schlimm The terms "proof" and "prove" are misplaced. In the sciences, social and natural, the null hypthesis is rejected if the μ < .05 οr even better, <.01. So it is all about error and probability. Many theories have been proposed. All are not equal. Some are consistent with reported evidence. Some seem to be a stretch.
The terms "proof" and "prove" are misplaced. In the sciences, social and natural, the null hypthesis is rejected if the μ < .05 οr even better, <.01. So it is all about error and probability. Many theories have been proposed. All are not equal. Some are consistent with reported evidence. Some seem to be a stretch.
Which is a reason you can never prove a theory.
In mathematics, the term 'proof' is reserved (in my opinion, rightly) for situations where something that has been postulated is either demonstrated to be true or not true. While I immediately grant that there's some semantic 'leeway' involved in going from this definition of proof to the adjectival form in common use, there still remains the essential element of testing against data. There is no room in science for 'I want to believe hypotheses are data, therefore it's proven to me'.
I'm not even quite sure why we're having this 'discussion'. There is a difference, at least as far as I'm concerned, between the "let's all pile on Bucky" type of criticism, and the 'your understanding of logic is improper' type of criticism. I can easily understand why Euclid feels he needs to be defensive when conclusions that he clearly believes in are questioned by others. But he cannot claim something to be factual without much harder data than he could possibly have at this point... again, taking that word 'proven' to mean what it does.
Had Euclid said 'I believe that it's highly likely, verging on certainty, that the engineer was responsible for accelerating his train up to the point of the accident', I would have agreed with him. I posted very early in the accident that I was trying hard to find any evidence that could demonstrate it wasn't 'engineer error' (and not really finding it). But to say that this is 'proven' reduces the sense of the word to how the Russians used to use it, with the old joke about 'there is no Pravda in Izvestiya' and vice versa.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
daveklepper Again, it is reasonable to have a working hypothesis that the engineer move the throttle to accelerate and did not apply emergency brakes until entering the curve. But that is a working hypothesis and not a proven fact. And even if true, this not proove that he was entirely or substantially at fault. Whether he was stunned or forced to bang his head or just distracted by a projectile, whether or not the projectile entered the cab, the major responsibility is on whoever launched the projectile.
Again, it is reasonable to have a working hypothesis that the engineer move the throttle to accelerate and did not apply emergency brakes until entering the curve. But that is a working hypothesis and not a proven fact. And even if true, this not proove that he was entirely or substantially at fault. Whether he was stunned or forced to bang his head or just distracted by a projectile, whether or not the projectile entered the cab, the major responsibility is on whoever launched the projectile.
Dave,
If the engineer did not move the thottle, who did? We know it did not move on its own because the NTSB said so by virture of their statement that there were no mechanical failures. I have not come to any conclusion as to why the engineer errantly moved the throttle. It could have been distraction, being lost, or being stunned or injured by projectiles.
I wonder if it could be relevant that to accelerate the ACS-64, you push the combined throttle/dynamic brake lever forward, but the Acela has a throttle you pull back to accelerate:
The train on engineer Bostian's previous run was an Acela.
/Mr Lynn
Norm48327 Sorry Bucky. You are the one who needs to lighten up. You never accept that others may have a valid point, and you always have to have the last word. You refuse to tell others what experience (I assume none) you have in railroading. You're just trolling, and we're expected to defer to your claimed expertise.
Sorry Bucky. You are the one who needs to lighten up. You never accept that others may have a valid point, and you always have to have the last word. You refuse to tell others what experience (I assume none) you have in railroading. You're just trolling, and we're expected to defer to your claimed expertise.
Norm,
I don't expect you to do anything, let alone defer to my claimed expertise, as you say. In fact I have never claimed expertise. I have expressed opinions just like you and everybody else here.
Here is an opinion for you: I think you are wrong in assuming the possibility of the engine accelerating on its own. I say that because the NTSB has ruled out mechanical failure. And I believe I recall you and others jumping on my back for considering any possiblites after the NTSB has made a public announcent to rule them out. And yet here you go speculating on mechanical failure after the NTSB has ruled it out.
wanswheel Why were the wipers on?
I continue to wonder if there’s anything remarkable about the windshield wipers ending up in the center of the panes instead of near the center pillar. There wasn’t a drop of rain.
Wizlish wrote the following post 23 minutes ago:
Euclid Norm48327 Euclid Therefore, it seems to me that it has been proven that the engineer moved the throttle to accelerate when he should not have done so. Geez Norm, lighten up. I said it seems to me that it has been proven. You want me to back that up with proof? Okay it really does seem to me that it has been proven. It seems that way to me because I cannot think of any other explanation for the acceleration.
Norm48327 Euclid Therefore, it seems to me that it has been proven that the engineer moved the throttle to accelerate when he should not have done so. Geez Norm, lighten up. I said it seems to me that it has been proven. You want me to back that up with proof? Okay it really does seem to me that it has been proven. It seems that way to me because I cannot think of any other explanation for the acceleration.
Euclid Therefore, it seems to me that it has been proven that the engineer moved the throttle to accelerate when he should not have done so.
Geez Norm, lighten up. I said it seems to me that it has been proven. You want me to back that up with proof? Okay it really does seem to me that it has been proven. It seems that way to me because I cannot think of any other explanation for the acceleration.
I have seen plenty of stupid things in my day, but that is the pinnacle of obstinate, witless stupidity. At least so far.
Proving something implies ... no, requires PROOF. Actual, undeniable, evidence, or finding of fact, that demonstrates something is so beyond reasonable doubt -- or speculative conjecture.
The word SEEM does not belong in a proof. Even if it's a really, truly, 'seem', or if you really can't figure out something else. Or can't figure out what proving something actually means in English, or in Western rational thought.
Now, whether or not we get 'proof' of this, one way or the other, out of the NTSB investigation is another story. I think we will get a 'reasonable likelihood' that engineer error of some kind was the proximate cause of the wreck, and I would be very surprised if some sort of statement that opening the throttle caused the train to increase speed were not implied in there somewhere (rather than postulating unintended-acceleration software problems for Siemens to worry about, or whatever). But even if the NTSB says they conclude it was the engineer's fault, it does not necessarily PROVE that was so unless you have data to back it up. Which, no matter how much you may seem to want to keep restating your opinion, you do not yet have.
********************************************************
Wizlish:
But Bucky says it's true, so it must be. I read it on the internet. Trolls are always right.
Norm
Norm48327 Euclid Therefore, it seems to me that it has been proven that the engineer moved the throttle to accelerate when he should not have done so. And you have proof to back up that statement? Your BS is getting old.
And you have proof to back up that statement? Your BS is getting old.
Geez Norm, lighten up. I said it seems to me that it has been proven. You want me to back that up with proof? Okay it really does seem to me that it has been proven. It seems that way to me because I cannot think of any other explanation for the acceleration. Can you? If you can suggest one that does not involve something really kooky, I will reconsider by opinion.
EuclidTherefore, it seems to me that it has been proven that the engineer moved the throttle to accelerate when he should not have done so.
Norm48327 schlimm Can anyone cite examples of Eurosprinter locomotives or other similar Siemens products having throttle failure leading to uncontolled acceleration, with or without derailment? I doubt it. I, too, have my doubts but there is a possibility. I'm basing that on the fact there have been uncommanded events on airliners. It's something worthy of investigation.
schlimm Can anyone cite examples of Eurosprinter locomotives or other similar Siemens products having throttle failure leading to uncontolled acceleration, with or without derailment? I doubt it.
I, too, have my doubts but there is a possibility. I'm basing that on the fact there have been uncommanded events on airliners. It's something worthy of investigation.
I would rule it out because it has been decided by the NTSB that there were no equipment failures involved. It's just like ruling out the gunfire theory. Therefore, it seems to me that it has been proven that the engineer moved the throttle to accelerate when he should not have done so.
schlimmCan anyone cite examples of Eurosprinter locomotives or other similar Siemens products having throttle failure leading to uncontolled acceleration, with or without derailment? I doubt it.
Deggesty You learn that a train that is running a little bit ahead of yours has been hit by something; what is your reaction when something hard hits the window beside your head?
You learn that a train that is running a little bit ahead of yours has been hit by something; what is your reaction when something hard hits the window beside your head?
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Paul_D_North_Jr Not particularly relevant to the points of the discussion here, but: Does the infinitely variable throttle on these Amtrak locomotives "MU" (multiple unit operation) with a current standard 8-notch throttle, such as other/ older locomotives or a borrowed/ loaned/ helper/ "rescue" unit from a freight railroad ? If so, how ? - Paul North.
Not particularly relevant to the points of the discussion here, but:
Does the infinitely variable throttle on these Amtrak locomotives "MU" (multiple unit operation) with a current standard 8-notch throttle, such as other/ older locomotives or a borrowed/ loaned/ helper/ "rescue" unit from a freight railroad ? If so, how ?
- Paul North.
I cannot answer your questions. However, the likelyhood that these engines would be MU'd with a freight carriers diesels is somewhere between slim and none as the movement of freight on the NEC where these engines run is very limited.
Were a freight engine to couple up and head an Amtrak train with a 'broken' electric engine, the electric engine would not provide traction power - the only traction power would come from the freight engine, the electric engine would be configured for it's and the train's brakes to operate at the command of the freight engine in the lead. I suspect in most cases, the freight locomotive would not have braking equipment that would permit the braking system to be operated with 'graduated release' as is customary in passenger service.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I there had been someone sitting in that second seat, we'd probably know what happened! Or, it probably wouldn't have happened. (I'll start ducking now)
Johnny
In Mr. Schanoes' article he cites the 25-second alerter countdown time, but there is also a wait period after a reset before the countdown starts again. This wait period varies by speed, getting shorter as speed increases. The alerter alarm also gets louder as the countdown nears zero. On this cab ride footage of ACS-64 601 (coincidentally the same locomotive which pulled #188) the wait period is 35 seconds (00:45 to 01:20) as it accelerates from 30 to 70 MPH, and 26 seconds (01:32 to 01:58) as it accelerates from 80 to 100 MPH. This wait period combined with the alerter countdown time could have added up to more than 50 seconds, and if the engineer was dazed for any reason the loud alarm near the end of the countdown may have woken him and spurred him back to action, which is when he put the train in emergency. This wait time is also restarted every time a control is touched, so if he was doing anything when originally dazed (going back to the impact theory), or bumped something on his way down that would have restarted it too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJMhKgEnnNc
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
wanswheel Side window damage
Enlarged, the Engineers Side window does show impact damage - in contrast with sliding damage that the carbody sustained. It also shows the window in the raised position.
daveklepper Pat B., here is a likely sequence of events, the projectile of what effort causes the engineer to duck or move back quickly and he simply bangs his head and then is dazed.
Pat B., here is a likely sequence of events, the projectile of what effort causes the engineer to duck or move back quickly and he simply bangs his head and then is dazed.
Yes all of that is possible but it would take a lot of stars to align.
IF the engineers window was open
IF there were multiple gangs of rockers (1 gang several miles prior that hit the SEPTA train and a second gang to hit AMTK)
IF there were at least 3 rockers (two hits on the windshield and 1 in the cab)
IF the rockers were in a couple different vantage points (the big hit would be something dropped from above, others strikes could be from the sides)
IF the engineer was standing (not sitting in his seat at the controls)
IF at least of the 3 of the rockers all hit the engine at the same time, to strike him and put two impact marks in bullet resistant glass
IF the projectile was big enough to stun him but not big enough to leave a definitive mark
IF he either had no marks, marks that weren't immediately apparent or marks that were attributed to a different cause
IF the when he fell, IF standing, he could reach the controls from where he was standing (around his seat)
IF the controls are set up where his falling or slumping would allow the throttle to advance (but wouldn't hit the brake handle which is near the throttle)
Also consider that if rocking trains is so common and has such a devastating effect on the engineer, how come there aren't more of these incidents, how come the SEPTA train wasn't a runaway? It actually did the exact opposite. It heightened the engineer's focus to the point he called the dispatcher to report the incident and stopped the train to be inspected.
In the absence of evidence, I tend to find the scenarios that have fewer contingencies more plausible.
wanswheelThe large lever tells the locomotive's computer to make the train go faster when it's pushed forward. When the lever is pulled back, it changes the locomotive's power system to a dynamic brake, which makes the traction motors become alternators; from there, electrical power is fed into the power cables above the track and, from there, into the power grid. The locomotive can generate up to 5 megawatts of electricity from dynamic braking.
Can anyone cite examples of Eurosprinter locomotives or other similar Siemens products having throttle failure leading to uncontolled acceleration, with or without derailment? I doubt it.
In a commemorative ceremony held at Philadelphia's 30th Street rail station, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx joined Siemens and Amtrak executives to debut the first Siemens-built electric locomotive for Amtrak, the nation's intercity passenger rail service and high-speed rail operator. The advanced technology locomotive will enter passenger service on Friday, February 7th.
Amtrak awarded Siemens a $466 million (€338 million) contract in October 2010 to deliver 70 electric locomotives. For Siemens, this order marked the company's entry into the American locomotive market. The locomotives, known as the Amtrak Cities Sprinter, are being assembled at Siemens' solar-powered rail manufacturing plant in Sacramento (California). The equipment includes parts built from Siemens plants in Norwood (Ohio), Alpharetta (Georgia), and Richland (Mississippi), and nearly 70 other suppliers, representing more than 60 cities and 23 states.
Capable of pulling 18 train cars at a maximum speed of 125 mph (200 km/h) these new Amtrak locomotives will safely and efficiently power commuters along the heavily traveled Northeast corridor between Washington, New York and Boston. Amtrak operates more than 300 intercity trains daily on a railroad network of almost 21,300 miles that serves 500 cities in North America. Its ridership continues to grow, with the company transporting 31.6 million passengers in 2013, an all-time annual record, and the 10th such record in 11 years.
The Amtrak Cities Sprinters are based on Siemens' Eurosprinter and Vectron locomotives and are designed for improved reliability and easier maintenance, leading to faster turn-around times and increased availability for service.
The 70 new locomotives are equipped with regenerative braking that allows energy to be fed into the power system for use by other trains. When fully deployed and operated as designed, the regenerative braking feature may result in the generation of 3 billion kilowatt hours of energy. At an estimated 10 cents per kilowatt hour, the energy generated equals $300 million in electricity being returned to the power system for use by other trains. A state-of-the-art microprocessor system performs self-diagnosis of technical issues, takes self-corrective action and notifies the locomotive engineer. In addition, there are redundant systems to ensure power is maintained to the passenger cars to keep heating and cooling systems working, the lights on and the doors operational. The locomotives meet the latest federal rail safety regulations, including crash energy management components.
The locomotives are equipped to operate with the three contact line voltages of 25 kV, 12.5 kV and 12 kV in use in North America and offer a power output of up to 6.4 MW, which far exceeds the performance of older locomotive generations. Thanks to its simple and easily accessible component structure, the locomotive's technical design also enables quick and cost-efficient maintenance, potentially saving Amtrak several hundred million dollars in operating costs over the fleet's entire life cycle.
Dave, both your points are possible, but highly unlikely. I think they're just as unlikely as Bostian not being able to remember what happened.
I'd also like to repeat that the Septa engineer, who actually got injured from glass that a projectile broke, managed safely to stop his train.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
To distract the engineer, the projectile need not even penetrate either the side window or the windshield.
And one reason finding a bullet or a stone or whatever within the locomotive is secret is because keeping the secret can help catch the perpertrator.
BaltACD Unanswered questions of mine - How much force does it take to advance the throttle on the locomotive type involved in the incident? Is the throttle notched or infinately variable?
Unanswered questions of mine -
How much force does it take to advance the throttle on the locomotive type involved in the incident?
Is the throttle notched or infinately variable?
Can't speak to the loco in question, but it isn't usually hard to move a throttle. I suspect it moves in notches. I'm not so sure there are many infinitely variable or many-notched throttles on first-line equipment any more. I could be wrong.
Important to note is that every throttle I've dealt with moves back (toward the designated rear of the loco) to advance (throttle up, accelerate, whatever).
The ACS 64 has a "desktop" control stand, as opposed to an AAR-type stand.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.