Amtrak derailment, Kansas

[D.Carleton]

Southwest Chief (4) derailed between Dodge City and Garden City, Kansas. Several cars on their sides and injuries.

[samfp1943]

D.Carleton

Southwest Chief (#4) derailed between Dodge City and Garden City, Kansas. Several cars on their sides and injuries.

 

The TV media(Wichita,Ks) was full of this news around here this Monday (03/14/16) morning.  The derailment site was West of Dodge City  at a point approximately near Cimarron,Ks. ( Gray County). The media reported it was about midnight that the East bound SW(#4) Chief, and they reported seven cars off the track. Unknown if the engines also derailed?

The photos showed that it appeared the cars had 'laid over' on one side of the ROW. There did not appear to have been jack-knifing of the consist as a result of the derailment.   They did not show any photos of the head-end (locomotives).  

Photos of the track at the rear of the train showed potentially, that the rail had displaced into a position on the side away from the side that had derailed (?).   The last couple of days the weather has had bands of rain but not the major amounts experienced to our East (East Texas, Ark, and towards the Northeast). 

Some time back it was reported that BNSF was scheduling a program to replace the a large number of ties and some 'stick rail' with CWR West of Newton. I have no idea id that had been started or completed?  

The early report were that there were approx 150 people on the train and that between 25 to 30 had been transported to area hospitals.

It was further reported by AMTRAK that the monday WB train (#3 SW Chief ) would detour from Newton to Albuquerque (No route mentioned).

[blue streak 1]

Unconfirmed report that engineer may have seen a kink ?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-amtrak-train-derails-southwest-kansas-37626088

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/03/14/injuries-reported-after-amtrak-train-derails-in-kansas.html?intcmp=hplnws

 

 

[blue streak 1]

Any one know if there was a kink will the camera show it since the accident happened at midnight ?

[ORNHOO]

a heat kink in March? We may have a long summer ahead.

[alphas]

Whether or not it was 128 passengers or 131 passengers, the fact that Amtrak had 14 employees aboard the train is an example of why their passenger service is in poor financial shape.  No other common carrier in the US would have such a high ratio of employees to passengers.    I assume some of them were dining employees so perhaps the critics are right in calling for a privatization of dining services.

[blue streak 1]

Unconfirmed report that there may have been a car that ran into the track before the accident.  Report says there may have been tire tracs going up to track.

[J. Bishop]

But how would privitization reduce the number of dinning car employees? Might be interesting to look at historical data to see if when the private railroads ran passenger trains what was the ratio then?  

Equally interesting would be whether dinners paid their way in back then. I remember reading many years agos that dinners were always a loosing operation but nonetheless necessary to attract customers.

[alphas]

They wouldn't be Amtrak employees so the odds are good that dining empolyees would be paid less, not subject to the Amtrak work rules, and very possibly more productive and customer friendly. 

 Private industry used to have dining employees in various plants and other operations that were part of their plant unions.  They were basically done away with and the companies realized savings using an independent contractor.  The same with local school districts in my area that did away with their own [union] employees and hired contractors to prepare the meals for the students.   The school districts saved money and the students appreciated the meals more.    If a independent contractor is deemed to be unsatisfactory,  Amtrak or any other company/school district can make a contractor change easier then having to go through arbitration.    Using contractors also eliminates the problem of a company union employee who has senority but is no loner perfoming at an acceptable level.      

J. Bishop

But how would privitization reduce the number of dinning car employees? Might be interesting to look at historical data to see if when the private railroads ran passenger trains what was the ratio then?  

Equally interesting would be whether dinners paid their way in back then. I remember reading many years agos that dinners were always a loosing operation but nonetheless necessary to attract customers.

 

J. Bishop

But how would privitization reduce the number of dinning car employees? Might be interesting to look at historical data to see if when the private railroads ran passenger trains what was the ratio then?  

Equally interesting would be whether dinners paid their way in back then. I remember reading many years agos that dinners were always a loosing operation but nonetheless necessary to attract customers.

 

J. Bishop

But how would privitization reduce the number of dinning car employees? Might be interesting to look at historical data to see if when the private railroads ran passenger trains what was the ratio then?  

Equally interesting would be whether dinners paid their way in back then. I remember reading many years agos that dinners were always a loosing operation but nonetheless necessary to attract customers.

 

[Dragoman]

alphas

Whether or not it was 128 passengers or 131 passengers, the fact that Amtrak had 14 employees aboard the train is an example of why their passenger service is in poor financial shape.  No other common carrier in the US would have such a high ratio of employees to passengers.    I assume some of them were dining employees so perhaps the critics are right in calling for a privatization of dining services.

 

But what is the capcity of the train?  Don't they have to be ready for a full train?  A Boeing 747 will have at least 14 crew, even if (on a particular leg) they may only have 128 ( or fewer) passengers.

[ACY Tom]

 

Here we go again, racing to the bottom. All we need to do is turn it over to a contractor who will take an extra cut for his administrative overhead plus profit margin, and we'll be halfway there. Getting rid of those lazy, pesky, overpaid Union workers gets us the rest of the way there. I'm tired of hearing it. 

First, as to staffing, I'll guess that the crew breaks down like this:

#1-4:  Four operating crew, consisting of Conductor, Assistant Conductor, Engineer, and Assistant Engineer. 

#5-6: Two Sleeping Car Attendants.

#7-10: Dining car staff includes a minimum of one Chef, one Lead Service attendant, and two Waiters.

#11-12: Two Coach Attendants.

#13: One Lead Service Attendant in the lounge car.

#14: I haven't heard who this was. It may have been a traveling Supervisor, a trainee, a third Sleeping Car Attendant, or some other position. 

It's unlikely that all the research in the world will turn up a dining car operation that ever truly made money, unless it was something that catered to passengers who were wealthy enough to cover the entire cost out of their own pockets.

This thread is supposed to be about a very unfortunate accident. I hope it doesn't degrade into the same tired old arguments about Unions, Amtrak dining car service efficiencies, the benefits of turning Amtrak into McDonald's on wheels, or whether Amtrak is needed in the first place. 

Focus, folks.  

Focus.

Alphas, if you want to start another thread on the subjects I mentioned, feel free to do so, but be sure to tell us something about the practical experience that qualifies you as a consultant, to say nothing of being an expert.

Tom

 

[CMStPnP]

Initially what I heard about this wreck is it was due to a strong wind as there were storms in the area.     Then I heard via youtube that the kink in the rail might have been caused by a recent road vehicle accident in the area where the road vehicles went up on the track embankment?     In this thread I am reading speculation the heat kink might have been weather related?

[CMStPnP]

ACY

 

Here we go again, racing to the bottom. All we need to do is turn it over to a contractor who will take an extra cut for his administrative overhead plus profit margin, and we'll be halfway there. Getting rid of those lazy, pesky, overpaid Union workers gets us the rest of the way there. I'm tired of hearing it. 

First, as to staffing, I'll guess that the crew breaks down like this:

#1-4:  Four operating crew, consisting of Conductor, Assistant Conductor, Engineer, and Assistant Engineer. 

#5-6: Two Sleeping Car Attendants.

#7-10: Dining car staff includes a minimum of one Chef, one Lead Service attendant, and two Waiters.

#11-12: Two Coach Attendants.

#13: One Lead Service Attendant in the lounge car.

#14: I haven't heard who this was. It may have been a traveling Supervisor, a trainee, a third Sleeping Car Attendant, or some other position. 

It's unlikely that all the research in the world will turn up a dining car operation that ever truly made money, unless it was something that catered to passengers who were wealthy enough to cover the entire cost out of their own pockets.

This thread is supposed to be about a very unfortunate accident. I hope it doesn't degrade into the same tired old arguments about Unions, Amtrak dining car service efficiencies, the benefits of turning Amtrak into McDonald's on wheels, or whether Amtrak is needed in the first place. 

Focus, folks.  

Focus.

Alphas, if you want to start another thread on the subjects I mentioned, feel free to do so, but be sure to tell us something about the practical experience that qualifies you as a consultant, to say nothing of being an expert.

Tom

Personally I think 14 aboard a train running over 12 hours is fine, approx same as a 747 flight crew.

[081552]

Truck knocked tracks out of alignment...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/investigators-amtrak-derailment-rail-condition-37649991

 

[schlimm]

CMStPnP

Personally I think 14 aboard a train running over 12 hours is fine, approx same as a 747 flight crew.

Yes, but this train was only carrying 130.  International route 747s carry more than double that - maybe triple - and serve 2-3 meals.   Amtrak should have more flexibility on some crew positions depending on passenger load.

[ACY Tom]

We know how many passengers it was carrying at the time of the derailment. We don't know how many were aboard at departure from LA, or how many it carried at any given point in the trip, or how many would have been aboard upon arrival in Chicago. The fact that it was carrying four coaches, rather than the wintertime typical three, hints that there were enough reservations to justify that size consist.

Tom

 

[blue streak 1]

ACY

We know how many passengers it was carrying at the time of the derailment. We don't know how many were aboard at departure from LA, or how many it carried at any given point in the trip, or how many would have been aboard upon arrival in Chicago. The fact that it was carrying four coaches, rather than the wintertime typical three, hints that there were enough reservations to justify that size consist.

Tom

Tom has a very good point.  With experience in airline operations a multi stop flight always had at least one leg almost full and other legs less so.  With the SWC's many stops there will be a max load load factor leg that may be different for each day of the week. 

Amtrak's shortage of extra cars that could be taken on and off at intermediate stops causes legs with low passengers.  The cost of switching cars in and out is also a large problem that can only be addressed at multi train stations.  One example is the Palmetto that is carrying extra car NYP <> WASH.

 

[blue streak 1]

Now it appears that a feed truck hit rails and forced track out of alignment.  Appears driver did not report. Wonder if he was imparied or fatigued ? Does anyone know grain truck gross weight ?  From other sites grain truck owner(s) are co-operating.  However they are in for a very high legal costs .  May be the best way for owner to limit financial liability is to declare chapter 11 bankruptcy. 

http://www.kwch.com/news/local-news/amtrak-with-142-people-on-board-derails-near-dodge-city/38500994

 

 

[CPRcst]

The single axle feed truck should have a GVW of around 24000 lbs., but on a short haul with little chance of inspection overloading would not be unusual. The vehicle insurance and the companies commercial insurance should cover some costs. The driver, however, will probably face traffic charges and other consequences, including criminal negligence or responsibility charges.

[blue streak 1]

Another article about feed truck

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/15/the-associated-press-ntsb-says-feed-truck-shifted-track-before-amtrak-accident.html

 

 

[BaltACD]

schlimm

CMStPnP

Personally I think 14 aboard a train running over 12 hours is fine, approx same as a 747 flight crew.

Yes, but this train was only carrying 130.  International route 747s carry more than double that - maybe triple - and serve 2-3 meals.   Amtrak should have more flexibility on some crew positions depending on passenger load.

How many intermediate stops do 747's make on their normal routes?  Certainly not stops at type of cities that the SWC makes stops at.  LD trains passenger load is made up of many variteies.  Origin to destination as well at intermediate to intermediate, the passenger load varies with each stop the train makes.

[blue streak 1]

A 6 tire truck usually has a gross vehicle weight GVW of 26,000#.  That is because each tire usuall has a max load of 4500#.  As well driver of such vehicle does not need a CDL in most states.  U-haul rental trucks go up to 26000 and no CDL.

[blue streak 1]

Some speculative questions that no one has yet commented.

1.  Both locos and the V-2 baggage were found on the tracks ? Did not derail ?.

2.  Did locos stay on track or did they come off then back on track ?

3.  The V-2 bag was on the track did it also go off track and then back on. ?

4.  If V-2 stayed on track could have been due to better latteral control of the wheels or some other reason ?

Will probably take the final NTSB report to find out.  

 

[narig01]

blue streak 1

A 6 tire truck usually has a gross vehicle weight GVW of 26,000#.  That is because each tire usuall has a max load of 4500#.  As well driver of such vehicle does not need a CDL in most states.  U-haul rental trucks go up to 26000 and no CDL.

 

A two axle truck in most states may be allowed a gross weight of 32,000 lbs, and in some 40,000lbs. 26,000lbs is the dividing line between requiring a CDL. Over 26,000 lbs it is more dependent on how the truck is configured. Above and beyond these limits is dependent upon the operation. In otherwords how closely did they check their weights. The frame of a Kenworth like the one pictured is more then capable of supporting more weight then licensed. The same frame is(IIRC) the same used for class 8 tractors(the power unit of an 80,000lb truck). 

     It would have been nice if the Kansas St Patrol had the vehicle impounded the nite of the accident. It is good though that the vehicle was identified early on though.

     I would not be surprised if the driver involved had simply panicked after hitting the tracks and seeing the subsequent wreck.

[JL Chicago]

I don't care if the driver panicked. Should not be driving period if that's how he/she reacts, forever. I nearly lost 2 friends driving home from O'Hare airport when they were rearended by a pickup truck, pushing them off the road and into a light pole. The driver of the pickup took off. Fortunately a witness called 911 and paramedics arrived fast enough to save their lives. But it was night and witness couldn't get pickup license.
Hit and runs are inexcusable. These drivers should be banned for life.

[groomer man]

A tractor trailer could be anywhere from 80,000 gvw to 108,000 with permits. Being a professional truck driver I'm bothered that the driver didn't immediately call 911 and report it. Good God man! You could have killed people. Gotta own up to your mistakes

[CMStPnP]

Folks, before we end up demonizing the truck driver because we cannot read for content here...... the accident happened hours before the train went over the track.   The truck driver was long gone before Amtrak.    It is a giant leap of logic that he even saw the damage to the track.    His truck could have just shifted the gravel which shifted the track.

Remember the facts again, Amtrak went through at around mid-night several hours before that...........it was still dark outside in that part of Kansas.     Driver was disoriented slightly and thought the road crossed the tracks straight ahead when in fact it jogged to right then crossed the tracks.    Easy mistake to make on a rural Farm to Market road after dark.    Farm to Market roads should be laid out in a straight grid pattern (most of them are.......some are not).     Also depends on age and experience of truck driver.     In some parts of Texas, heavy multi-million dollar combines and sometimes Heavy Trucks are driven by kids that live on the Farm under supervision of their Parents vs. someone with a lot of experience...........lots of presumptions being made here that it was a professional truck driver.

 

[Paul of Covington]

blue streak 1

Some speculative questions that no one has yet commented.

1.  Both locos and the V-2 baggage were found on the tracks ? Did not derail ?.

2.  Did locos stay on track or did they come off then back on track ?

3.  The V-2 bag was on the track did it also go off track and then back on. ?

4.  If V-2 stayed on track could have been due to better latteral control of the wheels or some other reason ?

Will probably take the final NTSB report to find out.  

 

   I was wondering about that, too.   Could it be that the taller passenger cars have a higher center of gravity which caused them to tilt over on the displaced track?   I really don't know if their center of gravity is significantly higher than that of locomotives, but they have always looked unstable to me.

[BaltACD]

Paul of Covington

blue streak 1

Some speculative questions that no one has yet commented.

1.  Both locos and the V-2 baggage were found on the tracks ? Did not derail ?.

2.  Did locos stay on track or did they come off then back on track ?

3.  The V-2 bag was on the track did it also go off track and then back on. ?

4.  If V-2 stayed on track could have been due to better latteral control of the wheels or some other reason ?

Will probably take the final NTSB report to find out.  

   I was wondering about that, too.   Could it be that the taller passenger cars have a higher center of gravity which caused them to tilt over on the displaced track?   I really don't know if their center of gravity is significantly higher than that of locomotives, but they have always looked unstable to me.

As each vehicle 'hits' the displaced trackage, it's own force damages the track to point that it is not only out of line it becomes out of gauge.  With the track out of gauge, mayhem happens.  The 919 feet it took the train to come to a complete stop was assisted greatly by the drag of the derailed cars.  Had all cars remained on the rail the stopping distance would have been greater.

[Paul of Covington]

BaltACD

As each vehicle 'hits' the displaced trackage, it's own force damages the track to point that it is not only out of line it becomes out of gauge. With the track out of gauge, mayhem happens. The 919 feet it took the train to come to a complete stop was assisted greatly by the drag of the derailed cars. Had all cars remained on the rail the stopping distance would have been greater.

   Makes sense, Balt.   I hadn't thought about the first part of the train causing additional damage to the track.