My father, a 40 year veteran brakeman/conductor on the Northern Pacific, taught me to always get off with the foot closest to the track hitting the ground first. That way, if you trip, you fall away from the train. It worked for him for 40 years and me for several.

Steve

http://youtu.be/YFftm3bXNOs


Good video showing how to get on and off moving cars.

One of the subjects in my original brakeman training class at the museum where I volunteer was boarding and alighting from moving freight cars and cabooses. The rule was "lead with your trailing foot." I'll have to double check, but I think this is now forbidden in the current GCOR rule book. The train must be stopped before getting on or off. Even before the change, the instruction was "if you think the train is moving too fast for you to safely board or unload, it IS moving too fast. Give the engineer a 'stop' signal (or radio call) and board after the train is stopped." The unspoken subtext is, "don't try to show off your skills and wind up getting hurt."

Before I retired, I worked for an electric utility. Electricity travels much faster than a train, and workers have formal procedures to make SURE a line is de-energized before work begins, and similar procedures to make sure everyone is in the clear before re-energizing. At the bi-monthly safety meetings, we would bring our accident prevention manuals, and I would often remind new employees: "Remember, every page in that book is written in blood."

Regarding the video posted above, that is not the way I was taught to get off. On the Milwaukee, we were taught this:

Say you are facing the equipment, which is moving from your left to your right. You let go with your right hand while continuing to hold on with your left hand. Then rotate on your left foot, which is in the stirrup, or on the engine step. You rotate to your right so your body and right foot swings out away from the equipment. Then you hit the ground with your right foot first.

That is exactly the procedure shown at 6:35, which the video says is the wrong way to do it. I was taught that was the right way.

Right after that part of the video, it shows what they say is the correct that procedure, which involves hitting the ground with the left foot first. That seems really awkward to me. It seems like there would be a high probability of injuring the left leg by crossing it behind the right leg and trying to get it ahead of the right leg before it hits the ground.

If there were any loss of footing, you are going to have your legs crossed when it occurs. They say it rotates the body away from the equipment, but the way I was taught also rotates the body away from the equipment. Either way, the center point of rotation is going to be about the same place.

There definitely seems to be two different schools of thought regarding getting on and off moving equipment. In my shortline days, I was taught the "trailing foot" method and grew very comfortable doing it that way. The advantage of doing it that way, is that you maintain three points of contact with the equipment right up until you touch down. Yes, you do have to cross the leg behind, but as soon as it touches the ground the movement of the train negates that.

After moving over to a Class 1, we were taught the "leading foot" method. It does turn you toward the direction of movement, but it requires you to drop your points of contact to two (one hand and one leg). To me, it was always uncomfortable doing it that way, and made me feel like it was an "all or nothing" method ... because letting go and turning would make it very difficult to pull yourself back up if you saw a last second reason to abort the dismount. You would end up swinging around trying to grab back on the equipment instead of just pulling the foot back up while both hands and other foot were still firmly attached. Depending upon the train speed, the leading foot method might cause you to swing backwards (with your back to the equipment) if decide there is a reason NOT to get off at that moment ... which puts one in a very bad situation.

And, yes ... the Class 1's still do teach it in case someone has to bail off a moving car or engine to save themselves from potential injury or death.

Well......I was taught the leading foot method, as it allows you to drop off and assume a easy walking motion after getting down....
As to the "incident"....This is likely due to having somone either "new" or generally inexperienced, placed in a position where he was not properly trained to deal with the situation........It would seem that this person made a simple mistake, he probably didn't know any better and was probably never trained to deal with that situation. Lack of proper training likely lead, very unfortunately, to his death ......an experienced railroader knows not to be in a "pinch" point, such as the close clearance between a loading dock and the railcars, new/inexperienced people need to be taught about that danger. regular rules classes don't cover enough "real" world situations to be effective here......
The "rules written in blood statement" is, for want of a better word, nieve?
in truth, only SOME of those rules were written in blood, most of the newer ones are not......they are in fact the product of two things:
1: compromise and negotiation between the union and management- one wants more money/benefits, the other wants to reduce costs, etc. (more rules= more employee turnover= lower wages=lower costs).
2: knee jerk reaction by regulatory agencies/government due to situations that are typically already addressed in the rules, or by common sense.....
We didn't operate for 150 years getting on and off moving equipment to suddenly find that it was/is too dangerous......Railroading is a dangerous profession, its very easy to get hurt or killed. No matter what, you cannot make it completely safe......unfortunately accidents like this will probably lead to the adoption of more rules, instead of fixing the real problem

Actually, I beg to differ on example 1. Considering the training costs for new employees, and the fact that they are often "in the pipeline" for six months before they are promoted to conductor (not even factoring in the associated expense of training them later to be engineers or remote control operators), high employee turnover actually costs you money in the long run. The yearly cost savings in "step rates" of pay (first few years on the Class 1's) are negated when you factor in how much it cost to hire and train the employee. Attend any meeting with operational supervisors, and the one subject that keeps coming up is a desire to retain the employees they hire, instead of having to constantly recruit and train people. I have also never seen management approach labor asking them to negotiate on prospective rule implementation.

Most safety rules these days are written by the law department in an effort to minimize risk exposure, and therefore liability, that could be found under FELA if an employee gets hurt or killed. If labor was actually consulted, you would see a LOT of pontificating on how a lot of rules should be tossed out of the book, because they hinder operations or make a job take LONGER to perform with negligible impact on safety.

But, I digress.

In any case, I would have to be privvy to the particulars of the incident in question before commenting on the "what ifs" involved. It is a very unfortunate situation, and thoughts and prayers go out to his family, friends, and fellow museum staff who are affected by it.

I was taught, and use the trailing foot method. I feel that is is safer, since it results in more distance between you and the car as you get off.

Since trying to explain all of this in words is akward, try this. Using a stationary car, go through the motions you'd use for either method. As you touch down on the ground, which one puts your center of mass further away from the car?

Of course you should use whatever rules the operating railroad you're on specify, which means this is pretty much just an academic discussion at this point.

But if you're interested in the difference between the techniques from a historic point of view, try simulating them sometime. As noted, the trailing foot move may feel akward the first few times, and would probably seem even more akward without the motion of the car to assist in the transition.

As would we all. There are too many unknowns. Was he part of the move, was the crew aware of his position? Was he aware of the movement? Why was he where he was?

Thank you for having the wisdom to understand that and make that comment, rather than engaging in idle speculation like I've seen elsewhere.

Something like this can happen to anyone, no matter what your experience. Years ago, I felt something brush the back of my coat as I rode a car. I had just discovered, much to my relief (and horror) that I would actually fit between that obstruction and the train at that point, but with absolutely no room to spare. Yes, I knew it was there, we were spotting there at the time. Yes, I knew the track, like the back of my hand. It was night, dark, I was tired, apparently I either got momentarily distracted or lost track of our exact location, I'm not sure which, since after it happened all I could think about was "Holy !@#&*(&, that was a stupid move!"

I would not have predicted I'd fit through the tight space. It certainly wasn't an experiment I'd wanted to try. Luckily for me, I escaped without injury, and gained a new respect for total situational awareness at all times.

As far as I can tell so far, we don't even know whether the fatality involved a professional railroader in the employ of a short line, a part-time railroad employee or staffer, a volunteer with years of experience, or one of those "Christmas and Easter" guys that only comes out to help for the "big" events like the Santa and Thomas trains. Given that we apparently lack even this basic information, ANY speculation on causes, prevention, etc. is premature, and we should all await a thorough and official investigation and report. The only question to ask now is, which agency will do said investigation, and will we thus be able to see and learn from said report(s)?

At the Western Railway Museum the Rule Book prohibits getting on or off moving equipment. No schedule is so tight that a person cannot wait for a complete stop before getting on or off. This may not be authentic railroad practice but it is a lot safer.

It is interesting that there are actually two acceptable methods of dismounting. This came up on another forum once, and we could not agree that two different methods exist. I can see the pros and cons of both methods, but prefer the leading foot hitting the ground first. It just seems to put a person on the ground in a more stable stance.

I do agree that it is somewhat of an “all or nothing” technique, in that it cannot be aborted midway if the ground suddenly appears to contain a dismount trip or bad footing hazard. However, with either technique, there is a point where the person completely lets go of the equipment, but is still relying on the first foot contact for adhesion to the ground.

In that moment, I would much rather have my leading foot making that ground contact than my trailing foot. If ground adhesion is lost due to snow or ice, for example, a person landing first on their trailing foot is going to have it sweep out from under them in the forward direction because so much of their body mass will be trailing behind that awkwardly extended trailing foot.

If, on the other hand, a person encountered the same slippery condition when landing on their leading foot, they will be more in the position of a downhill skier. Their trailing leg/foot will be able to join right in for added stability.

But with the trailing-foot-first dismount onto a slippery spot, by the time the trailing foot encounters it, the leading leg/foot will simply fly up in the air as the trailing leg goes out from under you.

All I can say is that miscommunication just about killed me at 2AM in Merriam, MN years ago. In my case, it was between the rear brakeman (me), the conductor, and the engineer. This was on a Class 1, and it can happen anywhere. Class 1, shortline, industry, museum, it doesn't matter. Still a tragedy.

Can you tell us more about what happened? I know Merriam, MN very well.

I also thought class 1's had prohibited moving dismounts a decade ago. Comments?