indian governments have shied away from modernization of the railways, preferring instead to use the system to provide cheap transport and create jobs.

http://news.yahoo.com/indian-train-accident-kills-least-30-leaves-50-132623691.html

Railroads were introduced in 1853, not much shorter than the Tom Thumb in the USA. There has been several major accidents per year since the 1890's. One would think that they should have gotten the message by now. There are over 11,000 railroad crossing deaths per year at this time, add to that several thousand people dyeing by being run over by trains.

One would think they could see that Japan and other countries have excellent records, with low fatalities and accidents for example, because they have put efforts toward safety. Several years ago I saw a show on tv that described and showed recordings of a steam train used to climb a mountain. Besides switch-backs it also used hand dispensed sand for adhesion (two men were sitting on the cow catcher), a priest praying for success, hand applied brakes and the passengers had to get out and push the final 1/4 mile. All this powered by a very small steam engine. Even Casey Jones was safer than that.

Condensed- Don't damn others because they have been working harder.

Good Luck, Old Salt

Thank you, Old Salty. Good man.

There is an article written by Mark Twain called " the danger of lying in bed" which I strongly recommend you to read (if you did, enjoy it again!) The first paragraphs are: The man in the ticket office said: "Have an accident insurance ticket, also?" "No," I said, after studying the matter over a little. "No, I believe not; I am going to be travelling by rail all day to-day. However, to-morrow I don't travel. Give me one for to-morrow." The man looked puzzled. He said: "But it is for accident insurance, and if you are going to travel by rail -- " "If I am going to travel by rail, I shan't need it. Lying at home in bed is the thing I am afraid of."

Thanks for the literature suggestion. Enjoy reading much more than I actually do it.

While I'm reading it I think I will find the old Kingston Trio vinyl with the song "To Morrow" on it. Sort of like "Who's on first?"

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_kingston_trio/to_morrow.html This also has a recording of the song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=SRkingston trio to morrow music video&v=Qp88oumRQvs&feature=player_embedded

If you prefer the Muppets also have a recording of the song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qul9zdLYUr4

39^o 21' 18.20"N 84^o 07' 42.31" W

I started on a journey about a year ago to a little town called Morrow in the State of Ohio.
I've never been much of a traveler, and I really didn't know that Morrow was the hardest place I'd ever try to go.

So I went down to the station for my ticket and applied for tips regarding Morrow not expecting to beguiled.
Said I, "My friend, I'd like to go to Morrow and return no later than tomorrow for I haven't time to burn."

Said he to me, "Now let me see if I have heard you right. You'd like to go to Morrow and return tomorrow night.
You should have gone to Morrow yesterday and back today for the train that goes to Morrow is a mile upon its way.

If you had gone to Morrow yesterday now don't you see, you could have gone to Morrow and returned today at three
For the train today to Morrow, if the schedule is right, today it goes to Morrow and returns tomorrow night."

Said I, "My friend, it seems to me you're talking through your hat. There is a town named Morrow on the line now tell me that."
"There is," said he, "but take me a quiet little tip. To go from here to Morrow is a fourteen hour trip.

The train today to Morrow leaves today at eight thirty-five. At half-past ten to Morrow is the time it should arrive.
So if from here to Morrow is a fourteen hour jump, can you go today to Morrow and get back today, you chump?"

Said I, "I'd like to go to Morrow so can I go today and get to Morrow by tonight if there is no delay?"
"Well, well," said he to me, "and I've got no more to say. Can't get anywhere tomorrow and get back again today."

Said I, "I guess you know it all but kindly let me say, how can I get to Morrow if I leave this town today?"
Said he, "You cannot go to Morrow any more today 'cause the train that goes to Morrow is a mile upon its way."

I was so disappointed. I was mad enough to swear. The train had gone to Morrow and had left me standing there.
That man was right in telling me that I was a-howling jay. I could not go to Morrow so I guess in town I'll stay.

Good Luck, Old Salt

Sorry for replying you late. Thank you for your invitation. I would have been in U.S this summer but due to my health problems I missed it. I have many relatives in U.S they were waiting for me to come but it is not possible now.I had been to U.S in 1991 but traveled by air or road, sorry no train rides.

Coming to point I would have appreciated if there would not been two similar accidents in N.Y area. This does cause some worry, and we feel bit unsafe. In India railways are progressing fast, regarding passenger facilities, safety, new routes additions. Our Govt. is planning for Bullet Train between Mumbai and Ahemdabad route. But I will never travel on such train as I am not sure how tracks will react to such high speed train.

I am developing a device to clear the tops and sides of railcars of passengers.. I'm thinking of calling it the "Train Scraper".

We have those over here, they've called Victorian tunnels.

Yes, but you don't have problems with live chickens flapping around loose and pots and pans clanging together.

It seems to me that application of brakes in a certain part of the curve would amplify the forces on the rail anchoring.

Despite spanish is our official language, train drivers are still called "Motorman" which is a term inherited from the British companies that operated railroads in Argentina for about a century.

Just for fun I did a little search on internet for these terms and found that:

"the operator of an electric locomotive or an electric multiple unit train on a commuter or mainline railroad is typically called an engineer or driver.

The term may also refer to a person on a locomotive-hauled train when the train is being propelled by the locomotive. The driver is responsible for applying power in the locomotive, while the motorman (usually in a specially-built or converted vehicle) at the front of the train, is responsible for obeying signals, sounding the horn, and applying the brakes where necessary". (Source: Wiki)

WOW! I think I finally figured what really happened!

The first responder report said; "When I came on the scene, I engaged the train operator as my first contact."

He was unconscious but soon came around at which point I asked him: "What happened?"

He groggily replied; "Hell I dunno. Yesteday I cudn't even spell onionear and today I is one!"