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.
XHRTSP said:
Dumb question:

You know on the side of highways youll see those signs that display your speed and flash if youre exceeding the limit... Do railroads ever use those?
Click to expand...
I've never seen nor heard of them being used on a railroad...

On the New York subways, they have a truly ancient "speed signal" system, that limits maximum speeds....if they are exceeded a "tripper arm" will activate the emergency brakes...
 
If a proper PTC system is in use, typically the speed limit is displayed to the Engineer in the cab on the PTC display. In case of the NEC it is on the Cab Signal/ACSES display, both the Signal Speed and the Civil Speed limits in effect at the point, and the lower of the two is enforced by the system.
 
I appreciate the first hand story of the accident and thank you for posting. Obviously, a horrific experience, but the author is a sensible person with logical perspective.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
 
The NTSB released a few details today (12/22/17).

  • Inward-facing video with audio captured the crew’s actions and their conversations. A forward-facing video with audio captured conditions in front of the locomotive as well as external sounds.
  • The crew was not observed to use any personal electronic devices during the timeframe reviewed.
  • About six seconds prior to the derailment, the engineer made a comment regarding an over speed condition.
  • The engineer’s actions were consistent with the application of the locomotive’s brakes just before the recording ended. It did not appear the engineer placed the brake handle in emergency-braking mode.
  • The recording ended as the locomotive was tilting and the crew was bracing for impact.
  • The final recorded speed of the locomotive was 78 mph.

More available here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"No passenger trains will use tracks where deadly derailment occurred until safety system is activated"

Sounds like the "old" route will be used for many months to come. It's bittersweet, of course, but people who missed out on traveling that section would appear to have the chance to do it again.

Of course, the headline refers to "no passenger trains" but the article quotes a WSDOT flack as referring to "our passenger trains." This leaves open the possibility that the Coast Starlight will use the new bypass, since that's not a WSDOT-funded train. But I suspect the Starlight will use the old route anyhow, since it would be confusing to have two separate Amtrak stations in Tacoma.

Of course, the old route doesn't have PTC either. It's interesting that WSDOT acknowledges the decision is more about public perception than it is about any actual safety concern.

Sounder trains will presumably continue to use the section from Tacoma south to Lakewood, although that doesn't specifically include the place where 501 derailed.
 
The old route does have PTC. It is Amtrak locomotives and cab cars that don’t have on board equipment tested and deployed yet. Or so say the folks familiar with the situation there.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
 
jis said:
The old route does have PTC. It is Amtrak locomotives and cab cars that don’t have on board equipment tested and deployed yet. Or so say the folks familiar with the situation there.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification.
 
Just-Thinking-51 said:
Ouch

Does the new Siemens equipment have it? Installed at the factory maybe?
Click to expand...
AFAIK Siemens does not install it. It is Amtrak/WSDOT that has to install the right flavor of I-ETMS that works in that area, and then test and train crew before it can be cut in.

It is not something that can just be switched on the morning after you get the engine. Even if it is installed, it has to undergo acceptance testing and all that.

This is one reason that AAF chose to have everything delivered to them directly and do all the post-manufacture installs and testing on their own property, since they have their own unique PTC system to test and certify against. It was interesting chatting with the certification and acceptance guy from AAF a few months back.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I sure wish the US had had the sense to go with ERTMS/ETCS like the rest of the world. Works Off The Shelf at this point (after years of development, of course)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But anyway, the preliminary NTSB investigation is starting to look like the brakes might have failed.

So sabotage has not yet been ruled out -- in particular, greased track remains a possibility. Do we know what sort of brakes the Talgos have? Do they have both disc brakes and tread brakes? (Does anyone still use track brakes which press directly against the track?)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NTSB: "About six seconds prior to the derailment, the engineer made a comment regarding an over speed condition."

Six seconds at 78 mph=686 ft, a little more than two football fields. Now the NTSB does not say that the brakes have or have not been applied at this point, but it seems to me that the application of brakes to reduce speed from 78 mph to below 30 would normally occur more than a couple football fields in advance of the curve. If the brakes had been applied and did not function, one would expect the engineer to quickly take action to address the brake failure such as apply emergency braking (or at least attempt to).

NTSB: "The engineer’s actions were consistent with the application of the locomotive’s brakes just before the recording ended. It did not appear the engineer placed the brake handle in emergency-braking mode."

The NTSB does not say that the engineer did not attempt to brake well in advance of the curve, but what they do say suggests that no attempt to reduce speed was made until just before the train derailed. Brake failure seems an unlikely cause if the evidence suggests that the brakes were not applied until the last second.
 
The Deadly Curve Where Amtrak Train Derailed Was Deemed Too Costly to Remove

Original plans for Point Defiance railroad bypass called for elimination of tight turn

The $11 billion Washington state government plan to speed up passenger and freight rail service throughout the Pacific Northwest called for the elimination of that tight turn—a change that wasn’t included in the final design when the state eventually won federal funding for the rail bypass.

Instead, the curve where Amtrak Train 501 crashed this week was preserved to keep costs down, according to documents and state officials.

“Everybody’s always looking to straighten out the railroad,” said Grady Cothen, a consultant and former safety official at the Federal Railroad Administration, “and there are not many opportunities for that, given the reluctance to exercise eminent domain, and given the cost.”

A spokeswoman for the state Transportation Department said it is still planning to pursue future upgrades to the bypass, including at that curve, to allow higher speeds. 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.

BN-WS779_amplan_G_20171222100035.jpg


https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-deadly-curve-where-amtrak-train-derailed-was-too-costly-to-remove-1513952658
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So PTC is the 2008 government mandate, however, location-based overspeed prevention had been around for decades. Why was no other ATC route system in place? I understand the need for a fully comprehensive PTC system, but c'mon. Basic ATC is relatively cheap.

With the absence of PTC, was there any other cab signal/speed control available to the crew?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Private railroads have been evading installing any form of ATC since the 1940s, disgracefully. Now that PTC is required, it makes sense to just implement that.

If they'd responded sensibly to the Interstate Commerce Commission order of 1947 by installing automatic train stop back in the 1950s -- or better, if they'd voluntarily installed it when the ICC first started asking them to in the 1920s -- we wouldn't be having these discussions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No. PTC is way more than ATS. ATS does not enforce any speed limits, civil or signal. It just enforces signal stop., at some point, not necessarily the most desirable point all the time. You cannot avoid installing PTC because you have PTS. This is a non issue anyway because BNSF is pretty committed to getting PTC in place.

OTOH Amtrak is having a bit of a struggle equipping its engines and cab cars, testing them in the multiple different I-ETMS systems where the I stands for interoperable but is apparently aspirational, which does not save lives, by its mere presence. It actually needs to work interoperably. And then of course there is the business of training crew etc. etc.
 
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.
 
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...
The agency mentioned is Washington Department of Transportation, acting through Sound Transit.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
 

Latest posts

Back
Top