Cascades Train Derailment - 07/02/17

[rickycourtney]

"An Amtrak train that derailed near Steilacoom came off the tracks in an area where BNSF installed a safety device that intentionally derails trains when the bridge is up. It's unclear what, if any, role that played in the derailment."

KING 5 News: Amtrak train derailed near safety device

 

[niemi24s]

FWIW (practically nothing) Google Earth shows the involved derailer to be about 355 feet South of the movable portion of the the lift bridge. There is a signal about 55' South of the derailers points but I can't tell where the next signal to the South is - it may be hidden in the shadows of the trees West of the tracks.

 

[John Bobinyec]

Derails are not there to protect the bridge. They're there to keep the train from going into the water. There was a famous accident where a CNJ passenger train went through a stop signal and off the Lower Bay bridge when there were no derails there. After that, derails were installed virtually everywhere.

jb

I was "misremembering". See CNJ Bridge Accident. There were derails but they were too close to the open span.

jb

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

If the derailer at this location was to prevent the train from running off the bridge into the water. Place them on the causeway is a poor idea. Hit the derailer and the train goes into the bay, but before the bridge. No sorry, protect the bridge is why they are there.

Anyway why is the NTSB not involved. Brand new train set involved in a derailment. I would want to just see how well the current crash standard work in a derailment.

 

[west point]

The forward looking camera if working may tell the tale ?

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

The forward looking camera just one part of this tale. At this point if it was going to be the engineer fault it would of been told. As more time pass the answer is going to be much more complicated. The dreaded multi-point failure. Just another reason the NTSB should be involved.

 

[jis]

Anyway why is the NTSB not involved. Brand new train set involved in a derailment. I would want to just see how well the current crash standard work in a derailment.

Mainly because no one died and there were no major injuries I suspect. NTSB usually does not concern itself with minor goofups.

I am wondering, if the bridge protect signal is viewed as a Home signal for an interlocking, how far back is the "advanced" signal, which would presumably be displaying Approach when the bridge signal display a Stop. Also, once the train has passed the previous signal at Clear, presumably the bridge signal cannot be changed to Stop. I am just curious how the thing is set up for the bridge approach.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

There a time required for change of signals. So a passing train does not get caught in block with a restricted change.

So if the bridge tender has the authority to open the bridge. He has to set the signal, then "set the clock" and wait "5" minutes before he can start to raise the bridge. This delay prevent a train from getting caught in block and facing a home signal red, or raised bridge, and or a derailer set to put him off the track while the train is still travel at max track speed.

Time of delay would be fix for a location and might be different between site requirements. (Speeds, Line of Sight, how far back the last signal, etc)

Don't forget fail safe is always to stop traffic.

Amtrak is getting good on not releasing information on issues, I wonder if two states are going to be transparent? State of Washington has a out, the bypass going into service. So anything that when wrong is a non-issue due to relocation of the trains.

.

 

[Thirdrail7]

There a time required for change of signals. So a passing train does not get caught in block with a restricted change.

So if the bridge tender has the authority to open the bridge. He has to set the signal, then "set the clock" and wait "5" minutes before he can start to raise the bridge. This delay prevent a train from getting caught in block and facing a home signal red, or raised bridge, and or a derailer set to put him off the track while the train is still travel at max track speed.

Time of delay would be fix for a location and might be different between site requirements. (Speeds, Line of Sight, how far back the last signal, etc)

Don't forget fail safe is always to stop traffic.

.

That's a good explanation of how the system works....provided it isn't "jumped (like the incident at NILES)." I'm NOT saying this is what occurred but it would take something like that (or some other gross failure) to undermine the "time" safety system.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

It was a holiday weekend, there a marine right there. A lot of water traffic. It easy to think that something broke and the bridge tender could not clear the signal, so he bypassed (jumped) a circuit. Not understanding what was the underlining issue, or the fact the derailer was still in place.

The longer the investigation takes the longer the story of why.

Anyway enough unfounded story telling. Let hope a official cause becomes public at some point.

 

[John Bobinyec]

It was a holiday weekend, there a marine right there. A lot of water traffic. It easy to think that something broke and the bridge tender could not clear the signal, so he bypassed (jumped) a circuit. Not understanding what was the underlining issue, or the fact the derailer was still in place.

The longer the investigation takes the longer the story of why.

Anyway enough unfounded story telling. Let hope a official cause becomes public at some point.

It may be easy to think that the bridge tender circumvented the signal system but it's probably not true. The electrical workings of an interlocking are usually locked up somewhere where the bridge tender cannot get to them. I have worked many towers and supervised many others. Only once did I see an instance where the signal relays were located where the operator could access them.

jb

 

[TrackWalker]

Speed, human error blamed for Amtrak derailment near Chambers Bayhttp://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/speed-human-error-blamed-for-amtrak-derailment-near-chambers-bay/

 

[jis]

http://q13fox.com/2017/07/06/train-derailment-near-steilacoom-due-to-high-speed-human-error-amtrak-says/

Engineer suspended.

 

[George K]

http://q13fox.com/2017/07/06/train-derailment-near-steilacoom-due-to-high-speed-human-error-amtrak-says/

Engineer suspended.

The excessive speed activated a special “derail switch” that’s designed to avoid a catastrophe if the drawbridge is open as a train approaches, she said.

My understanding of a "derail" is that it would cause the train to derail if the train were going to enter into a dangerous position. Are derails speed-activated? In other words, was the train's speed the reason the derail worked?

 

[KnightRail]

http://q13fox.com/2017/07/06/train-derailment-near-steilacoom-due-to-high-speed-human-error-amtrak-says/

Engineer suspended.

The excessive speed activated a special derail switch thats designed to avoid a catastrophe if the drawbridge is open as a train approaches, she said.

My understanding of a "derail" is that it would cause the train to derail if the train were going to enter into a dangerous position. Are derails speed-activated? In other words, was the train's speed the reason the derail worked?

Yea don't let the news media try to explain how a railroad operates. The reason a derail "works" in such an instance is the train would be going too fast to comply with the presumed stop signal and then operated over the derail. There's nothing "special" about it. A derailed train is better than a train the ends up in the drink.

 

[John Bobinyec]

http://q13fox.com/2017/07/06/train-derailment-near-steilacoom-due-to-high-speed-human-error-amtrak-says/

Engineer suspended.

The excessive speed activated a special “derail switch” that’s designed to avoid a catastrophe if the drawbridge is open as a train approaches, she said.

My understanding of a "derail" is that it would cause the train to derail if the train were going to enter into a dangerous position. Are derails speed-activated? In other words, was the train's speed the reason the derail worked?

In order to open the bridge, the following actions have to take place in order:

1. Bridge has to have no trains on it.

2. Signals placed in stop position.

3. Derails put in derailing position.

4. Bridge unlocked and then opened.

So, unless there was a malfunction with the interlocking, if the derails were in the derailing position, then the signals had to have been in stop position.

In order to run a train after the bridge has been opened, the following must take place in order:

1. Bridge is closed and then locked.

2. Derails are placed in nonderailing position.

3. Signals are cleared up.

When the signals are cleared up, they lock up the derails. The derails are static except when specifically transitioning from the derailing position to the nonderailing position, or vice versa.

jb

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Translation of the media story.

Train was late in braking, and travel past a stop signal. Then over the derailer. That put the train into the gravel before it hit the bridge.

The forward mount video will confirm what signals the engineer had. The failure to react is the open question.

Another story created by the delay in the Positive Control Signal System.

 

[NW cannonball]

Translation of the media story.

Train was late in braking, and travel past a stop signal. Then over the derailer. That put the train into the gravel before it hit the bridge.

The forward mount video will confirm what signals the engineer had. The failure to react is the open question.

Another story created by the delay in the Positive Control Signal System.

Roughly fair translation, as you say, of the "media story" -- but there's more, and serious data to come - like as you say the front-facing camera, the "colored (black, orange (the new black)) box" that records the speed and control inputs.

Yes, it's way past time for PTC -- shake my head and wonder why

 

[TrackWalker]

Speed, human error blamed for Amtrak derailment near Chambers Bay

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/speed-human-error-blamed-for-amtrak-derailment-near-chambers-bay/

Article recently updated today.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

don't get to hung up on speed statement , approaching a red signal is 15 > 20 mph , the fact train went beyond derail by only few car lengths, only proves the speed can not have been much more.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

don't get to hung up on speed statement , approaching a red signal is 15 > 20 mph , the fact train went beyond derail by only few car lengths, only proves the speed can not have been much more.

Agree the speed at the derailer was not high. Also think the Talgo designed help to prevent cars and locomotive from going swimming in the bay. Along with those concrete bars used to hold the ballast in place.
However the train still when past a red signal, the question is now why. The bridge plant and signal system is still in question, not just the engineer. Unless someone can state the forward mount camera record the correct signals as the train approaches the bridge, well these news reports are just not moving the story forward.

One thinks anytime you derail a train, the train crew will be not working again into the investigation is done.

 

[PerRock]

In regards to the fate of that particular Talgo set, what are the capabilities of the current maintenance facility to fix (potentially heavy) wreck damage? Are there many spare cars available? And what about insurance impound keeping the damaged vehicles in limbo for potentially many months before being released for repair?

Just a few thoughts running through my mind in regard to the Talgos.

And yes, to my untrained eye the derailer looks mighty suspect.

While there are a limited number of spares for the original Talgo sets, I don't believe any exsist for the Talgo 8 sets.I wonder if the bridge had a mechanical issue. I occasionally listen to the BNSF Seattle Sub scanner, and I've heard slow orders over the bridge many times as well as possible mechanical issues.

There are three spare Talgo 8 units, but they are with the ex-WI red sets at Beech Grove. They can be seen in this video at the 0:54 mark right behind the P42s:

Quick clarification, there's only 2 spare units. But there is a small handful of additional spare cars all in WI-Red. These are supposedly going to California, but WA/OR may get some dibs on either the spares or one of the sets now.

peter

 

[KnightRail]

In regards to the fate of that particular Talgo set, what are the capabilities of the current maintenance facility to fix (potentially heavy) wreck damage? Are there many spare cars available? And what about insurance impound keeping the damaged vehicles in limbo for potentially many months before being released for repair?

Just a few thoughts running through my mind in regard to the Talgos.

And yes, to my untrained eye the derailer looks mighty suspect.

While there are a limited number of spares for the original Talgo sets, I don't believe any exsist for the Talgo 8 sets.I wonder if the bridge had a mechanical issue. I occasionally listen to the BNSF Seattle Sub scanner, and I've heard slow orders over the bridge many times as well as possible mechanical issues.

There are three spare Talgo 8 units, but they are with the ex-WI red sets at Beech Grove. They can be seen in this video at the 0:54 mark right behind the P42s:

There are two full ex-WI Talgo 8 series sets, and three additional Talgo 8 series spare single units. A spare cab car, a spare baggage car, and a spare cafe.

 

[niemi24s]

However the train still when past a red signal. . .

Is this a confirmed statement of fact or speculation based on how the system is supposed to operate?

 

[CHamilton]

Ignore the ridiculous headline, but there are some interesting additions to what we know in this story.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article160049014.html