CSX Train in "emergency" at CP2 Buffalo today?

What does it mean when a train goes into "emergency" ? Anyone know what happened at CP-2 this afternoon? CSX trucks and CSX Cops in all directions at Lake Ave. this morning and trains backed up all over the place with speed restrictions by the gang.

-B in B

Railroaded wrote:What does it mean when a train goes into "emergency" ? Anyone know what happened at CP-2 this afternoon? CSX trucks and CSX Cops in all directions at Lake Ave. this morning and trains backed up all over the place with speed restrictions by the gang.

-B in B

AH, glad I am retired, been there, done that!!!
Actually when a train goes into emergency, it is because it has lost the air
in the brake pipe for the entire train and the air brakes are applied at
there maximum.
An emergency application can be caused by something as simple as a
kicker in the train when using the brake, parted air hose, broken air hose, broken train line (car or locomotive), a separation in the train, broken knuckel, pulled drawbar or even worse a derailment. The last one is what causes the most fear among railroaders.
A train going in the opposite direction on a multiple track line could run
smack into the derailed cars and cause even more problems.
When a train goes into emergency for any reason, they notify the train
dispatcher immediately and the train dispatcher will provide protection to
opposing trains on other tracks. If the dispatcher can't be reached, the
train going into emergency has to provide flag protection and although that rarley occurs, if it does, there are massive delays all over the place
as a result.
Location is a major "bottleneck" three tracks but a huge number of trains
at all times in both directions.
Noel Weaver

Noel Weaver wrote:When a train goes into emergency for any reason, they notify the train dispatcher immediately and the train dispatcher will provide protection to opposing trains on other tracks. If the dispatcher can't be reached, the train going into emergency has to provide flag protection...

My take on the rules is that when this occurs (a moving train has an emergency application) the first two actions must be simultaneous -- 1) declare "emergency" 3 times on the radio, giving train identification and location, and 2) provide protection against movement on adjacent tracks (including foreign railroad tracks).

This means as the train is coming to a stop, someone on the crew must be striking a fusee in preparation of flagging another train that may be headed toward them and possible derailed equipment.

When the dispatcher has acknowledged the call and informed the crew that protection has been provided, then -- and only then -- is the crew relieved from flagging any adjacent tracks.

December 1996, Effingham, IL, on Conrail was a horrible example of what can happen when crews do not act accordingly.

LCJ wrote:

Noel Weaver wrote:When a train goes into emergency for any reason, they notify the train dispatcher immediately and the train dispatcher will provide protection to opposing trains on other tracks. If the dispatcher can't be reached, the train going into emergency has to provide flag protection...

My take on the rules is that when this occurs (a moving train has an emergency application) the first two actions must be simultaneous -- 1) declare "emergency" 3 times on the radio, giving train identification and location, and 2) provide protection against movement on adjacent tracks (including foreign railroad tracks).

This means as the train is coming to a stop, someone on the crew must be striking a fusee in preparation of flagging another train that may be headed toward them and possible derailed equipment.

When the dispatcher has acknowledged the call and informed the crew that protection has been provided, then -- and only then -- is the crew relieved from flagging any adjacent tracks.

December 1996, Effingham, IL, on Conrail was a horrible example of what can happen when crews do not act accordingly.

You are correct, I was just trying to explain it as simply as I could.
Noel Weaver

I apologize if it seems I was intimating that you didn't know the rule. This is just an issue that I had special interest in when I was in the industry.

Very often I would find that operating crews failed to comprehend the imperative for immediate action when an emergency application occurred. Most of the time (about 99.99%) it wouldn't matter -- but in the rare event when it did matter, it was often fatal to someone.

I recall Bob Kennedy in New Haven drumming it into my head about how critical it was to react properly.

LCJ wrote:

Noel Weaver wrote:When a train goes into emergency for any reason, they notify the train dispatcher immediately and the train dispatcher will provide protection to opposing trains on other tracks. If the dispatcher can't be reached, the train going into emergency has to provide flag protection...

My take on the rules is that when this occurs (a moving train has an emergency application) the first two actions must be simultaneous -- 1) declare "emergency" 3 times on the radio, giving train identification and location, and 2) provide protection against movement on adjacent tracks (including foreign railroad tracks).

This means as the train is coming to a stop, someone on the crew must be striking a fusee in preparation of flagging another train that may be headed toward them and possible derailed equipment.














When the dispatcher has acknowledged the call and informed the crew that protection has been provided, then -- and only then -- is the crew relieved from flagging any adjacent tracks.

December 1996, Effingham, IL, on Conrail was a horrible example of what can happen when crews do not act accordingly.

Being personal friends with one of the crew-members involved in that accident at Effingham, I think it only fair to say the crew of the train that was rear-ended was hardly in any shape to provide protection, in any manner. The cond. of the rear-ended train received his disability pension as the result of injuries from the collision. I worked with this man from 1966 until 1974, (PRR/PC). He's a top-notch railroader. I'll withhold judgement account of one important fact: I wasn't there.

I'd rather not get into details in this forum. It wouldn't serve anyone well.

Clearly, though, someone on the scene in Effingham should have done something to prevent the collision that happened after the initial collision.

I personally knew one individual on the train that struck the derailed equipment. He, too, was a fine railroader and a good person.

LCJ wrote:I'd rather not get into details in this forum. It wouldn't serve anyone well.

Clearly, though, someone on the scene in Effingham should have done something to prevent the collision that happened after the initial collision.

I personally knew one individual on the train that struck the derailed equipment. He, too, was a fine railroader and a good person.

Again, I'll withhold judgement. You're correct Mr. LCJ, additional details would serve no constructive purpose.

As a non-railroader I have a question. Since theres only 2 in the cab
and 1 (the engineer) stays on the train, which way does the conductor head out to "flag". Trains of course over take each other going in the same direction. Would the dispatcher direct this?

STEAM ON
/--OOO--~-oo--oo-

Emergency radio transmission is to warn all trains approaching the location from either direction. The crewmember would move forward to flag any opposing trains.

If the Conductor goes forward of the train to flag and the engineer stays in the cab, then it sounds like the tail end of the train would be left unprotected by a man on the ground and an accident could happen anyway? That's like 50% coverage of a problem that needs 100% coverage to be completely safe?

-B in B

Railroaded wrote:If the Conductor goes forward of the train to flag and the engineer stays in the cab, then it sounds like the tail end of the train would be left unprotected by a man on the ground and an accident could happen anyway? That's like 50% coverage of a problem that needs 100% coverage to be completely safe?

-B in B

If operating in CTC territory, your rear-end should be protected by signals. If in TWC, only a line-4 work between and a line-11 would allow someone in the same limits. All trains would be required to operate at restricted speed.

jg greenwood wrote: If operating in CTC territory, your rear-end should be protected by signals.

You're confusing the issue. We were discussing flagging adjacent tracks against possible fouling by a derailment as a result of an emergency application. Equipment can foul an adjacent track without having any effect on track circuits. Therefore one cannot depend on signals for such protection.

railroaded wrote:If the Conductor goes forward of the train to flag and the engineer stays in the cab, then it sounds like the tail end of the train would be left unprotected by a man on the ground and an accident could happen anyway? That's like 50% coverage of a problem that needs 100% coverage to be completely safe?

I remember making this argument myself when the process of de-caboosing was taking place. The pressure for change was far too great due to the tremendous financial advantage cabooseless operation delivered.

Making an immediate emergency alarm by radio was deemed to be sufficient to cover all circumstances, including trains passing from the rear.

My idea was an emergency, strobe-type flasher on the rear-end marker that would be activated by an emergency application. It will probably take a major accident (like passenger train collision with multiple casualties) to get sufficient attention on the issue.

LCJ wrote:

jg greenwood wrote: If operating in CTC territory, your rear-end should be protected by signals.

You're confusing the issue. We were discussing flagging adjacent tracks against possible fouling by a derailment as a result of an emergency application. Equipment can foul an adjacent track without having any effect on track circuits. Therefore one cannot depend on signals for such protection.

railroaded wrote:If the Conductor goes forward of the train to flag and the engineer stays in the cab, then it sounds like the tail end of the train would be left unprotected by a man on the ground and an accident could happen anyway? That's like 50% coverage of a problem that needs 100% coverage to be completely safe?

I remember making this argument myself when the process of de-caboosing was taking place. The pressure for change was far too great due to the tremendous financial advantage cabooseless operation delivered.

Making an immediate emergency alarm by radio was deemed to be sufficient to cover all circumstances, including trains passing from the rear.

My idea was an emergency, strobe-type flasher on the rear-end marker that would be activated by an emergency application. It will probably take a major accident (like passenger train collision with multiple casualties) to get sufficient attention on the issue.

You're correct Mr. LCJ. Please forgive my CONFUSION.

I wrote:You're confusing the issue. We were discussing flagging adjacent tracks...

I didn't intend for that to be as obnoxious as it turned out to be.