I got my clock cleaned by a linebacker once. I still haven't sorted that out. Its only been 35 years, so there is still hope. 
Steve Featherkile said:
I got my clock cleaned by a linebacker once. I still haven’t sorted that out. Its only been 35 years, so there is still hope. (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-surprised.gif)
Oh, that explains everything (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-undecided.gif)
FBI has been called in ? if some thing come thru windshield first.
Richard, if something had come through the windshield, that would explain a lot. But that is still an if at this point.
So, some guy says that he hacked the avionics of the aircraft he was on and took control of the aircraft(on the news today). I’ve seen automobiles taken over, remotely, by computer hackers. Is it possible that some smart idiot hacked that AMTRAK train? And they will never tell us?
Uh oh, the black helicopters are circling my house, again. (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-sealed.gif)
OK So question in total ignorance. If something did come through the window just before entering the curve and it struck the engineer and knocked him out why would this cause the train to go to 106 miles per hour. I could see it if it was continuing to accelerate after leaving a station or something but shouldn’t the train have been slowing or at the very least maintaining speed at or below the previous limit of 70-80 (depending on what you read).
I is interesting that another train moments before was struck by an object in the very same place. Seems very plausible. Just not sure why the train would be going that fast in the first place.
Edit: here is a story that a third train was hit by an object around the same place at the same time. Police investigated.
http://7online.com/news/sources-tell-wpvi-tv-human-error-may-have-caused-amtrak-derailment-/718120/
So whether or not it caused the crash it sure sounds as if stuff was being thrown at the trains.
Devon, the throttle is a lever on the desk/panel. If the engineer were struck, and if he had his hand on the lever, who is to say he didn’t “command” the acceleration when he was stuck. I am not saying it was intentional, I am saying he jerked his hand that way when he was struck. Of course, before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, this is all speculation at this point.
David Maynard said:
Devon, the throttle is a lever on the desk/panel. If the engineer were struck, and if he had his hand on the lever, who is to say he didn’t “command” the acceleration when he was stuck. I am not saying it was intentional, I am saying he jerked his hand that way when he was struck. Of course, before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, this is all speculation at this point.
I agree it is speculation and is a big if. You answered my if. I guess I didn’t think about the train still being operated by a throttle handle. I can see if he got whacked and went out and pushed the throttle on and then came to just in time to hits the brakes it all sounds plausible.
It’s quite plausible to visualize this: Approaching the curve his hand is on the throttle, pulling back and beginning to reduce speed, the windshield explodes in front of him and reflex causes him to push back to flee and the throttle goes up…
Hopefully the answers will come.
John
Devon,
I think this might help answer your question from the perspective from the cab. Hopefully I don’t go too deep in the weeds.
Here’s an image of a standard AAR desktop control stand, one which I would likely guess is similar to what Amtrak uses. Right to left. Independent, automatic (train brake), throttle (I’ll explain), reverser (controls forward/back). Don’t worry about the rest of the buttons. The throttle has basically 3 settings; dynamic (all the way forward), neutral, power (all the way back). Both dynamic and power settings have a series of settings 1-8, with 8 being the highest.
My educated guess, as a former engineer, is that prior to the curve the engineer was in a high throttle setting (6-8) as he was accelerating through the 60 mph straight section (see below, guessing it’s 60 because he’s going 58).
If I was running this is how I normally would approach the curve.
If he drops the throttle to idle to slow down for the curve the train is going to bunch up. So in normal circumstances, he leavves the throttle setting in a high setting, and makes a 6-8 pound set on the train line (red handle), making what rails refer to as Powerbraking. This keeps the slack tight, but allows the train to slow. As the air starts to ‘bite’ he likely drops a couple of notches (1-3) and makes another set of air. As he enters the 50 mph curve, he kicks off the air (if not already), than take a notch or two. As soon as the rear end clears the curve (remember this is Amtrak, not a 5000’ train), he notches back up to 8 for the higher speed section. Not once, does he remove the throttle from power and place it into dynamic braking to slow down for the curve.
I think I read that the NTSB released information saying that the event recorder showed the throttle in a high throttle position. This leads me to believe that for what ever reason, the engineer was unable to make either his initial brake application, or the second reduction to further slow the train down. Now Amtrak responds a lot faster than a 5000’ freight train, so it’s highly likely that he wasn’t planning on making a set until the last moment, because he knew the train, and knew the territory it’s likely that he (and other engineers) had a specific landmark in which they used to make a set.
Why he didn’t make the set? Who knows, that’s what the NTSB is going to find out hopefully.
I’ll just as an a former freight engineer, it’s really, really fun to run a train by powerbraking and not using dynamics. Makes a really smooth ride, and quick acceleration out of the slow areas. The best was powerbraking a loaded 15,000 ton grain train from 45mph down to 25 mph to go through a turnout…If you timed everything just right, the lead engine would hit the first set of points at 25-26 mph…
David Maynard said:
Devon, the throttle is a lever on the desk/panel. If the engineer were struck, and if he had his hand on the lever, who is to say he didn’t “command” the acceleration when he was stuck. I am not saying it was intentional, I am saying he jerked his hand that way when he was struck. Of course, before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, this is all speculation at this point.
Another thing to think about is the throttle is NOT like a gas pedal. Once you put the throttle in a specific setting it stays that way until you move it again. You don’t have to have your hand on the throttle to keep it ‘going’.
Craig Townsend said:
David Maynard said:
Devon, the throttle is a lever on the desk/panel. If the engineer were struck, and if he had his hand on the lever, who is to say he didn’t “command” the acceleration when he was stuck. I am not saying it was intentional, I am saying he jerked his hand that way when he was struck. Of course, before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, this is all speculation at this point.
Another thing to think about is the throttle is NOT like a gas pedal. Once you put the throttle in a specific setting it stays that way until you move it again. You don’t have to have your hand on the throttle to keep it ‘going’.
Thanks Craig that was educational and makes me realize why there are so many different scenarios
More food for thought.
One of my friends that is a rail (and huge Rhb fan, garden railroader) posted a link to a Youtube video of a similar electric locomotive throttling up. Kind of supports my theory… Watch how fast it accelerates, and then decelerates. 8600 Horsepower, train was likely 200-400 tons? That’s a dang good Horsepower per ton ratio!
I’ll just say that running at that fast, and changing speeds that quickly you really need to understand and know your territory by heart.
To add even more food for the thought. I’m taking a class right now on brain science and education, and the authors of the textbooks point out that long term memory (automatic responses) is what our brain is doing when we walk, eat, etc. So when the engineer was interviewed, the papers/NTSB reported that he could recall exact details about his trip south, and specific locations for curves, speed, etc but could not remember the accident. With my limited knowledge of the brain, this explanation seems entirely possible. The long term memory of operating the train and those details could be recalled with ease, but the short term memory of the incident was ‘wiped clean’. Any brain scientists/doctors out here?
I keep thinking too much about this, but this quote from an article strikes me as a bit odd…
“The NTSB said the regional train engineer recalled no such conversation, and investigators listened to the dispatch tape and heard no communications from the Amtrak engineer to the railroad’s dispatch center to say that something had struck the train” (Bold added for emphasis).
Why would the NTSB say that no communications between the Amtrak train and the dispatcher happened, when the rest of the information seems to indicate that it was two trains talking to one another. Maybe a news reporter not understanding the difference?
To me if there was no radio communication at all it would say
"“The NTSB said the regional train engineer recalled no such conversation, and investigators listened to the dispatch tape and heard no communications from the Amtrak engineer to the railroad’s dispatch center or between the Amtrak engineer and the regional engineer to say that something had struck the train” (Bold & italics added). I understand that this is a lot wordier, and not as smooth, but is the NTSB forgetting to include information?
There is a hearing today in Congress about this, and other crashes. It will be fun watching the suits Tapdance.
Steve Featherkile said:
There is a hearing today in Congress about this, and other crashes. It will be fun watching the suits Tapdance.
I’ve never understood why Congress needs to have a hearing about this when the NTSB is still in the process of an investigation. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have the hearing after the NTSB releases it’s final report? Never mind, it’s political theater…
because they need to look like they care and are doing something about it. Makes them look good.
Concerning the track where the train derailed,–Does anyone know the superelevation, degree of curve and length of easement?
I see that the media has posted reports of the engineer on the cell phone. this is still conjecture as the cell phone records must be varified.
NTSB is one to never give you all the info as to the on going investigation. You will be lucky to hear what the final cause is within a year. They give you just enough info for guys like you to make all kinds of conclusions. I spent 31 years dealing with those folks. We did all the leg work for them and they take all the credit. BTW it’s interesting that congress rakes Amtrak over the coals then cuts there budget. How are the ever going tfo get the safety systems in place without money. Later RJD