The timeline originally provided by the NTSB clearly (to me) indicated that the whole business of 'overspeed' recognition and independent-brake correction was finished at least six seconds earlier (go back and check the exact numbers). That can not possibly be a brake application made after seeing that tiny 30mph restriction sign: how sharp would your eyes have to be to make this out 800 feet away with the corresponding angular resolution -- and then there would be the issue of reaction time in conditions of surprise, another 90 feet minimum at that speed. At which point maybe he was on the brake handle, but the UDE was already dumping the pressure more quickly and to a lower value than his valve motion could command.
We will need to see results of the camera video to resolve when, and really if at this point, he actually moved the brake controller as he indicated. Note that this specific detail is important enough that a "camera failure" excuse for it not being seen would set off my BS detectors.
Euclid BaltACD Trains operating at track speed - ARE NOT LINE OF SIGHT VEHICLES. The Engineer has to take the necessary actions to set up for slow orders well ahead of seeing the the slow order sign. I don't understand your point.
BaltACD Trains operating at track speed - ARE NOT LINE OF SIGHT VEHICLES. The Engineer has to take the necessary actions to set up for slow orders well ahead of seeing the the slow order sign.
I don't understand your point.
Balt's point is pretty clear, as it is fundamental to understanding the difference between operating a train and just about any other vehicle. The closest approximation would be an airplane flying under instrument flight rules (IFR) versus visual flight rules (VFR). What happened with ATK 501 is similar to a pilot flying IFR losing track on where he/she is and flying into terrain (failure to maintain suffcient altitude).
erikem Euclid BaltACD Trains operating at track speed - ARE NOT LINE OF SIGHT VEHICLES. The Engineer has to take the necessary actions to set up for slow orders well ahead of seeing the the slow order sign. I don't understand your point. Balt's point is pretty clear, as it is fundamental to understanding the difference between operating a train and just about any other vehicle. The closest approximation would be an airplane flying under instrument flight rules (IFR) versus visual flight rules (VFR). What happened with ATK 501 is similar to a pilot flying IFR losing track on where he/she is and flying into terrain (failure to maintain suffcient altitude).
Yes, what he said is entirely clear. What I meant was that I did not understand what that had to do with the point I had made, since he was replying to my point. And I had made my point in reply to Don Oltmand's point.
It is all on the previous page. Since Balt had quoted the point I made to Don, I assumed that Balt's point was related to my point. But I don't understand how it is related. I never said anything claiming that trains are line of sight vehicles.
It seems pretty clear that the engineer was lost, did not know he was lost until it was too late, and had missed two signs that would have warned him in time of the slow curves ahead.
Reports so far do not suggest that the trainee conductor was distracting the engineer. Maybe someone is lying, but we have no reason to conclude that.
I don‘t know what standard practice is on most railroads, but I’d think you would want to require at least six supervised at-the-controls round-trips for a newbie on a given route. And if this run would ever be done in darkness, at least two training runs would be done in the dark. I realize that it would be expensive, particularly if special training trains (or light engines) were required. But safety must come first.
I feel bad for this engineer, because he effed up big-time. But, clearly, the training was woefully inadequate. The man obviously had not had enough supervised runs prior to being given control of a train on this route.
Still in training.
I conclude that the problem is deeper than just not knowing the territory on this route. The engineer had enough information to avoid being lost if he were paying attention to lineside markers and signs. Any adequately experienced engineer would have paid that attention to the right of way where those markers would appear.
This engineer knew the curve was at milepost 19.8, and he planned on starting to reduce speed at 18.8 miles. He spotted mileposts 16 and 17. But he failed to see milepost 18 or the curve warning sign at 17.8 miles. Apparently the engineer was looking elsewhere when he passed that sign and milepost. That relates to the engineer's competence in general, aside from his familiarity of this new route.
As I have stated ad nauseam poor training , poorer supervision ,Amtrak's inadequate vetting and hiring procedures have contributed to this past and future disasters.
One man's opinion. Worth the paper is isn't written on.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann One man's opinion. Worth the paper is isn't written on.
Maybe. Maybe not.
zugmann Maybe. Maybe not.
The engineer said he intended to start slowing down one mile ahead of the curve, so that would be mile 18.8. He saw mileposts 16 and 17 as he passed them. Milepost 18 would have told him to start braking in .8 miles. He would have had to measure that .8 miles to know where to start braking.
If he happened to miss milepost 18, or if it happened to be missing, he would not realize it without having measured to know where milepost 18 should have been. Well he did miss it and he ran another approximately 1.6 miles without realizing that he missed milepost 18.
The report does not say whether there was a milepost 19 or anything about the engineer not recalling passing milepost 19. But if there was a milepost 19, and if the engineer had seen it, he would have immediately begun braking because he would have known he was past the point where he had planned to begin braking.
On the first run, with little familiarity of the landmarks, with the knowledge that it was critical to reduce speed from 79 to 30 at mile 19.8; my opinion is that he should have been independently measuring continuous distance traveled in the few miles approaching mile 19.8, rather than just measuring to the nearest mile by watching mileposts go by. Assuming that is what he did, I think it was highly irresponsible.
Euclid The engineer said he intended to start slowing down one mile ahead of the curve, so that would be mile 18.8. He saw mileposts 16 and 17 as he passed them. Milepost 18 would have told him to start braking in .8 miles. He would have had to measure that .8 miles to know where to start braking. If he happened to miss milepost 18, or if it happened to be missing, he would not realize it without having measured to know where milepost 18 should have been. Well he did miss it and he ran another approximately 1.6 miles without realizing that he missed milepost 18. The report does not say whether there was a milepost 19 or anything about the engineer not recalling passing milepost 19. But if there was a milepost 19, and if the engineer had seen it, he would have immediately begun braking because he would have known he was past the point where he had planned to begin braking. On the first run, with little familiarity of the landmarks, with the knowledge that it was critical to reduce speed from 79 to 30 at mile 19.8; my opinion is that he should have been independently measuring continuous distance traveled in the few miles approaching mile 19.8, rather than just measuring to the nearest mile by watching mileposts go by. Assuming that is what he did, I think it was highly irresponsible.
243129 Stop being childish and man up to what you post. Are you referring to my post or not?
Me? childish? I can live with that.
From CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/28/us/amtrak-501-derail-training-safety-investigation/index.html
The training was a sad joke. CNN has heard this from more than a dozen sources, all of which are afraid to go public.
LithoniaOperator From CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/28/us/amtrak-501-derail-training-safety-investigation/index.html The training was a sad joke. CNN has heard this from more than a dozen sources, all of which are afraid to go public.
You are far too kind. The lack of training, lack of supervision, and presense of a probably distracting trainee in the cab are indications of criminal negligence on the part of ATK "management".
zugmann 243129 Stop being childish and man up to what you post. Are you referring to my post or not? Me? childish? I can live with that.
243129 Given the content of your posts it looks like you shall have to. Perhaps the PBS for Kids website would suit you better.
Nah. I'm more of a Discovery Family or CN type of guy. Disney XD, too.
If that was an insult, you will have to try harder.
243129 zugmann 243129 Stop being childish and man up to what you post. Are you referring to my post or not? Me? childish? I can live with that. Given the content of your posts it looks like you shall have to. Perhaps the PBS for Kids website would suit you better.
Given the content of your posts it looks like you shall have to. Perhaps the PBS for Kids website would suit you better.
Angela Pusztai-Pasternak, Production Editor, Trains Magazine
EuclidIf the engineer wanted to slow from 80 to 30 over one mile, why would he use the indepent brake rather than dynamic braking?
'Cause that's how you do it! Bunch them up gently with the independent, then dynamic brake. You have to get the little bit of slack bunched and get draft gear in compression.
He obviously didn't get to that second step....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd Euclid If the engineer wanted to slow from 80 to 30 over one mile, why would he use the indepent brake rather than dynamic braking? 'Cause that's how you do it! Bunch them up gently with the independent, then dynamic brake. You have to get the little bit of slack bunched and get draft gear in compression. He obviously didn't get to that second step....
Euclid If the engineer wanted to slow from 80 to 30 over one mile, why would he use the indepent brake rather than dynamic braking?
Okay, that would be the case if he were slowing down for the curve from an adequate distance back, as he had planned. But he got lost in the last couple miles, and then found himself right at the curve while still moving around 80 mph. So his plan to slow down before reaching the curve had gone out the window. So why would he make an application of the independent brake at that point? It would make no sense.
The engineer is responsible for knowing where he is and to operate the train accordingly. He failed.
Amtrak is repsonible for training their engineers so that they can safely operate their trains. Not looking good for Amtrak.
This is not an "either/or" deal. The guilt of one party does not mean the other is off the hook.
Euclid oltmannd Euclid If the engineer wanted to slow from 80 to 30 over one mile, why would he use the indepent brake rather than dynamic braking? 'Cause that's how you do it! Bunch them up gently with the independent, then dynamic brake. You have to get the little bit of slack bunched and get draft gear in compression. He obviously didn't get to that second step.... Okay, that would be the case if he were slowing down for the curve from an adequate distance back, as he had planned. But he got lost in the last couple miles, and then found himself right at the curve while still moving around 80 mph. So his plan to slow down before reaching the curve had gone out the window. So why would he make an application of the independent brake at that point? It would make no sense.
It does make sense to me. "Oh, I'm approaching the curve. Start slowing". Make independent application. "30 sign? That's not right..." Then a split second later, "I'm here?". Too late for any further actions - train derails in spiral.
I wonder: is Euclid trying to re-cover his hoosehold furniture with horsehide?
Johnny
oltmanndCause that's how you do it! Bunch them up gently with the independent, then dynamic brake. You have to get the little bit of slack bunched and get draft gear in compression.
On page 19 we already had a short discussion of train handling. The following was stated:
243129 said: As I have stated previously use of the independent brake to reduce speed, no matter the increment, on a 'live' passenger train is indicative of poor train handling and lack of or poor training.
Somehow I'm lost.Regards, Volker
Angela Pusztai-PasternakPlease stay on topic. No personal attacks. My kids don't act this way. Have a good day. Ang
oltmanndThe engineer is responsible for knowing where he is and to operate the train accordingly. He failed. Amtrak is repsonible for training their engineers so that they can safely operate their trains. Not looking good for Amtrak. This is not an "either/or" deal. The guilt of one party does not mean the other is off the hook.
VOLKER LANDWEHR oltmannd Cause that's how you do it! Bunch them up gently with the independent, then dynamic brake. You have to get the little bit of slack bunched and get draft gear in compression. On page 19 we already had a short discussion of train handling. The following was stated: 243129 said: As I have stated previously use of the independent brake to reduce speed, no matter the increment, on a 'live' passenger train is indicative of poor train handling and lack of or poor training. Somehow I'm lost.Regards, Volker
oltmannd Cause that's how you do it! Bunch them up gently with the independent, then dynamic brake. You have to get the little bit of slack bunched and get draft gear in compression.
Back in the day, you'd stretch a passenger train, throttle open, automatic applied. Very smooth way to handle a train. Burns lots of fuel, though. Most passenger locomotives since the 1980s have blended braking, where an automatic application would engage the dynamic, as well. Not nearly as smooth, but effective.
If you want to do straight dynamic to slow a train, you have to bunch the slack first. Smoothest way is with a bit of independent. There is much less slack in a passenger train than a freight train, but the principle is the same.
oltmannd Euclid oltmannd Euclid If the engineer wanted to slow from 80 to 30 over one mile, why would he use the indepent brake rather than dynamic braking? 'Cause that's how you do it! Bunch them up gently with the independent, then dynamic brake. You have to get the little bit of slack bunched and get draft gear in compression. He obviously didn't get to that second step.... Okay, that would be the case if he were slowing down for the curve from an adequate distance back, as he had planned. But he got lost in the last couple miles, and then found himself right at the curve while still moving around 80 mph. So his plan to slow down before reaching the curve had gone out the window. So why would he make an application of the independent brake at that point? It would make no sense. It does make sense to me. "Oh, I'm approaching the curve. Start slowing". Make independent application. "30 sign? That's not right..." Then a split second later, "I'm here?". Too late for any further actions - train derails in spiral.
Except, according to the NTSB that is not what happened. They said this:
• He said that as soon as he saw the 30 mph sign at the start of the curve, he applied brakes. Seconds later, the train derailed as it entered the curve.
He saw the 30 mph sign for the curve before he applied braking. So, there was no point in beginning a routine, proper speed reduction by the time the engineer made the brake application.
oltmannd VOLKER LANDWEHR oltmannd Cause that's how you do it! Bunch them up gently with the independent, then dynamic brake. You have to get the little bit of slack bunched and get draft gear in compression. On page 19 we already had a short discussion of train handling. The following was stated: 243129 said: As I have stated previously use of the independent brake to reduce speed, no matter the increment, on a 'live' passenger train is indicative of poor train handling and lack of or poor training. Somehow I'm lost.Regards, Volker Back in the day, you'd stretch a passenger train, throttle open, automatic applied. Very smooth way to handle a train. Burns lots of fuel, though. Most passenger locomotives since the 1980s have blended braking, where an automatic application would engage the dynamic, as well. Not nearly as smooth, but effective. If you want to do straight dynamic to slow a train, you have to bunch the slack first. Smoothest way is with a bit of independent. There is much less slack in a passenger train than a freight train, but the principle is the same.
I agree, been doing this stuff since June 1967 and was always taught dont touch the indenpendent at track speed in fact dont use it at speeds above 15 MPH, you DONT need to bunch the slack with the ind. brake prior to dynamic braking, dynamic brake "set up" does that for you.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.