Amtrak crash on NE Corridor

[kentuckysouthernrwy]

Reports are of 2 fatalities involved in Amtrak derailment. NE Corridor is shut down after the accident near Chester, PA

The train bound from New York to Savannah, GA hit a piece of construction equipment on the track.

[riogrande]

Not much info yet. Hit a back hoe according to scant details so far.

[mlehman]

The 2 fatalities seem to be associated with the backhoe. Nothing life-threatening for those aboard apparently, but the front of the loco was pretty trashed.

Makes one wonder if these people were rail workers or contractors -- seems way too clueless for this to happen if that, it is Sunday morning, so would think if it was an emergency enough to be working then someone would know something about why it was there, but you never know? -- or some kids joyriding?

[Tom]

Tragically, the two deceased are Amtrak employees.

[mlehman]

Yeah, been working and just saw that, the hoe operator and a supervisor. I assume it's multi-track through there. Anyone know how that location's arrangement might figure into this?

[Amboy Secondary]

Apr 3, 2016 12:39:41 GMT -8 mlehman said:

Yeah, been working and just saw that, the hoe operator and a supervisor. I assume it's multi-track through there. Anyone know how that location's arrangement might figure into this?

Guys:

Four main tracks numbered, East to West, 1-2-3-4. All tracks are in Cab Signal Territory, Track Speed #1 and #4 (Outer tracks) 90 MPH, #2 and #3 track 110 MPH. All tracks are signaled in both directions (Rule 261), and ACSES (Positive Train Control) should be in effect on all tracks.
Train #89 was on #3 track. There was MW equipment stenciled for "LORAM", a ME Contractor, that appeared (from news footage) to be standing on #2 track North of Highland Avenue station. News video of the train at rest, a mile south of the reported impact location, showed frontal damage to the derailed locomotive, and side collision damage to the first Amfleet car behind the engine, indicating that possibly the backhoe was on #3 track or adjacent to #3 track but fouling #3 track. The track is elevated above street level in this area, and pretty much tangent with good visibility.

I am of the opinion, that the backhoe was not where it was supposed to be and was somehow fouling the main without proper authority or protection against train movements. (I was qualified to operate trains over that territory until my retirement 7 years ago).

For those of you with access to track charts,the collision was reported to be between Highland Ave MP 15.5, and Booth Street, MP15.7. The train finally came to a stop in the vicinity of MP 16.3 (Trainer).

There is also a small freight yard on the East side, the "Naught" Running track, and several other yard tracks, the remanent of the PRR/PC Thurlow Yard. The freight trackage was not a factor in this incident.

Should be interesting to learn what actually happened. Sad to learn of the fatalities. This was IMHO, avoidable. It's also very fortunate that there were so few passenger and crew injuries, considering the reported passenger count.

[canrailfan]

The Associated Press video clip on YouTube shows a Loram RailVac Excavator. One of the photos on the Loram website clearly shows that this machine can operate well to the side of the track it is occupying. It's possible both Train 89 and the machine were where they were supposed to be (Trk 3 and Trk 2 respectively) but that the machine's nozzle was fouling Trk 3 and was hit by Train 89.

The picture also shows that the machine is operated from the ground, putting the two workers in harms way if the nozzle was hit.  Their hearing protection probably meant they didn't even hear Train 89 coming.

[mlehman]

Thanks for the info, fellows. Doesn't explain the accident itself yet, but does indicate how close danger lurks on the railroad when you're working...and they somehow ended up a little too close to it.

[edwardsutorik]

There was a photo of a large rubber-tired wheel. So a backhoe does sound plausible.

The damage to the front of the locomotive appears worse on its right face. And the damage to the first car is on the right side.

So I would guess that the object was more towards track 4 than track 2. The damage looks bad enough to make me suspect that it was worse than an "arm" hanging over track 3, which I would think would cause the backhoe to spin around and be deflected.

But apparently there's a recording of the event from the cab.

I would think that it would be good practice to "shunt the rails" (or whatever the signaling term is) of every track where equipment is. Obviously, that would have included track 3. And not to remove it until all equipment is clear. Thus the loco would have seen a red.



Ed

[mlehman]

Ed,
I agree, looks like it was pretty much in front of the loco, as I wouldn't think just clipping a digging boom or bucket would do all that (to the loco, anyway) and agree that would tend to push the struck unit away from the leverage. But there can be some weird physics in accidents...

I suspect the problem was the backhoe wasn't where it was supposed to be, so even if power was down would not matter, but just a strong suspicion that's the case. With so much other equipment nearby, it was OK. I bet that capacity issues may make it difficult to take adjacent tracks out of service, which might have prevented this. But MOW just has to keep aware of the live tracks when around so many and a moment's inattention...

[canrailfan]

There's more pictures and video up today on the web, it was definitely a tractor backhoe that was hit. It likely was working with the Loram Rail Vac which in some photos appears to be damaged as well.

I'm surprised that Amtrak doesn't require trains passing work sites to reduce speed significantly. From the damage to the front of the locomotive it appears to have been traveling near full track speed. Photos of the tractor backhoe show it to be completely torn apart.

On most railroads I'm familiar with, trains approaching a work site are required to contact the foreman and request clearance past the work location. The foreman may clear a train at track speed or sometimes a slower speed, depending on the conditions around the work area. In all cases though, the workers have advance notice that a train is approaching their location.

Is this not the case in the NEC?

[edwardsutorik]

I wonder if the supervisor told the engineer to come on through, assuming he had enough time to clear the track. And then the backhoe got stuck. On the track. And then things got real frantic.


Ed

[kentuckysouthernrwy]

Another example of how rules or operational changes are often written in blood. Sad for all involved, must have been a terribly fright for the cab crew before and after the collision. Are the trains in this area crewed with just one person?

[Amboy Secondary]

To clarify a few points about Amtrak's protocol for protecting Roadway workers and track cars from train movement. Most maintenance work is performed at night, when few trains are running. MW equipment and personnel cannot occupy tracks or foul tracks without proper authority from the train dispatcher. Conversely, train movements other than work trains under the supervision of a qualified track foreman are not permitted on out of service tracks.

It appears that track #2 was out of service, and occupied by track cars (MW equipment). The other three tracks were live, and considered hot.

The MW Foreman in charge of the MW equipment and/or backhoe, is required to be qualified on the Rules and Physical Characteristics of the territory he or she was working in, so they were familiar with the procedures and practices involved with working on the NEC, and required to be re-qualified annually. In plain english, it's the Track Foreman's job to know he has the proper authority and protection, before occupying or fouling a track. MW forces are aware that trains on adjacent tracks will operate at maximum authorized speed, unless otherwise arranged in advance.

Train was in accordance with signal indication.

If they had authority to occupy or foul #3 track, (the track occupied by #89), then #89 would have been held at Baldwin the controlled point 4 miles North of the location where the incident took place. If they did not have permission to occupy or foul #3 track, the Track Foreman, was required to remain clear until after the train had passed.

MW Foremen, are issued Radios and Cell Phones for the purpose of communication, including obtaining authority to occupy or foul track.

Normally, the engineer is the only crew member in the cab of the motor, unless he has a trainee, or someone else with proper authorization to be on the head end.

[mlehman]

The NY Times has a pretty thorough run-down on the issue of authority.
Amtrak Trying to Determine if Workers Were Authorized to Be on Tracks
Seems to indicate three tracks live and one down for the machine as above. Train was at 106 where the limit was 110, emergency braking applied 5 seconds before impact. So didn't see it coming until right before impact, maybe visions obscured by the machine or other factors? The train sounds like it had the authority, so then who sent the backhoe out? sounds like the focus right now.

[bnsf971]

The latest report I have says the equipment was not supposed to be occupying the track it was on, and the train struck it at nearly track speed. It was said to be moving at 106mph, track speed was 110, and the train's brakes were applied about 800 feet from point of impact. At which point the train traveled several hundred feet before coming to a stop. I am usually skeptical of news reports, but the one I read seems to have most points properly covered.

[Amboy Secondary]

I'm skeptical about any news report, concerning train accidents. I'm equally skeptical of anything stated by the NTSB. I know the location well, having started my railroad career at Thurlow yard, which was two blocks from the point of impact.

Visibility, should not have been a factor, as the area is along a stretch of tangent track. Since the engineer initiated braking five seconds or 800 feet from the impact, that says to me that the backhoe drove out in front of the train at the last second. It also says they did not have a foul and were doing this on their own....Remember time and space evaporate quickly at 106 mph. Rolling down the main at track speed, with a clear wayside signal, and a clear cab signal, preparing to brake for the next (100 MPH) restriction, the last thing an engineer would expect would be some idiot in a backhoe darting out at you from the side.

Keep in mind that this investigation now hinges on whether or not the track men had permission to foul. Keep in mind that all communications with the dispatcher are recorded - that includes radio and phone conversation are recorded. Absence of such conversation, indicates the track men did not get permission. Again, this information was already available and known to Amtrak investigators.

A backhoe, is a rubber tired vehicle, so it would most likely not shunt the track circuit. Most MW equipment, for that matter, does not shunt signals, which is why track car rules prohibit following train movements, and why tracks are taken out of service, for programed MW work.

[mlehman]

Apr 5, 2016 4:13:31 GMT -8 Amboy Secondary said:

I'm skeptical about any news report, concerning train accidents. I'm equally skeptical of anything stated by the NTSB. I know the location well, having started my railroad career at Thurlow yard, which was two blocks from the point of impact.

Visibility, should not have been a factor, as the area is along a stretch of tangent track. Since the engineer initiated braking five seconds or 800 feet from the impact, that says to me that the backhoe drove out in front of the train at the last second. It also says they did not have a foul and were doing this on their own....Remember time and space evaporate quickly at 106 mph.
SNIP

I gotta agree with your scenario here, although the evidence will show whether or not that's what happened.

Despite your skepticism, it pretty much fits with the NYT report. While I agree that often journalists are pretty clueless when writing about railroad-related stuff, in this case the report seems accurate from everything we know at this point.

The NTSB does a pretty good job all around, but I realize sticking to the facts and taking their time doing it doesn't suit some.

[edwardsutorik]

I would think this document would be very appropriate:


www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/2886


It can sometimes be kinda dry, like a building code. But it surely does make interesting reading.


Ed

[canrailfan]

A momentary lapse on the part of the backhoe operator perhaps and a sad outcome for the families of the two workers.

It is very fortunate for those on the train that only the front truck of the locomotive derailed. The outcome could have been much worse had the whole train derailed at 106 mph.

I haven't seen any updates on the condition of the engineer.

[Paul Cutler III]

It makes me wonder if someone got their track numbers messed up. West of NYC (ex-PRR), it's 4-3-2-1. East of NYC (ex-NH), it's 3-1-2-4. I know an Amtrak maintenance guy who normally works on ex-NH lines but is sometimes assigned to work West of NYC, and he told me that the guys down in ex-PRR territory thought it was "interesting" that all the odd tracks were on one side of the mainline (with even tracks on the other). Some 47 years after the PC/NH merger, and they still haven't changed the track numbers to one continuous system from Boston to Washington. I wonder if this will change now.

[edwardsutorik]

IF the work crew shunted the track(s) they were working on, it wouldn't have degraded safety if there was a misunderstanding about track numbering.

I am surprised the train was not operating at restricted speed.

The NTSB report will be very interesting reading. In about 6 months, when it comes out.


Ed

[Amboy Secondary]

Why would one assume that there was confusion about track numbering? Am I missing something? The foreman in charge of a MW work gang, is supposed to be qualified on the physical characteristics of the railroad he is working on. Qualification includes knowing what track he or she is on, what rules are in effect, what rules he or she is working under, and who is in charge of (controls) the railroad in question. If the foreman is confused about what he or she is supposed to do, then they should not be in charge of roadway workers, and certainly not occupying track for any reason.

I am really curious how this will play out.

[edwardsutorik]

The train was only a few minutes behind schedule. A schedule that the experienced crew supervisor should have been familiar with.

And I think the supervisor knew this and had his guys off the tracks and out of the way.

And I think the backhoe had been left on the track they were working on, on the assumption that passing trains would be routed around that track (perhaps others already had been). That track being #3, as a passenger noted that they hit a bunch of dust and gravel before hitting the backhoe.

And I think the crew realized the train was on track #3 and tried to move the backhoe. And it didn't work out.

And I think the crew should have put a shunt on the track. And not depend on someone/something somewhere else to deal with safety.


Ed

[Amboy Secondary]

Track #2, was out of service for Maintenance. The Night track foreman had given up his fouls on #1 and #3, and cleared up. Day shift Track Foreman, had not as yet requested a foul, (per a source). It gets a little muddy after that as there are "reports" that the contractor began working without permission. Keep in mind that the LORAM equipment did not come in contract with the train, and no LORAM employees were injured.
The backhoe, somehow ended up on # 3 track and was hit directly by the train. There was no permission for the backhoe to be out there. Had they applied shunts, they may have prevented the accident, but would have blown themselves in for occupying a track without proper authority, a dismissable rules violation. ACSES was in service at the location. The MW did not place transponders which would protect their work zone, for the same reason, it would have exposed their rules violation.

There was a article passed on to me from someone who obtained it from something called the Trains Newswire. If you have access to it, it's informative. One interesting comment links the backhoe to yet another contractor.

Over the years, I have experienced close calls while on the head end, where a trespasser, or a contractor, or an employee with or without equipment has stepped out in front of my moving train. I never hit anyone or anything except a couple of deer and a flock of wild turkeys, but it's scary. Once passing the TLM near Lehman, (Strasburg RR connection), a backhoe popped out in front of me while I was running at 90MPH, but ducked out of the way. The track foreman claimed it didn't happen...I had a Road Foreman riding with me... Bell Ringing and Horn blowing passing the TLM. I was never required to present testimony at a disciplinary hearing for the track men, so I imagine nothing was ever done about it.
I was very fortunate, that in 42 years, I only hit one auto at a crossing, and never killed anyone.

No device, no regulation, no policy can protect a stupid person from hurting themselves.

Joe

[canrailfan]

Trains News Wire is the online daily railroad news feed from Trains magazine. It is available to subscribers of Trains and has a reputation for accurate and factual reporting. Some stories are from other news organizations and some are originated by Trains staff. TNW covers railroad business news, preservation news, special events, major rail accidents and political items concerning railroads.

The article Joe mentions says Loram had a Rail Vac machine working at the accident location (on track 2) but that the backhoe was under the control of Amtrak. It's not clear if this means it belonged to Amtrak or was provided by another contractor working on the project.

By all accounts it now appears that the backhoe fouled Track 3 (with or without permission isn't clear) right in front of Train 89. From the photos available online, the backhoe looks to have been working south of the Loram machine which probably obstructed the engineer's view of the backhoe until the last moment.

[edwardsutorik]

Apr 6, 2016 17:27:56 GMT -8 Amboy Secondary said:

Had they applied shunts, they may have prevented the accident, but would have blown themselves in for occupying a track without proper authority, a dismissable rules violation.

Yes, but why would they want to occupy a track without proper authority?

It seems kinda simple. If you're going to work on a track, you shunt it. If you need authority, get it. If you don't have it, tell the boss you're darn sorry, but...........



Ed

[Amboy Secondary]

Apr 6, 2016 20:55:16 GMT -8 edwardsutorik said:

Apr 6, 2016 17:27:56 GMT -8 Amboy Secondary said:

Had they applied shunts, they may have prevented the accident, but would have blown themselves in for occupying a track without proper authority, a dismissable rules violation.

Yes, but why would they want to occupy a track without proper authority?

It seems kinda simple. If you're going to work on a track, you shunt it. If you need authority, get it. If you don't have it, tell the boss you're darn sorry, but...........



Ed

Hate to say this, but it happens all too frequently. Why do drivers blow stop signs and run red lights? That makes no sense either. Part of this "may" come from the deep seated resentment, that the MW crafts have for the operating department. "Transportation" (or "Operations") are deliberately holding us off the track, and we can't get our work done! It may be as simple as thinking "we got time". Possibly, it's the "Production uber alles" attitude... who knows? What motivates people to put their lives at risk to save a couple of minutes?

The Philadelphia Inquirer, identified the deceased. they are age 59 and 61, nearing or at retirement age. One of the named is familiar, possibly I may have encountered him. One gets to meet a lot of people over 42 years. Needless to say, these folks did know what they were doing. They have probably been doing this for years. Sadly, this time they got caught. Old school railroaders take chances, to get the job done. Newer people are less likely to stick their necks out, and have bought into the work safe mentality. They would have been authorized as soon as #89 passed, for at least 40" of foul time on #3. WTF?

Joe

[mlehman]

Apr 7, 2016 9:28:41 GMT -8 Amboy Secondary said:

SNIP
Needless to say, these folks did know what they were doing. They have probably been doing this for years. Sadly, this time they got caught. Old school railroaders take chances, to get the job done. Newer people are less likely to stick their necks out, and have bought into the work safe mentality.
SNIP

I wouldn't assume the deceased were taking chances. Maybe it was someone else's mistake and they believed they had authority or, noticing they had a piece of equipment on a track with an oncoming train, they tried to move it off? Probably several other possible scenarios where they might have died because of someone else's mistake, but we won't know until the investigation yields results.

That said, you're right in general...You're never too old to work safely, until you don't...

[canrailfan]

Having watched backhoe operators on various construction projects (my young son was a construction fanatic, we spent a lot of time watching) they get into a 'groove' especially when doing repetitive tasks. The driver in this case may have been working on Track 2 in front of the Rail Vac since he started that morning and routinely fouling Track 3 as he was moving around. Up until the crash it hadn't mattered...

The engineer would have seen the backhoe suddenly appear from beyond the Rail Vac as it moved into his train's path. Nothing he could do by then.

The backhoe driver was focused on his work. There should have been someone else acting as lookout to warn of the approaching train.