*** To the Moderator or Administrator. This post and thread were just deleted from your website. It has been professionally written and vetted. It had about 1500 views and 50 replies in 4 days. And it just disappeared - the original post and all the responses. I think that it may have been deleted because I used an improper abbreviation in a response. I am not sure. This is an important topic that I am posting as a public service. Please put it back up again and I will be careful with everything I write. Loco ***
The Amtrak Train 188 derailment on May 12, 2015 at Frankford Junction Curve in Northeast Philadelphia was a terrible tragedy. Eight passengers died and scores were injured, many seriously. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) conducted their usual detailed investigation and determined the accident’s probable cause. Train 188, operating northbound from Washington to New York City, entered the 50 mph curve at 106 mph, a very unsafe speed, because of what is called “situational awareness.” The train’s engineer Brandon Bostian apparently lost track of where he was on the route, and believed that he was beyond this unusually sharp curve when he was not.
The investigation established that Engineer Bostian had a clean disciplinary record, was not impaired by drugs or alcohol, and he was not using a cell phone or any other personal electronic device. Shortly before the accident, a SEPTA train on an adjacent track stopped because of a thrown rock shattering that train’s windshield. There was much radio chatter about the SEPTA incident as Train 188 approached the fateful curve, and this may have distracted Bostian. All the avai
We need to know how long it would have taken for a signal maintainer to change the 4 tracks approach signals north bound to approach 60 ?. That would have taken care of the ATC limiting the speed of 188 ?
I wrote that preface to the Administraor because they took down the entire thread that had 1500 or so views and many posts. I assume that it was because I used unacceptable slang in a response. Not sure. I was basically begging Trains to put the thread back up.
By the explanation given, it seems that the ATC equipment was not deemed to have been necessary. The safety issue was to prevent exceeding the overturn speed on the curve. Apparently, the speed limit alone was thought to be insufficient to prevent overspeed on the curve. And yet, the speed limit alone was deemed to be sufficient to control the speed leading up to the reduced speed limit of the curve if the the speed limit of the preceding section was lower than the overturn speed of the curve.
What seems oddly inconsistent in this thinking is this: If the speed limit alone is insufficient to guarantee safe speed for the curve, why is it sufficient to guarantee that trains approaching the curve speed limit will not be exceeding the speed limit during that approach?
This seems like incredibly compartmentalized reasoning on the part of the decision makers. To have applied ATC protection with such fuzzy reasoning tells me that they really believed that the speed limit alone was sufficient and were only installing the redundancy of ATC because they were being forced to by higher authority. Further evidence of that is the fact that they felt that fixed signs warning of the curve overturn hazard were not needed because there was a speed limit rule covering the hazard.
The ATC cab signals were never used before the accident at this curve to force northbound trains down to safe speeds. We always received Clear signals and Clear cab.
They never considered that an engineer could get lost or disoriented in the dark operating a hot locomotive with a high acceleration rate on a route where permitte
Actually it does. If someone says the post was professionally written, then I think that person owes the audience some disclosure.
Not saying I disagree with you, but the use of “professionally written and vetted” is odd. Lawyer? Consulting group? Safety group? Union? Or simply a copy and paste job?
The statement was written to the Board Administrator for reasons previously explained. I thought that they would strip it away before the post went up, and they did not. Regardless, the statement is true and it was not a cut and paste job.
You have read the post and my later comments. Do you think that it was a cut and paste job?
My only aim is to provbide accurate and complete information something that the news media has not done.
I ask everyone to dwell on the facts. If there is something I wrote that you do not believe, please say so. I should be able to back up everything I said.
The complete story is that about one hundred years ago the PRR acquired property and engineered a new ROW to eliminate the curve at Frankfort Jct. Then at the last minute decided against it and superelevated the tracks instead. Three years ago it came back to bite us.
I wonder what the agenda is behind the engineer being charged with 200 counts of reckless endangerment, 8 counts of involuntary manslaughter, and 1 count of causing a catastrophe. Could it be that the agenda is to get the blame off of Amtrak by putting it on Bostian?
Loco: When did you start running trains on the NEC?
My all-PRR head-end observations were WWII-1966.
Possibly the enforcement of permanent speed restrictions feature was removed when top speeds were raised from 100 to 125 mph?
However, the speed restriction feature may have been independent of the signal display itself.
Some correct if this incorrect. Did PRR overturn a GG-1 nothbound train at Frankford during WW-2 ? Probably it was a much heavier PRR heavyweight train behind the GG-1 instead of the more powerful ACS-64 of 188 a shorter train ?
Prosecutors always overcharge. That way, juries can convict on fewer/lesser charges and feel that they gave the defendant a break. Of course, if they have a poor case, they can overcharge knowing there will be no conviction, therefore they can say “I did the best I could but the jury didn’t agree”.