• Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

  • 662 posts
  • 1
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 45
  by justalurker66
 
litz wrote:When safety equipment like this has to be disabled/cut out (due to malfunction, etc), the train doesn't just continue on as if it was still enabled.
It depends on how the equipment is disabled. If I recall correctly, the incident Tadman points to in Michigan had a signal maintainer that cut out a crucial piece of equipment. The system did not see the bypass and as far as the system and train were concerned everything was working fine. Now we can learn from that at come up with a way where required testing can be accomplished without causing a safety risk.

I do not like that there are ways of bypassing the system without at alert and reminders. Perhaps one could call that a design failure but per design the system should not be disabled or bypassed.
  by Railjunkie
 
litz wrote:
Railjunkie wrote:To intentionally disable a safety device on any RR in this country is reason for dismissal. Thats FRA regs.
Not just dismissal, it also makes the culprit liable to a fine, and usually a very very hefty one.
Railjunkie wrote:A hypothetical question what if PTC WAS active and there was a failure and had to be cut out and the accident happened what then???
When safety equipment like this has to be disabled/cut out (due to malfunction, etc), the train doesn't just continue on as if it was still enabled. Rules almost always require changes in operation ... e.g., multiple persons in operating cab, reduced speed, etc etc etc.

With those kinds of stipulations in place, the chances of that train hitting that curve at 80mph would be significantly reduced.

Rules exist for a reason.

Ill use ACESS as an example as its what Im most familiar with. If it is cut out due to malfunction the train may continue with no restriction other than a 110 MAS. The rest of the trip is on the engineer. No need for a second man in the cab no reduced speed. Cutting out cab signals will cause a drop in MAS and depending on the host railroad a second man in the cab. So Ill ask again what if...

The system is there as an overlay it dosent take place of the engineer running the train or being relieved of his qualifications. Im willing to bet it will still be 79mph on signal indication. Most likely you'll run restricted speed from the spot you cut it out to the next signal. Signals tell block condition. PTC is there to warn of an overspeed condition on temporary and permanent speeds.
  by Backshophoss
 
At this point in time we don't know how much of the BNSF Seattle Sub has active PTC and what is waiting for the rest of the needed wayside
gear installation,also,Sounder Equipment still needs on board installs in their power and cab cars, also unknown how far along is Amtrak
is installing PTC gear in the F-59's and NPCU's used in Cascades service,the Chargers had factory installs of the PTC gear needed.
The Lakeview sub had the wayside gear installed,waiting for the rest of the needed installs along the route. BNSF has yet to
register Amtrak's and Sounder's locos and cab cars into their PTC computers.
The entire process to get the PTC on line seem to be a SLOW motion process at best.
  by Tommy Meehan
 
We have some idea how much PTC BNSF has installed on the Seattle Subdivision. This is from the statement released by Washington State DOT that Dutch linked:
On the segments of Washington’s Amtrak Cascades corridor beyond the Point Defiance Bypass, BNSF is already operating PTC for its freight trains.
BNSF expects to meet the December 31, 2018 deadline for full implementation.
  by AgentSkelly
 
For Mr. Norman...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
  by justalurker66
 
Ambulance chasers.
  by BigUglyCat
 
By rail nowadays! :(
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
http://amtrak.consumerinjury.lawyer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Reviewing this site first noted by Mr. Skelly, it appears to be some kind of "moshing pit" for bottom feeding lawyers. Also it appears to be a gold mine for personal information "miners".

I would hope that those parties who sustained legitimate injuries would find some other means to obtain their legal representation, as websites like these will simply clog the Judiciary with frivolous lawsuits.
  by Suburban Station
 
Bostontoallpoints wrote:
So as it turns out the state had considered straightening the curve but cheaped out deeming it not necessary. I suspect that if this were a highway project that they would not have cheaped out on safety to build a tight turn.
A 1/2 mile beyond the curve is a junction where the train would also need to slow down to 30 mph anyway. Straightening the curve would seem to have little impact on speed. It is also expected that highly trained engineers have a better handle on speed control then the car driving public.
the point stands, if it were a highway project they would have funded curve modification to meet safety standards regardless of the fact that professional drivers (in this case an engineer rather than a truck driver) are expected to know the territory (they are).
  by east point
 
Suburban Station wrote:[
the point stands, if it were a highway project they would have funded curve modification to meet safety standards regardless of the fact that professional drivers (in this case an engineer rather than a truck driver) are expected to know the territory (they are).
If the curve was straightened then the CP junction could have been made higher speed . Maybe 50 MPH ? You are right a 30 CP meant curve did not need straightened.
  by RRspatch
 
east point wrote:
Suburban Station wrote:[
the point stands, if it were a highway project they would have funded curve modification to meet safety standards regardless of the fact that professional drivers (in this case an engineer rather than a truck driver) are expected to know the territory (they are).
If the curve was straightened then the CP junction could have been made higher speed . Maybe 50 MPH ? You are right a 30 CP meant curve did not need straightened.
BNSF standard for switches is a No.24 turnout which is good for 50 MPH. I'm fairly certain the switches at CP Nisqually are No.24 turnouts as two new switches were installed as part of the Port Defiance project.
  by JimBoylan
 
Will someone please post the employees' timetable for that junction.
  by DutchRailnut
 
why ?? are you an employee and should you have that info ?
  by dowlingm
 
east point wrote:
Suburban Station wrote:[
the point stands, if it were a highway project they would have funded curve modification to meet safety standards regardless of the fact that professional drivers (in this case an engineer rather than a truck driver) are expected to know the territory (they are).
If the curve was straightened then the CP junction could have been made higher speed . Maybe 50 MPH ? You are right a 30 CP meant curve did not need straightened.
There is a pretty decent bend just at the divergence point where the track turns south from parallelling I-5 westward to run under the Nisqually Road bridge. I wasn't able to pinpoint the switch location but if that bend is the limiting factor it doesn't much matter what the switch type is surely, or whether the crash bridge had been realigned.
  by JimBoylan
 
DutchRailnut wrote:why ?? are you an employee and should you have that info ?
Try that line on the National Transportation Safety Board, and once they get possesion of the secrets, they become part of the Public Docket. All of Amtrak's Rules, Timetables, Bulletin Oerders, Special Instructions, Inspecton Records, etc. that were seen as part of the Frankford Jct. wreck are on the Internet!
  • 1
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 45