Northeast Regional 188 - Accident In Philadelphia

How about Septa? There are four tracks on the NEC at Frankford Jct and from aerial photos of the wreck it looks like the inbound track Septa Trenton Line trains use might not have been fouled by wreckage but the outbound track definitely was. How quickly was Septa alerted to shut down service I wonder.

Looking at morning-after photos, at least one and possibly two tracks were not infringed upon by the rear cars of #188. HOWEVER, there are the remains of a catenary tower blocking all the tracks, so even if a southbound train missed hitting #188, it would have "hard coupled" to a big ol' cross bar across the tracks.

Tommy Meehan wrote:

Noel Weaver wrote: And no Boston Job out of New Haven did more than three round trips in a seven day period...

I think Noel is saying that in the New Haven Railroad days no engine crews worked through between New York (GCT/NYP) and Boston. Engine crews changed at New Haven CT.

It's also been speculated that passengers on 188 were at some risk of having another train plow into the wreckage. I would be interested in knowing the timeline for how quickly service was suspended -- I expect it will be in the NTSB report when it comes out (sometime next year probably) -- but has anyone seen anything? How quickly after 188 derailed did Amtrak RTCs know they had a major problem at Shore?

How about Septa? There are four tracks on the NEC at Frankford Jct and from aerial photos of the wreck it looks like the inbound track Septa Trenton Line trains use might not have been fouled by wreckage but the outbound track definitely was. How quickly was Septa alerted to shut down service I wonder.

As far as scheduled trains go, northbound (railroad eastbound) SEPTA #769 would have been the closest train in the vicinity. Had it not been stopped by its own issue... or had it been running a tad later, there is a good probability that it would have been on that curve on Track #1 at the same time that Amtrak #188 went careening off the rails from Track #2 at the same spot.

The next scheduled southbound (railroad westbound) Amtrak train would have been #187, due through about an hour later.

The next scheduled southbound (railroad westbound) SEPTA train would have been #776, due through about an hour later.

The train dispatchers would have known there was a problem of some kind as soon as the wreck happened, because of track occupancy lights going up as the circuits were broken, and same for when the circuit breakers started popping when the catenary and signal wires went down. But they would not know it was due to a derailment, collision, or other situation until a report came in. Out in the field, the two westbounds I mentioned would still have been at and east of Trenton, so they would have been told to hold there. #769 evidently made it to North Philadelphia JUST before the derailment, as a friend's mother was on that train and she said they found out what happened as they were waiting at North Philadelphia to disembark for buses.

Tommy Meehan wrote:

Noel Weaver wrote: And no Boston Job out of New Haven did more than three round trips in a seven day period...

I think Noel is saying that in the New Haven Railroad days no engine crews worked through between New York (GCT/NYP) and Boston. Engine crews changed at New Haven CT.

It's also been speculated that passengers on 188 were at some risk of having another train plow into the wreckage. I would be interested in knowing the timeline for how quickly service was suspended -- I expect it will be in the NTSB report when it comes out (sometime next year probably) -- but has anyone seen anything? How quickly after 188 derailed did Amtrak RTCs know they had a major problem at Shore?

How about Septa? There are four tracks on the NEC at Frankford Jct and from aerial photos of the wreck it looks like the inbound track Septa Trenton Line trains use might not have been fouled by wreckage but the outbound track definitely was. How quickly was Septa alerted to shut down service I wonder.

I would think the only danger would have been from diesel trains (if any). The crash would have blown the circuit breakers to the cat power supply.

JimBoylan wrote:Some of the pre Amtrak stories we're seeing about work hours may have been in the times of 14 or 16 hour limits under the Federal Hours of Service rules. A 10 hour rest period was also required back then.
Also back then, Flagmen (remember them?) were often required to protect adjacent tracks in both directions after an Emergency brake application.

Until the most recent change in the Hours of Service Law in (i think) 2013 - 10 hours undisturbed rest could be requested, but it was not required as it became when the latest change in HOS was implemented. Since most crews work for money, few would request the 10 hour undisturbed rest period, as the additional rest decreases their earnings potential.

Silverliner II wrote:The train dispatchers would have known there was a problem of some kind as soon as the wreck happened, because of track occupancy lights going up as the circuits were broken, and same for when the circuit breakers started popping when the catenary and signal wires went down.

Thanks to all who answered, I had forgotten that at least one catenary tower was pretty much wiped out presumably grounding all overhead lines as well as making it physically impossible to pass the wreck site. The reason I wondered was, some railroad catenary (and third rail) systems are designed so that when power goes down in a given section the system automatically resets or powers up a couple of times. If the power keeps going out when reset then the system shuts down.

I'd still be interested in learning when and how Amtrak dispatchers handling that section first learned that 188 had been involved in a major derailment.

CarterB wrote:What were the car locations of the fatalities? Anyone in the business (1st) car survive?

Three in business class and the other five in the second car.

justalurker66 wrote:

Tadman wrote:These 8 deaths may be the only passenger train non-grade crossing incidents this year.

I certainly hope so ... this one incident reflects roughly a third of the average passenger fatalities for a year.

As far as the comparisons to highway death rates, comparing deaths per TRILLIONS of passenger miles on the road vs millions of miles on passenger rail. Comparing millions of vehicles with no fixed guideways and primarily amateur drivers to thousands of larger vehicles operated solely by professionals. It is hardly a fair comparison.

It is a good thing that the passenger death rate on passenger rail is a tenth of the death rate on US highways. It is a bad thing that even a system operated solely by professionals (engineers, maintainers and controllers) still kills as many people as it does each year. And on the freight side more professional railroaders will be killed running this nation's trains than the passenger fatality count. I believe the system can, and should, be safer.

We already know how to make it safer. Just do what they do on the high-speed lines everywhere else in the world. You'll end up with virtually zero operational passenger fatalities. We shouldn't operate passenger and freight on the same tracks. We shouldn't operate passenger trains without failsafes for signals and speed limits. Finally, we should either eliminate grade crossings, or have gates which can't be driven around.

As for the highway death comparisons, even if you feel the rates for passenger rail are much too high (and I agree they are), the death/injury rates on highways are atrocious. This is despite very low legal speeds compared to rail travel, plenty of mandated crash protection mechanisms, and "forgiving" roads. IMHO training to drive road vehicles should be at least on par with that needed for an amateur pilot's license. Moreover, driver's licenses should be revoked permanently if the driver is at fault in a crash involving fatalities or serious injuries (or if they drive impaired). They should also require periodic recertification. The bottom line is nobody should be operating heavy equipment without requisite training, regardless of whether that equipment is a railroad train or an automobile. It bothers me on many levels that railway crashes are sensationalized by the media but they're silent on 35,000 dying each year on the nation's highways. Nobody wants to hear this because the end result would have to be most people would lose the privilege to drive because they just lack the ability to safely do so, even with plenty of training. I mention this on a site of railroad enthusiasts simply because a nation where hardly anyone is allowed to drive would be one where we would have to by necessity invest quite a bit more in our railroads and local transit. I think that's what everyone here wants.

CarterB wrote:What were the car locations of the fatalities? Anyone in the business (1st) car survive?

I read somewhere the conductor was in the restroom in the 1st car, and survived ...

Read somewhere else that people heard him hollering for help, and got him out after the wreck ...

Now whether that means he was in the business car ... or wasn't ... or if he was, and others also were in there and survived (to help extricate him) ... there just aren't enough details known to know for sure.

Tommy Meehan wrote:

Silverliner II wrote:The train dispatchers would have known there was a problem of some kind as soon as the wreck happened, because of track occupancy lights going up as the circuits were broken, and same for when the circuit breakers started popping when the catenary and signal wires went down.

Thanks to all who answered, I had forgotten that at least one catenary tower was pretty much wiped out presumably grounding all overhead lines as well as making it physically impossible to pass the wreck site. The reason I wondered was, some railroad catenary (and third rail) systems are designed so that when power goes down in a given section the system automatically resets or powers up a couple of times. If the power keeps going out when reset then the system shuts down.

I'd still be interested in learning when and how Amtrak dispatchers handling that section first learned that 188 had been involved in a major derailment.

The security video showed three flashes/explosions ...

Presumably that was from the wreck, then two attempts at re-energization ... then the breakers stayed popped.

litz wrote:

rohr turbo wrote:

the sarge wrote: ... I can't remember the last time a train plowed into an already crashed train out on a main.

Metro-North Fairfield comes to mind. Fortunately no one killed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairfield_train_crash" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are several accidents in England (and elsewhere in Europe) where this happened ...

Today is the 100th anniversary of Quintinshill, the worst accident in UK history (official death toll 226, but many believe the true total may be substantially higher) - but largely unknown as it involved a troop train in wartime, and was not reported as fully as it might have been:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vqx7v" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintinshill_rail_disaster" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Until you get to zero, things could always be safer. But I want to distance that notion from the notion that travel by rail isn't significantly, orders of magnitude, safer than driving. I don't think it matters that there are professionals operating trains compared to amateur drivers. The object is transportation. The facts are what they are. Add in the fact that some of the rail fatalities were a result of poor driving – I haven't seen anyone mention that yet. Do rail accident fatalities include the drivers of vehicles hit by trains? If so, that isn't really fair either. I don't see why rail statistics should include anyone who was killed trespassing. Maybe they already don't.

litz wrote:

Ken W2KB wrote:The FRA rule for personal electronic devices such as cellphones is that they must be turned off whenever the train is in motion. If turned off there cannot be any transmissions or actions by the phone.

Yes and no ... the rule applies differently for someone in direct operation of a locomotive (e.g. the engineer) than it does for a brakeman/fireman (e.g. someone in the locomotive, but not actively operating it) ... vs a conductor or other crew travelling within a passenger train, or in a trailing piece of equipment (e.g., caboose) in a freight train.

And the railroad's rules, and how the railroad applies the FRA rule, also apply.

for instance, at my railroad, ALL crew (regardless of whether or not they're the engineer, or where they are located within the train), the electronics must be turned off and stowed in your grip the whole time you are on duty.

At a minimum, if you are the engineer, then yes, it must be off and in the bag. You cannot turn it on and make calls while stopped. You must deboard the locomotive, stand a prescribed safe distance away, and only then can you turn it on and make your phone call.

The sole exception to this rule : calling 911 in case of emergency.

Some Short Lines (The Black River & Western comes to mind) got a waiver since they use the cell phones to dispatch the Railroad. I believe that the crew are issued Company Cell Phones to use in this case. If I am wrong, Please someone correct me, as this information is a few years old.

ryanov wrote:Add in the fact that some of the rail fatalities were a result of poor driving – I haven't seen anyone mention that yet. Do rail accident fatalities include the drivers of vehicles hit by trains? If so, that isn't really fair either. I don't see why rail statistics should include anyone who was killed trespassing. Maybe they already don't.

That's an excellent point. I don't have an answer to your question but personally I feel grade crossing collisions shouldn't be counted towards the total killed or injured on trains, even if some of those deaths/injuries occur on the train. Grade crossing accidents are 100% the responsibility of the driver unless the grade crossing equipment is malfunctioning. Generally though that isn't the case. And yes, railroad fatalities shouldn't include those trespassing on the ROW, either. When you discount both these things, I wouldn't be surprised if many years there were close to zero fatalities. As I wrote earlier, grade crossings in general are a bad idea. Long term we should get rid of them. Short term we need crossing gates which can't be driven around.

Tonight while perusing the Yard Limits.com Amtrak forum found a interesting Washington Post article dated May 15, by author Lydia De Pillis. The title, " Was the engineer on Amtrak 188 too tired to drive? " underneath it " Labor union says engineer of train was likely fatigued because of Amtrak's cost-driven schedule changes." Gist of article claims Amtrak cranking up the usage of short turnarounds and possibly ? compromising safety. Perhaps one of you more literate computer whizzes could retrieve the article and post it here on this thread. Found the article quite illuminating in exposing the "turn up the wick" mentality at Amtrak and it's potential link to this accident.

The conductor of 188, who has already filed a lawsuit against Amtrak, was in the first car and suffered a broken neck.

[He] was taking a restroom break in the first car during his work shift when the passenger train went off the rails, attorney Bruce Nagel told a news conference, saying the train suddenly surged forward and then crashed. News link

There were eight fatalities but I feel certain many more people were probably riding in the first car. Was the first car the Business Class/Amcafe? The photo I posted earlier taken by someone on board 188 was taken in the Amcafe. There were obviously survivors.