Dave Zucal posted:Surefire posted:
This photo Surefire posted shows what looks like a can of spray paint in the troopers hand and letter A's painted on the engine. Anyone know what the A's stands for?
Since that was actually the lead unit on the train, maybe they are marking the various pieces of destroyed equipment as to what position they were in, i.e. first piece = A, and so on.
Curt I agree 100%, the railroads and the supporting industries have done a tremendous job to where it stands now. If it had been a government planned and funded project, it would be hardly off the drawing boards. The govt. agencies wereen't even co-operative with the RR industry. The big shots in Washington, DC mandate these things then leave to play golf and chase girls.
I know the X in a circle is that place, house, vehicle etc, has been cleared and checked. I'd bet it has something to do with a master 'map' of the site so they can get it cleared and stuff moved. I-5 needs to be open ASAP.
Hot Water, I,m having trouble believing centrifugal forces were great enough that early in the curve. Is it possible the lead engine's braking for the curve was greater then the rear engine causing the tail of the lead to be pushed off the curve. Even if both engines break together at the exact same time, the laws of physics could cause unequal stopping resistance.
juniata guy posted:Following up on Jack and Jim's comments concerning PTC; in the U.S. you have far more variability in train speeds than in Europe. Additionally; freight trains on many European railroads are relatively short and generally operate at higher speeds than freight trains in this country.
In the U.S. you may have an Amtrak train traveling 79 mph weaving through intermodal running 60; mixed freight running 50 and mineral trains running 35-40. You also have locals mixed in at different points. When PTC was mandated by Congress (unfunded, I might add) the technology necessary for the U.S. rail system simply did not exist.
The railroads first had to agree on a common platform that permitted interoperability between railroads. Once that was resolved; they had to submit applications to the FCC for every wayside tower needed for PTC and herein was another delay. The FCC essentially refused to grant licenses while issues with property owners were resolved including Native Americans.
The freight railroads are fairly well along in the process of installing the necessary wayside and locomotive borne equipment. They are also well along with training crews, dispatchers and other folks with the need to know.
Despite this; given the complexity involved and the need for testing, it is unlikely most Class 1's will be fully operational by the end of 2018. BNSF is probably in better shape than the other Class 1's and might actually be fully compliant by the end of next year. I imagine the other six will have to request extensions.
People in the press and in Washington like to bellyache about the delays but; when you consider the magnitude and expense of the PTC requirement handed the railroads by Congress; it's a credit to the railroads they are at the point they are today.
Curt
Annoyingly people continue to compare the technology existing in European with the United States.
European countries are the size of states.
Someone needs to keep repeating to these morons in the media (and Congress)- European countries simply do not have anywhere near the size rail infrastructure that the United States does.
Ummm... Some "expert":
Gus Ubaldi, a train expert with Robson Forensic, told Patch that's it's possible an object on the tracks caused the
derailment. Looking at photos of the wreck, Ubaldi pointed out that the front cars, including the locomotive,
were heavily damaged, which might indicate the train hit an object. The caboose was the only car not to derail and
appeared largely undamaged.
I'm just happy to see cabooses back in service!!!
I think "Gus' is a little confused. I agree on the constant comparing of Europe and the US. Look at a world map, Europe would cover the eastern part of the US.
Dave Zucal posted:Hot Water, I,m having trouble believing centrifugal forces were great enough that early in the curve. Is it possible the lead engine's braking for the curve was greater then the rear engine causing the tail of the lead to be pushed off the curve. Even if both engines break together at the exact same time, the laws of physics could cause unequal stopping resistance.
The engine on the tracks is the trailing engine. The lead engine is sitting on I-5. I suspect the presence of the trailing engine exacerbated the crash. Its momentum would have been much greater than that of the cars alone and likely pushed more off the tracks than would have otherwise.
Pete
AMCDave posted:I-5 needs to be open ASAP.
They cleared the one coach that was partially hanging off the bridge, and it looked like the wheeled vehicles and the upside down coach were gone from under the bridge (just went under there a little while ago). The radio is saying they might have 1-2 lanes open by the afternoon commute.
They closed the back road through JBLM going to Mounts road that was open last night (only took us an extra half hour or so, that way). So now, they're turning people around at the center St exit, back onto I-5 north (I bet those drivers were livid to wait that long and then get turned around). No clue where they're going from there.
Some of my coworkers took almost 5 hours to get home last night, going various directions. If perimeter road at JBLM is closed tonight, God knows how long it'll take us o get home tonight. If that's the case and nothing has changed tomorrow, I might just call in sick for Wednesday.
As for the train, what I understand from people who worked on the tests is that the only test trains they ran were during the unusually dry summer we had, with trains that had very few people on board. The SOP they developed for southbound trains is to do an air dump when passing under the Center street exit overpass, which put those trains in a good speed for that curve. This train yesterday was mostly full and ran in very wet weather (as far as I know, they ran no Cascades tests on wet rails earlier this year). If the head end did the air dump like they were supposed to, the engineer might not be at fault for what happened next.
prrhorseshoecurve posted:Ummm... Some "expert":
Gus Ubaldi, a train expert with Robson Forensic, told Patch that's it's possible an object on the tracks caused the
derailment. Looking at photos of the wreck, Ubaldi pointed out that the front cars, including the locomotive,
were heavily damaged, which might indicate the train hit an object. The caboose was the only car not to derail and
appeared largely undamaged.
"A" may indicate signs of auto contact like auto paint residue.
After p51's post, I get the impression these people don't know how to run a RR-from NY to Seattle.
Here are two videos from KING 5 Television transportation reporter Glenn Farley. He knows exactly what he is looking at.
Lee:
With regard to testing empty trains versus those with passengers; I heard an interview with a former NTSB accident investigator yesterday where the reporter raised that very question. His response was the cumulative weight of passengers was inconsequential when you consider the weight of the equipment.
On another note; how are your buddies who were on the train doing today?
Curt
Hot Water posted:Dave Zucal posted:Surefire posted:
This photo Surefire posted shows what looks like a can of spray paint in the troopers hand and letter A's painted on the engine. Anyone know what the A's stands for?
Since that was actually the lead unit on the train, maybe they are marking the various pieces of destroyed equipment as to what position they were in, i.e. first piece = A, and so on.
I agree with HW. The Washington State Patrol was among the first responders and participated in the search & rescue, patient transportation and investigation. With 14 locomotives/cars as well as several autos/trucks they had to start labeling them somewhere to identify what had been searched and were injuries and fatalities were located. The first vehicle on the southbound lanes of I-5 is the locomotive so it got the A. Another photo shows the trailing P42 labeled K.
jim pastorius posted:Curt I agree 100%, the railroads and the supporting industries have done a tremendous job to where it stands now. If it had been a government planned and funded project, it would be hardly off the drawing boards. The govt. agencies wereen't even co-operative with the RR industry. The big shots in Washington, DC mandate these things then leave to play golf and chase girls.
Have you ever worked in private industry, been around management, management meetings and planning? I don't work for the government, work in a heavily regulated industry and I know how silly/stupid government can be, but claiming that private industry is this paragon of efficiency, including railroads, is not the truth. Railroads are an industry, and I can guarantee you that they more than have their share of stupidity, the railroads didn't go into the toilet entirely because of the government and ICC, lot of it was management greed and stupidity. And I'll give you an example of where government actually did a good job, Conrail in its last decade of existence revitalized its operations, they developed all kinds of order routing capability, literally state of the art, and they were operating more efficiently than most private carriers were...it is one of the reasons CSX and NS bought the conrail operations, besides the routes themselves, they also wanted to the technology they were using to manage shipping and the like (in grad school as part of my productivity and quality management program, we had a pretty in depth case study done by either MIT Sloane or Harvard Business school).
Wow !! Spent 40 years selling to industries of all kinds in western Pa. & eastern Ohio. Didn't go to grad school-thank God, a waste of time but learned a lot , good & bad, about industry and government. Meetings and all that other stuff is a waste of time-you sit down with the right people and get it done. I have been in and around more heavy industry than you would imagine.
@jim:
I don't disagree about meetings (Dilbert is dead spot on with them), most of the time the real work gets done by a couple of people who actually know what is going on settling things. I can name a lot of things where private industry were about as efficient as a one legged man at a butt kicking contest (the management of the US auto industry for many decades was a prime example) but got away with a lot because they had no competition, and places where the government created a lot more jobs and industries than any CEO/CFO or whatnot (the development of the internet, rural electrification, development of solid state and ICE technology), and I can name a lot of places where you can scratch your head and say "What the heck was that" in both domains. The profit motive drives good things, and it drives a lot of bad things as well, the government has its own weak and strong points. Among other things, I'll point out that passenger rail service wouldn't exist without the government, in large part because private industry has a very different view of what is important than a government will. Put it this way, if it were up to private firms to develop new technology, you might well be driving cars that had carbureutors and got 6 miles to the gallon, you wouldn't have this forum, you wouldn't have the gee whiz modern toy trains many of us love, and a lot of other things, or at least likely nowhere what we have today.
bigkid posted:I'll point out that passenger rail service wouldn't exist without the government, in large part because private industry has a very different view of what is important than a government will.
It's not that railroads have "a different view," it's that they know they can't make any money hauling passengers.
I worked for both the government and private industry. Both have their pluses and minuses. Government people, for the most part, are hard working and competent. Unfortunately, their bosses, politicians, are not competent.
There have been many reports over the years that the railroad industry through their lobbyists have fought the implementation of PTC. Railroads did not see it as being cost effective or needed. This was the same attitude that the auto industry had about seat belts, air bags, side view mirrors, etc. Most safety and environment rules and regulations have had to be mandated by the government. Without a government mandate the class 1 railroads would not have replaced link and pin couplers with knuckle couplers or put air brakes on trains when they did. If you don't believe me, many logging and short line railroads which were not part of the mandate continued to use hand brakes and link and pin couplers well into the 20th century despite of the danger to the railroad workers.
I think that PTC technology could have been implemented much sooner. My phone gives my autos position within a few yards on nearly every road, traffic conditions, speeds, etc. If this can be done on a device that I can carry in my pocket I am sure it could be done on a locomotive.
NH Joe
New Haven Joe posted:
I think that PTC technology could have been implemented much sooner. My phone gives my autos position within a few yards on nearly every road, traffic conditions, speeds, etc. If this can be done on a device that I can carry in my pocket I am sure it could be done on a locomotive.
NH Joe
For what it's worth, being within a "few yards" may NOT be sufficient for PTC when trying to "locate" two different trains on double track, i.e. does the PTC/GPS "locator" REALLY know that the oncoming train is on a different track, or the same track you are on? Continuous testing of just such scenarios has been going on in the yards, out in the LA area, for quite a few years now.
juniata guy posted:On another note; how are your buddies who were on the train doing today?
Haven't heard anything (the Amtrak hotline was utterly worthless, they never called like they said they would, form the time I didn't know if they were among the dead or not).
One was a very big guy, so his bulk probably spared him the injuries that the guy right next to him suffered. One has broken ribs/sternum, the other has fractures in many places, including the pelvis. he has a minor brain bleed and fluid around the kidneys, but he was conscious last night. Haven't heard anything since then.
The engineer had two swollen eyes shut and lots of cuts to the face, he was sent to a hospital in Seattle (I got the impression that he was considered more badly hurt than the other two I knew on the train).
I want to emphasize this; the engineer has a rep for being conservative in running and not considered a 'hot rod' when it come to speeds. People shouldn't automatically assume he just highballed it with no regard to speed.
The 'Ping' everyone is talking about for speed isn't at a specific location and could have been made during the straightaway running between Dupont and Lakewood. Lots of good straight running through that section and 81 wouldn't likely be an odd speed there. Nobody seems to know where that 81 reading was made. I was told yesterday that one of my friends did his own reading of high speed at the golf course (right before the curve), but that appears to have been in error in regard to speed. It doesn't appear the train was actually going 80 at that point but I don't know what the number was there, yet.
Once my friends get out of the hospital, I'll know more. One is an engineer at coal plant and used to run on a G&W line, so he knows more than a normal train fan about how it all works.
I have a question regarding the trailing locomotive:
I understand that the lead and trailing locomotive were MU’d. But I have also heard that the trailing locomotive was NOT under power, i.e., pushing. Also it seems to me that when the lead loco brakes that the trailing loco brakes too. That is to say, the trailing loco would have assisted positively in reducing the severity of the accident. Now if the lead loco made no effort to brake, I would suppose the trailing loco would have presented itself as a liability in the accident. Do I have any correct understanding?
TM Terry posted:I have a question regarding the trailing locomotive:
I understand that the lead and trailing locomotive were MU’d. But I have also heard that the trailing locomotive was NOT under power, i.e., pushing.
True, according to an Amtrak "statement". Such has not actually been proven, yet.
Also it seems to me that when the lead loco brakes that the trailing loco brakes too.
True. However, it might NOT have been "assisting in dynamic brake".
That is to say, the trailing loco would have assisted positively in reducing the severity of the accident.
Difficult to speculate in this.
Now if the lead loco made no effort to brake, I would suppose the trailing loco would have presented itself as a liability in the accident. Do I have any correct understanding?
In my opinion, you have a pretty valid point. Thus, the in-depth investigation by the NTSB collecting the following data:
1) Full details from the rear unit event recorder, i.e. speed at exact mile posts, braking applications at specific locations, etc., etc..
2) Full details from the lead unit event recorder.
3) Details of the inward and outward facing video cameras, i.e. exactly who was REALLY operating the train (the assigned Engineer, or some Supervisor, and how many people actually in the cab).
Hot Water posted:New Haven Joe posted:
I think that PTC technology could have been implemented much sooner. My phone gives my autos position within a few yards on nearly every road, traffic conditions, speeds, etc. If this can be done on a device that I can carry in my pocket I am sure it could be done on a locomotive.
NH Joe
For what it's worth, being within a "few yards" may NOT be sufficient for PTC when trying to "locate" two different trains on double track, i.e. does the PTC/GPS "locator" REALLY know that the oncoming train is on a different track, or the same track you are on? Continuous testing of just such scenarios has been going on in the yards, out in the LA area, for quite a few years now.
Most recent serious railroad accidents have taken place outside of yards at speeds above 30 mph. A GPS system that is accurate to within a few yards could alert an engineer that he/she is above the speed limit and with the proper connection to the locomotive via wiring or local wifi apply the brakes to slow the train. The same could be said for overrunning signals, etc. The NJ accident where a train ran through the buffer could have been slowed or stopped by a similar system that only allowed 5 to 10 mph within the yard area. I haven't heard of about any serious accidents with loss of life in yards during the past few years. NH Joe
Wonder how long it will be before a preliminary report as such is released, or if we have to wait a year two or three for the final report? By then most will have forgotten this incident (except lawyers and insurance of course) and newspapers will print something "in section B below the fold", if at all (and most likely will the that WA city's paper.)
TM Terry posted:I have a question regarding the trailing locomotive:
I understand that the lead and trailing locomotive were MU’d. But I have also heard that the trailing locomotive was NOT under power, i.e., pushing. Also it seems to me that when the lead loco brakes that the trailing loco brakes too. That is to say, the trailing loco would have assisted positively in reducing the severity of the accident. Now if the lead loco made no effort to brake, I would suppose the trailing loco would have presented itself as a liability in the accident. Do I have any correct understanding?
The trailing locomotive would be a liability even with full brakes applied due to its much greater mass. Just as semi truck has a longer stopping distance than a typical passenger car. I think the result of this accident proves this.
Pete
I suppose that all information from this rail accident that I have is limited to the news media and the expertise of some of our Ogauge forum members. The news media is exceptional at getting information out to the public very quickly.
That said, in my 41 years working in an electrical utility power plant, every attempt by the local news media to cover an event at the power plant was "a fictional account of actual events presented as quickly as possible."
TM Terry posted:I suppose that all information from this rail accident that I have is limited to the news media and the expertise of some of our Ogauge forum members. The news media is exceptional at getting information out to the public very quickly.
NOT necessarily CORRECT information, however!
That said, in my 41 years working in an electrical utility power plant, every attempt by the local news media to cover an event at the power plant was "a fictional account of actual events presented as quickly as possible."
New Haven Joe posted:Hot Water posted:New Haven Joe posted:
I think that PTC technology could have been implemented much sooner. My phone gives my autos position within a few yards on nearly every road, traffic conditions, speeds, etc. If this can be done on a device that I can carry in my pocket I am sure it could be done on a locomotive.
NH Joe
For what it's worth, being within a "few yards" may NOT be sufficient for PTC when trying to "locate" two different trains on double track, i.e. does the PTC/GPS "locator" REALLY know that the oncoming train is on a different track, or the same track you are on? Continuous testing of just such scenarios has been going on in the yards, out in the LA area, for quite a few years now.
Most recent serious railroad accidents have taken place outside of yards at speeds above 30 mph.
Well, yes, but all the required testing can NOT be conducted on busy main line trackage, so the PTC/GPS testing has been going on within yards, where they can do whatever they want, whenever they want.
A GPS system that is accurate to within a few yards could alert an engineer that he/she is above the speed limit and with the proper connection to the locomotive via wiring or local wifi apply the brakes to slow the train.
Yes, it is SUPPOSED to do that.
The same could be said for overrunning signals, etc. The NJ accident where a train ran through the buffer could have been slowed or stopped by a similar system that only allowed 5 to 10 mph within the yard area.
First, PTC was NEVER intended to be functional within terminals, such as the huge Hoboken terminal. Way too many tracks, and the speed limit is 10 MPH anyway.
Second, the Engineer of that NJ Transit train WAS entering at a speed of 10 MPH. However, the in cab video showed that he subsequently "slumped over" (fell asleep) the controller, thus increasing the throttle and train speed to over 30 MPH. Again, PTC would NOT have been capable of preventing THAT!
I haven't heard of about any serious accidents with loss of life in yards during the past few years. NH Joe
NTSB says engineer was speeding 50mph over the 30mph posted limit for the curve approach.
That’s not true. NTSB said the TRAIN was going 80 mph.
smd4 posted:bigkid posted:I'll point out that passenger rail service wouldn't exist without the government, in large part because private industry has a very different view of what is important than a government will.
It's not that railroads have "a different view," it's that they know they can't make any money hauling passengers.
Exactly the point, and what this highlights is some things may not be money making, but are important to the common good, the idea that if something is worthwhile that private industry would do it isn't true, there are tons of cases, like rural electrification, where the government did something no private industry would do, for example. Ironically enough, often this is done to allow private industry to make a lot of money, but that is another story in of itself. Businesses despite all their blather don't do things for the common good, they do things for their own interests, and a big part of the realm of the government is doing things for the common good versus the narrower interest *shrug*. Doesn't mean either business or government is perfect, just don't like the mythology that 'the market' or 'businesses' is this mythic force that does everything well and government, well, does everything wrong, both have strengths and weaknesses, and both are subject to weird mythology both good and bad.
Back to the matter at hand, they are now reporting the train was doing 80mph in a 30 zone, and if true that could explain what happened, the crash scene was sort of reminiscent of when we used to run our 300 mph (scale) post war engines around sharp curves *lol*.
cjack posted:That’s not true. NTSB said the TRAIN was going 80 mph.
Unless my math is off, Kerrigan's statement IS True, 50 mph OVER the POSTED 30 mph limit for the curve approach IS 80 mph.
Doug
Talk radio in the metro Detroit Area, is reporting that the train was doing 80mph on a 30mph zone.
1. If this is true can the engineer be held accountable by law-enforcement?
2. What law-enforcement agency will be take the lead? What do you think would be the out come?
Gary
challenger3980 posted:cjack posted:That’s not true. NTSB said the TRAIN was going 80 mph.
Unless my math is off, Kerrigan's statement IS True, 50 mph OVER the POSTED 30 mph limit for the curve approach IS 80 mph.
Doug
Well, Kerrigan made a rash statement in saying the "Engineer was speeding 50 MPH over the posted limit,,,,,,". Now, until further evidence is released, we observers do NOT actually know that the on-duty Engineer was running the train. There has already been speculation that "other people" were in the locomotive cab, and thus a "Supervisor" might have been running.
Thus me. cjack's post is technically correct, so far.
When the Metro North engineer negligently sped through a curve causing deaths, not only was he not prosecuted. He was retired with benefits and is currently suing Metro North. Welcome to La-La land.
Nick Chillianis posted:GenesisFan99 posted:Hot Water posted:The GN Man posted:Looking at the televised pictures, this train was in “push” mode, with P42 on the rear. That accounts for the locomotive still on the rails. This route has undergone testing for several months. The “experts” on CNN right now are clueless...
I'm pretty sure that those Amtrak Cascade passenger trains have some sort of "locomotive" on each end. Thus the powered unit may have been "pushing" on the rear, while the Engineer was controlling from a "Cabbage", or non-powered former locomotive. In other words, they do NOT use "Cab Cars" for controlling as commuter trains do.
Some Amtrak Cascade trains do use Cab Cars on the newer Talgo sets (Talgo 8 I believe). Some of the sets are Cabbage equipped, however. I much prefer the Cabbage sets, the Talgo 8 Cab Cars are ugly.
Well pretty much everything Amtrak runs anymore is butt-ugly. The P42s are hideous, but the Chargers are so euro-trash looking that they make the P42s look half-way decent. Don't even get me started about the Siemens wire-scrapers on the Northeast Corridor.
Sorry kids, I grew up in a world of GG1s and E and F units. Those were REAL locomotives.
You said a mouthful, my friend.
Amtrak locomotives look like they were repeatedly beat with an ugly stick.
George
Hot Water posted:challenger3980 posted:cjack posted:That’s not true. NTSB said the TRAIN was going 80 mph.
Unless my math is off, Kerrigan's statement IS True, 50 mph OVER the POSTED 30 mph limit for the curve approach IS 80 mph.
Doug
Well, Kerrigan made a rash statement in saying the "Engineer was speeding 50 MPH over the posted limit,,,,,,". Now, until further evidence is released, we observers do NOT actually know that the on-duty Engineer was running the train. There has already been speculation that "other people" were in the locomotive cab, and thus a "Supervisor" might have been running.
Thus me. cjack's post is technically correct, so far.
Cjack's post was a little vague to me, it appeared he was disputing the SPEED of the train, if he had commented that it was unclear WHO was operating the train, then I would have understood his post differently, as written, to me it seems to question the speed of the train, not who the operator was.
with vaguely worded posts, it is possible for different readers to interpret different meanings, as seems to be the Case here.
Doug
If the train was going 80 MPH then the engineer was going 80, that is, until the engine stopped THEN the engineer was doing 80. Wait until it is announced that the event recorders weren't working and the cameras weren't turned on !!
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
