Passenger Trains > Train 188 wreck report

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/magazine/the-wreck-of-amtrak-188.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

​NYT report on 188 wreck with photo of main.

I don't know if this article is a "report" as it doesn't seem to articulate any new official findings re: the cause of this catastrophic crash. The author does tell a fairly complete story from a human interest perspective. But the author dwells on the lack of PTC in this area of the NEC as being the primary reason why the accident wasn't prevented when, in fact, had the PRR-era ATC cab-signal control system been enabled for northbound trains at this location, the train would have been stopped if the engineer was unresponsive when the train passed a speed restricting signal. We must continue waiting for the NTSB report.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/16 05:09 by JPB.

I agree, my choice of "report" isn't correct. 

​I don't believe that there are any at grade crossings between DC & NYC, am I wrong?
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/16 04:37 by PennPlat.

PennPlat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree, my choice of "report" isn't correct. 
>
> ​I don't believe that there are any at grade
> crossings between DC & NYC, I am wrong?

No, you are not.  There are not grade crossing on the NEC northbound until you get past Mystic, CT.
>  

Looking at aerial photos, it appears that the Miner Lane crossing west of New London is a grade crossing, and there are 3 in the downtown area near the station.  Mystic is a few miles east of New London.

But, yes, I believe you can ride a train all the way between Washington and the west side of New London, CT, without encountering a grade crossing.  What a blessing for the Engineers' anxiety levels! 

Correct: Several crossings in Waterford (Miner Lane), New London, and Mystic, that's all.
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/16 09:04 by toledopatch.

One big thing lacking was discussion of the disabled ATS for the northbound direction at the curve - it was active in the other direction.
And there were other little quibbles - calling freight trains "freighters" — those would be sea-going vessels (And there aren't really any freights to speak of these days on the corridor), referring to "pedestrians" on the tracks — more like trespassers I think since there are no pedestrian or vehicular public crossings on the corridor between NY and WAS. 

jonjonjonjon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One big thing lacking was discussion of the
> disabled ATS for the northbound direction at the
> curve - it was active in the other direction.
> And there were other little quibbles - calling
> freight trains "freighters" — those would be
> sea-going vessels (And there aren't really any
> freights to speak of these days on the corridor),
> referring to "pedestrians" on the tracks — more
> like trespassers I think since there are no
> pedestrian or vehicular public crossings on the
> corridor between NY and WAS. 

The "freighter" reference made me pause for a second but I'll dismiss that one as writing for a non-railfan reader. And you'll rarely get a journalist to use the word "trespasser" in that context because, even though it is almost surely accurate, it implies conviction for a crime. Pedestrian, meaning a walking person, is factually correct even if it doesn't connote the illegality of such behavior in the particular location.