Amtrak/NS stack train derail video

[Full Service]

A short movie clip from the Amtrak/NS rear end collision  outside of Chicago yesterday morning that shows the incident. 


http://www.rfdi.info/amtrak.wmv

[TB4JY]

My Guess.....

Cause of this accident was the failure of the Amtrak engineer to operate his train at restricted speed.  Stop within half the range of vision.

[TB4JY]

So they say that he was going 25 mph over the speed limit for the signal he had.  So if he had a restricting signal requiring 15 mph (max of course), plus his 25 mph...  That gives us 40 mph.  Now this guy was running on NS tracks, but if he also runs on BNSF or UP tracks I can see where he could screw up.  Our out dated signal indications are for the birds.  Yellow dwarf signal on NS is Restricting, but on BNSF or UP it would be an Approach.  Our Red with a yellow mast signal having a space between them is a Restricting.  But on BNSF or UP it would be a Diverging Approach.  That being said, the speed for a Approach signal on BNSF (at least it was when I was there) is what????  40MPH!   I've never liked our signal indications for a restricting and this is why.

[Hoydie17]

It makes you wonder why the railroads (AAR) can't come to an agreement on standardized signaling and instead want to have their own special edtion.

Also makes ME wonder if having railroad traffic control being a government operation would make things any better, like they do for the airlines.   Probably not, but interesting discussion I'm sure.

[TB4JY]

Well for the most part everybody except NS and CSXT is on the same page when it comes to signal indications.

[TB4JY]

This was on the BLET website today.


Engineer of Amtrak train had been certified 3 months
(The following story by Rosalind Rossi appeared on the Chicago Sun-Times website on December 4.)

CHICAGO ? An Amtrak engineer who plowed into the rear of a freight train had been fully certified for only about three months when he sped up ? despite a signal that ordered him to be especially cautious ? and headed into a "canyon? of moving boxcars, investigators said Monday.

A videotape on YouTube and various news Web sites showed the tunnel of moving freight trains that may have obstructed the engineer?s view as he rounded a curve at 25 mph over the maximum speed indicated, driving the Pere Marquette toward Chicago?s Union Station.

"He?s going into a box canyon," said Robert Sumwalt, National Transportation Safety Board vice chairman, part of the NTSB team probing Friday?s crash on the South Side that sent 71 people to local hospitals.

"He?s just going through this tunnel, with one train on one side and one train on another," Sumwalt told the Chicago Sun-Times. "He?s in a curve and he can?t see until he?s fairly close to running into the rear of the standing train."

As they piece together the tapestry of facts surrounding Friday?s accident, Sumwalt said, NTSB investigators so far have found evidence that:

-- The engineer was certified by Amtrak in September of this year, and had operated the Grand Rapids, Mich., to Chicago stretch about three times previously as a certified engineer, and about 30 other times during "on the job training, under the supervision of another qualified engineer."

-- A two-man relief team joined the Pere Marquette in Hammond, Ind., and were supposed to replace the engineer in Chicago. Investigators want to know how much the engineer worked in the last 72 hours and whether "fatigue" could have played a role in Friday?s crash.

-- On the day of the accident, the engineer drove through stretches of track owned by four different railroads, each with their own possible interpretation of various traffic signals. Norfolk Southern owned the accident stretch.

The engineer has acknowledged seeing a "red over yellow" signal just before a crossover in the Englewood neighborhood, where he was switched to a track that ultimately contained the standing Norfolk Southern freight train he rammed near 52nd and Shields, Sumwalt said.

The engineer?s Amtrak certification meant he should have known that "red over yellow" meant his speed was "restricted" to no more than 15 mph, an amount specified in Amtrak booklets; that he should have been prepared to stop at any time; and that he should have been ready to stop in half the distance he could see, Sumwalt said.

The engineer slowed appropriately to 8 or 9 mph at the Englewood crossover, but then accelerated beyond the "restricted speed," going some 40 mph as he headed into a curve and a "canyon? of boxcars that may have blocked his view of the standing Norfolk Southern train ahead, Sumwalt said.

Unlike car traffic signals, which have limited nationwide meanings, "there are dozens and dozens of signal combinations," which can hold different meanings under tracks owned by different railroads, Sumwalt said.

"I don?t know if [the engineer] knew what speed the restricting signal called for. Certainly we will focus on that and try to learn more about it," Sumwalt said. "Certainly confusion is something we will look at, along with everything else....

"We will be looking at what the engineer was doing and what he was thinking and ... [we?ll] try to get an idea of his mental state at the time he went through the signal," Sumwalt said.

In addition, Sumwalt said, investigators will use computer simulation to determine whether the engineer, if following the appropriate speed restrictions, would have been able to stop in time to avoid hitting the freight train. They may even try to recreate the actual conditions.

"With a train on his left, and a train on his right, how far could he have seen? We may go back and recreate that in reality versus a computer simulation," Sumwalt said.

Attorney Thomas Prindable, who filed the first Chicago lawsuit Monday involving the accident, said attorneys normally never get to such a video so early in an NTSB investigation. The tape, pulled from police surveillance cameras, indicates the engineer was "speeding" into an area with "a lot of train activity," he said.

"He?s surrounded by two walls of trains," said Prindable, managing partner with the high-powered Clifford Law Offices. "One would think that one would naturally slow down."

Prindable?s suit seeks damages on behalf of six Amtrak passengers ? a Michigan grandfather, his wife, daughter-in-law and three grandchildren.


Tuesday, December 04, 2007

[GP30Rider]

The engineer is not the only person at fault here.  The conductor should have heard the signal called on the radio and even a rookie can tell we are not doing 15 MPH.

[TB4JY]

But..... What if he called it Diverging Approach?  No one in there right mind would call a Restricting signal, then run 40MPH.

[Michael Knight]

No one in there right mind would call a Restricting signal, then run 40MPH.

Well, acknowledging a restricting indication while not observing restricted speed has been done before; sometimes engineers assume the train ahead will clear the next signal right after they take the approach indication to follow.

Of course, this is risky business, and is usually the cause for accidents. And I'm in no way implying that this was the case in the Chicago Amtrak crash, either.

[E.M. Bell]

Well for the most part everybody except NS and CSXT is on the same page when it comes to signal indications.

I have found NS indications to be pretty straight forward (in most cases) but CSX....wow. They have they most jumbled up mess of signals I have ever seen. I had to fight my way through the CSX rules test when I was working in Knoxville. Limited this, slow that, medium slow clear....good grief... 

[ns_7011]

That's the thing I like about NS's signals, there's only what? 7? (clear, approach, restricting, diverging approach, diverging clear, stop, advanced approach). CSX has 13 I think, there's a site that tells you their signal list but I can't remember it.

[TB4JY]

I have found NS indications to be pretty straight forward (in most cases)

Example:

Which of these are restricting and which are Diverging Approach?

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=485793

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=547285

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=665836

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=973840



It can be confusing.   Would it be so hard to change the yellow to a luner?

[E.M. Bell]

let us not forget my favorite one, rule 306.1, Diverging Route Approach Restricted, which can be displayed as...

Red over flashing yellow over red

Red over flashing yellow  (applies to a pot signal as well)

red over red over flashing yellow

There is only one place I have ever heard or seen that indication used..


looking through the last NS rulebook I was issued, I count a total of  10 indications used on the "regular" NS system..ie..former Southern RR territory.

Clear,  Approach Diverging, Advanced Approach, Diverging Clear, Approach Restricted, Diverging Route Approach Restricted,  Approach, Diverging Approach, Restricting, Stop. 

The Former N&W territory has a total of 12 indications possible using the old CPL type signals. The two added there besides the ones listed above are  Diverging Approach Diverging and a slow clear.

I dont know diddly squat about the former CR lines, but I am sure there are some crazy ones up there to.  For a crew (like Amtrak) that may be required to operate over two or more divisions, trying to keep up with all of those different indications would be a challenge.   

[ssw9662]

On the ex-Conrail lines (NORAC rulebook), red over yellow is restricting (there are no lunar signals in the NORAC rulebook, with the exception of the color position lights on the Amtrak NEC) , while red over yellow is diverging approach  just about everywhere else.

Link to a NORAC signal aspect sheet:

http://crcyc.railfan.net/refs/ephem/cr-norac-10-1-88.gif

[jcmark4501]

In 2000 CSX had a very similar incident happen north of Queensgate. The engineer thought he had a medium approach, was on the middle track of three main tracks and slammed into the rear of a train at 25-30 MPH. Once his train started piling up it took out the other two trains. The derailment blocked all three mains and effectively closed NS and CSX in Cincinnati.