Amtrak Wreck in Philadelphia

[switch7frg]

Is unit 601 ready to return to service yet ,cleaned up and stamped ( ready for duty) ?

[ramrod]

wanswheel

Lastly, the reply noted, "Amtrak's representation that it will preserve evidence once released by the NTSB is insufficient to ensure plaintiffs' rights and to provide necessary protection of the evidence. Amtrak's negligence killed and maimed too many innocent employees and passengers to simply trust Amtrak to do the right thing. The passengers on train No. 188 had placed their trust in Amtrak and the result was death and devastating injuries."

Don't you just love lawyersand their temperate opinions?

[Norm48327]

Vampires (aka lawyers) going directly for the jugular vein.

[wanswheel]

Excerpt from The Legal Intelligencer, June 17

http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/id=1202729598517/Defense-Counsel-Retained-Motions-Filed-in-Amtrak-Cases?slreturn=20150517141456

In court papers, Amtrak said the NTSB is in charge of the investigation of the accident and the company has no control over the evidence gathered...

A reply... asked the court to compel Amtrak and the NTSB to itemize every piece of evidence and notify the plaintiffs' counsel when evidence is to be released.

Additionally, the plaintiffs' reply said confidentiality had already been disregarded, since Amtrak and NTSB officials have publicly commented on the accident.

Lastly, the reply noted, "Amtrak's representation that it will preserve evidence once released by the NTSB is insufficient to ensure plaintiffs' rights and to provide necessary protection of the evidence. Amtrak's negligence killed and maimed too many innocent employees and passengers to simply trust Amtrak to do the right thing. The passengers on train No. 188 had placed their trust in Amtrak and the result was death and devastating injuries."

[MrLynn]

Norm48327

 

 

MrLynn

Unless of course it wasn't operator error at all, but a software glitch (as others have speculated here) that might have reversed or overridden a throttle-back instruction.

 

 

That was indeed pure speculation on my part but is based on the fact that both Boeing and Airbus have had some very interesting occurrences with their software doing uncommanded things. I think a thorough examination of the software by a disinterested party is in order. It could confirm or deny a problem or it clould leave the software development folks in the dark. It did take Airbus some time to find the faults. As sophisticated as programming has become, GIGO still applies.

 

The locomotive throttle would seem to be a focus point.  Does anyone here know more about the ACS64 throttle system?  How does it work?  Is it different from other Amtrak locos on the NEC, e.g. AEM-7 and Acela?  Could confusion from different throttle operation have been a factor in the accident (the engineer's previous run that day was in an Acela)?  Is the throttle tied to the traction motors through electro-mechanical linkages, or partly by computer 'fly-by-wire' connections?  Is it possible that a software bug could have caused the locomotive to accelerate when braking was called for?

 

These are questions.  Are they relevant?  I don't know; but if anyone has answers, I'd like to hear them.

 

/Mr Lynn

[Norm48327]

BaltACD

My ETT has a Special Instruction on one of our subdivisions that ALL locomotive window must be closed and occupants of the locomotive move as far away from the windows as proper operations will permit between defined points account persistant projectile attacks when trains pass these areas.

Must be on the wrong side of the tracks (both sides).

[BaltACD]

My ETT has a Special Instruction on one of our subdivisions that ALL locomotive window must be closed and occupants of the locomotive move as far away from the windows as proper operations will permit between defined points account persistant projectile attacks when trains pass these areas.

Does Amtrak have a similar Special Instruction in their ETT for this or any other areas?

[wanswheel]

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20150616_Couple_sues_Amtrak_over_train_crash.html

 

Boston Herald editorial, A Piece of Amtrak Puzzle, June 14

 

The National Transportation Safety Board says the Amtrak engineer whose train disastrously derailed in Philadelphia last month was not talking, texting or transferring data on his cellphone, or using the train’s Wi-Fi system. We hope this introduces a little humility into thinking about accidents.

 

Sometimes accident investigators — dealing with planes, trains, cars, ships and who knows what — unjustifiably blame “pilot error” or “operator error” when they cannot find an obvious mechanical cause. In Philadelphia this was at least a plausible opening hypothesis, because in recent years there have been a few accidents caused by an engineer’s inattention or use of a cellphone.

 

The train left the Philadelphia station and accelerated to the permitted 80 miles per hour when, eight miles along, it neared a curve where the speed limit was 50 mph. Instead of slowing, the train accelerated to 106 mph and lost only a few mph after application of emergency brakes just before derailing.

 

Why did it speed up? The probe has yielded nothing. All equipment, including tracks and signals, was in good shape. The engineer suffered a concussion and remembers nothing. (He had no alcohol or drugs in his system.)

 

The NTSB has not determined yet whether the phone was being used for some application like game-playing. But that seems unlikely. The engineer, Brandon Bostian, willingly provided codes needed to examine the phone. Friends say he’s a railroad buff, and it’s hard — not impossible, but hard — to image such people playing “Angry Birds” while on the job.

 

Until the required “Positive Train Control” system, a nationwide computer network supervising all train movement, is installed everywhere, the Federal Railroad Administration has ordered Amtrak (and advised other railroads carrying passengers) to put a second engineer in the cab on certain key sections to make sure signal and other information is not neglected. This isn’t the return of the firemen of old and rail featherbedding. Rather it’s a reminder that sometimes human beings and a second pair of eyes and ears are essential.

[Euclid]

Sumwalt said that if the windshield damage was caused by objects, they did not pass through the glass.

 

I recall the news reporting that the train had entered the curve before the engineer made the emergency application.

[WDGF]

Norm48327

...the media is sometimes great at writing fiction in the interest of keeping the sheep on edge...

Ain't THAT the ever-lovin' truth! 

[dehusman]

daveklepper

My own explanaition, giving the engineer the benefit of the doubt, is that the projectile that entered the cab through the windshield either stunned him or caused him to bang his head on something to stun him while he was still accelerating.  Then, as the train at high speed lurched into the curve, an instinctive reaction, while still stunned, caused him to apply the emergency brake.   This theory is true only if the brake was applied into the curve, and not on the straight track leading to it.

 

This also requires a "projectile" to have entered the cab.  I haven't seen any evidence (other than mere speculation by other people on the forum) that anybody has documented something entering the cab.  The only thing the NTSB has said is that something struck the windshield, to my knowledge they have never said anything penetrated it.  One would think that if the engineer was struck by something that incapacitated him, the resulting wound or mark would have been found during the medical examination.  I would think if there was evidence of that his lawyer would be talking about that non-stop.  Once again, haven't read of his lawyer making that claim.

[Norm48327]

WDGF

We've seen at least one recent example of an individual hacking into and taking control of various aspects of an airliner's critical operating functions, while in flight.

I can't refute that statement with impunity but will say the media is sometimes great at writing fiction in the interest of keeping the sheep on edge. Had that event truly happened, no electronic devices (computers, cell phones, etc) whatever would be allowed in the passenger cabin.

[WDGF]

Norm48327

...based on the fact that both Boeing and Airbus have had some very interesting occurrences with their software doing uncommanded things...

Which leads me to an interesting -- if not disturbing -- bit of speculation: 

(Before I write this, I think it highly unlikely that it has anything to do with this crash. It's off on a tangent and pure speculation on my part.)

We've seen at least one recent example of an individual hacking into and taking control of various aspects of an airliner's critical operating functions, while in flight. I have no idea if this is in any way possible with a road-going locomotive, but if it is, the possiblities for madmen causing havoc are immense. Hopefully, it's not possible.

Your thoughts?

 

[daveklepper]

My own explanaition, giving the engineer the benefit of the doubt, is that the projectile that entered the cab through the windshield either stunned him or caused him to bang his head on something to stun him while he was still accelerating.  Then, as the train at high speed lurched into the curve, an instinctive reaction, while still stunned, caused him to apply the emergency brake.   This theory is true only if the brake was applied into the curve, and not on the straight track leading to it.

[Norm48327]

MrLynn

Unless of course it wasn't operator error at all, but a software glitch (as others have speculated here) that might have reversed or overridden a throttle-back instruction.

That was indeed pure speculation on my part but is based on the fact that both Boeing and Airbus have had some very interesting occurrences with their software doing uncommanded things. I think a thorough examination of the software by a disinterested party is in order. It could confirm or deny a problem or it clould leave the software development folks in the dark. It did take Airbus some time to find the faults. As sophisticated as programming has become, GIGO still applies.

[erikem]

MrLynn

 Unless of course it wasn't operator error at all, but a software glitch (as others have speculated here) that might have reversed or overridden a throttle-back instruction.  The NSTB claims they have ruled out a hardware malfunction.

I don't what, if any, software is involved with the throttle on the locomotive. If there is software involved, then the code would need to be reviewed by someone with expertise in real time software - as Toyota found out, it's really easy to get a lethal error in the code.

 - Erik

[MrLynn]

erikem

. . . The troubling aspect is that the most likely cause of the accident is operator error and there isn't a clear explanation of what lead to the error and more importantly, what could be done to prevent the error from being repeated in the future.

And unless the engineer regains his memory (whether the loss is feigned or not), there may not be a clear explanation.

Unless of course it wasn't operator error at all, but a software glitch (as others have speculated here) that might have reversed or overridden a throttle-back instruction.  The NSTB claims they have ruled out a hardware malfunction.

Does anyone know whether there is controlling 'fly by wire' software between the throttle and the devices that control power to the traction motors?  And if so, could that be a source of failure?

/Mr Lynn

[erikem]

From my perspective, the NTSB is doing the right thing in being obsessive about whether or not the cell phone was in use prior to the derailment. Sinve we've already had the example of cell phone use contributing to the Chatsworth disaster, the NTSB would be in remiss in not being completely confident in stating the cell phone use was not a factor in the Philadelphia derailment.

The troubling aspect is that the most likely cause of the accident is operator error and there isn't a clear explanation of what lead to the error and more importantly, what could be done to prevent the error from being repeated in the future.

 - Erik

[wanswheel]

schlimm

Where is a lawyer's statement about stowing the phone?

 

 

ABC Good Morning America video of Robert Goggin interview on May 14. He said, “His phone was off and in his bag as required by Amtrak rules.”

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/amtrak-engineer-distraught-remember-crash-attorney/story?id=31029739

[BaltACD]

Norm48327

dehusman

Its a strategy that will enable Euclid to deny, dispute or argue with any and all future outcomes from the investigation. It really doesn't matter what the NTSB finds, he has staked out a "non-position" so that no matter what position he takes or what position the NTSB takes he can never be wrong. If he agrees with a finding it will be "I told you so" if he disagrees with a finding then its invalid because the investigation is flawed. Its a power thing.Is Bucky running for president?

Does he have the Koch brothers trying to buy it for him (themselves).

[Euclid]

It is hard to say what the NTSB really intends to mean.  When they rule out a cause, the media runs with a solid conclusion, but the words used by the NTSB do not actually contain that conclusion.  Consider these NTSB conclusions:

1)    There were no mechanical problems with train, track, or signals.

2)    There were no gun shots.

3)    There was no broadcast of a comment by the engineer stating that projectiles hit his train.

4)    The engineer did not experience fatigue.

5)    If projectiles did strike the Amtrak train, they had nothing to do with causing the wreck. 

[Euclid]

tree68

 

Euclid

But if it does not prove use or non-use, what is the point of the announcement of the finding? It is meaningless.

 

 

It simply means that the phone is being considered as a potential factor, but the findings are inconclusive at this time.

I would say that nowhere in the news coverage of this NTSB conclusion on cell phone use, is there any hint that the findings are inconclusive at this time, except for the actual quotes from the NTSB.  They say the findings are inconclusive, and so do you.   

And I too agree.  That is what I have contended all along since they were announced.  I don't know why people insist on arguing otherwise.    

[wanswheel]

Half the problem is Congressmen and Senators got into the act and the other half is the media duly magnified same. The cellphone should never have been particularly newsworthy at all, except in the first few days it was important to mention it briefly, as just one of many things NTSB would need to scrutinize to be thorough.

[zugmann]

jeffhergert

Sure it's a pain with all the paperwork needed, but I don't have to worry about being without because a battery or the device itself goes belly up.

 

One could even say it might be a distraction having to go through that paperwork/looking up rules and such on a phone. 

 

Hmm.

 

[Anonymous]

Norm48327

 

 

Euclid

I am pretty sure that Norm believes that it proves that the engineer was not using his cell phone while on duty.

 

 

I won't say it proves it beyond the proverbial shadow of a doubt but it is sufficient for me (and most others) at this time. Why do you have to keep beating it to death? You seem totally obsessed with this one item to the point of not focusing on any other aspect of the investigation.

 

Unfortunately Bucky does not understand how analysis works.

[zugmann]

Norm48327

Didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night either. Smile

 

It's a shame.  Those cinnamon rolls are awesome.  But you gain a pound just looking at them.

[Norm48327]

dehusman

Its a strategy that will enable Euclid to deny, dispute or argue with any and all future outcomes from the investigation. It really doesn't matter what the NTSB finds, he has staked out a "non-position" so that no matter what position he takes or what position the NTSB takes he can never be wrong. If he agrees with a finding it will be "I told you so" if he disagrees with a finding then its invalid because the investigation is flawed. Its a power thing.

Is Bucky running for president?

[dehusman]

Norm48327

Why do you have to keep beating it to death? You seem totally obsessed with this one item to the point of not focusing on any other aspect of the investigation.

Its a strategy that will enable Euclid to deny, dispute or argue with any and all future outcomes from the investigation.  It really doesn't matter what the NTSB finds, he has staked out a "non-position" so that no matter what position he takes or what position the NTSB takes he can never be wrong.  If he agrees with a finding it will be "I told you so" if he disagrees with a finding then its invalid because the investigation is flawed.  Its a power thing.

[tree68]

Euclid

But if it does not prove use or non-use, what is the point of the announcement of the finding? It is meaningless.

It simply means that the phone is being considered as a potential factor, but the findings are inconclusive at this time.

If they hadn't mentioned this, I suspect you would be wondering why they were witholding information on the cell phone.  

[Norm48327]

Euclid

I am pretty sure that Norm believes that it proves that the engineer was not using his cell phone while on duty.

I won't say it proves it beyond the proverbial shadow of a doubt but it is sufficient for me (and most others) at this time. Why do you have to keep beating it to death? You seem totally obsessed with this one item to the point of not focusing on any other aspect of the investigation.