Cascades 501 Wreck 18 December 17

BS argument because the Amtrak signals drops that were put in after 188 are connected to cab signals, BNSF does not use cab signals so none of that would have made a difference with how the train rain. A 30mph/approach signal before the location would have been just as easily ignored as the wayside signs that were 2miles ahead and at the location. One the NEC the cab signal conforms to the wayside, forcing the engineer to acknowledge or face a penatly and as well must be under speed and if not the brakes must be applied to the suppression position to also prevent a penalty brake.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe that in Cab signal territory, a signal can be displayed to show a more restrictive aspect to protect a curve if it is wired that way, likewise, from what I have seen on the LIRR, there are signals as well that will display a clear even though there is a speed restriction in that location. Ultimately, it is up to the Engineer to know of the speed restrictions. In this circumstance, there are no cab signals, so the Engineer is your last line of defense. I am quite sure that the training was probably not up to par. One must remember that when qualifying on a RR or on a stretch of RR, it generally covers considerable mileage. That is a lot for one to take in, and I feel requires considerable time for folks to be ready. I add in the increased stress level of an Engineer who recently qualified on this stretch of RR is operating a train on a new type of locomotive on the inaugural day. A lot of distractions there including what is to be rumored as having a total of 3 people in the unit. The curve itself is not to blame for this. while tight, it is perfectly negotiable at reasonable speeds and is one of thousands of locations around the country where trains negotiate them daily without issues. I honestly feel that there was too much on the engineer's plate, and the NTSB will have many questions to answer.

I am one of those who will still questions the compatibility of Talgo trains on US rails. Most of the cars did handle well, but some didn't, and like the derailment in Spain, did rather poorly on a high speed derailment. I also question their weight compared to that of a standard 85 ft passenger cars. Even electric MUs on LIRR, MNR, Nj Transit and SEPTA still tip the scales at over 85,000ilbs with M-7s weighing in around 110,000lbs. Talgo's small sized and low profile cars might not match well vs a standard equipped passenger train. They were designed to be operated on high speed lines as well as being able to hug turns on conventional tracks without having to modify present right of ways. Talgo is a very respectable manufacturer of passenger trains, more specifically high speed trains. I don't feel however that they are ideal for American rails where rail cars are required to be fortified to be like tanks. But that's just one person's opinion. I have always said when riding those trains in Spain that they would not fair well if one were to collide with an American built train.

Associated Press reports that criminal liability arising from Frankford Jct "just won't go away" for the Engineer.

If there is any foundation to the media speculation (and discussion boards for that matter) that "situational awareness" is a prime factor, it will be same for the Engineer in this instance.

It could get worse, especially since this unnamed Engineer could be more criminally culpable than was Mr. Bostian at Frankford Jct. It could further get worse if Law Enforcement wants to "do a takedown" for the pleasure of the media such as was the case with Engineer Harding and two others arising from Megantic.

There are scenerios where fixed signals now display an aspect specifically for a curve/speed restriction. On the LIRR, certain signals that were recently installed on the Montauk Branch are set to display Approach-Medium to protect certain curves right outside of the interlocking limits.

I could certainly see a situation where the “qualified” engineer did not have enough time. While 3-6 months of training sounds like plenty, one or two runs over the line might have been deemed enough and that could’ve been a while back. It is not wild to believe the engineer was not 110% comfortable with the territory.

Thanks, CRail.

Thank you, wigwagfan, for those photos. (I think the stop sign at the end of my street is bigger than that sign!)

Could they paint that retaining wall a bright or reflective color or put reflectors on it?

to control speed, you need territory with equivalent of Cab/atc , the area in question does not have the ATC part like northeast /lirr/mn /njt etc

It's interesting to me that these incidents (Spuyten Duyvil, Amtrak 188, now Amtrak 501) seem to be a "recent" phenomenon. I mean these rail lines have been in place for what - 150 years? And now suddenly this seems to be a problem.

DutchRailnut wrote:to control speed, you need territory with equivalent of Cab/atc , the area in question does not have the ATC part like northeast /lirr/mn /njt etc

That’s understood, dutch. I was just giving an example for something in ATC/ASC territory. It is pretty obvious that this section of track did not have that type of setup which would have either made the outcome null or at the worst a slower speed derailment.

scoostraw wrote:It's interesting to me that these incidents (Spuyten Duyvil, Amtrak 188, now Amtrak 501) seem to be a "recent" phenomenon. I mean these rail lines have been in place for what - 150 years? And now suddenly this seems to be a problem.

Not sure what you mean - derailments at speed have happened as long as there have been railroads (see Jones, Casey.) It doesn’t help that this is a newly-reconstructed line with a much higher speed limit, and that the train used a brand-new locomotive.

mtuandrew wrote:

scoostraw wrote:It's interesting to me that these incidents (Spuyten Duyvil, Amtrak 188, now Amtrak 501) seem to be a "recent" phenomenon. I mean these rail lines have been in place for what - 150 years? And now suddenly this seems to be a problem.

Not sure what you mean - derailments at speed have happened as long as there have been railroads (see Jones, Casey.) It doesn’t help that this is a newly-reconstructed line with a much higher speed limit, and that the train used a brand-new locomotive.

Indeed. And with regard to derailing overspeed on a curve,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malbone_Street_Wreck" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Fa ... sh_of_1940" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_(train" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)#1955_Bridgeport_wreck
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodbridge_train_wreck" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Unio ... derailment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Something I noticed from looking at the satellite views. The line is parallel with, and immediately adjacent to, I-5 for roughly 8 miles from just south of Lakewood to the wreck site, where it curves left (heading southbound) to cross the interstate. There are two places in that 8 mile stretch where there is a golf course immediately adjacent to the line on the side away from the Interstate. The first course stretches for a mile along the tracks just after the road and the railroad merge onto the same alignment. The second stretches for ~1.1 miles leading into the curve itself. Interesting, a southbound train would duck under a road overpass immediately before each golf course.

Would it be possible for someone having briefly lost situational awareness to look up, see a golf course on the right and highway on the left and think "OK, have to start slowing in six miles"?

glennk419 wrote: The most severely damaged car and the one where the fatalities were sustained in the Frankford Junction derailment was the car that hit and took down the catenary tower. It was about 90% crushed and peeled back. The rest of the cars that left the tracks fared relatively well. An aluminum signal mast is nothing compared to a H shaped, 15" by 2" thick steel column.

That being said, the Talgo's appeared to have performed well from a structural standpoint.

I wouldn't worry about that signal mast/bridge .... I'd worry about the trees. Some of those felled trees were pretty darned big, and likely did a tremendous amount of damage before they gave way.

This may have been posted earlier...

Is this the route Burlington Northern reopened circa 1994 with Cascade tunnel? I remember reading about in TRAINS magazine.

Morisot wrote:Thanks, CRail.

Thank you, wigwagfan, for those photos. (I think the stop sign at the end of my street is bigger than that sign!)

Could they paint that retaining wall a bright or reflective color or put reflectors on it?

Too close to the curve to do any good--as CRail pointed out, on a 79-mph railroad you need something like 2 miles' warning to reduce speed in time. The primary warning of a restrictive curve is in the printed timetable, special instructions, or if very recent, a bulletin order; the wayside sign is more of a reminder--"you know that temporary (or permanent) speed restriction at suchandsuch milepost? Here it is. "

ApproachMedium wrote:BS argument because the Amtrak signals drops that were put in after 188 are connected to cab signals, BNSF does not use cab signals

Okay, I was not asking about cab signals. I was asking, ON THE BNSF, do (wayside) signals provide a less than clear aspect for a permanent speed restriction for a curve.

It is not an argument, it is simply a question. I don't know. I guess to ApproachMedium, asking questions on a message forum is "B.S.".

freightguy wrote:Is this the route Burlington Northern reopened circa 1994 with Cascade tunnel? I remember reading about in TRAINS magazine.

No, this is not part of the Stampede Pass line. It starts in Auburn and runs east; this new route starts in Tacoma and runs southwest. So they are separated by about 9 miles as the crow flies or 16.75 miles by BNSF.