groomer manPersonally that ' memory loss' thing is bs. It's just someone trying to get out of admitting they screwed up and dealing with the consequences
We don't know what happened. Many have said that retroactive memory loss can occur after a traumatic event, especially a blow to the head, which we know the engineer experienced.
The NYT article last week suggested another explanation for the wreck, namely situational disorientation or confusion, i.e. the engineer not recognizing his location. Both that and the memory loss could have happened. Most likely we won't know unless Mr. Bostian recovers his memory.
/Mr Lynn
MrLynn groomer man We don't know what happened. Many have said that retroactive memory loss can occur after a traumatic event, especially a blow to the head, which we know the engineer experienced. The NYT article last week suggested another explanation for the wreck, namely situational disorientation or confusion, i.e. the engineer not recognizing his location. Both that and the memory loss could have happened. Most likely we won't know unless Mr. Bostian recovers his memory. /Mr Lynn
groomer man
The only time we will ever know is when technology is developed that will allow a device to plug into a individual and interrogate all the synapses of the brain and extract all the information those synapses contain. Don't hold your breath. [/sarcasm]
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Accidents are more often attributed to human error. One thing is certain, a system needs to be developed in modern passenger trains that can over ride the possibility of human error and stop, deter or otherwise prevent the accident from occurring.
There are safe guards built into modern locomotives, but the locomotive itself needs to have the "brains" if you will, to predict such situations like, a speed that is far too excessive for an upcoming curve. In the 21st century, such a system needs to be in all locomotives.
Humans are only capable of doing "X" amount of task within a given moment of time. A smart locomotive can, at the very least, compliment the engineers abilities to run his locomotive with greater accuracy and with superior safety. Everyone knows that on control panels there is a button type switch that the engineer needs to push every so many times when other controls have not been used to let the locomotive know, hey I'm alive, but is this enough?
This particular Amtrak train had a fairly new locomotive heading it. The engineer was very familiar with the locomotive. He had made this run numerous times. The weather and track conditions were optimal for a standard run. Yet, the train left the tracks. Nothing short of a smart locomotive would have prevented this tragedy from occurring.
If an engineer is somehow incapacitated, it is the locomotive that must be able to come to a complete safe stop. Even in extreme conditions, a smart locomotive can predict and actually perform calculations at rates so rapid that no one would ever even known there was a problem. I believe such a system must be incorporated in all locomotives being used to transport passengers and goods. There are just too many uncertain situations that humans cannot react to quick enough to prevent these accidents from happening. Like, for example, a person throwing a rock at a locomotive and the rock just happens to enter a window and strike the engineer and at a moment when critical decisions are to be made. Like speed adjustments for a curve for example. A smart locomotive would back the engineer up by taking the correct actions thereby eliminating unnecessary risk to life and property. Imagine if this had been a freight train consist of highly explosive chemicals and it derailed in a very highly populated area. The chemicals, so lethal, they kill almost immediately.
Such tragedies can be avoided by implementing smart locomotive technologies. Allowing the locomotive to assist the engineer in ways that may prevent what occurred last year.
By the way, I know that there are systems incorporated in modern locomotives which can allow for remote control of a locomotive should it become clear that the engineer is not at the controls. However, what I am preposition is that the locomotive itself have technologies that allow it to predict certain situations, such as a curve coming up and the speed needs to be dropped to allow the train to make the curve.
By the way, I know that there are systems incorporated in modern locomotives which can allow for remote control of a locomotive should it become clear that the engineer is not at the controls. However, what I am suggesting is that the locomotive itself have technologies that allow it to predict certain situations, such as a curve coming up and the speed needs to be dropped to allow the train to make the curve.
Jack R. Accidents are more often attributed to human error. One thing is certain, a system needs to be developed in modern passenger trains that can over ride the possibility of human error and stop, deter or otherwise prevent the accident from occurring. There are safe guards built into modern locomotives, but the locomotive itself needs to have the "brains" if you will, to predict such situations like, a speed that is far too excessive for an upcoming curve. In the 21st century, such a system needs to be in all locomotives. Humans are only capable of doing "X" amount of task within a given moment of time. A smart locomotive can, at the very least, compliment the engineers abilities to run his locomotive with greater accuracy and with superior safety. Everyone knows that on control panels there is a button type switch that the engineer needs to push every so many times when other controls have not been used to let the locomotive know, hey I'm alive, but is this enough? This particular Amtrak train had a fairly new locomotive heading it. The engineer was very familiar with the locomotive. He had made this run numerous times. The weather and track conditions were optimal for a standard run. Yet, the train left the tracks. Nothing short of a smart locomotive would have prevented this tragedy from occurring. If an engineer is somehow incapacitated, it is the locomotive that must be able to come to a complete safe stop. Even in extreme conditions, a smart locomotive can predict and actually perform calculations at rates so rapid that no one would ever even known there was a problem. I believe such a system must be incorporated in all locomotives being used to transport passengers and goods. There are just too many uncertain situations that humans cannot react to quick enough to prevent these accidents from happening. Like, for example, a person throwing a rock at a locomotive and the rock just happens to enter a window and strike the engineer and at a moment when critical decisions are to be made. Like speed adjustments for a curve for example. A smart locomotive would back the engineer up by taking the correct actions thereby eliminating unnecessary risk to life and property. Imagine if this had been a freight train consist of highly explosive chemicals and it derailed in a very highly populated area. The chemicals, so lethal, they kill almost immediately. Such tragedies can be avoided by implementing smart locomotive technologies. Allowing the locomotive to assist the engineer in ways that may prevent what occurred last year. By the way, I know that there are systems incorporated in modern locomotives which can allow for remote control of a locomotive should it become clear that the engineer is not at the controls. However, what I am suggesting is that the locomotive itself have technologies that allow it to predict certain situations, such as a curve coming up and the speed needs to be dropped to allow the train to make the curve.
Your ideas are well behind the curve. PTC accomplishes what you are suggesting, on the lines that are being equipped.
The engineer of AMTK 188 was not familiar with the new locomotive and there is speculation that this played a role in the accident.
The problem with smart locomotives being able to overrule the engineer is that there must be redundancy in the systems being used to determine parameters. Similar problems have been seen with Airbus's control system attempting to save pilots from themselves. When the computer thinks one thing is happening when in reality another is, problems may ensue. While children of the magenta isn't as big of a problem on the ground it still may cause accidents. Computers misinterpreting data may also cause accidents.
In my opinion computers are an excellent backup but control should always be with a certified talented engineer.
BaltACD MrLynn groomer man We don't know what happened. Many have said that retroactive memory loss can occur after a traumatic event, especially a blow to the head, which we know the engineer experienced. The NYT article last week suggested another explanation for the wreck, namely situational disorientation or confusion, i.e. the engineer not recognizing his location. Both that and the memory loss could have happened. Most likely we won't know unless Mr. Bostian recovers his memory. /Mr Lynn The only time we will ever know is when technology is developed that will allow a device to plug into a individual and interrogate all the synapses of the brain and extract all the information those synapses contain. Don't hold your breath. [/sarcasm]
They may be able to determine far more than you think. Your knowledge of neuroscience is insufficient for you to make anything more than silly comments. Stick to railroad operations, on which you are an expert.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
My own personal conclusion is the fault actually is primarily with whoever decided to DISABLE the previous PRR ATS system on that specific northbound track in preparation for the new system now installed without immediately having the new system installed. All that I have read indicates the old system with its built-in speed restriction and automatic emergency stop if speed exceeded would have prevented the accident.
Dave,
If that is true, the NTSB will not mention it at all since it would place the blame on management rather than the engineer.
Mac McCulloch
schlimm They may be able to determine far more than you think. Your knowledge of neuroscience is insufficient for you to make anything more than silly comments. Stick to railroad operations, on which you are an expert.
So, will Bastain's memory be downloaded and 'the truth' displayed?
daveklepper My own personal conclusion is the fault actually is primarily with whoever decided to DISABLE the previous PRR ATS system on that specific northbound track in preparation for the new system now installed without immediately having the new system installed. All that I have read indicates the old system with its built-in speed restriction and automatic emergency stop if speed exceeded would have prevented the accident.
That is a good point. As I recall, they left in, or reinstalled the automatic stop for excessive speed for just the southbound movment. Their theory was said to be that southbound trains needed the safety measure because they approach at the 106 mph limit, and so rolling over in the curve would be more likely due to a failure to slow down. Whereas, northbound trains would be governed by the lower speed limit; and that would be low enough to negotiate the curve even if the engineer failed to slow down.
Well, that is fine reasoning, but it is incomplete. It fails to account for the fact that a northbound engineer could forget where he was and accelerate all the way up to the 106 mph limit, and then suddenly realize that he was entering the curve.
So yes, the automatic stop feature clearly acknowledged that the hazard of the curve needed such protection against human error. But deciding that it was only needed in one direction was a little dense and too clever by half.
groomer men, actually, "memory loss" is highly probable, I have experienced 4 incidence's of what is called "transient global amnesia," over the past 20 years which leave me with complete loss of memory for quite short periods of time usually about 20 - 40 minutes. The event can be triggered by stress, brief exertion, and probably many other sudden shocks such as maybe in this case reaction to something like the crash of an object against the locomotive window. The problem with any recall is that it is impossible, the brain did not "record" that time interval....it is very puzzling and frustrating even though the person during the "event" will appear pretty normal. Not "bs" at all.
And the 3rd possibility that the rock hitting the window distracted him or even made him unconsious.
But again, I blame the decision to leave that northbound track unprotected for overspeed as the real culprit in this case. If the engineer needs my, I will be glad to help. For years the PRR and PC, over half a century, had the protection in, and it was Amtrak's fault to remove it.
daveklepper And the 3rd possibility that the rock hitting the window distracted him or even made him unconsious. But again, I blame the decision to leave that northbound track unprotected for overspeed as the real culprit in this case. If the engineer needs my, I will be glad to help. For years the PRR and PC, over half a century, had the protection in, and it was Amtrak's fault to remove it.
Euclid daveklepper And the 3rd possibility that the rock hitting the window distracted him or even made him unconsious. But again, I blame the decision to leave that northbound track unprotected for overspeed as the real culprit in this case. If the engineer needs my, I will be glad to help. For years the PRR and PC, over half a century, had the protection in, and it was Amtrak's fault to remove it. I agree that the rock hitting the windshield is a possibility, but that would be included in my Scenario #1 above. In that case, the engineer would have made the decision to accelerate to 80 mph, and then the rock hit the windshield and caused the "mental event" or lapse of consciousness. This prevented the engineer from reducing the throttle when the train reached 80 mph.
Just a possibility that has crossed my mind. I'm basing this on my understanding that the throttle (accelerator) is pulled toward the engineer to increase the power/speed. Thoughts?
WhiteLeather I'm wondering if another probability is being considered: when the rock hit the windshield, the engineer's hand was on the throttle; his reaction was to duck out of the way of something hitting the windshield; as he went down, he pulled the throttle (since his hand was on it), causing the train to increase speed; as he went down, struck his head, causing the injury and subsequent loss of memory Just a possibility that has crossed my mind. I'm basing this on my understanding that the throttle (accelerator) is pulled toward the engineer to increase the power/speed. Thoughts?
I'm wondering if another probability is being considered:
This was, in fact, extensively discussed in some of the early posts here on this accident. You might want to go back and review them ... although it certainly is beginning to look as though no few of them have been forgotten by the very people who made them.
I have not ruled out the role of rock thowing in causing the accident. I was rather surprised at how anxious the NTSB seemed to be to rule it out. Frankly, I doubt their objectivity in that detail. I believe they were worried about tarnishing the image of Philadelphia.
NTSB is a solid engineering based, objective and honest organization. That remark about "tarnishing the image of Philadelphia" is totally out of line!
sno-cat NTSB is a solid engineering based, objective and honest organization. That remark about "tarnishing the image of Philadelphia" is totally out of line!
Well they tell us what they find, and we are free to accept it or reject it. I carefully watched how the rock throwing factor emerged and was handled by the NTSB, and I think they were overly anxious to rule out anything to do with it. So I wondered why that would be. I concluded that they did not want to talk about Amtrak trains routinely rolling through areas where they were hit by rocks thrown by criminals. That would tarnish the image of both Philadelphia and Amtrak. I don't think they allowed the time it would take for science to tell us what caused that windshield damage.
They also implied that they had proven that no radio communication was made by the engineer regarding rock throwing, as had been reported by the conductor. But in reality, they said they could not find any such communcation. They did not say that no such communication existed.
Nobody is objective. The NTSB has been pushing PTC for ages and always steers their findings toward that implementation. Probably why the rock theory was very quickly dismissed - it doesn't fit that narrative.
Note, I'm not saying anything for or against PTC. Just pointing out the NTSB isn't completely objective in nature.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
How do they explain the large hole in the windshield?
daveklepperHow do they explain the large hole in the windshield?
The explanation at the time was that something bounced up and hit it during the 'run' between the derailment and the time the locomotive stopped. (If I remember correctly the locomotive slewed around so the working nose was facing backward by the time it stopped.)
zugmann sno-cat NTSB is a solid engineering based, objective and honest organization. That remark about "tarnishing the image of Philadelphia" is totally out of line! Nobody is objective. The NTSB has been pushing PTC for ages and always steers their findings toward that implementation. Probably why the rock theory was very quickly dismissed - it doesn't fit that narrative. Note, I'm not saying anything for or against PTC. Just pointing out the NTSB isn't completely objective in nature.
Absolutely true in every way. To Dave's question about explaining the hole in the windshield, as far as I know, they have not explained it. But they have 100% assured us that it was not caused by a bullet, rock, or other thrown object. To the point by Wizlish, as far as I know, there has been no official explanation that the windshield damage was caused by airborne objects disloged by the derailment. However, that theory was widely proposed by people posting on this forum shortly after the news of the wreck.
The whole story about the "rocking" of the other train, the claim of hearing the radio transmission from the engineer of 188, and the possibility of gunshots was swiftly packaged up and dismissed in order to avoid explaining it and finding the possibility that it played a part in the wreck.
THE FBI WAS QUICK TO CLAIM NOTHING WAS THE RESUJLT OF TERRORISM, BUT FIND NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO BACK UP THAT CLAIM, EITHER WITH REGARD TO THE AMTRAK TRAIN OR THE SEPTA TRAIN.
daveklepper THE FBI WAS QUICK TO CLAIM NOTHING WAS THE RESUJLT OF TERRORISM, BUT FIND NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO BACK UP THAT CLAIM, EITHER WITH REGARD TO THE AMTRAK TRAIN OR THE SEPTA TRAIN.
I would assume that the FBI or other police agencies would be loathe to give away their sources of such information.
CSSHEGEWISCH daveklepper THE FBI WAS QUICK TO CLAIM NOTHING WAS THE RESUJLT OF TERRORISM, BUT FIND NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO BACK UP THAT CLAIM, EITHER WITH REGARD TO THE AMTRAK TRAIN OR THE SEPTA TRAIN. I would assume that the FBI or other police agencies would be loathe to give away their sources of such information.
The FBI would not reveal such information. Also, it is the absence of any information supporting the notion of terrorism, so it is hard to "show" anything.
NTSB is very slow and thorough. Compare that with the German crash investigation, with results released within one week. So we just need to wait instead of engaging in endless rounds of speculation. But from the beginning, it seems highly probable this was human error primarily and secondarily, the fault of Amtrak for ending the old PRR control system on the NB track.
I read testimony from engineer, conductors and some passengers in e-mail from NARP and also an article from newsaper. Very traumatic event and don't know if it will ever be answered completely. On #611 trip this past summer, my friends and I had lunch in Petersburg with Amtrak policeman from Philly who had worked the wreck. He said that's a very dangerous section of line and they'd like to reroute past that area. Trains have been hit with bicycles thrown from bridges, rocks, shot at, and even a refrigerator left on tracks that one of their trains hit and caused major damage to engine. I read about the SEPTA engineer getting hit by something and talking to dispatch. Bostian overheard the conversation and was aware something was going on in the area, he said he was coming in on "hot" line which the investigators said it meant he was passing SEPTA in case any workers were on the tracks. It does sound like the engine was more powerful than he was used to and didn't get much of a break at DC. He was a man who loved trains from the time he was an young kid, so I don't think he was goofing around in the cab.
I am a strong promoter of two men/women in the cab, another set of eyes & ears is very helpful and often mandatory. Speculation is that Bostian ducked when he heard something hit windshield and might have bumped his head and passed out. Still doesn't explain why train was going double the speed limit on that stretch of track. I've always felt someone might have hacked into onboard computer and took over, they do it in cars and even heard about planes, so why not trains. Hackers are everywhere.
For a man who loved trains, Bostian will probably never run another one again. And sad for the families who lost loved ones and also the other Amtrak employees who were severly injured. It sounded like a nightmare when the train derailed but don't know if anyone will ever know what really did happen.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.