All Things Empire Builder

Matt Johnson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 10:13 am While the Talgos got (perhaps unfairly) condemned in the wake of the Cascades wreck, I do wonder if the Superliners are also slightly less safe than single level conventional cars due to their propensity to go down on their sides. I'm guessing the lounge, two coaches, and sleeper that went over are beyond repair and will be scrapped. Given the attrition of the Superliner fleet, if long distance service is to continue then at some point new equipment will be needed. I think the Viewliner is a nice design and it's a shame that CAF had so much trouble with it, but I'm guessing there won't be any more Viewliners produced, so that leaves the future of the long distance fleet an open question.

The Superliners have an amazingly low centre of gravity. The car connects to the bogies at axle level and those heavy AC units sit right above them. A viewliner or Amfleet would have fipped over too on a hill.

John_Perkowski wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 11:36 am As to the train census and consist, we need to remember the Portland section adds on a sleeper, a lounge, and a coach to a regular 10 car consist (2 coaches, 2 sleepers, baggage, diner, lounge, transition sleeper, and two units). We also need to remember vacation season is over and travel still isn’t 100% of pre pandemic.

As mentioned before, this was a combined consist. So I'm going to assume 2 engines, baggage, transition sleeper, sleeper, sleeper, diner, coach, lounge, coach, diner, sleeper. They were probably splitting the train in Spokane, letting the Seattle section go, attaching a P42 to the rest, and then shoving off to Portland.

My understanding of the Empire Builder is that it only carries one diner, which goes to Seattle. The lounge provides food service on the Portland section.

That is correct. When they had timetables , they mentioned it was cold meal service only from Portland to Spokane.

If I understand correctly:
Two engines;
Baggage car, transition sleeper, two sleepers, diner, coach to Seattle;
Sightseer lounge, two coaches (baggage in the second coach) and sleeper to Portland.
With the split service all but one car were required to provide minimal service.
(Portland needs a non-baggage coach for ADA passengers and a baggage coach for baggage service.)
(Seattle needs a transition sleeper for crew and one regular sleeper for passengers.)
Give Seattle an "extra" sleeper to be used en route and the consist size isn't out of line.

The four car Portland section ended up on its side (three connected, one with cars that made it to the switch).
A Seattle sleeper, the diner and coach completely derailed but remained somewhat upright.
The first Seattle sleeper partially derailed.

The first cleanup photo showed the front cars rerailed (with one rerailed on the siding). The three end cars fell off the inside of the slight curve approaching the siding. While the gauge was definitely off at the time the photo was taken there is no public proof of when the deformation occurred - including post accident. The rail does not appear to be broken at that point (still two ribbons of continuously welded rail).

The allowed speed was 79 (no restrictions present) and the train was last noted traveling 78 MPH so it was not an over speed issue.

Was the train going into or out of the siding? Or don't we know?

The head end remained on the rails on the main track. This is the beginning of the siding (if taken) for westbound trains.

Do we know yet if the switch was part of the cause, like moving even as the train passed over it?

The NTSB/FRA has only released info regarding train speed, we don’t know anything else for certain yet.

The train derailed and left three cars on their sides a considerable distance before the switch. Blaming the switch would be illogical.
The NTSB and FRA will figure out what happened. We just have to give them time.

Understood. Thanks for that info!

If there is a form of PTC in use such I-ETMS there is NO WAY I repeat NO WAY you are getting anywhere near that interlocking at 78mph if crossing over into the siding or the signal was displaying STOP. That particular system knows where you are within 25ft or so and IT WILL STOP YOUR TRAIN IF IT DOESN'T LIKE WHAT YOU ARE DOING

These are not your daddy's Lionel trains you cant suddenly decide OHH $#!t I wanted to cross him over there I'll just pull the signal and switch in. Dosen't work that way. Dispatcher/RTC would have has to ask the engineer if they could stop before said point so he could cross them over. The dispatcher/RTC wouldn't take the signal away UNTIL the train was stopped at said point. Dispatchers/RTC can not or should not be able to throw a switch under a moving a train. Seen it done but that's another story for another day. Could the switch have been out of adjustment?? If it was, the signal system would have never allowed a train past the signal. There are circumstances when it could but most certainly not at 78mph.

Standing by for the NTSB report.

There are signals on Daddy's Lionel? Nice. I have always appreciated model setups that include signalling but most of those are either dark signals or simple track occupancy based and although I have planned a few layouts where the signals affected the trains, I don't recall seeing that done on any models I have witnessed. Train stops at a red signal, train slows when passing a yellow signal, etc.

Back to the full scale, modern control systems make it difficult to throw a switch immediately in front of or under a train. The examples I have seen are either not modern or not in electronically controlled areas. But as my previous post stated, the switch is irrelevant in this case as the derailment occurred a considerable distance before the switch.

photobug56 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 1:56 am Do we know yet if the switch was part of the cause, like moving even as the train passed over it?

NTSB already said that the accident started at a curve east of the switch.

Understood.