Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

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

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, Amtrak67 of America, Tadman, gprimr1

electricron
Posts: 4665
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Post by electricron » Thu May 30, 2019 8:58 am

Tadman wrote:Nah.
Look at the same time frame for on-train deaths. Have there ever been over 100/year? Most years there are less than 10, many years there are zero. What problem are we solving with either PTC or crash resistance?
PTC was implemented on freight lines too, where there are no fare paying passengers. Why? There is more to PTC than just saving the lives of passengers and crews on the trains. There could be thousands of citizens in the nearby neighborhood that could be injured by two freight trains crashing head on into each other - depending upon the freight being carried on the train. It's more than just about deaths, it is also about injuries.

And I believe you will also see data showing highways cause far more injuries than railways. As long as we have a Congress that passes laws based on "feelings", on what is technically possible instead of what is practical, we'll continue to see over-stepping laws and regulations. Welcome to the club!

mtuandrew
Posts: 6009
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:59 am
Location: the Manassas Gap Independent Line

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Post by mtuandrew » Thu May 30, 2019 9:23 am

electricron wrote:And I believe you will also see data showing highways cause far more injuries than railways. As long as we have a Congress that passes laws based on "feelings", on what is technically possible instead of what is practical, we'll continue to see over-stepping laws and regulations. Welcome to the club!
Exactly, that’s why I think there will eventually be an automotive Positive Traffic Control requirement in some municipalities and states, and then in Federal funding legislation. It may not be right now and it may not be mandatory for all roads, but it’ll happen.

Of course the opposite may happen depending on who is in charge, and portions of railroad PTC may be allowed to go dark or shifted to a less-failsafe mode that’s more effective at traffic dispatch. We shall see.

User avatar
Tadman
Posts: 9548
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:21 am

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Post by Tadman » Thu May 30, 2019 9:33 am

electricron wrote: PTC was implemented on freight lines too, where there are no fare paying passengers. Why? There is more to PTC than just saving the lives of passengers and crews on the trains. There could be thousands of citizens in the nearby neighborhood that could be injured by two freight trains crashing head on into each other - depending upon the freight being carried on the train. It's more than just about deaths, it is also about injuries.
Right but that hasn't happened, either. At least not with any frequency. Sherbrooke was a bad thing, but how often does that happen? Once every 20 years?
electricron wrote: And I believe you will also see data showing highways cause far more injuries than railways. As long as we have a Congress that passes laws based on "feelings", on what is technically possible instead of what is practical, we'll continue to see over-stepping laws and regulations. Welcome to the club!
Agreed. What's worse is the regulators that don't have to be reelected.
Dig the new rr.net Instagram account: @railroad_dot_net

Gilbert B Norman
Posts: 14128
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:52 am
Location: Clarendon Hills, IL (BNSF Chicago Sub; MP 18.71)

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Post by Gilbert B Norman » Thu May 30, 2019 11:23 am

Tadman wrote:Sherbrooke was a bad thing, but how often does that happen? Once every 20 years?
Mr. Dunville, I presume we are addressing Megantic vice Sherbrooke?

ApproachMedium
Posts: 5926
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: From here to There

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Post by ApproachMedium » Thu May 30, 2019 4:45 pm

While airbags seatbelts and other car safety improvements have for sure saved lives, they have added complacency among drivers coupled with newer cars being better handling, more responsive etc. ABS, stability control, there are a lot less consequences for driving a car wrecklessly these days than there used to be. You can easily wreck a car and survive it. You can easily do some wild maneuvers and not wreck the car. Just ask one of your grandparents or your parents how cars from the 50s, 60s and 70s handled and responded. Drivers today are so used to a car being able to stop on a dime from disc brake, when those disc brakes or ABS fails they are lost, they wreck. But thanks to energy absorbing zones, air bags, better seat support and seatbelts they can walk away unscratched.

Similar things will fall into the rail industry with these electronic systems in the same manner thru different channels. But my point is here, no matter how safe or how great you make something accident proof or preventative, there will still be accidents. Car accidents havent ended, neither will rail accidents or flight accidents. If there is a margin for error it will be met at some point. Air travel was doing great until the 737 MAX. Rail travel was doing great until Chatsworth and 188. Seems like after 188 we suddenly had a spike in passenger rail accidents.
No good deed goes unpunished.

mtuandrew
Posts: 6009
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:59 am
Location: the Manassas Gap Independent Line

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Post by mtuandrew » Thu May 30, 2019 5:33 pm

The overarching issue is that drivers and engineers are being asked to do more with less - gradually of course. Drivers have much more congestion than (say) the 1949s at higher speeds, with more distractions. Some help would be welcome; some regulation may be imposed. For railroads, tonnage is pretty far above anything the old days saw, and there’s far less double and triple track per ton-mile with fewer crew than ever.

dowlingm
Posts: 1177
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:42 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Post by dowlingm » Thu May 30, 2019 11:48 pm

Aircraft have INS, GPWS, TCAS, ILS. Their pilots can operate one off charters with charts loaded on an iPad and without familiarization flights except for the trickier spots. They can be located in three dimensions anywhere in the world if equipped with ADS-B and have subscription to the satellite services. But install speed control on a locomotive and suddenly you're letting the human off the hook?

Trains should be smarter, able to survive most things a dumb operator does and virtually everything a competent one does, and if the worst happens, Company should know what and where seconds after those on board do.

Gilbert B Norman
Posts: 14128
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:52 am
Location: Clarendon Hills, IL (BNSF Chicago Sub; MP 18.71)

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Post by Gilbert B Norman » Fri May 31, 2019 8:28 am

Pre-Chatsworth, I held that "you're paying a guy $125K a year to be your PTC". The subsequent incidents in both classes of service showed that is no longer enough. With all the distractions we have brought on ourselves, it is no wonder that more of us have attention, or "focus", disorders.

ApproachMedium
Posts: 5926
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: From here to There

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Post by ApproachMedium » Fri May 31, 2019 10:51 pm

dowlingm wrote:Aircraft have INS, GPWS, TCAS, ILS. Their pilots can operate one off charters with charts loaded on an iPad and without familiarization flights except for the trickier spots. They can be located in three dimensions anywhere in the world if equipped with ADS-B and have subscription to the satellite services. But install speed control on a locomotive and suddenly you're letting the human off the hook?

Trains should be smarter, able to survive most things a dumb operator does and virtually everything a competent one does, and if the worst happens, Company should know what and where seconds after those on board do.
But ask any pilot whos become an engineer what is harder to learn and operate planes or trains. They will all hands down tell you trains. I have never had a pilot tell me that a becoming an engineer was cake.
No good deed goes unpunished.

Roscoe P. Coaltrain
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 5:01 pm

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Post by Roscoe P. Coaltrain » Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:19 pm

17 million awarded to the first 3 plaintiffs

https://komonews.com/news/local/three-p ... ry-decides

The lead plaintiffs name sounded familiar. He has an account at Railpictures.

justalurker66
Posts: 2341
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:20 pm

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Post by justalurker66 » Sat Sep 14, 2019 4:32 pm

dowlingm wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 11:48 pm
Aircraft have INS, GPWS, TCAS, ILS. Their pilots can operate one off charters with charts loaded on an iPad ...
iPad training didn't work too well for the 737 Max. (Training for flying the new version of the plane, not the route, but still expecting pilots to pick up intricate details that could save their flights from an iPad app.)
dowlingm wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 11:48 pm
Trains should be smarter, able to survive most things a dumb operator does and virtually everything a competent one does, and if the worst happens, Company should know what and where seconds after those on board do.
When PTC is fully operative they will be a step closer. But when (not if) PTC fails the operators (engineers, conductors) will need to be smarter than the technology that can never replace them. As crews rely more on PTC the door opens for them to become "dumb". If the computer runs the train and the engineer becomes a system monitor ("safety driver" in autonomous car terms) they will lose the experience to operate without the computers.

Technology has its limits ... There are people in the chair, whether it be in a pilot's seat or the engineer's chair, who need to be properly trained and supported for those times where the technology lets them down. When a system decides a course of action that will crash a plane or wreck a train. In the Cascade wreck the engineer did not receive proper training on the equipment nor the route and didn't have PTC to watch his back. He was set up to fail.

(And yes, I understand that the role of PTC is more of an electronic conductor, receiving and keeping track of dispatcher instructions, special instructions, physical characteristics, etc. not as an electronic engineer operating the train. But the usage can grow. Even at the electronic conductor level, it leaves the door open for a failure where a lightly "qualified" engineer is expected to operate hoping that PTC protects them and not in a good position if PTC fails.)

User avatar
Tadman
Posts: 9548
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:21 am

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Post by Tadman » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:33 am

justalurker66 wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 4:32 pm
dowlingm wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 11:48 pm
Aircraft have INS, GPWS, TCAS, ILS. Their pilots can operate one off charters with charts loaded on an iPad ...
iPad training didn't work too well for the 737 Max. (Training for flying the new version of the plane, not the route, but still expecting pilots to pick up intricate details that could save their flights from an iPad app.)
There is a big difference between familiarization training on equipment and using an electronic chart.
Dig the new rr.net Instagram account: @railroad_dot_net

farecard
Posts: 793
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:40 am

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Post by farecard » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:21 am

The NTSB has been successful at reducing aviation fatalities because they grasp several truths.

One of those is "people make inexplicable mistakes." We've been talking about some of those in this thread.
Thanks to their work for decades they can say every accident takes multiple factors.

PTC will reduce the number of those factors.

David Benton
Posts: 8713
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Post by David Benton » Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:19 pm

farecard wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:21 am
The NTSB has been successful at reducing aviation fatalities because they grasp several truths.

One of those is "people make inexplicable mistakes." We've been talking about some of those in this thread.
Thanks to their work for decades they can say every accident takes multiple factors.

PTC will reduce the number of those factors.
Exactly rught . And my contention is more highly trained operators( of any transport/ equipment ) will have "brain farts", simply because our brains are more overloaded with information than they have ever been . ditto the rise in early Dementia etc .
A turning point was the Airbus crash in Indonesia . An engine caught fire and the pilot moved to shut it down quickly . He turned the wrong engine off. Now there is a procedure where the pilot points to the engine he will turn off , confirms with the copilot he is going to turn it off and it is the correct one , before turning it off.
Moderator worldwide railfan , Rail travel & trip reports
The only train trips I regret are the ones I didn't take.

justalurker66
Posts: 2341
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:20 pm

Re: Cascade Wreck 18 December 17

Post by justalurker66 » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:13 am

Tadman wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:33 am
There is a big difference between familiarization training on equipment and using an electronic chart.
In the railroad world, handing the crew an electronic chart isn't enough to qualify them for that journey. Maybe it will be in the future when PTC is in place and trusted. But for now there are rules in place for familiarizing crew to their equipment and their territories. The railroads just have to learn to follow their rules.

Return to “Amtrak”