# Someone made a HUGE mistake..



## Acela150 (Nov 14, 2013)

http://www.trainweb.org/phillynrhs/RPOTD131114.html

I'll let the photos talk..

This is train 644 on Septa's Cynwyd line.. Which runs a single EMU several times a day M-F. Well this is something new..


----------



## Steve4031 (Nov 14, 2013)

Rare mileage? Wish I had been on it. Lol.


----------



## amamba (Nov 14, 2013)

Whoops.


----------



## Acela150 (Nov 14, 2013)

Steve4031 said:


> Rare mileage? Wish I had been on it. Lol.


Septa runs that single EMU a few times a day on the line Monday through Friday. Rare for Amtrak! Not Septa though.

As a tidbit I believe that this line has a 15 MPH speed restriction and it's cab signal equipped as this is old Pennsy trackage. That's IINM. Although I don't know how fast the Amtrak Cab Signals would display. Most likely a restricted signal. Just a guess.


----------



## Blackwolf (Nov 14, 2013)

I have to wonder if there will be a "promotional opportunity" next week for both conductor and engineer... :help:


----------



## Acela150 (Nov 15, 2013)

Blackwolf said:


> I have to wonder if there will be a "promotional opportunity" next week for both conductor and engineer... :help:


LOL!!


----------



## OBS (Nov 16, 2013)

This incident was a HOT topic of discussion in the T&E crew room in NYP yesterday!


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 16, 2013)

This is not a joke for that crew. They may have operated their last Amtrak train for a long, long time.

How in the world does that happen? This is a crew that is qualified to operate a train at 125mph up the corridor, and they somehow run a train for over two miles up the wrong line on someone else's track passing two stations before stopping just about a car length from the end of track bumper. YIKES! I would have loved to hear the conversations with the Amtrak and SEPTA dispatchers as this was transpiring.

It's true that humans sometimes make mistakes, but this one is pretty hard to fathom.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 16, 2013)

Acela150 said:


> http://www.trainweb.org/phillynrhs/RPOTD131114.html
> 
> I'll let the photos talk..
> 
> This is train 644 on Septa's Cynwyd line.. Which runs a single EMU several times a day M-F. Well this is something new..


 Wonder if the Conductor Announced "End of the Line!" when the Train Finally Stopped? :blush: "Say Goodnight Gracie!"


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 16, 2013)

Help me understand this...

So they've left PHL headed eastbound with the cab car in the lead, correct? If they are having problems with the cab and want to flip the consist why not head back to PHL and do it there? And how did the crew not realize they were heading down a dead end?


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 16, 2013)

My understanding is that the train came in from Harrisburg to PHL and was set up to have the cab car lead from PHL to NYP. The trouble developed when the cab car would not communicate with the AEM7 pushing. With that issue, the cab car could not lead. The train would have to be reversed to have the AEM7 lead. Now, they could have run the AEM7 around the train at PHL, but it was decided instead to wye the train using the Zoo interlocking (about 2 miles north) and the old Pittsburgh Subway - a fly-under at Zoo that allows trains coming from the Harrisburg and the west to directly head toward New York without going to 30th Street.

In order to do that, the train was backed out of 30th Street with someone (conductor?) in the cab car communicating with the someone (engineer?) in the AEM7. The train was moved to Zoo and then west toward Harrisburg on the track that connects to the SEPTA Cynwyd line. The SEPTA Cynwyd Line leaves Amtrak about a mile west of Zoo. The intent was to move it just far enough west to clear the switch leading to the Pittsburgh Subway (well short of the SEPTA line junction), stop, reverse, and then move forward through the Subway to New York with the AEM7 leading in normal operation.

This is where things get weird. Instead of stopping where they were supposed to stop to make the move to the Subway and New York, they just kept on going. They went down the track, up the viaduct, off Amtrak and onto SEPTA-controlled track, past two stations and finally came to a stop at the third and last station just a car length or so from the end-of-line bumper. They took the train about 2.5 miles too far, two miles of which were on someone else's railroad.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 16, 2013)

PRR 60 said:


> This is not a joke for that crew. They may have operated their last Amtrak train for a long, long time.How in the world does that happen? This is a crew that is qualified to operate a train at 125mph up the corridor, and they somehow run a train for over two miles up the wrong line on someone else's track passing two stations before stopping just about a car length from the end of track bumper. YIKES! I would have loved to hear the conversations with the Amtrak and SEPTA dispatchers as this was transpiring.It's true that humans sometimes make mistakes, but this one is pretty hard to fathom.


Agreed Bill, it would have been bad enough to simply pass the first signal that they should have never taken. But to continue on onto tracks that they're not qualified and for such a distance is huge. In fact, I suspect that they've also committed a few FRA rules violations by operating on tracks that they're not qualified for and without a pilot. So even if Amtrak wanted to excuse their actions, and I rather doubt that Amtrak would do that, they'd still be likely to loose their FRA licenses. That alone would mean losing their job since they can no longer operate a train.


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 16, 2013)

AlanB said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > This is not a joke for that crew. They may have operated their last Amtrak train for a long, long time.How in the world does that happen? This is a crew that is qualified to operate a train at 125mph up the corridor, and they somehow run a train for over two miles up the wrong line on someone else's track passing two stations before stopping just about a car length from the end of track bumper. YIKES! I would have loved to hear the conversations with the Amtrak and SEPTA dispatchers as this was transpiring.It's true that humans sometimes make mistakes, but this one is pretty hard to fathom.
> ...


Without knowing for sure, it may well be the conductor that was at fault. Someone had to be in the AEM7 that pushed the train out of 30th Street. That someone was probably the engineer. Someone else had to be in the cab car providing directions to the operator of the AEM7 by radio. That someone was probably the conductor. Presumably, the conductor was looking forward from the cab car and should have know that they were leaving Amtrak and on the wrong railroad. However, the engineer would have the view out the back from the AEM7, and he or she should also have realized that they were crossing the viaduct and leaving Amtrak. So, assuming the work was as described, there is blame for both.

I heard that once SEPTA realized what was happening, they killed power to the catenary on the Cynwyd Line. They likely feared this could be some kind of train hijacking with some goofball at the controls. I'm sure they never considered that a trained Amtrak crew could make a mistake like this.

This is one of the most bazaar stories I've ever heard. What happened is pretty clear. Why and how it happened is not.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 16, 2013)

So first they didn't take the simple fix while still in PHL, and then they screwed up at the wye and it all went to hell in just over two miles. Would you theorize that they trying to save time or effort?


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 16, 2013)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> So first they didn't take the simple fix while still in PHL, and then they screwed up at the wye and it all went to hell in just over two miles. Would you theorize that they trying to save time or effort?


My guess they feel it is less effort. To move the AEM7 from one end to the other, it requires an uncouple, then move the motor south out of the station, line the switches, move the motor through the station and position north, line those switches, then back in the AEM7, couple, and pull out. At some point, the AEM7 has to be repositioned back to its proper location, so it's more switching and coupling, maybe at Sunnyside (New York).

Assuming the fix is reasonably easy, by reversing the entire set save all that switching. The problem could be corrected by a tech at Sunnyside or elsewhere without having to break up the consist. At least that is my theory. That and $26 will get you a steak on Amtrak.


----------



## jis (Nov 16, 2013)

Wasn't the problem just broken cab signal in the cab car?


----------



## Texan Eagle (Nov 16, 2013)

PRR 60 said:


> They may have operated their last Amtrak train for a long, long time.


But they can probably operate SEPTA now that they got themselves route qualified for that section h34r:


----------



## jis (Nov 16, 2013)

Texan Eagle said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > They may have operated their last Amtrak train for a long, long time.
> ...


Heck, that would be one of the half a dozen or so rules that they broke.... operating on a section for which they were not qualified.  They had to bring in a SEPTA pilot and of course a new set of Amtrak crew to get the train back out to Amtrak territory.


----------



## Barciur (Nov 20, 2013)

> An Amtrak train with 130 passengers took a wrong turn on its way to New York last week and ended up at SEPTA's Bala Cynwyd station.
> 
> "An investigation was launched and the crew has been held out of work until they can be fully debriefed and additional training can be conducted," an Amtrak spokesman said.


Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20131120_Amtrak_investigating_wrong-turn_train.html#IUDZqW0eBWh3MTGY.99

I wonder what does this mean "until they can be fully debriefed and additional training can be conducted"?


----------



## John Bobinyec (Nov 20, 2013)

Barciur said:


> > An Amtrak train with 130 passengers took a wrong turn on its way to New York last week and ended up at SEPTA's Bala Cynwyd station.
> >
> > "An investigation was launched and the crew has been held out of work until they can be fully debriefed and additional training can be conducted," an Amtrak spokesman said.
> 
> ...


That's Amtrak-spokesman-speak.

"fully debriefed" = A formal investigation needs to happen. Either the crew did not know where they were and failed to stop right away, or they were operating the train unsafely - meaning that no one was on the rear end of the train to stop it if it needed to be.

"additional training" = If they didn't know where they were, they'll be disquailified from that stretch of railroad, including the point at which they started to go wrong. They'll need to get requalified if that happens. If they were operating the train in an unsafe way, penalties could be more severe potentially requiring a requalificaiton as conductor or engineer.

jb


----------



## jis (Nov 20, 2013)

According to some reports apparently the process has run its course, the crew in question have been debriefed and received necessary additional training, and now are back on duty.

As for being disqualified from the stretch of railroad where they went wrong, well since they were never qualified to be there in the first place and never will need to be there again, unless they make the same mistake again, I guess that point is moot. Although I suspect they did have to go through some sort of re-qualification for the Amtrak portion of the Cynwyd line (i.e. Cp-Valley and CP-Jeff or some such).


----------



## John Bobinyec (Nov 20, 2013)

jis said:


> According to some reports apparently the process has run its course, the crew in question have been debriefed and received necessary additional training, and now are back on duty.
> 
> As for being disqualified from the stretch of railroad where they went wrong, well since they were never qualified to be there in the first place and never will need to be there again, unless they make the same mistake again, I guess that point is moot. Although I suspect they did have to go through some sort of re-qualification for the Amtrak portion of the Cynwyd line (i.e. Cp-Valley and CP-Jeff or some such).


Yes they ended up on a line where they were not qualified. But that's not where they got lost. Back on the line where they ARE qualified, they were routed to a line where they were not qualified. They should have known that - before they took the signal (if they could tell from the signal where they were going) or should have stopped and contacted the operator/dispatcher as soon as they discovered that they were going wrong. In other words, they didn't know their own territory well enough to know where its boundaries were.

I contend that they got lost on their OWN territory - before they even entered the completely unknown territory.

But that's the Rules Examiner in me speaking.

jb


----------



## jis (Nov 20, 2013)

I have no doubt you are right. However, reports are that they are back on duty. So now I suppose if you do know any of the examiners involved, you may be able to find out exactly what happened and how they were processed and put back on duty so quickly. 

Just to fill in a bit more from the grapevine.....actually reconfirming that John is correct, they should really have not gone past the reverse pot signal at JO Zoo on 4 Valley. It is Amtrak territory past that upto CP Valley. Beyond that is SEPTA. So yes they were lost on Valley 4 between the reverse pot signal and CP Valley in not realizing that CP Valley was the end of their qualified territory.

I guess in normal course of operation Amtrak crew never finds themselves on that track, perhaps leading to the lack of familiarity. I wonder if in course of training they actually run everyone up that track to CP Valley or they simply require that they answer the questions from the examiner about that part and be done with it.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 20, 2013)

Unbelievable! Hope I Never have to ride with that Crew and what does this say about the Review Officials Involved??? :help:


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 20, 2013)

Now it has gone international: DailyMail

I LOVE the fact that they use a stock photo (without calling it such) of a locomotive not yet in revenue service!


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Nov 20, 2013)

I would think Amtrak is going to putting up a new sign at the end of its dispatch territory.

Creative dispatching gets a another crew in trouble. Glad to hear that there back. No contact no fowl.

Move on, adjust the training program. Sure Septa has banned them from its tracks.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Nov 20, 2013)

Shepard "Stockholm Syndrome" Smith is just now reporting this on FOX News and the B-Roll is of Amtrak California Service!


----------



## CHamilton (Nov 20, 2013)

California cars in Pennsylvania? Guess somebody really did get lost


----------



## SarahZ (Nov 20, 2013)

VentureForth said:


> Now it has gone international: DailyMail
> 
> I LOVE the fact that they use a stock photo (without calling it such) of a locomotive not yet in revenue service!


They also spelled "Amtrak" wrong in one paragraph, appear to blame Amtrak for hitting a car in the same sentence, and then used the wrong name for the_ "_Chicago Tribune".

There's a reason I call it "The Daily Fail".


----------



## fredevad (Nov 20, 2013)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> I would think Amtrak is going to putting up a new sign at the end of its dispatch territory.


Makes me think of a scene from a movie...

"STOP FORREST!"

:giggle:


----------



## chakk (Nov 20, 2013)

Looks like they were serving meatballs for lunch in Bala Cynwyd, PA


----------



## jis (Nov 20, 2013)

According to reports the crew was charged with Rule 90 "unecessarily delaying a train" and they served a 3 day suspension, and are now back on duty.


----------



## Acela150 (Nov 20, 2013)

3 Days for wrong track running? :unsure:


----------



## Acela150 (Nov 21, 2013)

jis said:


> Wasn't the problem just broken cab signal in the cab car?


From a reliable source to me posted on TO that this indeed was the issue.


----------



## jis (Nov 21, 2013)

Acela150 said:


> 3 Days for wrong track running? :unsure:


Apparently they followed all signal indications, so technically they were just on unqualified territory but never did any wrong track running, or so it was explained. John B is much more knowledgeable about these details so he would know better why it was only a Rule 90 violation (roughly speaking they went walkabout  ) and nothing else.


----------



## John Bobinyec (Nov 21, 2013)

jis said:


> Acela150 said:
> 
> 
> > 3 Days for wrong track running? :unsure:
> ...


Because there is no "Thou Shalt Not Be Stupid" rule?

Seriously, that's about all that they really did wrong. They broke no signal rules. They broke no "authority of movement" rules. They broke no flagging rules. There was no real danger to the train.

I think what happened was:

- the train pulled into 30th Street engine-first to make a station stop and to change ends.

- cab signals on the cab-end didn't work. The decision to run to NYP engine-first was made.

- train ran cab-first to Zoo in order to turn the train.

- the tower drilled them into a non-main line track in order to stop and change ends. I would have done that, too. Tying up a main track with a partially disabled train is never a good idea.

- some sort of miscommunication occurred about exactly where to change ends occurred. Perhaps the tower's instructions were vague. Perhaps the radios died. Perhaps the crew should have used common sense.

If the crew had stopped and gotten instructions, the incident wouldn't have happened.

Incidentally, in cab signal territory, the cab signals are supposed to be tested before the train leaves its initial station. This requires a cab signal test loop. One could argue that the engine's cab signals should be tested again because it would now be commencing a new trip once the swap had been made. So where would that have to have been done? I'm guessing there are no cab signal test loops at Zoo. Perhaps the crew was going to the nearest one. Who knows.

jb


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 21, 2013)

Engineer to Conductor: "Opps!"Looks like we screwed UP!"

Conductor to Engineer: "Where the Hell are We???"

Engineer to Conductor: "How the Hell do i know?! Aren't you in Charge of this Train??"Maybe we should call Dispatch?

Conductor to Engineer: "Let's get together on our Story so we're on the same Page so we can Get out of This! Then we'll Call!"

Engineer to Conductor: "Roger Roger!"


----------



## jis (Nov 21, 2013)

I always wondered where they tested their cab signal when the ACE Atlantic City trains and before that Amtrak Atlantic City to North trains reversed direction at Shore interlocking to enter the NEC either in that siding, or occasionally even on a mainline track. Honestly I have no idea what the exact rules are for such situations. Clearly at the first opportunity where Cab Signal is found to be not working one has to revert to non-cab signal operation, which slows the train down a lot. I experienced that once on an Acela to Boston.


----------



## lo2e (Nov 21, 2013)

Obviously this seems to be a very rare case of the cab car not functioning properly, using radio to communicate between the cab car and the engine.

But how fast would they have been moving "backwards"? Is it possible there was a mechanical malfunction that had them going too fast, therefore needing extra track mileage to get stopped?

(I'm grasping at straws here, trying to think if there's ANY logical reason for this to happen)


----------



## jis (Nov 21, 2013)

They were not moving backwards. The train as I understand it was being controlled out of the cab car. Only problem with the cab car was that cab signal was not working. They were therefore running on visual signal indication. I strongly suspect that they were going no faster than restricting speed through all this, but don;t know for sure.

Most likely it was miscommunication between Zoo dispatcher and the train operating crew. If the route had not be pre-set up by SEPTA for the following SEPTA train, possibly they would have found a stop signal at CP Valley, and all this "walkabout" would not have happened.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 21, 2013)

lo2e said:


> But how fast would they have been moving "backwards"? Is it possible there was a mechanical malfunction that had them going too fast, therefore needing extra track mileage to get stopped?
> 
> (I'm grasping at straws here, trying to think if there's ANY logical reason for this to happen)


They went more than 2 miles out of their way, and up a ramp to a flyover. They would have needed to be moving awfully fast in order to overrun by that much. And the first part of the move would have been through a major interlocking that already has restricted speeds in the first place.
PS. I'm not sure that it would take even an Acela going 150 MPH that long to stop if they were applying the brakes. Especially with the uphill ramp.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 21, 2013)

So - when compared to the other Amtrak Violation made by the crew on Train #80 earlier this week, that crew was immediately removed from the train and they had to get a replacement crew.

When this train made it back to 30th Street Station, wasn't it now Engine-First oriented to NYP? Why not just run the train then?

Was this crew immediately replaced? Who authorized the Wye? If the Wye was authorized, was it just the extra 2-mile journey (where there could have been but thankfully there wasn't a SEPTA scooter) that contributed to the Rule 90 violation?


----------



## AlanB (Nov 21, 2013)

VentureForth said:


> When this train made it back to 30th Street Station, wasn't it now Engine-First oriented to NYP? Why not just run the train then?


No it came back to Philly exactly as it left in terms of orientation. It needed to go directly from where it stopped to NYP in order to have kept the engine in the lead. With the mistake, they only went down 1 leg of the wye and never completed the turn as it were.



VentureForth said:


> Was this crew immediately replaced?


Yes.



VentureForth said:


> Who authorized the Wye?


I would assume the dispatcher; perhaps in consultation with mechanical.



VentureForth said:


> If the Wye was authorized, was it just the extra 2-mile journey (where there could have been but thankfully there wasn't a SEPTA scooter) that contributed to the Rule 90 violation?


I'd guess that at best the crew should have gone a mile, and most likley less than that. Probably about a 1/2 mile would be my guess, but others may have a better idea than I. Instead, they not only covered that first mile, but then proceeded another 2 or 3 miles down the wrong track.


----------



## fairviewroad (Nov 21, 2013)

AlanB said:


> I'd guess that at best the crew should have gone a mile, and most likley less than that. Probably about a 1/2 mile would be my guess, but others may have a better idea than I. Instead, they not only covered that first mile, but then proceeded another 2 or 3 miles down the wrong track.


...and only stopped when they literally ran out of track. One wonders what would have happened if that line still continued (as it did long ago) to Norristown or even across the river to Manayunk/Ivy Ridge, as it did up until the mid-80's. Might have been a bit more than a "three-hour tour, a three-hour tour."


----------



## jis (Nov 21, 2013)

Hey they had signal authority for wherever they went. So presumably they'd have gone if they had further signal authority.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 22, 2013)

AlanB said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > When this train made it back to 30th Street Station, wasn't it now Engine-First oriented to NYP? Why not just run the train then?
> ...


So they proceeded cab first back up the same switch they came in from, and backed into 30th engine first? Seems like they might as well have finished making the Wye turn.


----------



## PerRock (Nov 22, 2013)

I was watching clips from one of my favorite TV shows & this bit seemed quite fitting:

http://youtu.be/HwX4zHEqpH4?t=2m31s

peter


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 22, 2013)

Ah yes, now I understand what happened. I'm from Philadelphia so I remmeber the three-pronged wye by the river. One endgoes to Harrisburg, another to 30th Street, and another to New York. A long time ago the PRR ran through trains from New York to points west that bypassed 30th Street Station and only stopped at North Philadelphia, on the New York direction of the wye. Then they would swtich through the wye to head on in the Harrisburg direction without going to 30th Street Station. Now Amtrak runs one end into 30th and backtracks towards New York withoutswitching the locmotive around.

The thing is, I thought the Pittsburgh Subway was no longer operational.


----------



## fairviewroad (Nov 22, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> The thing is, I thought the Pittsburgh Subway was no longer operational.


It is, partly for situations like this one. It's not used for scheduled service because Amtrak/PA evidently don't feel

as though there's demand for a HAR-NYP "express" service that skips 30th Street. I think they're mostly correct...

though you could probably run a through train on Fri/Sun afternoon that would do well, but by and large there's no

point in skipping PHL. (If you really wanted a faster service between Harrisburg and New York, you would run

it via Allentown, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.)


----------



## AlanB (Nov 23, 2013)

VentureForth said:


> So they proceeded cab first back up the same switch they came in from, and backed into 30th engine first?


The train came from Harrisburg with the engine leading and pulled into 30th Street with the engine on the southern end of the train. After discovering the problem, with the cab car leading, the train proceeded back west on the same track that it had just used to reach 30th Street for a short distance. After clearing a key switch, train was to go east with engine leading.

Instead the crew kept going & going & going.

At that point, after stopping just feet from the end of the track, the train was recrewed and a SEPTA pilot was added, and the train was returned to 30th Street.



VentureForth said:


> Seems like they might as well have finished making the Wye turn.


Had they finished the wye turn, then the train would have arrived back into Philly with the engine on the southern end and the cab car that they couldn't use on the north end. In other words, going around the wye would have accomplished nothing except maybe making the passengers dizzy.

And at this point with the way things were going, they might well have ended up in Delaware.


----------



## lo2e (Nov 23, 2013)

I think there's confusion here on a few different levels... let me see if I can clarify:


Train arrives from HAR engine first, so the engine is on the southern end and the cab car is on the northern end
Problem with cab car discovered, so they decide to wye the train
The mistake happens and it overshoots where it was supposed to stop on the SEPTA line
Instead of wye-ing, the train goes into PHL engine first again, so again the engine ends up on the southern end and the cab car on the northern end
In order to get to NYP, the train still needs to wye because of the issue with the cab car
Train has passengers onboard, does the wye like it was supposed to before, and heads to NYP
So *VentureForth*'s question (which I agree with) is why didn't they actually complete the wye at step 4 above?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Nov 23, 2013)

AlanB said:


> And at this point with the way things were going, they might well have ended up in Delaware.


Hey! I take offense at that remark! :lol:


----------



## AlanB (Nov 23, 2013)

lo2e said:


> I think there's confusion here on a few different levels... let me see if I can clarify:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe because the rescue crew was a HAR-PHL crew; or the rescue crew's hours of service would have timed out before reaching NY; or maybe because the SEPTA pilot didn't want to go to NY. I suppose that there could even be other reasons that I haven't thought of.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 23, 2013)

AlanB said:


> or maybe because the SEPTA pilot didn't want to go to NY


I like the idea of this SEPTA guy getting on board and saying "Looks like you're lost," and then end up being dragged up the corridor to NYP then ending up on a regional going southbound that ends up in SEPTA territory as well just before reaching PHL.


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2013)

The reason for this inexcusable debacle is poor training. Amtrak has minimally qualified personnel teaching the unknowing. It is obvious if one is privy to the day to day operation(I am) and some day it will surface in a catastrophic way. Oh and by the way the crew of #644 has been returned to service.

Amtrak's training procedures are a ticking time bomb. Stay tuned.


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 24, 2013)

AlanB said:


> lo2e said:
> 
> 
> > I think there's confusion here on a few different levels... let me see if I can clarify:
> ...


I thought that the train went directly from Cynwyd to New York via the Pittsburgh Subway without heading back to 30th Street after the recrewing. The SEPTA pilot could have been dropped off anywhere convenient, not necessarily at a station. Given the circumstances, I'm sure Amtrak would have been more than willing to provide a cab ride.


----------



## jis (Nov 24, 2013)

PRR 60 said:


> I thought that the train went directly from Cynwyd to New York via the Pittsburgh Subway without heading back to 30th Street after the recrewing. The SEPTA pilot could have been dropped off anywhere convenient, not necessarily at a station. Given the circumstances, I'm sure Amtrak would have been more than willing to provide a cab ride.


No. The train went back to 30th St. and the passengers were put on a Regional to New York, woith the Regional making the Keystone stops in addition to its own.


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 24, 2013)

jis said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > I thought that the train went directly from Cynwyd to New York via the Pittsburgh Subway without heading back to 30th Street after the recrewing. The SEPTA pilot could have been dropped off anywhere convenient, not necessarily at a station. Given the circumstances, I'm sure Amtrak would have been more than willing to provide a cab ride.
> ...


Thanks for the info.

FYI, most Keystones make fewer NEC stops than the Regionals. #644 only stops at Trenton and Newark Penn en route from PHL to NYP.


----------



## jis (Nov 24, 2013)

PRR 60 said:


> Thanks for the info.
> 
> FYI, most Keystones make fewer NEC stops than the Regionals. #644 only stops at Trenton and Newark Penn en route from PHL to NYP.


You're welcome. Yup you are quite correct. I just did not bother to check. Just mentioned it as a general rule, since there have been cases, including one where I was on a Regional which picked up Keystone passengers at Philly from a cancelled Keystone (the day of the suicide at Metropark) and then we proceeded to stop at Princeton Jct. and New Brunswick, which were apparently stops for the Keystone, but not of the Regional. I think in general when they put passengers of one train onto another they make the other train stop at stops of the train substituted, which cause the other train to stop even at stations that are not regular stops if any. In this case the stops of the Keystones were already regular stops of the Regional, so no difference in actual stops.
One exception would probably be Acelas substituting, for stations that do not have even a mini-high, since it is impractical for an Acela to serve such a station.

Interestingly, we had two rules violations in the same week. One with almost zero safety risks, bordering on the hilarious, with a train sitting at an unusual place and the other with very significant safety risks but nothing explicitly visible externally except many trains getting delayed five hours or more. Guess which one gets reported boldly in the press half a week after it occurred, and which is not reported anywhere at all?

An Amtrak Engineer that I exchanged email with suggested that the amount of ribbing that the crew involved in the Cynwyd incident will take in the dispatch rooms will hurt way more over a period of time than any formal punishment on this one, because nothing really serious happened or was realistically possible to happen beyond inconvenience and embarrassment in this one.


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2013)

jis said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the info.
> ...


" Nothing really serious happened"??? A crew with 130 passengers having no clue as to where they are is not really serious? That is an absolutely moronic statement. The guy who made this statement is an Amtrak engineer? Amazing!


----------



## jis (Nov 24, 2013)

The investigation is complete. A genuine mistake was made, There were no safety violations. The crew got three days suspension for Rule 90 violation. Those are the facts. If someone wants to get excited about it, they are most welcome to do so. And of course everyone is entitled to at least one opinion or more about almost anything.


----------



## yarrow (Nov 24, 2013)

jis said:


> The investigation is complete. A genuine mistake was made, There were no safety violations. The crew got three days suspension for Rule 90 violation. Those are the facts. If someone wants to get excited about it, they are most welcome to do so. And of course everyone is entitled to at least one opinion or more about almost anything.


so, for my enlightenment, who made the genuine mistake. engineer, conductor, dispatcher? thanks


----------



## jis (Nov 24, 2013)

Engineer and Conductor as far as we know of the results of the investigation. They should have stopped at the boundary of their area of qualification. They did not. They just followed signal indications.


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2013)

jis, where did you get your info on the disposition of this incident?


----------



## yarrow (Nov 24, 2013)

jis said:


> Engineer and Conductor as far as we know of the results of the investigation. They should have stopped at the boundary of their area of qualification. They did not. They just followed signal indications.


but how is there no safety violation? if the signals were set such that they were put on to a wrong track? who set the signals so that could happen? i understand there was no chance of a collision as the train in question had clear signals but the train could have run through the bumpers had they not stopped as they apprehended something wasn't right. i know you aren't the investigator but what do you feel the reasoning is?


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 24, 2013)

The signals were set properly. The track leading to the SEPTA Cynwyd Line is always used by Amtrak for wying trains at Zoo, but the wying trains are supposed to stop and reverse before leaving Amtrak owned track. The signal leading to the SEPTA-owned portion of the track (68L) is set clear to allow quicker movement of the train through Zoo.

The error was made when the train did not stop at the designated point to make the reversing movement (prior to passing 68L), left Amtrak property, and went onto SEPTA tracks without qualification and authority. Operating a train outside your qualification area and without authority is certainly a rules violation. Once on SEPTA, the next signal on the Cynwyd line is located at Cynwyd. That signal reduces the speed to restricted. The train actually passed through Cynwyd station and stopped about one car length from the end of track.

While this incident turned out to be more embarrassing than dangerous, safety professionals would still consider it serious. This, and the CSX incident, are called precursors. Precursors are indicative of a lapse in the safety culture. Precursors lead to close calls which lead to accidents. Where I used to work, two incidents like this in quick successon would have resulted in a safety stand down and an enterprise wide safety push.


----------



## jis (Nov 24, 2013)

The reason was explained in this thread. The entry signal into SEPTA territory was clear for the train that was to follow this train, and that SEPTA train was supposed to go into SEPTA territory. This is normal practice, since there was nothing occupying the track in question, there was no problem in setting that signal to clear. Additionally, I believe this is also cab signaled territory, so even on cab signal they would not have seen any warnings.

The Amtrak crew should have noticed that they are at the end of their qualified territory and stopped and asked the dispatcher. They did not. They just followed the signal indication and landed up in territory that they were not qualified for.

However, because no signal rules were violated, they always had signal authority and hence there was no safety violation. That is as I understand it. John Bobinyec, who is an examiner has explained this in this thread a few pages back. The violation was essentially causing unnecessary delay to service.


----------



## jis (Nov 24, 2013)

PRR 60 said:


> The error was made when the train did not stop at the designated point to make the reversing movement (prior to passing 68L), left Amtrak property, and went onto SEPTA tracks without qualification and authority. Operating a train outside your qualification area and without authority is certainly a rules violation. Once on SEPTA, the next signal on the Cynwyd line is located at Cynwyd. That signal reduces the speed to restricted. The train actually passed through Cynwyd station and stopped about one car length from the end of track.


One clarification.... they did have signal authority. However, they were not qualified for that segment of track. Hence there was deemed to be no safety violation.


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 24, 2013)

jis said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > The error was made when the train did not stop at the designated point to make the reversing movement (prior to passing 68L), left Amtrak property, and went onto SEPTA tracks without qualification and authority. Operating a train outside your qualification area and without authority is certainly a rules violation. Once on SEPTA, the next signal on the Cynwyd line is located at Cynwyd. That signal reduces the speed to restricted. The train actually passed through Cynwyd station and stopped about one car length from the end of track.
> ...


Regardless of the signals and the clear track to Cynwyd, I have to presume that the Zoo wye movement is governed by a set of verbal instructions given to the crew by Amtrak dispatchers. I assume those instructions would say something like "move west on Track 4 clear of switch XXX, stop prior to signal 68L, change ends, wait for clearance to proceed east through Pittsburgh Subway." Given that, the crew certainly exceeded its operating authority by not following dispatch instructions no matter what the signals indicate. Now, if Amtrak does not provide specific instructions for how a crew is to use the Pittsburgh Subway for a wye movement, if they just sent the train west and hoped for the best, then Amtrak better figure out how to run a railroad.

Secondly, regardless of signal indications, a crew operating a train in an area where they are not qualified to operate sure seems like a rules violation to me - and a serious one. Just because nothing happened does not mean it was not a safety lapse. How did that Amtrak crew know the track geometry or speed restrictions? If a SEPTA crew on the Thorndale run just kept on going to Harrisburg without any qualification west of Thorndale, I'm sure Amtrak would consider that a pretty serious safety incident regardless of the signal indictions.


----------



## jimhudson (Nov 24, 2013)

As usual ji's Explanations and Comments are full of Common Sense and Fact Based! (Mostly!  )I would compare the "Where the F??? are We Crew" to someone Driving in their Car following a GPS that told them to just keep on going until they ran off a Pier or Bridge or over a Cliff 'Cause the Machine told them to do it! :help: I still wouldn't want to Ride with these Incompetent Clowns!!!


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2013)

I find it amazing that you folks and as I understand a rules examiner minimize the seriousness of this situation. That crew had no clue as to where they were. They had the lives of 130 unsuspecting passengers in their incompetent hands who are trusting them them to get them safely to their destination. Bala Cynwyd as I understand is 6.1 miles from Philadelphia. 6.1 miles and nobody on that crew thought that something might be amiss? GMAFB! That crew should be removed from service, given remedial training and be made to pass a proficiency test on the physical characteristics of the territory over which they operate. This situation is indicative of the quality of training that Amtrak provides. I work for Amtrak, I see the products of their training regimen on a daily basis.


----------



## amamba (Nov 24, 2013)

Thank you jis for this excellent explanation. :hi:


----------



## Ryan (Nov 24, 2013)

Guest said:


> I find it amazing that you folks and as I understand a rules examiner minimize the seriousness of this situation.


Funny, I don't see that happening at all.
If Amtrak training is so bad, I assume you're constantly failing them for lack of knowledge?


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2013)

RyanS said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > I find it amazing that you folks and as I understand a rules examiner minimize the seriousness of this situation.
> ...


What don't you see happening? Failing them? Do you work for Amtrak? I don't understand your post. Please clarify.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 24, 2013)

I don't see anyone minimizing the seriousness of the situation.


----------



## Mokita (Nov 24, 2013)

RyanS said:


> I don't see anyone minimizing the seriousness of the situation.


Here is one example.



jis said:


> An Amtrak Engineer that I exchanged email with suggested that the amount of ribbing that the crew involved in the Cynwyd incident will take in the dispatch rooms will hurt way more over a period of time than any formal punishment on this one, _*because nothing really serious happened or was realistically possible to happen beyond inconvenience and embarrassment in this one.*_


----------



## Ryan (Nov 24, 2013)

That looks like a pretty accurate statement to me. Nobody died, nobody was injured, and given a functioning signaling system, neither of those was in jeopardy of happening.


----------



## Mokita (Nov 24, 2013)

RyanS said:


> That looks like a pretty accurate statement to me. Nobody died, nobody was injured, and given a functioning signaling system, neither of those was in jeopardy of happening.


Do you work for Amtrak? You did not answer before when I asked.

So your line of reasoning is if nothing happened everything is O.K.? Never mind that they had no idea where they were, what rules were in effect, what could have happened etc.?


----------



## pennyk (Nov 24, 2013)

Please, refrain from personal attacks. RyanS is not employed by Amtrak, but many long-time AU members are Amtrak employees. Also many AU members are in close contact with Amtrak employees, and those members are extremely knowledgable.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 24, 2013)

Mokita said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> > That looks like a pretty accurate statement to me. Nobody died, nobody was injured, and given a functioning signaling system, neither of those was in jeopardy of happening.
> ...


As Penny said, no I don't work for Amtrak.
And my line of reasoning is that if nothing happened, then the statement "nothing really serious happened" is an accurate representation of the truth. It's not rocket surgery.


----------



## Mokita (Nov 24, 2013)

pennyk said:


> Please, refrain from personal attacks. RyanS is not employed by Amtrak, but many long-time AU members are Amtrak employees. Also many AU members are in close contact with Amtrak employees, and those members are extremely knowledgable.


Where do I make a personal attack?


----------



## Mokita (Nov 24, 2013)

RyanS said:


> Mokita said:
> 
> 
> > RyanS said:
> ...


I'm glad that you do not work for Amtrak.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 24, 2013)

Mokita said:


> pennyk said:
> 
> 
> > Please, refrain from personal attacks. RyanS is not employed by Amtrak, but many long-time AU members are Amtrak employees. Also many AU members are in close contact with Amtrak employees, and those members are extremely knowledgable.
> ...


It's like she could see into the future.



Mokita said:


> I'm glad that you do not work for Amtrak.


----------



## yarrow (Nov 24, 2013)

some of us see a safety problem, some don't. just speaking from my point of view as someone not knowledgeable about operating rules and signaling it would be unsettling to me as a passenger. the crew is out of their territory and don't quickly notice. in my former line of work (hospital icu) someone practicing outside their area of licensure or expertise was treated, properly, as a major safety violation


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 24, 2013)

In all fairness, I think the response is minimizing the situation. The response says there was no safety violation. It says that since nothing bad happened, it was not a big deal. Really? I can't see how an Amtrak crew taking an Amtrak train onto another railroad's property without authorization and without any training or information on that railroad can be anything but a safety violation. In my opinion, it is a big deal.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 24, 2013)

Oh, I don't disagree that it's a huge safety violation and needs to be fixed.

But if you go back and read all of Jishnu's post, it's pretty clear that he was talking about something more serious than "just" a rule violation.


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 24, 2013)

yarrow said:


> some of us see a safety problem, some don't. just speaking from my point of view as someone not knowledgeable about operating rules and signaling it would be unsettling to me as a passenger. the crew is out of their territory and don't quickly notice. in my former line of work (hospital icu) someone practicing outside their area of licensure or expertise was treated, properly, as a major safety violation


That was the way it was in my line of work as well (high voltage power transmission). There was zero tolerance of this kind of thing - working outside the prescribed limits of work. This was not just some "s**t happens" event.


----------



## jis (Nov 24, 2013)

I really didn't mean to upset people. So sorry about that.

What happened was serious enough to be investigated. The experts who investigated came to a conclusion. I have tried to explain why they arrived at that conclusion while trying very hard to avoid injecting any personal opinion into it. That does not imply that what happened was not serious. Just because I quoted an Engineer who said something does not make it a non-serious event. Basically what he was trying to say I think (my interpretation) is that it could have been a lot worse, and his way of saying it may strike a few as a bit odd. Perhaps I should refrain trying to bring in some human element and avoid raising the ire and indignation of the indignant. I shall remember to do that in the future. Clearly I have failed miserably in what I was trying to do. I apologize for that.

But really there is no reason to get personal about this at all. Strictly speaking really nothing happened to any of us involved in this discussion at all, except a few losing their cool and getting emotional.


----------



## pennyk (Nov 24, 2013)

Some of us REALLY appreciate the information you pass on to us.


----------



## Acela150 (Nov 24, 2013)

I ditto Penny. I love the information that Jis passes on as it's full of useful information.


----------



## Mokita (Nov 24, 2013)

RyanS said:


> Mokita said:
> 
> 
> > pennyk said:
> ...


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 24, 2013)

jis said:


> I rteally didn;t mean to upset people.


jis, you're not upsetting me. You're simply the messenger forwarding details of Amtrak's actions. My issue is with Amtrak, given what you said concerning their minimal response to this incident. Amtrak's gripe was that the train was delayed, and the crew was penalized for delaying the train - nothing else. Considering the facts here, that is so bazaar, that I wonder what else may have been involved.


----------



## railiner (Nov 24, 2013)

PRR 60 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > PRR 60 said:
> ...


Pardon me for joining this thread late in the game, but the above comment about SEPTA cutting the power to the catenary....if this did happen....why didn't the dispatcher contact the wayward crew as soon as they realized the mistake? Was it after they already reached the end of the line?.....


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 25, 2013)

Could've been. It doesn't take that long, even at 15 MPH, to go 2 miles.

I have a question about the clear signal. If it was set to clear for the next SEPTA trolley, then Amtrak was truly given the Green all the way to Cynwyd (even though they only had to go a couple hundred yards).

I didn't see anything where SEPTA was delayed even though apparently several of these one-car trains run here daily. (Note: Didn't expect to see a lot from SEPTA as Amtrak was the big news. Just 'cause I didn't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.)


----------



## Ryan (Nov 25, 2013)

Mokita said:


> You construe that as a personal attack? No attack there pal just a statement of fact. Given your line of reasoning I'm glad.


I'm curious as to why you hold that opinion.


----------



## SarahZ (Nov 25, 2013)

Stating that you are glad Ryan does not work for Amtrak is a personal attack, regardless of trying to justify it as fact. When you say you are glad someone does not work for Amtrak, it is obvious you feel they are lacking somehow; otherwise, you wouldn't say such a thing.

If you knew Ryan personally, you would actually be quite sad that he does not work for Amtrak. Amtrak could use more people who are patient, understanding, intelligent, and resourceful, not to mention good under pressure.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 25, 2013)

SarahZ said:


> Stating that you are glad Ryan does not work for Amtrak is a personal attack, regardless of trying to justify it as fact. When you say you are glad someone does not work for Amtrak, it is obvious you feel they are lacking somehow; otherwise, you wouldn't say such a thing.
> 
> If you knew Ryan personally, you would actually be quite sad that he does not work for Amtrak. Amtrak could use more people who are patient, understanding, intelligent, and resourceful, not to mention good under pressure.


Well Said and True!


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 25, 2013)

railiner said:


> Pardon me for joining this thread late in the game, but the above comment about SEPTA cutting the power to the catenary....if this did happen....why didn't the dispatcher contact the wayward crew as soon as they realized the mistake? Was it after they already reached the end of the line?.....


The Amtrak crew was using the Amtrak dispatch radio frequency, not SEPTA's. When SEPTA tried to contact them (not knowing who "them" was), since the call was on the SEPTA frequency, the Amtrak crew did not hear it and did not respond. At that point, SEPTA had no idea what was going on other than there was an unidentified train on their rails which was not answering radio calls. They killed the power as a precaution. I believe the train was already stopped at Cynwyd at the time.


----------



## railiner (Nov 25, 2013)

So there was not enough time for the SEPTA dispatcher to confer with Amtrak dispatcher to find out what this "unidentified train" that came off Amtrak territory was?

Like in the movie 'Cool Hand Luke'........"What we have heeya, is a failya to communicate"


----------



## jis (Nov 25, 2013)

jimhudson said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > Stating that you are glad Ryan does not work for Amtrak is a personal attack, regardless of trying to justify it as fact. When you say you are glad someone does not work for Amtrak, it is obvious you feel they are lacking somehow; otherwise, you wouldn't say such a thing.
> ...


Agreed.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 25, 2013)

But Welcome to AU!


----------



## Ryan (Nov 25, 2013)

jis said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > SarahZ said:
> ...


Thanks, guys! :hi: It'd be pretty stellar to work at Amtrak, I'd like to think that I'd be somewhat good at it.


----------



## oldtimer (Nov 25, 2013)

Ryan, as a 40 year employee (both management and agreement) I am sure that you would be a tremendous asset to Amtrak. We already have more then one member that are an unbelievable assets. I just hope they don't let the ba*t*rds get to them!


----------



## Acela150 (Nov 25, 2013)

Sort of fresh off the Harrisburg Line today.. No wrong railing to report of!  To note there is a signal just before crossing the main bridge at 52nd street. I know some had wondered if there were signals on the line.


----------



## 41bridge (Nov 26, 2013)

railiner said:


> So there was not enough time for the SEPTA dispatcher to confer with Amtrak dispatcher to find out what this "unidentified train" that came off Amtrak territory was?
> 
> Like in the movie 'Cool Hand Luke'........"What we have heeya, is a failya to communicate"


FWIW, I dispatch for a Class 1. All that would have been seen is a track circuit lit up. This happens hundreds of time a year in any dispatching office.. We normally call the signal maintainer out to see what's wrong. Could be bad insulated joint, broken rail, kids shorting out the rails, etc. Not a big deal-no cause for panic.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 26, 2013)

41bridge said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > So there was not enough time for the SEPTA dispatcher to confer with Amtrak dispatcher to find out what this "unidentified train" that came off Amtrak territory was?
> ...


Track circuits don't tend to move down the line like a train would.

Now in this case, with only one signal on the entire branch, yes it could have looked like a track circuit initially, at least until they passed the next and last signal.


----------



## jis (Nov 27, 2013)

Actually I tend to agree that the SEPTA dispatcher did not really have enough time to come to any solid conclusion. A track circuit glitch could not be ruled out for the major section between Valley and Bala. Only after it exited that block into the station block at Bala Cynwyd would it become obvious that there was a real train involved. But by that time, the train is coming to a stop anyway, and there is not much for the SEPTA guy to do other than try to figure out where the train came from.

They probably first asked the SEPTA Cynwyd train whether it was a Bala Cynwyd already. upon hearing not so, then they got really puzzled and asked Amtrak. Just a speculation.


----------



## CaptainScarlet (Nov 30, 2013)

In a nutshell here is what went down..Train came from Harrisburg with a problem that prevented the AEM-7 from being used by the engineer...The New York based crew, which consisted of Engineer, Conductor and Assistant Conductor was told of the plan to reverse back to Styles Interlocking then proceed to New York via the NY-PGH Subway track...The engineer who is pretty new said he was unsure because he has not been out that way since he qualified on territory and supervision offered to get him a pilot for the move...the conductor who has over 20 yrs experience, including a stint with SEPTA talked the engineer into making the move, without the pilot..When they got down there and was lined up for the Valley Track, the conductor, who was riding in the AEM-7 and calling out signals got confused and continued calling signals, which SEPTA had put up since they didnt know how long the train would be and the engineer whos confidence was already bad enough about the move didnt stop when he got behind the Pot Signal and just kept on shoving the train into no mans land, over a bridge that was not supposed to handle a train of that size. The crew obviously wasn't listening to the radio because Zoo Tower had put up the signal for the move towards the Subway and i'm sure they was trying to figure out why the train hadn't 'knocked down' the signal yet...Also CETC-6 would have gotten in on the action as well since they put up the signals as you exit the Subway and they were just as baffled that the train was delayed and they might have called to them as well... This would have been averted if the engineer had stuck to his guns and took the offer of a pilot for the move...Both are very lucky people and will have to deal with ridicule for the rest of their careers!!!!


----------



## Ryan (Nov 30, 2013)

Better that than something more serious!

Speaking of "serious", I guess Mokita isn't going to come back and tell me why he thinks I ought not work for Amtrak.


----------

