Major derailment @ Spuyten Duyvil

I think you are mis-interputing what Clean Cab is saying, CPSK. The equipment is rated for 90MPH, with ATC kicking in when speeds exceed 93mph. Even though the curve has a restriction of 30MPH there isn't anything in place to prevent taking it in excess of, there is no coding in the rail that mandates that. And PTC is already on the horizon. Let the NTSB, the professionals conduct the rest of the investigation. The media is having a field day holding court of public opinion making libellous conclusions.

A brief technical question, if allowable: they noted that the brake pipe pressure was 120 psi before the air was dumped. Would 120psi be considered a partial brake application, and if so, to what extent? (i.e. was the engineer braking hardly before dumping, braking just slightly, or not braking at all before dumping the air?).

In 1990, an Amtrak trainee engineer took a 30 MPH curve
at 103 MPH approaching the Back Bay Station in Boston.
Train #66 derailed and skidded along, slamming into a
stopped MBTA train in the station. With a F40 loco
slamming into another F40, the locos took quite a bit
of the impact and there were no fatalities, but hundreds
of injuies. Full details of the mishap are at the URL below.

http://iridethet.blogspot.com/2011/03/h ... ak-66.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Taking note of this quote from the article, I would not be
surprised if similar equipment is installed on the tracks north
of Sputen Duyvil.

"In the wake of the wreck, Amtrak installed advance speed warning signs at the pickle factory where braking should have started, added circuitry to the signal system to show the speed restriction (and automatically stop trains that don't take actions to slow the train down".

Steamboat Willie wrote:I think you are mis-interputing what Clean Cab is saying, CPSK. The equipment is rated for 90MPH, with ATC kicking in when speeds exceed 93mph. Even though the curve has a restriction of 30MPH there isn't anything in place to prevent taking it in excess of, there is no coding in the rail that mandates that. And PTC is already on the horizon. Let the NTSB, the professionals conduct the rest of the investigation. The media is having a field day holding court of public opinion making libellous conclusions.

That is good to know. I hope that this accident expedites the upgrade to the system.

CP

Steamboat Willie wrote:I think you are mis-interputing what Clean Cab is saying, CPSK. The equipment is rated for 90MPH, with ATC kicking in when speeds exceed 93mph. Even though the curve has a restriction of 30MPH there isn't anything in place to prevent taking it in excess of, there is no coding in the rail that mandates that. And PTC is already on the horizon. Let the NTSB, the professionals conduct the rest of the investigation. The media is having a field day holding court of public opinion making libellous conclusions.

Thanks!!

In light of the fatalities, injuries and today's 82 MPH revelation by NTSB, I have to say that this incident is really even more upsetting to me than it was already.

Of course that's already true in a purely personal sense for the people involved and their loved ones. It's also upsetting in broader terms. We'll eventually know what the cause of the excessive speed was, and hopefully positive changes will result. Whether the resulting changes will take the form of better signalling in the field, better hardware in the motive power, better training for crews, or all of the above, only time will tell. We just don't yet know the full dimension of why the things that went wrong did so.

But I don't want a needlessly punitive regime all across the board at Metro-North - just safety for the riding public, and whatever level of care and professionalism can reliably provide that. If the mass media will dial down their loud, ratings-hungry ignorance a bit, that would be nice, too; witch-hunts aren't the answer. Nor are automotive seat-belts in the coaches [facepalm].

I'd like to thank all of you fine folks who have been and are continuing to offer such a fine level of commentary about this incident. The clarity and insight are much needed right now, and it's deeply appreciated. Thanks! You're a credit to the whole website.

Some event recorders are able to note handle positions and wheel revolutions, which could be how the National Transportation Safety Board determined that the throttle was closed "6 seconds before...". However, while they said that the brake pressure dropped "5 seconds before...", they didn't say if or when the brake handle was moved. Maybe they are only reporting about the locomotive's event recorder. The cab car's event recorder could have a different story.
Just to give the engineer the benefit of the doubt, until more evidence is disclosed, if the cab car's event recorder shows that its throttle handle was closed and brake handle moved much earlier, his story becomes very believable.
Can the engineer in a cab car on this kind of train control the locomotives independent brakes without applying the entire train's automatic brakes?

Dick H wrote: http://iridethet.blogspot.com/2011/03/h ... ak-66.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fascinating story at that link; thanks for sharing it.

Does MNR have cameras in its cab cars (inward or outward)?

Amtrak7 wrote:Does MNR have cameras in its cab cars (inward or outward)?

MN equipment has neither.

JimBoylan wrote:Some event recorders are able to note handle positions and wheel revolutions, which could be how the National Transportation Safety Board determined that the throttle was closed "6 seconds before...". However, while they said that the brake pressure dropped "5 seconds before...", they didn't say if or when the brake handle was moved. Maybe they are only reporting about the locomotive's event recorder. The cab car's event recorder could have a different story.
Just to give the engineer the benefit of the doubt, until more evidence is disclosed, if the cab car's event recorder shows that its throttle handle was closed and brake handle moved much earlier, his story becomes very believable.
Can the engineer in a cab car on this kind of train control the locomotives independent brakes without applying the entire train's automatic brakes?

Based on what can be seen in the following two images, it seems like the shoreliner cabs don't have an independent brake handle:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29997762@N ... 021608856/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dennis-alb ... otostream/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I assume the P32 has dynamic braking (does it?). Is it controllable from the cab car?

Would anyone know if the engineer and the crew were regularly assigned to this route? Had the engineer and crew worked together before?

CPSK wrote:I just read that, according to a MNCR spokesperson, this particular train did not have the "positive train control system" that some of the trains have.
OK. so even if it did have the Positive Train Control system, then if the max speed on other parts of the line the train was operating on is 90mph, then it would not have kicked in at 82mph. IMO, the entire system needs to be upgraded. The speed control should be aware of the particular block the train is in, and adjust the max allowable speed accordingly. We have this technology, so let's use it. I know it is expensive, but providing the safest ride possible for customers should always be the number one concern for any common carrier. While I understand that we do not live in a perfect world, we can live in a safer one.
CP

There is an alphabet soup of safety system acronyms. The one being used here was ATC (Automatic Train control) which only kicks in when above the maximum authorized speed on the line as a whole, as explained by several posters. PTC (Positive train control) is a new system mandated by the US government after a commuter crash in the Los Angeles area a number of years ago. It will do all that you describe and probably more. SOme lines like the Amtrak NEC have something called ACSES already (not sure what it stands for), but it effectively is some sort of PTC I believe (an expert can correct me). I think the deadline for all RR's in the US (with a few exceptions) to have PTC is within a year or two.

As to why not everywhere has PTC or similar already, all I can say is RR signalling is complicated - you can rarely start from scratch - each layer you add has to be compatible with all of the signalling system, hardware and logic, already in place, which can go back 100 years. So it is a lot harder than it might seem.
JS
The posts are coming so fast, and it seems there is some delay til I see them, - I hope this isn't redundant with another response.

lirr42 wrote:A brief technical question, if allowable: they noted that the brake pipe pressure was 120 psi before the air was dumped. Would 120psi be considered a partial brake application, and if so, to what extent? (i.e. was the engineer braking hardly before dumping, braking just slightly, or not braking at all before dumping the air?).

I will leave those in the field to answer this question for trains, but 120 psi of air in buses and commercial vehicles is within the normal functioning range without application. Air brakes are meant to be a 'fail-safe' system. You will still be able to brake even with leakage (as long as it's above ~ 60 psi range).

Thoughts and prayers to those involved.