Major derailment @ Spuyten Duyvil

I have heard that the locomotive and cars are going to be initially moved inside the shed at the Highbridge Car Appearance Facility for the NTSB to continue it's investigation. I would have thought they would go to Harmon, but I guess the distance's shorter and it's better to keep them away from the heavy maintenance operations.

lirr42 wrote:

Ken S. wrote:It would be moved via the Beacon Line.

If I'm not mistaken, you cannot get from the Hudson Line to the Harlem Line by way of the Beacon Line. A couple years ago some bridges along the ROW were heightened and the rails leading up to them were not raised accordingly, so the route is impassable for trains.

That's correct. The Beacon line is in pretty rough shape. The only way to get equipment from Harmon to the rest of the system would be to go down the Empire Connection, through Penn and over the Hell Gate. If it can't fit through Penn it would have to go up to Albany then east on CSX; they'd either send it down the Housy to Danbury or (more likely considering the track conditions on the Berkshire) tow it to New Haven via the Springfield line.

TacSupport1 wrote:I have heard that the locomotive and cars are going to be initially moved inside the shed at the Highbridge Car Appearance Facility for the NTSB to continue it's investigation. I would have thought they would go to Harmon, but I guess the distance's shorter and it's better to keep them away from the heavy maintenance operations.

Why not just add them to the pile at Bridgeport yard once the NTSB finishes their investigation?

This really reminds me of that tragedy in aldershot, and that HSR tragedy in Spain. I really don't know what happened obviously, I just wish something comes out of this which makes things safer.

Trainer wrote:Why not just add them to the pile at Bridgeport yard once the NTSB finishes their investigation?

East Bridgeport's quite the trip for cars that are not exactly roadworthy...

Aren't there overspeed devices on these trains that are activated if a train continues to run overspeed? I would think that when the train passed CP12 it would have been going too fast, and an emergency brake application (penalty brake application) should have been applied.
That is, if the engineer hadn't already overridden the ATC. Can he do that himself, or does the dispatcher also need to send a signal to the train that will allow ATC to be overridden?

CP

CPSK wrote:Aren't there overspeed devices on these trains that are activated if a train continues to run overspeed? I would think that when the train passed CP12 it would have been going too fast, and an emergency brake application (penalty brake application) should have been applied.
That is, if the engineer hadn't already overridden the ATC. Can he do that himself, or does the dispatcher also need to send a signal to the train that will allow ATC to be overridden?

CP

The ATC over speed kicks in 3 MPH above the maximum authorized speed, which would be 93 MPH due to tracks speeds of 90 MPH on both the New Haven and Hudson lines where this type of equipment operates.

Clean Cab wrote:

CPSK wrote:Aren't there overspeed devices on these trains that are activated if a train continues to run overspeed? I would think that when the train passed CP12 it would have been going too fast, and an emergency brake application (penalty brake application) should have been applied.
That is, if the engineer hadn't already overridden the ATC. Can he do that himself, or does the dispatcher also need to send a signal to the train that will allow ATC to be overridden?

CP

The ATC over speed kicks in 3 MPH above the maximum authorized speed, which would be 93 MPH due to tracks speeds of 90 MPH on both the New Haven and Hudson lines where this type of equipment operates.

Please confirm: the overspeed mechanism is actually not tied-in to enforce local speed restrictions - only max. authorized speed for the line as a whole?

8th Notch wrote:

Franklin Gowen wrote:

Clean Cab wrote: The ATC over speed kicks in 3 MPH above the maximum authorized speed, which would be 93 MPH due to tracks speeds of 90 MPH on both the New Haven and Hudson lines where this type of equipment operates.

Please confirm: the overspeed mechanism is actually not tied-in to enforce local speed restrictions - only max. authorized speed for the line as a whole?

Correct, the only thing that enforces temporary and permanent speed restrictions is some sort of PTC or ACSES.

Thank you, 8th Notch - I was unaware of that.

lirr42 wrote:There is an NTSB briefing going on right now, you can watch it live: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/In ... 49401.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some initial findings they reported:

• The throttle was set to idle 6 seconds before the rear engine derailed
• The train was dumped 5 seconds before the rear engine derailed
• The train was going 82mph leading into the curve.

82 mph ? !

If I'm not mistaken, each MN coach has an emergency brake at the end of each car. (i.e. the red handle that says do not touch)

Hypothetically, if a passenger (or crewmember) had pulled the red emergency brake handle would this have caused the brakes to be applied immediately - or would pulling the handle just set of an alarm in the cab?

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

BenH wrote:

lirr42 wrote:There is an NTSB briefing going on right now, you can watch it live: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/In ... 49401.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some initial findings they reported:

• The throttle was set to idle 6 seconds before the rear engine derailed
• The train was dumped 5 seconds before the rear engine derailed
• The train was going 82mph leading into the curve.

82 mph ? !

If I'm not mistaken, each MN coach has an emergency brake at the end of each car. (i.e. the red handle that says do not touch)

Hypothetically, if a passenger (or crewmember) had pulled the red emergency brake handle would this have caused the brakes to be applied immediately - or would pulling the handle just set of an alarm in the cab?

I was thinking the same thing yesterday morning when, looking at the photos of the wreck I was sure that speed was a factor. Do you think any passenger or crew member would have had enough time to pull the emergency brake handle? At what point should the train have been reducing speed from 70mph to 30mph?

CPSK wrote:Hypothetically, if a passenger (or crewmember) had pulled the red emergency brake handle would this have caused the brakes to be applied immediately - or would pulling the handle just set of an alarm in the cab?

The handle is connected to the brake pipe and would cause a dump of the air, I'm not 100%sure on newer coaches if it's fully mechanical or if it's partial electric circuit. In older coaches it's a system of hard connected items to the coaches valve which causes the entire train to lose pressure and dump. Essentially the as if you cut the lines between coaches

Clean Cab wrote: The ATC over speed kicks in 3 MPH above the maximum authorized speed, which would be 93 MPH due to tracks speeds of 90 MPH on both the New Haven and Hudson lines where this type of equipment operates.

Then what good is it? I don't know if Amtrak uses the same system, but there are sections where I think the speed limit's 150mph. Does that mean the system won't do anything to stop a train doing 150 in a 30 mph zone?

CPSK wrote: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

I wonder how expensive is the current system that Clean Cab says lets the trains go 90 in a 70mph zone?

By the way, I assume now that the NTSB has said the train was going 82 when it derailed, and the speed limit before the curve is 70, that I can now submit the post I composed Sun morning that I believed excessive speed contributed to this accident, without incurring moderator wrath.

BenH wrote:Hypothetically, if a passenger (or crewmember) had pulled the red emergency brake handle would this have caused the brakes to be applied immediately - or would pulling the handle just set of an alarm in the cab?

The train would dump immediately, but depending on when the cord would be pulled by the passenger, the engineer might have already have dumped the air, giving the same result.