Cascades 501 Wreck 18 December 17

frequentflyer wrote: I agree they cars held up well. But the fatalities were from the cars that went into the trees. A heavier Amfleet or Superliner would have fared better. I think half of this Talgo consist is about to be recycled.

I would say the whole set is done. As for the future, well, the Cascades trains are running today and the equipment is just as safe as it was before this happened. With the equipment likely being exonerated in the preliminary investigation, I don't think we'll see any short term consequences but as for Talgo's longer term prospects, beyond maybe converting one of both of the Wisconsin sets for Cascades, I don't know if this hurts or not. Would I feel safer putting myself or my loved ones aboard a standard 85 ft stainless steel coach? All things being equal, yeah, I think so. How would Amfleets or Superliners have fared in this particular scenario? I don't know.

freightguy wrote:This wreck is eerily similar to the Spuyten Duyvil wreck on Metro North in the New York Metropolitan area. That incident brought a whole slew of changes to MN and I believe some industry wide. Especially with the speeds although the track curvature looks different.

Those on the West Coast should look at the Metro North forum on here and countless new articles pertaining to the Metro North Spuyten Duyvil wreck December 2013. Different crew circumstances and conditions however it appears. I believe the conductor on that train was the first to inform the dispatcher in a somewhat calm manner of what had just occurred also.

I agree however we do not have any explanation as to the events in the cab leading up to the accident or whether something went wrong with the train mechanically. On another note, I understand people are going to speculate however it amazes me how so many people on here are quick to say this needs to change or that without even knowing all of the facts. Yes we all know by now PTC prevents over speed conditions however if the brakes failed then PTC becomes a moot point just as the 2 man crew argument if there were indeed 2 people in the cab.

Matt Johnson wrote:

frequentflyer wrote: I agree they cars held up well. But the fatalities were from the cars that went into the trees. A heavier Amfleet or Superliner would have fared better. I think half of this Talgo consist is about to be recycled.

I would say the whole set is done. As for the future, well, the Cascades trains are running today and the equipment is just as safe as it was before this happened. With the equipment likely being exonerated in the preliminary investigation, I don't think we'll see any short term consequences but as for Talgo's longer term prospects, beyond maybe converting one of both of the Wisconsin sets for Cascades, I don't know if this hurts or not. Would I feel safer putting myself or my loved ones aboard a standard 85 ft stainless steel coach? All things being equal, yeah, I think so. How would Amfleets or Superliners have fared in this particular scenario? I don't know.

These Talgos held up reasonably well given the speed at which the accident occurred. Older Amtrak cars like Superliners and Amfleets (which don't meet the current FRA crash standards) might not have performed much better. The danger with non-compliant cars isn't so much incidents involving a single train, but collisions between compliant and non-compliant trains.

A majority of the injuries and fatalities in this accident were likely due to blunt force and trauma, not the crush injuries the FRA standards try to prevent. The sheer forces one could encounter if thrown of a bridge or into a tree at 80 mph are enough to kill, even if the railcar itself sustains little damage.

If the brakes "failed", wouldn't you expect that the trailing unit would have continued further? It seems like it went into emergency when the train broke apart.

Of course the investigators already know if the train went into emergency. I am just speculating here.

freightguy wrote:This wreck is eerily similar to the Spuyten Duyvil wreck on Metro North in the New York Metropolitan area. That incident brought a whole slew of changes to MN and I believe some industry wide. Especially with the speeds although the track curvature looks different.

Those on the West Coast should look at the Metro North forum on here and countless new articles pertaining to the Metro North Spuyten Duyvil wreck December 2013. Different crew circumstances and conditions however it appears. I believe the conductor on that train was the first to inform the dispatcher in a somewhat calm manner of what had just occurred also.

Yes I thought of Spuyten Duyvil right away also.

I remember there being talk about MNRR requiring a second crew member to be on the head end to prevent something like this from happening (was that implemented?). In this case, there were 2 crewmen in the cab.

ADMIN NOTE:

It's going to be

DAYS before the NTSB has its press conference concluding on-site information collection.

WEEKS to MONTHS before it releases its preliminary report.

THE BETTER PART OF A YEAR before the Board meets to assess and approve the final report.

Be patient, all...

scoostraw wrote:Of course the investigators already know if the train went into emergency. I am just speculating here.

Yes the train most likely went into emergency when the brake hoses parted but we don’t know if there was a brake stand issue in the lead loco itself which is why most railroaders on here avoid commenting until all the details have unfolded. The Chargers are still new and have electronic brakes just as most new equipment has now so there is always the unlikely situation where something in the engine malfunctioned. In 11 years of railroading I’ve had 2 instances where I’ve all of a sudden encountered inadequate brake performance or issues with new equipment taking power when it shouldn’t have been. With accidents a lot of things may seem given but until we know all of the details, sometimes the obvious isn’t what it seems so that is why the mods and others discourage speculation.

Is there a mechanical valve on the charger units to dump the air?

I am confident that investigators will be able to determine with certainty what happened - with two people (who survived) in the cab, forward facing video, and event recorders on both units.

NY Times just reported train speed was 80 at the 30 mph curve, verified by speed recorder in P42. This wreck is squarely on Amtrak and individual engineer, any attempt to blame politicians doesn’t pass the smell test. My personal opinion is Amtk is too quick to promote young and inexperienced persons to run the train. Before 1971 it was unheard of to find a passenger engineer in his 20’s. It took years as a fireman to be promoted and anyone by then had an intimate knowledge of the route he was traveling and knew everything about train handling.

Matt Johnson wrote:

frequentflyer wrote: I agree they cars held up well. But the fatalities were from the cars that went into the trees. A heavier Amfleet or Superliner would have fared better. I think half of this Talgo consist is about to be recycled.

I would say the whole set is done. As for the future, well, the Cascades trains are running today and the equipment is just as safe as it was before this happened. With the equipment likely being exonerated in the preliminary investigation, I don't think we'll see any short term consequences but as for Talgo's longer term prospects, beyond maybe converting one of both of the Wisconsin sets for Cascades, I don't know if this hurts or not. Would I feel safer putting myself or my loved ones aboard a standard 85 ft stainless steel coach? All things being equal, yeah, I think so. How would Amfleets or Superliners have fared in this particular scenario? I don't know.

What a sad way to find a home for the WI Talgos... but I agree that conversion looks attractive now.

scoostraw wrote:I remember there being talk about MNRR requiring a second crew member to be on the head end to prevent something like this from happening (was that implemented?). In this case, there were 2 crewmen in the cab.

Yes, MNR did implement this for a short time, a week or so, until the signal system was upgraded at a few specifically chosen curves.

other than 30 mph restriction this incident has zero in common with Spuyten Duyvil.
Spuyten Duyvil and Frankford for that matter were preventable as it would have only taken a reduction in Cab signal/atc code to bring speed down.
the cascade incident is different as there is no Cab signal /atc and only thing engineer has is signals and qualifications .
some crews got qualified after only two rides ?? having Amtrak just trust the written test.

D40LF wrote:

Matt Johnson wrote:

frequentflyer wrote: I agree they cars held up well. But the fatalities were from the cars that went into the trees. A heavier Amfleet or Superliner would have fared better. I think half of this Talgo consist is about to be recycled.

I would say the whole set is done. As for the future, well, the Cascades trains are running today and the equipment is just as safe as it was before this happened. With the equipment likely being exonerated in the preliminary investigation, I don't think we'll see any short term consequences but as for Talgo's longer term prospects, beyond maybe converting one of both of the Wisconsin sets for Cascades, I don't know if this hurts or not. Would I feel safer putting myself or my loved ones aboard a standard 85 ft stainless steel coach? All things being equal, yeah, I think so. How would Amfleets or Superliners have fared in this particular scenario? I don't know.

These Talgos held up reasonably well given the speed at which the accident occurred. Older Amtrak cars like Superliners and Amfleets (which don't meet the current FRA crash standards) might not have performed much better. The danger with non-compliant cars isn't so much incidents involving a single train, but collisions between compliant and non-compliant trains.

A majority of the injuries and fatalities in this accident were likely due to blunt force and trauma, not the crush injuries the FRA standards try to prevent. The sheer forces one could encounter if thrown of a bridge or into a tree at 80 mph are enough to kill, even if the railcar itself sustains little damage.

Exaxtly. You need to look at the injuries to the passengers and crew, not the damage to the cars. ok, only 70 or so people on board , but only 3 fatalities is pretty good.
The ideal car from a safety perspective would completely "crumble" , leaving the passengers unhurt , and not subject to 80 to zero in a matter of metres, buffered by the crumbling effect.

17
New postby DutchRailnut » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:30 pm
other than 30 mph restriction this incident has zero in common with Spuyten Duyvil.
Spuyten Duyvil and Frankford for that matter were preventable as it would have only taken a reduction in Cab signal/atc code to bring speed down.
Yje cascade incident is different as tere is no Cab signal /atc and only thing engineer has is signals and qualifications .
some crews got qualified after only two rides ?? having Amtrak just trust the written test.


I would say the time of day, the time of year, number of fatalities, and speeds are quite similair. Also a push pull scenario vs overhead wire on the Northeast corridor. Maybe a scenario on VIA rail years back where 4 people were in the lead cab and a train took a crossover at speed resulting in death I believe. Qualifying runs as a comparable incident though in Canada.

D40LF wrote: Older Amtrak cars like Superliners and Amfleets (which don't meet the current FRA crash standards) might not have performed much better.

The most severely damaged car and the one where the fatalities were sustained in the Frankford Junction derailment was the car that hit and took down the catenary tower. It was about 90% crushed and peeled back. The rest of the cars that left the tracks fared relatively well. An aluminum signal mast is nothing compared to a H shaped, 15" by 2" thick steel column.

That being said, the Talgo's appeared to have performed well from a structural standpoint.