Northeast Regional 188 - Accident In Philadelphia

gokeefe wrote:

TomNelligan wrote:Which makes me wonder: will the FRA bureaucrats now demand that passenger rail operators install seat belts in coaches? I'm not aware of any passenger rail system anywhere in the world that uses them.

I don't think so because the accident was preventable by PTC. I do think they may consider interior designs that use luggage compartments with doors in order to reduce the injury rate in the event of a rollover. The window blowouts are a serious issue in my mind. This may be the beginning of the end for the Amfleet cars.

Regarding luggage compartments with doors, I do believe that is why the Acela, California Car, and Surfliner coaches were built that way.... so that concern has already been addressed with new equipment in the past, and will likely have been a design requirement for Amfleet and Horizon replacements anyway, even without this accident.

Silverliner II wrote:Regarding luggage compartments with doors, I do believe that is why the Acela, California Car, and Surfliner coaches were built that way.... so that concern has already been addressed with new equipment in the past, and will likely have been a design requirement for Amfleet and Horizon replacements anyway, even without this accident.

That is correct. That's already in the plans for the Amfleet replacements.

I must say I'm surprised that the Amfleets had not been "retroed" with enclosed overhead racks. It certainly is a "doable".

Of course, with the imminent (regardless of whether the moving vans consigned to 1600 originated in Chappaqua or Manhattan come January), replacement of the A-I's, and the II's not far behind if there are to be LD trains serving New York, might Amtrak start doing just that now (that could find itself "under the Micascope")?

GBN: Good observation - VIA's rebuilt HEP and LRC cars have enclosed luggage racks...

Enclosed overhead luggage rack containers may become a equipment requirement in the future...MACTRAXX

gokeefe wrote:

MCL1981 wrote:That's a politically motivated statement that has no business in the NTSB.

I disagree. I presume no political intent on the part of the NTSB. Therefore I interpret the dissent as indicating that the lack of PTC permitted an operating condition to exist from which it was impossible for the engineer to recover from once they had lost situational awareness in a low visibility situation. This makes for an interesting case of PTC as the "electronic fireman" in the cab who can help assist the engineer in maintaining situational awareness. I think in this particular case the idea that PTC was a causal factor carries some weight, but not enough to sway the whole Board. The real point that the dissent is making is that simple (and repeatable) human error shouldn't have such catastrophic consequences and that PTC would clearly have prevented this.

I think you're not reading what she said. The operative word here is CAUSE. She is saying "This accident was caused by a lack of PTC". That is fundamentally, logically, and ethically wrong. In fact, I would go as far as saying it is an outright lie, because she knows better. I'm baffled she said such a thing. I would expect that kind of statement from a politician or salesman that wants to gloat. The lack of PTC did not cause this train to go too fast into a curve and derail. The cause of the crash was the engineer operating the train losing his situational awareness, driving the train too fast into a curve. Period, end of story on cause.

The lack of PTC is absolutely a valid contributing factor to the outcome. Just like the numerous other contributing factors. Contributing factors are things that could have reasonably been different that could have reasonably nipped the cause in the bud before the crash, or reasonably altered the outcome to be less tragic.

If a pilot runs out of gas in a plane because he miscalculated how much fuel he needed, the probable case is the pilot's failure to adequately plan and monitor fuel. The probable cause is not "Cessna's failure to install a bigger fuel tank" just because that may have covered the pilot's ass in his poor planning. That's the nature of what this lady is suggesting.

PTC could have prevented this accident.

The cause of the accident was loss of situational awareness.

As we saw with Asiana 214, more automation doesn't necessarily make things safer. If crew come to rely on PTC they may pay less attention, resulting in more accidents of types that can't be avoided by PTC. Research is needed to determine the safest combination of crew and technology for operating trains. The answer could be different for the NEC and for other parts of the country.

I'd like to see whether machine vision on trains could automatically apply brakes when the computer sees an obstacle on the tracks. I'd like to see whether drone inspection of tracks could spot hazards like the out of alignment condition in Kansas or the rockfall in Vermont. PTC isn't the be all end all.

I think we're arguing some linguistic semantics here. It's important to note the distinction between "CAUSE" and "PREVENTION". PTC would have prevented the accident, or at least mitigated the damage. The immediate cause was excessive speed. NTSB has said that's due to loss of situational awareness. What caused that? Radio traffic. Take it another step; what caused the radio traffic? THE ROCK.

Now, let's talk about responsibility. In car accidents (not withstanding no-fault states), damages are assessed based upon percentages. You'll see this in any cases that may go to trial. Who's responsible?

-The rock thrower: if they could find the punk who threw the rock, that person would certainly be in line. Criminally, a case could be made for involuntary manslaughter; voluntary would be a tougher sell, but possible.

-The engineer: "loss of situational awareness". Clearly, the distraction of the rock thrower is a mitigating factor. Stuff happens, we blank. I think he's the least culpable here.

-Amtrak and the lack of PTC: I know we've previously discussed why Amtrak didn't prioritize this section (much the same as MNRR didn't have any penalty application for the Spuyten Duyvil curve). The lack of PTC here to me is as much responsible (not the cause) for the SEVERITY of the accident. Note the distinction. It's not the CAUSE; but it's a contributing factor.

This is why I never believe everything the Feds tell us. There is a lot being left out. Look at the bullet holes in the windshield of the loco. And the Feds denied it. They're insulting our intelligence. Yeah and I got another boat to sell you all......

There are no bullet holes in the windshield, and there are not impacts consistent with rocks being thrown at it. And if you look at the damage to the SEPTA train that was struck nearby, it is completely different. There is no conspiracy or coverup. That's absurd. They are not capable of keeping a secret or covering something like that up. Also, if there was evidence of bullets or projectiles, Amtak would eat that up because it would take the heat off them.

The people insisting it was a rock or bullets came to that conclusion first, then looked for evidence supporting it, and ignored everything else. Typical conspiracy theory non-sense.

MCL1981 wrote:I think you're not reading what she said. The operative word here is CAUSE. She is saying "This accident was caused by a lack of PTC". That is fundamentally, logically, and ethically wrong.

I read her opinion as blaming negligence. The railroad could have done something to prevent this accident - they were negligent in their duty to prevent the accident by not installing PTC (or at least rely on on the then existing system and send a reduced speed code to the train).

And while the other board members did not feel as strongly about it as she did, it is obvious from the chairman's statement that the board felt that PTC should have been in place at the time of this accident and needs to be in place before the next PTC preventable accident.

I agree with the statement put forth by the board ... ultimately holding the crew responsible for the safe operation of their train regardless of other safety measures (such as PTC) that are provided. I believe it is a better outcome to remind people that they remain responsible. But it is clear that this accident would not have happened if a working PTC system would have been in place. And I am glad that the board is acknowledging that fact.

MCL1981 wrote:There are no bullet holes in the windshield, and there are not impacts consistent with rocks being thrown at it. And if you look at the damage to the SEPTA train that was struck nearby, it is completely different. There is no conspiracy or coverup. That's absurd. They are not capable of keeping a secret or covering something like that up. Also, if there was evidence of bullets or projectiles, Amtak would eat that up because it would take the heat off them.

The people insisting it was a rock or bullets came to that conclusion first, then looked for evidence supporting it, and ignored everything else. Typical conspiracy theory non-sense.

You're just part of the conspiracy, [the] man!

I wonder if some (not on here necessarily), but in general are forgetting that Amtrak was just months away from having the NEC 100% "PTC'd" and that the reason why it took so long in the first place was because they wanted access to the proper spectrum in order to do it right. Had they gotten it sooner this accident never would have happened.


And frankly now that it's official that Mr. Bostian was distracted from a radio transmission regarding an engineer who was injured from a "projectile" in the vicinity of where his train was I don't see how that could even count as "involuntary manslaughter". That would be like a driver swerving their car to avoid a collision with another car with an incapacitated driver and then suddenly hitting a group of pedestrians crossing the street getting 25 to life.


Sometimes these things just happen. This is why advances in technology exist to at least help prevent accidents from happening (of course flat out making all automobile and truck traffic illegal would save countless lives and spare countless others of injuries, but I digress).

MCL1981 wrote:I think you're not reading what she said. The operative word here is CAUSE. She is saying "This accident was caused by a lack of PTC". That is fundamentally, logically, and ethically wrong. In fact, I would go as far as saying it is an outright lie, because she knows better. I'm baffled she said such a thing. I would expect that kind of statement from a politician or salesman that wants to gloat. The lack of PTC did not cause this train to go too fast into a curve and derail. The cause of the crash was the engineer operating the train losing his situational awareness, driving the train too fast into a curve. Period, end of story on cause.

In this case I'm treating "cause" as distinct from "responsibility". I get the sense that you may consider these two one and the same. In failure chain analysis they aren't. Responsibility has implications for administrative, civil and even criminal liability. The NTSB is a technical fact finding body that makes a causal determination related to the science of the incident, human error being among the more common factors they often consider.

I think the lack of PTC can reasonably be described as causal. Why? Because it is a routinely used technology for Amtrak and they had to make a decision not to install it at this particular location. I could understand if this was some futuristic unproven technology that wasn't widely used, but that's not the case here. In effect Amtrak allowed (note the passive nature of this act) this location to continue to operate "as is". They also did so knowing that their engines operate without the benefit of a fireman in the cab. Thus the engineer became and acted as a single point of catastrophic failure.

I think of PTC in much the same way as the Westinghouse safety brake. Once these brake systems became ubiquitous it could easily be said that accidents involving older rolling stock were being "caused" by the fact that a retrofit had yet to be completed. When the time period between the widespread adoption of technology and the accident starts to stretch into decades I think you're starting to cross the threshold into negligence. At that point "cause" in a technical investigation starts to become a legitimate question. The issue here is that "as designed" Amtrak's previous operating setup for that location made it entirely possible for a very small and very repeatable human error to become a catastrophic mistake.

That is something that is supposed to be avoided and protected against. The decision not to do so could be said to be the "cause" of the accident. The rest of the NTSB did not agree but I can certainly see why at least one of the Board members took that particular position. Perhaps as a final thought I would ask you to consider this question: If the same mistake (loss of situational awareness leading to catastrophe) happens again 30 years from now on the Northeast Corridor and PTC could have prevented the incident as well would the non-installation of PTC be considered a cause?

I disagree completely with your view and wording for the sames reasons I already typed. So I won't be retyping it.

I always found The Atlantic to be thoughtful in its analysis. I find that again:

'Preventable Tragedy': Amtrak 188 and the Case for Positive Train Control

In the aftermath of Amtrak 188’s deadly derailment one year ago, investigators, journalists, passengers, and the public all sought some explanation for how Brandon Bostian, an experienced, skilled, and meticulous engineer, crashed his train in Philadelphia. Had there been a mechanical failure? Was Bostian too tired, or impaired for some reason, to concentrate? Had he been speaking on a cellphone? Was the locomotive hit by rocks?

But the National Transportation Safety Board, in findings revealed Tuesday morning, has concluded the cause of the crash was far simpler: Investigators believe Bostian was distracted by radio traffic about rocks striking another train at the worst possible moment, leading him to run the train far too fast through a curve and derail. NTSB Chairman Christopher Hart used that conclusion to make an impassioned call for full implementation of Positive Train Control, a technological fail-safe that’s intended to prevent collisions and derailments.

“An engineer who is not fatigued, distracted, or impaired is not infallible on their best day,” Hart said. “Our investigation is to see whether the engineer was backstopped by safety technology such as PTC, or positive train control. At the time of the accident, PTC was not implemented on the portion of track where the derailment occurred. If a PTC system has been active, this treatment not have derailed. Close to 200 passengers would not have been injured and 8 other passengers would still be alive today.”

The above emphasis is mine. The are very complimentary of Bostian. More:

Bostian remains an enigma—the tragic figure at the center of the disaster. He cooperated with investigators, and reported having no memory of the time leading up to the crash, though the NTSB reported that the engineer had been moving the throttle during that stretch. He was concussed in the accident. Obsessed with trains since his childhood, Bostian had worked to achieve his dream job as engineer. Colleagues interviewed after the crash recalled him as an excellent engineer, toxicology tests came back negative, and his phone was turned off at the time of the derailment. The train was on time, and there was no indication that Bostian was trying to make up for lateness, a factor in some legendary train wrecks.

Not quite sure I think "enigma" is appropriate, but I think they mean it in the sense that it's his involvement that is puzzling; an otherwise respected engineer.

More on PTC:

The fact that an engineer like Bostian could be at the controls for a horrific accident is chilling, but as Hart noted, it’s not the only case. There were deadly rail crashes in California in September 2008 and the Bronx in December 2013, both of which would likely have been avoided by PTC. In total, NTSB has calculated that PTC would have prevented 145 accidents since 1969, in which 288 people were killed and nearly 6,600 were injured.