Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, Amtrak67 of America, Tadman, gprimr1

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Postby Tommy Meehan » Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:42 pm

STrRedWolf wrote:In short, WSDOT's placing the blame on the host railroads for not getting PTC going...


I don't think it is fair or accurate to say Washington DOT is "placing the blame" for the derailment on the host railroad. From the link that Dutch posted (and you copied):
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is conducting an investigation of the crash and will make a determination regarding the likely cause. It is inappropriate to speculate as to cause in advance of the NTSB Report....It is important to stress that PTC is not currently a legal requirement or a prerequisite for safe rail operations, but is an additional value added safety overlay mechanism....WSDOT announced on Dec. 21 that Amtrak Cascades passenger rail service will not return to the Point Defiance Bypass route until positive train control (PTC) technology is activated on the bypass. This is not because WSDOT has any reason to believe the tracks are unsafe – the tracks were thoroughly inspected and tested. The decision was made to be sensitive both to the people involved in the tragic derailment and ongoing passengers.


I don't want to copy-and-paste the entire statement but the above seem to be the most relevant passages as per who is to blame. I don't see Washington blaming anyone, much less the host railroads.
User avatar
Tommy Meehan
 
Posts: 3331
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 7:00 am
Location: Yonkers

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Postby justalurker66 » Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:50 pm

litz wrote:When safety equipment like this has to be disabled/cut out (due to malfunction, etc), the train doesn't just continue on as if it was still enabled.

It depends on how the equipment is disabled. If I recall correctly, the incident Tadman points to in Michigan had a signal maintainer that cut out a crucial piece of equipment. The system did not see the bypass and as far as the system and train were concerned everything was working fine. Now we can learn from that at come up with a way where required testing can be accomplished without causing a safety risk.

I do not like that there are ways of bypassing the system without at alert and reminders. Perhaps one could call that a design failure but per design the system should not be disabled or bypassed.
User avatar
justalurker66
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:20 pm

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Postby Railjunkie » Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:11 am

litz wrote:
Railjunkie wrote:To intentionally disable a safety device on any RR in this country is reason for dismissal. Thats FRA regs.


Not just dismissal, it also makes the culprit liable to a fine, and usually a very very hefty one.

Railjunkie wrote:A hypothetical question what if PTC WAS active and there was a failure and had to be cut out and the accident happened what then???


When safety equipment like this has to be disabled/cut out (due to malfunction, etc), the train doesn't just continue on as if it was still enabled. Rules almost always require changes in operation ... e.g., multiple persons in operating cab, reduced speed, etc etc etc.

With those kinds of stipulations in place, the chances of that train hitting that curve at 80mph would be significantly reduced.

Rules exist for a reason.



Ill use ACESS as an example as its what Im most familiar with. If it is cut out due to malfunction the train may continue with no restriction other than a 110 MAS. The rest of the trip is on the engineer. No need for a second man in the cab no reduced speed. Cutting out cab signals will cause a drop in MAS and depending on the host railroad a second man in the cab. So Ill ask again what if...

The system is there as an overlay it dosent take place of the engineer running the train or being relieved of his qualifications. Im willing to bet it will still be 79mph on signal indication. Most likely you'll run restricted speed from the spot you cut it out to the next signal. Signals tell block condition. PTC is there to warn of an overspeed condition on temporary and permanent speeds.
Railjunkie
 
Posts: 1017
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 7:24 am

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Postby Backshophoss » Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:43 am

At this point in time we don't know how much of the BNSF Seattle Sub has active PTC and what is waiting for the rest of the needed wayside
gear installation,also,Sounder Equipment still needs on board installs in their power and cab cars, also unknown how far along is Amtrak
is installing PTC gear in the F-59's and NPCU's used in Cascades service,the Chargers had factory installs of the PTC gear needed.
The Lakeview sub had the wayside gear installed,waiting for the rest of the needed installs along the route. BNSF has yet to
register Amtrak's and Sounder's locos and cab cars into their PTC computers.
The entire process to get the PTC on line seem to be a SLOW motion process at best.
Backshophoss
 
Posts: 5047
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Postby Tommy Meehan » Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:03 am

We have some idea how much PTC BNSF has installed on the Seattle Subdivision. This is from the statement released by Washington State DOT that Dutch linked:
On the segments of Washington’s Amtrak Cascades corridor beyond the Point Defiance Bypass, BNSF is already operating PTC for its freight trains.

BNSF expects to meet the December 31, 2018 deadline for full implementation.
User avatar
Tommy Meehan
 
Posts: 3331
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 7:00 am
Location: Yonkers

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Postby AgentSkelly » Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:51 am

For Mr. Norman...
Attachments
80033755-292E-456D-8723-CEF706F5BDC1.jpeg
New Westminster to Amtrak 516, whats up with the extra 4 axles, over?
AgentSkelly
 
Posts: 1430
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:05 pm
Location: BNSF Vancouver Terminal

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Postby justalurker66 » Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:16 pm

Ambulance chasers.
User avatar
justalurker66
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:20 pm

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Postby BigUglyCat » Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:13 pm

By rail nowadays! :(
BigUglyCat
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:43 pm
Location: Belfast, ME

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Postby Gilbert B Norman » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:04 am

http://amtrak.consumerinjury.lawyer

Reviewing this site first noted by Mr. Skelly, it appears to be some kind of "moshing pit" for bottom feeding lawyers. Also it appears to be a gold mine for personal information "miners".

I would hope that those parties who sustained legitimate injuries would find some other means to obtain their legal representation, as websites like these will simply clog the Judiciary with frivolous lawsuits.
Gilbert B Norman
 
Posts: 13243
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:52 am
Location: Clarendon Hills, IL (BNSF Chicago Sub; MP 18.71)

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Postby Suburban Station » Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Bostontoallpoints wrote:
So as it turns out the state had considered straightening the curve but cheaped out deeming it not necessary. I suspect that if this were a highway project that they would not have cheaped out on safety to build a tight turn.


A 1/2 mile beyond the curve is a junction where the train would also need to slow down to 30 mph anyway. Straightening the curve would seem to have little impact on speed. It is also expected that highly trained engineers have a better handle on speed control then the car driving public.

the point stands, if it were a highway project they would have funded curve modification to meet safety standards regardless of the fact that professional drivers (in this case an engineer rather than a truck driver) are expected to know the territory (they are).
Suburban Station
 
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:11 pm

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Postby east point » Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:01 pm

Suburban Station wrote:[
the point stands, if it were a highway project they would have funded curve modification to meet safety standards regardless of the fact that professional drivers (in this case an engineer rather than a truck driver) are expected to know the territory (they are).


If the curve was straightened then the CP junction could have been made higher speed . Maybe 50 MPH ? You are right a 30 CP meant curve did not need straightened.
east point
 
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 1:50 pm

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Postby RRspatch » Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:14 am

east point wrote:
Suburban Station wrote:[
the point stands, if it were a highway project they would have funded curve modification to meet safety standards regardless of the fact that professional drivers (in this case an engineer rather than a truck driver) are expected to know the territory (they are).


If the curve was straightened then the CP junction could have been made higher speed . Maybe 50 MPH ? You are right a 30 CP meant curve did not need straightened.


BNSF standard for switches is a No.24 turnout which is good for 50 MPH. I'm fairly certain the switches at CP Nisqually are No.24 turnouts as two new switches were installed as part of the Port Defiance project.
Then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel
Is just a freight train coming your way

No leaf clover ~ Metallica.
RRspatch
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 4:22 am
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Postby JimBoylan » Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:04 am

Will someone please post the employees' timetable for that junction.
JimBoylan
 
Posts: 3187
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 2:33 pm

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Postby DutchRailnut » Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:46 am

why ?? are you an employee and should you have that info ?
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer
User avatar
DutchRailnut
 
Posts: 21478
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Postby dowlingm » Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:20 pm

east point wrote:
Suburban Station wrote:[
the point stands, if it were a highway project they would have funded curve modification to meet safety standards regardless of the fact that professional drivers (in this case an engineer rather than a truck driver) are expected to know the territory (they are).


If the curve was straightened then the CP junction could have been made higher speed . Maybe 50 MPH ? You are right a 30 CP meant curve did not need straightened.
There is a pretty decent bend just at the divergence point where the track turns south from parallelling I-5 westward to run under the Nisqually Road bridge. I wasn't able to pinpoint the switch location but if that bend is the limiting factor it doesn't much matter what the switch type is surely, or whether the crash bridge had been realigned.
dowlingm
 
Posts: 1053
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:42 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

PreviousNext

Return to Amtrak

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bdawe, Gilbert B Norman, Google Adsense [Bot] and 9 guests