Amtrak Philly derailment NTSB findings

Charge him with manslaughter.

Another case of Operator Error. He's human, so,,,,,,,,,,you know what happens.

Wow, his life, as he knows it, may be over.  Correct me if I am wrong, but modern passenger trains have an engineer, only, in the cab.  There is no second body in there with him like there used to be ?  i.e.; fireman, conductor, brakeman...........

If there is only one person driving a train load of humans, wouldn't that seem like "Penny wise and pound foolish", on the part of Amtrak ?

Dan Padova posted:

Wow, his life, as he knows it, may be over.  Correct me if I am wrong, but modern passenger trains have an engineer, only, in the cab.  There is no second body in there with him like there used to be ?  i.e.; fireman, conductor, brakeman...........

Correct.

If there is only one person driving a train load of humans, wouldn't that seem like "Penny wise and pound foolish", on the part of Amtrak ?

No. That is what PTC is all about. Amtrak HAS PTC throughout the NorthEast Corridor, EXCEPT in that area do to a conflict between the FRA and the FCC. Two federal agencies fighting between themselves.

Next on that list will be single pilot airliners.

I would like to see the full report.

aznjbill posted:

I would like to see the full report.

Watch the board meeting live today at 09:30 EST - http://ntsb.gov/news/events/Pa...2016-Amtrak-BMG.aspx

The docket containing all of the facts was released on Feb 1, 2016. CNN is drawing it's own conclusions.

http://ntsb.gov/news/events/Pa...2016-Amtrak-BMG.aspx

The engineer was at the controls, he was in charge, his responsibility. Part of the job, just as someone who is driving shouldn't(but are) be distracted.

Hot Water posted:

Dan Padova posted:

Wow, his life, as he knows it, may be over.  Correct me if I am wrong, but modern passenger trains have an engineer, only, in the cab.  There is no second body in there with him like there used to be ?  i.e.; fireman, conductor, brakeman...........

Correct.

If there is only one person driving a train load of humans, wouldn't that seem like "Penny wise and pound foolish", on the part of Amtrak ?

No. That is what PTC is all about. Amtrak HAS PTC throughout the NorthEast Corridor, EXCEPT in that area do to a conflict between the FRA and the FCC. Two federal agencies fighting between themselves.

No. That is what PTC is all about. Amtrak HAS PTC throughout the NorthEast Corridor, EXCEPT in that area do to a conflict between the FRA and the FCC. Two federal agencies fighting between themselves.

 

 

Well that explains everything.....Government at work.....Or at least, in their minds.....LOL

http://patch.com/new-jersey/po...ent-revealed-by-ntsb

New vice-chair is standing up the board on their language of probable cause for the official statement and their continued use of a similar format in accident after accident. Good for her.

She received a small language change and made the board and staff very nervous. The slightly amended statement of probable cause was passed 3-1 with the new vice-chair voting nay.

Dan Padova posted:

Wow, his life, as he knows it, may be over.  Correct me if I am wrong, but modern passenger trains have an engineer, only, in the cab.  There is no second body in there with him like there used to be ?  i.e.; fireman, conductor, brakeman...........

If there is only one person driving a train load of humans, wouldn't that seem like "Penny wise and pound foolish", on the part of Amtrak ?

I wonder what action is taken when a slow order has to be copied and repeated. The is a rule in the NS book that the engineer can not do it while moving.

In regard to being distracted by radio traffic and the dispatcher, it is not hard to do. That is why there is in place the rule above that I was speaking of.

Would the Pennsy's "Automatic Train Stop" system from 60+ years ago have prevented the crash ?

Correct me if I'm wrong.  I read that the ATS system was deactivated because it might have brought trains to an unnecessary screeching halt, disturbing the passengers.

Kent Loudon posted:

Would the Pennsy's "Automatic Train Stop" system from 60+ years ago have prevented the crash ?

Probably would have, since that "old PRR system" had speed inputs.

Correct me if I'm wrong.  I read that the ATS system was deactivated because it might have brought trains to an unnecessary screeching halt, disturbing the passengers.

Heard the same thing. In fact, the FRA and or NTSB "forced" Amtrak to activate/reactivate that system IMMEDIATELY after the 188 derailment. Imagine THAT!

Kent Loudon posted:

Would the Pennsy's "Automatic Train Stop" system from 60+ years ago have prevented the crash ?

Correct me if I'm wrong.  I read that the ATS system was deactivated because it might have brought trains to an unnecessary screeching halt, disturbing the passengers.

I'd rather be a disturbed passenger than a dead one.  

Having been in trains that were "rocked,"  I understand how an engineer would be pre-occupied with that problem.  It is bad enough in a passenger car - like a small explosion going off - it must certainly be terrifying to those in the locomotive whose windshield would be hit head-on with a "projectile."  I would leave judgment to other locomotive engineers who have experienced "rocking," especially at passenger train speeds. 

PGentieu posted:

Having been in trains that were "rocked,"  I understand how an engineer would be pre-occupied with that problem.

In fact HE was not "rocked", but he WAS listening to the radio conversations between the train ahead of him and the Dispatcher.

 It is bad enough in a passenger car - like a small explosion going off - it must certainly be terrifying to those in the locomotive whose windshield would be hit head-on with a "projectile."  I would leave judgment to other locomotive engineers who have experienced rocking, especially at passenger train speeds. 

Yes, something like that is EXTREMELY disturbing, no matter whether you are the Engineer, Conductor, or simply a rider in the cab. Having experienced such incidences more than once, I can tell you it is truly FRIGHTENING!

jim pastorius posted:

The engineer was at the controls, he was in charge, his responsibility. Part of the job, just as someone who is driving shouldn't(but are) be distracted.

Certainly the case in the operation of motor vehicles. 

Not attempting to start a firestorm but the engineer had about 4 years of engine service.  I know that old wisdom of lots of experience in freight engine service is no longer "required" for passenger service.

I wonder what the RVD stats for engineers based upon seniority/service are. 

Was his Windshield actually hit?...  At speeds of 100+ there's no room for errors or distractions. 

I agree with rule 292  .  

Gregg posted:

Was his Windshield actually hit?...  At speeds of 100+ there's no room for errors or distractions. 

I agree with rule 292  .  

No. The train ahead of 188 was.

Ok thanks.... Seems to me 2 experienced engineman in the cab may have prevented this  tragedy. Have someone who at least knows the road.  You can't really  learn the road in 6 weeks  and no room for mistakes at high speeds. .  .

OK, distracted; happens to the best of us.  Maybe I missed it - the question of why the train accelerated to twice the local speed limit. 

Quote: "In fact HE was not "rocked", but he WAS listening to the radio conversations between the train ahead of him and the Dispatcher."

I never said he was "rocked."  But he was aware that his train was passing through the same area where the SEPTA train had been hit and whose engineer was asking for medical attention.  I think anybody would be apprehensive and fearful in that situation.  

PGentieu posted:

Quote: "In fact HE was not "rocked", but he WAS listening to the radio conversations between the train ahead of him and the Dispatcher."

I never said he was "rocked."  But he was aware that his train was passing through the same area where the SEPTA train had been hit and whose engineer was asking for medical attention.  I think anybody would be apprehensive and fearful in that situation.  

According to some of the statements in the NTSB "findings", he just may NOT have been aware that he was passing through the area that the proceeding train was "rocked". The key point that the NTSB "seems" to be making is, his "loss of situational awareness", do to his listening/concentrating on the radio transmissions, instead of his ACTUAL location. 

Gregg posted:

Ok thanks.... Seems to me 2 experienced engineman in the cab may have prevented this  tragedy. Have someone who at least knows the road.  You can't really  learn the road in 6 weeks  and no room for mistakes at high speeds. .  .

A car and the train is not the same thing.  But I wonder how may road accidents have happened because a driver has been on a road/highway/freeway he/she has never been on!

Gregg posted:

Was his Windshield actually hit?...  At speeds of 100+ there's no room for errors or distractions. 

I agree with rule 292  .  

The conclusion arrived at by the FBI was that the windshield was damaged by something other than a bullet. The NTSB investigation concluded that the windshield was damaged when the engine rolled.

There are two holes in the top left.

Hot Water posted:

PGentieu posted:

Quote: "In fact HE was not "rocked", but he WAS listening to the radio conversations between the train ahead of him and the Dispatcher."

I never said he was "rocked."  But he was aware that his train was passing through the same area where the SEPTA train had been hit and whose engineer was asking for medical attention.  I think anybody would be apprehensive and fearful in that situation.  

According to some of the statements in the NTSB "findings", he just may NOT have been aware that he was passing through the area that the proceeding train was "rocked". The key point that the NTSB "seems" to be making is, his "loss of situational awareness", do to his listening/concentrating on the radio transmissions, instead of his ACTUAL location. 

Thank you, Hot Water, for making the distinction.  Engineers have the routes essentially memorized. There was about ten minutes of attesting to the fact.

The engineer of 188 was not listening to the SEPTA discussion out of curiosity. IT is required. He had to determine if there was emergency or other personnel near his track or fouling his track due to the SEPTA train incident and the stopping of the SEPTA train.

He slowed AMTRAK 188 to safely pass the area and was sounding the horn and whistle as required by FRA operating rules in that situation.

These actions led him to lose situational awareness of his tasks, which were to slow to 50 at the first turn, accelerate to 80 then slow to 50 again for the second turn (accident location) and then accelerate to full speed. He acted as if he was passed the second turn, when in fact, he had cleared the first turn.

There are no signs, the area is not well lit and it is tough to locate other reference points at night to confirm location.

Clearly, engineer error, but more complex than a simple brain fart.

The old or the new train control would have been the back-up. It clearly would have stopped the train. The excuse for it not being installed is unacceptable to me. AMTRAK left a hole and tragedy found it.

Farmer_Bill posted:

OK, distracted; happens to the best of us.  Maybe I missed it - the question of why the train accelerated to twice the local speed limit. 

Simply put, the engineer lost his situational awareness and accelerated as if he had just passed through the accident location ( 2nd curve) instead of the first curve. That's a full speed run.

But something still does not seem right about all this.  A new electric is not the same as a steam engine.  But a mainline steamer do have radios.  And a lot of items to watch.  Boiler pressure.  Water level.  Yet those engineers can get the big picture, and maintain situational awareness. 

OK, a steamer does have at least TWO people in the cab.  But some of our military planes only have ONE.  18 wheelers usually have ONE.  Again, something is just not adding up.....

Dominic,

I used to do my radio show with a  whole team, and never lost situational awareness. But now the news person is in another building, the weather guy in another state, and my co-host moved to afternoons.  Many times I find myself asking myself "where am I?"  Or "what time is it?".  Only I'm just playing a Rick Springfield record, and not rocketing along at 110 mph with 250 people in my charge.

Todays cabs are almost too comfortable, and nobody is there calling out the signals.

Jon

I am with Dom, things don't  add up with this whole thing. If you are operating any kind of vehicle, especially at speed, maintaining "situational awareness" and your composure is part of the job.  Eight died and a lot of people suffered horrible injuries and this operator gets a free ride.  I question AMTRAK's hiring and training program and they are covering up.

It has been alluded to on another forum that there are no curve speed boards along this line. Does anyone know if that is true? Also, that this curve looks the same as another nearby curve.

Big Jim posted:

It has been alluded to on another forum that there are no curve speed boards along this line. Does anyone know if that is true? Also, that this curve looks the same as another nearby curve.

My recollection of yesterday's hearing is that there are no signals or speed boards in this area.  That question was asked of one of the investigators.

jim pastorius posted:

I am with Dom, things don't  add up with this whole thing. If you are operating any kind of vehicle, especially at speed, maintaining "situational awareness" and your composure is part of the job.  Eight died and a lot of people suffered horrible injuries and this operator gets a free ride.  I question AMTRAK's hiring and training program and they are covering up.

There is no free ride for this engineer. He accelerated when he should have been slowing. That fact is not covered up.

While I understand the discussion that there are other safety measures that could have, and probably should have been in place, this doesn't negate the fact that the number one job of the engineer was to safely transfer his passengers from point A to point B.  No different from the captain of a ship or the pilot of an airplane.  There is no room for carelessness, if he wasn't disciplined enough to do so, he shouldn't have been behind the throttle.

Jim

Just to make a note, if anyone read the Trains Mag article on this it discussed this engineer in particular at length.  This individual is reported to have been incredibly safety conscious and often participated in crash/incident follow up with other engineers to improve procedures and understandings of how the accidents occurred to prevent them from happening again.  I am not saying it isn't his fault, as every other engineer on that line would have had to handle the same amount of radio traffic and is ultimately responsible for the safe handling of the train.  I just want to point out that this man was held in high regard by his peers for his dedication to his job and his active participation in safety related activities, some hanging him out to dry for the rest of his life and career may or may not be warranted.  I would imagine however that he will not be pulling passengers again for many years.

Also is it is true that the ATS system was in place and simply deactivated, then the managers who made that decision should also be held accountable.  I would presume criminal charges of negligent manslaughter, if there is such a term, would likely be applicable.

Moonman posted:

Big Jim posted:

It has been alluded to on another forum that there are no curve speed boards along this line. Does anyone know if that is true? Also, that this curve looks the same as another nearby curve.

My recollection of yesterday's hearing is that there are no signals or speed boards in this area.  That question was asked of one of the investigators.

I am sure a lot of you here will ask the question...what good would that have done, isn't he supposed to know his territory? That is true, but, even though he knows that curve is limited to X mph, a speed board is a "fixed signal". If placed in advance of the curve, as was the case on my line, it would have provided him with a reminder that a restricted curve is coming up and the need to slow down. Even if he could not have come down to the curve's speed restriction, maybe, the train could have slowed down below the "turning over speed".

Big Jim posted:

Moonman posted:

Big Jim posted:

It has been alluded to on another forum that there are no curve speed boards along this line. Does anyone know if that is true? Also, that this curve looks the same as another nearby curve.

My recollection of yesterday's hearing is that there are no signals or speed boards in this area.  That question was asked of one of the investigators.

I am sure a lot of you here will ask the question...what good would that have done, isn't he supposed to know his territory? That is true, but, even though he knows that curve is limited to X mph, a speed board is a "fixed signal". It would have provided him with a reminder that a restricted curve is coming up and the need to slow down. Even if he could not have come down to the curve's speed restriction, maybe, the train could have slowed down below the "turning over speed".

Concerning "speed boards", different railroads use different practices with speed board placement and use. The Southern Pacific provided a speed board in advance of the actual spot of the speed reduction, but no speed board at THAT specific spot of the reduction, i.e., the Engineer had to know EXACTLY were he was at all times. The Burlington Northern, provided an angled speed board in advance, and then a straight/horizontal speed board at the exact spot of the reduction.