Passenger Trains > Report shows Amtrak train went through 40 mph crossover at 78 mph

The Capitol Corridor train involved in the crossover incident east of Davis that left several passengers injured, was traveling at nearly twice the allowed speed — 78 mph — according to details published today by the Sacramento Bee.

Amtrak refused to provide the newspaper with details of the incident, but the Bee was able to obtain the report using a Freedom Of Information Act request, the newspaper said.

Here's a link to the Bee's story:  http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article141141368.html

Well I'm certainly glad he wasn't shoving at 78.
 "The engineer was operating from the lead end of the move."

walstib Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Capitol Corridor train involved in the
> crossover incident east of Davis that left several
> passengers injured, was traveling at nearly twice
> the allowed speed — 78 mph — according to
> details published today by the Sacramento Bee.
>
> Amtrak refused to provide the newspaper with
> details of the incident, but the Bee was able to
> obtain the report using a Freedom Of Information
> Act request, the newspaper said.
>
> Here's a link to the Bee's story:
>  http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/
> article141141368.html

Good job by the Bee to go after this story. Excerpt:

Several passengers contacted by The Bee expressed anger that Amtrak has not offered a full public explanation of what happened, how it occurred and what steps, if any, Amtrak has taken to reduce the chance of similar incidents.

“It’s incensing that a corporation receiving ... tax-funded grants annually is refusing transparency on what could have been a catastrophic incident,” said one of the passengers that day, Matt Williams.

Ron Goldman, a Los Angeles attorney and critic of railroad safety efforts, contends the rail agency owes it to riders to tell them what happened.

Yeah, well, where are the grandstanding local politicians who are "experts" on "PTC would have prevented..." ? Minor injuries (like a broken thumb) not good enough? Not to belittle these folks who are looking for answers, but it seems only major injuries and deaths will spur the politicians into action. THAT's where my anger is.

Not so much grandstanding, more like a step box. 
" Similarly, UP officials told The Bee that they believe PTC would have averted the December Amtrak jolt near Davis because the computer would have taken control of the train when the engineer failed to slow it."
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article141141368.html#storylink=cpy


cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> walstib Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Capitol Corridor train involved in the
> > crossover incident east of Davis that left
> several
> > passengers injured, was traveling at nearly
> twice
> > the allowed speed — 78 mph — according to
> > details published today by the Sacramento Bee.
> >
> > Amtrak refused to provide the newspaper with
> > details of the incident, but the Bee was able
> to
> > obtain the report using a Freedom Of
> Information
> > Act request, the newspaper said.
> >
> > Here's a link to the Bee's story:
> >
>  http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/
>
> > article141141368.html
>
> Good job by the Bee to go after this story.
> Excerpt:
>
> Several passengers contacted by The Bee expressed
> anger that Amtrak has not offered a full public
> explanation of what happened, how it occurred and
> what steps, if any, Amtrak has taken to reduce the
> chance of similar incidents.
>
> “It’s incensing that a corporation receiving
> ... tax-funded grants annually is refusing
> transparency on what could have been a
> catastrophic incident,” said one of the
> passengers that day, Matt Williams.
>
> Ron Goldman, a Los Angeles attorney and critic of
> railroad safety efforts, contends the rail agency
> owes it to riders to tell them what happened.
>
> Yeah, well, where are the grandstanding local
> politicians who are "experts" on "PTC would have
> prevented..." ? Minor injuries (like a broken
> thumb) not good enough? Not to belittle these
> folks who are looking for answers, but it seems
> only major injuries and deaths will spur the
> politicians into action. THAT's where my anger is.

Understood, but I'm referring to big name politicians who blabber about PTC after a major accident (like Philadelphia) who exploit tragedies to push an agenda.

SP4360 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not so much grandstanding, more like a step
> box. 
> " Similarly, UP officials told The Bee that they
> believe PTC would have averted the December Amtrak
> jolt near Davis because the computer would have
> taken control of the train when the engineer
> failed to slow it."
 

Of course the big question to be asked was the engineer either distracted by something or was he/she simply not paying attention to what was going on.

DFWJIM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course the big question to be asked was the
> engineer either distracted by something or was
> he/she simply not paying attention to what was
> going on.

It's not always rainbows and butterflies in the cab, lots of crap can go on making it pretty distracting and stressful. It's how you handle it though that leads to either outcome.

Posted from iPhone

My take away is that there is more that sufficient safety margins built into the existing system to make the added expense of PTC unecessary.  Furthermore, the far less costly technology of ATC would have also prevented this sort of incident. The real outrage is that PTC will depress operational speeds through the turnout or other restrictions to below the current limits when the current limits were designed with substantial safety margins to account for human error.  Why is nobody setting PTC limits closer to the actual critical points or raising speeds in general? 

It amazes me that it didn't derail, or tip over, given the speed.

PTC should follow the same speeds as what is called at a particular location. Why would you want to get close to the critical point? Speeds are set in place so that the track structure will handle the loading without being over stressed.

mbrotzman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My take away is that there is more that sufficient
> safety margins built into the existing system to
> make the added expense of PTC unecessary. 
> Furthermore, the far less costly technology of ATC
> would have also prevented this sort of incident.
> The real outrage is that PTC will depress
> operational speeds through the turnout or other
> restrictions to below the current limits when the
> current limits were designed with substantial
> safety margins to account for human error.  Why
> is nobody setting PTC limits closer to the actual
> critical points or raising speeds in general? 

SP4360 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PTC should follow the same speeds as what is
> called at a particular location. Why would you
> want to get close to the critical point? Speeds
> are set in place so that the track structure will
> handle the loading without being over stressed.

I believe hes referring to the critical point of slowing down for a speed limit, as in the point where the system believes you will or will not get slowed down. The way it is being designed, the "point of no return" is being set far too soon and cuts into realistic braking distances.

1976 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SP4360 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----
> >

> I believe hes referring to the critical point of
> slowing down for a speed limit, as in the point
> where the system believes you will or will not get
> slowed down. The way it is being designed, the
> "point of no return" is being set far too soon and
> cuts into realistic braking distances.


​And thus eliminates any fun!

AmHog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> ​And thus eliminates any fun!


Truth. Because as with everything in life, a few ruin it for everyone else.

That's true, you get an approach diverging and end up doing walking speeds instead of what would be commuter speeds up to the next signal/switch. Maybe the powers that be could program the system for commute / freight operation, probably not.

1976 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SP4360 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > PTC should follow the same speeds as what is
> > called at a particular location. Why would you
> > want to get close to the critical point? Speeds
> > are set in place so that the track structure
> will
> > handle the loading without being over stressed.
>
> I believe hes referring to the critical point of
> slowing down for a speed limit, as in the point
> where the system believes you will or will not get
> slowed down. The way it is being designed, the
> "point of no return" is being set far too soon and
> cuts into realistic braking distances.

mbrotzman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My take away is that there is more that sufficient
> safety margins built into the existing system to
> make the added expense of PTC unecessary. 
> Furthermore, the far less costly technology of ATC
> would have also prevented this sort of incident.
> The real outrage is that PTC will depress
> operational speeds through the turnout or other
> restrictions to below the current limits when the
> current limits were designed with substantial
> safety margins to account for human error.  Why
> is nobody setting PTC limits closer to the actual
> critical points or raising speeds in general? 

The only ATC system i am aware of is that used on the UP across parts of Illinois and Iowa on the former C&NW main line. That only has two indications Clear and Restricting. It was designed between World War I and WW II. I doubt if parts are readily available for that system to be rolled out across the whole of the USA.

SOO6617 Wrote:

> The only ATC system i am aware of is that used on
> the UP across parts of Illinois and Iowa on the
> former C&NW main line. That only has two
> indications Clear and Restricting. It was designed
> between World War I and WW II. I doubt if parts
> are readily available for that system to be rolled
> out across the whole of the USA.

ATC is a function of on-board "software" components.  Any cab signaling system can support ATC.  Wide scale adoption of coded track circuit cab signaling and ATC is the best bang for the safety buck.

Quote: "PTC should follow the same speeds as what is called at a particular location. Why would you want to get close to the critical point? Speeds are set in place so that the track structure will handle the loading without being over stressed."

Be careful not to upset the Cowboy's looking to burn that extra gallon of diesel and cut brake pads a little deeper for the thrill of the moment and a pat on the back for saving the managers bonus! If common sense and judgement ruled, I wouldn't support PTC. But given enough rope enough times, people do screw up, be glad that PTC is mandated.

PTC is already preserving equipment on the AML. Just go to Porter Jct and watch! No longer does the westbound engineer fly in to the junction trying to get down to 15 at the last possible moment... Action must be now taken before reaching the first approach limited signal. PTC requires the speed to drop from 110 mph to 80 mph before passing the first limiting signal. And it's all downhill from there, finally dragging the train into town at 30 mph, doesn't take much air to get it on down to 15 mph at that point! Good stuff to knock the wind out of the Cowboy's sails...

I wonder how much longer it will be considered tolerable to use antiquated "route" signalling instead of "speed" signalling?

Cab signals, automatic train control, and Speed signal rules have been around since the 1920's.

Even if magic bullet (TM) PTC was in service, if the train had been operating with PTC cut out (which is allowed) it could have experienced this same incident.

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder how much longer it will be considered
> tolerable to use antiquated "route" signalling
> instead of "speed" signalling?
>
> Cab signals, automatic train control, and Speed
> signal rules have been around since the 1920's.
>
> Even if magic bullet (TM) PTC was in service, if
> the train had been operating with PTC cut out
> (which is allowed) it could have experienced this
> same incident.

The reason PTC developed the way it did was because of the prevalence of route signaling.  Route signaled railroads have all kinds of non-standard switch speeds and also employ the practice of displaying Clear signal indications through equilateral and trailing point crossovers with the speed restriction listed in the timetable.

> Be careful not to upset the Cowboy's looking to
> burn that extra gallon of diesel and cut brake
> pads a little deeper for the thrill of the moment
> and a pat on the back for saving the managers
> bonus! If common sense and judgement ruled, I
> wouldn't support PTC. But given enough rope
> enough times, people do screw up, be glad that PTC
> is mandated.
>
> PTC is already preserving equipment on the AML.
> Just go to Porter Jct and watch! No longer does
> the westbound engineer fly in to the junction
> trying to get down to 15 at the last possible
> moment... Action must be now taken before
> reaching the first approach limited signal. PTC
> requires the speed to drop from 110 mph to 80 mph
> before passing the first limiting signal. And it's
> all downhill from there, finally dragging the
> train into town at 30 mph, doesn't take much air
> to get it on down to 15 mph at that point! Good
> stuff to knock the wind out of the Cowboy's
> sails...

Decreasing travel times and making up lost time is not only a mark of progress but also necessary to attract riders from other forms of transportation such as airlines and private automobiles.  Transit agencies have been slowing down services for various Cover Their Ass reasons for decades and today we are left with a system that few people CHOOSE to use.  

BTW, thank you for confirming my fear that PTC would basically allow various lawyers and bean counters to enforce policies that have little to do with safety.  This is a gift for anyone who hates public transportation as it will critically hobble it in the marketplace.  Also, this is the future with motor vehicles as well if automated systems are given more and more control. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/17 09:28 by mbrotzman.

Sorry to post this, but can someone enlighten me as to when this accident occurred? I've not been following as faithfully as I should. Thanks.