I think are approaching a policy shift whereby no public accident reports will be issued because the information will be deemed too sensitive for public disclosure. It will be considered to be proprietary business information.
EuclidI think are approaching a policy shift whereby no public accident reports will be issued because the information will be deemed too sensitive for public disclosure. It will be considered to be proprietary business information.
Along the lines of individual #1 not wanting to be investigated?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDAlong the lines of individual #1 not wanting to be investigated?
+1
charlie hebdo BaltACD Along the lines of individual #1 not wanting to be investigated? +1
BaltACD Along the lines of individual #1 not wanting to be investigated?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
BaltACD Euclid I think are approaching a policy shift whereby no public accident reports will be issued because the information will be deemed too sensitive for public disclosure. It will be considered to be proprietary business information. Along the lines of individual #1 not wanting to be investigated?
Euclid I think are approaching a policy shift whereby no public accident reports will be issued because the information will be deemed too sensitive for public disclosure. It will be considered to be proprietary business information.
I mean along the lines of the industry and the NTSB feeling that the public has no right to know what caused a wreck, and they they have no duty to inform the public about any of the details. Also, the industry would prefer to not make the details public because it is bad publicity for them.
I think that at one time, the NTSB, being a public sector institution, had the duty to inform the public and that it helped justify their existance as a public sector instution. The public is paying the bill, so they should receive the work product. That kind of humble reasoning has gone out the window lately.
If the NTSB felt a strong obligation to inform the public, they would do so in a timely manner.
Euclid BaltACD Euclid I think are approaching a policy shift whereby no public accident reports will be issued because the information will be deemed too sensitive for public disclosure. It will be considered to be proprietary business information. Along the lines of individual #1 not wanting to be investigated? I mean along the lines of the industry and the NTSB feeling that the public has no right to know what caused a wreck, and they they have no duty to inform the public about any of the details. Also, the industry would prefer to not make the details public because it is bad publicity for them. I think that at one time, the NTSB, being a public sector institution, had the duty to inform the public and that it helped justify their existance as a public sector instution. The public is paying the bill, so they should receive the work product. That kind of humble reasoning has gone out the window lately. If the NTSB felt a strong obligation to inform the public, they would do so in a timely manner.
Along the lines of Individual #1 feeling anything he or his governmental agencies do should be hidden from public scrutiny? That is not the US way.
Most of the ~400 employees of the NTSB are civil servants but the five board of directors are appointed by the President and confirmed by the US Senate for five-year terms. The current chair was appointed by the current #1, originally named to the board by Bush 43. The vice chair and one other member were named by the current #1. There is one vacancy (no surprise there). Whatever influence on policy the board has can probably be traced to the current #1.
What I speculate above has nothing to do with Individual #1. Instead, it is related to the growing detachment from the concept that the public institutions work for us.
Euclid What I speculate above has nothing to do with Individual #1. Instead, it is related to the growing detachment from the concept that the public institutions work for us.
Policies of appointees are obviously a function of the politics of the appointer. The current #1 merely follows in an acceleration of devaluing government as it once was, starting with #40's "Government IS the problem" notion. #1's views were influenced by an anti-governmentalist, deconstructionist advisor.
We're getting close to getting this thread locked or deleted.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
LithoniaOperator Does anyone know approximately when the NTSB report will be released?
Does anyone know approximately when the NTSB report will be released?
The final report is at least 2/3's complete. Here is a recent update posted on the NTSB's website back on December 13, 2018: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/pages/rrd18mr001.aspx
The final report will be delivered to the Board in a public meeting to be held in 2019.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/tacoma/test-trains-at-point-defiance-bypass-3-years-after-deadly-derailment/281-82bd5723-8ac0-4223-ad06-40b1ecfd5042
Amtrak to test trains at Point Defiance Bypass this weekend, 3 years after deadly derailment
Amtrak will run test trains on January 16 and 17, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.
As we read this, reports of the tests should be coming in.
Nosferatu Jr. did not particularly impress me as the 'face' of the revised safety and service effort.
I am particularly interested in the revised procedures in the last two miles to the 'dead man's curve' location. They note that PTC will be fully in force, and they showed a brief cut of a couple of legacy speedboards as they noted something about better warning, but I'm interested in seeing if a proper distant and home indication has been provided in conjunction with the PTC and if proper alternative procedure is in place and tested for the times when -- not if -- the PTC is down.
If the 2017 engineer had situational awareness in the first place the incident would not have happened. He did not have sufficient qualifications for the route and thought he did and did not exercise awareness of his surroundings.
The ominous thing to me is that I don't see evidence of the 'cultural change' that should have followed that wreck and the vast shortcomings in training, planning, and professional ethics it revealed.
That said, it has to be remembered that a simple pair of lighted signals in proper locations with proper aspects would very likely have prevented the accident, just as functional PTC as required by law would have.
OvermodThe ominous thing to me is that I don't see evidence of the 'cultural change' that should have followed that wreck and the vast shortcomings in training, planning, and professional ethics it revealed. That said, it has to be remembered that a simple pair of lighted signals in proper locations with proper aspects would very likely have prevented the accident, just as functional PTC as required by law would have.
Railroads don't use signalling to enforece speeds. Signalling is used to show the condition of the track segment(s) ahead of the train.
BaltACDRailroads don't use signalling to enforce speeds.
Signalling is used to show the condition of the track segment(s) ahead of the train.
OM: I think the valid point you are trying to ascertain is whether there is some sort of back up to a faulty PTC or a way to positively warn an engineer who is not exercising proper attention? Human failures happen. That's why mechanisms have been sought and used for years for mitigation.
Overmod BaltACD Railroads don't use signalling to enforce speeds. But distant and home signals only very peripherally involve speed. In this particular case the issue was adequate fixed warning at night of a very, very serious fixed obstruction, as dangerous as any drawbridge or crossing at grade. In my extremely unhumble opinion, no one but morons terminate a 79mph stretch at a hard 35mph curve, over a well-trafficked highway, with only incidental signals. (It could be argued, and I would in fact so argue, that merely having such a combination of fixed speeds is 'asking for it'. Signalling is used to show the condition of the track segment(s) ahead of the train. And you would argue, what? That the condition of the track segment ahead of that train was undesirable to indicate clearly at night?
BaltACD Railroads don't use signalling to enforce speeds.
But distant and home signals only very peripherally involve speed. In this particular case the issue was adequate fixed warning at night of a very, very serious fixed obstruction, as dangerous as any drawbridge or crossing at grade. In my extremely unhumble opinion, no one but morons terminate a 79mph stretch at a hard 35mph curve, over a well-trafficked highway, with only incidental signals. (It could be argued, and I would in fact so argue, that merely having such a combination of fixed speeds is 'asking for it'.
And you would argue, what? That the condition of the track segment ahead of that train was undesirable to indicate clearly at night?
The engineer passed the FIXED Signals - which is what speed boards are. in the 21st Century they are reflectorized and 'light up' in the beam of the headlight and if you are only halfway attentive they are hard to miss. In fact, in urban areas it can be very difficult to discern illuminated wayside signals in the plethora of highway traffic lights and all the other light sources that exist in urban areas, Part of being QUALIFIED on any particular territory is knowing all the traps one can fall into.
Hundreds of similar operating conditions at various points on all railroads are safely operated over by hundreds of trains each day. A curve is not a 'block condition' - it is not a train or a broken rail.
Personally, I don't think railroads are adequately signed. If you decide to drive from Atlanta to Memphis you don't have to have prior qualifications - you just follow the signs. By the same token, if a engineer is adequately trained on operations over a variety of geographical territories ranging from flatlands to mountainous with helpers and/or DPU opeations they should be able to safely operate a train A and any other place following signage that identifies upcoming operating conditions, grades, speed restrictions and all other conditions that require the engineer to take actions for the safety of his train.
rdamonSigns are subject to vandalism and should not be the primary guide but coupled with PTC and proper training there should be at least one mechanism to maintain situation awareness. I am sure it probably will not be needed in DuPont as the memorial markers will imprint the dangers of not reducing speed, but has there been any procedure changes that have been published since the incident?
If you have a TRULY QUALIFIED engineer even signs are not necessary. However, I have my doubts how may TRULY QUALIFIED engineers even exist anymore. A TRULY QUALIFIED engineer knows his territory like a blind man knows his living space and everything that is in it.
BaltACDIf you have a TRULY QUALIFIED engineer even signs are not necessary. However, I have my doubts how may TRULY QUALIFIED engineers even exist anymore. A TRULY QUALIFIED engineer knows his territory like a blind man knows his living space and everything that is in it.
Review the data, including that in the engineer's transcript, regarding the time and nature of the 'training' given by Amtrak and WSDOT. Pay careful attention to the number of trips run under low-light conditions.
FULLY QUALIFIED by any meaningful railroader's definition does not come anywhere remotely near the slackness and failure of that operation. I would say it's a wonder they could ever run a train safely down that stretch, except... oh wait, they didn't.
Overmod BaltACD If you have a TRULY QUALIFIED engineer even signs are not necessary. However, I have my doubts how may TRULY QUALIFIED engineers even exist anymore. A TRULY QUALIFIED engineer knows his territory like a blind man knows his living space and everything that is in it. I thought I was over being incensed by that situation, but I come to find I am not. Review the data, including that in the engineer's transcript, regarding the time and nature of the 'training' given by Amtrak and WSDOT. Pay careful attention to the number of trips run under low-light conditions. FULLY QUALIFIED by any meaningful railroader's definition does not come anywhere remotely near the slackness and failure of that operation. I would say it's a wonder they could ever run a train safely down that stretch, except... oh wait, they didn't.
BaltACD If you have a TRULY QUALIFIED engineer even signs are not necessary. However, I have my doubts how may TRULY QUALIFIED engineers even exist anymore. A TRULY QUALIFIED engineer knows his territory like a blind man knows his living space and everything that is in it.
I thought I was over being incensed by that situation, but I come to find I am not.
I fully agree with your assessment of the 'training' provided to the incident engineer and the rest that participated. They were not QUALIFIED on the route.
I couldn't agree more. What a debacle. What a disgrace.
BaltACDI fully agree with your assessment of the 'training' provided to the incident engineer and the rest that participated. They were not QUALIFIED on the route.
Hmmm.
Joe -- welcome back!
243129 BaltACD I fully agree with your assessment of the 'training' provided to the incident engineer and the rest that participated. They were not QUALIFIED on the route. Hmmm.
BaltACD I fully agree with your assessment of the 'training' provided to the incident engineer and the rest that participated. They were not QUALIFIED on the route.
Glad to see you back!!
Overmod Joe -- welcome back!
Thank you Mr. E. and charlie hebdo. I hope everyone here is healthy.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.