Auto Train Derailment....

[Modelcar]

I understand the Engineer sited a misalignment in the track ahead and applied the train brake into Emergency...If that is so, wonder how the 2 engines and 2 cars made it through without derailing...? Any ideas..?

[RudyRockvilleMD]

According to an article in the April 19 Washington Post CSX inspected the track on the morning of April 18, and a roadmaster rode a passenger train over that same segment approximately 2 hours before the derailment occurred. So we won't know the real cause of the derailment until the NTSB makes its results known.

[Modelcar]

Still on the Auto Train Accident...From the photos taken from the air it appears the brakes were more effective in the Passenger Cars than in the Car Haulers....since it looks like the Car haulers forced the cars forward of them off the tracks, perhaps they wern't stopping at the same rate.
QM

[Anonymous]

Story on the UP and elsewhere it was a sun kink, a problem associated with CWR. I have seen derailments on sun kinks that allowed engines and a few cars by. Buff forces could have contributed, and passenger equipment has very good brakes. I assume the auto carriers had decent, matching brake capabilities.

[Modelcar]

I agree, the passenger cars probably have good brakes. I have watched them make up the A T there in Sanford many times and note they have disc brakes and I really doubt if the car haulers do...

QM

[Anonymous]

I never knew that they had disc brakes for railcars.

[Modelcar]

Next time you are around a "modern" Passenger car take a look right behind the wheel and you will see a rather large size disc for the disc brake arrangement....

QM

[BR60103]

I think I read somewhere that the passenger cars on Auto train have a different braking system to be compatible with the car haulers. (or is the car haulers?...) I think it's just the actuation part. Anyone know for sure?

David

[Soo2610]

Latest article I saw indicates that the lead engineer saw a rail kink and threw the train into full emergency. Seconds later the backup engineer and conductor felt the two engines and first two cars safely cross the kink and also threw the train into full emergency. I'm just kind of wondering if the train might have safely negotiated the rail kink if it hadn't been thrown into full emergency braking!

[Modelcar]

That really does make one wonder...doesn't it.

QM

[Modelcar]

I see where rail traffic is moving thru the derailment area now on temp. track arrangement. I wonder how extensive the damage is to the Passenger cars and will Amtrak have the resorces to repair them, hence have the necessary equipment to continue the Auto Train opeation..?

QM

[Soo2610]

According to an article on the news forum from this web page, amtrak is running out of resources and is stealing equipment from some of the west coast trains in order to reinstate service. Seems like all the wrecked rolling stock is sitting at the repair facility awaiting funds to repair it.

[jimski2]

Is it possible only the engine brakes were operating and not the train brakes? as if a valve was left closed. If what happened, happens when the emergency brakes are applied, then you are better off not having emergency brakes.

[Modelcar]

Looking at the aerial photos of the wreck site...It does appear what "could" have happened is that the front portion of the train brakes were more effective or applied quicker then the rearward section of cars....I don't know if you can through part of the train into Emergency without doing the same through out the train. But it sure does look like for some reason, the forward part of the train started to stop quicker that the rearward cars did....

QM

[sooblue]

Even if all the brakes on all the cars were the same, the heavier cars would take longer to stop.
It seems to me that if you put a train into emergency and all the really heavy cars are in the BACK of the train there going to pu***he lighter ones against the equaly heavy engine consist. Something has to POP out.
Now the question is, If that's true WHY would you put togeather a train in such a manner?
the laws of phyisics rule.

[CShaveRR]

As to the why, two reasons: putting the passenger-type cars next to the engines permits them to receive power and heat/air-conditioning without a need to run the wires through the racks, and just imagine the slack action in the passenger cars if the racks were between them and the power.

A thought: Superliner cars weigh anywhere from 70 to 80 tons. Loaded auto racks of the freight type may weigh a little more, but the weight difference isn't all that much. I have no idea whether Auto-Train auto carriers are that much different in weight. It's possible that the sheer number of cars behind the trouble spot caused the telescoping...if so, trains like that should be required to carry EOTs that initiate emergency applications from the hind end when the engineer initiates one at the front end. The difference in application time would be only a matter of seconds (probably less than five), but that could be critical.

[corwinda]

The front cars digging into the ties and ballast would be the obvious explanation. From train wreck pictures I've seen that's the usual pattern for high speed derailmants.

[wabash1]

did i miss something here. len said the engineer put the train in full emergancy. is there differant steps of a emergancy applacation? anytime you bighole the train you run the risk of derailment. the lightest car is going to kick out and if i remeber correctly. i may be wrong couse i dont want to look it up in my fra rules but all passenger trains must have a gage to read air at the rear and be able to dump it from the head end.on all the amtrak trains ive seen a emergancy applacation would be almost instant through out the train couse of the leigth.

[sooblue]

Thanks Carl. What you wrote makes sense to me, but it seems to me that the combind weight of the auto racks sliding into the possibly lighter passenger cars on the head end would still tend to buckle the passenger cars. I think in the auto trains case a second section would be much safer.
You know, I checked into the auto train to florida from maryland and they wanted to charge me 2000.00+ for the privilage. I think they could have a second section. It's not like you would have to be afraid of lossing your car like the airlines lose your luggage.
Or they could have the auto racks first and a hep car after them.

[Modelcar]

I believe the gentleman suggesting the 2nd section has an idea worth looking into...But Amtrak probably wouldn't stand for the cost of more enginemen. The Auto Train does use 2 engines now so they already schedule enough power to be able to do that. Putting the car carriers first has the potential slack problem that could be unpleasant for everyone behind them in the Passenger cars, so I'd stay away from that thought. I understand the A T makes money so perhaps it really could support the engineman for the 2nd section.

QM

[Anonymous]

Question?? But like the long freights out west that
use center engines for long trains. Don't they
they have the iption of running by remote?

[Modelcar]

Yes, they run the engines in the center of the train by the crew in the lead engine...but in the Auto Train suggestion the 2nd section would be separated from the control of the lead engine crew in section 1. 2nd section of the train would have to follow at required distance and have it's own engine crew.

QM

[CShaveRR]

That's a fascinating suggestion! Of course, Amtrak's power isn't equipped for DP operation, and there might not be much call for such a thing on trains other than the Auto Train, but it certainly would have minimized any aspect of the derailment that was related to the emergency application itself...and it might speed up assembly and breakup of the trains at the terminals.

I don't know that I'd want to be a passenger just ahead of the mid-train unit, though!

[Anonymous]

I would like to pass along a few facts about train brakes . . .
When an emergency application is made the cars in the front begin to break before the ones in the rear. The air pressure wave travels backwards through the system at something just under the speed of sound, so in a long coal train the cars in the front can be in emergency before the cars in the rear have begun to slow. This comes from John Armstrongs book, The Railroad - What it is and What it Does. Therefore, I agree with 'j' that an emergency brake application would be almost instantaneous in a passenger train.

I agree with the comment that I wouldn't want to ride in a passenger train with power behind the passenger cars. The push-pull would make for an unpleasant ride.

The surge or cars causes the train to buckle. This is just like a jack-knife tractor trailer accident. Cars slow at equal rates after they are in emergency because this is dictated by the friction between the wheel and the rail and is independent of the car weight. 'Telescoping' is a slightly different failure and probably more deadly and can be minimized by strengthening the cars. The idea of placing the auto racks in front of the coaches would probably require more switching.

I have been wondering if it would be practical to put a special car at the end of passenger trains which would be able to cause an emergency brake application from the rear toward the front instead of from the front to the rear. There would have to be special brake equipment in this car and the signal would have to be relayed from the engineer to this car before any braking begins. This could be done electronically but could it be made reliable? If it could, the train would not go into compression when the brakes come on but the train would go into tension instead. This would eliminate derailments due to buckling.

Let me know if you think this is possible or if I have forgotten something about how the brakes work. - Ed

[Modelcar]

I hope someone from Amtrak might get a look at our discussion here and ponder the idea of a 2nd section for the auto carriers hence make the operation just a little safer and the thought of breaking down the train at the next terminal would be expedited quicker. With the exception of added cost of 2nd engine crew it may cut costs at each end of trip by less time to prepare train for discharging passengers and getting auto carriers ready to unload autos. Also possibly not needing switch engine to work train apart and again to put it back together for next trip.

QM

[Anonymous]

How many times has the Auto Train derailed and killed someone.

[Modelcar]

I believe the answer has to be at least twice...Once when privately owned and the just happened accident..

QM

[sooblue]

Once is more than enough especially if it could some how be avoided. Could it have been avoided?
we won't know untill the investigation is over. It just seems to me that the obvious is overlooked so many times in buisness and many times the obvious is what kills and maimes.

[Anonymous]

Wouldn't operation of two sections disrupt freight operations more than they currently do? I believe the decision to operate the train as a single section was made for a reason. I don't think it is realistic for a bunch of railfans to tell Amtrak how to do their business. I believe there isn't enough demand for Amtrak. While they could be managed better I don't think management is the real problem. When the trains are running at 90% or better capacity then things will change, but it doesn't appear the public wants to ride on a train. - Ed

[Anonymous]

While loss of innocent life is tragic, your statement that 'Once is more than enough ...' is not realistic. We would have to ban the automobile, the train, the airplane, truck, bus, ... Also, I am under the impression that train travel is the safest per passenger mile and the least polluting. Automobile and bus travel can't touch that. - Ed