Cascades 501 Wreck 18 December 17

[STrRedWolf]

Really, do you even need a full-on sim? I've done shipyard safety training where they play a video which pauses at important points and quizes me on safety choices at that point.

I would think that getting a "butt feel" of the route is key. How long is it between points? Are there other visible queues? Is there some shake or vibration before you see something?

A full sim with all the shakes and shimmies may help here.

[Wayside]

From my experience (as an engineer and a supervisor of engineers), some people are more prone to distraction than are others. Having someone in the cab with the operator can sometimes induce extraneous chatter that pulls focus away from the scenario rolling past at 79 mph. Lose focus for a couple of minutes and you miss the wayside permanent speed sign and forget where you are. I'm not saying that is what happened in this case, since I wasn't there. But it would not surprise me if that is what happened.

Anyone ever see the excellent DRGW training film called "Trouble at Troublesome?"

[justalurker66]

A shake and shimmy simulator would be expensive. But I do like the idea of having a simulator with a mock cab available (NICTD has one for both types of cabs that they run in northern Indiana). Any help with training would be good.

[Wayside]

Simulators (again in my experience) are excellent for running a trainee through interactive scenarios that train/test situational responses. They are not as good a tool for learning physical characteristics of the railroad. Full motion sims are so expensive to own and maintain as to make them a ridiculous choice. In my opinion, that is.

[8th Notch]

Simulators (again in my experience) are excellent for running a trainee through interactive scenarios that train/test situational responses. They are not as good a tool for learning physical characteristics of the railroad. Full motion sims are so expensive to own and maintain as to make them a ridiculous choice. In my opinion, that is.

I 2nd that, a sim is only good for situational things and not learning a route. A sim is not going to include every physical characteristic of the route and not all engineers use the same points of reference. When it’s foggy out or snowing and you can’t see 20 feet in front of you is when you really find out how well you know your PC’s

[east point]

Have to agree about simulators. Aircraft simulators do a very good job and are universally accepted especially those full motion ones. But most aircraft problems are audible or visual and not tactile.

[CLamb]

Simulators (again in my experience) are excellent for running a trainee through interactive scenarios that train/test situational responses. They are not as good a tool for learning physical characteristics of the railroad. Full motion sims are so expensive to own and maintain as to make them a ridiculous choice. In my opinion, that is.

Has there been any research on which cues are needed in a simulator to make simulator training effective?

[Wayside]

Has there been any research on which cues are needed in a simulator to make simulator training effective?

Good candidate for a Google search.

[BlendedBreak]

too many asshats in wilmington to design a solid training program.

[Jeff Smith]

Looks like a short-lived member is owed an "I told you so": https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/28/us/amtra ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Workers say they warned Amtrak before deadly crash

Portland, Oregon (CNN)In the days before Amtrak 501 careened off the tracks last month in a deadly crash, engineers and conductors warned their supervisors that they did not feel adequately trained on the new route, according to more than a dozen sources.

Several train cars flew off an overpass, landing on Interstate 5 in the December 18 accident near DuPont, Washington, which left three dead and more than 100 injured. At the time, Amtrak 501 was making its inaugural journey of a new Seattle-to-Portland run called the Point Defiance Bypass route.
Engineers and conductors had safety concerns, citing rushed and "totally inadequate" training which left them feeling dangerously unprepared for the new route, according to multiple sources, including several directly involved in the training. Crew members traditionally train on new routes to familiarize themselves with the signs, terrain and other physical characteristics which vary from route to route.

Some training runs were performed at night, with as many as six or more crew members stuffed into cars with just three seats, which meant some trainees rode backwards, in the dark, the sources said. Engineers felt they did not get enough practice runs at the controls and could not properly see to familiarize themselves with the route.
...

[justalurker66]

A self fulfilling prophecy?

I understand that there is pressure not to refuse work, but I agree with the point raised last week. if the engineer(s) did not feel comfortable with the route why did they not have heightened awareness? "I know that there is a low speed curve coming up soon" should encourage the engineer to be more vigilant. Not less.

I am not saying that the engineer intentionally wrecked the train. Only that it seemed that this failure seemed to be unavoidable.

[electricron]

A self fulfilling prophecy?
I am not saying that the engineer intentionally wrecked the train. Only that it seemed that this failure seemed to be unavoidable.

I disagree, this derailment crash was not unavoidable. Steps by Amtrak, Sounder, BNSF, and the train engineer's union local could have been taken to minimize these risks.

[David Benton]

Have the toxicology results been mentioned/reported ?

[justalurker66]

A self fulfilling prophecy?
I am not saying that the engineer intentionally wrecked the train. Only that it seemed that this failure seemed to be unavoidable.

I disagree, this derailment crash was not unavoidable. Steps by Amtrak, Sounder, BNSF, and the train engineer's union local could have been taken to minimize these risks.

Attribute that to those who prophesied that there would be an accident. "Somebody is going to get hurt. See somebody got hurt. We were right."

[STrRedWolf]

Trains Mag did a 2-page spread with three stories on the Cascade 501 Wreck:

• A basic story with what we already know: Train going 78 in a 30 when it derailed, 3 dead out of the 78 passengers, NTSB investigating and reminded folks PTC would of prevented this.
• A highlight story on the Siemens Charger that was involved in the crash.
• A highlight story that doesn't dig too deep into the training and qualification of engineers. In other words, background piece.

Given the lead time on print... it may of been too early for them to really investigate.