Amtrak Wreck in Philadelphia

[Murphy Siding]

tdmidget

 

Murphy Siding

 Do you realize that your reply made no sense at all? Anything that is in the newswire is already out on the AP and many internet news sources as well. I have been reading this magazine since 1966 ( now wondering why) and I can assure you that it is not an exclusive source of news. It is, judging by the Feb issue a pathetic, inaccurate, politically biased POS.

 

tdmidget

Childish crap like this will not promote subscription. The "forum privileges" do not really exist. You can find any thing restricted with Google. The magazine has no exclusive on news.

 

 

 

 

 Really?  OK.  Find me today's newswire articles without having whatever privileges come with being a subscriber.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  So you're agreeing with me that you can't find the information on today's newswire without looking at the newswire first?  You are absolutely correct.  You can find the same information on the internet after you see it first on the newswire.

[tdmidget]

Murphy Siding

 Do you realize that your reply made no sense at all? Anything that is in the newswire is already out on the AP and many internet news sources as well. I have been reading this magazine since 1966 ( now wondering why) and I can assure you that it is not an exclusive source of news. It is, judging by the Feb issue a pathetic, inaccurate, politically biased POS.

 

tdmidget

Childish crap like this will not promote subscription. The "forum privileges" do not really exist. You can find any thing restricted with Google. The magazine has no exclusive on news.

 

 

 

 

 Really?  OK.  Find me today's newswire articles without having whatever privileges come with being a subscriber.

 

 

[Murphy Siding]

tdmidget

Childish crap like this will not promote subscription. The "forum privileges" do not really exist. You can find any thing restricted with Google. The magazine has no exclusive on news.

 

 Really?  OK.  Find me today's newswire articles without having whatever privileges come with being a subscriber.

[tdmidget]

Childish crap like this will not promote subscription. The "forum privileges" do not really exist. You can find any thing restricted with Google. The magazine has no exclusive on news.

[Norm48327]

ouibejamn

To be a customer, you would have to pay something to use this site. Somehow I doubt you'll be leaving.

I think the majority of users are subscribers to the magazine. Forum privileges are included in the price of the subscription.

[ouibejamn]

Norm48327

It appears that pleas to move that thread back here have fallen on deaf ears. Typical of how some companies treat their customers then wonder why the customers leave.

To be a customer, you would have to pay something to use this site.  Somehow I doubt you'll be leaving.

[Euclid]

This latest interview with the engineer would seem to shed some new light on the theory that the engineer was lost, and therefore had intended to accelerate back to the highest speed which was 106 mph as I recall. 

In the interview, Bostian stated that when he opened throttle the last time before the curve, he was intending to accelerate to the 80 mph speed limit. If that is true, it indicates that he was not lost up until that moment.   

What the interview indicates is that Bostian opened the throttle, intending to accelerate to 80 mph; and then for some reason, he did not reduce the throttle to stop accelerating when he reached 80 mph.  So he was not lost before making the decision to accelerate.  If he became lost, the beginning of being lost would have had to have been between the time of opening the throttle, and the moment he exceeded 80 mph.

Of course, there is no way knowing if the engineer is accurately recalling what he says he now remembers about his intention to accelerate up to 80 mph.

[wanswheel]

We didn’t know the wreck had been fatal to anyone, until later the awful night Murray started this thread, which is perhaps the first and oldest ‘rail’ forum thread about the wreck on the internet.

[Norm48327]

It appears that pleas to move that thread back here have fallen on deaf ears. Typical of how some companies treat their customers then wonder why the customers leave.

[Euclid]

I assume that the decision to move these threads was not made by the originators of them.  I do not know if they were notified, or whether the move was presented as an option to them or leave them here. 

We have had discussion here about forum rules including the rule for being on topic.  Moderators have participated in these discussions.  At no time do I recall anyone saying that in order for a post on locomotives to be on topic, it must be placed in the locomotive forum, and not here on the general forum. 

So it seems to me that it would be only common courtesy for the moderators to explain this sudden relocating of posts, which is apparently based on the premise that they should not have been made on this forum.    

[Semper Vaporo]

I wondered where some threads have gone!

[Murphy Siding]

    I had started a thread on this forum- "Adding the Padding"- that asked about adding ballast to locomotives.  It was based on information from Trains Magazine, which you would think makes it applicable to the Trains Magazine Forum.  The thread was moved to the locomotives forum where it died a quick death.  I *think* I received an e-mail saying that it was moved.

     Maybe I should peruse the other forums and make helful suggestions about which threads should be moved over here? 

[tdmidget]

Naw Bucky it's just fifth grade level moderation.

[Euclid]

It raises the question of forum rules, if there are any that pertain to this.  The question is whether a post about locomotives or passenger trains, for instance, is prohibited from being made in this general forum because there are more specific forums about locomotives and passenger trains.  I always assumed that this choice was at the discretion of the poster.  This forum says it is for railroad topics.  Passenger trains are certainly a railroad topic.

Not every post topic fits clearly into just one forum.  There is a forum for steam locomotives and preservation, and another for locomotives.  The forum on locomotives does not exclude steam locomotives.  And the forum on steam locomotives and preservation seems to concentrate on modern-day steam operations as opposed to earlier history of steam in its operating context.

If I were to post on the subject of a locomotive, I would post it here because I think there are more people reading this forum than the more specific forums; and anyone reading this forum will probably be as interested in locomotives as anyone reading the locomotive forums.    

In looking at some of these other forums today, I see several posts that I recall recently originating in this general forum.  Is there some concerted operation underway to rearrange the posts into other forums?  Or have the originators of those posts just changed their mind about where they wanted them, and then asked the staff to relocate them? 

[ouibejamn]

Norm48327

Brian has been contacted. No response thus far.

Good to know you're on top of this.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Uh-oh - is he operating a train towards a speed-restricted curve ?!?

[Norm48327]

Brian has been contacted. No response thus far.

[samfp1943]

BaltACD

 

Brian Schmidt

Moved to the passenger forum:

http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/743/t/254126.aspx

 

 

 

Bad move Brian!  This thread is about train operation.  The train that had the incident happened to be passenger, however, overspeed accidents happen to all forms of rail traffic for multiple reasons.

Also learn to use your own forums software to make your links 'hot'.

 

Not exactly sure why the Thread @ http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/743/t/254126.aspx 

titled:" Amtrak Train 188 - Possibly some answers coming soon? "  

Not sure why Brian Schmidt  moved this thread; which was started this past weekend, and was about current new NTSB information regarding the report due out this past monday.

I do not understand why this item was moved to the "Passenger" Forum in favor of a thread that was some months older, and was about other aspects of the Amtrak Train 188 crash.

 As it was as stated by BaltACD this thread concerned Train Operation, and the testimony of Engineer Bastian.

Which, when I started the Thread was appropriately placed for general Forum discussion.  

I am reminded of a period some time back when the Forum moderators(murphy Siding and Selector) were replaced by a new and apparently, inexperienced individuals who were more familiar with the moderation of the Model Railraoder Forums and had little, if any time on this Trains Forum; Brian needs to slow down and read what he is moderating!

[BaltACD]

Brian Schmidt

Moved to the passenger forum:

http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/743/t/254126.aspx

Bad move Brian!  This thread is about train operation.  The train that had the incident happened to be passenger, however, overspeed accidents happen to all forms of rail traffic for multiple reasons.

Also learn to use your own forums software to make your links 'hot'.

[Euclid]

 

Brian,

Why move it to the passenger forum?  It was started in this general forum.  The topic fits under the general forum.  How would people following the thread in this forum know to catch up with it in another forum?  There are big differences in the posters who read and post in the various forums.  There are plenty of posts about passenger trains in this general forum.  I never look at the passenger forum.  I could see some benefit in duplicating the thread in another forum if it fits there, but I don’t understand the benefit if moving it. 

[Brian Schmidt]

Moved to the passenger forum:

http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/743/t/254126.aspx

 

[Euclid]

Where is the other thread about the release of the NTSB update for this Amtrak wreck in Philadelphia?

[wanswheel]

The Times’ Sunday magazine is separate from the news department. The author of the article writes free-lance and is not a Times reporter. They put it online 5 days early because it contains a scoop: NTSB will release stuff about the crash next week. No other paper had that yet.

[Norm48327]

I think perhaps you misunderstand the mission of the print media. It isn't always to inform by way of fact but decidedly is to sell their product to the masses in volume. Drama sells much better than simple facts, and the NYT article was indeed more dramatic than factual. "Content Providers" ( I refuse to call some of them journalists ) don't let facts interfere with the drama of their story.

[Euclid]

Regarding the article by David Schanoes: http://ten90solutions.com/gaps_blanks_black_outs_in_6500_words_or_more

I have read several articles by David Schanoes, and find his style to be outstandingly annoying.  He always makes his case with a ponderous barrage of sarcastic remarks that end up stepping all over his point.  In this article, for instance, what exactly is his point?

He begins with 395 words that tediously stake out his position that he is an expert and there is some type of problem with the New York Times and its readers. 

He says, “Accuracy is essential requirement for accident investigation.  For drama, it's not necessary.”  Then he quotes the Times (in blue) and follows up (in orange) to make his point that the Times is inaccurate.  

So dramatically, the article claims "Engineers must be on the lookout not just for pedestrian trespassers on the rails, and errant cars and school buses and trucks at busy road crossings, but also for orange jacketed work crews." 

Undramatically, these are not the primary obligations of locomotive engineers.  By the time a locomotive engineer operating a train at authorized speed on the NEC spots a trespasser, it's already too late to do anything other than sound the horn, if there's even time to do that.

Bluntly, undramatically, striking a trespasser, which no one wants to occur, does not threaten the 200-1000 passengers on board the train.  The safety of those passengers is the primary obligation. All other concerns are secondary. All locomotive engineers are taught that. 

Undramatically, on the section of the NEC between DC and New York Penn Station, there are no grade crossings where trucks and cars and buses cross.

Undramatically, when work crews are given exclusive use of a track, and may obstruct the movement of trains on an adjacent track, the exact locations where that work is being performed is transmitted to all train and engine crews, so that "surprises" do not occur.  

Where work crews are on track, under their own protection, meaning the work crew accepts the responsibility for clearing the track in advance of an approaching train without requiring additional warning or protection from the train dispatcher, the crews are working in exactly that manner-- under their own protection, and the locomotive engineer of a train authorized to use that track has very limited responsibility, and few actions that he or she can take if and when the work crew fails to protect itself.  

 

Really?  The Times article (in blue) is making a general point that I doubt many railroaders would disagree with.  And yet Schanoes goes on splitting hairs about details such as why there is no need to watch for trespassers because if they are in the way, there is no way to stop for them.  What about trespassers that are tampering with equipment?  What about the requirement to report trespassers?  His entire refutation of the Times quote is based on picky details that are completely outside of the general premise of the Times comment.

I have to wonder why Schanoes is working so hard to discredit the general premise that engineers have a lot of responsibility and therefore must be extremely vigilant.  

But then Schanoes reverses himself on this point.  Oddly, in a further exchange, he refutes the Times’ point by agreeing with it and this time he stresses the engineer’s responsibility rather than dismissing it as shown above. 

 

Dramatically, the article quotes the head of FRA: "If a train is traveling in an area where PTC isn't in place and working as a backstop, you've got a situation where an engineer has to execute everything perfectly every hour every day every week.  All the time.  Because the slightest, smallest lapse can mean disaster." 

Less dramatically, that's what the job of locomotive engineer is--no matter what happens, always to control the speed of the train. That's what the job always has been. 

That's what the job will always be, because PTC, like all train control systems can fail, and then the human operator must deploy his/her skill, training, knowledge, vigilance to accomplish the single task she or he was hired to accomplish-- to move the train safely, at the proper speed, as determined by the operating rules and procedures of the railroad.

 

And he does it again here:

 

Dramatically, the article reports:  "But just minutes after the Acela 2121 left New York, Bostian encountered a problem with his 'cab signals'...Bostian was forced to reduce the top speed on the 2121, his eyes fixed on every wayside signal for indications of trouble ahead.  It was an onerous task.  He arrived at Union Station half an hour behind schedule." 

Less dramatically-- See, I told you train control systems fail.  And this is precisely what the locomotive engineer is hired, trained, certified, checked, to do.  This is the task. 

This is precisely what Bostian found so fascinating about working as a locomotive engineer.  That precise condition, where and when the locomotive engineer must employ his/her skills is what it's all about.  If the trains could be run by drones, believe me, I'd be the first one to advocate installing joysticks in Operations Control Centers and then installing robots to operate the joysticks. 

[daveklepper]

HE COULD HAVE BEEN HIT BY THE ROCK

[MrLynn]

Electroliner 1935

OK, does this mean you think Bostian lost his sense of where he was (situation awareness) and failed to slow down because of that or why do you think he failed to reduce the trains speed. He ran the accela succesfully down to WAS with out operational cab signals which means he had full knowledge of the ROW. He had to run at a "reduced speed but was only a half hour slower than scheduled. (What is the reduced speed without cab signals?) Yes, that was in daylight but he had run this route before at night. I hear your concerns but what are you proposing as a cause?

The other explanation unofficially proposed in the article was that the engineer was startled by a loud bang from a thrown rock, and hit his head on the console, rendering him unconscious until he was into the turn at 106 mph.  Seems unlikely to me; the loss of situational awareness seems more plausible.  But what do I know?

/Mr Lynn

[Electroliner 1935]

OK, does this mean you think Bostian lost his sense of where he was (situation awareness) and failed to slow down because of that or why do you think he failed to reduce the trains speed. He ran the accela succesfully down to WAS with out operational cab signals which means he had full knowledge of the ROW. He had to run at a "reduced speed but was only a half hour slower than scheduled. (What is the reduced speed without cab signals?) Yes, that was in daylight but he had run this route before at night. I hear your concerns but what are you proposing as a cause?

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Norm48327

Electroliner 1935

Well written article.

Not in my estimation. Too much "fluff" and not enough stuff. While the details appear to be reasonably accurate the article was penned with the intention ot tittilating the reader.

Thanks, but I'll wait for the NTSB report.

To the same effect, see this scathing critique of the NYT article:

http://ten90solutions.com/gaps_blanks_black_outs_in_6500_words_or_more 

- Paul North. 

[oltmannd]

ricktrains4824

And, IIRC, most work on the NEC, when possible, is scheduled during "off-times", when few, if any at all, trains are running. Therefore, most work crews are not even seen by most train crews on NEC trackage.

You might be amazed at the number of items in the bulletin orders that the engineer has to deal with on a daily basis.  Every thing from out of service switches on industrial leads in the territory that the train will never need to temporary slow orders to inspectors and maintainers doing work on adjacent tracks.  There's a ton of stuff along a 235 mile, multitrack railroad.