Amtrak Train Derails on Highway Bridge in Washington State
- Thread starter jordon412
- Start date
Best Bad
Stepping out of character momentarily (from content creator and sometimes N3V critic)...
While taking into account the killed and many injured, given the train speed this is almost optimum if you're going to have a passenger train crash, i.e., almost as good as it could be.
- Only one train involved, so no passing speed differential or sideswipe
- Head of the train displaced both horizontally and vertically. Though this adds some energy (gravity), it means the train doesn't crash in a straight line. Which means...
- no telescoping or concertina, only zigzag/jackstraw (or herringbone if the attachments break). Telescoping is the worst.
- And of course no varnished wooden cars with coal heat and oil lamps.
Best wishes to all, of course. But - not to be ghoulish - it could have been very much worse.
Stepping out of character momentarily (from content creator and sometimes N3V critic)...
While taking into account the killed and many injured, given the train speed this is almost optimum if you're going to have a passenger train crash, i.e., almost as good as it could be.
- Only one train involved, so no passing speed differential or sideswipe
- Head of the train displaced both horizontally and vertically. Though this adds some energy (gravity), it means the train doesn't crash in a straight line. Which means...
- no telescoping or concertina, only zigzag/jackstraw (or herringbone if the attachments break). Telescoping is the worst.
- And of course no varnished wooden cars with coal heat and oil lamps.
Best wishes to all, of course. But - not to be ghoulish - it could have been very much worse.
cascaderailroad
New member
Has the new shortest route re-opened, and now running Amtrak trains ?
Now that a billion dollar train as been completely demolished in the wreck (except for the trailing loco) and is destined for the scrap pile, what will become of the new shortest route
Was the trailing loco pushing the consist, shoving the train along, as a push/pull service ?
Now that a billion dollar train as been completely demolished in the wreck (except for the trailing loco) and is destined for the scrap pile, what will become of the new shortest route
Was the trailing loco pushing the consist, shoving the train along, as a push/pull service ?
Hi everybody.
I will always give the utmost respect and appreciation to the above view(s) of PWelser and others who have posted as similar in this thread. However, I do not feel that if anyone had lost friends or family members in this incident or where among the large number lying in a hospital beds with life changing injuries you would feel that things had “turned out as good as they could be”.
In the above, it has to be faced that in these modern technological times this kind of rail incident should not happen and is entirely preventable. There is an old adage in industrial safety circle’s that states “there is no such thing as an accident as someone, somewhere is always responsible”. The foregoing applies whether an incident is brought about by infrastructure failure, component failure or direct on scene human failure the adage always applies.
At times an accident investigation has to look as far back as the design stage of a construction or component to find the person or persons whose failure brought about an incident. That person(s) is often found sitting in an office many miles from where the accident occurred unaware of their failings until someone steps through the door to bring the matter to their “attention”.
The reason for such deep investigation as in the above would be that a similar incident is prevented from occurring in the future, and also that liability is placed unquestionably with those who brought the incident about, for only then can those who have suffered loss begin their path for retribution.
In regard to the accident in question there will be many caught up in this incident who at this time are not knowing how they will cope into the future due to the bereavement of a breadwinner or a life-changing injury that means life can never be the same again. Those are the persons everyone should think on at this time as with them life will never again be “as good as it could be”
Bill
I will always give the utmost respect and appreciation to the above view(s) of PWelser and others who have posted as similar in this thread. However, I do not feel that if anyone had lost friends or family members in this incident or where among the large number lying in a hospital beds with life changing injuries you would feel that things had “turned out as good as they could be”.
In the above, it has to be faced that in these modern technological times this kind of rail incident should not happen and is entirely preventable. There is an old adage in industrial safety circle’s that states “there is no such thing as an accident as someone, somewhere is always responsible”. The foregoing applies whether an incident is brought about by infrastructure failure, component failure or direct on scene human failure the adage always applies.
At times an accident investigation has to look as far back as the design stage of a construction or component to find the person or persons whose failure brought about an incident. That person(s) is often found sitting in an office many miles from where the accident occurred unaware of their failings until someone steps through the door to bring the matter to their “attention”.
The reason for such deep investigation as in the above would be that a similar incident is prevented from occurring in the future, and also that liability is placed unquestionably with those who brought the incident about, for only then can those who have suffered loss begin their path for retribution.
In regard to the accident in question there will be many caught up in this incident who at this time are not knowing how they will cope into the future due to the bereavement of a breadwinner or a life-changing injury that means life can never be the same again. Those are the persons everyone should think on at this time as with them life will never again be “as good as it could be”
Bill
Last edited:
cascaderailroad
New member
Was the trailing loco pushing the consist, shoving the train along, as a push/pull service ?
I remember tying together 8 Radio Flyer wagons, and it always ended up in a terrible uncontrollable wreck, as we all got dumped out, scattered all over the driveway ... Pushing a train seems total unsafe !
Just because you can control a rear end locomotive, from the front cab of a train, and have done it thousands of times ... doesn't make it 100% absolutely safe ... "This case in point: were everything that could go wrong ... went total wrong" ... As apparently the rear end loco shoved the consist off the bridge, and kept on shoving, and no engineer braking was ever applied whatsoever (as the cab crew was most probably instantly thrown up against the windshield, or knocked down on the cab floor), then the air hoses popped, triggering an automatic emergency braking
I remember tying together 8 Radio Flyer wagons, and it always ended up in a terrible uncontrollable wreck, as we all got dumped out, scattered all over the driveway ... Pushing a train seems total unsafe !
Just because you can control a rear end locomotive, from the front cab of a train, and have done it thousands of times ... doesn't make it 100% absolutely safe ... "This case in point: were everything that could go wrong ... went total wrong" ... As apparently the rear end loco shoved the consist off the bridge, and kept on shoving, and no engineer braking was ever applied whatsoever (as the cab crew was most probably instantly thrown up against the windshield, or knocked down on the cab floor), then the air hoses popped, triggering an automatic emergency braking
Last edited:
No, the leading locomotive was powering it.
This is a reasonable objection. I'd have done better to say, "this was terrible for the people involved, but the dynamics of the crash - as well as modern passenger car construction - made it terrible for fewer people than it might have been." Objectivity should not, and does not necessarily, lead to or imply insensitivity.
Trainz_12_fan_100
yes thats my name
Are you forgetting how damn fast the train was going? And how much it would take to stop it in an instant, *snap*, just like that? No you dont. They do have some thing called Multiple Unit or MU, and MU Plugs. So what does this mean? Well it means anything done in the front/lead engine, will be done in the back/rear engine. Now that you have had your lesson, I am positive the rear engine was not "shoving" the train as it went off.
And remember your little lesson on MU and MU Plugs
cascaderailroad
New member
What I am saying: Why was a rear engine, placed on the rear end of the train ... unless it was placed there to shove the consist, being controlled by the head end cab, as a push/pull operation ???
In this brand new NTSB/Amtrak cover-up, surely any important fact will be covered-up by vague terminology, not describing the function of the rear loco, whether it was shoving, or not. You all are assuming that the rear loco was not shoving, but nowhere have I seen printed, that the rear loco was not shoving. Prove me wrong !
Was the rear loco idling unpowered, and merely trailing along, like a 200 ton boxcar, adding 200 more tons of kinetic energy to the consist, shoving it off the bridge
In this brand new NTSB/Amtrak cover-up, surely any important fact will be covered-up by vague terminology, not describing the function of the rear loco, whether it was shoving, or not. You all are assuming that the rear loco was not shoving, but nowhere have I seen printed, that the rear loco was not shoving. Prove me wrong !
Was the rear loco idling unpowered, and merely trailing along, like a 200 ton boxcar, adding 200 more tons of kinetic energy to the consist, shoving it off the bridge
Last edited:
Hi everybody.
Cascaderairoad, what ever the power car configuration of the train was along with any effect that had on the incident will be dealt with by the accident investigation report when concluded. what has been reliably reported by those investigating the accident has been that the prime cause of the incident was that the train was traveling in excess of 80mph on a curved section of the track restricted to 30mph.
How the above overspeed came about will be at the centre of the investigation teams research where members of which will be looking at any number of reasons how that prime cause of the incident came about. Until that root cause is found and released in the full accident investigation report speculation will bring nothing to the matter.
Bill
Cascaderairoad, what ever the power car configuration of the train was along with any effect that had on the incident will be dealt with by the accident investigation report when concluded. what has been reliably reported by those investigating the accident has been that the prime cause of the incident was that the train was traveling in excess of 80mph on a curved section of the track restricted to 30mph.
How the above overspeed came about will be at the centre of the investigation teams research where members of which will be looking at any number of reasons how that prime cause of the incident came about. Until that root cause is found and released in the full accident investigation report speculation will bring nothing to the matter.
Bill
Last edited:
Under normal operations on Amtrak, I can't say for certain as I'm not an NTSB investigator in this case, the rear engine, is pretty much just hauled around as dead weight. The reason it is done however is to speed up turn-around times. Instead of going out and finding a place they car wye the train, they only need to shut down one engine, start up the other engine & can head off back from where they came. This operation is down all over the country & is a pretty standard operating procedure on Amtrak's corridor trains, including the Cascades, almost all the corridor stuff out of Chicago, and a number of other places.
So while, yes there is a possibility of the rear loco being pushing & causing a problem; it's pretty unlikely. Also the layout of the cars don't really indicate a pushing derailment, rather a pulling one (a pushing one is more likely to have the cars at the rear derailed)
peter
Amtrak uses the locomotive at the end of the consist/furthest back for HEP as well as decreased turn around times and sometimes as pusher to assist the lead engine.
Cascade: I read a blog post from someone on board who was told that they "were going to get it started in just a minute". The engineer had some trouble starting it earlier, but seems to have solved that problem.
Here is the blog post of the passenger: https://transitsleuth.com/2017/12/21/the-story-on-amtrak-cascades-train-501-derailment/
That's a graphic first person participant account of this event, a very aware railfan - pro-rail activist in Car 2.
He details his injuries, getting thrown around into the bag rack and then back down onto the arm-rest where he broke bones.
He helped other people out.
He saw a good friend, deceased, another pro-rail activist.
He walked the track looking for causes, reasons.
He gives a balanced analysis at the end.
This would have to be one of the most reserved and balanced reports of a participant in this event I have read.
He has also assessed the TV news reports, and more.
Thanks for sharing the link, Bluewater.
He details his injuries, getting thrown around into the bag rack and then back down onto the arm-rest where he broke bones.
He helped other people out.
He saw a good friend, deceased, another pro-rail activist.
He walked the track looking for causes, reasons.
He gives a balanced analysis at the end.
This would have to be one of the most reserved and balanced reports of a participant in this event I have read.
He has also assessed the TV news reports, and more.
Thanks for sharing the link, Bluewater.
Preliminary report from the NTSB: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/RRD18MR001-prelim.aspx
It does not point any blame at this point (beyond saying PTC would have likely kept this from happening) and is mainly just an outline of basic events.
For those unaware, the NTSB (or National Transportation and Safety Board) is federal agency tasked with investigating collisions involving rail, air, and commercial-use boats.
peter
It does not point any blame at this point (beyond saying PTC would have likely kept this from happening) and is mainly just an outline of basic events.
For those unaware, the NTSB (or National Transportation and Safety Board) is federal agency tasked with investigating collisions involving rail, air, and commercial-use boats.
peter
(Double post to keep my speculation comments separate from my factual post.)
It was mentioned in another forum on the same topic that I feel worth while for reposting here.
The NTSB stated that the training conductor has been unreachable in hospital, but yet other news reports that he has been fine enough to recount the events to a lawyer and issue a lawsuit.
hmmmmm......
peter
It was mentioned in another forum on the same topic that I feel worth while for reposting here.
The NTSB stated that the training conductor has been unreachable in hospital, but yet other news reports that he has been fine enough to recount the events to a lawyer and issue a lawsuit.
hmmmmm......
peter
Hi Everybody.
PerRock, I feel that nothing should be read into the fact (if it is indeed a fact) that the conductor on the train involved in this incident seeks legal advice before making any statement to the accident inquiry team or his employer (Amtrak).
Here in the UK (and I believe it may be similar in the United States) employees involved in disciplinary action by their employers or prosecution by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) are advised that they have a legal right to supportive advice and representation at all stages of any procedure. The foregoing is in all probability the action the conductor has taken prior to making any statement in regard to the incident to any authority investigating the accident.
In the above my own company often represent employers or their insurers in disciplinary actions against employees or contractors. In that we always advise those involved in action being taken against them either by their employers or the HSE of the need by them to seek independent legal advice in regard to any part they may have played in any incident. If the conductor in question is a member of a trade union then their lawyers would have undoubtedly contacted him/her immediately in the days following the accident.
In the foregoing, it is imperative that anyone involved in prospective employer disaplinary or court action against them should be fully aware of the legal implications of any statement they make to those who may prosecute that action. Even for those who may carry out such action against a person involved in a workplace safety infringement, it is very much in their interest to ensure that those accused of any infringement or negligence are aware of their rights and represented (if requested) in the run up to disciplinary or court action.
Here in the UK (and as stated I believe in the US) an industrial court tribunal chairman of high court judge would very much speak out against those prosecuting a case if it was found that a defendant has not been made fully aware of their rights to advice and representation…….and that is the way it should be.
Bill
PerRock, I feel that nothing should be read into the fact (if it is indeed a fact) that the conductor on the train involved in this incident seeks legal advice before making any statement to the accident inquiry team or his employer (Amtrak).
Here in the UK (and I believe it may be similar in the United States) employees involved in disciplinary action by their employers or prosecution by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) are advised that they have a legal right to supportive advice and representation at all stages of any procedure. The foregoing is in all probability the action the conductor has taken prior to making any statement in regard to the incident to any authority investigating the accident.
In the above my own company often represent employers or their insurers in disciplinary actions against employees or contractors. In that we always advise those involved in action being taken against them either by their employers or the HSE of the need by them to seek independent legal advice in regard to any part they may have played in any incident. If the conductor in question is a member of a trade union then their lawyers would have undoubtedly contacted him/her immediately in the days following the accident.
In the foregoing, it is imperative that anyone involved in prospective employer disaplinary or court action against them should be fully aware of the legal implications of any statement they make to those who may prosecute that action. Even for those who may carry out such action against a person involved in a workplace safety infringement, it is very much in their interest to ensure that those accused of any infringement or negligence are aware of their rights and represented (if requested) in the run up to disciplinary or court action.
Here in the UK (and as stated I believe in the US) an industrial court tribunal chairman of high court judge would very much speak out against those prosecuting a case if it was found that a defendant has not been made fully aware of their rights to advice and representation…….and that is the way it should be.
Bill
cascaderailroad
New member
It's Brian Bosnian Amtrak #188 all over again, speak to no one, including the RR, nor to the Union, talk only to his own paid criminal attorney, make no statements to anyone whatsoever, unpaid leave ... 1 and 1/2 years later it all gets ironed out (somewhat) and a vague cause is released ... You're officially fired, and will never work for any RR again ... then come the civil lawsuits for 3 wrongful deaths ... No justice
Last edited:
Hi Everybody.
Peter, again I feel no person should draw any inference or conclusion from the information (if correct) that this employee has lodged a legal claim in all probability against his/her employer Amtrak. The forgoing would be standard practise here in the UK and I believe also within the United States.
The conductor in question was part of the train crew and therefore will be undoubtedly part of the accident investigation in regard to any active part he/she may have played in the incident occurring. However, it may well be that the investigation concludes that he/she did indeed have no active part in the root cause of the accident. In the foregoing case the conductor would then come under the current United States industrial safety legislation in regard to an employers duty of care to their employees while at work. In Britain that legislation would be the Health & Safety at work act 1976 with similar regulation operating within the US.
By example to the above, the conductor may have informed the trade union lawyers or similar that the only duty he/she carried out prior to the incident occurring was to have checked passengers tickets and opened and closed the train doors. In that situation any lawyer (a solicitor in the UK) will lodge a preliminary damage and loss claim against the conductors employers (Amtrak) under the above legislation.
However, in the above should it be that the accident investigation finds that the conductor did have some active part in the incident occurring then obviously the claim would have no grounds to go forward and the conductor may face legal action against him/her in regard to workplace negligence or similar.
Bill
Peter, again I feel no person should draw any inference or conclusion from the information (if correct) that this employee has lodged a legal claim in all probability against his/her employer Amtrak. The forgoing would be standard practise here in the UK and I believe also within the United States.
The conductor in question was part of the train crew and therefore will be undoubtedly part of the accident investigation in regard to any active part he/she may have played in the incident occurring. However, it may well be that the investigation concludes that he/she did indeed have no active part in the root cause of the accident. In the foregoing case the conductor would then come under the current United States industrial safety legislation in regard to an employers duty of care to their employees while at work. In Britain that legislation would be the Health & Safety at work act 1976 with similar regulation operating within the US.
By example to the above, the conductor may have informed the trade union lawyers or similar that the only duty he/she carried out prior to the incident occurring was to have checked passengers tickets and opened and closed the train doors. In that situation any lawyer (a solicitor in the UK) will lodge a preliminary damage and loss claim against the conductors employers (Amtrak) under the above legislation.
However, in the above should it be that the accident investigation finds that the conductor did have some active part in the incident occurring then obviously the claim would have no grounds to go forward and the conductor may face legal action against him/her in regard to workplace negligence or similar.
Bill
Last edited: