Passenger Trains > Yesterdays derailment...

As I said on an earlier thread, the engineer on yesterdays train 712 is a member of trainorders. He is also a friend and a great guy. One of the best guys I ever met. He posted this on his facebook page, and I asked if I could repost it on here, to which he hesitantly said yes. I think that when the full story comes out of what went down yesterday, it will be something....for the moment, here is one small story from the inside....

"So, everyone wants to hear my story. At this point there are too many, so I will share just this one. When I got on the train to start the run at Merced, I noticed two "graduates" prison parolees, most likely from Sierra Conservation camp up here, (they got on at Modesto Station) sitting directly behind me in the cab car. I went in the cab, closed the door, went to work. When everything happened,
I walked out the cab, saw them, said "You and you, come with me right now" they said "yes sir" and came with me. I popped the door open and instructed them both to go to the Conductor, find him, and do whatever he asked and to help him. Off they went. Later, after things had calmed down, I saw them standing in the field, so I walked over to them, asked them; "did you find the conductor and help him?" they said "yes" I looked them both in the eye, and said one word, "redemption." They looked at me with tears in their eyes and said "yes." As far as I am concerned, they are square with the house."

Thanks for posting this! IT MADE MY DAY!

Ken Rhoads

A Fresno newspaper reporter isn't quite as right-minded.

Fresno TV station KMPH ran a headline on their website, "Train Slams
Into Big Rig, Nearly 50 Hurt" regarding the 01OCT2012 collision at
Guernsey, CA, near Hanford, between Amtrak Train 712 and a
tractor-trailer rig.

I wrote an E-mail to the author of the article, Ashley Ritchie, in which
I contested what was stated in the headline. According to witnesses on
the train and investigators, the truck crashed into the side of the
train, which was already occupying the crossing where the collision
occurred.

However, Ms. Ritchie continues to insist that "Train Slams Into Big
Rig..." is correct:

=============================================

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: "Train Slams Into Big Rig, Nearly 50 Hurt"
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 10:05:58 -0700
From: Ritchie, Ashley <ARitchie@kmph.com>
CC: Gajarian, Sheldon <SGajarian@kmph.com>, Turpin, Jim <jturpin@kmph.com>

> Hello Mr. Poon,
>
> Thanks you for taking the time to email. I am aware of the facts in
> this story, as I did all of the interviews with witnesses and the
> CHP. I know that the big rig ran through the train crossing, as
> stated by witnesses. That information was also reported in our
> newscast. Regardless, the train DID still slam into the truck. They
> slammed into each other, no matter who was at fault. But I do
> appreciate your feedback!
>
> Hope you're having a great day,
>
> Ashley Ritchie
> Reporter
> KMPH News
> (559) 977-6139 cell
> (559) 453-8850 work


All I could do in the face of this was to tell her we will have to agree to disagree.

"Slammed into each other," indeed!

-GP



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/12 14:19 by GenePoon.

OK, so help me to understand this:

We know that the San Joaquin runs in push/pull, meaning all southbound Amtrak trains are cab car forward. Given this, we would expect to find NO damage to the nose of the loco and we don't, yet it is on it's side almost.

We know from passenger accounts (rider in first car) the first indication of trouble was when the train jerked from the back and stopped. If the cab car did in fact hit the truck, she might not even be telling her account of events. I also recall a shot of the cab car with NO damage. You can also almost ascertain from the video the cab car is undamaged.

Pictures of the truck show clear cab damage and the only indication of damage to the trailer would have been from subsequent rolling, hitting the ground. This would indicate that the truck initiated contact.

Sounds like to me the title of the story is just to draw attention to it. More over, the anchor clearly states "When the semi truck rammed right into where they were sitting" (watch video at 1:08)when recalling a passenger's account.

Come on media folks, this isn't rocket surgery!

David Locher
Fresno, CA
http://www.youtube.com/learnwithgern

I'm not with the reporter on this one. The state of today's news reporting is just terrible.
"journalists" could care less about facts, and in many cases cannot even spell or use words correctly.

My goodness, the truck HIT THE SIDE OF THE TRAIN AS IT WAS PASSING. How stupid can you be, and still get a job
as a newspaper reporter. I wouldn't have "agreed to disagree", I'd have said that she was a discredit to her
"profession", if you could call it that.

Anyone who is more interested in selling a product, than accurate reporting, should get into advertising..
Lying and inaccuracies are much more tolerated there....

Maybe KMPH will next tell us that the big, bad train jumped off the track intentionally
so it could slam into the poor innocent driver's truck.

There were two accidents in the area yesterday----the one involving ATK and another involving a freight and a big rig. Any chance the reporter is talking about the freight/truck one instead of the ATK one?
C.

Carol Voss
Bakersfield, CA

And Costanza's thread gets hijacked into pointless flaming...

You just might be onto something there Carol.While she is quoting witnesses,she just might be pulling some info from the other incident.
Regards,DK

Jaanfo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And Costanza's thread gets hijacked into pointless
> flaming...


Sigh... regrettably.....here is the deal. Go back, find a pic of the train. You see two cars on the track, two cars on the ground with the engine. The area where the truck hit is at the forward part of car two, as the train is running cab car forward in the eastbound run. So it's reversed. Backward is forward and vice versa. Right where the rear standing car, and the first derailed car are, is the point of impact. The engine was shoving the train. There were no scratches or damage to the two cars standing on the rail, only to the two in the dirt. You can see the damage to car two easily. When the truck hit, it derailed the second car, but it kept rolling. Only when it hit the east guernsey switch did it and the other car and engine come the rest of the way off the tracks. Otherwise, general concensus is it might have rolled to an upright stop in emergency.

CarolVoss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There were two accidents in the area
> yesterday----the one involving ATK and another
> involving a freight and a big rig. Any chance the
> reporter is talking about the freight/truck one
> instead of the ATK one?
> C.

Not with "nearly 50 hurt," but you may be right in that the reporter mixed up data from both.

KTVU television news said that the truck in the freight train/truck collision was stopped too close to the tracks and was sideswiped by the freight train as it came by, with most damage confined to the front and side of the locomotive -- and the entire truck. The truck driver was injured but is expected to survive. No mention of any injuries to the locomotive crew.

KMPH in Fresno, which published the Amtrak-truck collision story under
the headline, "Train Slams Into Big Rig, Nearly 50 Hurt" changed the headline
this afternoon.

In responding to my E-mail to her, the reporter did cc: her response to her superiors.
Perhaps this was enough to get them to change the headline to:

"Train Derails After Semi Rams Into Side, Nearly 50 Hurt."

But the first paragraph retains "...Amtrak train that smashed into a big rig..."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/12 15:30 by GenePoon.

Gene:

Great job and follow-up.

ken15

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KMPH in Fresno, which published the Amtrak-truck
> collision story under
> the headline, "Train Slams Into Big Rig, Nearly 50
> Hurt" changed the headline
> this afternoon.
>
> In responding to my E-mail to her, the reporter
> did cc: her response to her superiors.
> Perhaps this was enough to get them to change the
> headline to:
>
> "Train Derails After Semi Rams Into Side, Nearly
> 50 Hurt."
>
> But the first paragraph retains "...Amtrak train
> that smashed into a big rig..."

I also wrote to the reporter, which might have helped a bit.

Ptolemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CarolVoss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There were two accidents in the area
> > yesterday----the one involving ATK and another
> > involving a freight and a big rig. Any chance
> the
> > reporter is talking about the freight/truck one
> > instead of the ATK one?
> > C.
>
> Not with "nearly 50 hurt," but you may be right in
> that the reporter mixed up data from both.


That's what I tend to think.
C.

Carol Voss
Bakersfield, CA

Newspaper? What newspaper?


pdt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not with the reporter on this one. The state
> of today's news reporting is just terrible.
> "journalists" could care less about facts, and in
> many cases cannot even spell or use words
> correctly.
>
> My goodness, the truck HIT THE SIDE OF THE TRAIN
> AS IT WAS PASSING. How stupid can you be, and
> still get a job
> as a newspaper reporter. I wouldn't have "agreed
> to disagree", I'd have said that she was a
> discredit to her
> "profession", if you could call it that.
>
> Anyone who is more interested in selling a
> product, than accurate reporting, should get into
> advertising..
> Lying and inaccuracies are much more tolerated
> there....

Constanza that story made my day also :)

Costanza, that truly awesome story really MADE my day and
LIFTED my spirits. Thank you all for allowing this
very HEARTWARMING story to be told here.
--- Daniel

"Square with the house" that's a new expression for me, but I certainly get the message. Godspeed to those young men, and may they stay on the straight path.