Cascades 501 Wreck 18 December 17

tk48states wrote:NY Times just reported train speed was 80 at the 30 mph curve, verified by speed recorder in P42. This wreck is squarely on Amtrak and individual engineer, any attempt to blame politicians doesn’t pass the smell test. My personal opinion is Amtk is too quick to promote young and inexperienced persons to run the train. Before 1971 it was unheard of to find a passenger engineer in his 20’s. It took years as a fireman to be promoted and anyone by then had an intimate knowledge of the route he was traveling and knew everything about train handling.

I don’t agree with the age factor, how is that any different then someone with 0 railroad experience hiring on and becoming a hogger that’s in the 30’s or 40’s? I became an engineer in my 20’s and I had several people in my class with 0 railroad experience that hired on and turned out to become excellent engineers. The issue may be the training or the ones signing off on the promotions.

even older cars confirm to FRA standards as crush strength of 800 000 lbs has been in effect for decades.
Budd company managed to exceed 1000 000 before 1983 go figure.

The VIA wreck was 30 mph thru a 15 mph crossover,entire crew forgot what the last signal had displayed before the station stop
and forgot where they were,1 of the crew was in training at that time.

Just saw NTSB spokesperson on ABC News. She said there was no brake application from the locomotive. Train did go in emergency but it was train initiated.
Also ABC reported a bus accident with 26 people on board, 12 dead. Not a very good ratio. Train fared much better. But also, it was in Mexico. Not sure what crash standards they have.

8th Notch wrote:

tk48states wrote:NY Times just reported train speed was 80 at the 30 mph curve, verified by speed recorder in P42. This wreck is squarely on Amtrak and individual engineer, any attempt to blame politicians doesn’t pass the smell test. My personal opinion is Amtk is too quick to promote young and inexperienced persons to run the train. Before 1971 it was unheard of to find a passenger engineer in his 20’s. It took years as a fireman to be promoted and anyone by then had an intimate knowledge of the route he was traveling and knew everything about train handling.

I don’t agree with the age factor, how is that any different then someone with 0 railroad experience hiring on and becoming a hogger that’s in the 30’s or 40’s? I became an engineer in my 20’s and I had several people in my class with 0 railroad experience that hired on and turned out to become excellent engineers. The issue may be the training or the ones signing off on the promotions.

It is also possible the engineer suffered a medical event. Not sure how to read the eyes swollen shut part, it is unclear if this was a result of the accident, or not .

Going through http://abcnews.go.com/US/county-transit ... d=51878888" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for more info (among other sources).

• Train auto-activated the brakes (probably as it lost air to them).
• Engineer survived but injured, per NPR.
• Engineer had run the route to get qualified while they were testing the route.
• A fireman was in the cab to get qualified.
• Train was *not* equipped with PTC. Track has PTC but not active.
• Train has central traffic control (cab signals) but no speed enforcement.
• NTSB reported on air that train was doing 80 in a 30.
• NTSB says investigation to last 7-10 days, but you know how long a full finding takes...
• Cleanup now underway, per ABC and KOMO news.

That said, SPECULATION WARNING! SPECULATION WARNING!

I would expect NTSB to focus a bit on the Charger that was leading. The engineer is recovering so they have the time to go through the Charger with a fine-tooth comb. That in turn would make all current Chargers a bit suspect.

I hope they're reinspecting those Chargers on delivery...

I think we will be hearing more about the training process and if the crews had adequate time qualifying on a new territory. I had testing with Amtrak several years back and I was a little surprised that it wasn't more intense. There are differences I would believe in that process if you are working on Amtrak property and working for Amtrak as opposed to working for another RR such as LIRR, NJT or SEPTA but operating on Amtrak owned lines. but truthfully, and I'm sure most Engineers and Conductors will agree that a couple of qualifying trips over new territory isn't enough to make you comfortable. Add into this a new locomotive type and you have a higher level of unfamiliarity. I still consider this to be a "perfect storm" situation in which a number of things came together and contributed to the derailment. Lets see what the NTSB will determine.

Maybe the brakes failed?? Ya, maybe aliens abducted the crew. Unless you think the crew's response to the brake lever malfunctioning would be to just leave the throttle up and proceed at 80mph for two miles until flying off the rails. Viya con dios? That's absurd. They would have reduced the throttle and slowed by other means. They would have dumped the air with some other emergency valve on the train. They would have used dynamics. I can go on. There was two miles of time to slow this train down and it did not drop 1 single MPH. "Maybe the brakes failed" is simply not a reasonable thought.

If the engineer was incapacitated or asleep, that leaves the other guy to do something.

So they were both distracted, or both incapacitated. The latter seems rather far fetched.

WSDOT/ORDOT Chargers were setup with PTC gear for both UP and BNSF systems,it's unknown if BNSF had activated the PTC on the Seattle sub.

there is no fireman on Amtrak trains , the train had 3 people in cab, engineer, a conductor qualifying and a Siemens Technician.
the PTC is not yet active on the bypass, its owned by sound transit not BNSF , they do however dispatch it.

I saw a photo of the Charger on the ground following the derailment. I wonder if 1402 will be for Chargers what 819 was for the Genesis locomotives.

MCL1981 wrote:Maybe the brakes failed?? Ya, maybe aliens abducted the crew. Unless you think the crew's response to the brake lever malfunctioning would be to just leave the throttle up and proceed at 80mph for two miles until flying off the rails. Viya con dios? That's absurd. They would have reduced the throttle and slowed by other means. They would have dumped the air with some other emergency valve on the train. They would have used dynamics. I can go on. There was two miles of time to slow this train down. "Maybe the brakes failed" is simply not a reasonable thought.

If the engineer was incapacitated or asleep, that leaves the fireman to do something.

So they were both distracted, or both incapacitated. The latter seems rather far fetched.

We ought to decommission the NTSB since you're so much better at it and can save our government a ton of money! Or maybe you don't know so much as you let on, and maybe the engine crew looked down at their timetables to ascertain their location on the barely familiar territory and so missed the advance speed sign. Not knowing where they were, when their attention focused back on the road ahead looking for a landmark in a desert they were unaware of the sharp curve rapidly approaching. In that scenario, this would be directly the fault of management pressuring under-qualified crews to operate over unfamiliar territory. The unfamiliar equipment certainly does nothing to aid matters. I'm a proponent of speculation since we're all here to discuss something we can't possibly know about in certitude, but bashing people for what you think they might have done doesn't qualify as mere speculation and is grossly inappropriate!

tk48states wrote:My personal opinion is Amtk is too quick to promote young and inexperienced persons to run the train. Before 1971 it was unheard of to find a passenger engineer in his 20’s. It took years as a fireman to be promoted and anyone by then had an intimate knowledge of the route he was traveling and knew everything about train handling.

Intimate knowledge on a rail line that Amtrak just started to use for passenger service on the day of the incident? Perhaps it will come out in the investigation just how the crew "qualified" for this run. Hopefully more than a couple of cab rides and certainly not less. The age is irrelevant ... no one has years of experience on day one.

From the "stupid things I have seen on TV" file ... a report that all except the lead engine had derailed. Time to change the channel. The next channel made a reference to the Titanic and inferred that the engineer was intentionally speeding to make sure the train was on time or early on the maiden voyage. TV off.

Yet another PTC (or lesser safety system) avoidable error. Imagine having a computer with "intimate knowledge" of the route on day 1. The haters will point out that there can be programming errors and system failures but I ask: How is not having PTC working for the industry? Stop wrecking trains!

Surely there isn't just ONE sign or signal that marked the proximity of a speed-restricted stretch of track? This is certainly not meant to be flip --- but I know of people who have been cautious enough that they have used magic marker on themselves to remind their surgeon what side is supposed to be operated on. (And, heck, we have resorted to post-it notes on the refrigerator door and/or the bathroom mirror if there is something super important we absolutely do not want to forget.) For a cheap, fast, safety reminder/warning couldn't someone have bought a can of spray paint and painted a big rock or tree (or two) ---along the trackside leading into the speed-restricted area--- bright red?

tk48states wrote:My personal opinion is Amtk is too quick to promote young and inexperienced persons to run the train. Before 1971 it was unheard of to find a passenger engineer in his 20’s. It took years as a fireman to be promoted and anyone by then had an intimate knowledge of the route he was traveling and knew everything about train handling.

The engineers in the wrecks of the PRR Broker and CNJ 3314 were in their 50's and 60's. Where we going with this?