by SwingMan
Engineers name was posted. Not posting it here just as an act of courtesy to him and his family..
Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
litz wrote:NSTB's home page for the investigation :Got a 401 not authorized.
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Page ... ia_pa.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(info, pictures, releases, reports, etc. will be posted here)
60 Car wrote:Since the news reports were referencing the 1943 Congressional wreck in the same area, I decided to read up on it because the news has been conveniently leaving out the cause of the 1943 accident.I've had a look at a couple channels and CBS Evening News recently gave the reason (Partially why I watch CBS News-Good reporting ). I appreciate that reporters try to deliver good reporting but are just bad at being accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Frank ... rain_wreck" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Scroll to the bottom of that page and there is already a link to a wiki page for the 188 wreck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Phila ... derailment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The ignorance of the media regarding the details and facts of railroading is mind boggling.
The sensational reporting getting side tracked with funding cuts, aging infrastructure , accident statistics, and file footage of 601 showing the cab door being slammed shut like there is something to hide, mention of the 1943 wreck with no further mention of the cause leading those who don't know or have the curiosity to do their own research.
As a career transit employee, it makes me want to throw things at the TV.
Prayers to all those involved and their families.
Now we wait to find out the cause....
8th Notch wrote: You guys are not understating how the systems work correctly so allow me to shine some light on things. ACSES is the only system that enforces track speed limits, CAB SIGNLAS DO NOT! The area where the accident happened is only governed by cab signals and not ACSES so nothing was physically forcing the engineer to comply with the speed restriction on the curve. The only time track speed limits are displayed and enforced is in ACSES equipped territory which is currently being worked on from NYP south. The ACS, AEM-7, and Acela all have the same ADU's so the engine has nothing to do with anything here unless it was a mechanical failure with the brakes or something.That is not always the case, cab signals can and do enforce permanent speed restrictions at curves. The Elizabeth S curve comes to mind. Trains approach the curve on both sides at 100+ mph, and the cab signals will drop long enough to force the train to slow down. This could have been done here also. Why it wasn't is beyond me. I am guessing that the powers that be in the signal department never expected a NY bound train to approach the curve at over 100mph, given the track speed before the curve is only 80mph. This was done after the Metro North derailment at Spuyten Duyvil also. This type of set up would not require much in terms of extra infrastructure, in fact just some wiring modifications in the signal huts, since all you are doing is preventing 180 code from sending out to the rails, whether temporary or permanently. The cabs can drop long enough that the train must slow down, and after a certain amount of time elapses after the train enters the block, they can automatically upgrade again. Don't get me wrong, I am all for the expansion of ACSES, the more layers of protection the better. I just wanted to clarify that the present system is fully capable of protecting situations like this from happening.
mvb119 wrote:It may have been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but the same method is used to slow southbound trains approaching Frankford Junction (somewhere around Bridesburg, cabs on timetable westward trains always drop to approach limited regardless of actual track conditions). This was implemented due to the large difference between 110-125 and 50 mph. Because the MAS on the other side of Frankford Junction was never more than 70-80 mph, this type of protection wasn't deemed necessary there.8th Notch wrote: You guys are not understating how the systems work correctly so allow me to shine some light on things. ACSES is the only system that enforces track speed limits, CAB SIGNLAS DO NOT! The area where the accident happened is only governed by cab signals and not ACSES so nothing was physically forcing the engineer to comply with the speed restriction on the curve. The only time track speed limits are displayed and enforced is in ACSES equipped territory which is currently being worked on from NYP south. The ACS, AEM-7, and Acela all have the same ADU's so the engine has nothing to do with anything here unless it was a mechanical failure with the brakes or something.That is not always the case, cab signals can and do enforce permanent speed restrictions at curves. The Elizabeth S curve comes to mind. Trains approach the curve on both sides at 100+ mph, and the cab signals will drop long enough to force the train to slow down. This could have been done here also...I just wanted to clarify that the present system is fully capable of protecting situations like this from happening.
mvb119 wrote:In reference to what I was answering, cab signals still do not enforce all permanent track speed limits where ACSES does. I get what your saying but in regards to having non railroad ops understand the two systems then I still stand by my statement. Yes you can put a cab drop to enforce a speed limit however cab signals can't enforce a permanent track speed of 55, 35 etc where ACSES can.8th Notch wrote: You guys are not understating how the systems work correctly so allow me to shine some light on things. ACSES is the only system that enforces track speed limits, CAB SIGNLAS DO NOT! The area where the accident happened is only governed by cab signals and not ACSES so nothing was physically forcing the engineer to comply with the speed restriction on the curve. The only time track speed limits are displayed and enforced is in ACSES equipped territory which is currently being worked on from NYP south. The ACS, AEM-7, and Acela all have the same ADU's so the engine has nothing to do with anything here unless it was a mechanical failure with the brakes or something.That is not always the case, cab signals can and do enforce permanent speed restrictions at curves. The Elizabeth S curve comes to mind. Trains approach the curve on both sides at 100+ mph, and the cab signals will drop long enough to force the train to slow down. This could have been done here also. Why it wasn't is beyond me. I am guessing that the powers that be in the signal department never expected a NY bound train to approach the curve at over 100mph, given the track speed before the curve is only 80mph. This was done after the Metro North derailment at Spuyten Duyvil also. This type of set up would not require much in terms of extra infrastructure, in fact just some wiring modifications in the signal huts, since all you are doing is preventing 180 code from sending out to the rails, whether temporary or permanently. The cabs can drop long enough that the train must slow down, and after a certain amount of time elapses after the train enters the block, they can automatically upgrade again. Don't get me wrong, I am all for the expansion of ACSES, the more layers of protection the better. I just wanted to clarify that the present system is fully capable of protecting situations like this from happening.
Matt Johnson wrote:It is a real surprise to me that such curves are unprotected. I was under the mistaken impression that cab signals and ACSES on the Northeast Corridor would prevent the scenario that we saw in Spain a couple of years ago. This appears to be almost the exact same scenario.Prior to the federal PTC mandate, ACSES was only required when operating over speeds of 125 which is why it wasn't south of NYP.
CNJGeep wrote:Could it be something on your end ... I just checked (in multiple browsers) and it came up ...litz wrote:NSTB's home page for the investigation :Got a 401 not authorized.
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Page ... ia_pa.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(info, pictures, releases, reports, etc. will be posted here)
Matt Johnson wrote:It is a real surprise to me that such curves are unprotected. I was under the mistaken impression that cab signals and ACSES on the Northeast Corridor would prevent the scenario that we saw in Spain a couple of years ago. This appears to be almost the exact same scenario.If, and this is a big IF here, what we've seen so far proves out ...
TrainPhotos wrote:In any case, what is the word on damage done to the tracks/catenary etc? Looked pretty extensive...Just from what I've seen, there's gotta be at least two of the overhead structures completely gone ... and who knows how much wire in that area ...