Absolutely.
JL Chicago Bicycle Rider Indy The other day I was driving on a state highway and twice as I approached a town I saw signs that indicated my speed and suggested that I slow down. They were effective. I wonder if a simple solution such as this would have helped. The signs flashed and got my attention. Just think they could be installed about where the train should start the braking for the 30 MPH curve and this could not be an expensive solution. That was single track and would be simple stand-alone solution. Heck I think it was even solar powered. My recollection is that the speed limit signs used on railroads are small and low to the ground. Eye level flashing signs might help with situational awareness too. They're even cheaper than I would have guessed! First item in a Google search has them for sale for $3295 each. So for less than 10 grand they could have added a substantial improvement in redundancy protection for this curve in both directions.
Bicycle Rider Indy The other day I was driving on a state highway and twice as I approached a town I saw signs that indicated my speed and suggested that I slow down. They were effective. I wonder if a simple solution such as this would have helped. The signs flashed and got my attention. Just think they could be installed about where the train should start the braking for the 30 MPH curve and this could not be an expensive solution. That was single track and would be simple stand-alone solution. Heck I think it was even solar powered. My recollection is that the speed limit signs used on railroads are small and low to the ground. Eye level flashing signs might help with situational awareness too.
They're even cheaper than I would have guessed! First item in a Google search has them for sale for $3295 each. So for less than 10 grand they could have added a substantial improvement in redundancy protection for this curve in both directions.
How resistant to 'target practice' are they in rural areas? One thing everyone saying 'buy this for $$$$' and it solves your problem ALWAYS overlook - what is the continuing costs of maintaining the device. Most times it isn't the purchase of the device that is the red flag, it is continually maintaining it.
Urbanites also like to shoot things up for fun.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The other thing to remember is that they must be failsafe, which those town signs are not. If relying by habit on the sign perhaps 3/4 mile in advance to remind you to slow down, and for whatever reason it is not lit up, you may end up with a repeat of the tragedy that just happened. Braking distances for trains are many times longer than on the roads.
Deggesty Bicycle Rider Indy The other day I was driving on a state highway and twice as I approached a town I saw signs that indicated my speed and suggested that I slow down. They were effective. I wonder if a simple solution such as this would have helped. The signs flashed and got my attention. Just think they could be installed about where the train should start the braking for the 30 MPH curve and this could not be an expensive solution. That was single track and would be simple stand-alone solution. Heck I think it was even solar powered. My recollection is that the speed limit signs used on railroads are small and low to the ground. Eye level flashing signs might help with situational awareness too. As I understand the matter, for a person who is properly trained and thus understands the meaning of each signal/sign, and has been made familiar with the territory, the existing signals/signs are sufficient for safe operation. Could it be that there was not anyone in the cab who was truly qualified for the new territory?
As I understand the matter, for a person who is properly trained and thus understands the meaning of each signal/sign, and has been made familiar with the territory, the existing signals/signs are sufficient for safe operation.
Could it be that there was not anyone in the cab who was truly qualified for the new territory?
Absolutely!
The yellow angled T30/P30 sign is on a steel post maybe 4ft above the ground and this area along Wilmington Drive is fenced, presumably for the multiple tracks with rail cars.
I followed the google view south and found an 18 mile marker also on a steel post with an unmarked white concrete marker nearby. Simply putting red or yellow reflective tape on the posts like we do on some of our stop signs could help to identify these signs as important, although not a foolproof solution.
The next things that are seen are the left and then right concrete pilons for the off ramp to Center Dr and the town of DuPont; the ramp soaring overhead. Then comes three pilons on the left and a concrete abutment on the right for the Center Dr bridge, followed by a right and then left pilon for the I-5 on ramp. Painting these pilons and/or overhead areas yellow or yellow and red stripes etc, would make landmarks that would be hard to miss.
Here we also find two areas of signal boxes and white painted wooden posts and followed by various signs for the adjacent golf course. I did not see another mile marker sign, but it may have been obscured by trees. You cannot see these signs from the satellite view. Next comes the Mounds Rd/Nisqually Rd bridge above, built in 1960, which is about 400 meters from the curve. This could be the last painted warning, but it may be too late.
Jim makes the excellent point that there are several big landmarks that no one could not see above the curve. Most engineers use landmarks as points to take action, most often to set the brakes. That presuposes that he is familiar with the line.
I believe that there is a better than 90% probability that; either these engineers did not receive sufficient training trips over the route, OR this specific engineer lost track of where he was for about 60-90 seconds. A lack of training trips would contribute to being lost, since as Jim points out, in addition to the usual advance speed boards two miles from the curve, there are lots of big landmarks out there. The engineer should have seen the speed boards, and had to have seen the unofficial landmarks, but did not respond to them, perhaps because he did not recognize their significance.
The speed of descent off the prairie that is the majority of this line, must be carefully controlled in both directions. The line around Point Defiance, the usual route until that day, has no steep down grades and no curves as sharp as the one derailed on.
Consultant Hiatt claims that engineers were not sufficiently trained about this line. The usual training process is some number of trips in the seat with a supervisior looking over the trainee's shoulder. It is possible that the ATK Road Foreman of Engines did not bother to find out about the unique risks this line. He could also have had an adequately designed training program cut short by his bosses.
None of that absolves the engineer, unless he was thrown out there with absolutely NO training.
I am very curious about how diligently the NTSB will investigate the issue of engineer training. Usually they would be on it like white on rice, but since this is an all government show, WSDOT and ATK, the NTSB may simply blame the engineer and lack of PTC, which suits their political objectves perfectly. Count on another round of drum banging about PTC, which is not yet required and will probably be in place by the time a final report is issued.
Mac
There has been some confusion about the number of people in the locomotive cab and the possibility of distraction. Now, it has become clear that there were only the engineer and one other person who was being trained. The unanswered question is what job the trainee was being trained for. He has been referred to as both a trainee engineer and trainee conductor.
Particularly, if he was being trained as an engineer, he may have been running the engine. This point could raise a lot of concerns and controversy about the proper protocol for handing over the control to someone who is not fully qualified. Perhaps this is why the NTSB needs more time to explain what they have learned after interviewing these two people. I can’t think of any high profile accident where the identity of the crew has been withheld, although maybe it is common.
This training issue is a Red Herring. An engineer should have the track profile in front of him and the fireman (other in cab) calling out signs and signals. I don' t need training to drive on a new highway. I pay attention. Using your experience to drive is dangerous as things may change and your experience may be flawed. Every trip is your first. NTSB blames triaining just to spread the blame around to as many people as posslble (makes the law suits more profitable for all). Sorry to be so cynical but all blame falls on the captain of the ship.
petitnj This training issue is a Red Herring. An engineer should have the track profile in front of him and the fireman (other in cab) calling out signs and signals.
This training issue is a Red Herring. An engineer should have the track profile in front of him and the fireman (other in cab) calling out signs and signals.
Not a red herring. An engineer must know the territory. Trying to follow along on a paper track chart whould be a huge distraction, and relatively few locos have an electronic track chart display, so default assumption is no track chart display.
ATK generally operates with a single engineer in the cab. A second person can be a help or a distraction.
I agree that the engineer is ultimately responsible, but I think it is possible, perhaps likely, that he was set up to fail.
None of us here know precisely what led to this tragedy, and we will have to see what the NTSB concludes.
It seems likely, however, that for whatever reason, the engineer lost track of where he was. This individual will have to carry that burden for the rest of his/her life. If that person was impaired by drugs or alcohol, the guilt will be even worse. If the trainee in the cab was chatting with and distracting the engineer, or failed to speak up at an appropriate time to warn of danger, that person will also carry a heavy load going forward.
Let‘s not lose sight of the fact that this is a tragedy for the cab crew also, human beings who made mistakes.
I hope there are no findings of substance abuse, as that would be very hard to accept.
In addition to those injured, and family and friends of the dead and hurt, my heart goes out to the passenger rail advocates who put in (I‘m guessing) thousands of hours (probably much as unpaid volunteers) toward what should have been a joyous, victorious day for many.
May everyone involved find some measure of peace in the new year.
Still in training.
[quote user="cx500"]
PNWRMNM Do you know the territory when driving on a new road? This argument for "knowing the territory" is argument for 2 in the cab or 0 in the cab. I hope the engineer is watching for all signs and signals and is not driving by the seat of his pants. With driverless technology on the horizon, I think accidents like this will be excellent arguments for self driving trains. petitnj This training issue is a Red Herring. An engineer should have the track profile in front of him and the fireman (other in cab) calling out signs and signals. Not a red herring. An engineer must know the territory. Trying to follow along on a paper track chart whould be a huge distraction, and relatively few locos have an electronic track chart display, so default assumption is no track chart display. ATK generally operates with a single engineer in the cab. A second person can be a help or a distraction. I agree that the engineer is ultimately responsible, but I think it is possible, perhaps likely, that he was set up to fail. Mac
Rail operations are different from driving-roads are set up to easily driven by those unfamiliar with them, and nearly everyone has a driver's license. Railroad crews have to be qualified on their territory as their bigger, harder to operate vehicles don't allow them to simply run on a new route without learning where braking and accelerating must be accomplished. One can't simply take a train on a subdivision that they've never run before and safely take it to its destination.
That is the party line but why is it true? 1) signage is insufficient to control trains 2) track profile and special instructions are insufficient 3) trains are too hard to control safely 4) Brakes don't work well enough to safely control a train 5) train doesn't have enough power to make it up a grade without a running start. Which is it? And then once you have picked one, tell me why it is true. Are trains run in unsafe fashion? We don't run cars or planes where they cannot operate safely. Are we running trains at the edge of their capabilities but in modes that are unsafe?
It's physics. Trains are operated safely, but are not line-of-sight vehicles like autos. Engineers have to think about not only what is happening now, but what will happen in the next few miles. Here the speed limit was 79 up until the curve, where a 30 mph restriction was in place, but due to the comparatively slow acceleration and deceleration rates of trains (which is why they are so efficient) one can't run 79 up until the 30 mph restriction. Because different types of trains have different speed restrictions, signs can't be all inclusive and are insufficient to warn engineers as different types of trains need to be braked at different rates and thus different places. These men and women are professionals that when properly qualified operate trains with a very low accident rate, but it looks like the qualification process failed here. The system largely works, and has for decades, with PTC coming on line soon there will be even greater redundancy.
petitnj That is the party line but why is it true? 1) signage is insufficient to control trains 2) track profile and special instructions are insufficient 3) trains are too hard to control safely 4) Brakes don't work well enough to safely control a train 5) train doesn't have enough power to make it up a grade without a running start. Which is it? And then once you have picked one, tell me why it is true. Are trains run in unsafe fashion? We don't run cars or planes where they cannot operate safely. Are we running trains at the edge of their capabilities but in modes that are unsafe?
I am sitting on my hands on at heat two earlier posts here that do not see the disconnect that seems to give the track owner and agency coordinator a pass because they subbed-out the operating side. (They DON'T get it!)
I would not be surprised if Sound Transit and WaDOT get a long overdue severe kick in the pants by FRA and NTSB. Rail, especially passenger rail, is NOT a political plaything and transportation* planning toy.
While the novice locomotive engineer is going to be justifiably crucified, others are going to join him.
(*) bus people, not railroaders
Very interesting disussion.
Euclid The unanswered question is what job the trainee was being trained for. He has been referred to as both a trainee engineer and trainee conductor. Particularly, if he was being trained as an engineer, he may have been running the engine. This point could raise a lot of concerns and controversy about the proper protocol for handing over the control to someone who is not fully qualified.
The unanswered question is what job the trainee was being trained for. He has been referred to as both a trainee engineer and trainee conductor.
Particularly, if he was being trained as an engineer, he may have been running the engine. This point could raise a lot of concerns and controversy about the proper protocol for handing over the control to someone who is not fully qualified.
If I (I'd put "I" in caps, but it already is) was an engineer, and handed over control to a trainee, the LAST thing I'd do is trust him/her to not screw up. Hey, they're TRAINEES. Which means I'd be paying attention even more than normal. I gotta watch him/her AND my locomotive.
I am wondering, and the foot-dragging about naming names feeds into this, if the engineer and/or trainee were selected as some kind of reward because it was a "first run". And were assumptions made about adequacy to the task?
Was someone doing "a nice thing"?
Ed
Right after an accident like this, there is a public outcry demanding answers. The NTSB gets swept along with this demand, and usually they are reasonably forthcoming with preliminary discovery of the facts.
In this case, it seems obvious that they discovered something that will be highly controversial and probably step on a lot of official toes once it is made public. So the NTSB wants to delay this revelation until they can thoroughly prepare us for it. Frankly, I think they threw out the offer to interview the crew and fill us in within a couple days only as a ploy to quell the demand for answers as more time passes and the demand dies down.
If that were not the case, I believe they would have either annonced why their crew interviews are being delayed--or-- they would have never made the committment to us in the first place.
The engineer is a senior, well respected engineer with plenty of experience. I will not say anything further though I doubt that the crew schedule was altered any for the first run.
---
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
I have noticed that the latest information reported by the NTSB about about train speed and engineer response apparently has gone right over the head of the news media.
Generally all reports of this point imply that, when the engineer commented about getting the over-speed warning 6 seconds ahead of the curve, that indicated that the warning made the engineer aware of the fact that he was going way too fast for the 30 mph limit of the curve. In other words, the media’s interpretation is that the over-speed warning was about the curve speed limit.
But of course, the over-speed warning had nothing to do with the 30 mph limit of the curve just 700 feet ahead. Moreover, the engineer’s response to the warning indicated that he did not interpret the speed warning as having anything to do with the curve.
Apparently the engineer had no foreknowledge of the impending disaster of entering the curve too fast. He was only responding to a tiny over-speed infraction of about 3 mph while being totally unaware of a far larger over-speed infraction of 53 mph.
As I have said before. The engineer applied the brakes to slow down and looked up and saw the 30 mph speed sign. Said "sh.t" and the engine flew off the tracks. By the time he could have put the brakes on in emergency, he was bouncing around the cab and couldn't do anything. The emergency brakes came on when the air brake line parted.
The safe speed for this corner was most likely around 50 mph before the lateral forces caused the wheels to ride up over the rail and derail.
Yes, he only had six seconds to take action from the time he received the over-speed warning. But the point is moot, not because the time was insufficient, but rather because the warning was not about the curve, and so it did not make the engineer aware of the curve.
If the warning was ten minutes before the curve, he still would have entered the curve at 79 mph. My only point above is that the news media would have us believe that the warning was about the 30 mph curve.
Twisted agendas do nothing to solve the problem.
You have said nothing constructive. Please continue with your armchair analysis.
When you have concrete information post that. Till then.....
Norm
Victrola1The more we learn about Amtrak derailment the stranger it gets BY RUSSELL G. QUIMBY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 12/31/17 09:00 AM EST THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL As a retired National Transportation Safety Board railroad and rapid transit accident investigator, the more I hear about the Dec. 18 derailment of Washington state Sound Transit Cascades Train 501, the stranger it gets. http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/366833-the-more-we-learn-about-amtrak-derailment-the-stranger-it-gets
If the report from this article is accurate - the qualification procedure used to qualify engineers on the route was totally incompetent. If there were 6 people in the cab - only ONE was operating and developing qualifications in manipulation of the locomotive controls and train. Just riding along, to my mind, is not qualifying a engineer.
I don't have that big a deal with the qualifications taking place at night - UNLESS the landmarks that were being attached to performance of specific actions only existed at night. The flashing 'Eat At Joes' of the night time isn't flashing in daytime. As a racer you are taught not to pick landmarks that can move for your braking and turn in points. As a locomotive engineer you have to chose landmarks that are going to be visible day and night as well as in bad weather.
As a engineer, you don't learn those landmarks unless you are actually operating the controls of the train. Show and Tell doesn't cut it for qualification.
That Russell Quimby opinion piece is a very interesting perspective that matches what I see in the NTSB seemingly reacting to some background issue that nobody wants to talk about. If this is true about Amtrak inadequately training these new crews about the line, who is responsible for an untrained crewmember making an honest mistake such as apparently happened when #501 derailed while speeding?
It is quite relevant that this issue should rise to the forefront at the moment the Lac Megantic oil train wreck trial is about to decide this very same issue of whose fault it is when a company fails to adequately train an employee for a safety-sensitive job. Is it the engineer who never was taught the rules, or his employer who never taught the rules to the employee?
So, Russell Quimby thinks you're running in the daylight when the sunrise is still 19 minutes in the future.
I'm trying to think of a clever comment to go with that, but it's hard to top.
I do wonder if an agency takes an inappropriate length of time to conclude an investigation, whether it would be held accountable for any deaths that arose from the lack of timely information.
Nahhhhhh........
7j43kI do wonder if an agency takes an inappropriate length of time to conclude an investigation, whether it would be held accountable for any deaths that arose from the lack of timely information.
So, what is considered inappropriate - given that due process is a thing?
About the slipperiest slope I've ever read.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.