# Amtrak Train 91-CSX collision in SC (2/4/18)/Liability issues



## Bierboy

(Local sheriff now reporting two fatalities and 70 injured) --

http://bit.ly/2EEPHey


----------



## caravanman

Sad news to hear. It reads as though the Amtrak train ran into the rear of the freight train?

Ed.


----------



## Steve4031

Here is am additional news article.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/amtrak-passenger-train-collides-freight-train-sc-injuries/story?id=52826058

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jamesontheroad

Unfolding now: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/04/dead-injured-south-carolina-train-crash


----------



## Bierboy

caravanman said:


> Sad news to hear. It reads as though the Amtrak train ran into the rear of the freight train?
> 
> Ed.


Latest photos Ive seen seem to indicate it was head on..
.


----------



## VentureForth

Words can't express...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk


----------



## Thirdrail7

I sincerely hope the counts do not go up. This is horrific.

Thank you for the picture, Bierboy. A lot of things have been going through my mind since the first page came in but since I know nothing about the area, I couldn't picture how this could happen.

I do note there seems to be a signal in the picture. That could have relevance.


----------



## Bierboy

This local TV station has a little video, but also some stills of the scene...

http://www.wistv.com/story/37422691/update-2-killed-70-injured-following-amtrak-train-collision-in-cayce-sc


----------



## chrsjrcj

Looking at pictures and Google Maps, it looks like the CSX train was in the siding and somehow 91 ended up there too.

Not a good first few months for Mr. Andersons tenure, but unfortunately some things are out of your control.


----------



## Bob Dylan

VentureForth said:


> Words can't express...
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk


Ditto!


----------



## RampWidget

Unconfirmed information 08:30 local time from a former colleague in Amtrak train/engine service that the fatalities are crewmembers.Prayers for the crews, passengers, and families.


----------



## William W.

From the looks of things Im guessing the fatalities are crew. AMT LD trains normally run with two engineers IIRC.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

What is the car right behind the 47 unit? It looks to be Heritage?


----------



## Bierboy

What grinds my gears is the MSM keep saying “this is the third Amtrak involved fatal accident since December”. While true, the last one was a garbage truck that pulled onto the tracks (not Amtrak’s fault) and this one looks more and more like it wasn’t Amtrak’s fault either.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Thirdrail7

RampWidget said:


> Unconfirmed information 08:30 local time from a former colleague in Amtrak train/engine service that the fatalities are crewmembers.Prayers for the crews, passengers, and families.


I can imagine. That CSX engine looks worse for the wear. If that engine was occupied.....



OlympianHiawatha said:


> What is the car right behind the 47 unit? It looks to be Heritage?


That is a damaged AMII.


----------



## Grandpa D

It looks like the lead CSX engine was struck twice by the Amtrak P42; first head-on and then, as the P42 broke in two, by the front of the P42 which bent to the right. The CSX cab doesn't appear to have been struck directly. Although the angle of the photo may be deceiving, it appears the two CSX engines were not coupled together.


----------



## KmH

VentureForth said:


> Words can't express...


Same here. Just. Speechless.


----------



## chrsjrcj

It is being reported on FB groups from Amtrak employees that the 2 fatalities are Amtrak crew members.

It appears that the CSX train was unoccupied and parked on a storage track. Now the question becomes, how and why did 91 end up there.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

CSX has a history of wire issues with there signals system.

One coach next to engine with a ripple in the roof.

Another coach and cafe car when sideways into the weeds. The first viewliners is off the track (lead truck) with damage to the front of the car.

Glad to hear CSX was parked. None of the engines cabs (Amtrak and CSX) provide enough protection in this accident.


----------



## Railroad Bill

Press Conference currently taking place. Report seems to confirm that two Amtrak employees were the fatalities. Over 100 people taken to hospital. Trains hit head on, not sure why yet. One of the coaches/sleepers? seems to have buckled. More coming from the governor and emergency personnel.


----------



## Seaboard92

Oh my god. I know that entire crew district and I've worked with them on PV moves for years. My god.


----------



## Adrouault

What a disaster.

This is happening far too frequently, and only gives ammunition to those who want to defund amtrak.


----------



## chrsjrcj

This was shared on another site, and no telling who the journalists source is so Im a bit hesitant to share it here. In any case:

https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/02/04/source-csx-maintainers-had-been-working-at-site-of.html?ana=yahoo&yptr=yahoo


----------



## inspiration100

I hope those who are injured recover quickly. It seems like Amtrak is doing everything they can to stop the public from taking trains. Just one more stab in the chest. Hopefully this isn't Amtrak's fault. Unbelievable.


----------



## City of Miami

Adrouault said:


> This is happening far too frequently, and only gives ammunition to those who want to defund amtrak.


Perhaps they are correct! If we as a society are not willing to fund the RRs sufficiently (and I certainly include CSX et al. in this) at the bare minimum for safety maybe it really is time to let US passenger rail go. There is such a tremendous backlog of deferred maintenance to make it work: just think tunnels bridges and catenary on the NEC - hundreds of billions of $$.


----------



## jis

Railroad Bill said:


> Press Conference currently taking place. Report seems to confirm that two Amtrak employees were the fatalities. Over 100 people taken to hospital. Trains hit head on, not sure why yet. One of the coaches/sleepers? seems to have buckled. More coming from the governor and emergency personnel.


The buckled car is an Amfleet II Coach.


----------



## Dank

RampWidget said:


> Unconfirmed information 08:30 local time from a former colleague in Amtrak train/engine service that the fatalities are crewmembers.Prayers for the crews, passengers, and families.


Is that Amtrak or CSX crew?


----------



## railiner

What horrible news to wake up to....

The train must have been going at close to full speed to have the force to buckle that Amfleet coach...horrible to even think about....my thoughts go to the crew, the passenger's and their families....


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Dank said:


> RampWidget said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unconfirmed information 08:30 local time from a former colleague in Amtrak train/engine service that the fatalities are crewmembers.Prayers for the crews, passengers, and families.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that Amtrak or CSX crew?
Click to expand...

Amtrak

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## William W.

Id guess that this is 100% on CSX. Theyre responsible for switching and signaling. If this train ended up on a siding, thats not Amtraks fault.

I wish that the Feds would nationalize them. Theyre perhaps the worst railroad in the US.


----------



## Dank

Adrouault said:


> What a disaster.
> 
> This is happening far too frequently, and only gives ammunition to those who want to defund amtrak.


I'm thinking the other way. It gives fuel to why Amtrak needs funding. Where is Joe Biden when we need him!


----------



## Dank

AmtrakBlue said:


> Dank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RampWidget said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unconfirmed information 08:30 local time from a former colleague in Amtrak train/engine service that the fatalities are crewmembers.Prayers for the crews, passengers, and families.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that Amtrak or CSX crew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AmtrakSent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...

Not good, but thanks for the info.


----------



## Dank

railiner said:


> What horrible news to wake up to....
> 
> The train must have been going at close to full speed to have the force to buckle that Amfleet coach...horrible to even think about....my thoughts go to the crew, the passenger's and their families....


From what I heard from someone, according to Amtrak's track my train the train was traveling at 32 MPH at the time of the incident.


----------



## Bierboy

Adrouault said:


> What a disaster.
> 
> This is happening far too frequently, and only gives ammunition to those who want to defund amtrak.


..which is a crock...as I mentioned in the above post.


----------



## inspiration100

Bierboy said:


> Adrouault said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a disaster.
> 
> This is happening far too frequently, and only gives ammunition to those who want to defund amtrak.
> 
> 
> 
> ..which is a crock...as I mentioned in the above post.
Click to expand...

I don't think most of us disagree, but his point is probably correct.


----------



## Bierboy

Dank said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> What horrible news to wake up to....
> 
> The train must have been going at close to full speed to have the force to buckle that Amfleet coach...horrible to even think about....my thoughts go to the crew, the passenger's and their families....
> 
> 
> 
> From what I heard from someone, according to Amtrak's track my train the train was traveling at 32 MPH at the time of the incident.
Click to expand...

I'm just reading it was going 59MPH...


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

jis said:


> Railroad Bill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Press Conference currently taking place. Report seems to confirm that two Amtrak employees were the fatalities. Over 100 people taken to hospital. Trains hit head on, not sure why yet. One of the coaches/sleepers? seems to have buckled. More coming from the governor and emergency personnel.
> 
> 
> 
> The buckled car is an Amfleet II Coach.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, it was actually an Amfleet II Cafe. The car appeared to split roughly down the middle, which is the location of the counter. As it occurred during the middle of the night, there would be nobody working there and no line, so the only way anybody would be there is if they were walking through which is unlikely considering there are coaches on one side and sleepers on the other. There likely could have been more fatalities had this occurred in a coach or in the cafe during a meal time when there tends to be a long line for the cafe car, especially on the Silver Star where that is the only food-serving car.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

City of Miami said:


> Adrouault said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is happening far too frequently, and only gives ammunition to those who want to defund amtrak.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps they are correct! If we as a society are not willing to fund the RRs sufficiently (and I certainly include CSX et al. in this) at the bare minimum for safety maybe it really is time to let US passenger rail go. There is such a tremendous backlog of deferred maintenance to make it work: just think tunnels bridges and catenary on the NEC - hundreds of billions of $$.
Click to expand...

While it may seem unsafe to take the train considering all the bad press lately, even during this time period the odds of being killed in an Amtrak crash are still extremely low. According the my calculations, if the time period was limited to December 18th-February 4th the odds of a passenger being killed in an Amtrak wreck are about 1 in 1,389,583 (Annual ridership divided by (365/number of days in time period) divided by number of passenger deaths). News reports tend to focus much more on train wrecks than car wrecks, as one train accident tends to injure more people than a car wreck. However, trains are still a much safer mode of transportation than cars.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Railroad Bill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Press Conference currently taking place. Report seems to confirm that two Amtrak employees were the fatalities. Over 100 people taken to hospital. Trains hit head on, not sure why yet. One of the coaches/sleepers? seems to have buckled. More coming from the governor and emergency personnel.
> 
> 
> 
> The buckled car is an Amfleet II Coach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fortunately, it was actually an Amfleet II Cafe. The car appeared to split roughly down the middle, which is the location of the counter. As it occurred during the middle of the night, there would be nobody working there and no line, so the only way anybody would be there is if they were walking through which is unlikely considering there are coaches on one side and sleepers on the other. There likely could have been more fatalities had this occurred in a coach or in the cafe during a meal time when there tends to be a long line for the cafe car, especially on the Silver Star where that is the only food-serving car.
Click to expand...

There may have been some drunks and late-nighters still in the lounge, as the car itself stays open all night, but they would have been on one end or the other, likely the Coach end as the Conductors usually office on the Sleeper end.


----------



## VentureForth

There are two damaged cars from what I can see from drone footage. The first car behind #42 is buckled. A small crunch visible in the top skin. The one I think is the cafe car was several back and it SNAPPED in half, bending about itself.

I'm surprised to only see one P42. I thought all Amtrak LD except the Texas Eagle had two locos.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk


----------



## Rover

Bierboy said:


> caravanman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sad news to hear. It reads as though the Amtrak train ran into the rear of the freight train?
> 
> 
> 
> Latest photos Ive seen seem to indicate it was head on..
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 634B7299-08E4-4D71-865F-9E94090DC3C4.jpeg
Click to expand...

Even late this morning the National News gives little "facts" like "head on", and "one stationary, and the Amtrak moving"....



chrsjrcj said:


> Looking at pictures and Google Maps, it looks like the CSX train was in the siding and somehow 91 ended up there too.


Once again the National News is clueless about train operations, "main line" vs "sidings."



Just-Thinking-51 said:


> CSX has a history of wire issues with there signals system.


Please explain "wire issues"....



VentureForth said:


> I'm surprised to only see one P42. I thought all Amtrak LD except the Texas Eagle had two locos.


Not according to this Wiki article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Star_(Amtrak_train)

-------------------------------------------

And, if I got it right.... The Trump Admin's Infrastructure Bill proposes take money _away_ from Amtrak.


----------



## Ind Ben

Is it possible the CSX engine was remote controlled?

Sent from my iPad using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Bierboy

Updated 30 minutes ago (IDs of the two fatalities included) -- http://www.wistv.com/story/37422691/update-2-killed-70-injured-following-amtrak-train-collision-in-cayce-sc


----------



## jis

Ind Ben said:


> Is it possible the CSX engine was remote controlled?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Amtrak Forum


It was stationary on a yard track. How it was controlled would be relevant only if it was moving, which it was not.


----------



## pennyk

VentureForth said:


> I'm surprised to only see one P42. I thought all Amtrak LD except the Texas Eagle had two locos.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk


The Silver Star routinely runs with one engine these days.


----------



## jis

Both the Silver Star and the Palmetto routinely operate with one loco. They are not long enough to require two locos. As a matter of cat, on occasions even the lake Shore Limited has been known to have operated with one loco.


----------



## HP_Lovecraft

> And, if I got it right.... The Trump Admin's Infrastructure Bill proposes take money _away_ from Amtrak.


Funding, according to the plan, will be dramatically increased with local, state, and private funds. Decreased at the federal level.

The idea being to more efficiently allocate funds, since many cities have long complained about funding infrastructure, despite having no rail service.. Ie Vegas, Arizona, Columbus, Nashville, etc. verses northeast corridor.

The idea is good, but I am 100% confident that its dead-on-arrival since DC is worthless, and incapable of doing simple tasks. Oh, we will get hearings, and committees about the issue. So they can brush off questions to say "answers will come at the end of the study" hoping people have forgotten by then.


----------



## Dank

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> City of Miami said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adrouault said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is happening far too frequently, and only gives ammunition to those who want to defund amtrak.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps they are correct! If we as a society are not willing to fund the RRs sufficiently (and I certainly include CSX et al. in this) at the bare minimum for safety maybe it really is time to let US passenger rail go. There is such a tremendous backlog of deferred maintenance to make it work: just think tunnels bridges and catenary on the NEC - hundreds of billions of $$.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While it may seem unsafe to take the train considering all the bad press lately, even during this time period the odds of being killed in an Amtrak crash are still extremely low. According the my calculations, if the time period was limited to December 18th-February 4th the odds of a passenger being killed in an Amtrak wreck are about 1 in 1,389,583 (Annual ridership divided by (365/number of days in time period) divided by number of passenger deaths). News reports tend to focus much more on train wrecks than car wrecks, as one train accident tends to injure more people than a car wreck. However, trains are still a much safer mode of transportation than cars.
Click to expand...

These few incidents in the past couple of months will not deter me from taking Amtrak in April. I will be taking the Crescent from Baltimore to NOLA and then the Sunset Limited on to Houston!


----------



## PRR 60

Let's keep politics out of this discussion.


----------



## dlagrua

Certainly a terrible tragedy. Deepest condolences to the families of the engineer and conductor who were lost. The question becomes who is responsible for the Silver Star being on the wrong track at the wrong time. Since CSX is in charge of dispatch it may very well be their fault. Years back this yard would have had a switching tower manned 24/7 with one or two people doing the switching but today with cost savings and all, its all done at a remote location likely to be even in another state. .


----------



## Rover

From USA Today

“They weren’t supposed to be meeting like that, clearly," Gov. Henry McMaster said. "It appears that Amtrak was on the wrong track.” He said the CSX train seemed to be on the track it was supposed to be on.

The CSX train was parked on what appears to be a side track when the Amtrak train slammed into it at about 59 mph, McMaster said. Of the 139 people on the Amtrak train, 116 people were taken to hospitals, he said. Eight were Amtrak employees.

"Our information — and this is subject to correction — is that this was not the main (train) line," McMaster said. "This was a loading track for a sidetrack — where the collision took place."

He described the freight train engines as "all torn up," and the Amtrak engine as "barely recognizable" from the impact.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/04/amtrak-train-collision/304692002/







http://abcnews.go.com/US/amtrak-passenger-train-collides-freight-train-sc-injuries/story?id=52826058


----------



## jis

According to reports, the area was operating under signal suspension with authority given by track warrants. This is apparently the reason that the Conductor was in the cab - to copy track warrants without having to stop the train to do so, which would be necessary if there was only a single Engineer in the cab.

So all those screaming about PTC should know that under signal suspension there would possibly have been no PTC active either.

And ironically, apparently the signal suspension was in place in order to cut in PTC compliant signals and place them in service.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Doesn't the Card and the CONO run with only 1 P-42 also??


----------



## jis




----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Rover said:


> Please explain "wire issues"....


CSX had a brand of wire in use that was failing. They issue a recall and pull it out of use. Replacing the wire everywhere they found it. After another signal failure that was trace back to this wire they did another round of inspection looking for this one type of wire.

A wire failure is not in question now as the Amtrak train was operating in Dark Territory with no operating signal system.

So the focus goes to the switch now. What position should of been in? What position it was in, and if a difference why?


----------



## niemi24s

As near as I can determine, the collision occurred at about the center of this image: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9086612,-81.0673403,433m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Thank Jis for find that drone video. I thought that was two different cars in the bushes, but it one car split into two.


----------



## lo2e

VentureForth said:


> There are two damaged cars from what I can see from drone footage. The first car behind #42 is buckled. A small crunch visible in the top skin. The one I think is the cafe car was several back and it SNAPPED in half, bending about itself.


And the P42 itself, which appears to have lost roughly a quarter or possibly even a third of its front end in the collision (looks like roughly the first 20 feet or so is detached/missing). No way are they going to be able to repair it.

That cafe car that bent in half is absolutely shocking to me, because the front end of it as well as the rear end of it are either over the tracks or just off the tracks. I'm thinking the abrupt stop of coaches and loco in front of it, combined with the force of the sleepers and baggage car behind it, pretty much exerted two opposite forces on it, forcing it to bend/break in half.


----------



## daybeers

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amtrak-train-crash-south-carolina-2-dead-live-updates-today-2018-02-04/



> Lexington County Coroner Margaret Fisher said 54-year-old engineer Michael Kempf and 32-year-old conductor Michael Sella were killed in the collision.


----------



## crescent2

PRR 60 said:


> Let's keep politics out of this discussion.


THANK YOU.

Prayers for all those affected.

Amtrak is having more than its fair share of troubles lately, although most seem at this point to not be of its own making. Hopefully all the injured will make full recoveries.


----------



## railiner

That is shocking, the way that car broke in half...I don't recall ever seeing anything like that....


----------



## caravanman

Considering the forces from such a collision, we must be thankful for the fact that most cars did not crush or deform, as sometimes happens in rail crashes abroad...

Ed.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

lo2e said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one I think is the cafe car was several back and it SNAPPED in half, bending about itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That cafe car that bent in half is absolutely shocking to me, because the front end of it as well as the rear end of it are either over the tracks or just off the tracks. I'm thinking the abrupt stop of coaches and loco in front of it, combined with the force of the sleepers and baggage car behind it, pretty much exerted two opposite forces on it, forcing it to bend/break in half.
Click to expand...

I cannot help but wonder if the Cafe car snapped like it did because it was the lightest car in the consist (no pax, baggage, etc).


----------



## s10mk

Dark territory? Signal suspension? What does that stuff mean? Please excuse my ignorance


----------



## daybeers

Amtrak has posted an alert on their website: https://www.amtrak.com/alert/amtrak-train-91-derailment.html



> We are deeply saddened to report the death of two of our employees in this morning’s derailment in Cayce, South Carolina. Additionally, affected customers reporting injuries have been transported to local hospitals.
> 
> We are cooperating fully with the NTSB, which is leading the investigation, as well as working with FRA and CSX. CSX owns and controls the Columbia Subdivision where the accident occurred. CSX maintains all of the tracks and signal systems. CSX controls the dispatching of all trains, including directing the signal systems which control the access to sidings and yards.
> 
> Amtrak is working to take care of everyone who was on the train, including family members of our passengers and crew.
> 
> Details:
> 
> Amtrak Train 91, operating between New York and Miami, came in contact with a CSX freight train at around 2:35 a.m. ET in Cayce, South Carolina. The lead engine derailed, as well as some passenger cars. There were 8 crew members and approximately 139 customers on board. Local authorities are on the scene responding.
> 
> Customer information:
> 
> People who have questions about customers on the train can contact us at 800-523-9101.
> 
> Service information:
> 
> Due to this incident and the resulting temporary track closure, Trains 91 & 92, the Amtrak Silver Star will detour between Hamlet, N.C., and Savannah,Ga., until further notice. Passengers will be provided alternate transportation to missed stops, as available.
> 
> Other Amtrak services along the Atlantic Coast, including the Auto Train (Trains 52 & 53), Palmetto (Trains 89 & 90) and Silver Meteor (Trains 97 & 98) are operating normally.


----------



## The Chief

Wow.

*jis *posted "Brandon" Drone Vid of car snapped. Amtrak 91 Silver Star CSX collision 4 Feb 2018

Here's CU screencap:

This Local TV station carrying frequent/live updates: http://www.wistv.com/story/37422691/update-2-killed-70-injured-following-amtrak-train-collision-in-cayce-sc 

YouTube drone vid direct link WLTXNews19 [WLTX.com] :


----------



## KmH

The baggage car at the end of the Amtrak consist is near the start of the siding.

The engineer would not have had enough room to stop the train if he realized being switched onto those tracks was an error.

It appears the P-42 climbed up onto the CSX engine(s) and then fell off to the side.

Amtrak, outside the NEC, is at the mercy of the plethora of rail infrastructure owning railroads. Amtrak as a whole is at the mercy of the annual funding it is given.

I'm amazed & disappointed that most Americans are not _deeply embarrassed_ that our national passenger railroad is no better than it is.


----------



## Thirdrail7

jis said:


> So all those screaming about PTC should know that under signal suspension there would have been no PTC active either.



That would depend on the system and if they suspended PTC. ACSES will still work during a cab signal suspension and a wayside signal suspension. It is even programmed to protect improperly lined facing point switches when operating against the current of traffic. You'd have to actually suspend ACSES rules.



s10mk said:


> Dark territory? Signal suspension? What does that stuff mean? Please excuse my ignorance


Making an extremely long and detailed story short, territory that operates without some sort of signals (cab signals, wayside signals) is typically referred to as "dark territory." Typically, these tracks will need some sort of movement authority or permission for trains to operate on the track.

In signaled territory, movements are typically governed by signals (wayside, cab signals.) Permission is granted by signal indication.

When they take the signals out of service, it is called a signal suspension and movements revert back to movement authorities.



daybeers said:


> Amtrak has posted an alert on their website: https://www.amtrak.com/alert/amtrak-train-91-derailment.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Due to this incident and the resulting temporary track closure, Trains 91 & 92, the Amtrak Silver Star will detour between Hamlet, N.C., and Savannah,Ga., until further notice. Passengers will be provided alternate transportation to missed stops, as available.
Click to expand...

There are a couple of potential detours available. I guess they'll pick whichever detour CSX can support and the route that will likely lose the least amount of time.


----------



## Dank

KmH said:


> The baggage car at the end of the Amtrak consist is near the start of the siding.
> 
> The engineer would not have had enough room to stop the train if he realized being switched onto those tracks was an error.
> 
> It appears the P-42 climbed up onto the CSX engine(s) and then fell off to the side.
> 
> Amtrak, outside the NEC, is at the mercy of the plethora of rail infrastructure owning railroads. Amtrak as a whole is at the mercy of the annual funding it is given.
> 
> I'm amazed & disappointed that most Americans are not _deeply embarrassed_ that our national passenger railroad is no better than it is.


Sorry to have to say this but I highly doubt that most people in this country give Amtrak or passanger rail a second thought. I think only people like us care about Amtrak.


----------



## cpotisch

For those asking, and I know that this is unrelated to this tragedy, there are several LD trains with one loco. Cardinal, CONO, TE, Silver Star, and sometimes even the LSL. You might notice that most of those don't have full dining service, so the trains are shorter and don't require as much HEP - diners use a lot of power.


----------



## Dank

cpotisch said:


> For those asking, and I know that this is unrelated to this tragedy, there are several LD trains with one loco. Cardinal, CONO, TE, Silver Star, and sometimes even the LSL. You might notice that most of those don't have full dining service, so the trains are shorter and don't require as much HEP - diners use a lot of power.


TE does have a dining car, so would it not require more then one engine? Sorry to get off topic.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

s10mk said:


> Dark territory? Signal suspension? What does that stuff mean? Please excuse my ignorance


Slightly different terminology, but same general idea. CSX track side signal system was out of service, for upgrades to a PTC (Positive Train Control) System. The train crew were on a block grant dispatch system. The same system used in a dark territory. The difference is one territory has signals that are not work, and the other just does not have any signal at all.

Block Grant Dispatch. A low quality explanation.

Your Train A53 going from Cooperstown to Oneonta.

Order #1 Train A53 clear from Cooperstown to Milford.

When you get to Milford you contact dispatch again. The dispatch will clear your first block and then issue a order like...

Order #2 Train A53 clear to travel from Milford to Collinsville.

After you arrive at Collinsville you contact your dispatch and release the block your were in. Then in this case you contact the Delaware - Hudson dispatcher to get authorization to travel from Collinsville to Oneonta.


----------



## amtrakpass

also if a train has authority from point a to point b that is like having a clear signal. you don't have to be prepared to stop until the end of the limits. So if track speed is 55mph, a train would normally be going that speed


----------



## cpotisch

Dank said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those asking, and I know that this is unrelated to this tragedy, there are several LD trains with one loco. Cardinal, CONO, TE, Silver Star, and sometimes even the LSL. You might notice that most of those don't have full dining service, so the trains are shorter and don't require as much HEP - diners use a lot of power.
> 
> 
> 
> TE does have a dining car, so would it not require more then one engine? Sorry to get off topic.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's a pretty short train that doesn't use much HEP otherwise, and one that Amtrak could care less about. With HEP running, individual engines will have less towing power, so a shorter train may be needed. A diner doesn't necessarily require two engines, but it makes things harder for a long train.


----------



## KmH

Plus, San Antonio to Chicago, the terrain the TE traverses lacks substantial grades.


----------



## gaspeamtrak

So sad to wake up to this news today. R.I.P. Amtrak engineer & conductor , my thoughts and my prayers go out to those families so sad...


----------



## cpotisch

KmH said:


> Plus, San Antonio to Chicago, the terrain the TE traverses lacks substantial grades.


Also true.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## LookingGlassTie

Does the same crew operate on both the northbound and southbound Silver Stars? It's remotely possible that I MIGHT have seen the conductor who died.

(I traveled on the #92 last July.)


----------



## The Chief

CSX signal maintainers recently had been working in the area where a deadly Amtrak crash happened early Sunday morning

https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/02/04/source-csx-maintainers-had-been-working-at-site-of.html

edit link delete orphan space

thanks *daybeers,* you'd think I'd had too many day beers.


----------



## pennyk

LookingGlassTie said:


> Does the same crew operate on both the northbound and southbound Silver Stars? It's remotely possible that I MIGHT have seen the conductor who died.
> 
> (I traveled on the #92 last July.)


yes


----------



## Thirdrail7

The Chief said:


> CSX signal maintainers recently had been working in the area where a deadly Amtrak crash happened early Sunday morning
> 
> https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/02/04/source-csx-maintainers-had-been-working-at-site-of.html


Here's a brief fair use quote from that article.



> Amtrak 91 struck CSX freight train F77703 around 2:35 a.m. near Columbia, SC. The incident killed two and injured more than 100, according to the Lexington County Sheriff's Office, and the CSX train has leaked thousands of gallons of diesel fuel.
> 
> *The CSX train was sitting on a side line known as the industry line, according to a source familiar with the matter. A switch that was supposed to send the Amtrak train down the cleared main line was not in the proper position and sent it down the industry line instead, the source said.*
> 
> Typically, an automatic signal would have warned that the switch was in the wrong position, instructing the engineer to slow down. However, a crew had recently been working on the system in that area, and it may have been shut off when the incident occurred, the source said.


That would fit Jis's signal suspension comment.


----------



## The Chief

_*Breaking*_: Amtrak Prez Richard Anderson blames CSX: Signal system down, dispatchers manually routing trains, only way Amtrak train move to hit parked freight train on siding track was for a switch to have been thrown.

*Or left in open position*
http://www.wral.com/south-carolina-train-crash-leaves-at-least-2-dead-50-hurt/17312782/


----------



## daybeers

The Chief said:


> CSX signal maintainers recently had been working in the area where a deadly Amtrak crash happened early Sunday morning
> 
> https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/02/04/source-csx-maintainers-had-been-working-at-site-of.html


Thanks for the article, but could you please delete the extra space at the end of the hyperlink? It adds characters to the end of it that make the website unable to find the article. Thanks! This affects Thirdrail's post also.

Edit: I fixed the link in my quote. Turns out you need to double-click on it and delete those characters at the end of the link in the forum's hyperlink feature.


----------



## jis

There are some background discussions that I have seen which are considering the possibility that the CSX freight inappropriately released their warrant without ensuring that the switch had been reset. But let us wait for NTSB for the actual determination of what happened.


----------



## AGM.12

While no definite cause has been established yet by NTSB, I can't help but think that this sounds like another Graniteville. I understand from another thread that CSX would not mind it one bit if Amtrak rerouted the Silver Star off the S line.


----------



## Thirdrail7

daybeers said:


> Thanks for the article, but could you please delete the extra space at the end of the hyperlink? It adds characters to the end of it that make the website unable to find the article. Thanks! This affects Thirdrail's post also.


I fixed my quote. Thank you.


----------



## grover5995

Looks like the freight was waiting on a siding for AMTRAK to pass on the main. Somehow the passenger train was switched onto the same passing track causing a head-on that killed the AMTRAK engineer and conductor. PTC can't get here soon enough!


----------



## grover5995

caravanman said:


> Sad news to hear. It reads as though the Amtrak train ran into the rear of the freight train?
> 
> Ed.


Pictures indicate that AMTRAK was switched onto the same passing siding as the freight. This caused a head-on crash that killed AMTRAK engineer and conductor.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

It was not too far from my area! My heart goes out to the friends and families of the two engineers who were killed and those that were involved. Just absolutely tragic.


----------



## cpotisch

grover5995 said:


> Looks like the freight was waiting on a siding for AMTRAK to pass on the main. Somehow the passenger train was switched onto the same passing track causing a head-on that killed the AMTRAK engineer and conductor. ATC can't get here soon enough!


Does this mean that Amtrak was not at fault? If the switch was the problem?


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

OlympianHiawatha said:


> What is the car right behind the 47 unit? It looks to be Heritage?


It was an Amfleet. No more Heritage baggage cars.


----------



## jis

jis said:


> There are some background discussions that I have seen which are considering the possibility that the CSX freight inappropriately released their warrant without ensuring that the switch had been reset. But let us wait for NTSB for the actual determination of what happened.


NTSB now says that the switch was lined towards the siding and padlocked in that position. So someone did screw up big time in telling dispatch that the track was released.



cpotisch said:


> grover5995 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the freight was waiting on a siding for AMTRAK to pass on the main. Somehow the passenger train was switched onto the same passing track causing a head-on that killed the AMTRAK engineer and conductor. ATC can't get here soon enough!
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean that Amtrak was not at fault? If the switch was the problem?
Click to expand...

The fact that the switch was lined to the siding and padlocked in that position gives considerable credence to the theory that it was someone at CSX who did it. OTOH, there is a possibility that Amtrak did not have authorization. So we will have to wait for NTSB's verdict on that.



CSXfoamer1997 said:


> OlympianHiawatha said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the car right behind the 47 unit? It looks to be Heritage?
> 
> 
> 
> It was an Amfleet. No more Heritage baggage cars.
Click to expand...

The Viewliner II Baggage Car was the last car of the consist behind the Viewliner Sleepers.


----------



## The Chief

*jis* spot on.

Switch wrong position. Amtrak 91 Silver Star CSX collision 4 Feb 2018

Here's the first NTSB presser (video):

https://youtu.be/sA6f4cW7bYg


----------



## neroden

So, at this point it looks like the signal "maintainers" at Crash Smash eXplode released the line to the dispatcher with the switch lined incorrectly. (The only other possibility is that they notified the dispatcher of the state of the switch and the dispatcher misdirected the train anyway, but they aren't generally supposed to leave it locked heading for an industry track anyway.)

Crashes caused by signal maintainer error are pretty rare, let alone an error this severe, and this shows a deficient safety culture at CSX (something I think most people in the railroad business already knew).


----------



## jis

neroden said:


> So, at this point it looks like the signal "maintainers" at Crash Smash eXplode released the line to the dispatcher with the switch lined incorrectly. (The only other possibility is that they notified the dispatcher of the state of the switch and the dispatcher misdirected the train anyway, but they aren't generally supposed to leave it locked heading for an industry track anyway.)
> 
> Crashes caused by signal maintainer error are pretty rare, let alone an error this severe, and this shows a deficient safety culture at CSX (something I think most people in the railroad business already knew).


Not sure it was the signal maintainers. The operators of the freight train had the track warrant, which they released apparently before realigning the switch to the main as they were supposed to.

In some sense this has a bit of similarity it seems with the 89 incident near Philly caused by inappropriate release of track.


----------



## Dank

Ok, I was watching The Pheonix Open and saw an advertisement for CBS Evening News. Third Amtrak crash in two months. The tone of the announcer wanted to make me jump through the television and strangle her.


----------



## Dank

cpotisch said:


> Dank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those asking, and I know that this is unrelated to this tragedy, there are several LD trains with one loco. Cardinal, CONO, TE, Silver Star, and sometimes even the LSL. You might notice that most of those don't have full dining service, so the trains are shorter and don't require as much HEP - diners use a lot of power.
> 
> 
> 
> TE does have a dining car, so would it not require more then one engine? Sorry to get off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, but it's a pretty short train that doesn't use much HEP otherwise, and one that Amtrak could care less about. With HEP running, individual engines will have less towing power, so a shorter train may be needed. A diner doesn't necessarily require two engines, but it makes things harder for a long train.
Click to expand...

For the TE I thought it was not about the towing power, but about the power needed to run a dining car.


----------



## daybeers

Dank said:


> Ok, I was watching The Pheonix Open and saw an advertisement for CBS Evening News. Third Amtrak crash in two months. The tone of the announcer wanted to make me jump through the television and strangle her.


Even though it's looking like this collision and the incident in Virginia with the GOP a few days ago weren't Amtrak's fault, to the general public it's going to look like it. I think this is really going to hurt Amtrak, which to me is sad. I just hope Richard Anderson gives a strong response to this, and maybe even does something to try to make it clear that these two incidents weren't their fault. Of course the _Cascades_ derailment was, but not these.


----------



## daybeers

Nice article about the Amtrak conductor who passed: http://www.wltx.com/news/local/michael-cella-amtrak-train-conductor/514345654

This one says his name is Michael Cella, but the CBS link I posted earlier spelled it Michael Sella. I'm not sure which one is correct.


----------



## Dank

daybeers said:


> Dank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I was watching The Pheonix Open and saw an advertisement for CBS Evening News. Third Amtrak crash in two months. The tone of the announcer wanted to make me jump through the television and strangle her.
> 
> 
> 
> Even though it's looking like this collision and the incident in Virginia with the GOP a few days ago weren't Amtrak's fault, to the general public it's going to look like it. I think this is really going to hurt Amtrak, which to me is sad. I just hope Richard Anderson gives a strong response to this, and maybe even does something to try to make it clear that these two incidents weren't their fault. Of course the _Cascades_ derailment was, but not these.
Click to expand...

Hopefully Joe Biden who has been a big supporter of Amtrak speaks up in Amtrak's defense.


----------



## MARC Rider

Dank said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> City of Miami said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adrouault said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is happening far too frequently, and only gives ammunition to those who want to defund amtrak.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps they are correct! If we as a society are not willing to fund the RRs sufficiently (and I certainly include CSX et al. in this) at the bare minimum for safety maybe it really is time to let US passenger rail go. There is such a tremendous backlog of deferred maintenance to make it work: just think tunnels bridges and catenary on the NEC - hundreds of billions of $$.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While it may seem unsafe to take the train considering all the bad press lately, even during this time period the odds of being killed in an Amtrak crash are still extremely low. According the my calculations, if the time period was limited to December 18th-February 4th the odds of a passenger being killed in an Amtrak wreck are about 1 in 1,389,583 (Annual ridership divided by (365/number of days in time period) divided by number of passenger deaths). News reports tend to focus much more on train wrecks than car wrecks, as one train accident tends to injure more people than a car wreck. However, trains are still a much safer mode of transportation than cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These few incidents in the past couple of months will not deter me from taking Amtrak in April. I will be taking the Crescent from Baltimore to NOLA and then the Sunset Limited on to Houston!
Click to expand...

Not only will I be riding Amtrak in the coming week, I will be riding on Northeast Regional 188. At least twice.


----------



## Lonestar648

Amtrak really needs some major figures to speak out supporting Amtrak. The general public, including our elected officials, have no clue about railroading, with many thinking trains could stop on a dime and control everything from the cab.

Our prayers here for all those involved, their families, and the first responders.


----------



## Bierboy

Dank said:


> Ok, I was watching The Pheonix Open and saw an advertisement for CBS Evening News. Third Amtrak crash in two months. The tone of the announcer wanted to make me jump through the television and strangle her.


As I said earlier, that really grinds my gears...


----------



## RampWidget

chrsjrcj said:


> ”This was shared on another site, and no telling who the journalists source is so Im a bit hesitant to share it here.”


@chrsjrcj

That’s from the Jacksonville Business Journal. They’re generally a reliable source, in my experience.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## daybeers

Someone posted on the Railroad.net forum topic for this. The quote is below. What are your thoughts?



> This could be a problem for the Amfleets, if the cafe car snapping is found to be due (or exacerbated) to a structural defect or fatigue.


----------



## RampWidget

Dank said:


> RampWidget said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unconfirmed information 08:30 local time from a former colleague in Amtrak train/engine service that the fatalities are crewmembers.Prayers for the crews, passengers, and families.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that Amtrak or CSX crew?
Click to expand...

Amtrak.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## RampWidget

daybeers said:


> Nice article about the Amtrak conductor who passed: http://www.wltx.com/news/local/michael-cella-amtrak-train-conductor/514345654
> 
> This one says his name is Michael Cella, but the CBS link I posted earlier spelled it Michael Sella. I'm not sure which one is correct.


It’s Cella. Good men, both of them. Terrible loss.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Thirdrail7 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So all those screaming about PTC should know that under signal suspension there would have been no PTC active either.
> 
> 
> 
> That would depend on the system and if they suspended PTC. ACSES will still work during a cab signal suspension and a wayside signal suspension. It is even programmed to protect improperly lined facing point switches when operating against the current of traffic. You'd have to actually suspend ACSES rules.
> 
> 
> 
> s10mk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dark territory? Signal suspension? What does that stuff mean? Please excuse my ignorance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Making an extremely long and detailed story short, territory that operates without some sort of signals (cab signals, wayside signals) is typically referred to as "dark territory." Typically, these tracks will need some sort of movement authority or permission for trains to operate on the track.
> 
> In signaled territory, movements are typically governed by signals (wayside, cab signals.) Permission is granted by signal indication.
> 
> When they take the signals out of service, it is called a signal suspension and movements revert back to movement authorities.
> 
> 
> 
> daybeers said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak has posted an alert on their website: https://www.amtrak.com/alert/amtrak-train-91-derailment.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Due to this incident and the resulting temporary track closure, Trains 91 & 92, the Amtrak Silver Star will detour between Hamlet, N.C., and Savannah,Ga., until further notice. Passengers will be provided alternate transportation to missed stops, as available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a couple of potential detours available. I guess they'll pick whichever detour CSX can support and the route that will likely lose the least amount of time.
Click to expand...

How long is it likely the detour will be necessary? Looking at the track routes and switch setups at the junctions, the most likely routing looks like the SM route to Dillon and a CSX freight route from there to Hamlet unless there is some issue with that route I am not seeing. There is also a more eastern route from Charleston to Dillon but it looks longer and Amtrak does not presently use it. In addition, there is a route from Pembroke to Hamlet but there does not appear to be a switch to make such a route possible without a backup move. However, the map now shows 92 continuing on the current route north out of Savannah. There is a route going West out of Fairfax which could route the train to Hamlet via Upstate South Carolina, but it appears longer than the eastern routes. In addition, it looks as though if they chose to use this way there is a line that could allow the train to merge into the current one at Columbia.
In addition, where is the equipment for 92 (05) coming from?


----------



## jis

daybeers said:


> Someone posted on the Railroad.net forum topic for this. The quote is below. What are your thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This could be a problem for the Amfleets, if the cafe car snapping is found to be due (or exacerbated) to a structural defect or fatigue.
Click to expand...

What would be the problem? No one is going to withdraw an equipment from service because it had a problem holding structural integrity in a 55mph+ crash. All I see as a problem is some folks inflated idea of the indestructibility of cars built to the vaunted FRA standards. The expectations are unrealistic and the sooner the bubble is burst the better.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, at this point it looks like the signal "maintainers" at Crash Smash eXplode released the line to the dispatcher with the switch lined incorrectly. (The only other possibility is that they notified the dispatcher of the state of the switch and the dispatcher misdirected the train anyway, but they aren't generally supposed to leave it locked heading for an industry track anyway.)
> 
> Crashes caused by signal maintainer error are pretty rare, let alone an error this severe, and this shows a deficient safety culture at CSX (something I think most people in the railroad business already knew).
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure it was the signal maintainers. The operators of the freight train had the track warrant, which they released apparently before realigning the switch to the main as they were supposed to.
> 
> In some sense this has a bit of similarity it seems with the 89 incident near Philly caused by inappropriate release of track.
Click to expand...

Oh my.

So perhaps the freight train conductor/engineer released the track warrant without resetting the switch? Geez.

That particular rule (when you've pulled a train into an industrial siding, reset the switches to the mainline through route) has been in the rulebook of every railroad since before railroad signalling -- it dates from the dawn of railroading. It was used in timetable + train order operation; it was used in train staff operation; I don't think there's a railroad which has ever not had that rule.

I find it astounding that that could have happened at all. The person who released the track warrant is going to be prosecuted, I assume. And there's something deeply wrong with CSX's training.

It's not 100% clear whether it was the freight operating crew, the signal maintainers, or the dispatcher who caused this crash, but all of them work for CSX. It's very clear that this is CSX's fault, entirely.

I wonder whether the stock market will notice.


----------



## RampWidget

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So all those screaming about PTC should know that under signal suspension there would have been no PTC active either.
> 
> 
> 
> That would depend on the system and if they suspended PTC. ACSES will still work during a cab signal suspension and a wayside signal suspension. It is even programmed to protect improperly lined facing point switches when operating against the current of traffic. You'd have to actually suspend ACSES rules.
> 
> 
> 
> s10mk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dark territory? Signal suspension? What does that stuff mean? Please excuse my ignorance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Making an extremely long and detailed story short, territory that operates without some sort of signals (cab signals, wayside signals) is typically referred to as "dark territory." Typically, these tracks will need some sort of movement authority or permission for trains to operate on the track.
> 
> In signaled territory, movements are typically governed by signals (wayside, cab signals.) Permission is granted by signal indication.
> 
> When they take the signals out of service, it is called a signal suspension and movements revert back to movement authorities.
> 
> 
> 
> daybeers said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak has posted an alert on their website: https://www.amtrak.com/alert/amtrak-train-91-derailment.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Due to this incident and the resulting temporary track closure, Trains 91 & 92, the Amtrak Silver Star will detour between Hamlet, N.C., and Savannah,Ga., until further notice. Passengers will be provided alternate transportation to missed stops, as available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a couple of potential detours available. I guess they'll pick whichever detour CSX can support and the route that will likely lose the least amount of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How long is it likely the detour will be necessary? Looking at the track routes and switch setups at the junctions, the most likely routing looks like the SM route to Dillon and a CSX freight route from there to Hamlet unless there is some issue with that route I am not seeing. There is also a more eastern route from Charleston to Dillon but it looks longer and Amtrak does not presently use it. In addition, there is a route from Pembroke to Hamlet but there does not appear to be a switch to make such a route possible without a backup move. However, the map now shows 92 continuing on the current route north out of Savannah. There is a route going West out of Fairfax which could route the train to Hamlet via Upstate South Carolina, but it appears longer than the eastern routes. In addition, it looks as though if they chose to use this way there is a line that could allow the train to merge into the current one at Columbia.
> In addition, where is the equipment for 92 (05) coming from?
Click to expand...

Past reroute practice in my experience has been Hamlet-Dillon-Florence-Savannah.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Seaboard92

We lost two damn good railroaders today. I honestly have no words to describe what I saw and smelled today at the accident site. It's something that I pray none of you ever have to see in your life. And one I never want to see again for as long as I live.

Mike Cella was always a joy to see when I was working a PV south or deadheading home from a run. I remember sitting with him talking shop about how our days were going. I remember the last time I saw them when I brought them fresh baked brownies just to make their day. Words don't describe what I want to say.

And if I see anyone lamenting about the loss of a P42DC, a Amfleet II cafe, or the freight engine I swear to god I will go off on you. It's steel with no personality while we now have a widow, and children without their husband or father. So please think about that before you post about the loss of rolling stock. We can replace rolling stock, but we can't replace my friends.

And for anyone who wants to see the photo here are some.




In this photo you can see the trucks (wheel assembly) or Amtrak 47 directly in front of the freight locomotive. You can also see the cab of the CSX engine has been obliterated were lucky there wasn't a crew in there.




In this photo you can see the bent cab of 47 right by the radiator of the second CSX Engine No. 36. Also note the damage where 47 rode over the top of the 13x locomotive.




Another angle where you can see the cab of the 47 bent back. You can also see the trailing truck remained attached to 47.

These are my photos that I took when I was there earlier. Words will not describe smell, and the scene. I'm donating all profit I've made from selling the photos to the media to a non profit benefiting nursing students financial aid because I believe nurses are important in helping victims.


----------



## LookingGlassTie

Someone's head is gonna roll over this. Meanwhile, we'll just keep riding!


----------



## TinCan782

No comment or speculation on my part. Just waiting for the NTSB report.


----------



## Amtrak Cajun

My heart and thoughts go out to everyone involved in this tragedy.


----------



## AGM.12

Seaboard 92: Thanks for sharing the photos, grim as they may be. On an unrelated matter, you wouldn't by chance be a member of the South Carolina Railroad Museum? I was the past treasurer when it first got restarted in the early 80s.


----------



## Thirdrail7

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> How long is it likely the detour will be necessary?


It depends on how long it takes the NTSB to complete their investigation. Once that wraps up, it'll take some time to clean up and restore the area. This will probably take two or three days.



> Looking at the track routes and switch setups at the junctions, the most likely routing looks like the SM route to Dillon and a CSX freight route from there to Hamlet unless there is some issue with that route I am not seeing. There is also a more eastern route from Charleston to Dillon but it looks longer and Amtrak does not presently use it. In addition, there is a route from Pembroke to Hamlet but there does not appear to be a switch to make such a route possible without a backup move. However, the map now shows 92 continuing on the current route north out of Savannah. There is a route going West out of Fairfax which could route the train to Hamlet via Upstate South Carolina, but it appears longer than the eastern routes. In addition, it looks as though if they chose to use this way there is a line that could allow the train to merge into the current one at Columbia.


It wouldn't make much sense to take the SM route to Dillon and back up to Hamlet. They would like take the route that RampWidget mentioned. Take the Star's scheduled route to Hamlet, then drop down the Andrews Sub to Dillon and pick up the A Line to Savannah. You could also work Hamlet, use the Wilmington Sub which I believe intersects the A Line not too far from Fayettville. Another option is the Eastover and Lane Subdivisions which put you between KTR and CHS.

91(4) will stay on the A-Line from RMT all way through to SAV though.



> In addition, where is the equipment for 92 (05) coming from?


The train yard.


----------



## Asher

Sad day for the victims. It was a Bad day for Railroading. Amtrak is probably not at fault, it certainty appears that way. That being said, they have to take responsibility and set procedures to make it impossible for this to happen in the future.


----------



## FormerOBS

Amtrak President Anderson released a statement. I have cut out all the chaff and gone straight to the wheat. "Early media reports indicated that Amtrak was 'on the wrong track' when it hit the CSX freight train, but that statement is inaccurate because we were on the track as designated by CSX, the host railroad".

He goes on: "Our crew on [train] 91 was cleared to proceed by CSX dispatch, but CSX had lined and padlocked the switch off the mainline to the siding, causing the collision."

At the Press Briefing conducted by NTSB, Mr. Sumwalt said the CSX freight crew had picked up empty auto racks from the Hansen & Adkins automobile storage facility on the east side of the mainline. Once they had completed that work, they secured their train of 2 locomotives and 30+ freight cars on the siding on the west side of the mainline. and left their train parked. Mr. Sumwalt did not say where the freight train crew was at the time of the accident, but everything I have heard indicates that they were not on the scene. That crew should have left the switch lined and locked for the mainline. Mr. Sumwalt said the switch was lined and locked for the siding.

Some Unanswered questions:

1. Who lined and locked the switch in the wrong position? The most likely candidate is some member of the freight train crew, although I suppose a signal maintainer or a vandal could have done it.

2. When was the switch lined and locked improperly. In other words, did the Amtrak engineer have any warning time?

3. How long was this situation in place before it was detected the hard way?

4. Since the signals were not functioning normally, what were the exact orders under which the train was being operated?

Tom


----------



## George K

From reading early reports and Anderson's comments, I imagine that, 10 years from now, when you go to the dictionary to look up "Human Error," this will be listed.

So sad.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Good to get factual info from those with expertise and truthful info. ,ie the NTSB Chairman and Amtrak' s CEO.

It doesn't look good for CSX based on this info.


----------



## tomfuller

Very lucky that the injured started arriving at the hospital at shift change. It sounds like poor reporting that 5000 gallon of GASOLINE spilled but there was no

environmental damage. Where did the Amtrak engine refuel last with diesel fuel?


----------



## Lonestar648

I see ABC has a report that AMTRAK is involved in four deadly accidents in 2 months. Only if you get into the details, which most people will not, do you learn that Amtrak was not at fault.


----------



## Seaboard92

tomfuller said:


> Very lucky that the injured started arriving at the hospital at shift change. It sounds like poor reporting that 5000 gallon of GASOLINE spilled but there was no
> 
> environmental damage. Where did the Amtrak engine refuel last with diesel fuel?


Washington, DC. I agree it was good it was on shift change. And I can tell you the smell of that fuel and the electronic smell is something I'm still smelling. It's unlike anything you've smelled before


----------



## Devil's Advocate

daybeers said:


> Dank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I was watching The Pheonix Open and saw an advertisement for CBS Evening News. Third Amtrak crash in two months. The tone of the announcer wanted to make me jump through the television and strangle her.
> 
> 
> 
> Even though it's looking like this collision and the incident in Virginia with the GOP a few days ago weren't Amtrak's fault, to the general public it's going to look like it. I think this is really going to hurt Amtrak, which to me is sad.
Click to expand...

Not only are the media reports going to hurt Amtrak's image, but also the lopsided indemnity agreements that force Amtrak to pay for legal costs and penalties incurred by CSX in court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/us/amtrak-pays-millions-for-others-fatal-errors.html



grover5995 said:


> Looks like the freight was waiting on a siding for AMTRAK to pass on the main. Somehow the passenger train was switched onto the same passing track causing a head-on that killed the AMTRAK engineer and conductor. PTC can't get here soon enough!


The signal system already in place should have prevented this. Except that it was down for maintenance. What good will PTC do when it's down for maintenance? The problem isn't our technology so much as America's continuing reluctance to embrace a genuine safety culture and our absurd reliance on disastrous cowboy logic.


----------



## Rover

Devil's Advocate said:


> daybeers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I was watching The Pheonix Open and saw an advertisement for CBS Evening News. Third Amtrak crash in two months. The tone of the announcer wanted to make me jump through the television and strangle her.
> 
> 
> 
> Even though it's looking like this collision and the incident in Virginia with the GOP a few days ago weren't Amtrak's fault, to the general public it's going to look like it. I think this is really going to hurt Amtrak, which to me is sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only are the media reports going to hurt Amtrak's image, but also the lopsided indemnity agreements that force Amtrak to pay for legal costs and penalties incurred by CSX in court.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/us/amtrak-pays-millions-for-others-fatal-errors.html
> 
> 
> 
> grover5995 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the freight was waiting on a siding for AMTRAK to pass on the main. Somehow the passenger train was switched onto the same passing track causing a head-on that killed the AMTRAK engineer and conductor. PTC can't get here soon enough!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The signal system already in place should have prevented this. Except that it was down for maintenance. What good will PTC do when it's down for maintenance? The problem isn't our technology so much as America's continuing reluctance to embrace a genuine safety culture and our absurd reliance on disastrous cowboy logic.
Click to expand...

Just do away with all Passenger rail service that's not on dedicated track. Or, find a way to electronically integrate a monitoring/warning system, that would prevent all of these accidents.


----------



## west point

Wonder if there are any HOS problems with the CSX freight crew ?


----------



## daybeers

Devil's Advocate said:


> daybeers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I was watching The Pheonix Open and saw an advertisement for CBS Evening News. Third Amtrak crash in two months. The tone of the announcer wanted to make me jump through the television and strangle her.
> 
> 
> 
> Even though it's looking like this collision and the incident in Virginia with the GOP a few days ago weren't Amtrak's fault, to the general public it's going to look like it. I think this is really going to hurt Amtrak, which to me is sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only are the media reports going to hurt Amtrak's image, but also the lopsided indemnity agreements that force Amtrak to pay for legal costs and penalties incurred by CSX in court.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/us/amtrak-pays-millions-for-others-fatal-errors.html
Click to expand...

Wow, I didn't know that. Absolutely ridiculous...no...despicable really. Congress really needs to overturn that 1997 law, but of course they won't because of lobbying by the multi-billion-dollar freight companies. It would be great if it was like car crashes: the one at fault pays for nearly everything.

Based on Anderson's strong reaction to this crash, I truly hope he'll protect Amtrak from having to pay for it, which at least from what he has said, is CSX's fault. Of course we need to wait for the preliminary and final reports from the NTSB, though.


----------



## Rover

https://nypost.com/2018/02/04/feds-investigating-why-amtrak-switch-was-set-in-wrong-position/


----------



## xyzzy

Tight lock couplers are a good thing. Without them all the cars might have turned sideways and rolled. Deformation of the structure of the cafe car absorbed a lot of energy and probably minimized injuries in the trailing cars. Aside from the cafe car, the Budd structure appears to have held up well under the circumstances. What the interiors of those cars are like, we can't tell from photos. As to whether there was a defect in the cafe car structure that caused it to buckle, we will have to see whether the NTSB looks into that.

According to Amtrak's Track A Train, 92(4) did not take the expected Dillon-Hamlet detour and instead is running on the CSX A-line through central NC. Given that passengers in Cary and Raleigh can take 80 which runs on about the same schedule, the only folks impacted by not running Dillon-Hamlet are passengers at Hamlet and Southern Pines, both of which are lightly patronized stations.

FWIW, Dillon-Hamlet is signaled and good for 50 mph.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Seaboard, I understand how you feel. When we look at rail collisions, we see 2 dead and it is a statistic. I can only see it as a statistic, too. I didnt know them, and the human heart would never survive if it mourned every tragic loss in plane crashes, train crashes, car crashes, and good men like my neighbor (who I mourned because I knew him) who tragically died from a heart attack leaving three kids and an entirely unfit mother.

That above is a horrible tragedy that has left me sick for years, and you didnt even know about it. Hearing about this, I am sure you are going to feel bad about it; but you will not be affected by it the way you feel about your friends; nor should you.

So mourn them; you knew them as good men. I feel sorry that they died. I cant mourn them; I didnt know them. Since that part is what it is, I will also lament the loss of some equipment on a system that is already short of it, and a reality that while cars can be replaced, they wont be for years. In fact, and excuse my coldness, but mechanically, you cant replace a human soul, but training a new conductor and engineer is actually easier than replacing a car.

It is not unreasonable for me as a transit advocate (retired) to consider all of those practical things. That doesnt mean I dont see or understand the human tragedy; it means that saying Im sorry Amtrak lost two good men, and meaning it, is all I can do about it.


----------



## NTL1991

If this territory was operating under signal suspension, would CSX rules require trains to approach facing-point switches prepared to stop?


----------



## greatcats

If the crew assignment map that I have is correct, the crew of 91 would operate between Hamlet, NC and Jacksonville, FL, a trip scheduled to take over 7 hours. This should require 2 engineers, Plus it is a middle of the night trip. Mr. Cella, one of the deceased, has been mentioned as the Conductor. It is indeed possible that he was riding the engine, or has he been mislabeled as the second engineer? If he was the Conductor, What is the status of the second engineer? Rest In Peace, gentlemen.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## City of Miami

Devil's Advocate said:


> Not only are the media reports going to hurt Amtrak's image, but also the lopsided indemnity agreements that force Amtrak to pay for legal costs and penalties incurred by CSX in court.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/us/amtrak-pays-millions-for-others-fatal-errors.html


My understanding is that per the original Amtrak/Class II agreement, the private RR company will incur no liability whatsoever, no matter the circumstances, for any damage involving an Amtrak train. As twisted as it may sound I can understand the RR point of view. Simply, if the Amtrak train were not there, there would be no accident/damage for the RR to incur.


----------



## greatcats

Another thought is that a second engineer may not have been available, and the Conductor was instructed to ride the engine. Or, was he in that lounge car that was twisted in half, a really creepy sight?

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## VentureForth

In looking at the satellite image of the scene (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9088977,-81.0669683,445a,35y,357h,1.19t/data=!3m1!1e3), it looks like the switch was a couple hundred feet before the location of the lead CSX locomotive. I only bring this up because the NTSB chairman said in his presser that the train would have surely derailed going over that switch at 59 MPH. It seems as though the train took the switch well (though no telling how the whole train would have fared at full speed).

Also curious as to whether the highway bridge (US-321) was damaged. I've been on that bridge.

The biggest complaint about the NTSB's presser was when he said that PTC would have prevented the accident. It's been mentioned in here already - but *IF the system was down for any sort of maintenance*, would PTC be able to recognize a switch out of place? This is the sort of hip-shooting I thought the NTSB was trained not to do. But it was mentioned, thus will be reported on.

As to the two in the cab, it sounded like it was the conductor and a single engineer. I don't think the media botched that up. In this case, because they were in dark territory, it sounds like SOP is that the conductor confirms the track warrants from the cab. Note that I've seen crew changes occur in Savannah.

I'm sad to learn that the engineer, Michael Kempf, was a fellow Savannahian.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

If the PTC was operating it wouldnt have happened. Old Yiddish proverb: If my grandmother had ****s shed be my grandfather.


----------



## neroden

The so-called indemnity agreements are against public poliicy, as the judge ruled in the Chase, Maryland case. Hopefully Anderson will make a very clear case in the media for changing the law which allows CSX to get away scot-free for criminal negligence. It seems like he's ready to take a pretty hard line...


----------



## jis

xyzzy said:


> According to Amtrak's Track A Train, 92(4) did not take the expected Dillon-Hamlet detour and instead is running on the CSX A-line through central NC. Given that passengers in Cary and Raleigh can take 80 which runs on about the same schedule, the only folks impacted by not running Dillon-Hamlet are passengers at Hamlet and Southern Pines, both of which are lightly patronized stations.
> 
> FWIW, Dillon-Hamlet is signaled and good for 50 mph.


Raleigh, Cary, Hamlet (and presumably Southern pines) passengers were bused to suitable stations on the A-lIne to/from 91/92. Passengers from Camden through Denmark are being bused anyway.

Thirdrail had already informed us that 91(4) would run all the way on the A-Line.



greatcats said:


> Another thought is that a second engineer may not have been available, and the Conductor was instructed to ride the engine. Or, was he in that lounge car that was twisted in half, a really creepy sight?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


Both fatalities were in the engine.

Star normally runs with a single engine, as it was this day too, and I am told that the JAX - Hamlet district is long enough to require two Engineers in the cab. I am not sure exactly what the districts are, but if it is indeed JAX - Hamlet then it stands to reason that there would be two in the cab.

There was no third person in the cab, so presumably the second Engineer has been mislabeled as a Conductor in the media and press reports.


----------



## KmH

https://nypost.com/2...wrong-position/

It is a CSX switch, not an Amtrak switch.

*Feds investigating why CSX switch was set in wrong position*


----------



## jis




----------



## railiner

daybeers said:


> Someone posted on the Railroad.net forum topic for this. The quote is below. What are your thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This could be a problem for the Amfleets, if the cafe car snapping is found to be due (or exacerbated) to a structural defect or fatigue.
Click to expand...

How many accident's have Amfleet cars been in, in their 40+ years of service? I do not recall them ever breaking in this manner....

The problem may be in the FRA increasing the strength requirements even more than they are now, thus making it even harder to find supplier's of new equipment in the future....


----------



## KnightRail

jis said:


>


Pause that footage when it shows what was the cafe car. If there is something positive about the outcome, it is that by some miracle that most of the energy was absorbed by car with the least occupants at the time. Dont want to imagine if a sleeper or coach absorbed the energy that the cafe did.


----------



## VentureForth

Wonder if CSX employees will blame the "Harrison Cuts".


----------



## jis

KnightRail said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnciDLLbxHo
> 
> 
> 
> Pause that footage when it shows what was the cafe car. If there is something positive about the outcome, it is that by some miracle that most of the energy was absorbed by car with the least occupants at the time. Dont want to imagine if a sleeper or coach absorbed the energy that the cafe did.
Click to expand...

 The other thing that happened is that the anti-climber in front of the P42 did not work and it climbed over and then diverted to the side of the CSX unit, thus dissipating an enormous amount of energy. If the anti-climber had worked and the engine had come to dead stop nose to nose with the CSX unit, then the rest of the train would have had to dissipate that energy possibly leading to significant additional casualties.



VentureForth said:


> Wonder if CSX employees will blame the "Harrison Cuts".


Or CSX try to blame it on sabotage.
The possibilities of conspiracy theories are endless....


----------



## railiner

One other thought comes to mind....supposing that locomotives were operated "long hood forward", in the manner that the former Norfolk and Western Railway practiced....

could that have saved the crew?

That practice probably requires two crewmember's in the cab for full visibility, so not likely to happen again....


----------



## MikefromCrete

greatcats said:


> If the crew assignment map that I have is correct, the crew of 91 would operate between Hamlet, NC and Jacksonville, FL, a trip scheduled to take over 7 hours. This should require 2 engineers, Plus it is a middle of the night trip. Mr. Cella, one of the deceased, has been mentioned as the Conductor. It is indeed possible that he was riding the engine, or has he been mislabeled as the second engineer? If he was the Conductor, What is the status of the second engineer? Rest In Peace, gentlemen.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum





As I understand it, because the signal system down and the train was running under train orders, the conductor was in the cab to copy the orders from the dispatcher. If he was back in the train, the engineer would have to stop the train in order to copy the orders. The Amtrak employees were being efficient. It appears the CSX employees were being criminally negligent.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

daybeers said:


> Based on Anderson's strong reaction to this crash, I truly hope he'll protect Amtrak from having to pay for it, which at least from what he has said, is CSX's fault. Of course we need to wait for the preliminary and final reports from the NTSB, though.


So far as I am aware there is nothing Anderson can do to prevent Amtrak from having to pay for CSX's legal liabilities.



City of Miami said:


> My understanding is that per the original Amtrak/Class II agreement, the private RR company will incur no liability whatsoever, no matter the circumstances, for any damage involving an Amtrak train. As twisted as it may sound I can understand the RR point of view. Simply, if the Amtrak train were not there, there would be no accident/damage for the RR to incur.


These kinds of indemnity agreements are perfectly reasonable between networks of similar size and liability risk. These kinds of agreements make absolutely no moral or ethical sense between freight railroads (who collectively represent roughly 95% of the passenger network miles but less than 1% of passenger liability) and Amtrak (representing roughly 5% of passenger network miles but greater than 99% of passenger liability).



neroden said:


> The so-called indemnity agreements are against public poliicy, as the judge ruled in the Chase, Maryland case. Hopefully Anderson will make a very clear case in the media for changing the law which allows CSX to get away scot-free for criminal negligence. It seems like he's ready to take a pretty hard line...


The more Amtrak pushes to change how the indemnity agreements are handled the more of a lobbying target they paint on their back. If a large freight railroad doesn't like how liability disputes will be handled in the future they can simply overcharge Amtrak to prevent them from operating on their network at the completion of the current contract. Amtrak can fight this decision in court but any of the class one railroads can simply slow walk the court case until Amtrak has been bled dry.


----------



## Karl1459

FormerOBS said:


> Amtrak President Anderson released a statement. I have cut out all the chaff and gone straight to the wheat. "Early media reports indicated that Amtrak was 'on the wrong track' when it hit the CSX freight train, but that statement is inaccurate because we were on the track as designated by CSX, the host railroad".
> 
> He goes on: "Our crew on [train] 91 was cleared to proceed by CSX dispatch, but CSX had lined and padlocked the switch off the mainline to the siding, causing the collision."
> 
> At the Press Briefing conducted by NTSB, Mr. Sumwalt said the CSX freight crew had picked up empty auto racks from the Hansen & Adkins automobile storage facility on the east side of the mainline. Once they had completed that work, they secured their train of 2 locomotives and 30+ freight cars on the siding on the west side of the mainline. and left their train parked. Mr. Sumwalt did not say where the freight train crew was at the time of the accident, but everything I have heard indicates that they were not on the scene. That crew should have left the switch lined and locked for the mainline. Mr. Sumwalt said the switch was lined and locked for the siding.
> 
> Some Unanswered questions:
> 
> 1. Who lined and locked the switch in the wrong position? The most likely candidate is some member of the freight train crew, although I suppose a signal maintainer or a vandal could have done it.
> 
> 2. When was the switch lined and locked improperly. In other words, did the Amtrak engineer have any warning time?
> 
> 3. How long was this situation in place before it was detected the hard way?
> 
> 4. Since the signals were not functioning normally, what were the exact orders under which the train was being operated?
> 
> Tom


The Graniteville SC freight incident is eerily similar, with a switch left misaligned to a siding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graniteville,_South_Carolina,_train_crash


----------



## jis

There will be an NTSB Press Conference at 4pm today (2/5/18)


----------



## greatcats

Mike from Crete - Your explanation makes some sense, but I believe there still should have been a second engineer.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jis

greatcats said:


> Mike from Crete - Your explanation makes some sense, but I believe there still should have been a second engineer.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


There were just two Engineers and no Conductor in the cab, is what the railroad folks from the area familiar with the district tell me. Originally I thought similar to Mike, but I stand corrected by folks in the know.


----------



## MikefromCrete

jis said:


> greatcats said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mike from Crete - Your explanation makes some sense, but I believe there still should have been a second engineer.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
> 
> 
> 
> There were just two Engineers and no Conductor in the cab, is what the railroad folks from the area familiar with the district tell me. Originally I thought similar to Mike, but I stand corrected by folks in the know.
Click to expand...

Well, I also stand corrected, but I thought Amtrak identified one of the deceased as a conductor.


----------



## jis

Yeah, I don't know what their official designations are, but the length of the district requires two people in the cab is the main point I guess. It did not have anyting to do with yesterday's special operating circumstances.


----------



## John Bobinyec

I'm confused about the detour of 91(4).

How could this train stop at Raleigh when it was supposed to go down the A-Line? And if it did go to Raleigh, how did it skip Cary?

jb

* Train 91 of 02/04/2018. Map Details Formatted Data
* THIS TRAIN EXPERIENCED A SERVICE DISRUPTION.
* Silver Star
* +---------------- Station Code
* | +----------- Schedule Arrival Day 
* | | +-------- Schedule Arrival Time
* | | | +----- Schedule Departure Day
* | | | | +-- Schedule Departure Time 
* | | | | | +------------- Actual Arrival Time
* | | | | | | +------- Actual Departure Time
* | | | | | | | +- Comments
* V V V V V V V V
* NYP * * 1 1102A * 1102A Departed: On time.
* NWK 1 1118A 1 1122A 1116A 1123A Arrived: 2 minutes early. | Departed: 1 minute late.
* TRE 1 1157A 1 1200P 1156A 1200P Arrived: 1 minute early. | Departed: On time.
* PHL 1 1230P 1 1235P 1226P 1237P Arrived: 4 minutes early. | Departed: 2 minutes late.
* WIL 1 1258P 1 102P 100P 104P Arrived: 2 minutes late. | Departed: 2 minutes late.
* BAL 1 150P 1 155P 152P 155P Arrived: 2 minutes late. | Departed: On time.
* WAS 1 235P 1 305P 249P 311P Arrived: 14 minutes late. | Departed: 6 minutes late.
* ALX * * 1 323P * 328P Departed: 5 minutes late.
* RVR 1 507P 1 517P 508P 520P Arrived: 1 minute late. | Departed: 3 minutes late.
* PTB * * 1 551P * 554P Departed: 3 minutes late.
* RMT * * 1 721P * 735P Departed: 14 minutes late.
* RGH 1 848P 1 901P 837P 901P Arrived: 11 minutes early. | Departed: On time.
 CYN 1 923P 1 923P
 SOP * * 1 1036P
 HAM 1 1118P 1 1118P
 CAM * * 2 1247A
 CLB * * 2 138A
 DNK * * 2 235A
 SAV 2 413A 2 418A
* JAX 2 639A 2 659A 629A 659A Arrived: 10 minutes early. | Departed: On time.
* PAK * * 2 802A * 828A Departed: 26 minutes late.
* DLD * * 2 856A * 914A Departed: 18 minutes late.
* WPK * * 2 943A * 957A Departed: 14 minutes late.
* ORL 2 1006A 2 1020A 1009A 1021A Arrived: 3 minutes late. | Departed: 1 minute late.
* KIS * * 2 1044A * 1049A Departed: 5 minutes late.
* LAK * * 2 1129A * 1159A Departed: 30 minutes late.
 TPA 2 1223P 2 1237P 111P Arrived: 48 minutes late.
 LKL * * 2 113P
 WTH * * 2 135P
 SBG * * 2 216P
 OKE * * 2 252P
 WPB * * 2 417P
 DLB * * 2 441P
 DFB * * 2 453P
 FTL * * 2 517P
 HOL * * 2 533P
 MIA 2 558P * *


----------



## Railroad Bill

jis said:


> Yeah, I don't know what their official designations are, but the length of the district requires two people in the cab is the main point I guess. It did not have anyting to do with yesterday's special operating circumstances.


Freight trains operate with one person designated as the engineer and one as "conductor". This may be the explanation in terminology as to the two people in the cab. Although my brother was an freight engineer, his compadre in the cab was the conductor (acted as a brakeman at times as well) but was in technical control of the train. Not sure how that works for Amtrak as I have always heard them called "assistant engineer". ?


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

I am late with my condolences because this is the first time I've been near a computer since this happened, but they are heartfelt and sincere. I am so dreadfully sorry about these two men passing away and leaving their families and friends.


----------



## William W.

So the second victim wasn't the conductor? I haven't seen any photos yet, but I've ridden that corridor enough that I might recognize him if he was.


----------



## The Chief

Photo from *jis* NTSB B-roll, screen cap

V-bent car _may_ be Cafe Car 28002 Amfleet-II Diner Lite conversion July 2009.

Link to Model 854 Electric Switch Lock which _may_ be similar to locked and lined switch in question.

https://www.wabtec.com/products/4962/model-854-electric-switch-lock

Amtrak 91 Silver Star CSX collision 4 Feb 2018


----------



## KmH

VentureForth said:


> In looking at the satellite image of the scene (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9088977,-81.0669683,445a,35y,357h,1.19t/data=!3m1!1e3), it looks like the switch was a couple hundred feet before the location of the lead CSX locomotive. I only bring this up because the NTSB chairman said in his presser that the train would have surely derailed going over that switch at 59 MPH. It seems as though the train took the switch well (though no telling how the whole train would have fared at full speed).


Using the distance measurement feature on Google Maps indicates the lead CSX locomotive was about 700 feet from the switch.

One could also add up the cumulative length of the train car by car.

I too wondered how the Amtrak train was able to negotiate the switch at 59 mph or more without derailing.

Which raises the question - What is the passenger train speed limit on that section of the mainline - 60 mph?

At the least I would expect the engineer to have activated an emergency stop upon seeing the CSX lead dead ahead reducing the train's speed somewhat before the collision.

Would the engineer be surprised by the change of track?

Is it possible the change of track was violent enough to put the engineer(s) out of position to manipulate any of the controls?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Amtrak has recently started doing engineer changes at Savannah, with the engineer from northbound 92 becoming the engineer for southbound 91. Is it possible that this was done so two people are no longer needed in the cab? This would mean that the second person was actually the conductor.

As to the route of 91, could it have run the normal route to Raleigh before running the same route back to Selma to continue south on the A-Line? The only other explanation I can think of is that the train did stop at Cary, Southern Pines, and Hamlet, but it was not recorded for some reason.


----------



## PaulM

City of Miami said:


> Perhaps they are correct! If we as a society are not willing to fund the RRs sufficiently (and I certainly include CSX et al. in this) at the bare minimum for safety maybe it really is time to let US passenger rail go.


Reasonable people can disagree about public funding for public transportation; but I strenuously disagree with including CSX. Isn't it a private business known for its heads I win, tales you lose business model?

It's axiomatic that the greater the risk, the greater the profits, at least in the short term, which is the only thing Wall Street cares about. And it gets even better if you can lay off the risk on innocent bystanders, as you seem to want.


----------



## MattW

As to the question about "what if PTC was there, but down for maintenance?" I can already guess that the NTSB would just "recommend" to not run the trains at all, or to run restricted speed.


----------



## Thirdrail7

greatcats said:


> If the crew assignment map that I have is correct, the crew of 91 would operate between Hamlet, NC and Jacksonville, FL, a trip scheduled to take over 7 hours. This should require 2 engineers, Plus it is a middle of the night trip. Mr. Cella, one of the deceased, has been mentioned as the Conductor. It is indeed possible that he was riding the engine, or has he been mislabeled as the second engineer? If he was the Conductor, What is the status of the second engineer? Rest In Peace, gentlemen.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


Yes...if only your crew assignment map was correct...which it isn't. Perhaps you can throw it away or use it to start a bonfire before you pass more incorrect information?



jis said:


> Yeah, I don't know what their official designations are, but the length of the district requires two people in the cab is the main point I guess. It did not have anyting to do with yesterday's special operating circumstances.


The length of the district for engineers as mentioned by Greatcats in inaccurate. Therefore, the the second person in the cab was correctly identified as the conductor, who was on the head end so the train could comply with copying rules during a signal suspension. It had everything to do with operating circumstances sicee the engineer would have normally been alone.



John Bobinyec said:


> I'm confused about the detour of 91(4).
> 
> How could this train stop at Raleigh when it was supposed to go down the A-Line? And if it did go to Raleigh, how did it skip Cary?


Those are the bus times. The train operated down the A-line from RMT-SAV, bypassing the intermediate stops. It actually arrived SAV almost 2 hours early.


----------



## greatcats

Third Rail- I indicated that my information may not be up to date. I have encountered other examples of this. Do you know where an up to date crew assignment map can be found?

Also, I thought 2 engineers are to be in the cab when the train is operating in the middle of the night.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jis

MattW said:


> As to the question about "what if PTC was there, but down for maintenance?" I can already guess that the NTSB would just "recommend" to not run the trains at all, or to run restricted speed.


Using track warrants is a method that is accepted by the NTSB and I don't see that changing.

Just watched the NTSB News Conference. They simultaneously released a brief on the events found on the event recorder which has been recovered:



> _From the train’s last stop, the maximum speed reached 57 mph. The track speed, under signal suspension rules, is 59 mph. About 7 seconds before the end of the recording, the train’s horn was activated for three seconds. Speed was 56 mph._
> Two seconds later, the brake-pipe pressure began decreasing. The following second, the throttle transitioned from full throttle to idle, while the train was at 54 mph.
> 
> One second later, while the train was at 53 mph, emergency braking was initiated. The recording ended 2 seconds later. The train’s speed was 50 mph as the train’s air braking system was approaching max braking.


Mr. Sumwalt of NTSB confirmed that the second person in the cab was a Conductor, and presumably my (and Matt's) original theory was correct, as can also be surmised from what Thirdrail mentioned above.

Some additional info:

- The distance from the switch to the collision point was 659'

- The freight train was pushed back 15' by the collision, from its original position.

- The CSX train crew, Dispatcher and Train Master have been interviewed today. Surviving Amtrak crew will be interviewed tomorrow.

- The Amtrak locomotive has been moved from the site to the adjacent auto loading facility yard.

- NTSB expects to be present on the ground through the coming weekend.

- The freight had two crew members, an Engineer and a Conductor.

- Amtrak had 139 pax and 8 crew members consisting of 1 Engineer, 1 Conductor, 1 Assistant Conductor and the rest OBS crew.

- The speed limit in the area for operations using track warrant under signal suspension is 59mph. Amtrak was compliant with that.

- The correct procedure before releasing the track warrant by the freight train would be to align the switch to the main line, lock it in that position, then install a derail on the siding, and then release the warrant.

- The track warrant was released by the freight train crew but the switch was found locked in the position towards the siding.

- Amtrak did have the necessary track warrant to operate as they were.

That's all I can find in my notes from the presser.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

Green Maned Lion said:


> Seaboard, I understand how you feel. When we look at rail collisions, we see 2 dead and it is a statistic. I can only see it as a statistic, too. I didnt know them, and the human heart would never survive if it mourned every tragic loss in plane crashes, train crashes, car crashes, and good men like my neighbor (who I mourned because I knew him) who tragically died from a heart attack leaving three kids and an entirely unfit mother.
> 
> That above is a horrible tragedy that has left me sick for years, and you didnt even know about it. Hearing about this, I am sure you are going to feel bad about it; but you will not be affected by it the way you feel about your friends; nor should you.
> 
> So mourn them; you knew them as good men. I feel sorry that they died. I cant mourn them; I didnt know them. Since that part is what it is, I will also lament the loss of some equipment on a system that is already short of it, and a reality that while cars can be replaced, they wont be for years. In fact, and excuse my coldness, but mechanically, you cant replace a human soul, but training a new conductor and engineer is actually easier than replacing a car.
> 
> It is not unreasonable for me as a transit advocate (retired) to consider all of those practical things. That doesnt mean I dont see or understand the human tragedy; it means that saying Im sorry Amtrak lost two good men, and meaning it, is all I can do about it.


Thank you for saying, what I was feeling.

I understand Seaboard's grief. I am deeply saddened with reading about the loss of two fine and dedicated Amtrak employees. I have road the Silvers many times, and it is quite possible that these men could have provided some great and professional service to me. If I was never so blessed, then that's my loss.

However, I am also deeply saddened with the loss of what I believe is critical Amtrak equipment, and I resent that anyone says its wrong for me to feel this way. While, technically, equipment can always be replaced. I have to challenge anyone to show me how this particular Amtrak engines and rolling stock will be quickly replaced. Where's the money and where's the signed contract? That's all because, I would not want to see any of the Silver service be hobbled or killed off.


----------



## City of Miami

PaulM said:


> Reasonable people can disagree about public funding for public transportation; but I strenuously disagree with including CSX. Isn't it a private business known for its heads I win, tales you lose business model?
> 
> It's axiomatic that the greater the risk, the greater the profits, at least in the short term, which is the only thing Wall Street cares about. And it gets even better if you can lay off the risk on innocent bystanders, as you seem to want.


Pt#1

Precisely. I included CSX due to their unwillingness to fund their own operation sufficiently for safety. They do in fact get considerable public funding for track improvements in exchange for allowing passenger trains.

Pt#2

***???


----------



## Dakota 400

As much as I respect Lester Holt on NBC Nightly News, this evening NBC's reporting on this tragedy seemed to me to point the finger of responsibility at Amtrak. I would classify this "reporting" as "incomplete news". Like others, I want to see the NTSB report to determine what happened and where responsibility lies. For me, at this time, CSX seems to be the responsible culprit.


----------



## Bierboy

Dakota 400 said:


> As much as I respect Lester Holt on NBC Nightly News, this evening NBC's reporting on this tragedy seemed to me to point the finger of responsibility at Amtrak. I would classify this "reporting" as "incomplete news". Like others, I want to see the NTSB report to determine what happened and where responsibility lies. For me, at this time, CSX seems to be the responsible culprit.


And as much as I totally disagree about your opinion of Holt, I will say this -- all he does is read the crap that is put before him. Don't entirely blame him; point the finger where it belongs...


----------



## Bob Dylan

CNN is doing the same thing putting out "canned" reports talking about the horrible accidents on Amtrak in the past few months!


----------



## KmH

I've alluded to it before here in the forums.

Most of the major media here in the US is well less than competent.


----------



## railiner

It's the same old story....

While investigative reporting does sometimes yield good results, the temptation to sensationalize stories, to gain more audience, (and sales), is very strong....

The press will milk Amtrak "danger" as long as possible, until the next big story drives it away....

Unfortunately, it goes counter to their interest to report these incidents fairly.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Investigative reporting generally takes weeks if not months of effort to complete. This is _not_ investigative reporting. This is sensationalistic tabloid journalism. Journalists have always struggled with the moral and ethical weight of their positions, but back in the 1980's the news staff of major media companies were moved under their entertainment divisions. Instead of being judged on their accuracy and relevance reporters were now judged on how many eyeballs they could command through whatever means were available. Ever since then then the goal and obligation of informing a diverse audience in an objective fashion has slowly been abandoned and replaced with targeted emotion based reporting.


----------



## railiner

Devil's Advocate said:


> Investigative reporting generally takes weeks if not months of effort to complete. This is _not_ investigative reporting. This is sensationalistic tabloid journalism. Journalists have always struggled with the moral and ethical weight of their positions, but back in the 1980's the news staff of major media companies were moved under their entertainment divisions. Instead of being judged on their accuracy and relevance reporters were now judged on how many eyeballs they could command through whatever means were available. Ever since then then the goal and obligation of informing a diverse audience in an objective fashion has slowly been abandoned and replaced with targeted emotion based reporting.


That's pretty much what I meant to say, but you said it much better.....


----------



## The Iron Horse

Devil's Advocate said:


> Investigative reporting generally takes weeks if not months of effort to complete. This is _not_ investigative reporting. This is sensationalistic tabloid journalism. Journalists have always struggled with the moral and ethical weight of their positions, but back in the 1980's the news staff of major media companies were moved under their entertainment divisions. Instead of being judged on their accuracy and relevance reporters were now judged on how many eyeballs they could command through whatever means were available. Ever since then then the goal and obligation of informing a diverse audience in an objective fashion has slowly been abandoned and replaced with targeted emotion based reporting.


Yellow journalism. It's worse than ever.


----------



## VentureForth

Newspapers have been doing it since Ben Franklin.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Good news is no news.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

Bierboy said:


> And as much as I totally disagree about your opinion of Holt, I will say this -- all he does is read the crap that is put before him. Don't entirely blame him; point the finger where it belongs...


I have to factor into this, is that Holt is "selling" his reputation to NBC. The consequences of doing that, do indeed to fall upon his own shoulders.

Unfortunately, the public will always zero-in on the most well known name. So, the fault belongs to CSX and Amtrak.


----------



## me_little_me

anumberone said:


> Sad day for the victims. It was a Bad day for Railroading. Amtrak is probably not at fault, it certainty appears that way. That being said, they have to take responsibility and set procedures to make it impossible for this to happen in the future.


Impossible? Not possible. As long as there are humans that can make mistakes and mechanical/electrical/electronic systems that can fail, there will be accidents like this. Thye MAY be reduced but will never be "impossible to happen".


----------



## KmH

anumberone said:


> Sad day for the victims. It was a Bad day for Railroading. Amtrak is probably not at fault, it certainty appears that way. That being said, they have to take responsibility and set procedures to make it impossible for this to happen in the future.


What's impossible is to insure total and complete safety.

Which "they" have to take responsibility? CSX? Amtrak? FRA? Congress?

Procedures *were* in place to prevent this from happening. Those procedures were *not* followed. The switch was *not* reset after the freight train used it to get off the mainline, and a derail was *not* set on the siding.

It was a CSX freight that last used the switch, CSX trackage & dispatch.

Outside the NEC Amtrak has to rely on CSX, and the other host railroads Amtrak uses, doing their jobs.


----------



## KmH

Devil's Advocate said:


> Investigative reporting generally takes weeks if not months of effort to complete. This is _not_ investigative reporting. This is sensationalistic tabloid journalism. Journalists have always struggled with the moral and ethical weight of their positions, but back in the 1980's the news staff of major media companies were moved under their entertainment divisions. Instead of being judged on their accuracy and relevance reporters were now judged on how many eyeballs they could command through whatever means were available. Ever since then then the goal and obligation of informing a diverse audience in an objective fashion has slowly been abandoned and replaced with targeted emotion based reporting.


The short version is - Making money, far and away, takes precedence over accurate reporting.


----------



## PerRock

KmH said:


> Outside the NEC Amtrak has to rely on CSX, and the other host railroads Amtrak uses, doing their jobs.



..... And Michigan


----------



## Seaboard92

The question I hope gets answered is. Due to the cuts made by E Hunter Harrison in staffing, and operations do you think that could have contributed to this disaster.


----------



## jis

The diversion routing for 91 apparently is: (southbound) S-Line Selma-Hamlet, Andrews Sub Hamlet-Dillon, A-Line south

and vice versa for 92 northbound


----------



## neroden

Devil's Advocate said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called indemnity agreements are against public poliicy, as the judge ruled in the Chase, Maryland case. Hopefully Anderson will make a very clear case in the media for changing the law which allows CSX to get away scot-free for criminal negligence. It seems like he's ready to take a pretty hard line...
> 
> 
> 
> The more Amtrak pushes to change how the indemnity agreements are handled the more of a lobbying target they paint on their back. If a large freight railroad doesn't like how liability disputes will be handled in the future they can simply overcharge Amtrak to prevent them from operating on their network at the completion of the current contract. Amtrak can fight this decision in court but any of the class one railroads can simply slow walk the court case until Amtrak has been bled dry.
Click to expand...

Thinking outside the box...

Amtrak can file with the STB and seize the railroad from CSX by eminent domain. There's even precedent.

They'd need a financing partner... but CSX has been an LBO target for a while now. Find one.

CSX has essentially no clout right now, and is in total disarray. The freight class Is on the whole overestimate their lobbying power; while they can fool courts, their Congressional influence is at a low ebb right now.

CSX's position that it should not be liable for punitive damages for gross negligence is actually quite likely *unconstitutional*; laws have been declared invalid for less. I doubt they will want to push their luck if Amtrak calls for them to take responsibility for gross negligence (which really shouldn't be happening anyway), because the PR disaster from saying "We want to commit gross negligence" is much more expensive than the cost of paying off a couple of crashes. They only got away with it in the past under cover of darkness.


----------



## VentureForth

KmH said:


> The switch was *not* reset after the freight train used it to get off the mainline, and a derail was *not* set on the siding.
> 
> It was a CSX freight that last used the switch, CSX trackage & dispatch.


I submit a rewording of this point. The freight train was parked before the siding was padlocked unless it was padlocked before the train was moved, which is probably a stretch. I assume it would not be padlocked in the spur setting. That would then require a positive return to the main THEN padlocked. Looks like someone just locked the switch after the move without setting it to the main. May not be a whole lot different than what you said, but it *was* presumably set, incorrectly, and that could be a meaningful difference.



Seaboard92 said:


> The question I hope gets answered is. Due to the cuts made by E Hunter Harrison in staffing, and operations do you think that could have contributed to this disaster.


I have an acquaintance that worked for CSX who recently retired. He was talking about some of the HUGE Harrison cuts. Not by like one person in each gang or department, but cutting some groups by 50-60% or more. Living close to the A-Line, I can't tell you how many more flat spots I hear from railcars passing by. Harrison may have put bubblegum on the cash leak, but he broke the dam. I don't know anything about his successor after he died, but presumably didn't do much to change things. Happy with the stock prices, I guess.


----------



## KmH

PerRock said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Outside the NEC Amtrak has to rely on CSX, and the other host railroads Amtrak uses, doing their jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..... And Michigan
Click to expand...

It's my understanding Amtrak doesn't own very much track in Michigan - just under 100 miles - Porter, IN to Kalamazoo, MI.


----------



## jis

VentureForth said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> 
> The switch was *not* reset after the freight train used it to get off the mainline, and a derail was *not* set on the siding.
> 
> It was a CSX freight that last used the switch, CSX trackage & dispatch.
> 
> 
> 
> I submit a rewording of this point. The freight train was parked before the siding was padlocked unless it was padlocked before the train was moved, which is probably a stretch. I assume it would not be padlocked in the spur setting. That would then require a positive return to the main THEN padlocked. Looks like someone just locked the switch after the move without setting it to the main. May not be a whole lot different than what you said, but it *was* presumably set, incorrectly, and that could be a meaningful difference.
Click to expand...

Switches have to be locked in position before anything is moved over them. It was padlocked in the siding position before the freight was moved over it. Or at least that is what the NTSB guy said in the press conference, and I suspect he might know what he was talking about. He explained the entire sequence that would be followed if proper procedure was followed.


----------



## PerRock

KmH said:


> PerRock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KmH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Outside the NEC Amtrak has to rely on CSX, and the other host railroads Amtrak uses, doing their jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..... And Michigan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's my understanding Amtrak doesn't own very much track in Michigan - just under 100 miles - Porter, IN to Kalamazoo, MI.
Click to expand...

MDOT owns most of the rest of the line, to Ypsilanti or so. Amtrak controls & dispatches MDOT's section.

peter


----------



## jis

Amtrak also controls, maintains and dispatches Poughkeepsie to Hoffman's portion of the NEC, which is leased from the owner CSX for an extended period of time. Also Chicago Union Station I believe.


----------



## MattW

Do all switches have to be locked? Or just mainline switches? For switching around a yard or industry tracks, it seems inefficient to have to unlock, throw, lock every switch every time.


----------



## jis

MattW said:


> Do all switches have to be locked? Or just mainline switches? For switching around a yard or industry tracks, it seems inefficient to have to unlock, throw, lock every switch every time.


I dunno. I am just parroting what was said.

That particular switch also has an electric lock which can be applied only in the main line position apparently and is visible at the dispatch center. but signal suspension apparently had suspended that functionality. The switch can be locked in both positions using the padlock, which is on the lever stand.


----------



## xyzzy

The short answer to your question is, it depends. The long answer is, railroading is a complex business and you've got to know what you're doing and what the various rules are.

In yards, trains operate at what's traditionally called "yard speed" which means being able to stop short of any obstruction, switch not set, etc and aside from that being able to stop in half the range of vision. There should never be a collision in a yard because even two engines headed directly toward each other should be able to stop.

On a CTC-equipped line, there is generally a limit of 20 mph at any switch that is not electrically locked. Again, this is to give the engineer a chance to stop short. Otherwise the assumption is that all switches in CTC territory are electrically locked; they require "time" to run before they can be thrown manually, and the time allows for a train in the block to clear the block. Of course, throwing the switch also sets signals to red.

Some sidings in CTC territory have track circuits both others don't, in which case they're generally limited to restricted speed like 15 mph max but in any case slow enough to stop short of any switch unexpectedly thrown from the siding.

In dark territory there is a protocol for unlocking and throwing switches manually. When signals do exist but are suspended as in this case, the dark territory protocol is supposed to be used. And apparently it was not.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

It's been a few years, but when I was trained and worked as a Conductor on a small shortline, the standard procedure during switching / yard moves, was to insert the latch of the lock into the switch, but not actually lock the lock so that we could change the position of the switch without getting our keys back out. After we were finished with the switch, we would fully lock.

I wouldn't be surprised if the rules would prohibit this now... FRA has gotten much more strict over the years, even with shortlines.



MattW said:


> Do all switches have to be locked? Or just mainline switches? For switching around a yard or industry tracks, it seems inefficient to have to unlock, throw, lock every switch every time.


----------



## MattW

I appreciate the info xyzzy, very enlightening! One more semi-related question on this topic, would a train on the main throwing the switch to get into the siding or spur need to run time? The train is already in the block so I wouldn't think so since the signals should already be down in that block.


----------



## VentureForth

jis said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KmH said:
> 
> 
> 
> The switch was *not* reset after the freight train used it to get off the mainline, and a derail was *not* set on the siding.
> 
> It was a CSX freight that last used the switch, CSX trackage & dispatch.
> 
> 
> 
> I submit a rewording of this point. The freight train was parked before the siding was padlocked unless it was padlocked before the train was moved, which is probably a stretch. I assume it would not be padlocked in the spur setting. That would then require a positive return to the main THEN padlocked. Looks like someone just locked the switch after the move without setting it to the main. May not be a whole lot different than what you said, but it *was* presumably set, incorrectly, and that could be a meaningful difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Switches have to be locked in position before anything is moved over them. It was padlocked in the siding position before the freight was moved over it. Or at least that is what the NTSB guy said in the press conference, and I suspect he might know what he was talking about. He explained the entire sequence that would be followed if proper procedure was followed.
Click to expand...

So it's more likely that it was padlocked into place prior to the parking of the autorack train, and no action at all was taken before clearing the warrant as opposed to someone padlocking it after the move in the wrong position, thinking it was correct? I would presume that the NTSB Chairman also knows what he's talking about - but they hadn't interviewed the crew yet (unless we're talking about a new presser I haven't seen yet).


----------



## Thirdrail7

MattW said:


> I appreciate the info xyzzy, very enlightening! One more semi-related question on this topic, would a train on the main throwing the switch to get into the siding or spur need to run time? The train is already in the block so I wouldn't think so since the signals should already be down in that block.


Not during a signal suspension. Additionally, the physical padlock is to prevent tampering.


----------



## jis

Typically NTSB will not disclose details of what they heard in interviews until all interviews are completed and analyzed, as stated by Mr. Sumwalt.

It is really speculation at present on when the lock was exactly put in place until we hear the specifics from the NTSB sometime in the future.

They had actually completed the interview of the CSX personnel before the presser yesterday, but he said he would not discuss any details since either he did not know or it would be inappropriate.


----------



## VentureForth

jis said:


> Typically NTSB will not disclose details of what they heard in interviews until all interviews are completed and analyzed, as stated by Mr. Sumwalt.
> 
> It is really speculation at present on when the lock was exactly put in place until we hear the specifics from the NTSB sometime in the future.
> 
> They had actually completed the interview of the CSX personnel before the presser yesterday, but he said he would not discuss any details since either he did not know or it would be inappropriate.


Something else I just thought about when watching the second presser and reviewing the first one was that there was very little discussion about the switch from the yard to the main line. Obviously that wasn't the cause of the accident, but I wonder if clearing that switch may have been either misinterpreted by the dispatcher is clearing the main line and or after resetting the yard switch to the main they just forgot completely about the siding switch.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk


----------



## jis

I understand if the CSX folks actually bothered to follow their own procedures regarding documentation of switch position state with time of each change recorded in SPAFs (Switch Position Awareness Form) and reporting those with acknowledgement readout to the Dispatcher, then all of exactly what happened at what time is a matter of record that NTSB would have access to, and we will know sooner or later. if not, well, someone will have hell to pay for. As I understand it the SPAFs are for each individual switch, thus more or less eliminating switch identity based confusions - if the procedures are followed that is.

Until that information becomes available, it is somewhat pointless to come up with dozens of different possibilities.


----------



## Hytec

Seaboard92 said:


> The question I hope gets answered is. Due to the cuts made by E Hunter Harrison in staffing, and operations do you think that could have contributed to this disaster.


Approximately one-half of the Jacksonville dispatcher staff had been told that they would be relocated last year well before Hunter Harrison died. Those that were to relocate then made arrangements to move, including selling their homes in Jacksonville and relocating their families. Then Hunter Harrison died and everything was put on hold. To this day those dispatchers that were to relocate are currently living in motels and other temporary facilities and dispatching in Jacksonville, while their families are at the new location(s). CSX dispatcher morale is less than optimum to say the least.


----------



## Lonestar648

The NTSB very carefully and very methodically reviews every bit of information which unfortunately requires an enormous amount of time. All of us are patiently or impatient;y waiting for the facts to become public, but still want to figure out what really happened. Based on available information, it seems like CSX did not follow procedures after parking the autorack. With the warrant having been released, the dispatcher clearing thought the switch was properly set when giving Amtrak their warrant. This brings the focus to the few CSX employees working with that switch, even though some "uneducated" media spout off that the Amtrak engineer drove onto the wrong track, comparing driving onto the wrong exit on an interstate. Will be glad when the NTSB can give us more details.


----------



## AlanB

jis said:


> Also Chicago Union Station I believe.


Correct, Amtrak owns from just east of the Lumber Street Bridge through to Union Station, and AFAIk out the other side (north) of Union Station up to the diamonds where the tracks cross the leads coming out of Olgilvie Station. They also own a small bit of track running west, basically the wye they use to turn trains up until the start of BNSF territory. The dispatch office for all of this, as well as the Michigan line sits below the tower in the Lumber Street Yard.

.


----------



## chakk

NTL1991 said:


> If this territory was operating under signal suspension, would CSX rules require trains to approach facing-point switches prepared to stop?


Short answer: no. And the reasons are described in detail by many railroad employees over on the BBS trainorders dot com. The speed limit on this section of track under suspended signal conditions is 59 mph for passenger trains, 49 mph for freight trains. Amtrak was moving at a few mph below speed limit.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Thirdrail7

I really wonder how this statement



Seaboard92 said:


> Due to the cuts made by E Hunter Harrison in staffing, and operations do you think that could have contributed to this disaster.


and this procedure



jis said:


> I understand if the CSX folks actually bothered to follow their own procedures regarding documentation of switch position state with time of each change recorded in SPAFs (Switch Position Awareness Form) and reporting those with acknowledgement readout to the Dispatcher, then all of exactly what happened at what time is a matter of record that NTSB would have access to, and we will know sooner or later. if not, well, someone will have hell to pay for. As I understand it the SPAFs are for each individual switch, thus more or less eliminating switch identity based confusions - if the procedures are followed that is.


interact. Leaving the accident aside, the workforce has been cut down, people have been reassigned and are under the gun to do more with less. They want performance and movement. This isn't a CSX or Amtrak problem. It is labor problem.

Without addressing this incident, and I'm not making excuses but I've always had a problem with part of the switch awareness form as I think it can lead to unnecessary pressure, particularly being rushed. Here is the part i never liked (which is admittedly my problem, not the railroads):

*608.9 When hand-operated switches are used in Track Warrant Control non-signal territory (TWC-D), the*

*train dispatcher must use the train dispatcher radio to confirm:*

*1. Location of the switch(es) operated,*

*2. Switch(es) were restored and locked in normal position,*

*3. Time switch(es) were initially reversed,*

*4. Time switch(es) were restored and locked in normal position,*

*5. Name of the employee who operated the switch(es), and*

*6. The Switch Position Awareness Form (SPAF) was initialed by both the conductor and*

*locomotive operator.*

Now, I just want you to consider this scenario. You're the conductor and you're shoving a draft of 75 cars into a siding. As such, you are riding the point of the movement. You make an agreement with your engineer to stop and line the switch for the main and report clear. He stops and tells you he did this...but you're 75 cars away and the dispatcher wants the track. Do you them to standby while you walk up 75 cars (which would take a considerable amount of time) to verify that your crew member actually threw the switch before initialing the Awareness form or trust them?

Conversely, you're the engineer and you stop at a hand thrown switch. You drop your conductor off and he lines the movement. You now pull a 9000 ft freight train off the main. The conductor stops you, reports the switch locked and lined for the main and report clear. You both begin working towards each other while you secure the train. The conductor hands you the awareness form and wants you to initial it. Meanwhile the dispatcher wants the main. Again, I know we all speak of safety and trust but verify. However, how patient will everyone be when you delay a hotshot because it took 40 minutes for you to walk a mile and half to verify what was allegedly done?

I'm not a fan of signing something I didn't personally witness but in the current rush rush environment, I really wonder if pressure is put on the crews.


----------



## Seaboard92

Thirdrail7 said:


> I really wonder how this statement
> 
> 
> 
> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the cuts made by E Hunter Harrison in staffing, and operations do you think that could have contributed to this disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> and this procedure
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand if the CSX folks actually bothered to follow their own procedures regarding documentation of switch position state with time of each change recorded in SPAFs (Switch Position Awareness Form) and reporting those with acknowledgement readout to the Dispatcher, then all of exactly what happened at what time is a matter of record that NTSB would have access to, and we will know sooner or later. if not, well, someone will have hell to pay for. As I understand it the SPAFs are for each individual switch, thus more or less eliminating switch identity based confusions - if the procedures are followed that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> interact. Leaving the accident aside, the workforce has been cut down, people have been reassigned and are under the gun to do more with less. They want performance and movement. This isn't a CSX or Amtrak problem. It is labor problem.
> 
> Without addressing this incident, and I'm not making excuses but I've always had a problem with part of the switch awareness form as I think it can lead to unnecessary pressure, particularly being rushed. Here is the part i never liked (which is admittedly my problem, not the railroads):
> 
> *608.9 When hand-operated switches are used in Track Warrant Control non-signal territory (TWC-D), the*
> 
> *train dispatcher must use the train dispatcher radio to confirm:*
> 
> *1. Location of the switch(es) operated,*
> 
> *2. Switch(es) were restored and locked in normal position,*
> 
> *3. Time switch(es) were initially reversed,*
> 
> *4. Time switch(es) were restored and locked in normal position,*
> 
> *5. Name of the employee who operated the switch(es), and*
> 
> *6. The Switch Position Awareness Form (SPAF) was initialed by both the conductor and*
> 
> *locomotive operator.*
> 
> Now, I just want you to consider this scenario. You're the conductor and you're shoving a draft of 75 cars into a siding. As such, you are riding the point of the movement. You make an agreement with your engineer to stop and line the switch for the main and report clear. He stops and tells you he did this...but you're 75 cars away and the dispatcher wants the track. Do you them to standby while you walk up 75 cars (which would take a considerable amount of time) to verify that your crew member actually threw the switch before initialing the Awareness form or trust them?
> 
> Conversely, you're the engineer and you stop at a hand thrown switch. You drop your conductor off and he lines the movement. You now pull a 9000 ft freight train off the main. The conductor stops you, reports the switch locked and lined for the main and report clear. You both begin working towards each other while you secure the train. The conductor hands you the awareness form and wants you to initial it. Meanwhile the dispatcher wants the main. Again, I know we all speak of safety and trust but verify. However, how patient will everyone be when you delay a hotshot because it took 40 minutes for you to walk a mile and half to verify what was allegedly done?
> 
> I'm not a fan of signing something I didn't personally witness but in the current rush rush environment, I really wonder if pressure is put on the crews.
Click to expand...

That's also a question I want to ask. I'm going to shoot you a PM in a second.


----------



## railiner

"Cutting corner's", to expedite, to get the job done, is fine.....until you get caught.....

Then it's back to "Safety First".....for a while.....(sigh)


----------



## amtrakpass

it seems to me an unusual management decision by CSX to run a bunch of trains under track authority during a signal cutover instead of just having a couple hour outtage.

All the forms in the world would not prevent a mistake. In actuallity too many forms and too much talking on the radio would confuse things. It is best to keep it simple, consise and clear with no unecessary info.

That being said what happened was a tragic mistake, especially the loss of life.

Shove moves with hand throw switches happen thousands of times a day in the rail yards and main lines around the U.S. everyday without incident. What is unusual about this situation is doing it under signal suspension. Dark Territory procedures are easy and common sense for crews who operate with them consistently but less so if it is a rare occurance like a signal suspension.

The railroad probably just could have waited until the signals were back up to resume operations.


----------



## daybeers

Thirdrail7 said:


> Now, I just want you to consider this scenario. You're the conductor and you're shoving a draft of 75 cars into a siding. As such, you are riding the point of the movement. You make an agreement with your engineer to stop and line the switch for the main and report clear. He stops and tells you he did this...but you're 75 cars away and the dispatcher wants the track. Do you them to standby while you walk up 75 cars (which would take a considerable amount of time) to verify that your crew member actually threw the switch before initialing the Awareness form or trust them?
> 
> Conversely, you're the engineer and you stop at a hand thrown switch. You drop your conductor off and he lines the movement. You now pull a 9000 ft freight train off the main. The conductor stops you, reports the switch locked and lined for the main and report clear. You both begin working towards each other while you secure the train. The conductor hands you the awareness form and wants you to initial it. Meanwhile the dispatcher wants the main. Again, I know we all speak of safety and trust but verify. However, how patient will everyone be when you delay a hotshot because it took 40 minutes for you to walk a mile and half to verify what was allegedly done?
> 
> I'm not a fan of signing something I didn't personally witness but in the current rush rush environment, I really wonder if pressure is put on the crews.


Very interesting points, Thirdrail.


----------



## daybeers

This is a quote from someone in another forum, which I personally agree with. In case it isn't clear, someone said the inside quote and the one below it is the response.



> I am starting to wonder if the overall picture points to a weak regulatory framework and that the real reform in addition to completing PTC implementation will be enabling improved safety education and enforcement from the FRA.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the FRA should spend more time and resources on safety education and enforcement and less time on drawing politically-unbuildable imaginary railroads across New York and Southern New England.
Click to expand...


----------



## Steve4031

Thirdrail7 said:


> I really wonder how this statement
> 
> 
> 
> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the cuts made by E Hunter Harrison in staffing, and operations do you think that could have contributed to this disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> and this procedure
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand if the CSX folks actually bothered to follow their own procedures regarding documentation of switch position state with time of each change recorded in SPAFs (Switch Position Awareness Form) and reporting those with acknowledgement readout to the Dispatcher, then all of exactly what happened at what time is a matter of record that NTSB would have access to, and we will know sooner or later. if not, well, someone will have hell to pay for. As I understand it the SPAFs are for each individual switch, thus more or less eliminating switch identity based confusions - if the procedures are followed that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> interact. Leaving the accident aside, the workforce has been cut down, people have been reassigned and are under the gun to do more with less. They want performance and movement. This isn't a CSX or Amtrak problem. It is labor problem.
> 
> Without addressing this incident, and I'm not making excuses but I've always had a problem with part of the switch awareness form as I think it can lead to unnecessary pressure, particularly being rushed. Here is the part i never liked (which is admittedly my problem, not the railroads):
> 
> *608.9 When hand-operated switches are used in Track Warrant Control non-signal territory (TWC-D), the*
> 
> *train dispatcher must use the train dispatcher radio to confirm:*
> 
> *1. Location of the switch(es) operated,*
> 
> *2. Switch(es) were restored and locked in normal position,*
> 
> *3. Time switch(es) were initially reversed,*
> 
> *4. Time switch(es) were restored and locked in normal position,*
> 
> *5. Name of the employee who operated the switch(es), and*
> 
> *6. The Switch Position Awareness Form (SPAF) was initialed by both the conductor and*
> 
> *locomotive operator.*
> 
> Now, I just want you to consider this scenario. You're the conductor and you're shoving a draft of 75 cars into a siding. As such, you are riding the point of the movement. You make an agreement with your engineer to stop and line the switch for the main and report clear. He stops and tells you he did this...but you're 75 cars away and the dispatcher wants the track. Do you them to standby while you walk up 75 cars (which would take a considerable amount of time) to verify that your crew member actually threw the switch before initialing the Awareness form or trust them?
> 
> Conversely, you're the engineer and you stop at a hand thrown switch. You drop your conductor off and he lines the movement. You now pull a 9000 ft freight train off the main. The conductor stops you, reports the switch locked and lined for the main and report clear. You both begin working towards each other while you secure the train. The conductor hands you the awareness form and wants you to initial it. Meanwhile the dispatcher wants the main. Again, I know we all speak of safety and trust but verify. However, how patient will everyone be when you delay a hotshot because it took 40 minutes for you to walk a mile and half to verify what was allegedly done?
> 
> I'm not a fan of signing something I didn't personally witness but in the current rush rush environment, I really wonder if pressure is put on the crews.
Click to expand...

These scenarios describe the do more with less demands placed on employees in many industries in this country. If this trend isn't reversed more accidents will happen.

Stay safe out there.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## DSS&A

AlanB said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also Chicago Union Station I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, Amtrak owns from just east of the Lumber Street Bridge through to Union Station, and AFAIk out the other side (north) of Union Station up to the diamonds where the tracks cross the leads coming out of Olgilvie Station. They also own a small bit of track running west, basically the wye they use to turn trains up until the start of BNSF territory. The dispatch office for all of this, as well as the Michigan line sits below the tower in the Lumber Street Yard.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

On the north end of Chicago Union Station, Amtrak owns only north to Clinton Street which is about 50 feet west of the railroad bridge that carries the Union Pacific (ex C&NW) tracks over the tracks running out the north end of Union Station. Metra owns the tracks west of Clinton Street to (and beyond) the diamonds at Tower A-2 where the UP tracks from Olgilvie cross the tracks going to Union Station.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

amtrakpass said:


> ....
> 
> Shove moves with hand throw switches happen thousands of times a day in the rail yards and main lines around the U.S. everyday without incident. What is unusual about this situation is doing it under signal suspension. Dark Territory procedures are easy and common sense for crews who operate with them consistently but less so if it is a rare occurance like a signal suspension.
> 
> ....


Bing we have a winner. Easy to do if done everyday, not so easy if you are recalling stuff from school 5-10 years later.


----------



## jis

Steve4031 said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really wonder how this statement
> 
> 
> 
> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the cuts made by E Hunter Harrison in staffing, and operations do you think that could have contributed to this disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> and this procedure
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand if the CSX folks actually bothered to follow their own procedures regarding documentation of switch position state with time of each change recorded in SPAFs (Switch Position Awareness Form) and reporting those with acknowledgement readout to the Dispatcher, then all of exactly what happened at what time is a matter of record that NTSB would have access to, and we will know sooner or later. if not, well, someone will have hell to pay for. As I understand it the SPAFs are for each individual switch, thus more or less eliminating switch identity based confusions - if the procedures are followed that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> interact. Leaving the accident aside, the workforce has been cut down, people have been reassigned and are under the gun to do more with less. They want performance and movement. This isn't a CSX or Amtrak problem. It is labor problem.
> 
> Without addressing this incident, and I'm not making excuses but I've always had a problem with part of the switch awareness form as I think it can lead to unnecessary pressure, particularly being rushed. Here is the part i never liked (which is admittedly my problem, not the railroads):
> 
> *608.9 When hand-operated switches are used in Track Warrant Control non-signal territory (TWC-D), the*
> 
> *train dispatcher must use the train dispatcher radio to confirm:*
> 
> *1. Location of the switch(es) operated,*
> 
> *2. Switch(es) were restored and locked in normal position,*
> 
> *3. Time switch(es) were initially reversed,*
> 
> *4. Time switch(es) were restored and locked in normal position,*
> 
> *5. Name of the employee who operated the switch(es), and*
> 
> *6. The Switch Position Awareness Form (SPAF) was initialed by both the conductor and*
> 
> *locomotive operator.*
> 
> Now, I just want you to consider this scenario. You're the conductor and you're shoving a draft of 75 cars into a siding. As such, you are riding the point of the movement. You make an agreement with your engineer to stop and line the switch for the main and report clear. He stops and tells you he did this...but you're 75 cars away and the dispatcher wants the track. Do you them to standby while you walk up 75 cars (which would take a considerable amount of time) to verify that your crew member actually threw the switch before initialing the Awareness form or trust them?
> 
> Conversely, you're the engineer and you stop at a hand thrown switch. You drop your conductor off and he lines the movement. You now pull a 9000 ft freight train off the main. The conductor stops you, reports the switch locked and lined for the main and report clear. You both begin working towards each other while you secure the train. The conductor hands you the awareness form and wants you to initial it. Meanwhile the dispatcher wants the main. Again, I know we all speak of safety and trust but verify. However, how patient will everyone be when you delay a hotshot because it took 40 minutes for you to walk a mile and half to verify what was allegedly done?
> 
> I'm not a fan of signing something I didn't personally witness but in the current rush rush environment, I really wonder if pressure is put on the crews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These scenarios describe the do more with less demands placed on employees in many industries in this country. If this trend isn't reversed more accidents will happen.
> 
> Stay safe out there.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...

One of the the things we learned in a random course on Control Systems that I took many eons ago is that in general more efficient systems are also more fragile systems and tend to fail to recover from exceptional conditions more often. Special exception paths can be designed to work around this problem for more common exceptions. but as you add more of these the system becomes more inefficient as it becomes more resilient. Interesting tension there that is well understood at least at a technical level.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

DSS&A said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also Chicago Union Station I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, Amtrak owns from just east of the Lumber Street Bridge through to Union Station, and AFAIk out the other side (north) of Union Station up to the diamonds where the tracks cross the leads coming out of Olgilvie Station. They also own a small bit of track running west, basically the wye they use to turn trains up until the start of BNSF territory. The dispatch office for all of this, as well as the Michigan line sits below the tower in the Lumber Street Yard.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the north end of Chicago Union Station, Amtrak owns only north to Clinton Street which is about 50 feet west of the railroad bridge that carries the Union Pacific (ex C&NW) tracks over the tracks running out the north end of Union Station. Metra owns the tracks west of Clinton Street to (and beyond) the diamonds at Tower A-2 where the UP tracks from Olgilvie cross the tracks going to Union Station.
Click to expand...

Also, the dispatch office is actually at CUS, in the same building as the Great Hall (but not accessible from inside the Great Hall).


----------



## AlanB

Hotblack Desiato said:


> [Also, the dispatch office is actually at CUS, in the same building as the Great Hall (but not accessible from inside the Great Hall).


Then it's been moved is the last few years, because I was in the office a few years ago when our Gathering group got a yard & tower tour.


----------



## Bob Dylan

AlanB said:


> Hotblack Desiato said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Also, the dispatch office is actually at CUS, in the same building as the Great Hall (but not accessible from inside the Great Hall).
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's been moved is the last few years, because I was in the office a few years ago when our Gathering group got a yard & tower tour.
Click to expand...

Wow, a re-appearance by Alan! Glad to know you're still kicking!


----------



## railiner

AlanB said:


> Hotblack Desiato said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Also, the dispatch office is actually at CUS, in the same building as the Great Hall (but not accessible from inside the Great Hall).
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's been moved is the last few years, because I was in the office a few years ago when our Gathering group got a yard & tower tour.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall from 'eons' ago, that there was a train order office known as 'GB' in CUS...I think I once obtained an employee timetable there...not sure...is that still there?

Besides NEC, Chicago, and the Michigan line, doesn't Amtrak also own or control some trackage in NOL and LAX area's?


----------



## Trogdor

AlanB said:


> Hotblack Desiato said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Also, the dispatch office is actually at CUS, in the same building as the Great Hall (but not accessible from inside the Great Hall).
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's been moved is the last few years, because I was in the office a few years ago when our Gathering group got a yard & tower tour.
Click to expand...

I want to say its been since 2012, maybe earlier, that theyve been at CUS, though my understanding is that the place near the yard can still serve as backup.

They do also dispatch NOUPT from there. I dont know if Amtrak still technicallly owns the LA Union Station trackage, but that is dispatched by Metrolink.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled topic.


----------



## VentureForth

AlanB said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also Chicago Union Station I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, Amtrak owns from just east of the Lumber Street Bridge through to Union Station, and AFAIk out the other side (north) of Union Station up to the diamonds where the tracks cross the leads coming out of Olgilvie Station. They also own a small bit of track running west, basically the wye they use to turn trains up until the start of BNSF territory. The dispatch office for all of this, as well as the Michigan line sits below the tower in the Lumber Street Yard.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Dadgum - AlanB made a post and I almost didn't notice he was here. Welcome back, sir (even if you've been posting a long time and I haven't noticed)!


----------



## The Chief

AlanB said:


> Hotblack Desiato said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Also, the dispatch office is actually at CUS, in the same building as the Great Hall (but not accessible from inside the Great Hall).
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's been moved is the last few years, because I was in the office a few years ago when our Gathering group got a yard & tower tour.
Click to expand...

Nice to see you back Alan! All the best!


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Is there anything new on how long the detour will last? I am booked on 92 a week from tonight and am curious what route the train will take.


----------



## Grandpa D

If I remember correctly, at the first press conference the NTSB person said they'd probably be done with their investigation by this coming weekend. After that CSX should be able to clean up the site in a couple days. But if I were you I'd keep checking. I don't know how much track they have to repair and that could take time.


----------



## west point

deliveries to the auto sorting center will have been stacked up all over CSX


----------



## Seaboard92

west point said:


> deliveries to the auto sorting center will have been stacked up all over CSX


If that isn't the truth. From talking with friends at ops at CSX I can tell you they aren't happy about it either.


----------



## Thirdrail7

91(10) and 92(10) are supposed to operate the normal route.


----------



## neroden

AlanB said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also Chicago Union Station I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, Amtrak owns from just east of the Lumber Street Bridge through to Union Station, and AFAIk out the other side (north) of Union Station up to the diamonds where the tracks cross the leads coming out of Olgilvie Station. They also own a small bit of track running west, basically the wye they use to turn trains up until the start of BNSF territory. The dispatch office for all of this, as well as the Michigan line sits below the tower in the Lumber Street Yard.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Interesting. I am not sure where the north-end ownership boundary between Amtrak and Metra is, or where the dispatching boundary is. (These are often different, for operational convenience reasons). Thanks to DSS&A for specifying that the ownership boundary is at Clinton Street.

The dispatching office has indeed been relocated into Chicago Union Station, in a hidden location somewhere inside the building with the Great Hall. I visited it last year and it was fascinating. In addition to the immediate vicinity of CUS, and the portions of the Michigan Line owned by Amtrak and the state (this excludes segments on NS, on CN in Battle Creek, on Conrail east of Dearborn, and on CN out to Pontiac), they do also dispatch Amtrak's New Orleans trackage.


----------



## daybeers

Thirdrail7 said:


> 91(10) and 92(10) are supposed to operate the normal route.


It'll be interesting to see how they hold up to the CSX traffic.


----------



## Bierboy

Seaboard92 said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> deliveries to the auto sorting center will have been stacked up all over CSX
> 
> 
> 
> If that isn't the truth. From talking with friends at ops at CSX I can tell you they aren't happy about it either.
Click to expand...

Well, boo frickin hoo...lives were lost because of a CSX screwup. Let them wait...


----------



## xyzzy

Thirdrail7 said:


> 91(10) and 92(10) are supposed to operate the normal route.


They did indeed.


----------



## tricia

AP story posted today, "Even When Not at Fault, Amtrak Can Bear Cost of Accidents":

https://apnews.com/79da4491b60746b6a7edeffa4492f31b/Even-when-not-at-fault,-Amtrak-can-bear-cost-of-accidents


----------



## JRR

It’s a good article. It points out that willful, wanton and grossly negligent acts are not covered by the agreement.

However, when one has an ongoing relationship, it’s not necessarily an easy judgment to make as one has to consider the effect on the long term relationship.

One would hope that behind the scene negotiations could resolve the matter without a suit being necessary.

In this case, not only does the ongoing relation with CSX need to be considered, but also how a lawsuit against CSX might affect relationships with other hosts.

Business judgments in cases like these need to be wisely and carefully made.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## dlagrua

I sure hope that this Associated Press article is not true as it implies that the private railroads bear no responsibility for any and all accidents involving Amtrak on their rails.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/11/in-secret-deal-tax-backed-amtrak-pays-for-private-railroads-screwups-report.html

If this truly is the case then CSX in the recent SC accident bears no fault and no responsibility for the accident. Amtrak pays the bill. If true this is alarming. What do our informed forum members know about this??


----------



## jis

This is nothing new. It has been true for a long long time. There may be some exceptions carved out by courts in specific cases. But the general regulation is indeed as described in the article. Of course, damages payment is also capped by the same law.


----------



## tricia

Link to the original AP article is posted in the thread about recent collision with CSX freight train.

MODERATOR NOTE: the new thread was merged into the existing thread.


----------



## GaSteve

Amtrak will pay, but there's nothing to say that Amtrak can't sue CSX in return.


----------



## dlagrua

GaSteve said:


> Amtrak will pay, but there's nothing to say that Amtrak can't sue CSX in return.


I read the situation as the private railroads having a no fault agreement with Amtrak. If that is the case then Amtrak cannot sue for negligence. I am not a lawyer and have never read the agreement but if I read the news article correctly, the private railroads have zero liability and its all on Amtrak.


----------



## JRR

See my prior comments re exceptions to contractual waiver and business considerations.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## neroden

This case sure looks like gross negligence, recklessness, and wanton misconduct -- something which CSX has developed an unfortunate record of, if you remember the Congressional investigations over failure to maintain the tracks on the Empire Corridor about a decade ago.

At some point Amtrak has to stop covering for grossly negligent behavior by CSX. Specifically CSX. If I were Anderson, I'd tell the other railroad execs that this is nothing to do with them, and is entirely about CSX not behaving like a railroad.

The situation at CSX is actually a complete disaster in every way; freight shippers are turning to trucks because of the mismanagement. It's unfortunate that we don't really have a functioning federal government right now, because it's looking to me like it's going to end up requiring government intervention to prevent the complete collapse of freight and passenger service on CSX lines. Short of federal intervention, it would seem wise for states to grab the lines before service fails completely. (Not that I expect the state of SC to do so.)


----------



## Thirdrail7

If I understand anything about the law (and I really don't,) I'd think Amtrak would have a hard time proving gross negligence when someone left a switch open. It is one thing they were told the switch was open and CSX said "Who cares," or failed to maintain the switch and it opened on its own.

It will be hard to prove human error is gross negligence on CSX part....unless you prove the cutbacks caused the loss of the switch tenders, which caused a dangerous condition. However, CSX would just toss it back to the crew.

This is the ONE thing keep Amtrak in business: Liability. Most private companies don't want much part of the no fault liability requirements the hosts want to impose in exchange for access to their territory.


----------



## JRR

You would be surprised what terms are in construction contracts and sub contracts.

The hey here is we don’t know the facts. They may or may not support a claim of gross negligence against CSX or its employees and even if the facts may support such allegations, we don’t know how strong the evidence may be or whether it would be a good business decision to pursue such an action.

Eventually, we will learn more of the facts and then maybe we can debate whether or not Amtrak did the proper thing.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Lonestar648

It may be that if Amtrak could sue the Host RR, they would not be able to get an agreement to run on that Host. If CSX was sued by Amtrak, I am sure all trains running on CSX would have difficulty with dispatching. Then when the contract came up for renewal, CSX could refuse the contract, thus ending Amtrak service over CSX which would be catastrophic to Amtrak.


----------



## xyzzy

1. Anyone can sue anyone else for just about anything. Winning a judgment at trial or an advantageous settlement from negotiation is another matter. This matter will take years to play out in the courts. Let's just wait and see.

2. After the dollars have been determined, who ultimately pays them pursuant to insurance and indemnification clauses is another wait-and-see that will take even longer to reveal.

3. What's gross negligence and what isn't is likely to be decided by a South Carolina jury, within the latitude that the law gives... assuming the case actually goes to a jury. Lawyers on both sides are often reluctant to let that happen.

4. I do agree with Lonestar648 that Amtrak is unlikely to pick an eight-figures fight with CSX. The other host railroads would take note and react defensively.


----------



## VentureForth

A couple of other thoughts that were implied in the article...

The indemnity clause only requires Amtrak to take fiduciary responsibility to their equipment, employees and passengers. In other words, they have to take full responsibility. Not clear - but not likely - that Amtrak would pay to repair the tracks and the damaged CSX equipment.

There's a slight possibility that CSX could pay out to passengers through Amtrak; the check would certainly come from Amtrak. There is a PR war brewing here - if CSX doesn't show public remorse or responsibility, it could black out their already tarnished image.


----------



## John Bredin

VentureForth said:


> The indemnity clause only requires Amtrak to take fiduciary responsibility to their equipment, employees and passengers. In other words, they have to take full responsibility. Not clear - but not likely - that Amtrak would pay to repair the tracks and the damaged CSX equipment.


I was under the impression that the very object of these clauses in Amtrak's contracts with the host railroads is that each side bears its own costs regardless of liability. Amtrak pays for its equipment, passengers, and crew, and the host pays for its tracks, equipment, freight, and crew, regardless of who was at fault. Someone will surely correct me if I am misunderstanding the arrangement.
Thus, if Amtrak through its negligence had a collision that tore up several feet of the host railroad's track, track bed, signal posts, etc, the host would absorb those costs regardless of how negligent Amtrak was. Now, as a general rule killing people is a hell of a lot more expensive than knocking over a couple of freight cars, but if my recollection is correct, this type of clause isn't quite as unconscionable or one-sided as it seems in the particular situation we're discussing.


----------



## neroden

Thirdrail7 said:


> If I understand anything about the law (and I really don't,) I'd think Amtrak would have a hard time proving gross negligence when someone left a switch open. It is one thing they were told the switch was open and CSX said "Who cares," or failed to maintain the switch and it opened on its own.


However, in this case, they *padlocked the switch in the wrong position*, and then either (a) signed the federal form stating that the switch had been restored to the right position and turned it in, or (b) the dispatcher released the track without getting the form. This is pretty gross negligence. There's a specific, federally mandated (!!!!) procedure to prevent this from happening, and as far as we can tell CSX employees didn't follow it. The rules they violated have also been in the rulebook of every railroad since the *1820s*. It's not a subtle or fine point of operation -- it's not an honest mistake.

Amtrak has essentially nothing to lose by picking a fight with CSX, which is already delaying Amtrak trains unnecessarily for whatever reason. They picked a fight with CN over less, and go figure, BNSF and UP haven't been bothered by that.

An ordinary no-fault allocation in a contract is designed for ordinary accidents -- a derailment due to not noticing track damage or not noticing mechanical damage, a signal failure due to salt water or a series of small errors, perhaps even a minor overspeed error -- not a gross violation of what is perhaps the oldest rule in the rulebook, along with a falsification of a federal form designed specifically to prevent that failure!

If we discover that a vandal with skeleton keys came in and reset the switch and re-padlocked it, then maybe CSX didn't commit gross negligence -- but that seems highly unlikely!


----------



## xyzzy

I quote from a non-copyrighted work "State of South Carolina Compendium of Law" by Reynolds and Tyler:

Gross negligence is defined as "the failure to exercise [even] slight care." It has also been defined as "the intentional, conscious failure to do something which it is incumbent upon one to do or the doing of a thing intentionally that one ought not to do." Gross negligence "is a relative term, and means the absence of care that is necessary under the circumstances."

In the end, it's whatever the jury says it is unless the jury does something that the trial judge or appeals court cannot condone.


----------



## Dakota 400

Interesting discussion about the legal ramifications for CSX and Amtrak of this accident. But, what about the two men whose lives were lost? I assume that Amtrak's insurance for these employees would have compensation for the families of these men. Any idea as to what the families might be entitled?


----------



## jmlaboda

I can't help but to feel that the CSX employee or employees who are responsible for this terrible accident should face criminal charges just as any other company's employee would due to the gross negligence that has been displayed, to a very bad degree. The cost will be great for Amtrak but to the lives lost and those affected in other ways its the least that can be done.


----------



## xyzzy

SC law: "With regard to the crime of involuntary manslaughter, criminal negligence is defined as the reckless disregard of the safety of others. A person charged with the crime of involuntary manslaughter may be convicted only upon a showing of criminal negligence as defined in this section. A person convicted of involuntary manslaughter must be imprisoned not more than five years."

Did the CSX employees in question show "reckless disregard" as the phrase is understood in the SC courts? "Recklessness is a state of mind in which the actor is aware of his or her conduct, yet consciously disregards a risk which his or her conduct is creating." A prosecutor would have to convince 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that there was reckless disregard. Did the CSX crew "consciously" disregard the procedures for the switch? That's tough to prove, it seems to me.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Conscious disregard? What a bizarre concept. Sounds like the sort of vaguely irrational terminology only a lawyer could love.


----------



## jis

Seems to me that if disregard was conscious then the manslaughter would be borderline voluntary no? Lawyers!


----------



## JRR

I suggest that we wait until the facts are determined if they ever are.

Finally, assuming the case is tried and goes to the jury, the jury will decide what the facts, based upon the admissible evidence, are as it sees them.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Devil's Advocate

JRR said:


> Finally, assuming the case is tried and goes to the jury, the* jury will decide what the facts*, based upon the admissible evidence, are as it sees them.


Juries determine _legal_ guilt or innocence. They do not and cannot determine_ actual_ innocence or guilt. It's possible we'll never know precisely what happened, but hopefully we'll learn enough to fully understand the problem. Unfortunately that's probably as far as we can take it at the moment.


----------



## JRR

Exactly, precisely!

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## xyzzy

Devil's Advocate said:


> Conscious disregard? What a bizarre concept. Sounds like the sort of vaguely irrational terminology only a lawyer could love.


Concocted example: two people are in a car, and they're in a hurry. The driver says "I'm running the next red light", and the passenger replies "Don't do that, you might kill somebody". The driver indeed runs the red light and immediately collides with another car in which someone dies. The passenger in the first car testifies at trial that the driver said he would run the red light, was given a warning, and then ran it. That's conscious disregard.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

xyzzy said:


> Devil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conscious disregard? What a bizarre concept. Sounds like the sort of vaguely irrational terminology only a lawyer could love.
> 
> 
> 
> Concocted example: two people are in a car, and they're in a hurry. The driver says "I'm running the next red light", and the passenger replies "Don't do that, you might kill somebody". The driver indeed runs the red light and immediately collides with another car in which someone dies. The passenger in the first car testifies at trial that the driver said he would run the red light, was given a warning, and then ran it. That's conscious disregard.
Click to expand...

It can not be ruled out that there was a similar situation of conscious disregard but not voluntary manslaughter in this case. For example, the CSX crew could have believed the switch was set correctly but had doubts, yet decided to leave it the way it was without checking to ensure it had in fact been switched back to the main line.


----------



## JRR

Folks, don’t get too involved n trying to classify this and trying to draw a bright line between a negligent act and a grossly negligent act. You can look at the law and then study all of the cases involving an interpretation of the law and then decide how the facts in this case stack up. When you are done doing this, you can then state your opinion as to how you think the matter should be determined.

How it actually will be determined , however, no will know until a jury or judge decides.

As the Devil’s Advocate stated that’s just the legal determination which is not necessarily what actually happened.

That’s the way the system works and is why most cases are settled.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Dakota 400

As far as I am concerned, based upon what I know, the CSX employee that failed to properly set the switch for the Silver Star to safely continue its journey, is the responsible one. Whomever that person is, he knows it. Whether he faces a court of law or not, what he did not do ought to haunt him for the rest of his life.


----------



## Dakota 400

And, I ask again, for the two Amtrak employees who lost their lives, what will their families receive in compensation. If anything.


----------



## me_little_me

Devil's Advocate said:


> JRR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, assuming the case is tried and goes to the jury, the* jury will decide what the facts*, based upon the admissible evidence, are as it sees them.
> 
> 
> 
> Juries determine _legal_ guilt or innocence. They do not and cannot determine_ actual_ innocence or guilt. It's possible we'll never know precisely what happened, but hopefully we'll learn enough to fully understand the problem. Unfortunately that's probably as far as we can take it at the moment.
Click to expand...

Actually, "Proven Guilty" or "Not Proven Guilty". Right?


----------



## JRR

me_little_me said:


> Devil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JRR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, assuming the case is tried and goes to the jury, the* jury will decide what the facts*, based upon the admissible evidence, are as it sees them.
> 
> 
> 
> Juries determine _legal_ guilt or innocence. They do not and cannot determine_ actual_ innocence or guilt. It's possible we'll never know precisely what happened, but hopefully we'll learn enough to fully understand the problem. Unfortunately that's probably as far as we can take it at the moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, "Proven Guilty" or "Not Proven Guilty". Right?
Click to expand...


Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## JRR

In a criminal proceeding, the jurors it the Judge would find the defendant “guilt or not guilty.”

In a civil trial, the standard of proof is different and the responsibility for damages is determined by the trier of fact.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Rover

Bierboy said:


> Dakota 400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As much as I respect Lester Holt on NBC Nightly News, this evening NBC's reporting on this tragedy seemed to me to point the finger of responsibility at Amtrak. I would classify this "reporting" as "incomplete news". Like others, I want to see the NTSB report to determine what happened and where responsibility lies. For me, at this time, CSX seems to be the responsible culprit.
> 
> 
> 
> And as much as I totally disagree about your opinion of Holt, I will say this -- all he does is read the crap that is put before him. Don't entirely blame him; point the finger where it belongs...
Click to expand...

Lester Holt is a teleprompter reader, and he does his job enthusiastically. And he reads what's written for him _as if he actually believes it_, as go the others.

National News in just 20 minutes or so plus commercials... That's not "News" ... That's Entertainment !!


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Does anyone know what is happening with 91 and 92 today? They are both currently stopped many hours late just north of Denmark, SC.


----------



## VentureForth

Hmmm... The Amtrak Status Map shows both to be moving with no additional information. How odd.

91 just stopped in Denmark, and 92 just arrived in Columbia.


----------



## AmtrakLKL

91's engine was disabled by an animal strike. After a spell, 92 was used to push 91 back into a siding to allow 92 to pass while waiting for a CSX rescue engine out of Columbia.


----------



## VentureForth

91 just passed through Savannah.


----------



## JRR

It is still showing Service Disruption in Jacksonville, DeLand and Winter Park. I’m in WP waiting for the 97 which is, believe or not On Time!

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jis

Are they able to drag a train that they have placed in "Service Disruption" out of that hole in their reporting system?


----------



## John Bobinyec

Yes. And they often do.

jb


----------



## VentureForth

Back to the main topic, the NTSB just released a preliminary finding:

http://wach.com/news/local/ntsb-says-cayce-amtrak-train-collision-most-likely-human-error

For those of you who are allergic to Fox:



> Therefore, the NTSB says the evidence indicates that human decision making and actions likely played key roles in the accident. Safe movement of the train through the signal suspension depended on proper switch alignment, which, in turn, relied on error-free manual work.


And their recommendation:



> NTSB also says that because of this incident, they recommend that the Federal Railroad Administration issue an Emergency Order directing railroads to require that when signal suspensions are in effect and a switch has been reported relined for a main track, the next train or locomotive to pass the location must approach that location at restricted speed.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

the NTSB recommendation to FRA .

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RSR1801.pdf


----------



## Thirdrail7

VentureForth said:


> Back to the main topic, the NTSB just released a preliminary finding:
> 
> http://wach.com/news/local/ntsb-says-cayce-amtrak-train-collision-most-likely-human-error
> 
> For those of you who are allergic to Fox:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, the NTSB says the evidence indicates that human decision making and actions likely played key roles in the accident. Safe movement of the train through the signal suspension depended on proper switch alignment, which, in turn, relied on error-free manual work.
> 
> 
> 
> And their recommendation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NTSB also says that because of this incident, they recommend that the Federal Railroad Administration issue an Emergency Order directing railroads to require that when signal suspensions are in effect and a switch has been reported relined for a main track, the next train or locomotive to pass the location must approach that location at restricted speed.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Their recommendation was kicked to the curb in the past:



> Recommendation to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA):
> 
> R-12-29
> 
> Require that until appropriate switch position warning technology is installed on main track switches (in non-signaled territory not equipped with positive train control), when a main track switch has been reported relined for a main track, the next train to pass the location approach the switch location at restricted speed. That train crew should then report to the dispatcher that the switch is correctly lined for the main track before trains are allowed to operate at maximum authorized speed.
> 
> On April 18, 2013, NTSB classified Safety Recommendation R-12-29 Closed⸺*Reconsidered because the FRA argued that implementing this recommendation, which would apply to 52% of US railroad route miles, would be too disruptive to transportation.*


I wonder if they will have more success this time. Additionally, what about territory that isn't signaled to begin with? Will the first train that pass through have to inspect every switch that was reported lined?


----------



## jis

I suspect that this NTSB recommendation will be ignored except by the one railroad that is head by an ex-airline CEO perhaps


----------



## cpotisch

Rover said:


> Bierboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dakota 400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As much as I respect Lester Holt on NBC Nightly News, this evening NBC's reporting on this tragedy seemed to me to point the finger of responsibility at Amtrak. I would classify this "reporting" as "incomplete news". Like others, I want to see the NTSB report to determine what happened and where responsibility lies. For me, at this time, CSX seems to be the responsible culprit.
> 
> 
> 
> And as much as I totally disagree about your opinion of Holt, I will say this -- all he does is read the crap that is put before him. Don't entirely blame him; point the finger where it belongs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lester Holt is a teleprompter reader, and he does his job enthusiastically. And he reads what's written for him _as if he actually believes it_, as go the others.
> 
> National News in just 20 minutes or so plus commercials... That's not "News" ... That's Entertainment !!
Click to expand...

Almost every reporter on National Television has a script. I think that Holt reads a script, but will do actual reporting, and won't debase himself for mere ratings.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

New to me the CSX train was staffed at the time of the accident.



> The engineer of the stopped CSX train had exited the lead locomotive before the Amtrak train entered the siding, ran to safety, and was not injured. The conductor of the CSX lead locomotive saw the Amtrak train approaching in the siding and ran to the back of locomotive. The conductor was thrown off the locomotive and sustained minor injuries.


Changes the story of this accident, and what when wrong.


----------



## frequentflyer

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> New to me the CSX train was staffed at the time of the accident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The engineer of the stopped CSX train had exited the lead locomotive before the Amtrak train entered the siding, ran to safety, and was not injured. The conductor of the CSX lead locomotive saw the Amtrak train approaching in the siding and ran to the back of locomotive. The conductor was thrown off the locomotive and sustained minor injuries.
> 
> 
> 
> Changes the story of this accident, and what when wrong.
Click to expand...

That is a new point. I wander after calling 911 if the freight crew started Monday Morning quartebacking among themselves wandering why the Amtrak train was on the wrong track.


----------



## jis

So the question remains whether they just happened to forget to realign the switch to the main or they were under the impression that giving up the warrant did not involve doing the switch realignment.


----------



## Ryan

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> New to me the CSX train was staffed at the time of the accident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The engineer of the stopped CSX train had exited the lead locomotive before the Amtrak train entered the siding, ran to safety, and was not injured. The conductor of the CSX lead locomotive saw the Amtrak train approaching in the siding and ran to the back of locomotive. The conductor was thrown off the locomotive and sustained minor injuries.
> 
> 
> 
> Changes the story of this accident, and what when wrong.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link where the quote comes from?


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

VentureForth said:


> NTSB also says that because of this incident, they recommend that the Federal Railroad Administration issue an Emergency Order directing railroads to require that when signal suspensions are in effect and a switch has been reported relined for a main track, the next train or locomotive to pass the location must approach that location at restricted speed.
Click to expand...

This restricted speed point, has me wondering. Just how slow would 91 need to have been going, to have successfully stopped once the engineer realized that the switch was set wrong? I would assume that this would be after 91 "turned" (right word?) into the siding, the engineer realized this, saw the CSX consist was already in that siding, ascertained the CSX was stopped, the engineer apply the brakes, and 91 fully stop before hitting the CSX engine.


----------



## John Bobinyec

"Restricted Speed" is usually defined something similar to this: Prepared to stop short of train, broken rail or other obstruction, within one half the range of vision, not to exceed 15 MPH.

jb


----------



## MattW

I'm surprised no one's pushing a technological solution. I can personally imagine some kind of transponder linked to the switch which relays a communication to a temporary signal set at stopping distance from the location of the transponder. For dense areas with lots of switches, use multiple transponders linked to one signal. For all dark territory, it's a bit of a stretch, but for temporary signal suspensions, I can see it being deployed.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Ryan said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New to me the CSX train was staffed at the time of the accident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The engineer of the stopped CSX train had exited the lead locomotive before the Amtrak train entered the siding, ran to safety, and was not injured. The conductor of the CSX lead locomotive saw the Amtrak train approaching in the siding and ran to the back of locomotive. The conductor was thrown off the locomotive and sustained minor injuries.
> 
> 
> 
> Changes the story of this accident, and what when wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have a link where the quote comes from?
Click to expand...

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RSR1801.pdf?utm_source=news&utm_medium=email&utm_content=railroad

Source was NTSB.


----------



## Blackwolf

Well, that changes everything.


----------



## Lonestar648

The Engineer was outside the CSX unit, though did not say where but he ran for safety. Could the Conductor and Engineer realized they had released the Warrant, before realigning the switch, so the Engineer was walking back to the switch when 91 came to the switch thus entering the siding.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

It opens a can of worms.

Original I saw the two half of the cafe car and assumed it was two different cars in the woods.

Original all reports stated Amtrak hit a unattended CSX train. Which I assumed was tied down and the crew had gone home.

Big detail that the CSX train crew was on scene at the time of the accident.

Yes they could of release the warrant early. They have a story to tell, and it has not been reported yet.

.


----------



## keelhauled

If the CSX crew was on scene and in the locomotive then it seems to me that they likely had just brought their train into the siding. So they had been occupying the main just minutes ahead of 91 traveling at track speed. Did the dispatcher even know the CSX train was there?


----------



## jis

Yes. That is what releasing track warrant involves. Notifying the dispatcher. And that is how Amtrak got its track warrant. From the dispatcher.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

The track warrant might of been a time based one for the CSX crew. The dispatcher might of not even talk to them before given Amtrak permission to travel in that block.

Can of Worms.

Need to hear the radio traffic tapes.

Need to see the CSX crews report of what happen.

Need to see what the dispatcher was trying to do.

Amtrak had there conductor in the cab to copy radio orders. Unlike they ahead of there warrants, but need to be checked.

A major detail, and more questions to be answered.


----------



## JRR

As I and others have said repeatedly, let’s wait for the facts to be determined before we speculate and assign blame.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> So the question remains whether they just happened to forget to realign the switch to the main or they were under the impression that giving up the warrant did not involve doing the switch realignment.


The first would mean that the CSX engineer and condutor, or their insurer, will be bankrupt; they don't have Amtrak indemnifying them. The second means that CSX would be in big trouble for improper training, or that the dispacher is at fault. Everything still points to gross negligence at CSX -- the protocols for this are *old* and deviation from them is supposed to be done with express written instructions, which clearly didn't happen.

Regarding legal liability, in a civil case the standard is usually "preponderance of the evidence", but for certain types of claims, "clear and convincing evidence" is needed. At this point I would say there is clear and convincing evidence that CSX is entirely responsible for the crash, and also that they were negligent. Whether CSX was grossly negligent (or reckless, or engaged in wanton or wilful misconduct) depends on whether they also acted in reckless disregard for the safety over others. That is disputable but we'll find out when we find out the details of the communications. If they are not in accordance with federal law -- for instance, if the form which says that the switch was relined was falsified, or the dispatcher issued movement authority without receiving confirmation that the switch was relined -- then that would probably indicate reckless disregard. If there's some sort of ambiguous statement made by the dispatcher or engineer which could be interpreted two ways and the person on the other end misinterpreted it, then I guess they might be able to defend against a gross negligence claim.


----------



## Seaboard92

Actually I'm pretty sure that crew was just going on duty. In normal operations that empty auto rack unit train departs between 91 and 92 every night. And the NTSB has previously said the train was put in the siding seven hours before. So that timeline makes sense to me who lives local.

Those CSX crew members reporting for duty need to buy a lottery ticket because they managed to get really lucky to escape with their lives.


----------



## Blackwolf

Seaboard92 said:


> Actually I'm pretty sure that crew was just going on duty. In normal operations that empty auto rack unit train departs between 91 and 92 every night. And the NTSB has previously said the train was put in the siding seven hours before. So that timeline makes sense to me who lives local.
> 
> Those CSX crew members reporting for duty need to buy a lottery ticket because they managed to get really lucky to escape with their lives.


Only time, and a great deal of patience for the "system" to produce its investigative results, will give us the answer on what happened.

Was 91 running on-time that night, or was it behind schedule?

There is the possibility that the CSX crew present on the auto rack train were the ones who aligned the switch for the siding so they could depart, somehow under the impression they had clearance to do so and that 91 had already passed.


----------



## jis

Yup. Most prudent course now is to have patience. It is unlikely that any of us will get more and more accurate information than what the NTSB has access to.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## west point

Although not certain it appears the empty auto rack train was made up and ready for departure ? That would include brake test, fred installed and train walked ? Did the CSX crew make up the train or a previous crew ? Only time will tell ?


----------



## Seaboard92

The train was running 25 minutes late when it passed me who lives twenty minutes north of the crash site

But I'm serious when I was at the press briefing the ntsb chairman Zumwalt when asked by CBS news I believe how long the freight was there said seven hours. That is to the best of my recollection. Now I could do some snooping somewhat because this is my home division. But I prefer to stay out of active investigations that are none of my business.

If someone wants to come forward and tell me something I'll listen but I won't spread it. I know the signal maintainer for that line he makes the best BBQ in my town. And he's been closed ever since the wreck (he opened up a side business in the evenings). The only info I care about is what date the cars are leaving Columbia because I have a buyer for the photos of that move.

And the more money it raises the more I can donate to a charity. As far as writing up news articles I just report what the NTSB releases. There is nothing to investigate now. And I'm going to let the ntsb do their job. They can do a better job then any retired scholastic journalist who got called in to write and photograph for four major media outlets.


----------



## JRR

Amen!

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Lonestar648

Seems like every few days there are more "facts" released or discovered that change how we visualize what happened. None of us are patient, so we all try to find our own solution, which is usually wrong when more facts are released. Of course the ambulance chasing lawyers have already made their conclusions so they can sign up as many victims as possible. Only the NTSB probably knows what happened, but they are still investigating, so correctly, they release very little information.


----------



## VentureForth

Lonestar648 said:


> Seems like every few days there are more "facts" released or discovered that change how we visualize what happened. None of us are patient, so we all try to find our own solution, which is usually wrong when more facts are released. Of course the ambulance chasing lawyers have already made their conclusions so they can sign up as many victims as possible. Only the NTSB probably knows what happened, but they are still investigating, so correctly, they release very little information.


Honestly, I am currently most interested in what the CSX crew that lined and locked the switch told the NTSB and the timeline of that crew and the new crew.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk


----------



## Bierboy

cpotisch said:


> Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bierboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dakota 400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As much as I respect Lester Holt on NBC Nightly News, this evening NBC's reporting on this tragedy seemed to me to point the finger of responsibility at Amtrak. I would classify this "reporting" as "incomplete news". Like others, I want to see the NTSB report to determine what happened and where responsibility lies. For me, at this time, CSX seems to be the responsible culprit.
> 
> 
> 
> And as much as I totally disagree about your opinion of Holt, I will say this -- all he does is read the crap that is put before him. Don't entirely blame him; point the finger where it belongs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lester Holt is a teleprompter reader, and he does his job enthusiastically. And he reads what's written for him _as if he actually believes it_, as go the others.
> 
> National News in just 20 minutes or so plus commercials... That's not "News" ... That's Entertainment !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost every reporter on National Television has a script. I think that Holt reads a script, but will do actual reporting, and *won't debase himself for mere ratings.*
Click to expand...

Dream on...


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

I rode by the crash site on 91 (19) and it looked to be essentially back to normal. There was no visible wreckage and the same auto rack train involved in the accident was there again. It must be weird for the crews of both trains to imagine what happened there only a few weeks ago.


----------



## Ziv

Just noticed that of the 4 pinned topics on this index (leaving "Just the facts" out for obvious reasons) the freshest topic had a post at noon today, the second freshest topic had a post yesterday and the third and fourth freshest topics had their most recent comment on 2/15. It really seems like posting is down and it may be because it just seems like there has been so much tragic news interspersed with merely bad news. I hope Amtrak recovers its mojo relatively quickly.


----------



## MikefromCrete

Well, we're awaiting the NTSB's report on the CSX accident, nothing new seems to be coming out about the Siemens car order, the Talgos are back at Beech Grove and the next diners will be along in a couple of days. If nothing is happening, not much to talk about.


----------



## AmtrakLKL

There is a CSX signal suspension planned south of Columbia on Monday and Tuesday, Feb 26 & 27. The Silver Star will now detour between Savannah and Hamlet via the Andrews Sub on these two days skipping Camden, Columbia and Denmark. No alternate transportation will be provided.

Will be interesting to see what happens for signal suspensions now that have no detour route available.


----------



## Agent

Here's a photograph of what's said to be AMTK 162 showing it has been dedicated to the memory of engineer M. Kempf.


----------



## Walt

Agent said:


> Here's a photograph of what's said to be AMTK 162 showing it has been dedicated to the memory of engineer M. Kempf.


While I appreciate and support the sentiment, it looks more like a "kill marking" to me, like those found on a fighter jet.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

Preliminary report from NTSB.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RRD18MR003-prelim.pdf


----------



## Ryan

Don’t think that there is anything new in there.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

correct it basically says same as second video of NTSB, but still nothing on the CSX crew on were they there ?? who threw switch, who reported it back etc .


----------



## Paul CHI

Read somewhere in the news this week that Amtrak has a basic no fault agreement with the host railroads, so even where negligence is present, Amtrak carries the liability.


----------



## mfastx

Paul CHI said:


> Read somewhere in the news this week that Amtrak has a basic no fault agreement with the host railroads, so even where negligence is present, Amtrak carries the liability.


Can confirm that is correct.


----------



## neroden

The courts ruled that *gross* negligence liability *cannot* be transferred, so if Amtrak proved *gross* negligence, CSX would have to pay up. Amtrak has not tended to stand up for itself in the past -- but Anderson might be different.

This looks like gross negligence to me; there are an entire set of rules specifically to prevent crashes like this and someone wilfully broke the rules by lying about the state of the switch on a federal form. Reckless disregard for human life.


----------



## west point

ProbablywillnothappenbutCongressmightchangethelawbasedongrossnegligence?

Note the above is an intermittent problem with this web site.

EDIT does not repeat

Probably it will not happen but Congress might change the law based on gross negligence ?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Not in this case. Only two crew was killed. Congress only acts when there a much bigger out rage.(death toll) Think Metrolink and PTC, or 180 derailment on the curve that increase the liability amounts.

CSX should make Amtrak whole, but negligence finding in a courtroom? Not in the cards. Would be nice if could. Two people were killed for the lack of following protocol.


----------



## Seaboard92

And the cars have been released from Cayce. I was working an adoption event for my moms No-Kill Animal Shelter at a trackside petsmart and saw them go north with a little help from a friend.

Consist is

Amtk 23 P42DC

Amtk 43383 Amfleet I cafe. I assume went down so they could run track speed north to Cayce. Instead of the restricted speed for light engine.

Amtk 25020. I believe the last car from the wrecked 91.

Amtk 6104(6???) Viewliner II baggage car. Was the last car of the wrecked 91.

Amtk 620?? Viewliner I sleeper. This. Car was 9111 on the wrecked train second to the rear.

Amtk 62012 Viewliner I sleeper. This was car 9110 directly behind the cafe that split in half. Has visible damage to the B end of the car which is the last car on the train.

I'll post photos later when I'm not adopting lovable kitties to forever homes. And again for my friend many thanks for the heads up.

By Northeast Columbia at 1329 headed for Hamlet, Raleigh, Rocky Mount, Richmond, Lorton, Washington.


----------



## jis

25020 was probably the Coach immediately ahead of the Dinette that split into two.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Does anyone know what happened to the second coach? It is obvious that the cafe will not be repaired and possibly the second coach, but at least from the outside the second coach appeared to have little damage.


----------



## Seaboard92

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Does anyone know what happened to the second coach? It is obvious that the cafe will not be repaired and possibly the second coach, but at least from the outside the second coach appeared to have little damage.


From what I've heard from my sources the locomotive, first two coaches, and the diner lite are all on the scrap list. I'll try to get down to the staging site this week and see what I can see.


----------



## AGM.12

With all of the liability issues out there, I wonder if CSX might use this accident as an excuse to tell Amtrak to move the Silver Star somewhere else or buy this line.


----------



## Thirdrail7

AGM.12 said:


> With all of the liability issues out there, I wonder if CSX might use this accident as an excuse to tell Amtrak to move the Silver Star somewhere else or buy this line.



That's just it. Unless Amtrak pushes it and a court proves "gross negligence," the only liability CSX will have is the repairs to their infrastructure and their credibility. I'm willing to bet when people think of this accident, CSX isn't the first thing that comes to mind.


----------



## PRR 60

"Gross negligence" is a tough standard to prove. It has to essentially be a willful act. The mistake was not only made, but the mistake was known as it was being made and, knowing that, there was still nothing done to correct it. Basically, you have to prove sabotage.


----------



## JRR

“Willful and wanton” are good terms to describe conduct amounting to Gross Negligence.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## neroden

PRR 60 said:


> "Gross negligence" is a tough standard to prove. It has to essentially be a willful act. The mistake was not only made, but the mistake was known as it was being made and, knowing that, there was still nothing done to correct it. Basically, you have to prove sabotage.


Deliberately falsifying a federal safety form would qualify, IMO. Someone falsified that form.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Yes but there are two crews involved. The crew that parked the train and the crew that was getting ready to leave.

Did the crew getting ready to leave open the switch not knowing the Sliver Star was running late? Of course you need Direct Instructions from the dispatcher. But a tired crew skipping a step is not impossible. Not sure a mistake of open the switch with out permissions is gross negligence on CSX part.


----------



## neroden

The switch was locked in the wrong position. Someone sent in a form (presumably over radio) specifically saying it was locked in the right position. (Essentially, swearing that they had checked it and that it was correct.) Who signed that form? That's what I want to know.


----------



## zephyr17

Would have had to been that CSX freight crew, wouldn't it?


----------



## JRR

I’m sure the investigation will find the answers to these questions.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Thirdrail7

neroden said:


> The switch was locked in the wrong position. Someone sent in a form (presumably over radio) specifically saying it was locked in the right position. (Essentially, swearing that they had checked it and that it was correct.) Who signed that form? That's what I want to know.


Have the dispatchers been cleared of any wrongdoing and do we know that a new crew didn't open the switch without proper permission?


----------



## Seaboard92

This was the first sleeper in the derailment. Operating as line No. 9110.


----------



## Amtrak706

Wow. You know the number/name?


----------



## Seaboard92

Amtrak706 said:


> Wow. You know the number/name?


62012 If I remember correct Evening View.


----------



## Lonestar648

Is Amtrak liable for replacing the CSX equipment (Lead engine) as well as the Amtrak equipment and passenger liabilities.


----------



## jis

Lonestar648 said:


> Is Amtrak liable for replacing the CSX equipment (Lead engine) as well as the Amtrak equipment and passenger liabilities.


I thought each was responsible for dealing with their own damages, so all the damage to CSX equipment is CSX's problem. Maybe I think wrong.


----------



## PRR 60

Lonestar648 said:


> Is Amtrak liable for replacing the CSX equipment (Lead engine) as well as the Amtrak equipment and passenger liabilities.


No. Any damage incurred by CSX is paid by CSX regardless of fault.


----------



## Lonestar648

So the agreement is a true no fault agreement.


----------



## jis

Lonestar648 said:


> So the agreement is a true no fault agreement.


That is my and apparently Prr's too, understanding.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Set your calendar. It's a twofer!

NTSB slates two-day hearing on fatal Amtrak crashes



> The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will hold an investigative hearing July 10-11 on two recent Amtrak crashes.
> 
> The public hearing will explore issues involved in the Amtrak Cascades derailment in DuPont, Washington, on Dec. 18, 2017; and an Amtrak collision with a freight train on Feb. 4 near Cayce, South Carolina, NTSB officials said in a press release.The hearing will include testimony from the Federal Railroad Administration; the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers; the Brotherhood of Locomotives Engineers and Trainmen; the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen; CSX; Sound Transit; Amtrak; the Washington State Department of Transportation; and the Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission.
> 
> The hearing will be held in Washington, D.C., and may be watched live via webcast.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

The moment of impact. If you've never seen anything like it before, it will send chills down your spine!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqctZWk1JXo&feature=youtu.be


----------



## cpotisch

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> The moment of impact. If you've never seen anything like it before, it will send chills down your spine!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqctZWk1JXo&feature=youtu.be


Yikes. That's...something.


----------



## CCC1007

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> The moment of impact. If you've never seen anything like it before, it will send chills down your spine!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqctZWk1JXo&feature=youtu.be


Lots of sparks, would the wheels stopping combined with the HEP disconnecting lead to that type of sparks?


----------



## cpotisch

CCC1007 said:


> CSXfoamer1997 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moment of impact. If you've never seen anything like it before, it will send chills down your spine!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqctZWk1JXo&feature=youtu.be
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of sparks, would the wheels stopping combined with the HEP disconnecting lead to that type of sparks?
Click to expand...

I imagine it's just the wheels. Why would the HEP disconnecting cause the wheels to spark as it stops?


----------



## zephyr17

I agree that it is probably because of the wheels sudden deceleration against the rails sparking. But I imagine it is possible the HEP could be shorting against something (like the rails, other metal parts). While the connectors are very well insulated from what I can see, it is still high current, 480 volts at pretty high amperage.


----------



## jis

Since the engine was the first thing destroyed in the crash, it is hard to imagine there was any live HEP following the complete destruction of the engine very early in the sequence.


----------



## zephyr17

Yeah, true, was just thinking about the sparking/electrical flashes themselves, not thinking sequence.


----------



## Thirdrail7

The sparks are likely from the train being placed in emergency and diverging over a 20mph hand thrown switch at almost 60 miles per hour.


----------



## Seaboard92

Based on the video knowing the location as well. Could be from the moment the cars jumped the rails as well. Only three cars made it into the video which would be the coaches. And I know for a fact coach 1 and 2 both came off the track. So could have something to do with that.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

The sparks from the locomotive are brake skidding sparks. The sparks from the coaches occur when they leave the rails. That's the wheels grinding against the rails.


----------



## Rover

As the lead engine comes in the frame, the brakes are already applied.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

_The engineer of the stopped CSX train had *exited the lead locomotive before the Amtrak train entered the siding, ran to safety, and was not injured.* The conductor of the CSX lead locomotive saw the Amtrak train approaching in the siding and ran to the back of locomotive. The conductor was thrown off the locomotive and sustained minor injuries._
 
 
Per the NTSB, kind of implied that the CSX engineer was aware of the switch had been open. So the question remains was the switch opened with dispatcher authority?


----------



## Thirdrail7

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Per the NTSB, kind of implied that the CSX engineer was aware of the switch had been open. So the question remains was the switch opened with dispatcher authority?


The switch was reported closed to the dispatcher, so it no longer had the authority to remain opened.  IIRC,  the engineer was having misgivings because it seemed like he got the done too quickly and was going to check it himself.  This is why he was off the engine.

At any rate, we can hear directly from he engineer tonight when an interview with him airs on 60 Minutes.  Set your DVR, VCR or Betamax. The show is on!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fired-engineer-recounts-deadly-crash-between-amtrak-and-freight-trains-60-minutes/



> Mark James describes the deadly crash of an Amtrak passenger train into his CSX train in his first interview since the accident that killed two and injured many more. But as Lesley Stahl reports, the crash could have been prevented*. *Stahl's investigation will be broadcast on 60 Minutes Sunday, March 3 at 7 p.m., ET/PT on CBS.
> 
> James says he had questioned his conductor about the mainline switch. "I asked him multiple times. I trusted him that he had gotten the switch back." The Amtrak engineer and conductor were killed and more than 90 passengers were injured, some badly. One of the Amtrak cars was bent in half. "They're bringing people off with broke arms, legs, people mangled really. This is something… I'll never get over. I couldn't imagine anybody else that's ever seen that before," says James.


----------



## Amtrak706

CBS's special report seems to be about how PTC could have prevented this accident, and those heartless evil railroads that have "neglected" to install the system. And... gloss over the fact that the entire reason the railroad was on EC-1s that night was because of PTC preparation work. Sure the railroads could probably have moved faster on this, but the report makes it seem like they just ignored it.


----------



## jis

Just like many other things these days people with shallow knowledge form a random often incorrect story board and run with it for all they are worth. A technically complex thing like PTC with the added political complications around it, are way beyond the comprehension of most average news reporters, so it may be too much to expect anything that remotely resembles a fully informed discourse. That is unfortunate, but that is the way it is.

Besides even with PTC fully available, if someone illegally turns it off, like the switch was left set contrary to regulation, there is nothing that would prevent an accident under those circumstances. In an environment with discipline wanting, human ingenuity will always trump any conceivable safety system at the worst possible moment. Mr. Murphy is always alive.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Amtrak706 said:


> And... gloss over the fact that the entire reason the railroad was on EC-1s that night was because of PTC preparation work. Sure the railroads could probably have moved faster on this, but the report makes it seem like they just ignored it.


Indeed. They should have stated the irony of this.


----------



## Thirdrail7

A couple of fair use quotes from the interview with the engineer in 60 minutes report https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-safe-are-americas-railroads-60-minutes/.



> The freight company in the South Carolina crash, CSX, declined our interview request, but sent us a letter saying it has already spent "$2.5 billion" on PTC and that the crash was "the result of human error, and violations of long-standing operating procedures." CSX fired both the conductor and engineer Mark James.
> 
> Lesley Stahl: Are you fighting this?
> 
> Mark James: Yes.
> 
> Lesley Stahl: Are you challenging--
> 
> Mark James: Yes.
> 
> Lesley Stahl: --the firing?
> 
> Mark James: Yes. There's nothing I could have done to prevent the accident. I did nothing to cause the accident and I got fired anyway.


They probably fired the engineer on the basis of this rule, which as you can see I questioned the application:



Thirdrail7 said:


> Leaving the accident aside, the workforce has been cut down, people have been reassigned and are under the gun to do more with less. They want performance and movement. This isn't a CSX or Amtrak problem. It is labor problem.
> 
> Without addressing this incident, and I'm not making excuses but I've always had a problem with part of the switch awareness form as I think it can lead to unnecessary pressure, particularly being rushed. Here is the part i never liked (which is admittedly my problem, not the railroads):
> 
> *608.9 When hand-operated switches are used in Track Warrant Control non-signal territory (TWC-D), the*
> 
> *train dispatcher must use the train dispatcher radio to confirm:*
> 
> *1. Location of the switch(es) operated,*
> 
> *2. Switch(es) were restored and locked in normal position,*
> 
> *3. Time switch(es) were initially reversed,*
> 
> *4. Time switch(es) were restored and locked in normal position,*
> 
> *5. Name of the employee who operated the switch(es), and*
> 
> *6. The Switch Position Awareness Form (SPAF) was initialed by both the conductor and*
> 
> *locomotive operator.*
> 
> Now, I just want you to consider this scenario. You're the conductor and you're shoving a draft of 75 cars into a siding. As such, you are riding the point of the movement. You make an agreement with your engineer to stop and line the switch for the main and report clear. He stops and tells you he did this...but you're 75 cars away and the dispatcher wants the track. Do you them to standby while you walk up 75 cars (which would take a considerable amount of time) to verify that your crew member actually threw the switch before initialing the Awareness form or trust them?
> 
> Conversely, you're the engineer and you stop at a hand thrown switch. You drop your conductor off and he lines the movement. You now pull a 9000 ft freight train off the main. The conductor stops you, reports the switch locked and lined for the main and report clear. You both begin working towards each other while you secure the train. The conductor hands you the awareness form and wants you to initial it. Meanwhile the dispatcher wants the main. Again, I know we all speak of safety and trust but verify. However, how patient will everyone be when you delay a hotshot because it took 40 minutes for you to walk a mile and half to verify what was allegedly done?
> 
> I'm not a fan of signing something I didn't personally witness but in the current rush rush environment, I really wonder if pressure is put on the crews.


Along those lines, the engineer made a similar  statement as to why he is not at fault:



> It was the CSX conductor's job that night to throw the switches by hand like this to realign the tracks and thereby change the direction the train could go.
> 
> Lesley Stahl: Are there a lotta switches?
> 
> Mark James: Lotsa switches, yes.
> 
> Lesley Stahl: Like, how many?
> 
> Mark James: He probably handled close to 40 switches that evening.
> 
> But there was only one switch that would matter for the passengers and crew of Amtrak's Silver Star, the switch to keep Amtrak on the main line.
> 
> Mark James: That's when I ask him, "Did you get the mainline switch?" And he assured me that he had thrown it 100 percent.
> 
> Lesley Stahl: He said, "100 percent?"
> 
> Mark James: Uh-huh.
> 
> Lesley Stahl: In the training, does it say that you-- you should check, you should double-check?
> 
> Mark James: No. There's no way I can get off a locomotive and go check every switch he throws. That way, you'd get nothing done.
> 
> Lesley Stahl: But you had a feeling.
> 
> Mark James: Yeah. I did. I asked him multiple times. I trusted him that he had gotten the switch back.


I would love to see a follow up question to CSX.  Will they allow a a train to take an hour to throw a switch in the name of safety? Of course, they'd likely say yes which is fine, as long as it is documented.


----------



## Thirdrail7

I love the owner of the electrical contracting business, who clearly doubles as a track inspector in his spare time!



> Albert Linden: Every day you get some of the locomotives loaded with everything. They heading that way, and they moving 60 miles an hour, too.
> 
> Albert Linden owns an electrical contracting business next to the crash site in Cayce, South Carolina. It was his surveillance camera that captured the accident.
> 
> Albert Linden: *These tracks are in horrible shape.*
> 
> Lesley Stahl: Had you ever seen any other accident? Any derailment?
> 
> Albert Linden: Yes, ma'am. It's quite frequent.
> 
> Lesley Stahl: It's frequent?
> 
> Albert Linden: In the last ten years, there's probably been seven, eight of them. They forgot to flip the switch, and derailed them in here.
> 
> Lesley Stahl: The same thing?
> 
> Albert Linden: Yes, ma'am. Forgetting to flip the switch.
> 
> Lesley Stahl: And you're just sitting here, watching this unfold before your very eyes?
> 
> Albert Linden: They, they-- it's a common occurrence.


Yes..they are yard tracks. They are typically 5 mph tracks and how does he know all of those derailments have been caused by run though switches?


----------



## cpotisch

Amtrak706 said:


> CBS's special report seems to be about how PTC could have prevented this accident, and those heartless evil railroads that have "neglected" to install the system. And... gloss over the fact that the entire reason the railroad was on EC-1s that night was because of PTC preparation work. Sure the railroads could probably have moved faster on this, but the report makes it seem like they just ignored it.﻿﻿





Thirdrail7 said:


> I love the owner of the electrical contracting business, who clearly doubles as a track inspector in his spare time!
> 
> Yes..they are yard tracks. They are typically 5 mph tracks and how does he know all of those derailments have been caused by run though switches?


Exactly. I'm most likely the least knowledgeable person here about this stuff, yet even I could detect the absurdity of this interview.

Here's the thread discussing it, BTW:


----------



## GBNorman

"60 Minutes" is available on Comcast On-Demand day following the airing i.e. Monday.

Other providers I cannot speak to.


----------



## GBNorman

I "just loved" the reference to the "secret imdemnity agreement" noted by Ms. Stahl in her report. Indemnity is one of the provisions with the bilateral Agreement held between Amtrak and each road over which their trains operate.

Yes, I guess the Agreement is "secret" - only because it is bilateral and as such exempt from publc disclosure.

Finally, I have not been employed within the industry now pushing forty years. However, when I was there, the indemnity provisions resembled "no fault". Each party was responsible for "cleaning up their own mess". Amtrak would indemnify their passengers and employees and the railroad the same. Same provisions for property.

Since leaving, "I'd heard" that several roads were seeking to have the burden of indemnity fall to the passenger carriers, which of course, save Brightline, means the taxpayers. To what extent such provisions are in force today, I know not.


----------



## AGM.12

It's interesting that the vast majority of rail fatalities are train/motor vehicle collisions at road crossings and pedestrian/trespasser incidents. How is PTC suppose to solve these?


----------

