Derailment of Cascades #501, DuPont WA, 2017-12-18

shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Cho Cho Charlie said:
Rover said:
The agency didn’t apply for funding to eliminate the curve because it wasn’t deemed necessary to support the number of round trips the state and Amtrak hoped to send through the corridor, she said.
Click to expand...
Its good to read that "the agency" still thinks that saving a buck, was the best decision even after this horrific fatal accident.
Click to expand...
Straightening out the curve would have doubled the cost of the project. It also meant that the work would not meet the deadline for stimulus projects. So it was a hard choice, but not a bad one. There are very few ideal projects given the amount of money available.
 
Reading some of the stuff here and on FB one would get the impression that some people actually believe that no railroad that is not absolutely straight should ever be or have been built, merely because an occasional Engineer has difficulty discharging his/her duties for reasons that may or may not be wholly in their control, admittedly. Frankly, they're nuts. and that is a technical term
default_tongue.png
 
When the Stimulus funding for the Cascades upgrade was announced about a decade ago, the State of Washington described it as a first stage of a longer, costlier program to cut the run time Seattle-Portland to 3 hrs or even less. That long term goal would take more time and more money.

But the first phase looked good -- still looks good -- with substantial improvements for about a Billion invested. Two added roundtrips, raising the frequencies from 4 daily + the Coast Starlight to 6 daily + the Starlight, cutting at least 8 or 10 minutes out of the timetable, making a marked increase in On Time Performance, adding two new Talgo trainsets and new locomotives, a string of new or renovated stations, etc.

I can understand that with a Billion worth of planning, permitting, engineering, bidding, supervising the work, etc., Wash State DOT had its hands full with Phase One.

Then before they could pivot to even thinking, much less planning, permitting, and engineering any Phase Two, control of Congress changed, and No More Money was the new rule for passenger rail infrastructure.

Nonetheless I do remain an optimist about future funding for faster trains (including the Cascades route). After all, Vladimir Putin's Russia continues to invest heavily in rail, and sets a good example for this country to follow.
 
Im not sure I agree with you, JIS. There are all kinds of circumstances, but perhaps the wisdom of creating a purposefully high speed bypass and ending it with a sharp 30 mph curve with a cliff style drop off after a downhill straight is a bit dumber than your average 30 mph curve.
 
80 to 30 MPH track ? These large speed reductions seem to be an invitation to disaster without extra precautions. MNRR, 188, 1st wreck at Frankford, and now this wreck. Curves always have a posted safe speed. As well there is a tipping speed. What should be done if the lead speed is higher than a tipping speed ? Any thought if that needs extra precautions ?
 
What is the system that allows the Chief to go 90... Is that just automatic train stop? Or will it enforce the speed of a signal as well?

For instance, there are signals on the NEC that are always set for Medium, even if the next block is clear, so that trains are forced to go a slower speed through curves (the elizabethtown s curve is one of them I think).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Several things need to be in place in order for a train to be allowed to go faster than 79 mph. This includes things such as crossing arms, the condition of the track, and signaling. I don't know if ATS or PTS was required back in the day- I would guess ATS was. But equipment, alignment, and track class also need to be up to the higher speed in addition to ATS in order to allow speeds in excess of 79.
 
GML... Yes obviously the track needs to be in good condition to run above 79...

But what type of system enforces the speed of the signals and when is that required? Above 110?
 
Santa Fe ATS just forced stop at a stop signal. It did not and does not enforce any speed limit, signal or civil. That was sufficient according to the original ICC rules for 90 or even 100mph AFAIR. The PTC regulations supersede those at the drop dead date when PTC must be in place. That date has been changed by Congress as they discovered that it is hard to enforce the installation of a non existent system in the short time they had originally proclaimed. There were other alternatives possible but they were not considered acceptable in terms of cost by the owners of the property. Meanwhile, the business about requiring archeological clearance to erect radio masts and the unavailability of required radio spectrum at many places while different departments of the government proceeded with internecine warfare with each other made it further impossible to meet deadlines.

At present, it is quite possible that several commuter lines and possibly even Amtrak, will have to cease operation on certain routes come 1st Jan, 2019 if deferments are not granted.

In short, it is still a hopeless mess.

BYW using signal speed for civil speed limit enforcement has mostly been replaced by civil speed limit enforcement by ACSES on the NEC.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
 
yes... Hopeless mess sounds about right indeed.

It honestly seems odd that ATS would be required for all mainline railways... Not that it would have solved anything in this situation though.
 
No, ATS is not required for all railroads- PTC is required for all passenger rail lines. It is a bit ridiculous. Actually more than ridiculous. The number of lives that would be taken if we rerouted all the rail traffic to road traffic would vastly exceed that which occurs due to the lack of PTC.

PTC is not ATS- PTC is a lot closer to autonomous operation than ATS is. ATS forces an emergency brake operation at signals, and only at signals. PTC controls the trains speed at all locations, on a continuous basis.

Unless there was a direct mechanical failure with the braking system, PTC would have prevented this.
 
Green Maned Lion said:
No, ATS is not required for all railroads- PTC is required for all passenger rail lines. It is a bit ridiculous. Actually more than ridiculous. The number of lives that would be taken if we rerouted all the rail traffic to road traffic would vastly exceed that which occurs due to the lack of PTC.

PTC is not ATS- PTC is a lot closer to autonomous operation than ATS is. ATS forces an emergency brake operation at signals, and only at signals. PTC controls the trains speed at all locations, on a continuous basis.

Unless there was a direct mechanical failure with the braking system, PTC would have prevented this.
Click to expand...
I take exception to "PTC is required for all passenger rail lines." Yes, in theory, perhaps. De Jure, yes, perhaps.

In fact, Congress, has made exceptions, delays, and with the current gospel of deregulation, maybe PTC will never be a nation-wide enforced rule. Kinda Like the 1947 rule that set the passenger speed limit at "less than 80 mph, unless" --

Yes, highway traffic has much higher fatality rates.

Very few in the District know or care.

(Political comment, delete or skip) Decaying empires decay. That's what we do.
 
Fine, I retract and replace: PTC is supposed to be required.

Since I cant see a place for argument in your statement. Except that I try to do the best available to me with the corruption and ineptitude being understood as constants. I can fight to improve rail; I do not have the resources to fight the darkness of humanity itself.
 
There seems to be multiples of complexity when dealing with pictures as its being done in the USA. I wonder how the proven European systems would compare? They routinely have trains that passed through more than one country with different systems. Sometimes there is an engine switch and sometimes a tgv or ICE do the same without an engine change.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
 
The Europeans actually do it extremely painfully even today, spending a whole lot of money to test multiple systems on a small number of consists that actually provide cross border service. US could do so too, but the players, their attitudes and the rules and laws are interestingly different in the US.

In Europe even when they install a standard system like ERTMS, they still cannot be operated seamlessly across borders because some operating rules are enshrined in the laws of the country, and they are inconsistent with each other. So while they make it look seamless, it is actually anything but.
 
Thank you Jis. I knew there was a lot of work involved but not the details. In Europe you are dealing with the French and Germans. In USA you are dealing with bnsf and csx. Lol

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
 
On the eastbound CZ, there's a stretch of 79mph running after the train exits Gore Canyon. Toward the end of it, all heck breaks loose on the scanner/radio: a loud tone, followed by "WARNING! 30MPH CURVE AHEAD!" This is repeated twice. Would something similar be appropriate here, at least until PTC is in place?
 
RPC said:
On the eastbound CZ, there's a stretch of 79mph running after the train exits Gore Canyon. Toward the end of it, all heck breaks loose on the scanner/radio: a loud tone, followed by "WARNING! 30MPH CURVE AHEAD!" This is repeated twice. Would something similar be appropriate here, at least until PTC is in place?
Click to expand...
Certainly. However with the imminent installation of PTC why spend the money?

Even a more basic rules change of enforcing a transition with say a 40 mph limit 1 mile before the curve and say a 55 mph limit 2 miles before the curve would have likely helped.

A conductor friend of mine has said that prior to the MetroLink Chatsworth crash several conductors in the Southern California area had developed a GPS sensing app for their personal cell phones which would call out signal locations and speed limits. After that crash the NTSB put the kabash on the personal cell phone use and inadvertently the app which would have improved safety.
 
ok now such app despite you thinking it to be useful, what happens if phone dies, or GPS signal is obstructed and somehow the warning does not get trough ??

a self developed system may not be as fool proof as people think , and if there is doubt to it being fail safe, its probably not fail safe.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top