Tragedy on the NEC

[FHRob]

All kinds of people have told me what they make. Do you find that odd?

Usually, people tend to keep that quiet, or so I thought. I think post Internet stock bubble, when people would brag during work hours how much they made in the market that day, what we earn has become more open.

I'm a CPA who specializes in taxation, so I get to see what people make, and what they own. If I told you I was never envious, I'd be a liar.

[FHRob]

Getting back to topic, the latest news provides more interesting facts.

First, the engineer does indeed have an attorney. This is probably a smart move on his part, but to the average person, it raises questions.

Next, there's no requirement after an accident for the engineer to talk with the NTSB. This seems counter-intuitive, at least to me.

What I really find interesting is the lack of speed boards on this section of track. It appears the engineers, in order to qualify, are required to memorize the speed limits. That's fine, but why not have speed boards as a reminder, especially on this section of track?

Another fact is the engineer was going at track speed up until 65 seconds before the crash. In that period, he accelerated to 106 mph, and didn't go into emergency until he reached 106 mph.

There's more, but I'll leave that to other's to fill-in.

Rob

[OlPaint]

Of course the facts will come out as the NTSB continues the investigation and has an opportunity to interview the engineer. But...as I understand, the engineer is responsible for memorizing the speed limits for each track section. Has anyone noticed that the site of the accident is a part of a larger S-bend set of curves, first hard left then gradual right, after which the track goes tangent for a long distance toward New York.

Just thinking out loud...I wonder if, after a momentary lapse of attention during a very routine trip, might the engineer have thought he was past the s-bend and then set the throttle to accelerate into the tangent track speed. And having realized this was an error, set the emergency.

I, for one, am puzzled - why do we insist on placing only one set of eyes in the cab of a high speed train. Two heads are always better than one - a built-in "fail-safe" so to speak. The American airline companies have already made that decision - no less than two in the cockpit.

OlPaint

[drivertime61]

The NTSB guy who updated the press yesterday did an excellent job fielding the really dopey questions, and answering the well researched questions.

Yes, I couldn't agree more. I know little about real world railroading, but I've been in his same shoes many times during my alleged career, facing semi-circles of TV news cameras and assorted print media people, sadly sometimes with bodies strewn about or other sweaty palm situations. He displayed grace under pressure, probably at least partly due to thorough prep work, good people to provide him with updates in a rapidly evolving situation, and being a knowledgeable working professional, as opposed to being merely a talking head buffer appointed to keep the press away from the “real” investigators. He comes across as a believable representative for his agency, which allows us to view the agency as credible and trustworthy.

Al
On the NEC
(Five miles airline from Frankford Yard)

[Bananarama]

I, for one, am puzzled - why do we insist on placing only one set of eyes in the cab of a high speed train. Two heads are always better than one - a built-in "fail-safe" so to speak. The American airline companies have already made that decision - no less than two in the cockpit.

Not meaning to state that an engineer is any less important or has a less important position than an airline pilot, but more times than not, trips across rail is a fairly mundane event requiring only a few controls and long stretches of "sit back and keep your eyes open", while flying a commercial aircraft demands checks and counter-checks over dozens, perhaps hundreds of systems, and without much time to relax and kick back. Not to mention that a train is obviously guided by rail and usually only needs, at the bare minimum, to start and stop, but all commercial aircraft require intensive pilot input for a given path at least twice during their journey. A second set of eyes are crucial at these points.

[FHRob]

The NTSB guy who updated the press yesterday did an excellent job fielding the really dopey questions, and answering the well researched questions.

Yes, I couldn't agree more. I know little about real world railroading, but I've been in his same shoes many times during my alleged career, facing semi-circles of TV news cameras and assorted print media people, sadly sometimes with bodies strewn about or other sweaty palm situations. He displayed grace under pressure, probably at least partly due to thorough prep work, good people to provide him with updates in a rapidly evolving situation, and being a knowledgeable working professional, as opposed to being merely a talking head buffer appointed to keep the press away from the “real” investigators. He comes across as a believable representative for his agency, which allows us to view the agency as credible and trustworthy.

Al
On the NEC
(Five miles airline from Frankford Yard)

Very well articulated. I realize now how often we get the "talking head buffer" treatment, and the difference when a "knowledgeable working professional" is presented.

Rob

[buzz456]

I, for one, am puzzled - why do we insist on placing only one set of eyes in the cab of a high speed train. Two heads are always better than one - a built-in "fail-safe" so to speak. The American airline companies have already made that decision - no less than two in the cockpit.

Not meaning to state that an engineer is any less important or has a less important position than an airline pilot, but more times than not, trips across rail is a fairly mundane event requiring only a few controls and long stretches of "sit back and keep your eyes open", while flying a commercial aircraft demands checks and counter-checks over dozens, perhaps hundreds of systems, and without much time to relax and kick back. Not to mention that a train is obviously guided by rail and usually only needs, at the bare minimum, to start and stop, but all commercial aircraft require intensive pilot input for a given path at least twice during their journey. A second set of eyes are crucial at these points.

Being a private pilot I appreciate you comment about the skills required but my bride tells people the only time I do anything is during landings. The rest of the time I just sit there and turn some knobs. I must be good to make it look so easy to her. All jokes aside a second set of eyes is always good in crucial situations and it might have saved the day in this situation. I still think we need to wait for all the information to come out.

[Rich_S]

I, for one, am puzzled - why do we insist on placing only one set of eyes in the cab of a high speed train. Two heads are always better than one - a built-in "fail-safe" so to speak. The American airline companies have already made that decision - no less than two in the cockpit.

OlPaint

You already know the answer, but I'll spell it out for you

M O N E Y

[buzz456]

I'm sure our guvmt has got some no sue limited liability clause built into their charter so these people that were killed or injured can't receive proper compensation whatever that is.

[Ericmopar]

Just thinking out loud...I wonder if, after a momentary lapse of attention during a very routine trip, might the engineer have thought he was past the s-bend and then set the throttle to accelerate into the tangent track speed. And having realized this was an error, set the emergency.OlPaint

That is an interesting idea. I got in a serious motorcycle accident years ago in a similar fashion. I thought for some reason that I was past a hairpin turn, when in fact I was just coming up to it. I sped up at the wrong time... the rest is history.

[buzz456]

Just thinking out loud...I wonder if, after a momentary lapse of attention during a very routine trip, might the engineer have thought he was past the s-bend and then set the throttle to accelerate into the tangent track speed. And having realized this was an error, set the emergency.OlPaint

That is an interesting idea. I got in a serious motorcycle accident years ago in a similar fashion. I thought for some reason that I was past a hairpin turn, when in fact I was just coming up to it. I sped up at the wrong time... the rest is history.

Once again why two people. Number two guy should say "what are you doing?". I clearly remember flying with one of the best pilots I ever flew with telling me "I know I have twenty some thousand hours and you have what eight hundred but while we are flying this approach if you see something you think is not right speak up right away. You might just get both of us on the ground alive."

Words to live by.

[OlPaint]

I just heard that NTSB has requested the FBI to investigate a wind shield "Rock Strike" reported on a SEPTA commuter train on the adjacent local track minutes before the Amtrak derailment that may be related to a suspicious circular break pattern discovered in the Amtrak loco glass wind shield. The Assistant Conductor of the Amtrak train reports that she overheard her engineer speaking with that SEPTA driver over the radio shortly before the accident.

Interesting...How easy is it for the throttle to be bumped several notches forward by an unconscious driver slumping forward onto the console after being struck by a rock (or gunshot) through the front glass?

OlPaint

[JerryC]

Not to sound crass, but if you are a train engineer and you screw up, you derail and a handful of people die. If you are a plane pilot and you screw up, you fall thousands of feet and everyone dies. But one death is one to many, so each job is equally important.

I personally see no reason why there should not be two people in the cab of freight trains, and that should not even be a second thought about having pairs in a passenger situation. If there was a second person in the cab, could this accident have been avoided or at least lessened? Every handbook i've ever read requires the conductor to pull the emergency brake if the engineer fails to acknowledge a signal or puts the train in danger.

A few Trains issues back, an article about Japanese railways had a very interesting and apparently effective way of reducing railway accidents. The engineer is required to call out aloud each signal indication and physically point out the current speed and status on the instrument panel. The call outs also extend to control changes. Apparently it keeps folks alert and awake.

[buzz456]

We have a similar thing in aviation. When flying with a two man crew it's called CRM for cockpit resource management and aural call outs are a large part of it so the person observing at that moment knows what the other person is doing and doing stuff like the person not flying the plane says something like 500 to go when approaching a altitude you want to stop at either going up or down. One of it's main purposes if I understand correctly is to just keep both members engaged all of the time.

[drivertime61]

I'm sure our guvmt has got some no sue limited liability clause built into their charter so these people that were killed or injured can't receive proper compensation whatever that is.

According to various news sources, $200,000,000 total liability per incident. Note - that's not per injured victim or other claimant. If that's accurate, ain't much in a mass casualty situation.