NPR is reporting that the curve that Amtrak 501 derailed on was to have been straightened out, but the money to do that was taken out of the budget for the track upgrade. My questions;
That would be a joint call between Sound Transit, Washington DOT and Tacoma Rail.
Does not exonerate anyone on the operating side that screwed up. Looks/ sounds like the clueless news media is looking for a scapegoat to sensationalize a tragic event.
Being that federal $$$ was used to get the project to this point, they are dreaming if they get to waste additional federal $$$ to hurry up and fix a perceived flaw (not really) after this. Time to overhaul the process first.
overall NPR is reporting that the curve that Amtrak 501 derailed on was to have been straightened out, but the money to do that was taken out of the budget for the track upgrade. My questions; Is it true? Who made this decision and why?
Whenever money is involved in any project, and what project doesn't involve money, there will always be factions that contend that money could have been better spent on some other aspect of the project than what it actually got spent on.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
overallNPR is reporting that the curve that Amtrak 501 derailed on was to have been straightened out, but the money to do that was taken out of the budget for the track upgrade.
It would be highly interesting to see any 'upgrade' that would eliminate a significant speed restriction at that point: you're looking at substantial skew bridges with very little possibility of intermediate piers to support them. That would largely be true for any 'lower' speed improvement, say to 40 or 50mph; you'd still have the running restriction and the implicit danger, and you'd have most of the additional incremental cost for bridge and line relocation.
So I would say that someone with a very, shall we say 'relaxed' view of how stimulus funds are allocated and spent made that pronouncement. It certainly seems like a much better investment after the accident ... but again, only if built to near-"79mph" standard. For a project that already cut corners with installing PTC to 'get the line open' by the end of the fiscal year, I think the bang for the buck in that line relocation would be relatively small.
Thomas A. White(TAW), a former Dispatcher on various railroads, former Chief Dispatcher on BN, and a consultant to WSDOT on the project said that the money was never available unless something else was eliminated. The push to get the line operating on December 18th was due to the Contractor promising to have PTC ready by that date. The Contractor failed, partly due to the failure of the contractor, and partly due to late delivery by the manufacturers of the Electronic components. Obviously they should have pulled an Elon Musk, and delayed the rollout, even though virtually all of the Heavy-rail Transit Systems are operating without operational PTC. No freight railroad in the US has PTC in full operational mode, though many subdivisions, particularly on BNSF, are being operated in Test Mode, but with system failures occuring at an unexceptable rate, to consider that the system meets the mandate and for the FRA to sign off on the system.
I should add that the curve in question is just over 8 degrees and lies at the foot of 4 miles of a 1.4% descending grade southbound( the direction Train #501 was traveling). Another factor in why the curve had minimal superelevation was that very heavy and slow freight trains carrying armored vehicles including M1 Abrams tanks heading to Joint Base Lewis-McChord need to traverse the trackage several times per year.
beaulieuI should add that the curve in question is just over 8 degrees and lies at the foot of 4 miles of a 1.4% descending grade southbound( the direction Train #501 was traveling). Another factor in why the curve had minimal superelevation was that very heavy and slow freight trains carrying armored vehicles including M1 Abrams tanks heading to Joint Base Lewis-McChord need to traverse the trackage several times per year.
Heavy freights 'several times a year' should not be a consideration on superelevation. Several times daily is a valid consideration.
8 degree curve + 6" max elevation + 100 ton flats w/ almost centerbound truck + "dry" rail = bedlam.
(the minute you lubricate it, BIG crocodile tears from the hoggers and their supervisors [especially on a grade] - put the spooge applicators on the locomotives and mechanical won't maintain them or turns them off under threat of the local operating supervision.)
BaltACD Heavy freights 'several times a year' should not be a consideration on superelevation. Several times daily is a valid consideration.
Trainload of M1A2 Abrams tanks weighing 72 tons each loaded two to a 12 wheel Flatcar is not an ordinary heavy freight. That is also the reason they quickly discarded the idea of a longer bridge. The only reasonable options were to slew the tracks very wide to the right with a large land acquisition and heavy earthworks, or reroute I-5.
Also it was not possible to route the Military trains via another route as there aren't any other routes.
Overmod overall NPR is reporting that the curve that Amtrak 501 derailed on was to have been straightened out, but the money to do that was taken out of the budget for the track upgrade. It would be highly interesting to see any 'upgrade' that would eliminate a significant speed restriction at that point: you're looking at substantial skew bridges with very little possibility of intermediate piers to support them. That would largely be true for any 'lower' speed improvement, say to 40 or 50mph; you'd still have the running restriction and the implicit danger, and you'd have most of the additional incremental cost for bridge and line relocation. So I would say that someone with a very, shall we say 'relaxed' view of how stimulus funds are allocated and spent made that pronouncement. It certainly seems like a much better investment after the accident ... but again, only if built to near-"79mph" standard. For a project that already cut corners with installing PTC to 'get the line open' by the end of the fiscal year, I think the bang for the buck in that line relocation would be relatively small.
overall NPR is reporting that the curve that Amtrak 501 derailed on was to have been straightened out, but the money to do that was taken out of the budget for the track upgrade.
Cotton Belt MP104beaulieu on Friday, December 22, 2017 2:39 PM reference your post ….. question ….. noted in your post was the following ……..No freight railroad in the US has PTC in full operational mode, though many subdivisions, particularly on BNSF, are being operated in Test Mode, but with system failures occuring at an unexceptable rate, to consider that the system meets the mandate and for the FRA to sign off on the system. …….my comment: Somebody somewhere commented (seemed as though an active BNSF crewmember) that the PTC system he was working under was great and sure was a good thing. QUESTION: Does your source of reporting problems indicate they are all over the system? I am not surprised that there are problems. This is darn complicated and anything that complex can easily be a nightmare. Nice idea alright, but implementation another story. Endmrw1222172022
When I retired in December 2016, CSX had PTC installed and in test operation on 28 Subdivisions - roughly 1/4 of the mileage upon which PTC would be installed upon.
Each subdivision, when put in operation, presented issues that installation on previous subidivisions had not presented. PTC is not a one size fits all plug and play system. Some of the issues that present themselves sometimes go to the very core principals upon which PTC has been built - solving those issues is not something for band-aid, kick the can down the road fixes.
beaulieu I should add that the curve in question is just over 8 degrees and lies at the foot of 4 miles of a 1.4% descending grade southbound( the direction Train #501 was traveling).
I should add that the curve in question is just over 8 degrees and lies at the foot of 4 miles of a 1.4% descending grade southbound( the direction Train #501 was traveling).
Circa 1969 NP track charts are available on NPRHA website, NPRHA.org. Look for Tacoma Division 16th sub.
The line was built in 1891 as a branch line so it follows the lay of the land fairly closely. In general it crosses a reasonably flat prarie. Mileposts begin at Lakeview, junction with the original NP main line of ca. 1872.
Table of MP, Elevation and notes
MP El. Note
6.0 280 Local low
6.8 310 Local summit
7.5 275 Fort Lewis station, on a flat spot
8.5 275 Grade break point
9.4 250 Begin continuous 1.6% compensated descent south
10.0 Point of derailment
11.2 100 Nisqually, Jct with BNSF main line
My grade calculations are 150 feet descent in 1.8 miles is 83.3 feet per mile, or 1.578% grade, which I belive is 1.6% compensated.
Frankly I am surprised at the short run of maximum grade into the bridge.
This is a natural for split reduction, one at MP 8.5 grade break and one about MP 9, depending on speed at Fort Lewis. Wonder what happened in that 75 to 80 seconds?
Mac
One other thing to consider is that this was redone with Stimulas funding from the Obama Administration and anyone remember the requirements for getting that money. The project had to be aka Shovel Ready. So they rushed to get the money it seems.
My industry is going thru the same problem the FMCSA just mandated ELD or electronic log books upon the entire industry unless your a local grain hauler or a Livestock hauler for the next 120 days. Well they are looking for a solution for the major problem which in our case is their own HOS regulations they hammered with us in a guise of safety. They imposed a 14 hour clock that can not be stopped for any reason on us in the last change of the HOS rules that does not take into consideration delays at Shippers recievers breakdowns getting fuel stopping to use the bathroom getting a meal nothing. From the time you go on duty you have 14 hours to work in that day and 11 are allowed for driving and you better be able to use them all most of the time as most carriers demand it. Then throw in forced resets by mega carriers where after 34 off you given a fresh 70 hours to use. We have seen accidents spike at the mega fleets where drivers have been on duty a total of 98 hours in 8 days at it is legal now compared to just over a decade ago when it was a hard cap of 70 in 8 and no resets. How is working a driver more safer for the public. Even at my company we can not figure that one out. Don't get me wrong we have drivers in their 5 days they run during the week burn their 70 hours but they are home on the weekend every weekend. Anyone see the problem with how the problem is the knee jerking to a so called problem rather than analizing the problem first and solving it.
FMCSA ??? I taught physics to high schoolers who would later become civil engineers ..... I warned, the textbook and what we are doing is ONLY a start. When dealing w/problems in the REAL world there are issues out there that you don't have a clue about. Proceed slowly and cautiously w/your advise and calculations. Those unkowns that you don't realize are there, can EAT YOUR Lunch and ruin your life. Listen to all that is said if advice given/or questions asked ... just might point to something you had not thought about endmrw1223170928
Cotton Belt MP104DOWN THE ROAD, LATER ON, AFTER PTC IS COMMONPLACE, the crew will start depending on this safety mechanism and then let down the normal attention they should be paying to the job.
Here in Germany we have kind of a predecessor of PTC since the 1980: LZB (Linienzugbeeinflussung, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linienzugbeeinflussung)
Among others it corrects speed limit violations. These violations are recorded AFAIK. What would happen to American railroaders after such violations?
The LZB is currently replaced by the European Train Control System, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Train_Control_SystemRegards, Volker
In 1935 the DOT ordered that an HOS regulation be imposed on the new OTR industry that was 70 hours in 8 days maximum. That was what was used all the way until 2005 when groups like PATT CRASH claimed it caused fatigue and overworked the drivers. So the Federal Motor Carrier Saftey Administration proceeded to rewrite the regualtion they have been rewritten 5 times in the last 12 years. The current one is 14 on duty with 11 driving with a 10 hour break everyday. Now there is a reset provision in there that after 34 hours nonstop off-duty you get a fresh 70 hours to use also. There is also a mandated 30 min break after 8 hours however explosive haulers are exempt from that one due to other regulations. Now under the first regulations drivers could drive 10 hours a day with a maximum of 15 hours total on duty time before they had to be off duty for 8 hours then they could run again. But there was no reset in them so that 70 hours was all you had for the 8 days to run in.
So if you ran hard at the begining of the week by the end of your 8 days you were out of time to play with and had to slow down and wait for your hours to become useable. Now under this current setup a driver can be worked by his carrier up to 98 hours in 8 days and it is legal as sin and they wonder why drivers are becoming to be burned out and tired all the time. Then throw in a clock that forces you to rush thru your day and worn out at the end of the day.
My husband drove for 7 years under the old setup and he was a hard runner for his last carrier he admits it. He would make a turn to the west coast solo and back in 6 days then sit while his logbook recovered hours. He then would fire off another 4K miles in 6 days.
Did you possibly hit the wrong thread?Regards, Volker
Nope I am trying to show how a feel good regulation can be a royal Cluster Fup of the worst order in the end. The FMCSA had the best intentions when they redid the HOS for the OTR industry however after 4 seperate courtcases and the 5 th one on going still about the current HOS regulations not being based on sound science and trying to make an industry into a one size fits all model that does not work. PTC was rammed down the throats of the US Railraods and no one thought what is going to happen if it can not be made to work in the end.
Shadow the Cats ownerOne other thing to consider is that this was redone with Stimulus funding from the Obama Administration and anyone remember the requirements for getting that money. The project had to be aka Shovel Ready. So they rushed to get the money it seems.
Actually, I think the problem is the "other way 'round" here: in order to get the final payments under the stimulus funding, the project had to be declared completed by the end of this fiscal year, and so the lagging PTC installation was deemed not to be part of "completion".
There was a similar problem at GPU in the late Seventies regarding the second reactor at a nuclear plant in Pennsylvania. The commissioning was hurried up to get the plant into the rate base. That did not end so well either.
Shadow the Cats ownerPTC was rammed down the throats of the US Railroads and no one thought what is going to happen if it can not be made to work in the end.
I don't think there's much question that PTC can be 'made to work in the end' -- there is nothing in any of the four basic sub-mandates that is particularly difficult to implement even without throwing cubic dollars at them. On the other hand if you try to accomplish all four with just "one system" (that is not an overlay coordinating what may be very different subsystems for the functional submandates) you're in for just the tons of pain, perpetually slipping deadlines, and surprising lack of functionality in actual emergencies that the 2008 "mandate" has produced.
I am not altogether sure that the right answer might not be to repeal the 2008 mandate completely and then re-institute the functions with appropriate legislation, this time with incentives instead of penalties for noncompliance with administrative fiat. Of course, as with health care, there's no guarantee at this point that any train-control common sense would ensue...
Overmod welcome to being someone that has seen the effects of overregulation. We are still trying to pull back regulations that hammered us post 9/11 when it comes to hauling hazmat and requirements for licensing and such. Drivers that had for years had hauled some of the most dangerous stuff every day of their lives all of a sudden where denied the needed clearence because of a mistake they made 20-30 years in the past for some of them. We had one in our company that was our top driver in the acid fleet loose his hazmat endorsement in 02 after the new requirements went into effect for having been given a bootlegging ticket from NE in 1982 he had been hauling Coors beer in his sleeper back for personal consumption.
Shadow the Cats owner Overmod welcome to being someone that has seen the effects of overregulation. We are still trying to pull back regulations that hammered us post 9/11 when it comes to hauling hazmat and requirements for licensing and such. Drivers that had for years had hauled some of the most dangerous stuff every day of their lives all of a sudden where denied the needed clearence because of a mistake they made 20-30 years in the past for some of them. We had one in our company that was our top driver in the acid fleet loose his hazmat endorsement in 02 after the new requirements went into effect for having been given a bootlegging ticket from NE in 1982 he had been hauling Coors beer in his sleeper back for personal consumption.
Isn't there a trucking forum for these rants? Or are they all as tired of this crap as we are?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.