Yesterday afternoon, radio news reported that the NTSB says the train was hit by projectiles, but that had nothing to do with causing the wreck. The report did not say what the projectiles were. I searched the internet, but found no reference to that story. I don't know how they can conclude that the projectiles had no relationship to the cause of the wreck without yet knowing the cause.
BaltACD jrb1537 Has there been any word on what sort of projectile hit the other two trains? Also, just how often is it that trains (passenger or otherwise) are "rocked" or shot at? Is it out of the ordinary to have two (maybe three) hit in an area on the same day? Most territories have their 'rock zones'. In some cases occasional trains are struck. In other cases nearly every train gets struck. This isn't a new problem.
jrb1537 Has there been any word on what sort of projectile hit the other two trains? Also, just how often is it that trains (passenger or otherwise) are "rocked" or shot at? Is it out of the ordinary to have two (maybe three) hit in an area on the same day?
Has there been any word on what sort of projectile hit the other two trains?
Also, just how often is it that trains (passenger or otherwise) are "rocked" or shot at? Is it out of the ordinary to have two (maybe three) hit in an area on the same day?
Most territories have their 'rock zones'. In some cases occasional trains are struck. In other cases nearly every train gets struck. This isn't a new problem.
That's why autoracks are no longer open cars.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Euclid I don't know how they can conclude that the projectiles had no relationship to the cause of the wreck without yet knowing the cause.
I don't know how they can conclude that the projectiles had no relationship to the cause of the wreck without yet knowing the cause.
That's how you find the cause, by ruling out the stuff that didn't have an impact (no pun intended) on the accident. Evidently they have looked at the evidence and decided that whatever the "projectile" was and whatever the circumstances regarding the projectile were, it didn't significantly affect the outcome or contribute to the cause.
That's how you find the cause. You walk through all the aspects and ask if the evidence supports that being a cause. If the answer is no, you drop that and go on to the next factor.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Wow, you guys n gals are tenacious in pouring over this subject. I imagine a locomotive off of the rails digging into the ties and ballast would produce rocks flying everywhere bouncing multiple times, and some of those rocks bouncing back to hit the locomotive. But that doesn't rule out a person shooting or throwing objects.
Lastly I think we can be confident to rule out Bigfoot and space aliens from having a role in this accident.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
dehusman Euclid I don't know how they can conclude that the projectiles had no relationship to the cause of the wreck without yet knowing the cause. That's how you find the cause, by ruling out the stuff that didn't have an impact (no pun intended) on the accident. Evidently they have looked at the evidence and decided that whatever the "projectile" was and whatever the circumstances regarding the projectile were, it didn't significantly affect the outcome or contribute to the cause. That's how you find the cause. You walk through all the aspects and ask if the evidence supports that being a cause. If the answer is no, you drop that and go on to the next factor.
sually
Boyd Wow, you guys n gals are tenacious in pouring over this subject. I imagine a locomotive off of the rails digging into the ties and ballast would produce rocks flying everywhere bouncing multiple times, and some of those rocks bouncing back to hit the locomotive. But that doesn't rule out a person shooting or throwing objects. Lastly I think we can be confident to rule out Bigfoot and space aliens from having a role in this accident.
+1"Never have so many contrived so many 'explanations' with so little substance." Terrorists with AK-47s, terrorists with unknown chemicals, boys in the hood with rocks or small arms or rifles. The list seems endless, and far beyond Euclid with his usual obsessive, circular monologue.
Seems to me many here simply cannot accept the simple likelihood that the engineer was recklessly responsible.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Just hang your purse over there someplace & I'll show you how to drive the train...
Or, we can wait and see what the people who actually went to the scene and examined the train and accident scene then talked to the people who were actually on the train say.
schlimm sually Boyd Wow, you guys n gals are tenacious in pouring over this subject. I imagine a locomotive off of the rails digging into the ties and ballast would produce rocks flying everywhere bouncing multiple times, and some of those rocks bouncing back to hit the locomotive. But that doesn't rule out a person shooting or throwing objects. Lastly I think we can be confident to rule out Bigfoot and space aliens from having a role in this accident. +1"Never have so many contrived so many 'explanations' with so little substance." Terrorists with AK-47s, terrorists with unknown chemicals, boys in the hood with rocks or small arms or rifles. The list seems endless, and far beyond Euclid with his usual obsessive, circular monologue. Seems to me many here simply cannot accept the simple likelihood that the engineer was recklessly responsible.
The conspiracy theories will abound until the NTSB final report is made public.
Norm
Euclid If there is no explanation found, I expect the NTSB to say it was caused by a sleep disorder. Certainly that would be a feasible cause, and nobody could dispute that as the cause. I expect them to soon announce that they are looking into the engineer’s sleep schedule to see if fatigue played a role.
Rather than continuing to speculate, why don't you just let the NTSB folks do their job and wait to hear what they find?
Norm48327 Euclid If there is no explanation found, I expect the NTSB to say it was caused by a sleep disorder. Certainly that would be a feasible cause, and nobody could dispute that as the cause. I expect them to soon announce that they are looking into the engineer’s sleep schedule to see if fatigue played a role. Rather than continuing to speculate, why don't you just let the NTSB folks do their job and wait to hear what they find?
Because I like to speculate. It won't slow them down. I might not agree with their finding either. So I might continue speculating.
schlimmSeems to me many here simply cannot accept the simple likelihood that the engineer was recklessly responsible.
I've held my tongue long enough.
If that turns out to be the case, then so be it. My issue is the dead bodies weren't even cool and the media and certain politicians were already putting 100% of the blame on the engineer.
That is not right. And besides, many incidents like this have several factors. No matter what criminal or civil penalties come out, it will be nothing compared to the personal hell that engineer will live with for the rest of his life.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
No offense, but whenever anything controversial happens, you always sing the same song. It's the company and/or employee's fault.
Let's wait for the experts to investigate, please.
schlimm Seems to me many here simply cannot accept the simple likelihood that the engineer was recklessly responsible.
Zugmann,
Right.
One report I heard was immediately calling for trial for manslaughter against the engineer, (it had to be deliberate on his part.....), even though no one is fully sure as of yet (and especially then) what caused the crash.
It just is easier, cheaper, and just plain quicker to assign blame on someone else, and only the engineer was available at that point. (Same mentality of those involved in grade crossing collisions... It's someone else's fault. That train should not have been there, the crossing isn't clearly marked/needs lights, Garmin distracted them, the gates were not operational/missing/never installed, it's too easy to go around the gates, it was supposed to be a slower train, I beat them last time, the train should have stopped sooner, they should have swerved out of the way, etc...)
What I do not get, is why these same individuals have not already jumped to starting a lynch mob to go after the vandals who threw/launched the "projectiles" into the train. After all, these same media and political folks who jumped on the bandwagon of "blame the engineer" should now be on the "blame the idiot vandals" bandwagon, right?
And, as mentioned, who is to say the projectile strike did or did not contribute, as there is no clear answer as to what did contribute yet.... Premature to rule out this when you don't know anything else that did contribute yet.
Once the official answer is known, (and it may never be), so be it, but until then, let's not just blame the engineer, as other things may have factored into the crash. (It may not even have been his fault, what if the throttle stuck?)
(Yep, one more theory to throw into the mix. Have fun with it! )
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
23 17 46 11
Deggesty oltmannd MrLynn oltmannd Sounds plausible until you look at this: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/13/us/investigating-the-philadelphia-amtrak-train-crash.html This train didn't make N. Phila. It rolled through at track speed. If the throttle was in notch 8 at that point, it would have been well over 106 by the curve. /Mr Lynn oltmannd: "N. Phila is about where the 58 mph mark is." Deggesty: "And, it is 3.2 miles south of Frankford Junction."
oltmannd MrLynn oltmannd Sounds plausible until you look at this: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/13/us/investigating-the-philadelphia-amtrak-train-crash.html This train didn't make N. Phila. It rolled through at track speed. If the throttle was in notch 8 at that point, it would have been well over 106 by the curve. /Mr Lynn oltmannd: "N. Phila is about where the 58 mph mark is." Deggesty: "And, it is 3.2 miles south of Frankford Junction."
MrLynn oltmannd Sounds plausible until you look at this: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/13/us/investigating-the-philadelphia-amtrak-train-crash.html This train didn't make N. Phila. It rolled through at track speed. If the throttle was in notch 8 at that point, it would have been well over 106 by the curve. /Mr Lynn oltmannd: "N. Phila is about where the 58 mph mark is." Deggesty: "And, it is 3.2 miles south of Frankford Junction."
oltmannd Sounds plausible until you look at this: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/13/us/investigating-the-philadelphia-amtrak-train-crash.html This train didn't make N. Phila. It rolled through at track speed. If the throttle was in notch 8 at that point, it would have been well over 106 by the curve.
/Mr Lynn
oltmannd: "N. Phila is about where the 58 mph mark is."
Deggesty: "And, it is 3.2 miles south of Frankford Junction."
Next - and more importantly - consider the following, which I will readily concede is mere speculation on my part (though the result of my critical thinking about the statements of the assistant conductor and passengers about their perceptions of the speed in the moments before the derailment):
Might the engineer have become mistaken or confused in where he though his location was - specifically, that he had already passed the 50 MPH restrictive curve ? That could have happened for any number of reasons - he was relatively new on the territory, might have been distracted by the foreign object impacts, etc.
The NY Times article linked above at - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/13/us/investigating-the-philadelphia-amtrak-train-crash.html?_r=0 - is somewhat helpful, esp. the 2nd map from the top, but not completely so.
The crux of my point is this:
In view of the above, I'm speculating that the engineer came around the preceding curve to the west, but mistakenly thought he had already passed through the 50 MPH sharp curve and then the short right curve to the east after it. Under that mistaken locaton, he then increased speed, which would be consistent with the action of an engineer after that second right curve, to accelerate on the straightaway to the northeast after the junction, as the NY Times noted.
Thoughts on this, anyone - agree, disagree, have better data or evidence, etc. ?
- Paul North.
Like said earlier, wether or not this is the engineers fault he will have the weight of this on his shoulders the rest of his life.
In investigators might be publicly saying things opposite of what they have observed, and do it for a purpose as to not spook the suspects that might thus leave the country. I once ran out the back of the house after hearing an accident on the highway close by. I sprained my ankle in the process. The emergency room nurse asked how I did it and I told her. She said one person in that accident had broken their spine. On the news they reported that nobody was seriously injured. In every state every day there are big things that happen that are purposely not released to the public through the news. In the next week we might hear a few more details. In two weeks this will probably have been pushed aside by other hotter stories. In three to four months one to a handful of details from a preliminary report might be leaked. And finally a year from now an NTSB report will come out.
Leo_Ames schlimm Seems to me many here simply cannot accept the simple likelihood that the engineer was recklessly responsible. No offense, but whenever anything controversial happens, you always sing the same song. It's the company and/or employee's fault. Let's wait for the experts to investigate, please.
Sorry if that ruins your day. Most of the speculation has been people coming up with highly improbable explanations. The experts have so far determined it was not chemicals or bullets into the windshield. Of course, we need to hear more as to why the engineer did what he did. I did offer two neurological possibilities, but it seems he was negligent..
edb I still think you are correct. I have several reasons not to believe the FBI report. You can contact me at daveklepper@yahoo.com to discuss this further.
The FBI may have been acting in the National Interest to hide the facts.
schlimm Leo_Ames schlimm Seems to me many here simply cannot accept the simple likelihood that the engineer was recklessly responsible. No offense, but whenever anything controversial happens, you always sing the same song. It's the company and/or employee's fault. Let's wait for the experts to investigate, please. Sorry if that ruins your day.
Sorry if that ruins your day.
That's not what I said. I was just pointing out the pattern you always follow whenever anything is going on that somehow has some negative connotation of some sort in connection with this industry.
Train wrecks put the industry in a very negative light without help from outsiders.
I refuse to comment on the wreck, I wasn't there. I do know that every theory that the press comes up with has to be debunked by investigators and this slows the investigation to crawl. I think this wild speculation is a disservice to the victims.
Euclid Regarding your speculation about getting confused about the curves: The Northern Pacific had a wreck in Montana where a passenger train went into a 20 mph curve over a trestle at 79 mph
The Tug Fork accident on N&W, if I recall correctly, was likely caused by being 'one curve off' in the fog.
Paul, A very interesting theory. It seems to be a very plausible possibility. The broken windshield would also serve to distract and delay a brake application for a few seconds.
-Bob W.
Leo_Ames schlimm Leo_Ames schlimm Seems to me many here simply cannot accept the simple likelihood that the engineer was recklessly responsible. No offense, but whenever anything controversial happens, you always sing the same song. It's the company and/or employee's fault. Let's wait for the experts to investigate, please. Sorry if that ruins your day. That's not what I said. I was just pointing out the pattern you always follow whenever anything is going on that somehow has some negative connotation of some sort in connection with this industry.
Why the need to "point it out" as you say? There is a motivation on your part to dispute that which you do not like. When the facts fail you, you apparently need to shoot the messenger of bad news.
schlimmWhy the need to "point it out" as you say?
Because it's annoying. Why not keep an open mind until the facts have a chance to come to light?
You've already sentenced the guy to all but hang, and act like your opinion is somehow the same as the facts. Like I said before, give the experts their chance to figure this out as best as possible. Until then, you're speculating just like those you were bothered with were, although at least they seem to be keeping an open mind and are just wondering about what possibly happened.
You seemingly have it all figured out...
BOB WITHORN Paul, A very interesting theory. It seems to be a very plausible possibility. The broken windshield would also serve to distract and delay a brake application for a few seconds. -Bob W.
Yes, especially since it was dark, and so much easier to misread one's location—and even more so if distracted by windshield impacts.
Does this possibility argue for having two men in the cab? I would guess so, especially if they were trained to call out signals, speed restrictions, and landmarks to each other.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.