Northeast Regional 188 - Accident In Philadelphia

I've been posting about this accident over at the general-interest site city-data.com, and a number of questions have arisen; particularly with regard to crew-dispatch practices. I'd appreciate any information that someone more familiar with the New York Division could offer:

It's not clear whether Engineer Bostian worked the extra board. He almost certainly didn't have seniority enough for a regular assignment, but I'm wondering if he might have been part of a pool of crews running New York-Washington service only.

I do have dispatching experience in the motor-carrier field, where there was a practice called "foreign courtesy". That meant that when a load turned up for another city or terminal, and a driver from that terminal was available, the "foreign" driver got the assignment. But what I'm curious about is whether if another New York-based crew arrived after Bostian's, might that crew, by virtue of seniority, be given priority, thus forcing Bostian to wait longer for a return trip?

The other question concerns the accessibility of Bostian's personal phone while on duty and/or actually operating a locomotive. Some posts (though I don't recall the source) seemed to imply that personal electronic devices are placed under lock and key -- though no one seemed to be sure just how -- while crew members were physically engaged in train service. Does anyone know if this actually is possible? Thanks!

ajp wrote:here's a laymans question

is the control layout of an Acela different from a ACS-64?

the engineer just cam off of one and seemingly went right onto the other. Would that have anything to do with the "throttle up" just before the derailment?

They are all similar, brakes on far right throttle and reverser on the left. If you don't have the basic controls down then you really should not be in the seat.

2nd trick op wrote:The other question concerns the accessibility of Bostian's personal phone while on duty and/or actually operating a locomotive. Some posts (though I don't recall the source) seemed to imply that personal electronic devices are placed under lock and key -- though no one seemed to be sure just how -- while crew members were physically engaged in train service. Does anyone know if this actually is possible? Thanks!

The actual rules (220.303) reads as follows :

Railroad operating employees (Generally T & E employees - refer to 49 CFR §220.5 for complete definition)shall not use an electronic device if
that use would interfere with their safety-related duties or safety-related duties of another railroad operating employee.
No individual in the cab of a controlling locomotive shall use an electronic device that would interfere with a railroad
operating employee’s performance of safety-related duties.

There is a further clarification specifically for an employee engaged in the operation of a locomotive (e.g., a locomotive engineer) :

A locomotive engineer operating the controls of a train may NOT use a
device when –
• On a moving train
• Any crewmember is on the ground
• Any crewmember is riding equipment during a switching operation
• Any RR employee is assisting in the preparation of the train for movement

There is nothing, notice, on where the phone must be stored. At the federal level.

Almost every RR I know of (including mine) has implemented this rule with language that states the device must be turned off, and stored in the employee's grip bag (e.g., it can't be off, but in your pocket).

I don't have access to Amtrak's rules, but I find it hard to believe they would be any different.

Silverliner, thanks for the PM. So the signals displayed the correct sequence in approach to a slow-speed crossover, and the crew overlooked it after the station stop.

litz wrote:Almost every RR I know of (including mine) has implemented this rule with language that states the device must be turned off, and stored in the employee's grip bag (e.g., it can't be off, but in your pocket).

I don't have access to Amtrak's rules, but I find it hard to believe they would be any different.

I think that specific language was from the original Emergency Order that came out after Chatsworth. But even if that language did not make it to the final rule, all the railroads sure jumped on it and kept it in THEIR operating rules now. Mine indeed is also one.

ExCon90 wrote:Silverliner, thanks for the PM. So the signals displayed the correct sequence in approach to a slow-speed crossover, and the crew overlooked it after the station stop.

You're welcome. Yep, that pretty much nails it....

Is this what triggered NORAC Rule 504b?

Fishrrman wrote:n2cbo wrote above:
[[ 1.) Two other engineers (In the US we call them engineers, NOT enginemen ]]

They were known as "enginemen" for years on the Penn Central...

I will defer to you on this since I was only involved in railroading during the Amtrak era.

n2cbo wrote:

Fishrrman wrote:n2cbo wrote above:
[[ 1.) Two other engineers (In the US we call them engineers, NOT enginemen ]]

They were known as "enginemen" for years on the Penn Central...

I will defer to you on this since I was only involved in railroading during the Amtrak era.

They were known as "enginemen" for many more years on the PRR, as well as the Pennsylvania-Readiong Seashore Lines.

chuchubob wrote:They were known as "enginemen" for many more years on the PRR, as well as the Pennsylvania-Readiong Seashore Lines.

So "engineman" or "enginemen" would be correct for describing a PRR operated train but incorrect for describing an engineer on a current operation.

justalurker66 wrote:

chuchubob wrote:They were known as "enginemen" for many more years on the PRR, as well as the Pennsylvania-Readiong Seashore Lines.

So "engineman" or "enginemen" would be correct for describing a PRR operated train but incorrect for describing an engineer on a current operation.

The union for men who operate locomotives in the US is the Brotherhood of Locomotive ENGINEERS

mmi16 wrote:

justalurker66 wrote:

chuchubob wrote:They were known as "enginemen" for many more years on the PRR, as well as the Pennsylvania-Readiong Seashore Lines.

So "engineman" or "enginemen" would be correct for describing a PRR operated train but incorrect for describing an engineer on a current operation.

The union for men who operate locomotives in the US is the Brotherhood of Locomotive ENGINEERS

And the union for women who operate locomotives is called what?

Greg Moore wrote:

mmi16 wrote:

justalurker66 wrote:

chuchubob wrote:They were known as "enginemen" for many more years on the PRR, as well as the Pennsylvania-Readiong Seashore Lines.

So "engineman" or "enginemen" would be correct for describing a PRR operated train but incorrect for describing an engineer on a current operation.

The union for men who operate locomotives in the US is the Brotherhood of Locomotive ENGINEERS

And the union for women who operate locomotives is called what?

Brotherhood of Locomotive ENGINEERS

Women have not organized a separate organization.

Most railroads called the person operating the train an ENGINEER. The Pennsylvania was not traditional in this respect. Penn Central on the other hand generally called us engineers although on the former PRR they still called us enginemen. Since women are rather common engineers today I suspect all of the railroads today call us "ENGINEERS". My pass always said "ENGINEER" or rather "LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEER" on it. My union at the time was the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the union absolutely refused to acknowledge the other term enginemen.
As for the position of the throttle, brake handles etc, it depended on the make and model of the locomotive. No engineer whom I am aware of ever mixed up the throttle with the brake valves no matter where they were located in the engineers position in the cab. We knew where they were and what their function was and well how to use them as well, it went with the territory.
As for signals, they generally meant the same thing but not always, the railroad industry at least in the US still does not have a universal rule book so what is something on the NS for example might not be the same on CSX. Another thing some railroads use route signals and some railroads use speed signals, part of being qualified is KNOWING exactly what any signal indication will allow you to do. The difference - a route signal tells you where you are going and it is up to you to know how fast you can go while a speed signal tells you how fast you can go and it is up to you to know where you are going. In either case an error or misjudgment can be very serious if you mess it up.
Noel Weaver

Something occurred to me about the FRA requirement to install speed signs, and I'd be interested in what present-day engineers (I guess all the enginemen have retired by now) think about it. How practical is it to have a wayside sign for a reduction to 50mph in 125-mph territory? It seems to me that at 125mph that would be almost a blink-and-you'll-miss-it situation. The engineer will still have to be up to date on the special instructions--will a wayside sign contribute much? I suspect that politicians tend to think in terms of highway driving.

will it help, probably, will it hurt, nope. a reminder might not be a fix all, but for now its best till PTC is up and running.