The horizontal sign, common sense goes a long ways...
They said there was the engineer, a conductor, an assistant conductor, and an engineer in training in the cab together. Here is an article that says the NTSB wants to learn whether the engineer was distracted by the trainee engineer.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/amtrak-train-hurtles-off-overpass-at-least-6-people-killed/2017/12/18/4381da24-e450-11e7-927a-e72eac1e73b6_story.html?utm_term=.d2b6e460244f
Deggesty BaltACD Euclid MikeF90 There's been some good speculation and discussion here, but one possible condition has not been brought up IIRC. This was an Inaugural run, so it is VERY likely that extra personnel were in the P42 cab: RFE, Amtrak executive, political VIP, you pick. Hopefully the NTSB will find out and publish if 'distracted driving' was a factor. According to the NTSB news conference, there were four people in the cab of the locomotive. Next question is who was at the controls? Yes--was the person at the controls qualified for this section of track?
BaltACD Euclid MikeF90 There's been some good speculation and discussion here, but one possible condition has not been brought up IIRC. This was an Inaugural run, so it is VERY likely that extra personnel were in the P42 cab: RFE, Amtrak executive, political VIP, you pick. Hopefully the NTSB will find out and publish if 'distracted driving' was a factor. According to the NTSB news conference, there were four people in the cab of the locomotive. Next question is who was at the controls?
Euclid MikeF90 There's been some good speculation and discussion here, but one possible condition has not been brought up IIRC. This was an Inaugural run, so it is VERY likely that extra personnel were in the P42 cab: RFE, Amtrak executive, political VIP, you pick. Hopefully the NTSB will find out and publish if 'distracted driving' was a factor. According to the NTSB news conference, there were four people in the cab of the locomotive.
MikeF90 There's been some good speculation and discussion here, but one possible condition has not been brought up IIRC. This was an Inaugural run, so it is VERY likely that extra personnel were in the P42 cab: RFE, Amtrak executive, political VIP, you pick. Hopefully the NTSB will find out and publish if 'distracted driving' was a factor.
There's been some good speculation and discussion here, but one possible condition has not been brought up IIRC.
This was an Inaugural run, so it is VERY likely that extra personnel were in the P42 cab: RFE, Amtrak executive, political VIP, you pick.
Hopefully the NTSB will find out and publish if 'distracted driving' was a factor.
According to the NTSB news conference, there were four people in the cab of the locomotive.
Next question is who was at the controls?
Yes--was the person at the controls qualified for this section of track?
One other thing enters in the equation - Was this the first revenue operation of the Charger that was the lead locomotive? I have seen where a number of Chargers have been transported to users. I haven't heard where they have been put in operation. Had Chargers been in use on the Puget Sound route?
I know when MARC got their MP36's they spent several weeks on having their crews operate them with 'test trains' so the crews could get familar with their operation, both as the lead locomotive as well as when used as a pusher in cab car operation, before placing them in revenue service.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
blue streak 1 On another site saw a poor depiction of USGS maps that appeared that before I-5 was built that "S" curve was not there. Some one who knows did Washington DOT put that "S" curve in to reduce costs of the bridge over I-5 ? Even with the graffiti the bridge does appear fairly new ?
On another site saw a poor depiction of USGS maps that appeared that before I-5 was built that "S" curve was not there. Some one who knows did Washington DOT put that "S" curve in to reduce costs of the bridge over I-5 ? Even with the graffiti the bridge does appear fairly new ?
To add to this question was this bridge built for the US-29 expressway ? Then when I-5 was an additional lanes built to the east ? That might explain why the bridge supports appear about 1936-1938 era ? Some one who knows please enlighten ? ? ?
Johnny
Here is a link to Seattle Transit of today's date, it gives a quick history of the Tacoma/Fort Lewis/Nisqualley bypass. It answers a number of questions that have come up.
apologies for doing this as a reply to another post, I can't find the link to make a new post. Perhaps a moderator will correct this for me. Thanks
Euclid So, assuming that applies to the line in question, that means that the speed limit is 30 mph for two miles preceding the start of the curve. That paints a quite different picture indeed. That means that the NTSB statement that the train was moving 80 in the 30 zone could mean that this overspeeding occured say a mile ahead of the curve, but that the engineer realized his mistake in time to begin braking and considerably slow the train.
So, assuming that applies to the line in question, that means that the speed limit is 30 mph for two miles preceding the start of the curve. That paints a quite different picture indeed.
That means that the NTSB statement that the train was moving 80 in the 30 zone could mean that this overspeeding occured say a mile ahead of the curve, but that the engineer realized his mistake in time to begin braking and considerably slow the train.
Euclid,
NO, NO, NO a thousand times NO!
The 30 MPH restriction begins where the speed horizontal speed sign is placed, in this case immediately North of the begining of the curve. The advance warning (angled sign) is placed two miles before the restriction. I explained all of this a few posts ago.
The limit in the intervening two miles is whatever the previous horizontal sign the train passed says. I have no knowledge what that was/is and doubt you do either.
Mac
Links to my Google Maps ---> Sunset Route overview, SoCal metro, Yuma sub, Gila sub, SR east of Tucson, BNSF Northern Transcon and Southern Transcon *** Why you should support Ukraine! ***
JEREMY ENGLISH"Is there any chance the problem could have been with the rear engine - the one still on the rails? Like the engineer in the lead unit throttling down and applying brakes when he should have, but somehow the rear engine not responding due to some mechanical failure."
I heard in a news video that the P42 was in idle the whole run to the south.Regards, Volker
Deggesty Euclid MOWBill On the BNSF the sign is the beginning of the restriction. So, assuming that applies to the line in question, that means that the speed limit is 30 mph for two miles preceding the start of the curve. That paints a quite different picture indeed. That means that the NTSB statement that the train was moving 80 in the 30 zone could mean that this overspeeding occured say a mile ahead of the curve, but that the engineer realized his mistake in time to begin braking and considerably slow the train. That may explain why the wreck damage does not look quite as extensive as one might expect for a train going on the ground at 80 mph. I wonder what the maximum speed is that would allow the train to travel around the curve without derailing. Could it be as low as 60? If so, he might have braked down to say 63 mph before the train derailed. The speed restriction begins at the curve; the sign two miles in advance warns the engineer that the train is approaching the speed restriction.
Euclid MOWBill On the BNSF the sign is the beginning of the restriction. So, assuming that applies to the line in question, that means that the speed limit is 30 mph for two miles preceding the start of the curve. That paints a quite different picture indeed. That means that the NTSB statement that the train was moving 80 in the 30 zone could mean that this overspeeding occured say a mile ahead of the curve, but that the engineer realized his mistake in time to begin braking and considerably slow the train. That may explain why the wreck damage does not look quite as extensive as one might expect for a train going on the ground at 80 mph. I wonder what the maximum speed is that would allow the train to travel around the curve without derailing. Could it be as low as 60? If so, he might have braked down to say 63 mph before the train derailed.
MOWBill On the BNSF the sign is the beginning of the restriction.
On the BNSF the sign is the beginning of the restriction.
That may explain why the wreck damage does not look quite as extensive as one might expect for a train going on the ground at 80 mph. I wonder what the maximum speed is that would allow the train to travel around the curve without derailing. Could it be as low as 60?
If so, he might have braked down to say 63 mph before the train derailed.
The speed restriction begins at the curve; the sign two miles in advance warns the engineer that the train is approaching the speed restriction.
Well now that you mention it, I am not sure which sign MOWBill is referring to as the sign. Both the advance sign and the sign at the curve are being referred to as "the sign."
"Is there any chance the problem could have been with the rear engine - the one still on the rails? Like the engineer in the lead unit throttling down and applying brakes when he should have, but somehow the rear engine not responding due to some mechanical failure."
I note that there is a photograph of a new Siemens SC-44 on Rail Pictures (by Steve Carter) in the caption to which he notes that the locomotive, no. 1402, was photographed "After a long delay in Seattle's King St Station trying to get WSDOT's new Charger locomotives to link up with Mater (Cab Car), a Cascades test train arrives in Tacoma's Tacoma Dome Station . . . ."
This is the locomotive involved in the accident. The photo was taken 4 weeks ago (November 22nd). Is it possible there is a fault with the software which hasn't yet been sorted fully?
Jeremy English
Reposting the Advance Warning signs to illustrate PNWRMNM's point
BNSF'S speed boards are very simple and derived directly from Northern Pacific practice.
A horizontal board with a number is placed at the point the restriction becomes effective. An advance warning is placed two miles in advance of the restriction. These signs are placed on a diagonal, 45 degrees I think, to distinguish them from the "at restriction signs. As someone else mentioned this is analagous to home signal, approach signal logic.
The type of train to which the restriction applies is also shown on the speed sign. Unique to my knowledge to the Seattle-Portland line is type T for Talgo. P for passenger and F for freight are used system wide. It is thus possible, between Seattle and Portland, for a single curve to have three different speed restirctions, say T 70, P 60, F 50 and they would be stacked that way with the T speed on top. The images I have seen that are said to be at the entrance to this curve are horizontal T 30 and P 30, which is consistent with late NP speed limit of 30 MPH shown on track chart.
Ahead of the curve, it looks like the track was straight for approximately 2500 feet, giving a clear view of the curve location, and yet the engineer ran right up to that 30 mph curve at 80 mph.
PNWRMNMMudchicken quoted 8 degree curve north of bridge and 7 degree south. Those figures are reasonable, but 13 degree is not.
Some of us have BNSF trackcharts. Some of us only have Google maps. I am not aware of any mainlines in the east with 13 degree curves. Closest I know of is 12 degrees on connection in Harrisburg PA. Still my trusty compass and scale on map got 13.
I make no appologies.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I measured 2 miles advance warning.
Euclid Overmod I agree that we should wait for the NTSB preliminary report, as I think they will have both the GPS tracking data and the information from the LER to tell us EXACTLY how fast the train was going at all the points of interest, what the brake transitions were, and most of the other information related to the question you thought you were asking. I am quite certain about what question I am asking. It is a very simple question. It has not been answsered as far as I know. And I don't intend to wait for the NTSB to answer this incredibly simple question. Here is that question: At what point does the speed limit change from 79 to 30?
Overmod I agree that we should wait for the NTSB preliminary report, as I think they will have both the GPS tracking data and the information from the LER to tell us EXACTLY how fast the train was going at all the points of interest, what the brake transitions were, and most of the other information related to the question you thought you were asking.
I am quite certain about what question I am asking. It is a very simple question. It has not been answsered as far as I know. And I don't intend to wait for the NTSB to answer this incredibly simple question. Here is that question:
At what point does the speed limit change from 79 to 30?
At the beginning of the curve... Where does it end? At the end of the curve.
Electroliner 1935It surprises me that it appears that the Locomotive did not appear to have any deflection to its left but stayed straight ahead.
Here is the first of what I expect to be many reconstructions of the accident physics:
I do not see this explaining the signal-bridge damage, so expect ongoing revisions.
Electroliner 1935When you drive on a highway, you see warning signs for XX SPEED ZONE AHEAD, then 500 to 1000 feet further, you see the SPEED LIMIT XX, The vehicle should pass the SPEED LIMIT sign at XX speed. Same for a train. Is that clear?
Except that precisely what he was asking is "how much advance warning to accomplish that 'reduce speed to xxx' was given?" and the correct answer appears to be 'none directly'. Hence my earlier comment about why this isn't a MUTCD kind of situation.
mudchicken: Thanks for the information.Regards, Volker
The reason I asked where the 30 limit began is because we know the train was running 80 at that point. So I wondered if the engineer had any time to apply braking sufficient to begin slowing the train prior to the derailment.
I can see losing awareness of the impending curve even after passing the advance warning. But in full daylight, with straight track leading to that abrupt curve, there must be at least 1000 feet of visual indication of the curve ahead. I would think it most probable that an engineer would realize what was happening and would apply maximum braking at least 500 feet ahead of the curve, if not further.
But if he was going 80 when he reached the 30 zone, he was apparently completely unaware of what was happening until reaching the point of derailment. That seems highly improbable.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.