Northeast Regional 188 - Accident In Philadelphia

emfinite wrote:Can anyone in the know PLEASE let me know the crew is in stable condition? I have texted and called a friend who is an Amtrak Engineer with no response since my first attempt at 7am. I am growing worried. If anyone in the know knows the Engineer's initials please just post it here or PM me. Thank you.

Someone posted earlier that all crew had been accounted for alive. Damaged but alive.


Does anyone think if the Acela derailed at this spot that the out come would've been different?

I was reading that the Acela is a lot heavier and was built so that what happened to the first coach doesn't happen to the Acela.

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

"Although the design of the trains, with identical 6,200 horsepower (4,600 kW) power cars at each end which operate on a voltage of 11,000 volts AC, and either 25 or 60 Hz frequency, resemble France's TGV, only certain components are directly derived from the TGV. These TGV-derived components are the traction system derived from third-generation TGV trainsets (including the four asynchronous AC motors per power car, rectifiers, inverters, and regenerative braking technology), the structure of the trucks/bogies (with a long wheelbase dual transom H frame welded steel with outboard mounted tapered roller bearings), the brake discs (although there are only three per axle, versus four on the TGV), and the crash energy management techniques to control structural deformations in the event of an accident.[59]
The tilting carriages are based upon Bombardier's earlier LRC trains used on Via Rail rather than the TGV's non-tilting articulated trailers. The Acela power cars and passenger cars are much heavier than those of the TGV in order to meet the United States Federal Railroad Administration's different approach to rail crash standards.[57] The Tier II crash standards, adopted in 1999, have also resulted in the passenger cars being designed without steps and trapdoors, which means that the trainsets can only serve lines with high-level platforms such as the Northeast Corridor. Acela trains are semi-permanently coupled (but not articulated as in the TGV) and are referred to as trainsets. Bombardier later used the Acela Express carriage design and a diesel/gas turbine variant of the power car for its experimental JetTrain.[60]"

To Mr. Weaver's point, I do appreciate the detailed forensic analysis of what's available, but again let's not jump to conclusions about speed and operator error. We'll have more detailed analysis soon enough.

pumpers wrote:The NTSB (Board member Larry Sumwalt) said this morning that "The curve at Frankford Junction is not yet equipped with a system called Positive Train Control that would automatically slow a speeding train" (quoted is what appears in the following article,presumably not his exact words)
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/break ... lment.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
JS

That's astounding if true.

Channel 6 (6abc.com) is reporting the engineer being questioned by Philadelphia police with Amtrak representatives arriving later.

Greg Moore wrote:

ajl1239 wrote:Not to be the crank here about replacing the Amfleets, but I would like to point out that the tiny Amfleet windows are a major problem during any sort of major accident. It's been mentioned in the media that the "jaws of life" had to be used to get a number of people out of the train. Would this have been necessary if the carriages had windows as large as on a modern train? Windows large enough to comfortably navigate a stretcher. The Amfleet trains are not only outdated, but this incident reveals they are also not fit for purpose in terms of safety requirements.

My guess is based on the mangling seen in the one car, jaws of life would have been required regardless.

But you're right, a cited issue with the Amfleet 1s is the size of the windows.
Any replacement equipment will have larger windows.

Furthermore, seeing how the Amfleet crumpled up like a tin can should be the final nail in the coffin for the FRA's idiotic and outmoded passenger car "safety" regulations. Just compare the post-crash deformities of the most mangled amfleets to the "unsafe" and "not FRA-compliant" Talgos in the Santiago de Campostela derailment, and you'll see just how poorly our "safe" FRA-compliant stock did.

Speak nothing of the idiocy of fitting those tiny gunslits that they call windows on huge American-size coaches. I'm a first responder IRL, and the Amfleets look like a nightmare from a technical rescue prospective. Windows the size of portholes, and if you need to cut into the damn things to get people out, you have to deal with hard stainless steel and ridiculously-oversized structural members that are murder on the cutting surfaces of the Jaws of life, compared to the soft and compliant Aluminum construction of most modern European trains that the Jaws will cut through like butter. It's the same problem that FD crews have getting people out of modern cars, with their high beltlines, tiny side windows, and tool-destroying high strength alloy steel A/B/C-pillars. They both destroy tools, prolong extrications, and kill people as a result.

And it's absolutely an apples-to-apples comparison, as the Santiago crash was the result of a HST hitting a 50mph speed restricted curve at 100mph, just as this derailment is looking like it was. Furthermore, the Talgo had the misfortune of slamming into a reinforced concrete embankment with an inclined grade to pull the train apart, and its coaches STILL held together. In light of this disaster, the Talgo engineers should look at how their stock fared and feel very, very proud.

The engineer amazingly suffered only minor injuries and is not talking until his lawyer is present according to the news reports.

Ridgefielder wrote:

MCL1981 wrote:Nobody is jumping to conclusions. Doing very simple math based on readily available video is not jumping to conclusions, and it isn't blaming anyone for anything. It is simply taking readily available information and evaluating it. Relax.

I wouldn't really say that-- there's an assumption that the video hasn't been speeded up or slowed down, and there's an assumption about how many feet are actually covered in 4 seconds by that white streak on the top of the frame.

The video has a time stamp on it. Rate of playback is irrelevant. I didn't sit there with a stop watch watching the video, the time in seconds is on the video itself. The length of cars is known and the time is known. And like I said several times, it is imprecise and has a margin of error. But that margin of error, even a huge margin of error, can't even bring the speed down close to 50. This isn't an assumption or accusation. It is math.

Active thread here - 182 posts on 13 pages at this time...

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 6&t=159538" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One question: I used a link from the SEPTA section to access this topic -
Has this thread been pulled or restricted for any reason?
This thread is NOT currently listed in the Amtrak Forum...

MACTRAXX

MCL1981 wrote:

Ridgefielder wrote:

MCL1981 wrote:Nobody is jumping to conclusions. Doing very simple math based on readily available video is not jumping to conclusions, and it isn't blaming anyone for anything. It is simply taking readily available information and evaluating it. Relax.

I wouldn't really say that-- there's an assumption that the video hasn't been speeded up or slowed down, and there's an assumption about how many feet are actually covered in 4 seconds by that white streak on the top of the frame.

The video has a time stamp on it. Rate of playback is irrelevant. I didn't sit there with a stop watch watching the video, the time in seconds is on the video itself. The length of cars is known and the time is known. And like I said several times, it is imprecise and has a margin of error. But that margin of error, even a huge margin of error, can't even bring the speed down close to 50. This isn't an assumption or accusation. It is math.

Between this and the engineer's reaction, this is looking like "Santiago de Compostela 2: Electric Boogaloo".

Wall Street Journal is stating that the train may have been traveling 100+ MPH. Looks like the earlier 106 mph tweet might have been correct.

Not looking good for the engineer.

ChemiosMurphy wrote:Wall Street Journal is stating that the train may have been traveling 100+ MPH. Looks like the earlier 106 mph tweet might have been correct.

Not looking good for the engineer.

Was the Wall Street Journal's source Twitter? The Internet?

I prefer NTSB releases ... when they are made.

justalurker66 wrote:

ChemiosMurphy wrote:Wall Street Journal is stating that the train may have been traveling 100+ MPH. Looks like the earlier 106 mph tweet might have been correct.

Not looking good for the engineer.

Was the Wall Street Journal's source Twitter? The Internet?

I prefer NTSB releases ... when they are made.

I prefer NTSB press releases as well. But, presumably, (if the source is correct) Amtrak would NOT be telling employees that speed contributed to the crash if it had not already reviewed the data from the onboard recorder, which another poster already said was transmitted constantly. Per the article, "Amtrak officials notified some employees on a Wednesday conference call that excessive speed was believed to have contributed to the crash, said one of these people, who was briefed on the contents of the call."

An Amfleet car is sort of like a tin can, quite strong longitudinally and fairly good in a sideswipe. However the semi-tubular design is susceptible to point impacts on a side, and to the twisting forces which can result. The six cars which did not strike the catenary tower survived the impacts they suffered pretty well. All in all, these cars have served us for almost 40 years, and have carried millions of passengers safely. They deserve replacement soon, but must last until those replacements are in service. Condemning them would do irreparable damage to Amtrak's corridor services.

Small windows are a safety plus if the car's structure remains relatively intact. The large windows of the Budd RDCs were blamed for many of the casualties in the ATSF Redondo Jct. rollover of 1956.

Bramdeisroberts wrote:Furthermore, seeing how the Amfleet crumpled up like a tin can should be the final nail in the coffin for the FRA's idiotic and outmoded passenger car "safety" regulations.

If the car hit a catenary pole at 100 mph, I think it'd crumple regardless...