Talk:Pulled tail

Merge.
I don't see why this article isn't part of the article on Emergency brake (train). Much of this stuff is already covered there, and the few things that aren't (such as the phrase itself and the fact conductors used to communicate with engineers this way) really would be useful in that article.

That said, that article on the the Winfield disaster attributes it to a single soldier (not "soldiers") who activated the emergency brake (not necessarily the same thing as pulling the tail", and if it IS the same thing....again, why is there two articles?), and who happened to have been a signalman on that same railroad before the war. He expected the automatic signals to prevent and collisions, but in the event, the train hadn't gone far enough to reach the switch that activated it, and was thus hit by a following train. The soldier/signalman turned himself in at the trial, and was acquitted. He left the army and worked for the rest of his life as a signalman on that same railroad.

Anyway, yeah...don't see the need for this article when all this info would fit so much better in the main article..45Colt 01:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the merge idea. Apart from anything else, in over 25 years working on trains in the UK I have never heard the term "pulled tail". Comments on the edits suggest that it's not known in the US either, so if it's not from another English-speaking country (Australia?) then I suspect it's nothing more than one person's preferred term for the act of applying the emergency brake. For the record, UK colloquialisms used during my career include "dropping the tap" (guard applying the emergency brake) and "pulling the chain" (passenger doing same). Rossh1 (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Mention of the Sutton Coldfield crash
There's nothing in the current article about the crash that says anything about the guard's account mentioned here, or even anything on its talk page, and as a resident of the town I have to say it's not something I recognise from other reports of the incident. What's the source on that? It could do with being added to the accident article after all, if valid... though right now it says the cause of the accident was never properly established.

(There may be some information missing or removed from it, however, as I'm sure there were other suggestions about the rails being worn and leading to faster derailment than might otherwise have been expected, e.g. the driver may have slowed somewhat to take the turn at what he figured to be 40-45 that would have been rough but achievable on his last run through, but that would by then have been too fast even if he wasn't exceeding it anyway... there's no mention of that part at all) 209.93.141.17 (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Additional - the guard's "tugging the tail" to signal the driver to stop at the next safe place had nothing to do with the Norton Fitzwarren crash, as that was on a different train to the one that crashed, and entirely in response to a noticed side effect of it (the guard not seeing the crash happen but hearing his own train being pelted by flying ballast). Nor was "nothing found" - the side of the train was very clearly pitted and scoured and several windows had been broken, something that would have definitely required at least a report of something odd happening, and communication with the engine crew and passengers would probably have turned up at least one person who noticed that they had overtaken another train just before that incident...

Also in the case of Violet Town, there wasn't even any pulled tail at all; the crash was caused by the exact opposite, the driver's second (it's not clear from what I've been able to read whether that was a fireman, guard, or some other assistant in the cab) *preventing* an application of an emergency brake auxiliary to the driver's own controls, by acknowledging an automated vigilance alert at least once even though it was determined that the driver had likely suffered a fatal or severely incapacitating heart attack a minute or two earlier (or in one report, as much as ten minutes, with several negligent/pretty much autonomous button presses along the way), meaning any possible emergency brake application was delayed long enough for the signal-violating train, travelling at quite high speed, to cover at least 5 to 6 kilometres without actually being under any kind of real control, before crashing headlong into an oncoming freighter.

Really, those are more cases where someone on the "culprit" train - either the guard, a passenger, or other - noticing that something was amiss and pulling the emergency cord or tripping the emergency stopcock would have prevented the accident taking place, or at least significantly reduced its severity. Who added those links, and were they drunk?

(Not to mention that, whilst the Eschede accident could have been prevented by pulling the emergency cord, it's more the extreme sangfroid of the passenger whose family were very nearly impaled by the delaminated metal tyre going to find the train manager instead of pulling it immediately that was more to "blame", if we can really put the onus on anyone other than the company management for the accident (because the tyre could easily have flown off in a different direction, lodging in the undercarriage and still causing the crash but without being noticed). The manager wasn't really a guard, more a ticket inspector and passenger advisor/assistant, and much like the passenger wanted to make sure it wasn't just a strange fault with the seats themselves (having only the passenger's report that "something's come up through the floor" to go on) before pulling the cord on a 200km/h service and dealing with the fallout if it was something frivolous, or indeed the act itself caused an accident or passenger injury. The ride would have gone from being a little less smooth than had recently become normal, but probably no worse than with the older completely solid wheels, so it probably wouldn't have been paid as much notice as it would have if the trains had been shod with padded tyres or other ride improving measures from the outset... all in all that emergency cord would have been the very last line of defence at the end of a catalogue of avoidable failings, and one that would have needed a more obvious problem for someone to pull it straight away; plus the extreme nature of the crash was something of a perfect storm, given that it relied on the tyre coming off and lodging in the floor whilst still sticking out of the undercarriage, then in the space of two or three seconds ripping up the guide rail for one turnout and, by dint of that dragging along the track, forcing the following one to switch configuration, kicking the back end of the carriage sideways such to destroy the bridge supports... it could just as easily have ended up as a frightening but otherwise non injurious incident if the tyre had penetrated a few inches further, so not sticking out of the undercarriage as far and not precipitating the other events, with the train either making it safely to the next station where it could be held and examined, or at worst suffering a more simple and, whilst still possibly damaging or injurious, far less serious single-bogie derailment. Whilst it's technically true, putting it all on the hapless train manager for not pulling the cord is unfair, because we could just as easily say that the driver could have driven very slightly slower and it might not have happened either.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.141.17 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Made-up term
I had a long career in (US) railroading and never heard “pulled tail“ used. “Pull the air” was the term used. “Big hole” or “dynamite” the brakes referred to the engineer making an emergency brake application.


 * 216.152.18.132 (talk)

216.152.18.132 (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)