jslader_sr you left out any explanation of why you added my prior quote, which says only that I once upon a time thought the SEPTOID was headed towards 30th St. Since then I learned that I was wrong about the SEPTOID, it was headed towards Trenton, and I'd bet at least a dollar that I had subsequently made posts that showed I had revised my thoughts, as I'm suggesting those whom you mention should revise theirs.
I think it's a far stretch to take my prior post and try to lump me into a group that has said they thought it was in St Christopher's general area.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
What is the maximum possible speed at which the Amtrak train could have negotiated that curve without derailing? I assume that there is a known speed at which the train would have tipped over. I don't recall seeing that tip-over speed reported.
Euclid What is the maximum possible speed at which the Amtrak train could have negotiated that curve without derailing? I assume that there is a known speed at which the train would have tipped over. I don't recall seeing that tip-over speed reported.
That will get reported in the final NTSB report.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
It was mentioned that, although the speed limit was 50 mph, the train could make it through the curve at 80 mph. It would be natural to assume that the tip-over speed had to be under the actual speed of the train because the train derailed. But I wonder if the stress of the emergency application of the brakes after entering the curve may have contributed to the derailment. So that raises the question of whether the train could have made it through the curve had the brakes not been applied.
Euclid It was mentioned that, although the speed limit was 50 mph, the train could make it through the curve at 80 mph. It would be natural to assume that the tip-over speed had to be under the actual speed of the train because the train derailed. But I wonder if the stress of the emergency application of the brakes after entering the curve may have contributed to the derailment. So that raises the question of whether the train could have made it through the curve had the brakes not been applied.
That will likely be reported in the NTSB final report.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
"So that raises the question of whether the train could have made it through the curve had the brakes not been applied."
I would guess that at the speed of around 100 MPH the answer is no. Perhaps Paul North can do the math, but it seems to me the superelevation on the four degree curve would have to be quite severe to handle it at 80 MPH.
Norm
I have no idea what the answer is, but I thought that somebody might have the technical insight without waiting for the final report. I am sure that there is some published specification of what happens at various speeds on that curve.
Perhaps there is a standard practice for rating curves for various speeds.
I am not actually sure what would be expected to happen once the speed is too high for the curve. The train may tip over, or the flanges may climb the rails without inducing a tip-over. Another possibility would be to tip the outer rail over.
gardendance jslader_sr you left out any explanation of why you added my prior quote, which says only that I once upon a time thought the SEPTOID was headed towards 30th St. Since then I learned that I was wrong about the SEPTOID, it was headed towards Trenton, and I'd bet at least a dollar that I had subsequently made posts that showed I had revised my thoughts, as I'm suggesting those whom you mention should revise theirs. I think it's a far stretch to take my prior post and try to lump me into a group that has said they thought it was in St Christopher's general area.
I have been posting to this thread mainly from my Android smartphone. I find it somewhat difficult at times, as it doesn't format the way I think it will, or allow me to take certain actions. I am not sure how I did what I did to make the post come out the way it did ĺit would appear I typed my reply to your post at the top of the quote box, as if it was part of a chain of posts; I don't even remember quoting the other posts, it was not my intention.)
I apologize if it seems I was trying to manipulate your point to serve my post in some way.
ok, but what is your point? Are you still trying to say that both the 2 "rock" incidents were near St Christopher's Hospital?
Euclid I have no idea what the answer is, but I thought that somebody might have the technical insight without waiting for the final report. I am sure that there is some published specification of what happens at various speeds on that curve. Perhaps there is a standard practice for rating curves for various speeds. I am not actually sure what would be expected to happen once the speed is too high for the curve. The train may tip over, or the flanges may climb the rails without inducing a tip-over. Another possibility would be to tip the outer rail over.
These questions (and more) will be answered in the NTSB final report.
It more to say, "I didn't know that," especially concerning the SEPTA train.
With the SEPTA train, I had believed it had been heading in the opposite direction from 188, but your post indicates it was heading in the same direction, and stopped before it got to the St. Chris area.
I missed your point with the Acela train. When I posted my reply I initially thought you were saying it,too, was heading northbound. You weren't speaking to that at all, and were saying the train wasn't struck in the St. Chris area. What is the source for that, however?
A quick search turned this up for me: http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/05/13/amtrak-crash-septa-projectile/
That article helps make clear the other two trains were not struck in the area around St. Christopher's, and that a strike of 188 in that area would not have directly caused the engineer to lose control of the train at Frankford Junction.
No, that article makes clear THE MAYOR of Philly is saying that it did not have anything to do with the crash....
Same said mayor was calling for Bostian to be all but hung the same night of the crash... That he, and only he, was responsible and should be tried for manslaughter...
I do not believe a single word he says. Why? He has to "save face" after the "projectiles" became known, as that would blemish his quick response time to being a stupid, jumping the gun (pun intended) reaction. Because of this, he will say ANYTHING that will get the blame back on, and ONLY on, the engineer involved.
Think about this, just briefly, you are driving anything, (car, truck, train, plane, time machine DeLorian, etc...) and "something" smashes the window shield in front of you... Does it startle you? Are you distracted for a moment?
Now, how long does it take you to calm down and focus 100% on driving again? (Car or truck, you stop immediately, train, you can't. Was the throttle open when the projectile strike happened and the engineer ducked? Until the in-cab video is available, we won't know.)
Could it have distracted him long enough to cause this crash? (Contributing factor?)
(And, don't even try to bring up that this train was never hit, because the recorded radio channel says nothing about it... One of the on board crew members stated that he did say they had been struck. Just because it was not captured on the recording does not mean it was not said.)
Until he remembers what happened, we will never know.
But, this Philly Magazine article does nothing other than show the mayor has an agenda, to protect his butt after stating the engineer was liable and should be tried for manslaughter before any information was available.
(And, still not 100% convinced it was rocks.... Esp. After the "signal bungalow" incident....)
No, not trying to advance a conspiracy, just pointing out several "inconsistancies" in statements made by those in the media, and by "officials" to the media. (The mayor of Philly IS NOT an official involved in the investigation..... Hence the quotations.)
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.
EuclidIs it possible that the investigation will exonerate the engineer and focus the blame on a lack of an over-speed safety system for northbound trains at the curve? From that point, is it possible that the blame will further shift to a lack of funding for such safety devices?
And it goes on and on my friends...
When it gets to speculation about speculation, we've speculated too far. The NTSB report will contain what it contains, above our poor power to add or detract, and it will likely mention the engineer's responsibility rather than blame. Criminal charges are just what you noted, 'talk in the news' -- civil charges, that'll be something different, but not something related to the NTSB report.
And no, it is not possible that the 'blame' will 'shift' to a 'lack of funding ... for safety devices'. There was plenty of money, money that's probably being spent as we write, following the order mentioned a couple of days ago. The 'reason' for PTC not being active on that stretch of the Corridor at the time of the accident had nothing to do with funding or spending (except, perhaps, insofar as lobbying or "other" efforts failed to produce the necessary waiver decisions earlier...) and no amount of pointless repetition or innuendo is going to change that.
Mind you, I sympathize deeply with the point you're trying to make. In my opinion there should have been safety devices enforcing an absolute speed restriction well before a dangerous curve, especially with locomotives that have rapid acceleration to very high speed. I had thought those devices were incorporated in the corridor's ACSES system for decades, presuming there were appropriate aspects both for SHORE interlocking and for the Frankford Junction curve -- and why wouldn't there be?
But that's not anything a 'lack of funding' should influence, if safety is the 'job one' that proper railroads keep insisting it is. In my opinion it is neither technically difficult nor particularly expensive to put a signal restriction in place on a route, particularly where there is a severe and permanent reason for one. And yes, someone should be held accountable for that in the NTSB's findings; and yes, it shouldn't involve access to marine radio spectrum to set that up and put the necessary training and policies into effect to make it effective.
But 'lack of funding' with respect to this accident is almost absolutely a red herring, albeit a potentially useful and expedient one to some interests...
Euclid To what extent could an employee be exonerated for a rules violation if it was considered to be an honest mistake? In the case of this Amtrak wreck, if the engineer was lost, and mistakenly accelerated, how would the engineer be punished or disciplined for his mistake? There was some talk in the news about possible criminal charges. What would trigger such charges? If this was a case of an operator error, I would think that it can be proven by the event recorder. Yet the engineer may continue to say he does not remember. Under that circumstance, what degree of discipline would be expected? Is it possible that the investigation will exonerate the engineer and focus the blame on a lack of an over-speed safety system for northbound trains at the curve? From that point, is it possible that the blame will further shift to a lack of funding for such safety devices?
The only possible exoneration for the Engineer is proof that he was struck by 'something' that temporarily incapacitated him. Unless that is proved by at least a preponderance of the evidence, the failure to operate his train safely will rest squarely on his shoulders. Lack of situational awareness concerning one's location is not an acceptable excuse for the violation - it may be what happened - but it is not acceptable. Criminal charges are not in the hand of Amtrak and will have their own life. Funding questions will also have a life of their own.
Draw a free body diagram and calculate the forces.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
BaltACDThe only possible exoneration for the Engineer is proof that he was struck by 'something' that temporarily incapacitated him. Unless that is proved by at least a preponderance of the evidence, the failure to operate his train safely will rest squarely on his shoulders. Lack of situational awareness concerning one's location is not an acceptable excuse for the violation - it may be what happened - but it is not acceptable. Criminal charges are not in the hand of Amtrak and will have their own life. Funding questions will also have a life of their own.
+1 Well put.
Paul_D_North_JrIn 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. ?
Thoughts on this, anyone - agree, disagree, have better data or evidence, etc. ?
This seems very plausible to me. The only part that bothers me about this is why he didn't brake sooner. The visual clues are pretty definite. He'd have passed the Levin complex with it's collection of RR equipment, then there would be the Frankford Elevated line. Both of these landmarks are unique. Perhaps darkness was a factor, but the elevated line should have done the trick. He probably used some landmark along the line to queue his braking response to the curve. It's kind of hard to believe he missed it unless he wasn't looking for it - or couldn't look for it.
WizlishI had thought those devices were incorporated in the corridor's ACSES system for decades, presuming there were appropriate aspects both for SHORE interlocking and for the Frankford Junction curve -- and why wouldn't there be?
Because ACSES is largely the brain child of one signal engineer at Amtrak and he apparently grew it out of 1) his comfort with PRR style cab signaling and 2) his desire to keep civil speed enforcment separate from the cab signal system.
The second layer of cab signal aspects only governs occupancy and route needs - not curves.
The civil speed system - which is almost completely separte - uses track transponders and dead reckoning.
That both systems are independent can be seen in the ACSES locomotive display that shows both the "cab speed" and "civil speed" at the same time, dimming the higher one to indicate which one governs.
For ACSES to comply with PTC, Amtrak has to add a radio based movement authority system to accomodate temporary work zones.
In my opinion, the system is a bit of a mess. But, given the time and environment that caused it's genesis, its somewhat understandable.
EuclidI agree that lack of funding should not be blamed as the cause. But that sentiment has surely been widely advanced in the case of this wreck. Incidentally, the lack of speed control for the northbound approach to the curve has been explained. It was deemed to be unnecessary because the curve could be negotiated at the preceding speed limit of 80 mph.
Generally, using the CCS to enforce reduced speeds in curves is a poor solution. This is because the menu of speeds is limited compared to the needs of all the curves on the line. Also, because there are capacity issues depending one where you have to put the cut section to accomdate the "worst" train.
Apparently, the LIRR liked to use the CCS for this purpose more than the other PRR step children, perhaps because lower MAS plus some horrendous wrecks made it a decent solution.
ACSES is supposed to use the transponder based civil speed system for all curves. Using the CCS is a stop gap.
EuclidWhat I said above is not speculation about speculation, as you say ...
It's speculatively attributing potential -- 'speculative' -- thoughts to the NTSB, that they do not employ in their methodology. We could go into infinite regress following that line of discussion.
Also repeated is the labeling of every thought as speculation and then complaining as if speculation is somehow ethically or legally off limits. Of course it is not.
It's just that there are so many times I hear the same thing before I start to get MEGO syndrome, or hear things that aren't supported by tangible facts or common sense or even rudimentary fact-checking thrown out as hypotheses.
Also, there is a difference between speculating and accusation. Notice that in my above questions, there is no accusation. I am simply asking a question about how such matters are routinely handled.
You can get that by looking at what the NTSB's remit is, and how it has conducted (and says it conducts) its investigations. Personally, I cannot even imagine how the engineer could be 'exonerated' given the facts the NTSB says it has observed so far, and to posit wild-hair ideas of what they 'would' do in such a case is ... well, I've said it already, no need to repeat the repetition.
There is no excuse for not following the rules. However, a line still needs to be drawn. If an employee falls asleep for instance, and violates a rule as a result, is he or she held responsible for the rule violation?
Has that not been absolutely established so far? Last I looked there were rules about falling asleep on duty. There are reasons for that, including the very great likelihood that other rules would or will be violated by sleeping employees. Now, in an NTSB report, they're not looking at 'rules' violations; they're looking at safety violations, and falling asleep would be a prima facie safety violation. Fortunately there is no need to speculate by extension in the present thread that the NTSB is accusing Bostian of falling asleep at the throttle in this accident by extension. When the report comes out, if they think so, they will say so. Otherwise they will not.
I agree that lack of funding should not be blamed as the cause. But that sentiment has surely been widely advanced in the case of this wreck.
So has lack of control in sexting potential assignations. That doesn't mean it ought to be given hypothetical credence and long discussion. If there is concrete proof that lack of funding is a proximate cause of this accident, say so, and provide links to the hard evidence. If not, you're only going to feed trolls.
Incidentally, the lack of speed control for the northbound approach to the curve has been explained. It was deemed to be unnecessary because the curve could be negotiated at the preceding speed limit of 80 mph.
We've heard that explanation (although what I heard was a little different and likely less 'correct', that high speed northbound wasn't anticipated so close to the previous stop at 30th St. and then restrictions afterward). I still don't quite believe anyone could be quite so stupid as to believe an emergency-overspeed protection system would only be expected to handle failure to reduce speed from a permitted level. At least that design mistake will now be rectified from experience...
BaltACD Euclid If this was a case of an operator error, I would think that it can be proven by the event recorder. Yet the engineer may continue to say he does not remember.
Euclid If this was a case of an operator error, I would think that it can be proven by the event recorder. Yet the engineer may continue to say he does not remember.
+1 And so far there does not appear (AFAIK) to have been any penetration of the cab by some object that could have incapacitated him before the derailment. Consequently, the amnesia (if any) would be retrograde as a consequence of the derailment, not anterograde.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Euclid What I said above is not speculation about speculation, as you say. If anything gets repeated here, it is the charge of repetion where none exists. Also repeated is the labeling of every thought as speculation and then complaining as if speculation is somehow ethically or legally off limits. Of course it is not. Also, there is a difference between speculating and accusation. Notice that in my above questions, there is no accusation. I am simply asking a question about how such matters are routinely handled. The answer I expected is what BaltACD said in his reply. There is no excuse for not following the rules.
In addition to your "mega-speculation" Bucky, you also write in a very awkward and convoluted manner.
Seven lines to write that are not speculating (even though you actually are).
Wizlish Euclid There is no excuse for not following the rules. However, a line still needs to be drawn. If an employee falls asleep for instance, and violates a rule as a result, is he or she held responsible for the rule violation? Has that not been absolutely established so far? Last I looked there were rules about falling asleep on duty. There are reasons for that, including the very great likelihood that other rules would or will be violated by sleeping employees. Now, in an NTSB report, they're not looking at 'rules' violations; they're looking at safety violations, and falling asleep would be a prima facie safety violation. Fortunately there is no need to speculate by extension in the present thread that the NTSB is accusing Bostian of falling asleep at the throttle in this accident by extension. When the report comes out, if they think so, they will say so. Otherwise they will not.
Euclid
Euclid Wizlish Euclid There is no excuse for not following the rules. However, a line still needs to be drawn. If an employee falls asleep for instance, and violates a rule as a result, is he or she held responsible for the rule violation? Has that not been absolutely established so far? Last I looked there were rules about falling asleep on duty. There are reasons for that, including the very great likelihood that other rules would or will be violated by sleeping employees. Now, in an NTSB report, they're not looking at 'rules' violations; they're looking at safety violations, and falling asleep would be a prima facie safety violation. Fortunately there is no need to speculate by extension in the present thread that the NTSB is accusing Bostian of falling asleep at the throttle in this accident by extension. When the report comes out, if they think so, they will say so. Otherwise they will not. No it has not been absolutely established. As I recall, in the Iowa rear end collision that I mentioned, the NTSB blamed the crash on sleep disorders, and not on the failure to stop the train or even the act of falling asleep. And please tell me where I speculated that Bostian had fallen asleep, or where I accused him of falling asleep; or where I suggested that the NTSB is accusing Bostian of falling asleep. I only brought up sleep as a hypothetical circumstance to ask how the NTSB would react if a crash were caused by a person falling asleep such as the one in Iowa. I did consider adding a disclaimer that I was not accusing Bostian of falling asleep, but I decided there is no need for it because not saying it would be good enough.
I'm not sure that it's correct to say the NTSB blamed a sleep disorder on the Iowa collision. Without looking up the report, I'd bet it's more along the lines of a contributing factor. Ultimately in that case, the cause of the collision was the inaction crew on the moving train to stop short of the preceding train. The probable cause (maybe "conventional wisdom" is better) of that is that both crewmembers fell asleep/dozed off. The NTSB digs deeper than they just were asleep, wanting to know why. Had those crewmembers survived, they would have been subject to railroad discipline, no matter what the NTSB found.
In an earlier post, Euclid mentions "blame" and any sanctions from three different points of view; criminal, civil, and railroad company. The engineer could be subject to penalties from any or all of them. Or, unlikely with the current limited knowldege, absolved by all three systems. Each has it's own parameter for coming into play.
I think if nothing else, the railroad (Amtrak) will discipline him. I doubt he will be running a train any time soon, if ever, assuming human error is ultimately deemed responsible. No matter if no criminal or civil actions are taken. No matter if the NTSB says sleep apnea or the lack of PTC contributed to the accident.
Jeff
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.