Auto Train Derailment....

[Modelcar]

The consensus seems to be the Passenger cars which weigh roughly 80 to 90 tons are not that much lighter than the auto carriers, but their center of gravity must be pretty high...We wonder about the slack action between the auto carriers and how it might affect the comfort, etc. if the Passenger cars were trailing them. I have wondered about the difference of brake systems...Disc vers. conventional on the auto carriers. With the mention of the derailment starting close to the front and the cars digging into the road bed possibly causing the remaining cars to according behind them, etc. Also it seems there is a high risk of problems when a train goes into emergency under any circumstances....So it seems there are no shortage of possibilities.

QM

[jimski2]

Would this have happened if thr train was made up with the heavy older style braked vehicle cars in front and the lighter disc braked cars in the rear of the train?

[Anonymous]

I looked at this when there were 36 items, and no one answred your question.

I think that as the emergency application took hold the retarding force of the wheels slowing had the effect of pulling the track in the direction that the train was moving. If that force was sufficient to move the track it would certainly make the kink worse, since it is the weak spot in the track.

I have a vague recollection of a freight train derailment where a similar pattern occurred.

The answer could be much less exotic however. What cars got over it and which one derailed first? Consider truck wheelbase, truck flexibility, distance between truck centers, stiffness of drawbars moving side to side.

Also, while NTSB is good technically, they do not always come up with an answer and they are not always right. They are a political outfit remember.

The accordian pattern is typical of derailments in general and is due to the fact that cars plowing dirt are going to stop a lot faster than those still on the rail.

[alangj]

What's the snippet of dialogue from a movie back in (I believe) the '40's? Something like...
"Hold on tight, it's going to be a bumpy ride!" For some reason, I'm thinking it was a line by Bette Davis (or maybe Mae West?), but it was a few years before my time, so I don't have true first-hand recollection.

[corwinda]

I believe the train accordioned BECAUSE IT DERAILED! The cars being off the track would cause their wheels/undercarriage to dig into the ties and ballast at the same time as the guidance of the rails was lost. At that point the brakes were basically irrelevant.

[wabash1]

your thoughts on making a train go into emergency from the rear are already addressed the eot(end of train device) this box hanging on the rear of freight trains can make a emergency applacation from the rear. but you have a big problem here. when you apply from the rear it has a tendancy to rip your train apart. the problem is that anytime you go into emergency something is bound to happen. what you dont know yet did the engineer bail the brakes. if not the engines being heavier grabed hold the cars being lighter run in then the lightest one was kisked out and the derailment starts. you still can derail streched from the rear but more likly you get the knuckels.

[jimski2]

I'm really concerned the direction of the investigation is concentrating on the engineer and track conditions. The real problem is why the train accordioned when the emergency brake system was applied.

[corwinda]

If one were to run Auto Train that way the logical way to avoid that would be to have the auto rack cars between the lead and DP units and the passenger cars bringing up the rear behind the DP unit.

[herbster]

Hi heres my two cents, and believe me when engneer #1 thru the train in emergancy, number 2 to 102 can pull the emergany brake and nothing will happen. Why? Simple on a train you release air to apply the brakes, when you put it in emergancy it means all the air is exhausted so #2 - 3- can pull all the brake handle they want. Nothing will happen.
Also I think from experiance they will find that those auto car had something to do with it, braking power and weight.

[Modelcar]

Mistakes are made in business and enterprises every day...by experts. I don't think it hurts to throw out a few suggestions that may relate to a problem. Auto Train is patronized rather well as from what I understand it makes money. I have watched it's make up at Sanford many times and it is a busy place at loading time. Your point is well taken about more traffic on the route with 2 sections but I doubt if it is running to capacity. The two sections could run rather close to each other and perhaps could be scheduled through without much holdup. I don't think you can assume the customers don't want to ride this train.

QM

[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

[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

[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.

[Modelcar]

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

QM

[Anonymous]

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

[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]

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

[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!

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.