Northeast Regional 188 - Accident In Philadelphia

I am sure everybody remembers that Spanish train that went into a 50 mph curve at 112 mph two years ago. About 79 of 222 on board perished. This Amtrak wreck, awful though it was, resulted in 90pct fewer fatalities. Granted, it was going 9 mph slower but there were 21 more people on board.

Does this indicate that the Amtrak equipment did its job: to minimize casualties in a disaster? And don't both these tragedies justify the investment in positive train control?

When there is a human at the controls or designing a machine or programming a computer, there will be errors. It's just unavoidable. A good system is one that minimizes the resulting damage.

Jehochman wrote:Does this indicate that the Amtrak equipment did its job: to minimize casualties in a disaster?

I'd think that all this indicates is that fewer of the Amtrak cars hit fixed objects. The first car obviously absorbed most of the energy but had the Amtrak train hit a concrete wall, it's likely that casualties would have been significantly higher.

I suspect it is lucky that the business class car was already likely to be the most lightly filled, and that has a lot to do with the numbers.

Jehochman wrote:
Does this indicate that the Amtrak equipment did its job: to minimize casualties in a disaster? And don't both these tragedies justify the investment in positive train control?

When there is a human at the controls or designing a machine or programming a computer, there will be errors. It's just unavoidable. A good system is one that minimizes the resulting damage.

I certainly believe PTC is important and we must invest in it. As for crash standards, hard to say. The Talgo cars were thrown against a concrete wall. The Amtrak train had the good fortune of having some space to dissipate energy (aside from the business class car that apparently hit a catenary pole and was obliterated). Would I choose to be in an Amfleet over a Talgo in that unfortunate scenario? Yes. Can a direct comparison be made between the two disasters? Despite their similarities, in terms of evaluating relative crashworthiness I don't think so.

chrisf wrote:

Jehochman wrote:Does this indicate that the Amtrak equipment did its job: to minimize casualties in a disaster?

I'd think that all this indicates is that fewer of the Amtrak cars hit fixed objects. The first car obviously absorbed most of the energy but had the Amtrak train hit a concrete wall, it's likely that casualties would have been significantly higher.

Yes, the Talgo incident involved huge concrete abutments.
This crash site almost resembles the runoff areas on a motorcycle racing circuit . a large open area of loose gravel to slowly bring the crashed vehicle to a stop . Unfotunately , the cat pole was there,(necessarrily) and that did the damage.

As for the British newspapers, the trash talk is certainly likely in the Tabloids(the Sun, Daily Mirror, etc), but you wouldnt expect it on the BBC, or the Broadsheets, (times,Telegraph,Independant, etc).

Back to the Accident ,please.

ThirdRail7 wrote:

ACeInTheHole wrote:amtrakhogger, r40, ThirdRail, you guys alright?

We're ok. Busy, but Ok. Thanks for asking.

Good. You're welcome.

Final NTSB press conference now occurring ...

http://abcnews.go.com/live?stream=1

NTSB-Amtrak conductor recalled that engineer was talking to Septa engineer through dispatch that his train was hit by rock as well around North Phila.

In any event - I'm still leaning heavily toward the projectile theory, having read everyone's (mostly everyone's) well-written posts thus far. I am, however, also leaning somewhat toward the concept that the engineer was simply under the impression that he had left the second turn and was accelerating too quickly, too early.

As others have also noted - logical, reasonable speculation doesn't somehow interfere with the NTSB's investigation. There has been some great information shared in this thread, which has led (in my mind) to some reasonable theories.

Gare

From the NTSB: Amtrak AC - 3-4 mins prior to derailment, she remembers engineer talking to a septa engineer, as the septa train was either hit by a rock or shot at. She also believed that she heard that Amtrak engineer state he was either struck or shot at.

nomis wrote:From the NTSB: Amtrak AC - 3-4 mins prior to derailment, she remembers engineer talking to a septa engineer, as the septa train was either hit by a rock or shot at. She also believed that she heard that Amtrak engineer state he was either struck or shot at.

Interesting .... wonder if that was her engineer (from the accident train), or the Acela that was also hit that night?

Acela window also hit by rock or bullet or something, according to rider -- just a few minutes before 188 crash and Septa crash. (On CNN right now.)

Also, what we don't know are the actual radio communications as the NTSB is paraphrasing in the pressers .. the report will have an actual transcript.

This is important, because in the railroad world, you're supposed to identify yourself by your engine or train # on the radio, so others know who you are (particularly, other members of your crew).

It's possible for several trains to be on the same channel, just like a bunch of airliners on a common ATC frequency.

If the crewmembers making these reports properly identified themselves, we'll know exactly who, and when.

I'm still skeptical about the projectile thing. I would think that if that had happened we would be getting SOME preliminary, tentative indication from the various agencies investigating, either directly or as a "unnamed source" leak. But I've been wrong before.