Bad Amtrak wreck in Philadelpha

[victor miranda]

may be the solution is to accept that as the train goes faster
the automatics/safeties need to work...
OR
the human element requires redundancies

heeding the call of nature
has very different consequences  at 25 MPH compared to 100 MPH

I think passenger trains that are expected to  exceed 75 mph should have a second engineer.

victor
 

[Hyperion]

may be the solution is to accept that as the train goes faster
the automatics/safeties need to work...
OR
the human element requires redundancies

heeding the call of nature
has very different consequences  at 25 MPH compared to 100 MPH

I think passenger trains that are expected to  exceed 75 mph should have a second engineer.

victor

That presumes that having a second engineer in the cab would have prevented this incident at all which, without knowing what even caused it, cannot be assumed.

Back when I did our FRA derailment reports many years back, the worst accident we had during my time in that position (and surely still one of the worst yet since) was an operator-caused derailment where a train ran multiple restrictive signals resulting in a head-on where there was the unusual situation of having THREE people in the cab of the offending train.  All three of them in the cab managed to miss no less than two separate clearly-visible signals to stop their train.

More people does not necessarily mean more safety.  Not saying that it can't mean that in some cases, just that it's not a foregone conclusion.

[nkalanaga]

Mark:  Agreed.  In some cases adding more people increases the risk of them distracting each other, rather than improving safety.

As for the engineer's cell phone, I heard one radio "mouth" wondering why he was allowed to have it at all, even if it was in a bag.  He didn't think that, just maybe, the engineer might need it while laid over at the end of the run!  Too many "experts" don't realize that many train, and air, and highway, workers don't get to sleep at home every night.

[Rich_S]

As for the engineer's cell phone, I heard one radio "mouth" wondering why he was allowed to have it at all, even if it was in a bag.  He didn't think that, just maybe, the engineer might need it while laid over at the end of the run!  Too many "experts" don't realize that many train, and air, and highway, workers don't get to sleep at home every night.

I'm not sure what radio show you heard and it doesn't really matter, but the radio person may have been referring to the FRA ruling that came about because the engineer of a passenger train texting while operating the train, which was involved in a deadly accident. The new rule says you cannot have your cell phone on your person or turned on, it does not prevent you from having a cell phone in your grip. We also just received a memo that the new smart watches are also a no-no.  The new rule actually states any electronic device not supplied by the railroad is forbidden while operating a locomotive. If you are involved in any incident, the first thing they are going to ask for is your cell phone, you'll also get to blow in the tube and leave a sample in the bottle. 

[jagged ben]

Motorcycle's throttles are twisted towards the driver.

Which resulted in my one flipping over forwards the first time I tried to ride one.  Thank goodness for helmets and dirt.

[victor miranda]

That presumes that having a second engineer in the cab would have prevented this incident at all which, without knowing what even caused it, cannot be assumed.

Back when I did our FRA derailment reports many years back, the worst accident we had during my time in that position (and surely still one of the worst yet since) was an operator-caused derailment where a train ran multiple restrictive signals resulting in a head-on where there was the unusual situation of having THREE people in the cab of the offending train.  All three of them in the cab managed to miss no less than two separate clearly-visible signals to stop their train.

More people does not necessarily mean more safety.  Not saying that it can't mean that in some cases, just that it's not a foregone conclusion.

Hi hyperion,

yup. welcome to human nature....

I am not sure I trust our machinery to be infallible either.
so we build automagics to attempt to handle things when humans fail.
or would get bored, or fall asleep from over work, or any number of things humans do...

what we do not have is an option.
until the automagics are in place, the next best option is TWO humans
... this may not be twice as good as one. agreed. 
There is a pretty good track record for the concept in action.


victor

[Iain]

And this, btw, is why I will not buy a car that has the throttle controlled by a computer in any way, whatsoever.  I reference the Toyota fiasco of a few years back ...

[lajmdlr]

I'll just wait for the NTSB to post their final report.  They are damn good on what they do.  One thing I didn't realize that there was only one person in the cab of passenger trains.  Got to agree with the union that there should be two in the cab.

We should ALL do that because most of the replies are nothing but WAGs! There are two engineers in any long distance trains.

[up1950s]

Just how interesting would be a final report , that's like a verdict without a trial to hear , a final score in a game un-viewed , a books last chapter only , a movies ending only . How 'bout you wait and look in when you have the result . 

[sirenwerks]

...you'll also get to blow in the tube and leave a sample in the bottle.

They use bottles?  I always get the cup. 

[Rich_S]

They use bottles?  I always get the cup. 

Oh no, not the Dr. Winteroff cup I hope   

[nkalanaga]

Rich:  The "mouth" was someone, I don't know who, calling in to an NPR program, so just a citizen, not a paid personality.  Obviously he knew nothing about FRA regulations, or had much use for common sense, because you're very right.  As long as it isn't either illegal or dangerous a crew member can carry almost anything in their belongings.  They just can't use, or in some cases handle, the objects while on the job.

[OldEastRR]

Would like to know if some engineers on that route found they could take Frankfort Curve at faster than the posted limit with no problems.
My theory: New engineer, on a new route at night, does not yet have the "feel" of where his train is just by the ride, debating about trying a little faster than 50 through the curve, like other guys have. Not for thrills, just to shave some time off the run. Rock hits windshield, startling him, maybe even panic, not knowing if it was something lethal. He realizes it was just a rock, but has lost track of time for a while. Mistakenly believes he's gone through the curve while he was distracted, and since the speed limit beyond is 110 he pushes up the throttle. Suddenly realizes he's AT the curve, and hits the brakes but ...
AS for loss of memory, yes, quite possible after a head injury. It happened to me. I was riding my bike a clear sunny day one minute, the next I was in an ambulance with a guy asking me if I could remember my name. Absolutely no memory of what happened in between.
But as for the statement that he found his bag in the mess of the cab, took it with him out of the loco, dug out his cell phone and called 911 -- that requires a high level of cognizance and deliberate thought to do, and that's not possible after a jolting wreck. That also happened to me: an unexpected high-speed head-on collision on a lonely country road in the dark. Even though I never lost consciousness, I had a hard time grasping what had just happened and what I should do next for quite a while. Not until they brought me to the hospital. And I didn't even have any serious injuries. A violent wreck not only shakes up your perceptions it physically shakes up your brain. Your sense of time is completely out of whack. Maybe he did what he did, but I would bet that was minutes after the emergency vehicles and personnel were already there.
However, if I was his defense attorney, my advice would be for him to claim memory loss. It's a plausible possibility that can't be either conclusively proved or disproved.
Disasters happen because a series of small events happen in a sequence with precise timing. If any of the events is missing or the timing is a little off, the disaster never happens. If the radar operator at Pearl Harbor had persisted in trying to get somebody to listen to his warning; if the Titanic had been going only 5 knots slower, the outcomes in both situations would have been drastically changed. Such is the case here.

[up1950s]

It was said by that it probably could be taken at 80 MPH .

[Smike]

Rock hits windshield, startling him, maybe even panic, not knowing if it was something lethal. He realizes it was just a rock, but has lost track of time for a while. Mistakenly believes he's gone through the curve while he was distracted, and since the speed limit beyond is 110 he pushes up the throttle. Suddenly realizes he's AT the curve, and hits the brakes

I hope for the engineers sake this is not the case, but fits the facts known so far and doesn't seem far fetched.