Hello

The close clearance incident with 2021 being moved really needs to be a moment of clarity for weekend railroaders / tourists railroads and museums.

This would being a real good teaching tool for train crew safety .

Not leaving equipment to foul is a basic rule of railroad safety, I fully understand museums for with limited space leaving equipment in tight spaces. But this doesn’t excuse safety.

There are a number of good safety practices developed by the FRA SOFA committee, please take the time to review and talk about them in your safety and job briefings.

Can you give details? I've never heard of this.

I found this (don't complain if you haven't signed up for facebook for free, it's your choice): https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... tid=NnVzG8

Oh, you mean recently moving AFT1/RDG 2101.
The thread title and first post were very confusing.

When the B&O museum moved AFT 2101 today, it made contact with passenger car that was left to foul..

There are a number of videos of the incident floating around.

Like I stated it should be a teaching lesson.

Photo of the incident

I watched that video and it looks like a collision between the loco and the passenger car but on close observation I don't believe the equipment actually contacted each other. They walked that loco through their yard at a snail's pace with observer's everywhere.

Indeed, all railroad museums should have all of the track, capital facilities and fully trained staff so a once every 20 year move of historic RR equipment goes perfectly...

And the FRA should be on site each and every time these moves occur to "teach" everyone how to do it correctly...

For the record, the FRA has few trained RR operating crews and only pipes up after something goes wrong.

And exactly how is the FRA going to acquire enough staff to "be on site each and every time these moves occur to "teach" everyone how to do it correctly..." without poaching railroads of experienced crews?

Sarcasm?

Let’s address the a couple statements

1. The once every 20 year move
Museums are moving equipment around enough that the development of good safety systems and procedures.

2. The FRA

A. The are a number of switching safety programs developed
By the carrriers/ unions / FRA under the sofa program to help with issues.

B. If you do crush or kill a crew member the FRA will make it a point to review your operations

Like I said this is a teaching moment for other railroads.

I can tell you from personal experience see what happens when some is crushed from leaving something ton foull is not funny….

I changed the topic title changing the number of the locomotive from 2102 to 2101. Please keep the comments within out guidelines.

Tom Gears
Moderator

I think you might just be right --- The cab roof overhang doesn't look crumpled, and the passenger car doesn't seem to have any divots on the corner. This appears to be "Much Ado About Nothing" (but I wasn't there...)

There was definitely contact between the two pieces of equipment. If you watch closely, you can see the passenger car rock away from the camera a bit. What a dumb mistake to make.

I believe the passenger car is a PRR P85l, converted from a Budd 21-Roomette sleeper. They have the distinction that every other row of seats has no window. Amtrak didn't want them so they fell into commuter service, got HEP and went to the B&O Museum from MARC. They still have no window for every other row of seats.

On a Reading T-1, the frame runs solid to the back of the cab. The back of the frame rests on swivels that rest on the trailing truck and allow the truck to swivel under the frame. The smokebox-boiler-firebox is one assembly that is bolted to the cylinder saddle (cast with the frame) and rests on slides in back that allow for fore-and aft expansion as the boiler heats with the steam pressure.

Thus the cab, moving backwards, does not start to turn until the rear driving axle enters the curve. There is a considerable overhang.

Phil Mulligan

I'd be more inclined to call it "Much Ado About a Minor Glitch". It appears that the engine did snag a grab iron on the coach and after the two were separated the coach was moved a few feet.

Question - In planning the move should the coach have been moved further into the clear? Hindsight answer: Yes. Foresight answer: Maybe. Discussion: As clearly demonstrated in the video other equipment cleared. I'd be willing to bet having watched the video that every measurement they made said it would clear. I can think of three or so reasons none of which are anybody's fault that it did not. Those can be another discussion and yes, brother Woodring is right in retrospect that the prudent move would have been to shove the coach a few feet more or remove it entirely if there was a question.

However, one of the constants in operational planning is the knowledge that, no matter how carefully you prepare, something can, strike that, will go wrong. Therefore, in addition to planning for what you intend to do, you also plan for the things which you can expect to go wrong. One of the things I noticed was that everybody walking alongside seemed to have a particular task - watching the wheels, watching the track, and watching the clearances. There even seems to have been a human flange lubricator assigned. This was all done at slow walking pace. The result was that when the cab did catch the grab iron the movement was able to be stopped and the situation rectified before there was any serious damage (defined for those who have invoked the spectre of FRA oversight as meeting the financial threshold for reporting).

The whole affair is so insignificant as a safety violation that had it occurred anyplace other than a railfan live stream it would be hardly worth the mention.


Tommy - Thank you for correcting the locomotive number. As this thread was introduced as a safety (please note my spelling) issue this is an excellent reminder that one of the keys to a safe operation is an almost compulsive attention to detail.

GME