# Amtrak Accident in Chicago



## PRR 60 (Nov 30, 2007)

Chicago Tribune


----------



## daveyb99 (Nov 30, 2007)

CNN now reporting an accident involving a AMTRAK #371, inbound to Chicago from Grand Rapids.

The accident has occurred in the yard south of Union station (near 48th and Shields). For whatever reason, the AMTRAK train rear-ended a freight. The engine overran the last freight car, a stack train car with one module. It appears the passenger cars remained upright and did not derail.

Video shows the #8 Engine with three Superliner cars (#35008, xxxxx, xxxxx). (courtesy WGN and WLS)

Chicago FD reporting 100+ passengers as walking wounded, with serious and critical injuries involving the AMTRAK crew.


----------



## daveyb99 (Nov 30, 2007)

from CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/30/trains.co...e.ap/index.html

from WLS-TV

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/front

Chicago Sun-Times

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/front


----------



## daveyb99 (Nov 30, 2007)

While this story is still breaking, find LIVE COVERAGE HERE

WLS-TV LIVE COVERAGE

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news&id=4628066


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 30, 2007)

Really weird. No slowing down or application of brakes prior to impact. Doubt the brakes can go 'out' considering that airbrakes default to applied when malfunctioned. Wonder if the engineer just thought that the frieght was on a different track?


----------



## amtrak_russ (Nov 30, 2007)

Its a little sureal, I was out and about last night and i stopped at the depot to see this train... I know the conductors involved and it seems that they are okay from when i saw them on cnn. Just rather odd.


----------



## Navy 118 (Nov 30, 2007)

CHICAGO (AP) -- An Amtrak train plowed into the back of a freight train Friday on the south side of the city, seriously injuring five Amtrak employees in an engine car that hurtled to a stop atop a crushed boxcar. Most of the 187 passengers walked away.

Fire Department spokesman Larry Langford said none of the passengers appeared to have suffered serious injuries when the Amtrak train came to a "very hard stop," but were being checked by medical personnel. Some were taken away on stretchers and backboards.

The Amtrak's three double-decker passenger cars remained upright, officials said. Most of the damage was concentrated on the passenger train's engine, and no one was in the portion of the freight train that was struck.

There were 187 passengers and six crew members aboard the train, traveling from Grand Rapids to Chicago when the accident occurred in a rail yard south of Union Station, Amtrak spokesman Derrick James said.

The National Transportation Safety Board was sending investigators. James said of particular interest is what the signals were before the Amtrak train got to the area where the collision occurred.

We just got the NAVY car home this morning. From the CNN footage, I have seen that the conductors and the Student Engineer were able to walk away, and the Engineer was taken away in a stretcher. The condition of the LSA is unknown.

Consist as I remember it from last night.

AMTK 8

AMTK 35008

AMTK 34002

AMTK 34054


----------



## john h (Nov 30, 2007)

Is it normal in this kind of accident for the seats to come loose?Thats the report I hear from the news, seems odd to me.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2007)

Questions:

Were they "driving" into the setting sun?

Why are there windows on the side of the engine? Who sits in there to see out? I have this great curiosity as to what exactly is in the engine car (besides the engine and the engineer).

If there were 3 coaches, why would there have been an LSA on board? Wouldn't that imply that one of the cars was a lounge?

What would keep the engine from turning over on its side?


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2007)

I would guess, based on the exact location of the incident, that the engineer thought the freight cars were on another track. There is a slight curve just before the site, and by the time the danger was apparent, it was far too late.


----------



## Navy 118 (Nov 30, 2007)

john h said:


> Is it normal in this kind of accident for the seats to come loose?Thats the report I hear from the news, seems odd to me.


The seats are attached by four bolts. It would be perceivable that they could come loose in a collision.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 30, 2007)

Guest said:


> Were they "driving" into the setting sun?


Not at 10:00 AM in the morning.



Guest said:


> Why are there windows on the side of the engine? Who sits in there to see out? I have this great curiosity as to what exactly is in the engine car (besides the engine and the engineer).


So that the engineer and the fireman can see out of the window. There are mirrors on the side of the engine so that they can see behind them. Normally only and engineer and maybe a fireman sit in the engine, but in this case it seems as though there may have been some training going on and therefore there were more people than normal in the engine. One has to wonder if the training or the number of people in the engine didn't have something to do with the crash.

As for what's in the engine, seats, controls, a bathroom, the engine, transformers, generators, large cooling fans, and an air compressor to name a few things.



Guest said:


> If there were 3 coaches, why would there have been an LSA on board? Wouldn't that imply that one of the cars was a lounge?


It seems that they have a cart service on this train, much like they do on the Hiawatha service.



Guest said:


> What would keep the engine from turning over on its side?


To some extent, luck. The fact that it was coupled to the car directly behind also had some influence in keeping it upright. But if the colision forces had been greater, if something had caused the engine to tilt more, or had the coupler broken or uncoupled, then it would have almost certainly rolled over. And we can be thankful that didn't happen, as more than likely that would have led to far more serious injuries, especially for the crew of the engine.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 30, 2007)

john h said:


> Is it normal in this kind of accident for the seats to come loose?Thats the report I hear from the news, seems odd to me.


No, it is not normal, particularly at the speed involved. At this point we really do not know that they did. This was a statement by a passenger, and if you read news reports on train accidents, there are a lot of "eyewitness" and passenger statements that have a considerable divergance from reality. If there is truth here, then the question becomes how many, where, and why, because it should not have happened.

Let's do a little calculation here:

Normally a train brakes at between 1 mph/second and 1.5 mph/second.

....1.5 mph/s = 2.2 ft/s/s = about 7% of gravity

Transit cars normally brake, and in the low speed range, accelerate at around 3 mph/second

....3 mph/s = 4.4 ft/s/s = about 14% of gravity.

If the pictures and stated speeds are to be believed, by riding up over the container, the train stopped from 15 to 20 mph in a distance of about 50 feet. Churning through the math gives a stopping rate of about 9 ft/s/s, or the other way, 6 mph/second. Yeah, I know the actual conversion 9 ft/sec is 6.136 mph, but the 9 is a result of an approximation of both speed and distance so it could well be anywhere between more or less about 8 and about 10, so 6 is good enough. This gives an acceleration rate of 28% of gravity, call it somewhere between a 25% and 30% range. This will throw you off your feet, and if unexpected, and this was, shove you into the seat in front of you. But, normally the results of a stop at this rate are in the bumps and bruises range. People seated should have for the most part have experienced a good shaking, spilled coffee and little more. A quick stop in a car can be at a higher rate than this, but you are supposed to belted in there. The time between initial contact and stop should have been somewhere in the range of 3 to 4 seconds.

As some had said, if the containers had been two high and loaded, the stop would have been much more abrupt, and there would have been a lot more injuries and more serious injuries. In addition, the engine crew would most likely have ended up dead.

From things said elsewhere, it appears that there were three people in the cab and the third was a student engineer.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 30, 2007)

Here's the Amtrak press release on the accident.



> Amtrak Train Strikes Norfolk Southern Freight Near Chicago
> November 30, 2007
> 
> 3 pm EDT
> ...


The full press release can be found here.


----------



## tp49 (Nov 30, 2007)

Why is it that the first thing that came to my mind was didn't that big Metra derailment a couple of years ago happen somewhat near the same place. I'll be interested to see what the factors that are viewed to be the cause of this wreck. I'm just glad there were no fatalities.


----------



## Guest_TransAtlantic_* (Nov 30, 2007)

I kind of wonder why (per the news reports) there were 5 Amtrak employees in the cab...


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 30, 2007)

AlanB said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > If there were 3 coaches, why would there have been an LSA on board? Wouldn't that imply that one of the cars was a lounge?
> ...


If the first coach was 35008, then I suppose it's possible the LSA could have been selling food downstairs.


----------



## Navy 118 (Nov 30, 2007)

AlanB said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > If there were 3 coaches, why would there have been an LSA on board? Wouldn't that imply that one of the cars was a lounge?
> ...


This consist used the lower level of the snack coach which was the 1st car in the consist. The set up is loosely like the Superliner I lounge lower-level attendant area. The main benefit for the snack coaches HOT COFFEE!!!! Which a cart based attendant can't do.


----------



## Steve4031 (Nov 30, 2007)

tp49 said:


> Why is it that the first thing that came to my mind was didn't that big Metra derailment a couple of years ago happen somewhat near the same place. I'll be interested to see what the factors that are viewed to be the cause of this wreck. I'm just glad there were no fatalities.



Geographically, yes. However the Metra derailment was on a different set of tracks that were on the east side of the Dan Ryan Expressway (90-94). Those were the Rock Island RR's tracks. I believe NYC used them too.

Today's incident occurred on the set of tracks that are west of the Dan Ryan. These tracks used to belong to the Pennsylvania RR. The two sets of tracks intersect at Englewood. If you use google maps, you should get a clearer picture of this area. Hope this helps.


----------



## yarrow (Nov 30, 2007)

i realize we don't know who was in the cab but i read one may have been a student engineer. what kind of experience, training and certification are necessary to be an amtrak engineer. also, i was watching a crew change on the eb at minot, nd a few weeks ago and saw, what i assume were, our new engineer and fireman climb into the cab. they looked young(maybe 30's)to me. what is an average age for engine crews? thanks and our thoughts to those who were injured in this accident.


----------



## KCM (Nov 30, 2007)




----------



## gswager (Nov 30, 2007)

That's look really bad. I'm guessing that the locomotive is totaled.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 30, 2007)

gswager said:


> That's look really bad. I'm guessing that the locomotive is totaled.


That will probably depend on how badly the frame was bent, and it does look like it might be bent at least bit. Most of the nose can easily be repaired.


----------



## PerRock (Nov 30, 2007)

Acording to a post on another forum I am active on:



> *PRELIMINARY* information was that the train was given a "restricted" signal before the accident located about Englewood (METRA Crossing)


this is from: http://railroadfan.com/phpbb/index.php (Lower Michigan Talk area)

peter


----------



## AmtrakWPK (Nov 30, 2007)

Looks like the whole front end of the engine is bend downwards, and looks like a lot of the front workdesks came loose and flew forward, or perhaps it is the downward bend of the exterior that is causing that effect. That must have been a horrendous jolt to the front of the engine.


----------



## Miami Joe (Dec 1, 2007)

Great pics!!!!!!!!

You can see the collision posts worked well to keep the nose from crushing the crew, but I'm curious if that's the consoles in the window.

From the side pic, It's clear the crew compartment wasn't damaged too bad. It looks like the truck may have pushed up into the console area or possibly the crew slamming against the console.

Still a bad scene!!!!!!!

It looks repairable!

MJ


----------



## Miami Joe (Dec 1, 2007)

Whoever made the comment about the brake application shouldn't make assumptions or listen to the media.

The only proof is the event recorder after download and "Nobody" has that info except Amtrak and it will be examined by Amtrak within the 1st few hrs and the NTSB. The download is considered as evidence and a record of "chain of custody" follows it as it passes from hand to hand!!

MJ B)


----------



## PerRock (Dec 1, 2007)

Miami Joe said:


> Whoever made the comment about the brake application shouldn't make assumptions or listen to the media.
> The only proof is the event recorder after download and "Nobody" has that info except Amtrak and it will be examined by Amtrak within the 1st few hrs and the NTSB. The download is considered as evidence and a record of "chain of custody" follows it as it passes from hand to hand!!
> 
> MJ B)


The comments about brake application were actually made by passengers on board the train. now of course we will all have to wait until teh NTSB has finished their investigation to find out what really happened. It may have been that the passengers did not feel any braking; I often do not feel the braking on those superliners, especially at low speeds.

peter


----------



## PerRock (Dec 1, 2007)

Well from some friends and such I have been able to obtain the NS security footage of the accident. It is viewable here:

http://s68.photobucket.com/albums/i6/PerRo...rent=amtrak.flv

peter


----------



## Navy 118 (Dec 1, 2007)

One of the factors in this accident is the fact that the regular engineer was on vacation on the day of the accident (so an extra board engineer was on duty), 2) There was a student engineer on board, 3) the engineer was recrewed at Grand Rapids this morning due to turning on not enough sleep. The recrewing engineer was also from the extra board. From the footage from the Security camera (if you haven't seen it look here http://www.rfdi.info/amtrak.wmv) The engine crew would have had a difficult time seeing the obstruction in the tracks ahead of them. For me this accident is kinda tough due to the fact that I personally knew all the crew on board. But alas we are all human and are prone to make mistakes...


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 1, 2007)

AlanB said:


> That will probably depend on how badly the frame was bent, and it does look like it might be bent at least bit. Most of the nose can easily be repaired.


The Genesis series has no frame, they have a monoqucoc shell.


----------



## PerRock (Dec 1, 2007)

The Tribune has some more data on what happened this morning.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...1&cset=true

peter


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 1, 2007)

I looked at that NS video myself last night, and I have a couple of theories.

First off it's very obvious to me that the three people on the head end were the engineer, a road foreman, and a student/qualifying engineer. My theory behind this is that the Michigan jobs only have one engineer since they are so short, thus explaining the other two individuals. I personally would not call into question the credentials of the road foreman, they typically have excellent safety records, and are very good engineers. The third man on the motor was either a student in the process of earning his license and being evaluated by the road foreman, or it was an engineer qualifying on that portion of the road so that he can operate a train himself between CHI and GR.

As to how it happened, this is my theory. If you watch the video there is a stack train moving parallel to the Amtrak train (on track 3 for our purposes). Over on track 1 is a manifest train which is stopped. On track two is another stack train, that is stopped, and the approaching Amtrak train. Because of the masses of signals on the signal bridges I believe the Amtrak crew read the signal for track 3 and proceeded on that indication, not realizing they had a stop signal or restricting signal on track 2. This is also the point in the trip when the crew is starting to put their things together for the arrival into Chicago. It's possible that (hypothetically) the Engineer was running, and went to go put his things away or use the restroom, and the road foreman moved over to the controls, with the signal they were proceeding on either misread, or not properly conveyed from one person to the next.

Again, these are just my conspiracy theories, but I feel that what comes out from the NTSB in this case is very plausible.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 1, 2007)

battalion51 said:


> As to how it happened, this is my theory. If you watch the video there is a stack train moving parallel to the Amtrak train (on track 3 for our purposes). Over on track 1 is a manifest train which is stopped. On track two is another stack train, that is stopped, and the approaching Amtrak train. Because of the masses of signals on the signal bridges I believe the Amtrak crew read the signal for track 3 and proceeded on that indication, not realizing they had a stop signal or restricting signal on track 2. This is also the point in the trip when the crew is starting to put their things together for the arrival into Chicago. It's possible that (hypothetically) the Engineer was running, and went to go put his things away or use the restroom, and the road foreman moved over to the controls, with the signal they were proceeding on either misread, or not properly conveyed from one person to the next.
> Again, these are just my conspiracy theories, but I feel that what comes out from the NTSB in this case is very plausible.


There is one flaw in your theory, the manifest train on track #1 is in motion. It's not moving very fast, but it is nonetheless moving in the opposite direction from the Amtrak train, RR south.

This flaw in no way discounts your theory, you could still be correct overall in you analysis of what might have happened.


----------



## MrFSS (Dec 1, 2007)

When those that make the determinations about what happened finish their investigation, is a report made public so that we can all look at it?

We had a very bad airplane crash near where I live last year and recently the federal government department that handles such things came to town and gave a full report to all who were interested in hearing it. Assume the same thing happens here?

How long does it usually take to get the final outcome report. if anyone knows? I know there is a lot of investigation that needs to be done, but are we talking months or years? Just curious.

Thanks!


----------



## AlanB (Dec 1, 2007)

MrFSS said:


> When those that make the determinations about what happened finish their investigation, is a report made public so that we can all look at it?


The report is generally posted on the NTSB's website, once the investigation is done. Sometimes they even post updates while they are working on the report.



MrFSS said:


> We had a very bad airplane crash near where I live last year and recently the federal government department that handles such things came to town and gave a full report to all who were interested in hearing it. Assume the same thing happens here?


I'm not sure if they'll actually hold a town meeting as it were, but I supose anything is possible.



MrFSS said:


> How long does it usually take to get the final outcome report. if anyone knows? I know there is a lot of investigation that needs to be done, but are we talking months or years? Just curious.


Usually at least a year, many times longer depending on just how hard it is to figure things out, as well as how many other accidents occur during the next year or so.


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 1, 2007)

AlanB said:


> There is one flaw in your theory, the manifest train on track #1 is in motion. It's not moving very fast, but it is nonetheless moving in the opposite direction from the Amtrak train, RR south.
> This flaw in no way discounts your theory, you could still be correct overall in you analysis of what might have happened.


Didn't notice that the first time around. Either way there would have been a stop indication showing on the signal bridge. It's the parallel train that really makes me wonder.


----------



## gswager (Dec 1, 2007)

After watching the video, it was a big jolt! I can noticed that the rear Superliner car almost lifted into the air. It appeared that the track is curve and is blocked by other train. I agree to wait at least a year for the facts, not assumptions, from NTSB.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2007)

Does it look to you like the 4th track from the right is empty? Black train, Amtrak train, orange stack train, empty line, train?


----------



## Guest_gp35_* (Dec 1, 2007)

Look at those tank cars on the right. I hate to imagine the scene if the Superliners had jumped the track

and pancaked into those cars.


----------



## wayman (Dec 1, 2007)

MrFSS said:


> How long does it usually take to get the final outcome report. if anyone knows? I know there is a lot of investigation that needs to be done, but are we talking months or years? Just curious.


Alan's estimate of at least a year may be more realistic, but the NTSB implied it would take less than a year to the Associated Press, which reported:

_A team of nine NTSB investigators planned to begin interviewing crew members, passengers, dispatchers and supervisors Saturday, but said the investigation could take months to complete._

_ _

_Officials also hoped to review information from the passenger train's event recorder, a device similar to the black boxes on airliners. Retrieving it from the wreck will take ''finesse,'' authorities said._

(AP article in the New York Times)

"Finesse" may be an understatement, given the pictures....


----------



## AmtrakWPK (Dec 2, 2007)

It does boggle the mind what could have happened if the rear of the freight had been an LPG tank car or some other dangerous hazmat. While we still sympathize with the injured and hope for everyone's recovery, the outcome could have been SO much worse.......


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 2, 2007)

I also wonder whether that rule, even if generally true, is true in a switching yard, which is really pretty much where this happened, right?


----------



## printman2000 (Dec 2, 2007)

I noticed something weird about the video...

The camera pans to the left slightly and stops to perfectly frame the accident. Was someone running this camera and saw what was about to happen?

Just to be clear, I am not saying this is a conspiracy and done on purpose.


----------



## VentureForth (Dec 2, 2007)

ITS A CONSPIRACY!!!

But here are my two observations -

1) Engineer couldn't see stopped train because of the curve and the moving train on his left and stopped train on the right.

2) I don't see in this video where they would have had a "Clear" signal on ANY of those tracks except those on the far, far left. I don't think those could have been misunderstood.

My thought -

Somehow automatic lighting wasn't being used. Dispatch left a light on clear instead of stop. Is there no ATC (or ATS) on these lines???


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 2, 2007)

Well it doesn't even necessarily have to be a clear signal, what I meant by "clear signal" was an indication that didn't indicate restricting or stop. A "clear signal" could mean, Clear, Medium Clear, Limited Clear, Slow Clear, Advance Approach, Approach, Medium Approach, Limited Approach, Slow Approach. All of those indications give you permission to proceed past the signal (and if it ends in approach and isn't Advance Approach) reduce to medium speed and be prepared to stop at the next signal, but the block you are in is clear.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 2, 2007)

VentureForth said:


> 1) Engineer couldn't see stopped train because of the curve and the moving train on his left and stopped train on the right.


Again as I noted above, the train on the right was not stopped. It was in motion, very slowly, but it was nonetheless moving. However stopped or moving, I don't think that it would have made any difference if indeed it's presence helped to contribute to the accident.



VentureForth said:


> Somehow automatic lighting wasn't being used. Dispatch left a light on clear instead of stop. Is there no ATC (or ATS) on these lines???


No, ATS and/or ATC (also sometimes known at Positive Train Control [PTC]), does not exist on most tracks outside of the NEC. The freight companies don't want to spend the money to install such a system


----------



## Navy 118 (Dec 2, 2007)

Train braked, officials say

NTSB says cause of wreck still unclear

By Monique Garcia and Emma Graves Fitzsimmons, Tribune staff reporters

December 2, 2007

An Amtrak train traveling about 40 m.p.h. applied its brakes for 9 seconds and skidded 400 to 500 feet before hitting a stopped freight train Friday, transportation officials said Saturday.

The South Side crash injured 60 people and heavily damaged the trains and tracks.

Federal investigators provided new details of the crash from information retrieved Saturday from the Amtrak train's "event recorder, " a device similar to an airplane's "black box," which measures speed, brake application and acceleration.

A team of investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board braved harsh weather as they began their inquiry into why the two trains were on the same track simultaneously, causing the late-morning crash near 51st Street and Shields Avenue.

All passengers and crew members who were treated for injuries have been released from area hospitals, said Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari.

NTSB Vice Chairman Robert Sumwalt said officials were on a "fact-finding" mission Saturday to determine why the Amtrak train from Grand Rapids, Mich. -- minutes from its Union Station destination -- rear-ended the 20-car Norfolk Southern freight train that had stopped on the same tracks. The Amtrak train was traveling about 35 m.p.h. at the point of impact, officials said.

Sumwalt said the Amtrak train had slowed to 9 to 10 m.p.h. as it passed through a track intersection in Englewood, switching from one set of tracks to another to pass a standing train, according to information culled from the event recorder. After the Amtrak train passed, it began to accelerate to 40 m.p.h. The speed limit for a passenger train in that area is 79 m.p.h.

The train barely reached 40 m.p.h. when the engineer saw the freight train and "put the train into emergency breaking." The distance from the Englewood interlocking to the point of impact was 1.7 miles and took 4 minutes to travel.

About 9 seconds passed from the point where the engineer applied the Amtrak train's brakes to the point of impact, in which it rode up on the back of a freight train car.

Track signals were tested and appeared to be working, but officials will not know how they operated leading up to the crash until they recover the event recorder in the signals, Sumwalt said.

A police "blue light" surveillance camera provided 36 hours of video, but the camera's range did not show the signals, officials said.

"We don't know what caused this accident. So, therefore, it's hard to say what would have prevented it," Sumwalt said.


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 2, 2007)

Well I think it's pretty obvious that cab signals would have prevented it, duh. But it seems like based on that info that the signal was misread. Seems like they got a slow approach but proceeded on a slow clear.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 2, 2007)

My theory ? This fairly new Engineer thought the restricted signal was just for interlocking, where he just crossed over to other track.

He/she did not realize the restricted signal governs till a better signal is passed.


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 2, 2007)

Dutchrailnut said:


> My theory ? This fairly new Engineer thought the restricted signal was just for interlocking, where he just crossed over to other track.He/she did not realize the restricted signal governs till a better signal is passed.


Well #1, I think that anyone allowed to operate a passenger train in this country knows very well that a signal governs your train until the next signal appears, alot of training and testing has to be completed before you can even set foot in a locomotive.

and #2, along with the "student engineer" there was an engineer. Not only was this a fully qualified engineer, he also was training another engineer, which means that he most likely had alot more seniority than a typcial engineer, and alot of experience. Also there was a assistant in the cab as well, who also is fully qualified and is very familiar with railroad rules. All three of the engine crew should have fully known what each signal indication means.

Also, it is railroad rules to call the signals, meaning everyone on the operating crew must be told what the signal indication is as they pass. In the case of Amtrak, where the Conductor of the train rides inside the train, not in the locomotive like a freight train, the signals must be called out over the radio.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 2, 2007)

According NTSB only two people were in the cab, the engineer actually running and the engineer priviously outlawed and deadheading to Chicago.

No others were reported in the cab.

The outlawed engineer can and should not be participating in train operations so calling signals would not have been appropriate.


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 2, 2007)

This is why I still am a fan of calling signals on the radio. It keeps everyone in the loop, and could have been instrumental in the prevention of this accident.


----------



## VentureForth (Dec 2, 2007)

TVRM610 said:


> Also, it is railroad rules to call the signals, meaning everyone on the operating crew must be told what the signal indication is as they pass. In the case of Amtrak, where the Conductor of the train rides inside the train, not in the locomotive like a freight train, the signals must be called out over the radio.


Hmmm... I wondered about that. I didn't know if there was a passenger conductor and an operations conductor on Amtrak. Are there usually still a minimum of two in the cab? Sounds like it would be easy to get bored up there...


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 2, 2007)

Amtrak runs with a Conductor and Assistant Conductor on almost all its runs. The Conductor has to have at least a fair amount of time in service, as well as be qualified on the physical characteristics. The Conductor is ultimately responsible for everything that happens with their train, and their name is one of two on all paperwork (the other being the Engineer). Many AC's will carry Conductor qualifications, but they report to the Conductor, and do not have to be qualified on the physical characteristics.

According to the Union contract if an Engineer is to run one train he can operate solo if the run is under 6 hours. If the Engineer is to change trains he can run solo if the combined runs is less than 10 hours. If those times are exceeded Amtrak is required to provide a Fireman for the train. A vast majority of Amtrak trains will operate with only one man in the cab. The Palmetto, Lake Shore Limited, Capitol Limited, and Carolinian for example will never have two scheduled people on the head end.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 2, 2007)

Calling signals over radio turns into big radio fiasco when done at metropolitan area's like New York and Chicago.

The sheer amount of radio traffic will turn in to one continous radio call with no options to call dispatchers etc.


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 2, 2007)

Well, every amtrak train that I have been on has had the engineer call each signal over the radio, and the conductor has responded to it. I have not been on this particular train, so perhaps something was different, but this is something that I have always heard done over the radio.

Sorry about the 3 people, I had read elsewhere that there was a student engineer, an engineer, and another crew member (possible a foreman) had not heard that there were only two. Either way, I do not believe that any fully qualified engineer would not know that the signal governs his train until the next signal indication, much less a qualified engineer on a mainline railroad.


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 2, 2007)

Dutchrailnut said:


> Calling signals over radio turns into big radio fiasco when done at metropolitan area's like New York and Chicago.The sheer amount of radio traffic will turn in to one continous radio call with no options to call dispatchers etc.


While that is a valid point, it is done in many places across the country. It's done in Miami and DC on CSX, and out in LA on BNSF (and maybe UP). If you have a Dispatcher channel and a road channel it can be done. Now I will say though that it's not as necessary in areas where Cab Signals are in effect, because the engine will throw on a penalty application if the signal isn't complied with.
Also for the record, in order for an Engineer to qualify to be an instructor you have to have a clean operating record for the previous two years, and be qualified on the physical characteristics your job works on.


----------



## PerRock (Dec 2, 2007)

Dutchrailnut said:


> According NTSB only two people were in the cab, the engineer actually running and the engineer priviously outlawed and deadheading to Chicago.No others were reported in the cab.
> 
> The outlawed engineer can and should not be participating in train operations so calling signals would not have been appropriate.





TVRM610 said:


> Sorry about the 3 people, I had read elsewhere that there was a student engineer, an engineer, and another crew member (possible a foreman) had not heard that there were only two. Either way, I do not believe that any fully qualified engineer would not know that the signal governs his train until the next signal indication, much less a qualified engineer on a mainline railroad.



Thats odd. because just about the only fact that was consistent (besides the fact that an Amtrak train ran into a freight) was that there was 3 people in the cab. a couple even said that the Conductor was in the most serious condition and the Jaws were used to get him out.

peter


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 2, 2007)

Even fire Dept reports only two people extricated from cab, no jaws were used, but the doors needed to be forced open due to deformation of cab.


----------



## GG-1 (Dec 2, 2007)

Dutchrailnut said:


> AmtrakWPK said:
> 
> 
> > It does boggle the mind what could have happened if the rear of the freight had been an LPG tank car or some other dangerous hazmat. While we still sympathize with the injured and hope for everyone's recovery, the outcome could have been SO much worse.......
> ...


Aloha

IIRC correctly a HAZMAT car must have 5 cars between it, the engine, Cars containing Live Stock, People, and the end of the train.


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 2, 2007)

The HAZMAT rule will vary from one railroad to the next. I looked through three different rule books (GCOR, CSX Operating, and NORAC) and could find no specific instructions governing how much distance HAZMAT must receive. I'm going to guess its a railroad by railroad rule, and possibly even division to division rule that governs those movements.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 2, 2007)

NTSB: Amtrak Train Followed Dispatcher

Feds Say Engineer Followed Instructions To Switch Tracks Before Crash

CHICAGO (CBS) ― The NTSB spent the weekend in Chicago collecting perishable evidence and released some of their findings before investigators left town. Key evidence came from a signal recording and interviews with the train conductor and engineers, as CBS 2's Joanie Lum reports.

Sunday afternoon, NTSB investigators looked at the mangled tracks where the crash occurred. The Amtrak train was traveling about 40 mph when it applied its brakes for nine seconds and skidded some 500 feet, hitting a stopped freight train on the same set of tracks Friday.

Investigators confirmed that a signal at the crossover in Englewood, 1.7 miles south of the crash site, showed what's called a restrictive red over yellow light signal, meaning the train should have been going less than 15 miles an hour.

The facts are the train should not have been operated at a speed in excess of 15 mph and yet it was operating at 40 mph.

NTSB investigators say the engineer saw the restrictive signal but they refuse to say whether the signal was misinterpreted. Investigators say they'll do more follow-up interviews and might even dismantle the locomotive to see if mechanical issues contributed to the collision.

Before it plowed into the back of a freight train on the South Side on Friday, an Amtrak train followed instructions from a Michigan-based dispatcher to switch tracks, apparently to avoid the standing train.

"The problem here apparently was that two trains were on the same track at the same time at the same location," said Robert Sumwalt, the National Transportation Safety Board's vice chairman. "Obviously, that is not supposed to happen."

Amtrak's Pere Marquette train out of Grand Rapids, Mich., was loaded with holiday shoppers and going just over 30 mph when it slammed into a Norfolk Southern freight train near 52nd Street. Sixty-two people were injured.

Federal investigator Robert Sumwalt says investigators aren't assessing blame at this point.

The freight train was stopped, waiting for a signal to proceed.

Data from the passenger train's event recorder show that the engineer of the Amtrak train switched tracks "in accordance with signal indicators" controlled by a Norfolk Southern dispatcher in Dearborn, Mich., Sumwalt said.

Tests performed Saturday on the signals showed they were "working as designed," he said.

There also did not appear to be any mechanical problems with the Amtrak train, although the brakes are too badly damaged to be analyzed.

After making the track switch, the engineer of the Amtrak train told the NTSB that he saw the freight train ahead of him and applied the emergency brakes. The collision occurred nine seconds later, Sumwalt said.

Six teams of federal investigators fanned out around Chicago on Saturday to interview witnesses and gather evidence at the scene. While the on-site portion of the investigation is wrapping up, it could take several months before the NTSB arrives at a probable cause.

In addition to data from the event recorder, the NTSB also retrieved 36 hours of "good quality" security camera footage from a Norfolk Southern freight yard camera that shows the crash, but not the signals, Sumwalt said.

He said the trains involved in the crash were not equipped with positive train control, a system that can slow or stop a train when personnel on board fail to obey signals or spot obstacles ahead.

But he stopped short of saying the system could have prevented Friday's crash.

Initial estimates put the cost of the crash at $1.3 million.

The Associated Press and STNGWire contributed to this report.


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 2, 2007)

battalion51 said:


> The HAZMAT rule will vary from one railroad to the next. I looked through three different rule books (GCOR, CSX Operating, and NORAC) and could find no specific instructions governing how much distance HAZMAT must receive. I'm going to guess its a railroad by railroad rule, and possibly even division to division rule that governs those movements.


Actually there is a Hazmat Rulebook that each railroad also follows. I know because every year we have to go over it and take a test for it at the shortline railroad I work for (even though we do not carry any hazmat materials).


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Dec 2, 2007)

Page 7-14 of the Boston MPO's Journey to 2030 report claims that railroads are required to accept hazmat shipments, including radioactive waste, and to transport them through populated areas, on the theory that this is safer than shipping those materials by truck. It makes it sound like railroads don't have the ability to opt out of carrying hazardous materials should someone wish to ship them via that railroad, though perhaps there are railroads that in practice don't seem to get much of any of that business.


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 2, 2007)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Page 7-14 of the Boston MPO's Journey to 2030 report claims that railroads are required to accept hazmat shipments, including radioactive waste, and to transport them through populated areas, on the theory that this is safer than shipping those materials by truck. It makes it sound like railroads don't have the ability to opt out of carrying hazardous materials should someone wish to ship them via that railroad, though perhaps there are railroads that in practice don't seem to get much of any of that business.


Honestly I do not know. The railroad I work for is a "shortline" with only a handful of businesses on the line. There would be no reason for us to ever have a hazmat car on our railroad (unless a chemical company were to build next to our line).

I'm not sure a railroad would ever be forced to carry a hazmat car, but that would be a bit unusual. It would make sense to me that any railroad would want any car they can get, more cars more $$$. Obviously all the main lines take hazmat anyway, and a shortline refusing a new customer would be extremely rare.


----------



## had8ley (Dec 3, 2007)

GG-1 said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > AmtrakWPK said:
> ...


The last rules class I took there was an exception to the five car rule. You could run with one car of cover if that was all you had in your train. Otherwise, the hazmat is set out or left. Also there is track termed "exempted" by the FRA, that NO hazmat can travel on and the track is restricted to 10 mph or less. If you work on one of these exempted pieces of track you should never even see a hazmat car. These are usually branches that the multiple short lines have gobbled up since the Class 1's shed most of them. George could probably give us more details.


----------



## had8ley (Dec 3, 2007)

battalion51 said:


> Well it doesn't even necessarily have to be a clear signal, what I meant by "clear signal" was an indication that didn't indicate restricting or stop. A "clear signal" could mean, Clear, Medium Clear, Limited Clear, Slow Clear, Advance Approach, Approach, Medium Approach, Limited Approach, Slow Approach. All of those indications give you permission to proceed past the signal (and if it ends in approach and isn't Advance Approach) reduce to medium speed and be prepared to stop at the next signal, but the block you are in is clear.


"Clear" signal meant green on our railroad. Went back to the days of when a ball was hung on a cable to denote if the block ahead was "clear" or occupied. The definition of a block is the distance between two signals.


----------



## had8ley (Dec 3, 2007)

Dutchrailnut said:


> Investigators confirmed that a signal at the crossover in Englewood, 1.7 miles south of the crash site, showed what's called a restrictive red over yellow light signal, meaning the train should have been going less than 15 miles an hour.
> The facts are the train should not have been operated at a speed in excess of 15 mph and yet it was operating at 40 mph.
> 
> NTSB investigators say the engineer saw the restrictive signal but they refuse to say whether the signal was misinterpreted. Investigators say they'll do more follow-up interviews and might even dismantle the locomotive to see if mechanical issues contributed to the collision.
> ...


OK. Here might lie the answer. On our RR a yellow over red is an "approach" signal which restricts freight trains to 30 mph and passenger to 40 mph. With so many people in the cab it is terribly easy to be distracted. If, indeed, the engineer misinterpreted the signal he was doing the speed he thought he needed to be doing (40). Personally, I am amazed at how freight and passenger trains can operate so well in the Chicago area vs. the NEC which does not have to contend with 150 car freight trains on a 24 and 7 basis.


----------



## had8ley (Dec 3, 2007)

battalion51 said:


> The HAZMAT rule will vary from one railroad to the next. I looked through three different rule books (GCOR, CSX Operating, and NORAC) and could find no specific instructions governing how much distance HAZMAT must receive. I'm going to guess its a railroad by railroad rule, and possibly even division to division rule that governs those movements.


The Haz-Mat book is a separate and apart book (in pamphlet form) from the GCOR.


----------



## RR TRANS ENGR (Dec 3, 2007)

I have no knowledge of the physical characteristics involved and am only surmising some possible issues.

It is sounding like that the last signal prior to the accident was the interlocking signal governing the diverge!?

R/Y is apparently Restricting under the applicable rules.

R/Y can mean Diverging Approach or Medium Approach under other rulebooks.

I wonder if this engineer operated on territories when R/Y means something different than Restricting, and misinterpreted the Restricting aspect!?

Another possibility is that after clearing the low-speed diverge, the Engineer forgot the last aspect while accelerating!? A similar incident leaving a station stop caused the Feds to issue the "delay-in-block" rule.

SAM


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 3, 2007)

Sam, one of my internal sources suggested that the Engineer in charge at the time of the incident was qualified on 8 different rule books, or something to that effect. When you think about the number of railroads in the Chicago area this does seem plausible, since Engineers may be required to run on UP/BNSF/CP (GCOR), CSX (CSX Operating), NS (whatever book they use), CN (whatever book they use), Amtrak, etc. I still firmly believe that modifications should be made to GCOR, and an attempt should be made to get all railroads (at least the big seven) on board with it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2007)

Simpleton, here, reporting in.

Signals and speed be dam*ed, doesn't the problem boil down to one train being on the wrong track?

Isn't it possible that the freight was on the wrong track?

Isn't it possible that a dispatcher put 2 trains on the same track, erroneously?


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 3, 2007)

Guest said:


> Simpleton, here, reporting in.
> Signals and speed be dam*ed, doesn't the problem boil down to one train being on the wrong track?
> 
> Isn't it possible that the freight was on the wrong track?
> ...


She's got a point, no one claims the signal was giving a stop indication. Wether it was for Restricted or Medium Speed is really neither here nor there, either way he should never have been given ANY signal to proceed into an occupied block.

Of course we all know had he been operating at 15 MPH the accident probably would not have occurred (a three car passenger train at that speed stops pretty quick in emergency... speaking from experience) or would have been very minor at worst.

I am somewhat surprised that a train would be able to travel over 20 mph in a frieght yard where hand thrown switches are used (I had read somewhere that the engineer had hand thrown a switch before the accident?).


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2007)

"He's"

She's


----------



## had8ley (Dec 3, 2007)

battalion51 said:


> Sam, one of my internal sources suggested that the Engineer in charge at the time of the incident was qualified on 8 different rule books, or something to that effect. When you think about the number of railroads in the Chicago area this does seem plausible, since Engineers may be required to run on UP/BNSF/CP (GCOR), CSX (CSX Operating), NS (whatever book they use), CN (whatever book they use), Amtrak, etc. I still firmly believe that modifications should be made to GCOR, and an attempt should be made to get all railroads (at least the big seven) on board with it.


I didn't know there were eight rule books. He must be qualified on some short lines also. Most short lines adopt the RR that they connect with in order that everyone is on the same page.


----------



## VentureForth (Dec 3, 2007)

Dutchrailnut said:


> Sunday afternoon, NTSB investigators looked at the mangled tracks where the crash occurred. The Amtrak train was traveling about 40 mph when it applied its brakes for nine seconds and skidded some 500 feet, hitting a stopped freight train on the same set of tracks Friday. <snip>
> 
> Amtrak's Pere Marquette train out of Grand Rapids, Mich., was loaded with holiday shoppers and going just over 30 mph when it slammed into a Norfolk Southern freight train near 52nd Street. Sixty-two people were injured.


In 9 seconds, with the brakes applied on emergency, a three-car + loco train could only slow 10 MPH?

Something seems a bit wrong here...


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 3, 2007)

The one thing that many people don't understand about Restricted speed is that its a max of 15 MPH (20 on some roads), but you have to be prepared to stop. So if you're going around a curve, and in order to stop within your field of vision you have to do 5 MPH, you do 5 MPH. Road Foreman are known for doing banner tests in locations like that to nail people for that rules violation.


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 3, 2007)

VentureForth said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > Sunday afternoon, NTSB investigators looked at the mangled tracks where the crash occurred. The Amtrak train was traveling about 40 mph when it applied its brakes for nine seconds and skidded some 500 feet, hitting a stopped freight train on the same set of tracks Friday. <snip>
> ...


I see your point but it does seem about right to me. I've been on shortline, and mainline (amtrak) passenger trains when they went into emergency (thankfully never derailing or causing any serious damage). When the E-brakes are applied there is a very distinct sound of air rushing out of the pipes (you hear this same sound when locomotives are disconnected at stations) after that sound there is usually about 2-3 seconds before you really feel any real braking effect. So in reality it was prob. 3 seconds before the train actually began to considerably slow down. In 6 seconds the train slows about 10 MPH? Thats slowing 5MPH every 3 seconds, someone who is better at math can probably figure out how fast that really is with percentages and all, but is sounds pretty fast to me.


----------



## RailBirder (Dec 3, 2007)

Guest said:


> Simpleton, here, reporting in.
> Signals and speed be dam*ed, doesn't the problem boil down to one train being on the wrong track?
> 
> Isn't it possible that the freight was on the wrong track?
> ...


Actually it's ALL about signals and speed.

Dispatchers put 2 trains on the same track all the time (going in the same direction).

Trains routinely follow other trains on the same track, much like on a interstate highway. The signal system is designed to let the engineer know how fast to safely proceed based on the distance to the next train ahead. A train typically has to have 3 empty signal blocks ahead of him to get a clear signal. You shouldn't be able to get a signal into an occupied block ahead, or at best a restricting signal, which means going "slow enough to stop within half the range of vision". If you see something 100 feet down the track, you have to be able to stop in 50 feet.

Lots of speculation, lots of discussion, the facts will come out when the investigation is completed.


----------



## had8ley (Dec 3, 2007)

battalion51 said:


> The one thing that many people don't understand about Restricted speed is that its a max of 15 MPH (20 on some roads), but you have to be prepared to stop. So if you're going around a curve, and in order to stop within your field of vision you have to do 5 MPH, you do 5 MPH. Road Foreman are known for doing banner tests in locations like that to nail people for that rules violation.


Our railroad (UP) had a HALF the field of vision rule. This was probably set in place to give the other crew, if opposing you, the same chance to stop without a collision. The NS is notorious for the banner test and I'm told that the officials just can't wait to pull them.


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 3, 2007)

Yeah that's my bad. It's half. Brain fart.


----------



## Guest_Yerry_* (Dec 3, 2007)

> Lots of speculation, lots of discussion, the facts will come out when the investigation is completed.


Eh, why not make comments of my own too. . .

Anyone else notice the quoted report mentioned RED over YELLOW, and then everyone afterwards {here} says YELLOW over RED?

AND, (preface this with a disclaimer that I've seen no direct quotes of the Dispatcher's radiod instructions) that verbal instructions don't quite match exactly the signal & situation?

Now combine the two. . .

Any of you ever play that fun prank of casually mentioning a number out loud to someone concentrating on counting money? doesn't take much.

NOW, add "reversi factor". My Motorola (Radio) days, we did the security radios for the last Olympics in Los Angeles. I still don't say too much about many of the procedures we had to follow, but one I'll mention (albeit only vaguely) was "Absolutely no opposites. Someone will undoubtedly screw something up and get someone killed."

I'm not interested in passing blame around; just looking at what possible factors might need to be eliminated to prevent the next one.

*************

Next thought: Isn't there some move currently underfoot by the FRA to standardize signals in the US? I as told something like that this past Summer when CSX replaced MANY signals on the Pere Marquette lines here.

*************

Yet another one: Contrary to an earlier post, the wreck made front page with many pictures and bold-face quotes for the past three days, while the invasion of Hillary's office was on page three. But then again, this is Grand Rapids, and the Pere Marquette is considered "our" train and Amtrak's actual ownership is a mere technicality.  In fact, it'd be blue, yellow and grey if we could get away with it. BTW, in spite of lots of scary-type quotes about the collision and its pictures, there hasn't been a single peep from the Amtrak-is-dangerous crowd.

Alan, I have copies iff'n you're interested.


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 3, 2007)

RailBirder said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Simpleton, here, reporting in.
> ...


It's not normal for two trains to be in the same block at the same time in signaled territory. Because this was a yard, perhaps "yard rules" applied and permitted this, but I don't think the dispatcher knowingly sent the amtrak train into an occupied block at any speed.

Do we know for a fact that he was given a signal to proceed at Restricted Speed (15mph max, stopping within half the range of vision) over Medium Speed (a speed not exceeding 40 mph passenger)? I have heard so many conflicting reports.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 3, 2007)

TVRM610 said:


> It's not normal for two trains to be in the same block at the same time in signaled territory. Because this was a yard, perhaps "yard rules" applied and permitted this, but I don't think the dispatcher knowingly sent the amtrak train into an occupied block at any speed.


While there certainly does appear to be a yard on the far side, the track that Amtrak was on is considered a mainline track with a maximum authorized speed of 79 MPH, assuming that the engineer has a clear signal. Therefore I would rather doubt that yard rules would be governing that track.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2007)

"Dispatchers put 2 trains on the same track all the time (going in the same direction).

Trains routinely follow other trains on the same track, much like on a interstate highway.."

How do these things relate to "track warrants", if at all?


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 4, 2007)

Track warrants aren't in effect where you're on signaled track in my experience (although I'll admit I don't know GCOR that well). In this case the accident occurred on NS tracks, which aren't governed by GCOR, but rather NS' own rule book.

As far as I know, the signal indication given to the Amtrak train was red over yellow, which depending on the railroad you're on (heck even what part of the railroad you're on) can mean different things. For example, CSX Operating Rule shows Red over Yellow as being a Medium Approach, whereas rule CR-1290 shows it as Restricting. And that's in the same book! Now granted rule CR-1290 stems from CSX taking over Conrail tracks. But this just goes to show, that there needs to be standardization.


----------



## Navy 118 (Dec 4, 2007)

battalion51 said:


> Track warrants aren't in effect where you're on signaled track in my experience (although I'll admit I don't know GCOR that well). In this case the accident occurred on NS tracks, which aren't governed by GCOR, but rather NS' own rule book.


Indeed NORAC rules were in play here on the former Conrail. Norac used to be the competing school of thought to GCOR, but has fell out of favor due to the simplicity of the GCOR system.



battalion51 said:


> As far as I know, the signal indication given to the Amtrak train was red over yellow, which depending on the railroad you're on (heck even what part of the railroad you're on) can mean different things. For example, CSX Operating Rule shows Red over Yellow as being a Medium Approach, whereas rule CR-1290 shows it as Restricting. And that's in the same book! Now granted rule CR-1290 stems from CSX taking over Conrail tracks. But this just goes to show, that there needs to be standardization.


Ok the signals that used to govern the ENGLEWOOD interlocking with the NS and the METRA Rock Island line, were changed to color signals about 5 years ago. The signal that was displayed on the 2 track (which A-371-30 approached on) was a R - R - *flashing* Y (restricting) which got confused with a "Slow Approach R - R - Y (solid). I looked at the rules again after the NTSB report came out. The actions of the engineer clearly indicate that they were operating under the slow approach (Rule C 288) not a restricting (Rule C - 290). A contact on the inside told me that only the two engineers were on board the engine. Also that both will be facing disciplinary actions. The engineer in control will be undoubtedly fired. The relieved engineer will also have a fight on their hands for "not adverting an accident" or something to that effect.


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 4, 2007)

battalion51 said:


> As far as I know, the signal indication given to the Amtrak train was red over yellow, which depending on the railroad you're on (heck even what part of the railroad you're on) can mean different things. For example, CSX Operating Rule shows Red over Yellow as being a Medium Approach, whereas rule CR-1290 shows it as Restricting. And that's in the same book! Now granted rule CR-1290 stems from CSX taking over Conrail tracks. But this just goes to show, that there needs to be standardization.


On NS a Red Over Yellow is a "Diverging Approach - Proceed through diverging route observing authorized speed through turnout(s) or crossover(s) , preparing to stop at next signal. Train or engine exceeding Medium Speed must at once reduce to that speed."

If he got a Red over Yellow he was going the correct speed.

NOTE: While I wrote this, the above post was made, I will leave this as an example, but it appears that NAVY118 is more familiar with this territory, I am using NS Signals


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 4, 2007)

Navy 118 said:


> Ok the signals that used to govern the ENGLEWOOD interlocking with the NS and the METRA Rock Island line, were changed to color signals about 5 years ago. The signal that was displayed on the 2 track (which A-371-30 approached on) was a R - R - *flashing* Y (restricting) which got confused with a "Slow Approach R - R - Y (solid). I looked at the rules again after the NTSB report came out. The actions of the engineer clearly indicate that they were operating under the slow approach (Rule C 288) not a restricting (Rule C - 290). A contact on the inside told me that only the two engineers were on board the engine. Also that both will be facing disciplinary actions. The engineer in control will be undoubtedly fired. The relieved engineer will also have a fight on their hands for "not adverting an accident" or something to that effect.


According to NS Signal Rules a RED over RED over *Flashing* YELLOW is a "Diverging Route Approach Restricted - Proceed through diverging route, observing authorized speed through turnout(s) or crossover(s), approaching next signal at Restricted Speed, not exceeding 15 MPH. Train or engine exceeding Medium Speed must at once reduce to that speed"

Again, if he got a R - R - *flashing* Y he was still operating within the rule at 40 MPH, in NS Signals.


----------



## Navy 118 (Dec 4, 2007)

TVRM610 said:


> Navy 118 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok the signals that used to govern the ENGLEWOOD interlocking with the NS and the METRA Rock Island line, were changed to color signals about 5 years ago. The signal that was displayed on the 2 track (which A-371-30 approached on) was a R - R - *flashing* Y (restricting) which got confused with a "Slow Approach R - R - Y (solid). I looked at the rules again after the NTSB report came out. The actions of the engineer clearly indicate that they were operating under the slow approach (Rule C 288) not a restricting (Rule C - 290). A contact on the inside told me that only the two engineers were on board the engine. Also that both will be facing disciplinary actions. The engineer in control will be undoubtedly fired. The relieved engineer will also have a fight on their hands for "not adverting an accident" or something to that effect.
> ...


From the best information I have seen the indication was R-R-*solid*Y. I wonder if the old Pennsy signals would have made a difference? A --- over \ (restricting) vs a --- over / (slow approach)... I agree the whole multitude of signal definitions is amazing confusing. Around Michigan CSX is putting up Seaboard style signals (1200 series) instead of the PM search lights (even those had a timetable note about G - G). Thats two sets of rules over the same Subdivision....


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 4, 2007)

For everyone playing along at home 

Red over Red over *Solid* Yellow in NS Signals is: "Restricting - Proceed at Restricted Speed"

In this case, the engineer was exceeding the limit if he was operating over 15MPH. One has to wonder if cab signals malfunctioned as well?

Is it not interesting that a solid yellow, and a flashing yellow can make that big of a difference?


----------



## Navy 118 (Dec 4, 2007)

Cab signals are not used out side of the ITCS territory (to my knowledge) in the midwest.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 4, 2007)

The long and short of the problem is, If an engineer is confused about signals, or what territory he/she is on, then he or she has no business in the cab, as they are not considered qualified.

A signal test for each railroad must be passed with nothing less than a 100% score.

Signals are there for a reason, not just for ammusement of railfans.


----------



## VentureForth (Dec 4, 2007)

Dutchrailnut said:


> The long and short of the problem is, If an engineer is confused about signals, or what territory he/she is on, then he or she has no business in the cab, as they are not considered qualified.A signal test for each railroad must be passed with nothing less than a 100% score.
> 
> Signals are there for a reason, not just for ammusement of railfans.


That's pretty obvious. But if you look back through this thread journey, you'll see that the engineer was qualified on 8 different rule books. Easy to study for a test, take it, and then get all those certs confused in your head.

What's wrong with just a simple Green, Yellow, and Red?

I'm a pilot. I have a commercial rating, but I don't fly airliners. There are airline pilots who wouldn't last a half hour in a Cessna. There are even different operating rules whether your're flying for pleasure or for hire. But those differences are really limited. When it comes down right to the nitty gritty, if there is a radio failure - no matter if I'm in a Piper Cub or an Airbus 380 - the signal lights from a control tower mean the same thing to every pilot. The markings on a runway mean the same thing to every pilot.

Now, the rules DO change when going international. That's a different animal all together.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 4, 2007)

There is a lot more to signals than just go, caution, stop, If a engineer is qualified on a rulebook, he is qualified on signals.

If he/she does not know where they are, that is part of being qualified, qualified does not mean you can get a train over road on a nice sunny and 70 degree day, it means you can run it in a snowstorm, in thick fog, or with any type of scenario trown at you.

My son is commercial pilot and for that matter qualified on a few planes, but even he does not expect airports to be built same, so stupid people can land and find their way.

These locomotive engineers schools of today pump out choo choo operators, not engineers , they are railroad puppy mills.

I get every student passing through our program and lately I have been scared of what I see.

Some of these kids are so green they still smell of Similac and Gerber, no maturity and a game system mentality, they all feel if something happens the union will push the reset button and game just starts over.


----------



## had8ley (Dec 4, 2007)

AlanB said:


> TVRM610 said:
> 
> 
> > It's not normal for two trains to be in the same block at the same time in signaled territory. Because this was a yard, perhaps "yard rules" applied and permitted this, but I don't think the dispatcher knowingly sent the amtrak train into an occupied block at any speed.
> ...


Alan,

If memory serves me right, you can establish yard limits, either temporary or permanent, anywhere in ABS territory. I'm sure this isn't ABS but the possibility still exists. But you are right~ a first class train in ABS can proceed at maximum authorized speed IF they have a clear or green signal.


----------



## MrFSS (Dec 4, 2007)

I would assume by now the wreckage is cleared and track repaired (if that was necessary). Would the entire consist need to be out of service for a while to be repaired? Taken to Beech Grove? Any ideas on if the engine is repairable or not?


----------



## wayman (Dec 4, 2007)

Not directly relevant to our discussion of the accident in Chicago, the NTSB just released a report on the January 2006 Norfolk Southern accident in Alabama. That's twenty-three months after the accident, as a data point for how long these reports can take to come out, which was one of the questions asked here regarding the Chicago accident.


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 4, 2007)

wayman said:


> Not directly relevant to our discussion of the accident in Chicago, the NTSB just released a report on the January 2006 Norfolk Southern accident in Alabama. That's twenty-three months after the accident, as a data point for how long these reports can take to come out, which was one of the questions asked here regarding the Chicago accident.


Odd... in that report is says that there is no such signal as a "Green over Red" but in fact there is. Green over red is Clear on NS.


----------



## had8ley (Dec 4, 2007)

MrFSS said:


> I would assume by now the wreckage is cleared and track repaired (if that was necessary). Would the entire consist need to be out of service for a while to be repaired? Taken to Beech Grove? Any ideas on if the engine is repairable or not?


MrFSS;

Just as a matter of history;after the Bayou accident in Alabama (which at 46 deaths was Amtrak's worst ever) the cars were moved to Mobile, Alabama on flat cars and eventually to Gentilly Yard in New Orleans for quite some time. From there I don't know where they went but I would assume Beech Grove until all the ligation is over and then probably scrapped. I'm sure everyone from the NTSB to ambulance chasing lawyers are going to want pictures and have access to the equipment. From the picture of the front of the engine there is extensive damage to the consoles which probably means the engine, air compressor and generator all shifted from the impact. One would have to get on board to determine exactly what it would take to re-build the unit. Also you would to take into consideration the trucks and fuel tanks which climbed up onto the stack car.

Jay


----------



## AmtrakWPK (Dec 4, 2007)

This is just my own eyeball observations, but from some large closeup photos that have started circulating, it looks to me like the front truck of engine #8 was sheared off when #8 hit the rearmost freight car, and that truck ended up butted up against the rear truck of that freight car. The front half, maybe a little more than that, of Amtrak engine #8 (minus the front truck) then rode up on top of that freight car, and it looks as if when the rear truck of #8 (probably still on the rails at that point) smacked into the (sheared-off) front truck, which was butted up against the freight car, that's when the engine came to a stop. The initial contact probably compressed the couplings of the freight cars so there was no "give" beyond the initial impact. That would probably have been one heck of a jolt. When the rear truck hit the front truck, up against the rear of the freight car, that may have caused a very sudden complete stop from whatever the remaining velocity was, and that in turn may be the primary cause of most of the serious injuries. Whew. The sheared-off front truck ended up with the front wheel possibly on or nearly still on the rails, with the rear wheel on the ground to the left by a few inches. It looks like the front wheel of the rear truck was in contact with the rear wheel assembly of the front truck. Again, this is just my observation. I don't offer it as established fact.


----------



## MrFSS (Dec 4, 2007)

had8ley said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > I would assume by now the wreckage is cleared and track repaired (if that was necessary). Would the entire consist need to be out of service for a while to be repaired? Taken to Beech Grove? Any ideas on if the engine is repairable or not?
> ...


Sort of like this outfit? *Train Accident Attorney*


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 4, 2007)

had8ley said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > I would assume by now the wreckage is cleared and track repaired (if that was necessary). Would the entire consist need to be out of service for a while to be repaired? Taken to Beech Grove? Any ideas on if the engine is repairable or not?
> ...


Most of Damage probably is inside the locomotive where the engine and generaor were ripped of its footings and slid forward into electrical cabinet.


----------

