Amtrak Wreck in Philadelphia

[Euclid]

dehusman

 

ricktrains4824

The SEPTA engineer did not notice anything "unusual" about Amtrak 188 as it passed him

 

 

More importantly this gives us critical information.

According to the SEPTA engineer the AMTK train called him and warned him that the AMTK train was passing.

We now know that at that time, the AMTK engineer was awake.

The AMTK engineer was "situationally aware", he knew where he was, he knew where the SEPTA train was, he was aware that his train posed a risk to the other train.  AMTK called SEPTA, AMTK initiated the transmission.

We can be almost completely certain that nothing had happened to the AMTK train at that time because he communicated to another train and didn't mention any exceptions. 

What I have never seen mentined is where and when he passed the SEPTA train.  How close was it to where the derailment was?

 

That is a great point that the event further defines and clarifies the zone in which the engineer reports memory loss.  I too would like to know where this event happened in relation to the derailment.  The question is whether the engineer’s memory loss is due to some type of distraction or loss of consciousness prior to the derailment; or is due to the trauma of the derailment itself. 

Since the train-passing event indicates no loss of consciousness at that point; and that point is within the zone that the engineer currently does not remember; it reinforces the possibility that memory loss within that zone was due to the derailment, and it is projected back in time from the derailment. 

[NP Eddie]

Can anyone provide me with the numbers of the cars on that train, including which cars were scrapped on scene? I will update my "Amtrak by the Numbers" book.  I will get the locomotive number from earlier posts. Will this locomotive we returned to service when the investigation is finished?

 

Ed Burns of Anoka, MN

[ACY Tom]

ACY

I think this is a correct consist:

Loco ACS64 number 601 

Business class 81528

Coach 82776 (quiet car)

Coach 82644

Cafe 43346

Coach 82761

Coach 82797

Coach 82981

The Business class car appears to be the most heavily damaged.  This is my best attempt at a description of the consist.  Additional information or corrections welcome.

Tom

Nobody has offered any corrections, so I still think this is a correct consist.  I do not think anything was actually scrapped onsite, but could be wrong.  I think all wreckage was taken to Delaware for evaluation. 

[gardendance]

I too, as I asked in a prior post, would like to know when Bostian passed the SEPTA train. If I remember correctly, Bostian says he remembers going through North Philly station. The SEPTA train successfully made it to North Philly and stopped after his windshield shattered, even though from what I remember reading, he had facial glass wounds.

Others have posted that it's a good idea and common for engineers to notify the trains they're overtaking. I'm not sure it's all that important at a station like North Philly, where presumably the SEPTOID was on the outside track, and so had at least a station platform between him and AMT 188, so my guess is they probably passed each other before North Philly, and maybe even before the SEPTOID's windshield shattered.

But I'd really rather stop guessing, does anybody actually know where and when the 2 trains passed?

[wanswheel]

Excerpt from Philadelphia Magazine, May 13

Early on Wednesday morning, a SEPTA spokesperson said the incident with the window occurred at 9:25 p.m., three minutes before the Amtrak crash, as multiple media outlets have reported. But according to Drexel history professor Scott Knowles, who was on the SEPTA train in question, the SEPTA incident occurred earlier than that.

Knowles, author of The Disaster Experts: Mastering Risk in Modern America, tells Philadelphia magazine that he texted his wife at 9:16 p.m. on Tuesday, explaining the problem to her. "My best guess is that it happened at 9:08 p.m.," he says. "Because we were sitting there for at least a few minutes before they told us what had happened, and then I didn't text my wife immediately."

Another SEPTA spokesperson said that the incident occurred at the North Philadelphia station, but Knowles maintains that it occurred somewhere between 30th Street Station and the North Philadelphia Station.

 "We had not reached the North Philly station yet," insists Knowles. "There was some question as to whether they were going to pull us forward to North Philly or send us back to 30th Street."

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/05/13/amtrak-crash-septa-projectile/

[schlimm]

Euclid

Since the train-passing event indicates no loss of consciousness at that point; and that point is within the zone that the engineer currently does not remember; it reinforces the possibility that memory loss within that zone was due to the derailment, and it is projected back in time from the derailment. 

As I conjectured many moons ago.  Retrograde amnesia, common with even a mild head trauma. In this case, a sequela of the derailment, not the cause of it.

[Euclid]

I have not suggested, nor do I believe that the memory loss caused the derailment. 

But how do we know that the loss of memory is a result of the derailment?  What if the engineer has fallen asleep during the time he should have been anticipating slowing for the curve?  He might not have memory of that period due to being asleep.  If that were the case, I don’t know if it would be accurate to say that the memory loss caused the derailment.  Sleep would be the cause the derailment, and the cause of memory loss. 

Of course, there is still the question of how the throttle got advanced to 106 mph.    

[tree68]

Euclid

Of course, there is still the question of how the throttle got advanced to 106 mph.

It didn't.  The throttle was not reduced to an appropriate setting when necessary.

I don't know about the locomotive in question, but on the locomotives I run, there's no setting of "106 MPH."  Or any other speed, any more than there is on your car.

[Euclid]

tree68

 

Euclid

Of course, there is still the question of how the throttle got advanced to 106 mph.

 

 

It didn't.  The throttle was not reduced to an appropriate setting when necessary.

I don't know about the locomotive in question, but on the locomotives I run, there's no setting of "106 MPH."  Or any other speed, any more than there is on your car.

 

I realize there is no speed setting on the throttle.  I just meant advanced to result in 106 mph.  To your first point though, I am not sure about that.  I know that somebody familiar with the route had said that the train was constantly accelerating following the passage of the last station, and simply failed to stop accerating when it reached the speed restriction of the curve.  I assume that is what you are referring to. 

However, many reports referred to the train running at 70 mph, and then suddenly accelerating to 106.  That would suggest that the train speed had leveled off at 70 mph and was not accelerating; and then the throttle was advanced to begin the final acceleration to 106.  But that may just be the inerpretation or the result of how it was stated in the media or by the NTSB.

It is an interesting poing because it would make a big difference in the possible status of the engineer.  If the train was under constant acceleration all along, the fact that the engineer did not level off speed at the limit could indicate that he was sleeping.  However, if the throttle was suddenly advanced ahead of the curve, there is no obvious explanation. 

Is there a reference that clarifies this point about whether the train failed to stop accelerating when it reached the speed limit; or if it suddenly began acceleration after running at continuous speed for some distance? 

[Boyd]

How do I unsubscribe from this thread?

[tree68]

Euclid

Is there a reference that clarifies this point about whether the train failed to stop accelerating when it reached the speed limit; or if it suddenly began acceleration after running at continuous speed for some distance? 

The event recorder will tell all, when the authorities choose to share that information with the public.  Until then, it's all speculation.

"Constantly accellerating" is an ambiguous term.  After all, if your vehicle will do zero to sixty in four seconds, it is constantly accellerating during that four seconds.  If your car takes 30 seconds to reach sixty, your car is still constantly accellerating during that 30 seconds.  It's all in how far down you press the accellerator.  So someone saying that was the case is making a subjective judgement.  The event recorder will hold the answer.

[Phoebe Vet]

Boyd

How do I unsubscribe from this thread?

 

Click the blue words at the bottom of the e-mail.

It says "unsubscribe"  It will effect only this thread.

[Euclid]

tree68

 

Euclid

Is there a reference that clarifies this point about whether the train failed to stop accelerating when it reached the speed limit; or if it suddenly began acceleration after running at continuous speed for some distance? 

 

 

The event recorder will tell all, when the authorities choose to share that information with the public.  Until then, it's all speculation.

"Constantly accellerating" is an ambiguous term.  After all, if your vehicle will do zero to sixty in four seconds, it is constantly accellerating during that four seconds.  If your car takes 30 seconds to reach sixty, your car is still constantly accellerating during that 30 seconds.  It's all in how far down you press the accellerator.  So someone saying that was the case is making a subjective judgement.  The event recorder will hold the answer.

 

I don’t see why the term constantly accelerating is ambiguous.  The examples you cite would indeed be cases of constantly accelerating.  I only use the term to distinguish between constant acceleration and holding a constant speed.  If the train had been holding a constant speed and then suddenly began to accelerate over the speed limit, that is one circumstance.  If the train was accelerating all along, and just kept accelerating beyond the speed limit, that is another circumstance.  If it was the latter, it can be explained by sleeping or inattention.  If it is the former, I cannot see any possible explanation.  The NTSB statement made it sound like the former.  Some other person familiar made it sound like the latter. 

I expect the final report would clarify it, as you say, but maybe someone can cite a news source that addresses the matter in the meantime.   

[wanswheel]

Bostian must've been wary, a bit on edge, as he passed the SEPTA train. Remember, it had been an unusually warm day, 86 in the afternoon, inducing hordes of juvenile delinquents to hang out.

[Norm48327]

Can't say that I fault Boyd for unsubscribing. This thread has become a train wreck in it's own right thanks to the need of one poster to define every word.

[BaltACD]

I have never figured the mentaltity that subscribes to a thread and gets notification for each post.....

[schlimm]

Euclid

I have not suggested, nor do I believe that the memory loss caused the derailment. 

But how do we know that the loss of memory is a result of the derailment?  What if the engineer has fallen asleep during the time he should have been anticipating slowing for the curve?  He might not have memory of that period due to being asleep.  If that were the case, I don’t know if it would be accurate to say that the memory loss caused the derailment.  Sleep would be the cause the derailment, and the cause of memory loss. 

I never said YOU said the memory loss caused the accident.  You really seem to need to quibble endlessly over what is already settled.   1. There is no reported Hx of a sleep disorder or prior incidents of his sleeping on the job.   2. The report was negative for drugs and alcohol.  3. He suffered some cuts and a mild concussion in the derailment, but was not unconscious when seen. Ergo, it is not difficult to conclude that since the amnesia was likely retrograde, it had nothing to do with causing the accident.    Why he accelerated is TBD from inference from the black box recordings and his recollections, when and if his memory returns.  Your endless circular speculation advances our understanding not one jot.

[narig01]

schlimm

 

 

Euclid

I have not suggested, nor do I believe that the memory loss caused the derailment. 

But how do we know that the loss of memory is a result of the derailment?  What if the engineer has fallen asleep during the time he should have been anticipating slowing for the curve?  He might not have memory of that period due to being asleep.  If that were the case, I don’t know if it would be accurate to say that the memory loss caused the derailment.  Sleep would be the cause the derailment, and the cause of memory loss. 

 

 

 

I never said YOU said the memory loss caused the accident.  You really seem to need to quibble endlessly over what is already settled.   1. There is no reported Hx of a sleep disorder or prior incidents of his sleeping on the job.   2. The report was negative for drugs and alcohol.  3. He suffered some cuts and a mild concussion in the derailment, but was not unconscious when seen. Ergo, it is not difficult to conclude that since the amnesia was likely retrograde, it had nothing to do with causing the accident.    Why he accelerated is TBD from inference from the black box recordings and his recollections, when and if his memory returns.  Your endless circular speculation advances our understanding not one jot.

 

From experience i is less likely to doze at sunset unless one has missed a nites sleep.  Loss of memory from sleep deprivation usually is caused by one nodding off. People tend not to nod off when talking. In this case if Mr Bostian had nodded off he would not have made the radio call when passing the SEPTA train. Further when asked he would have remembered making the call. 

     On the other hand his not remembering the radio call is a little more consistant with the memory loss being from other causes.

Rgds IGN

[Euclid]

schlimm

 

Euclid

I have not suggested, nor do I believe that the memory loss caused the derailment. 

But how do we know that the loss of memory is a result of the derailment?  What if the engineer has fallen asleep during the time he should have been anticipating slowing for the curve?  He might not have memory of that period due to being asleep.  If that were the case, I don’t know if it would be accurate to say that the memory loss caused the derailment.  Sleep would be the cause the derailment, and the cause of memory loss. 

 

 

 

I never said YOU said the memory loss caused the accident.  You really seem to need to quibble endlessly over what is already settled.   1. There is no reported Hx of a sleep disorder or prior incidents of his sleeping on the job.   2. The report was negative for drugs and alcohol.  3. He suffered some cuts and a mild concussion in the derailment, but was not unconscious when seen. Ergo, it is not difficult to conclude that since the amnesia was likely retrograde, it had nothing to do with causing the accident.    Why he accelerated is TBD from inference from the black box recordings and his recollections, when and if his memory returns.  Your endless circular speculation advances our understanding not one jot.

 

Why is it such a sin when I speculate?  Everybody else gets to do it. 

I assume that you are referring to me when you say, “You really seem to need to quibble endlessly over what is already settled.”  I am not talking about anything that has been settled.  I agree that your points #1-3 have been settled.  But they have nothing to do with what I said.  Where have I said anything contrary to those points?  I suggested that the engineer might have fallen asleep.  Certainly that is absolutely true, and the point has not been settled.  Your point #1 that there is no reported sleep disorder, etc. is settled, but it does not prove that the engineer did not fall asleep.  It was reported that the engineer said he was rested, but nothing has been said that proves that. 

I never said anything about drugs or alcohol (your point #2), let alone quibble endlessly about it. 

I never said anything that conflicts with your point #3.  Actually I agreed with your point #3.  It is just that I do not conclude that it proves that his lack of memory was caused by the derailment as you speculate with your conclusion that you say is not difficult.        

[Norm48327]

"Why is it such a sin when I speculate?  Everybody else gets to do it."

It's not the speculation per se. It's the constant repetition of the same drivel.

“You really seem to need to quibble endlessly over what is already settled.” 

Go back to the Lac Megantic thread and count how many times you said the engineer did not set enough brakes. You're doing quite similar thing in this thread. You have a rebuttal for everything.

Just the view from the other side of the fence.

[Anonymous]

Euclid

Why is it such a sin when I speculate?  Everybody else gets to do it. 

 

Bucky....stop derailing this thread, or you're going to get reported.

[Anonymous]

Norm48327

It's not the speculation per se. It's the constant repetition of the same drivel.

"Drivel" is not the word I would have used.  

[wanswheel]

Excerpt from Associated Press, May 20

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2015/05/21/Unions-Amtrak-engineer-had-grueling-shift-before-derailment/stories/201505210171

Railroad Workers United, a consortium of train unions, said Wednesday that Bostian's shift the day of the derailment had been particularly grueling and that equipment-related delays on his earlier train to Washington shortened his rest break.

A system that displays track signals on the train's dashboard failed, forcing the 32-year-old Bostian to pay close attention while reducing speeds on the Acela Express train — which tops out at 150 mph in designated areas — to below 80 mph, the organization's Ron Kaminkow said.

"It wasn't a routine run," Kaminkow said.

The Acela arrived at Washington's Union Station 26 minutes late, leaving Bostian about an hour to rest, eat and go to the bathroom before his trip back to New York on the Northeast Regional train that eventually derailed in Philadelphia, according to Karl Edler, a veteran Amtrak engineer with knowledge of Bostian's schedule.

Engineers used to have at least 90 minutes between trips, Kaminkow and Edler said, but a March 23 schedule change ended the decades-old practice. The swift turnarounds have "the ability to create more fatigue in the workforce, plain and simple," Kaminkow said.

[schlimm]

Murray

 

 

Norm48327

It's not the speculation per se. It's the constant repetition of the same drivel.

 

 

 

"Drivel" is not the word I would have used.  

 

 

To be more fair and precise, it is the circular and repetitive quality of the speculation that serves no useful purpose for the rest of the forum readers.

[Norm48327]

"To be more fair and precise, it is the circular and repetitive quality of the speculation that serves no useful purpose for the rest of the forum reader."

Same thought; more politely put.

[BaltACD]

wanswheel

Excerpt from Associated Press, May 20

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2015/05/21/Unions-Amtrak-engineer-had-grueling-shift-before-derailment/stories/201505210171

Railroad Workers United, a consortium of train unions, said Wednesday that Bostian's shift the day of the derailment had been particularly grueling and that equipment-related delays on his earlier train to Washington shortened his rest break.

A system that displays track signals on the train's dashboard failed, forcing the 32-year-old Bostian to pay close attention while reducing speeds on the Acela Express train — which tops out at 150 mph in designated areas — to below 80 mph, the organization's Ron Kaminkow said.

"It wasn't a routine run," Kaminkow said.

The Acela arrived at Washington's Union Station 26 minutes late, leaving Bostian about an hour to rest, eat and go to the bathroom before his trip back to New York on the Northeast Regional train that eventually derailed in Philadelphia, according to Karl Edler, a veteran Amtrak engineer with knowledge of Bostian's schedule.

Engineers used to have at least 90 minutes between trips, Kaminkow and Edler said, but a March 23 schedule change ended the decades-old practice. The swift turnarounds have "the ability to create more fatigue in the workforce, plain and simple," Kaminkow said.

 

The only routine in the business of railroading - Amtrak and all others - is that there is no routine.  Each trip is its own tale of trial and tribulations.

Once the 12 hour clock starts running at the original on duty time - it keeps on ticking, unless there is a 4 or more hour break, the hour and a half 'dead time' mentioned means that the employee only has 10 1/2 hours to complete the run, because that 1 1/2 hour dead time still counts a working time for the Hours of Service.

As an aside - Amtrak crew management does not keep a firm hold on their operating employees Hours of Service when they are operating on freight carriers and when presented with the situation of one or more of their employees being in HOS jeapordy of completing their runs - they act totally surprised and bewildered.  I have no idea how they handle this on their own property.

[Norm48327]

It would have been informative had the article mentioned his start time that day. If he were nearing the end of his HOS i would explain fatigue.

[Deggesty]

BaltACD

 

wanswheel

Excerpt from Associated Press, May 20

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2015/05/21/Unions-Amtrak-engineer-had-grueling-shift-before-derailment/stories/201505210171

Railroad Workers United, a consortium of train unions, said Wednesday that Bostian's shift the day of the derailment had been particularly grueling and that equipment-related delays on his earlier train to Washington shortened his rest break.

A system that displays track signals on the train's dashboard failed, forcing the 32-year-old Bostian to pay close attention while reducing speeds on the Acela Express train — which tops out at 150 mph in designated areas — to below 80 mph, the organization's Ron Kaminkow said.

"It wasn't a routine run," Kaminkow said.

The Acela arrived at Washington's Union Station 26 minutes late, leaving Bostian about an hour to rest, eat and go to the bathroom before his trip back to New York on the Northeast Regional train that eventually derailed in Philadelphia, according to Karl Edler, a veteran Amtrak engineer with knowledge of Bostian's schedule.

Engineers used to have at least 90 minutes between trips, Kaminkow and Edler said, but a March 23 schedule change ended the decades-old practice. The swift turnarounds have "the ability to create more fatigue in the workforce, plain and simple," Kaminkow said.

 

 

 

 

The only routine in the business of railroading - Amtrak and all others - is that there is no routine.  Each trip is its own tale of trial and tribulations.

Once the 12 hour clock starts running at the original on duty time - it keeps on ticking, unless there is a 4 or more hour break, the hour and a half 'dead time' mentioned means that the employee only has 10 1/2 hours to complete the run, because that 1 1/2 hour dead time still counts a working time for the Hours of Service.

As an aside - Amtrak crew management does not keep a firm hold on their operating employees Hours of Service when they are operating on freight carriers and when presented with the situation of one or more of their employees being in HOS jeapordy of completing their runs - they act totally surprised and bewildered.  I have no idea how they handle this on their own property.

 

Balt, related to your aside is my experience last September when I was returning home from Chicago. We left Chicago two hours late because of the congestion on the NS--49 and 29 both arrived rather late. As a result, we continually lost time--and were five hours late at Lincoln. For some reason, whoever called the crews who boarded in Lincoln did not take the late running into account, and the crews had to be relieved well short of their scheduled run; I did not note where it was, but it was more or less by the side of the road somewhere in Nebraska. As it was, I had two nights on board instead of arriving home for a late bedtime--better than six hours late into Salt Lake City.

[Euclid]

Now the NTSB is reported to be “downplaying” the idea that any object struck the windshield.  However, the quote used to support this revelation is actually of Sumwalt downplaying the gunshot theory. 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4243101361001/ntsb-downplaying-idea-that-object-hit-amtrak-windshield/#sp=show-clips&v=4251866319001

 

The locomotive struck something on its right front corner (facing forward), and the impact affected the area of the window frame structure right alongside of the windshield.  The photos show that area is collapsed from impact.  That structural damage to the metal appears to have been caused by the locomotive striking a sizeable stationary object or structure such as a pole.

My theory is that the impact damage distorted the windshield frame structure in a way that caused the windshield to shatter.  Much of the glass fracture pattern emanates from the edge of the glass adjoining the damaged frame structure.

There is one point of damage on the other windshield glass that appears to be a very sharp, and concentrated impact in the mid field of the glass.  I cannot imagine that being caused by a stationary object.  However, striking a stationary structure could dislodge pieces from it that would be airborne, and such an airborne piece could have been then struck by the locomotive windshield. 

If the locomotive dislodged an object from a structure, and then struck it, would that be considered to be a case of the “train being struck by an object”?  Or would it be an object struck by the train?

Also of interest in the video is the mention again of the train suddenly accelerating from 70 mph to 106 mph.  The speculation is that the engineer mistakenly thought he was beyond the restricted curve, where the sudden acceleration would have been routine to resume the higher speed limit.      

[WDGF]

tree68

The event recorder will tell all...

Just out of my own ignorance and curiosity, does anyone know if the event recorder includes accelerometer and/or some form of GPS in its data? If so, I'm thinking it will answer the questions about when & where the train accelerated, and if that was normal or abnormal.