Passenger Trains > NTSB Amtrak 501 Report: “Errors and Unsupported Statements”

Some really interesting points refuting the NTSB report...

https://www.railwayage.com/safety/ntsb-amtrak-501-report-errors-and-unsupported-statements/


-Tom

Meanwhile in Germany, DB has ordered new Talgo sets to replace some of it's aging ICE equipment. 

Glad to see Talgo fighting back, against government bureaucrats, who sit in their offices, but do not operate trains.

MEKoch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Glad to see Talgo fighting back, against
> government bureaucrats, who sit in their offices,
> but do not operate trains.

It's almost as if the NTSB likes to ride its favorite hobbyhorses, irrespective of the facts.

For what it's worth, NTSB did recommend immediate withdrawal of WMATA 1000-series cars after the Fort Totten wreck in 2009. Yes, I know that's transit and not "passenger rail."

Paul Wilson
Arlington, VA

Isn't there the small issue of Talgo not meeting US standards for rail cars?

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't there the small issue of Talgo not meeting
> US standards for rail cars?

Talgo says otherwise, due to recent updates to FRA's crashworthiness standards and new "compliance paths." From the article:

“The irony is that a new provision in the Tier I rules (49 CFR 238.201, Scope/Alternative Compliance), allows new Tier I trainsets to alternatively comply with the new Tier III rules. Thus, while the existing Talgo Series VI sets must continue to operate under the FRA ‘grandfathering’ waiver, an identical, newly manufactured one would not need that waiver (or any waiver at all) if it could be shown to be in compliance with the new high-speed rules.

Paul Wilson
Arlington, VA

Dcmcrider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Isn't there the small issue of Talgo not
> meeting
> > US standards for rail cars?
>
> Talgo says otherwise, due to recent updates to
> FRA's crashworthiness standards and new
> "compliance paths." From the article:
>
> “The irony is that a new provision in the Tier I
> rules (49 CFR 238.201, Scope/Alternative
> Compliance), allows new Tier I trainsets to
> alternatively comply with the new Tier III rules.
> Thus, while the existing Talgo Series VI sets must
> continue to operate under the FRA
> ‘grandfathering’ waiver, an identical, newly
> manufactured one would not need that waiver (or
> any waiver at all) if it could be shown to be in
> compliance with the new high-speed rules.

Thanks, that's great info.

Maybe Talgo could demonstrate test and prove compliance, then get back in the game for the US market.

One Amcoach-1 was ripped open like a tin can in 188's wreck after smacking a Pennsy catenary pole at 102MPH. 
One Amdinette-2 snapped in half like a toothpick in the Silver Star's crash, coincidentally (or maybe not) at the supply hatch door.

Completely different wreck between each other and and 501's, yet NTSB did not say remove all Amfleet from service. 

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One Amcoach-1 was ripped open like a tin can in
> 188's wreck after smacking a Pennsy catenary pole
> at 102MPH. 
> One Amdinette-2 snapped in half like a toothpick
> in the Silver Star's crash, coincidentally (or
> maybe not) at the supply hatch door.
>
> Completely different wreck between each other and
> and 501's, yet NTSB did not say remove all Amfleet
> from service. 

The Amfleet cars performed admirably and limited passenger harm and fatalities.

When that Spanish Talgo train went airborne on a curve at a similar speed, 80 people died.  When 188 did the same thing, 8 people died.  I hope you can understand the difference between 80 and 8.  Its an order of magnitude.

Amtrak management is mostly to blame.
No matter what type of equipment was in use it would have come off the track
the way Amtrak handled the employee training on the new route.

Absolutely! It has been very clever for them to try and put the blame elsewhere. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/20/19 09:40 by PRSL-recall.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe Talgo could demonstrate test and prove
> compliance, then get back in the game for the US
> market.

They did, on December 17 2018. The equipment survived the forces that are the subject of the regulation. Other forces involving hitting a retaining wall and taking flight are not considered by the regulation.

TAW

Dcmcrider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Talgo says otherwise,

...as does FRA, which told WSDOT that withdrawing the Talgo VI sets is not necessary.

> due to recent updates to
> FRA's crashworthiness standards and new
> "compliance paths." From the article:
>
> “The irony is that a new provision in the Tier I
> rules (49 CFR 238.201, Scope/Alternative
> Compliance), allows new Tier I trainsets to
> alternatively comply with the new Tier III rules.
> Thus, while the existing Talgo Series VI sets must
> continue to operate under the FRA
> ‘grandfathering’ waiver, an identical, newly
> manufactured one would not need that waiver (or
> any waiver at all) if it could be shown to be in
> compliance with the new high-speed rules.

The "grandfathering" relates to the existing sets not being subjected to a crush test at Pueblo. Seeing is believing and all that. After the trains were delivered, FRA decided that they needed to be physically tested. That wasn't reasonable since the new service with the new trains was already operating...without spare equipment. There was a big political fight about that. FRA gave in, agreeing that the mathematical and visual proof Talgo provided (If I remember correctly, Talgo went as far as cutting away side sheets to demonstrate that the structure was indeed as shown in the plans.) would be sufficient to allow them to stay in service on this corridor only. It was like a plea bargain where the defendant has no other option. We admit that your trains are safe where they are and you agree that they are probably not safe anywhere else. A subsequent production run of a car of the same construction passed the crush test.

TAW

So, does that mean Talgo can seek business in the US, and present "qualified" for crash survivability equipment?

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> joemvcnj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > One Amcoach-1 was ripped open like a tin can in
> > 188's wreck after smacking a Pennsy catenary
> pole
> > at 102MPH. 
> > One Amdinette-2 snapped in half like a
> toothpick
> > in the Silver Star's crash, coincidentally (or
> > maybe not) at the supply hatch door.
> >
> > Completely different wreck between each other
> and
> > and 501's, yet NTSB did not say remove all
> Amfleet
> > from service. 
>
> The Amfleet cars performed admirably and limited
> passenger harm and fatalities.
>
> When that Spanish Talgo train went airborne on a
> curve at a similar speed, 80 people died.  When
> 188 did the same thing, 8 people died.  I hope
> you can understand the difference between 80 and
> 8.  Its an order of magnitude.

I remember that but I do not know what standard the Spanish train was.  Are they even Series VI?  Probably far from Series VIII.

As far as the Star crash, I think Amtrak REALLY LUCKED OUT.  Think of the death numbers if that cafe car was a coach full of passengers.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, does that mean Talgo can seek business in the
> US, and present "qualified" for crash
> survivability equipment?

Yes. The Taglo 8 can be ordered and meets current US safety standards. The train involved in the crash that started this topic was an older Talgo 6.

Regarding Train 501, here's another good Railway Age article:

https://www.railwayage.com/david-schanoes/asking-the-difficult-question/

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> joemvcnj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > One Amcoach-1 was ripped open like a tin can in
> > 188's wreck after smacking a Pennsy catenary
> pole
> > at 102MPH. 
> > One Amdinette-2 snapped in half like a
> toothpick
> > in the Silver Star's crash, coincidentally (or
> > maybe not) at the supply hatch door.
> >
> > Completely different wreck between each other
> and
> > and 501's, yet NTSB did not say remove all
> Amfleet
> > from service. 
>
> The Amfleet cars performed admirably and limited
> passenger harm and fatalities.
>
> When that Spanish Talgo train went airborne on a
> curve at a similar speed, 80 people died.  When
> 188 did the same thing, 8 people died.  I hope
> you can understand the difference between 80 and
> 8.  Its an order of magnitude.

The Spanish Talgo also slammed right into a solid concrete bridge abutment, one Amfleet hit one catenary support. Big difference.

MattW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > When that Spanish Talgo train went airborne on
> a
> > curve at a similar speed, 80 people died. 
> When
> > 188 did the same thing, 8 people died.  I hope
> > you can understand the difference between 80
> and
> > 8.  Its an order of magnitude.
>
> The Spanish Talgo also slammed right into a solid
> concrete bridge abutment, one Amfleet hit one
> catenary support. Big difference.

Really?  You think many dozens died because the train scraped along a bridge abutment?  There is always some excuse about why 100 people die in European wrecks where 5 die in an American train wreck that avoids bringing up crashworthiness standards.  If they died from scraping a bridge abutment, its because the inadequate European standards allowed the carbodies to be compromised by the forces involved.

 

It didn't "scrape" along a bridge abutment, it slammed into it. It may have scraped along a bit after it hit it, but to imply all it did is scrape is wrong. Another one people like to point out is Eschede where a bridge literally fell on top of the train. Please, tell me of a case here in America where a bridge literally fell on a train.