Trains.com

Amtrak derailment, Kansas

5937 views
35 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 120 posts
Posted by bartman-tn on Sunday, March 20, 2016 4:41 PM

The legal FRA limit for an alinement deviation for the Amtrak speed (60mph - Class 3) is 1-3/4". The NTSB has estimated the alinement deviation at 12"-14". Braking probably had nothing to do with the derailment. The locomotives with their weight probably forced their way through the alinement issue, the baggage car stayed on due to the locomotives, but then the rest of the cars had almost no chance with their higher center of gravity and lighter weights. I've seen this happen before with freight trains where the locomotives get through the sun kink, but the freight cars fail to.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, March 19, 2016 7:01 PM

cefinkjr
 
mbinsewi

I had heard on news reports that the engineer saw a displaced rail, and went in emergency breaking.  As I undertsand it, going into emergency breaking will cause a derailment.  Is this true?

Maybe I'm not fully understanding the dynamics of emergency breaking a fast moving train.

Mike. 

Balt's description of what happens after an emergency application is correct but I thought you might like to know the why.  Have you ever ridden a bicycle with hand-operated brakes on both wheels and applied the brakes only on the front wheel?  If so, you probably only did that once because the back wheel (and you) kept moving while the front wheel slowed.
 
Now remember that the order for "Emergency braking needed NOW!" is transmitted from the locomotive(s) to a freight train as a reduction in train line pressure.  I don't know the numbers but trust me, it takes several seconds for that order to reach the rear of the train.  So while the brakes have been applied at the front end of the train, the rear of the train is still trying to move along without the brakes applied.  The result is likely to be as Balt described.  I would disagree with him only in that, IMO, it doesn't take much of a curve, if any at all, for a freight train to derail when an emergency application is made.

Today's trains on Class 1 carriers are, for the most part, required to have what is known as a 'two way EOT'.  The EOT is a radio transmitter/receiver that transmits air pressure and movement data to the locomotive.  The EOT also displays a flashing red light to the rear of the train.  The EOT receives a radio signal from the locomotive when a emergency brake application is detected (initiated either by the engine brake valve or train line).  As such the length of time required for the brake application to be fully propagated is reduced. 

Derailments becuse of emergency brake application are a rare exception, not the rule, no matter the terrain.  Current rules require the crew to inspect the train after every emergency brake application - inspection requirements are modified, but not eliminated, if the air immediately restores after the train stops and the engineer resets the proper controls on the locomotive.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Allen, TX
  • 1,320 posts
Posted by cefinkjr on Saturday, March 19, 2016 2:51 PM

mbinsewi

I had heard on news reports that the engineer saw a displaced rail, and went in emergency breaking.  As I undertsand it, going into emergency breaking will cause a derailment.  Is this true?

Maybe I'm not fully understanding the dynamics of emergency breaking a fast moving train.

Mike.

 
Balt's description of what happens after an emergency application is correct but I thought you might like to know the why.  Have you ever ridden a bicycle with hand-operated brakes on both wheels and applied the brakes only on the front wheel?  If so, you probably only did that once because the back wheel (and you) kept moving while the front wheel slowed.
 
Now remember that the order for "Emergency braking needed NOW!" is transmitted from the locomotive(s) to a freight train as a reduction in train line pressure.  I don't know the numbers but trust me, it takes several seconds for that order to reach the rear of the train.  So while the brakes have been applied at the front end of the train, the rear of the train is still trying to move along without the brakes applied.  The result is likely to be as Balt described.  I would disagree with him only in that, IMO, it doesn't take much of a curve, if any at all, for a freight train to derail when an emergency application is made.
 

Chuck
Allen, TX

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, March 18, 2016 4:16 PM

mbinsewi

I had heard on news reports that the engineer saw a displaced rail, and went in emergency breaking.  As I undertsand it, going into emergency breaking will cause a derailment.  Is this true?

Maybe I'm not fully understanding the dynamics of emergency breaking a fast moving train.

Mike.

Derailments caused by emergency braking, when they happen, will happen in long freight trains (with a lot of slack) and will have secondary causes associated with train make up and the curve nature of the trackage where the emergency braking took place.  Emergency braking can create excessive buff (compressive) forces within the train and 'pop' a relatively light empty car over the outside rail in a curve with a heavy slack run in.  Conversly, if for some reason (physical characteristics of the track) high draft (stretching) forces get created in the train with emergency braking, it is possible for a portion of the train to be 'stringlined' through curves and thus derail.

The only Amtrak train that has sufficient length for either of these scenarios to enter the picture is Auto-Train and it doesn't operate through territory that has the necessary degree of curvature for these scenarios to play out.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    May 2010
  • From: SE. WI.
  • 8,253 posts
Posted by mbinsewi on Friday, March 18, 2016 3:11 PM

I had heard on news reports that the engineer saw a displaced rail, and went in emergency breaking.  As I undertsand it, going into emergency breaking will cause a derailment.  Is this true?

Maybe I'm not fully understanding the dynamics of emergency breaking a fast moving train.

Mike.

  • Member since
    June 2011
  • 1,002 posts
Posted by NP Eddie on Friday, March 18, 2016 2:33 PM

I agree---let's forus on the derailment and not a speech about employees that work on the train. How would you like to eat at McDonalds with only two employees, one taking orders and one cooking?

As information, my wife and I made a St. Paul-Whitefish roundtrip this week. Service was great!

Ed Burns

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,310 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Thursday, March 17, 2016 3:31 PM

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.

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:51 PM

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.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,310 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:44 PM

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.

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:24 PM

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.

 

  • Member since
    April 2015
  • 54 posts
Posted by groomer man on Thursday, March 17, 2016 12:55 PM
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
  • Member since
    October 2012
  • 82 posts
Posted by JL Chicago on Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:42 AM
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.
  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:52 AM

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.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, March 16, 2016 3:50 PM

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.  

 

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, March 16, 2016 3:24 PM

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.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, March 16, 2016 2:41 PM

schlimm
CMStPnP

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.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, March 16, 2016 2:32 PM
  • Member since
    February 2011
  • 34 posts
Posted by CPRcst on Wednesday, March 16, 2016 1:59 PM

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.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, March 16, 2016 1:00 PM

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

 

 

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, March 16, 2016 12:09 PM

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.

 

  • Member since
    August 2013
  • 3,006 posts
Posted by ACY Tom on Tuesday, March 15, 2016 8:17 PM

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

 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Tuesday, March 15, 2016 6:50 PM

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.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Altadena, CA
  • 340 posts
Posted by 081552 on Tuesday, March 15, 2016 6:13 PM
  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Tuesday, March 15, 2016 12:20 PM

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.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Tuesday, March 15, 2016 12:11 PM

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?

  • Member since
    August 2013
  • 3,006 posts
Posted by ACY Tom on Tuesday, March 15, 2016 12:08 AM

 

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

 

  • Member since
    November 2009
  • 422 posts
Posted by Dragoman on Monday, March 14, 2016 11:04 PM

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.

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • 575 posts
Posted by alphas on Monday, March 14, 2016 11:02 PM

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.

 

  • Member since
    June 2014
  • 73 posts
Posted by J. Bishop on Monday, March 14, 2016 8:44 PM

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.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy