Amtrak 501 Derail in Washington State

28581 views
774 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May, 2004
  • 5,048 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Thursday, January 11, 2018 3:14 PM

Euclid

 

  But you said talking to the engieer would be far from necessary.  I say it is essential.   
 

 

Yup.  That about sums it up.

 

 

Ed

  • Member since
    May, 2015
  • 245 posts
Posted by 243129 on Thursday, January 11, 2018 4:56 PM

Norm48327

I side with Zug. One poster here seems to have all the answers even though he doesn't undestand the questiions.

It is time for all of us to back off and let the KIA have his day until he exposes himself as a fraud.

What goes around comes around and given time it will expose that poster for the fraud he is.

Like others I suspect he will soon emerge uncder a new screen name.

 

Who might that be Norm?

  • Member since
    August, 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 9,177 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Thursday, January 11, 2018 6:51 PM

243129

 

 
Norm48327

I side with Zug. One poster here seems to have all the answers even though he doesn't undestand the questiions.

It is time for all of us to back off and let the KIA have his day until he exposes himself as a fraud.

What goes around comes around and given time it will expose that poster for the fraud he is.

Like others I suspect he will soon emerge uncder a new screen name.

 

 

 

Who might that be Norm?

 

He is one who would be delighted if everyone else accepted his conclusions even when there is insufficient or no evidence to support his conclusions and continues to post his conclusions. In the past, on other matters, he has been described as "beating a dead horse"--and he even flays the horse. He is believed to have, in the past, posted under another screen name.

Johnny

  • Member since
    May, 2004
  • 5,048 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Saturday, January 13, 2018 10:44 PM

It's been several weeks since we've heard from our NTSB stalwarts.  Who still can't convince the engineer that it would be really swell if he told them everything he remembered, even if doing so might put him in jail for a week.  Or two.

It's been said that if you drag things out long enough, the public will get tired, and distracted by other things.

Like missiles being launched towards Hawaii.  Wait a minute.  Is that for real.......

 

Ed

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,546 posts
Posted by Euclid on Sunday, January 14, 2018 8:09 AM

The details are private and the public has no right to know.

  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 147 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Sunday, January 14, 2018 10:20 AM

I for one would prefer a thorough investigation, however long that takes. It is not a criminal or civil trial. Thus the process is not supposed open to the public, only the preliminary and final reports and supporting documents. The fact that some(one) on here seems impatient and continues to obsessively demur is irrelevant.

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,546 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, January 15, 2018 7:58 AM

I don't understand why the NTSB gives a public news conference at the onset or releases a final report to the public.  Why do they make committments and reveal strategies to the public at the onset?  Why tell us how long it will take?

  • Member since
    May, 2004
  • 5,048 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Monday, January 15, 2018 11:55 AM

charlie hebdo

...the process is not supposed open to the public...

 

 

That kind of troubles me, as a citizen.

 

But there have been questions about the failure to promptly release factual information.  Facts are a precursor to the process, not part of it.  And they will not change if you wait a year.

 

I do wonder why it takes a year to do an investigation.

Does anyone here have an idea why?

 

 

 

Ed

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,546 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, January 15, 2018 12:35 PM

7j43k
I do wonder why it takes a year to do an investigation. Does anyone here have an idea why?

Because there is a motive to do so much more than just determine the facts of the accident.  Every government bureaucracy wants to grow larger, hire more people, raise salaries, build new offices, etc.  So they are motivated to turn accident investigations into the largest productions possible.  They are producing a drama about public safety.  Dramas require holding information back and just teasing about it.  That is why they begin with a kickoff news conference that cannot answer questions.  Every answer is, “It’s too early to tell.”  They want to grow, and that is why the time spent on investigations grows ever longer.

  • Member since
    May, 2004
  • 5,048 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Monday, January 15, 2018 3:07 PM

Euclid

 

 
7j43k
I do wonder why it takes a year to do an investigation. Does anyone here have an idea why?

 

Because there is a motive to do so much more than just determine the facts of the accident.  Every government bureaucracy wants to grow larger, hire more people, raise salaries, build new offices, etc.  So they are motivated to turn accident investigations into the largest productions possible.  They are producing a drama about public safety.  Dramas require holding information back and just teasing about it.  That is why they begin with a kickoff news conference that cannot answer questions.  Every answer is, “It’s too early to tell.”  They want to grow, and that is why the time spent on investigations grows ever longer.

 

 

That's certainly one possibilty.  But I don't see any proof.  

Consider that "bureaucracies" don't "want".  Not like single animals.  But due to their structure and human behavior, it surely does look that way.  After all, how many bureaucracies have intentionally shrunk?

 

Anyway, that concept being established, I'd like to set it aside and see if other reasons come up.  What, for example, would DOT say if asked?

 

Well, I just sent an e-mail to a DOT employee asking that.  We'll see what the response is.

 

 

 

Ed

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 736 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Monday, January 15, 2018 4:36 PM

The role of the NTSB is defined in the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974.

The role is not just finding the facts but investigate circumstances, find causes/ probable causes, make recommendations so that the same accident gets unlikely.

They have to make transportation safer.

If it were just facts the Amtrak 501 derailment investigation would already be finished. The facts were published on 1/04/2018.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    May, 2004
  • 5,048 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Monday, January 15, 2018 5:33 PM

VOLKER LANDWEHR

 

The role is not just finding the facts but investigate circumstances, find causes/ probable causes, make recommendations so that the same accident gets unlikely

If it were just facts the Amtrak 501 derailment investigation would already be finished. The facts were published on 1/04/2018.

 

OK.  They had the facts by January 4, in less than 17 days.

So, for the next 348 days they will be thinking about and considering those facts.

That does seem like a long time to be doing that.

 

 

Ed

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,546 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, January 15, 2018 8:43 PM

I don't think anyone would be complaining about the delay if they felt we had the facts now.  There are lots of facts we don't yet have. 

  • Member since
    May, 2015
  • 245 posts
Posted by 243129 on Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:37 AM

I don't understand why the engineer has not been identified.

  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 147 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Tuesday, January 16, 2018 9:23 AM

7j43k

 

 
Euclid

 

 
7j43k
I do wonder why it takes a year to do an investigation. Does anyone here have an idea why?

 

Because there is a motive to do so much more than just determine the facts of the accident.  Every government bureaucracy wants to grow larger, hire more people, raise salaries, build new offices, etc.  So they are motivated to turn accident investigations into the largest productions possible.  They are producing a drama about public safety.  Dramas require holding information back and just teasing about it.  That is why they begin with a kickoff news conference that cannot answer questions.  Every answer is, “It’s too early to tell.”  They want to grow, and that is why the time spent on investigations grows ever longer.

 

 

 

 

That's certainly one possibilty.  But I don't see any proof.  

Consider that "bureaucracies" don't "want".  Not like single animals.  But due to their structure and human behavior, it surely does look that way.  After all, how many bureaucracies have intentionally shrunk?

 

Anyway, that concept being established, I'd like to set it aside and see if other reasons come up.  What, for example, would DOT say if asked?

 

Well, I just sent an e-mail to a DOT employee asking that.  We'll see what the response is.

 

 

 

Ed

 

Impatience leads to suspicion.  Suspicion of motives is rapidly leading to formulation of largely delusional conspiracy theories, at least on this thread.  Can't folks just wait for the investigative conclusions rather than weave a tapestry of unfounded speculations?

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Tuesday, January 16, 2018 11:40 AM

243129

I don't understand why the engineer has not been identified.

Nor do I. Who is being protected and why?

Brandon Bostian was exposed soon after the Amtrak wreck. Why are they concealing this engineer's name? He should have been interviewed by NTSB within a few days. Who's hiding what?

Norm


  • Member since
    December, 2017
  • 402 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Tuesday, January 16, 2018 12:16 PM

What does the general public gain by knowing the Engineer's name, apart from the ability to harass him?

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,546 posts
Posted by Euclid on Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:47 PM

The day after the wreck, the NTSB told us that they would interview the engineer in one or two days.  They never told us that did not happen.  In fact, they may have interviewed the engineer a half-dozen times since then.  They may have interviewed him an hour after the derailment.  They never told us that they would tell us whether any interviews would be acknowledged to have happened, or what was learned.

The only control the public has over the NTSB is our perception of their credibility.  They want that to be favorable.     

 

  • Member since
    May, 2004
  • 5,048 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Tuesday, January 16, 2018 2:28 PM

Euclid

There are lots of facts we don't yet have. 

 

 

 

The only facts I'm aware of that WE (the public) don't have is the identity and work history of the engineer, and the data from the cameras.  Interviews of the two workers in the cab are also missing, but they are not facts, exactly.

 

While I heartily agree that it's difficult to list facts one DOESN'T have, I'm still curious what other facts you feel are missing.

 

 

Ed

  • Member since
    July, 2008
  • From: Marietta, GA
  • 1,025 posts
Posted by rdamon on Tuesday, January 16, 2018 2:46 PM

We know WHAT happened ..  we are waiting on the WHY..

  • Member since
    December, 2017
  • 139 posts
Posted by LithoniaOperator on Tuesday, January 16, 2018 4:32 PM

SD70Dude

What does the general public gain by knowing the Engineer's name, apart from the ability to harass him?

 

 
I agree. Although I (like many others) would like to know more about the engineer. But there are probably good reasons for not revealing more at this time. Maybe his lawyer has gotten the local prosecutors to agree not to make his identity known until, AND IF, he is going to be charged with a crime. And the NTSB does not need the public to know the engineer’s name or other details about him in order to work on their investigation.
 
I am very surprised though, that the local/national media have not revealed his name. It seems like it would be fairly easy for good reporters to learn the name. Lots of people know who this man is. It seems like some members of the media are observing a voluntary embargo on this info, for whatever reason. Perhaps this is a rare case of the media being responsible.
  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,546 posts
Posted by Euclid on Tuesday, January 16, 2018 4:39 PM

When I refer to "facts," I just mean an explanation of the cause and all the facts that that entails.  Here are some explanatory facts that we do not yet have:

The reason that the engineer did not make an emergency application of the air brakes.

The train location when the engineer first realized the train was about to enter the curve.

The engineer’s intent when he made an application of the independent brake at 81 mph.

The exact cause for the train to derail.  The presumption is that the excessive speed on the sharp curve derailed the train.  While it is true that the speed was excessive, and that the train derailed at a tangent, we do not know that the two factors are not simply coincidental with the actual derailment cause being something unrelated like an equipment malfunction. 

  • Member since
    May, 2004
  • 5,048 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:28 PM

Euclid

When I refer to "facts," I just mean an explanation of the cause and all the facts that that entails.  Here are some explanatory facts that we do not yet have:

The reason that the engineer did not make an emergency application of the air brakes.

The train location when the engineer first realized the train was about to enter the curve.

The engineer’s intent when he made an application of the independent brake at 81 mph.

The exact cause for the train to derail.  The presumption is that the excessive speed on the sharp curve derailed the train.  While it is true that the speed was excessive, and that the train derailed at a tangent, we do not know that the two factors are not simply coincidental with the actual derailment cause being something unrelated like an equipment malfunction. 

 

A "reason" is not a fact.

"Intent" is not a fact.

"The train location when the engineer first realized..." is not a fact.

 

The above cannot be facts because they cannot be independently verified.  They are what the engineer reports.  They may not be true.  Hence: not-facts.

"Exact cause":  That also will not be a fact.  It will be the opinion of a lot of experts in the field examining the facts.  An opinion is not a fact.

 

Ed

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 736 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:28 PM

Euclid
The day after the wreck, the NTSB told us that they would interview the engineer in one or two days.  They never told us that did not happen.

Sometimes it helps to read the preliminary report of 01/04/2018 instead of speculating.

Quote: As of the date of this report, the NTSB has not yet been able to interview either operating crewmember of the lead locomotive due to their injuries sustained in the accident.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 736 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:31 PM

7j43k
The only facts I'm aware of that WE (the public) don't have is the identity and work history of the engineer, and the data from the cameras.

The locomotive crew's work history is in the same report.

Quote: The 55-year-old engineer had been working for Amtrak since May 2004 and had been promoted to engineer in August 2013. The other crewmember in the cab of the locomotive was a 48-year-old “qualifying” conductor who was being familiarized with the territory. This conductor had been working for Amtrak since June 2010 and had been promoted to conductor in November 2011.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 5,602 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:44 PM

Euclid
When I refer to "facts," I just mean an explanation of the cause and all the facts that that entails.

Humpty Dumpty
‘When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

Cue the Arthur Sullivan music - there's a good song in this somewhere...

  • Member since
    August, 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 9,177 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Tuesday, January 16, 2018 7:49 PM

"I polished up the handle on the big front door...."

Smile

Johnny

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,546 posts
Posted by Euclid on Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:15 PM

7j43k

 

 
Euclid

 

 
7j43k
I do wonder why it takes a year to do an investigation. Does anyone here have an idea why?

 

Because there is a motive to do so much more than just determine the facts of the accident.  Every government bureaucracy wants to grow larger, hire more people, raise salaries, build new offices, etc.  So they are motivated to turn accident investigations into the largest productions possible.  They are producing a drama about public safety.  Dramas require holding information back and just teasing about it.  That is why they begin with a kickoff news conference that cannot answer questions.  Every answer is, “It’s too early to tell.”  They want to grow, and that is why the time spent on investigations grows ever longer.

 

 

 

 

That's certainly one possibilty.  But I don't see any proof.  

Consider that "bureaucracies" don't "want".  Not like single animals.  But due to their structure and human behavior, it surely does look that way.  After all, how many bureaucracies have intentionally shrunk?

 

Anyway, that concept being established, I'd like to set it aside and see if other reasons come up.  What, for example, would DOT say if asked?

 

Well, I just sent an e-mail to a DOT employee asking that.  We'll see what the response is.

 

 

 

Ed

 

Did you ask DOT why it takes a year to do an investigation?  What did they say?

  • Member since
    May, 2015
  • 245 posts
Posted by 243129 on Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:22 PM

VOLKER LANDWEHR

 

 
7j43k
The only facts I'm aware of that WE (the public) don't have is the identity and work history of the engineer, and the data from the cameras.

 

The locomotive crew's work history is in the same report.

Quote: The 55-year-old engineer had been working for Amtrak since May 2004 and had been promoted to engineer in August 2013. The other crewmember in the cab of the locomotive was a 48-year-old “qualifying” conductor who was being familiarized with the territory. This conductor had been working for Amtrak since June 2010 and had been promoted to conductor in November 2011.
Regards, Volker

 

"Working for Amtrak since May 2004"? In what capacity?

Did this person display the acumen and cognitive skills to be considered for the position of locomotive engineer?

Who interviewed this person as a candidate and what were their qualifications?

Four years experience as an engineer? Was he a Wilmington trained (simulator) engineer?

Who was the supervisor who certified him qualified on the territory?

Where was supervision to ensure that there were no 'glitches' on this the first revenue trip via the new route?

I would hope that the NTSB would dig deeply in to his training regimen i.e. the duration of OJT, the 'pedigree' of the instructors etc.

 Loss of situational awareness coupled with inexperience and poor training will certainly be the major factors in causing this disaster.

  • Member since
    May, 2004
  • 5,048 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:39 PM

Euclid

Did you ask DOT why it takes a year to do an investigation?  What did they say?

 

 

I did.  I haven't received an answer to my message of yesterday.

 

I note that the Navy finished their investigation in November of the two ship crashes in June and August.

Perhaps their guys can help NTSB out.

And I see the charges came down today.  We'll see what happens about criminal charges in this case.

 

Ed

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