Someone made a HUGE mistake..

[lo2e]

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

1. Train arrives from HAR engine first, so the engine is on the southern end and the cab car is on the northern end
2. Problem with cab car discovered, so they decide to wye the train
3. The mistake happens and it overshoots where it was supposed to stop on the SEPTA line
4. Instead of wye-ing, the train goes into PHL engine first again, so again the engine ends up on the southern end and the cab car on the northern end
5. In order to get to NYP, the train still needs to wye because of the issue with the cab car
6. Train has passengers onboard, does the wye like it was supposed to before, and heads to NYP

So VentureForth's question (which I agree with) is why didn't they actually complete the wye at step 4 above?

 

[AmtrakBlue]

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

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

 

[AlanB]

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

• Train arrives from HAR engine first, so the engine is on the southern end and the cab car is on the northern end
• Problem with cab car discovered, so they decide to wye the train
• The mistake happens and it overshoots where it was supposed to stop on the SEPTA line
• Instead of wye-ing, the train goes into PHL engine first again, so again the engine ends up on the southern end and the cab car on the northern end
• In order to get to NYP, the train still needs to wye because of the issue with the cab car
• Train has passengers onboard, does the wye like it was supposed to before, and heads to NYP

So VentureForth's question (which I agree with) is why didn't they actually complete the wye at step 4 above?

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

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

 

[PRR 60]

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

• Train arrives from HAR engine first, so the engine is on the southern end and the cab car is on the northern end
• Problem with cab car discovered, so they decide to wye the train
• The mistake happens and it overshoots where it was supposed to stop on the SEPTA line
• Instead of wye-ing, the train goes into PHL engine first again, so again the engine ends up on the southern end and the cab car on the northern end
• In order to get to NYP, the train still needs to wye because of the issue with the cab car
• Train has passengers onboard, does the wye like it was supposed to before, and heads to NYP

So VentureForth's question (which I agree with) is why didn't they actually complete the wye at step 4 above?

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

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

 

[jis]

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

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

 

[PRR 60]

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

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

Thanks for the info.

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

 

[jis]

Thanks for the info.

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

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

Thanks for the info.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[jis]

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

 

[yarrow]

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

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

 

[jis]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[yarrow]

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

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

 

[PRR 60]

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

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

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

 

[jis]

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

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

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

 

[jis]

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

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

 

[PRR 60]

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

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

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

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

 

[jimhudson]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[amamba]

Thank you jis for this excellent explanation. :hi:

 

[Ryan]

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

 

[Ryan]

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