9 ms·

Amtrak derailment: safety gear was not active after rush to launch service

69 points by charlysl 9y ago

yellow_postit 9y ago
Nothing in the article about a “rush to launch”. I would love all safety tech to rollout immediately but it doesn’t and it’s not reasonable to expect no new lines to launch. Pushing to delay installs for cost reasons though still doesn’t sit well.
- tinus_hn 9y ago
  Except in the title and the first line? Did you read the same article I did?
  - donarb 9y ago
    The article does not explain the use of the word "rush" anywhere in the article. The article infers that because the line opened before the PTC system was ready that it was rushed. The article even inserted a disclaimer: "The agencies did not immediately respond to questions about why they did so [publicize line opening] while the speed-control technology was still months away." That is lazy reporting. All documents about construction details and timelines are available from the project website.
- mikeash 9y ago
  What do you mean, "expect no new lines to launch"? The article says that the safety systems in question are being installed and will be ready relatively soon, but they chose to start service without them. Delaying a new service for a little while to wait for such things to be installed seems pretty reasonable!
  - betterunix2 9y ago
    It seems less reasonable when you compare the safety of train travel to the safety of automobile travel, and when you consider that every time a new passenger route is opened it takes cars off the road. Yes there are train wrecks, and yes, PTC would have prevented this specific wreck, but trains remain one of the safest modes of transit.
    - AdamJacobMuller 9y ago
      > this specific wreck PTC wouldn't have just prevented this specific wreck, PTC would have prevented like 9 of the last 10 fatal train wrecks in the USA. Every single fatal wreck that happened since Obama pushed back the mandate would have been avoided by PTC.
      - betterunix2 9y ago
        Let's assume you are right, and that in the past three years PTC would have prevented the majority of fata train wrecks. How many fatalities are you talking about? How many lives should we expect PTC to save over the next decade? The more important question is this: how many automobile fatalities could be prevented if we took the billions of dollars being spent on PTC and spent it building a new commuter rail line that took hundreds of cars off the road every day?
        AstralStorm 9y ago
        Make sure to build it up to at least 1950s standards in safety. Many parts of US rail do not feature even basics. They rely on the driver and signals only... Like this one where the derailment happened.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      Are you sure trains are safer? I found these tables: https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_42.html https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pu... https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_17.html https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pu... Train fatalities tend to be clumped so the stats tend to vary a lot from one year to the next, but it looks like in recent years the typical rate is something like 5 fatalities per 100 million passenger-miles. The car data only gives fatalities per vehicle-mile for some reason, but that will always be a pessimistic number (at least until autonomous cars happen), and that rate is just a bit over 1 fatality per 100 million vehicle-miles. It looks like cars are quite a bit safer, unless I've misunderstood something. The absolute number of fatalities is far lower for trains, but the number of passenger miles per year is also far lower.
  - roywiggins 9y ago
    Well, if they hadn't started service on this line they would have continued service on the old line, which also doesn't have PTC, so it's not exactly a net loss. This new line is a sort of bypass meant to replace an older one.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      The fact that they safely operated on the old track for years, then had a horrible crash on their very first run on the new track, makes me think it really did make a big difference. It's possible that this was just a horrible coincidence, but it seems more likely that something about the new line made it riskier. Maybe just the fact that the driver is less familiar with it? Allowing operations to start on a new line before important safety equipment has been installed is also a good way to make that installation happen very late. If you say "you cannot operate until this is done," it has a way of motivating people to get it done. If you say "you can operate now, just try to get it done" then it may take quite a long time to actually happen.
      - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        But it's the newness of the line that made the big difference, not the absence of PTC. (Or, perhaps, the newness of the line plus the absence of PTC.)
        mikeash 9y ago
        I'm not sure what point you're making. If a new line is more dangerous then isn't that a pretty good argument for delaying its use until the safety systems are installed?
        AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        To review: You said that delaying the start of the new line until PTC was installed seems pretty reasonable. roywiggins replied that the line being replaced also didn't have PTC, so that switching to the new line meant swapping a line without PTC for another line without PTC, which is a net wash. You replied "It's possible that this was just a horrible coincidence, but it seems more likely that something about the new line made it riskier. Maybe just the fact that the driver is less familiar with it?" I presume that you're still arguing here for waiting until PTC was installed. I replied. Since you didn't seem to understand my reply, let me try again. There are lots of things that could make a new line more dangerous. Some of them could be fixed by PTC. Some of them would not. So unless you know that the cause of the crash is something that PTC would have prevented, then "the new line is more dangerous" does not imply "wait for PTC". Why is the new line more dangerous? Is it because it has a curve? The other line had far more. Is it because the new line had a curve that was lower speed than the rest of the line? It's possible that the other line had so many curves that there never was a place for fast running, and therefore that there never was a curve that you could be suckered into coming into too fast. Is the new line more dangerous because people aren't familiar with it? Well, that's what months of training runs are for. (They did do months of training runs, didn't they?) It's possible that the cause is a combination of all of this: A tight curve in the middle of a fast stretch, and engineers unfamiliar with the route ran into the curve too fast. If that's all true, then yes, PTC probably would have prevented the crash. Also note that all this is hindsight. When making the decision to open the new line, was it obvious that the new line (without PTC) was more dangerous than the old line (also without PTC)? Probably not. If anything, I suspect that the thinking was that the new line would be less dangerous - it wouldn't be cluttered up with a bunch of freight trains, running on a line without PTC, where a mistake could squish a passenger train. So if the thinking in advance is that the new line is at least as safe, and plausibly safer, even without the safety equipment, why would you wait?
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    Define "relatively soon". In particular, how likely do you consider a delay? How likely do you consider a delay after that? You could wind up waiting several years, while your "ready to go" line just sits there, eating up maintenance costs but not being used. Also, define "ready". Is it ready when it's running, but is only 75% likely to actually stop a train if needed because of various bugs? (Note well: I do not know what PTC's bug track record is. I just know that such systems often have bugs that take a while to work out.) In the real world, projects that wait for everything to be ready before they ship at all are often very late. On the other hand, you don't ship something without basic safety features. So it all depends on whether you view PTC as a basic safety feature. (After the crash, it's easy to say "obviously it is", but I'm not sure that it's fair to use hindsight that way. PTC was supposed to be a small increment of safety to an already quite safe mode of transportation.)
    - mikeash 9y ago
      How likely are delays in other parts of the project? There are plenty of things that could be delayed and would physically prevent train service from running on the line. Is it really such a massive risk to to say that safety equipment must be installed before operations begin, even if the train could potentially make the run without it? I don't know about that "quite safe" thing. I looked up the stats in another comment in this tree and they look pretty bad for trains.
tomalpha 9y ago
According to a 2011 article[0], the US has (or at least had) the largest number of deaths per passenger-mile in the world. It’s easy to overweight recent events. Can this be true? It feels like there’s a piece missing somewhere. [0] https://pedestrianobservations.com/2011/06/02/comparative-rail-safety/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2011/06/02/comparative-ra...
- rayiner 9y ago
  It’s totally believable. China and Europe both implemented some form of positive train control, largely because much of their passenger traffic runs on relatively new track designed for passenger traffic. In the US, we’ve not built significant passenger rail track in a century. The only part of Amtrak’s network owned by Amtrak is the northeast corridor. Key parts of that infrastructure date to the 1800s (e.g. the tunnel under Baltimore). Everywhere else, Amtrak runs in freight track.
- jdonaldson 9y ago
  I came in here to vent about how unsafe our rail systems are. However, our deaths per passenger-mile are well below the EU average, and we're safer than all except UK, Denmark, and Netherlands: https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/25/how-safe-are-europe-railways https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/25/how-sa... Still, this wreck is sad, and also embarrassing. Our rail system is just not a meaningful transportation network, and is such a missed opportunity. Even small efforts at improving it seem to end in failure, or even disaster.
  - niftich 9y ago
    Reading transportation fatality statistics requires some nuance. In the realm of railways, most fatalities tend to be suicides causing no additional deaths, which are often analyzed separately. The EU does this [1], while the Guardian article only raises this distinction halfway through. Once you exclude suicides, there are several other categories that are useful to distinguish: collisions (e.g. between two trains), derailments, accidents at road-crossings, and 'accidents to persons caused by rolling stock in motion' [2]. The share of accidents by category will tell you a lot about a particular country's issues; a relatively large amount of level crossing accidents may suggest that not enough of the rail network may be grade separated (e.g. Poland, Hungary, Romania), while a high share (and absolute number) of collisions or derailments would be a serious cause for alarm. Also consider this 2012 post [3] which compares collisions and derailments per usage by country between Europe and the US, originally written as a response to that 2011 article. [1] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Rail_accident_fatalities_in_the_EU http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?... [2] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Accidents_to_persons_caused_by_rolling_stock_in_motion http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/... [3] http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2012/07/us-and-european-rail-safety.html http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2012/07/us-and-european-rail-...
jimktrains2 9y ago
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L8TM-LGDt5M https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L8TM-LGDt5M The Pennsylvania Railroad had the equivalent of positive train control on all their mainlines by the late 50s. It's sad that we don't have it everywhere almost 60 years later
- jdonaldson 9y ago
  I'd like to think that the reason we're so lousy at railroads these days is that our best engineers have moved on to aviation and astronautics.
  - jimktrains2 9y ago
    Actually, our freight rail system is the best in the world. The problem is there is no money for passenger server because the US is stuck in a car-centric mode of thinking about transportation.
- betterunix2 9y ago
  Is someone offering to pay? The reason we do not have a Pennsy anymore is that they went bankrupt, partly because they had to compete with subsidized highways and airports (there are various other reasons). The fact is that PTC is an expensive way to increase the safety of one of the safest ways people can travel. Automobiles are far more dangerous. If the billions of dollars being spent on PTC were instead used to expand passenger service (and take cars off the road) we would almost certainly save more lives. Also keep in mind that PTC solves just one of many ways that train wrecks can occur. It is not hard to find examples of other recent fatal incidents that PTC would have done nothing to prevent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valhalla_train_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valhalla_train_crash
  - jimktrains2 9y ago
    > Is someone offering to pay? The reason we do not have a Pennsy anymore is that they went bankrupt, partly because they had to compete with subsidized highways and airports (there are various other reasons). I would say more than partially. Large portions of their revenue suddenly shifted to use those subsidized highways and airports. Sudden shocks are hard, even for a company doing financially well like the Pennsy was until the last few years. My point is more that this technology has largely existed for the past 60 years. Even implemented slowly over the last 30 years, that time would have left us with a system that had most of the benefits of PTC. > The fact is that PTC is an expensive way to increase the safety of one of the safest ways people can travel. Automobiles are far more dangerous. If the billions of dollars being spent on PTC were instead used to expand passenger service (and take cars off the road) we would almost certainly save more lives. No argument. I hate cars. Car culture is toxic and causes so many problems. > Also keep in mind that PTC solves just one of many ways that train wrecks can occur. It is not hard to find examples of other recent fatal incidents that PTC would have done nothing to prevent: Just because a safety feature wouldn't prevent every accident doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. The question is how much of a benefit does it bring?
cpitman 9y ago
I'd guess that until PTC becomes standard across the country, new lines may be deployed with out it. The lack of PTC certainly doesn't stop them from running trains on pre-existing lines today. I've spent almost the last decade involved with designing and implementing the messaging system behind PTC. Every one of these disasters makes me wish it was deployed everywhere. But for better or worse, railroads are incredibly change and risk intolerant. Everything goes through extensive testing before being rolled out into the field, which can add several years to any rollout plan.
ww520 9y ago
I've worked on two PTC projects, one successful and one failure, after hundreds of millions dollars. The successful one took about 6 years and is still on a trial basis. The failed one had an aggressive schedule but ran out of money after 3 years going nowhere. This thing is not as easy as it seems.
- mulmen 9y ago
  I'm interested in your experience, what makes it so hard? The PTC roll-out is not new but delays seem common, it's obviously hard but why? Once we figure it out in one place can that experience be applied elsewhere easily?
  - elfchief 9y ago
    Yeah, this is really weird to me. They're talking about installing sensors on particular tracks and the like, after saying that it's GPS-based, but... why? Stick a GPS on the engine, load a database of maximum speeds, get instant safety. What'm I missing? (Yeah, you have to integrate with the engines themselves, but that seems like not a 6-year project, and especially not once it's been designed and tested. It probably also won't account for "stop, there's something else on the tracks", but just speed-checking seems like it would be a massive reduction of risk with very little complexity...)
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - dboreham 9y ago
      Even an app on the driver’s phone that alerts when they’re exceeding the speed limit would have prevented many of the recent crashes because the drivers weren’t incapacitated - just distracted or confused. Many recent cars also know when you’re driving over the speed limit and display an alert. Not billions of $
      - shagie 9y ago
        An AP Press reprint: http://www.dailyfreeman.com/general-news/20171219/engineer-in-fatal-amtrak-derailment-might-have-been-distracted-by-trainee-in-locomotive http://www.dailyfreeman.com/general-news/20171219/engineer-i... > Engineer in fatal Amtrak derailment might have been distracted by trainee in locomotive > Investigators are looking into whether the Amtrak engineer whose speeding train plunged off an overpass, killing at least three people, was distracted by the presence of an employee-in-training next to him in the locomotive, a federal official said Tuesday. > The official, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, said investigators want to know whether the engineer lost “situational awareness” because of the second person in the cab. Just distracted or confused is a real possibility that is being looked into.
bogomipz 9y ago
>"Railroads are under government orders to install positive train control by the end of 2018 after the industry lobbied Congress to extend earlier deadlines, citing complexity and cost" Amtrak receives well over a billion dollars a year in subsidies from the US Federal government[1], they should not be allowed to use cost as an excuse for not modernizing safety. Also I think if you sight safety as being too complex then maybe you have no business operating a monopoly passenger rail service. Lawmakers are just as much to blame for this tragedy as the incompetence and disregard at Amtrak. [1] https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2013/44782 https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2013/44782
- mulmen 9y ago
  Agreed on all points. In this case is there a (e:) more competent passenger carrier that could step in to replace Amtrak? My understanding of the subsidies is that there would be no passenger service without it. Is it feasible to have competitive rail service in the US, does anyone do it?
  - rayiner 9y ago
    If a private carrier were allowed to take over the northeast regional segment and abandon everything else, it might be feasible. Amtrak runs a profit on this segment, but only because Congress foots the capital expenditures. But maybe a private entity could harness cost efficiencies to make it.
  - niftich 9y ago
    Amtrak actually makes a profit [1][2] on both Acela and the slower services in the Northeast Corridor, but not anywhere else. If we suppose that a privatized passenger carrier would want to make a profit, shedding long-distance trains would be wise, but several Amtrak directors have been against doing so time and time again. [1] http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2012/12/amtrak-routes-by-2012-cost-recovery.html http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2012/12/amtrak-routes-by-2012... [2] http://www.riarp.org/blog/2014/11/25/september-amtrak-report http://www.riarp.org/blog/2014/11/25/september-amtrak-report
- tjohns 9y ago
Fej 9y ago
The PATH subway system between NYC and NJ has been boasting on little ads inside the cars that they are implementing communications-based train control and positive train control. How would positive train control work underground, if it's GPS-based?
- niftich 9y ago
  If I accurately recall, PATH is rolling out Siemens Trainguard MT; a Communication-Based Train Control (CBTC) system which uses trackside (between-the-tracks) beacons and in-car equipment. Radar is used to figure out the vehicle's distance from the beacons. The system communicates using a wireless-and-wired network to a control center and keeps track of mobile blocks. Here's a brochure [1]. I'm not entirely sure, but I think GPS isn't used in Trainguard -- which makes sense; the beacons know where they are in relation to the track geometry, and locations only need to be resolved in track-space. [1] http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollectionDocuments/en/rail-solutions/rail-automation/train-control-systems/trainguard-mt-en.pdf http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollecti...
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
I'm not convinced this is operator error. This is the first run on this route so it's unlikely the engineer was asleep. 2nd Hand copy paste from another part of the web I visit. I couldn't find the original source: "If the wheels locked up at 81.1 MPH on the 1.4% down grade there would be no way to slow that lightweight train as in 41 seconds it would be into the 30 MPH curve. The engineer would not have time to release the locked-up brakes, apply sand and make a new braking application. Even with electronic brakes, the system does not work that fast. The NTSB should not take a year, like happened regarding the engineer who failed to stop at Hoboken, had failed to blow his horn at many crossing in his trip and the Conductor failed to check on his bad performance during that inbound train trip. That NJ Transit train had an inward facing camera but its recording was kept secret for over a year. This was a passenger only track and the rail conditions were not likely felt by the engineer as there were no prior locations where he could get a feel of the slipperiness of the rail head. This was a new line and even thought there were many qualifying test trips, it could be likely this was the first morning with just the right dampness, temperature to make very bad rail conditions. Were many test runs made at this early time of morning? As far back in the 1960, when single Budd Rail Diesel Cars were use on commuter runs with various station stops in an early Fall morning, some morning the rails were so slimy the RDC’s Rollacon anti-slide system would release the brakes when the wheels locked up, and the RDC would fail to stop at the platform and have to back up. One morning this happened at 3stations so when the engineer approached the terminal interlocking with a possible red signal, there was a very slow approach as going past a red signal could not be corrected by a short back up. Many East Coast electrified commuter railroads are very familiar with bad rail condition caused by ground up leaves on the rail head which creates carbon black and misty water for a very efficient lubricant that can only be eliminated with sand. But electric suburban cars do not have sand. There is an entire industry used to wash the rail head and apply solutions to improve the traction for these trains Railfans who own and use their own track motor cars (Speeders) become well qualified of the need to test for the rail conditions and learn the distance it would take to stop at any place on their run. A leaf ground-up track can be so slimy that a light track car can fail to get enough traction to go up a 0.10 % grade without spinning their power wheel. You cannot even gain any speed as the wheels will just spin out. And if you’re coming down a 1 or 2% grade, with is very common on many lines, you can go into a slide and wish you had an anchor to throw out. Being on a frozen rail track, and then have some very misty or rain situation, can be worst that being on a highway that was frozen over and then have been rain on over the ice. Sometimes in those cases a car rubber tire will just coast you over to the curb with just the crown on the street. Most cases a rail head can be worse than any highway surface for having traction. I believe the train 501 wheels locked up and the train slid into the 30 MPH curve at too high a speed. PS: Positive Train Control will not know of the possible bad rail condition and this wreck may have happened regardless of PTC in effect or not. That system cannot tell which is the worst case rail condition and is designed for the average expectation of conditions. So much for crewless trains, that will never happen. "
blibble 9y ago
overspeed protection has been standard on most national railways for decades is there any reason they invented a new system (expensive and slow to rollout) vs. using an existing tried and tested one? the main UK system (there are two) is nothing to write home about, but it is gloriously simple and was very fast and cheap to deploy: two metal transmitters live in the track bed coming up to a hazard, spaced such that they are 1 second apart at the maximum speed if the train detector passes over both in less than 1 second then the brakes are triggered automatically they look like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_Protection_%26_Warning_System#/media/File:Tpws_loop.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_Protection_%26_Warning_S...
- cpitman 9y ago
  PTC is a lot more than overspeed control, imagine any use case that would be enabled by electronically controlled trains connected to a highly available network.
  - blibble 9y ago
    perfect is the enemy of good TPWS was always a stopgap (rolled out in the 90s while ETCS was being developed); as I said it was cheap and easy to deploy, and has prevented many accidents exactly like this one for 25 years ETCS does what you are describing, and has been live in the UK and Europe since the early 00s it works, and is slowly being rolled out everywhere replacing TPWS so, again, why re-invent the wheel? even the Chinese are adopting it
DigitalJack 9y ago
That this is a problem is just ridiculous. It's on freaking rails! There is absolutely no excuse for this. GPS, Inertial Nav, simply integrating speed over time, it should be absolutely dead simple to calculate exactly where the train is at all times. The article mentioned crap like differential GPS. Completely unnecessary. You don't need to be that accurate, I mean good grief, +/- 100 feet would be just fine for dealing with such gross overspeed detection. I can't believe this is actually a problem. Pure politics/bureaucracy. It's certainly not a technical problem.
- sobellian 9y ago
  > simply integrating speed over time This probably runs into issues with accumulated error, especially if the error in speed measurement has a serial correlation.
  - DigitalJack 9y ago
    That’s what sensor fusion is for. That said, inertial nav can take a plane across the country without correction and get within sight of the target. I think integrating actual speed while on rails would be vastly more accurate. And really, it just need to augment gps.
    - sobellian 9y ago
      Sure, sensor fusion sounds reasonable. My mistake, I thought you were referring to GPS and speed integration as separate options.
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      Are you trying to reinvent already outdated ETCS level 2?
      - DigitalJack 9y ago
        I'm not inventing anything. And why would it be outdated if it works, and we (US) aren't using it.
zaroth 9y ago
Besides being a tragedy, this is a national embarrassment. It's a fucking train on a track on it's maiden voyage. And they crashed it. It should not be humanly possible to configure the train to run at 80 mph over a section of track rated for 30 mph. The idea that some people say we need billions of dollars to make this work only compounds the embarrassment. We want Level 5 self driving cars but we can't control a single variable (velocity) in a 1 dimensional problem space?! Shame. Shame. Shame.
- iaabtpbtpnn 9y ago
  The solution you're asking for exists and is called Positive Train Control. They didn't have it.
  - zaroth 9y ago
    So who goes to jail? But I have a feeling that the money sucking industry selling a particular solution called "Positive Train Control" has managed to create some sort of undeployable monstrosity. And what we actually need is something completely different which costs virtually nothing to implement.
    - subway 9y ago
      Over PTC? Nobody would be going to jail... It's a relatively new technology, and legislation is already in place mandating it be universal by the end of 2018. I find difficulty in faulting either Amtrak or Sound Transit for not yet having 100% coverage -- both are actively rolling it out. Outside of PTC, multiple safety protocols were violated, with responsibility likely falling to the Engineer and possibly Conductor. In systems not equipped with PTC, the engineer and conductor both are responsible for knowing the allowable speed for a given block of track, with the conductor being responsible for "enforcing" the safe operation of the train -- i.e. yell at, or even remove the engineer from the controls and/or initiate emergency braking. (This is based on the way CSX operated when I was a freight conductor in '05. Obviously a decade later and a different railroad the responsibility hierarchy probably varies a bit, but I imagine it isn't terribly far off)
mindfulplay 9y ago
This is insane to think this happened in 2017 in USA. No other modern industrialized nation suffers these many embarrassing train derailments and with no blame/shame in the end. "Thoughts and prayers" my ass from WSDOT and Amtrak. It shouldn't take a billion dollars to figure this out. even the simplest techniques like proper railway training that they do in Japan would go a long way.

69 points by charlysl 9y ago

Nothing in the article about a “rush to launch”. I would love all safety tech to rollout immediately but it doesn’t and it’s not reasonable to expect no new lines to launch. Pushing to delay installs for cost reasons though still doesn’t sit well.

tinus_hn 9y ago
Except in the title and the first line? Did you read the same article I did?
- donarb 9y ago
  The article does not explain the use of the word "rush" anywhere in the article. The article infers that because the line opened before the PTC system was ready that it was rushed. The article even inserted a disclaimer: "The agencies did not immediately respond to questions about why they did so [publicize line opening] while the speed-control technology was still months away." That is lazy reporting. All documents about construction details and timelines are available from the project website.
mikeash 9y ago
What do you mean, "expect no new lines to launch"? The article says that the safety systems in question are being installed and will be ready relatively soon, but they chose to start service without them. Delaying a new service for a little while to wait for such things to be installed seems pretty reasonable!
- betterunix2 9y ago
  It seems less reasonable when you compare the safety of train travel to the safety of automobile travel, and when you consider that every time a new passenger route is opened it takes cars off the road. Yes there are train wrecks, and yes, PTC would have prevented this specific wreck, but trains remain one of the safest modes of transit.
  - AdamJacobMuller 9y ago
    > this specific wreck PTC wouldn't have just prevented this specific wreck, PTC would have prevented like 9 of the last 10 fatal train wrecks in the USA. Every single fatal wreck that happened since Obama pushed back the mandate would have been avoided by PTC.
    - betterunix2 9y ago
      Let's assume you are right, and that in the past three years PTC would have prevented the majority of fata train wrecks. How many fatalities are you talking about? How many lives should we expect PTC to save over the next decade? The more important question is this: how many automobile fatalities could be prevented if we took the billions of dollars being spent on PTC and spent it building a new commuter rail line that took hundreds of cars off the road every day?
      - AstralStorm 9y ago
        Make sure to build it up to at least 1950s standards in safety. Many parts of US rail do not feature even basics. They rely on the driver and signals only... Like this one where the derailment happened.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Are you sure trains are safer? I found these tables: https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_42.html https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pu... https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_17.html https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pu... Train fatalities tend to be clumped so the stats tend to vary a lot from one year to the next, but it looks like in recent years the typical rate is something like 5 fatalities per 100 million passenger-miles. The car data only gives fatalities per vehicle-mile for some reason, but that will always be a pessimistic number (at least until autonomous cars happen), and that rate is just a bit over 1 fatality per 100 million vehicle-miles. It looks like cars are quite a bit safer, unless I've misunderstood something. The absolute number of fatalities is far lower for trains, but the number of passenger miles per year is also far lower.
- roywiggins 9y ago
  Well, if they hadn't started service on this line they would have continued service on the old line, which also doesn't have PTC, so it's not exactly a net loss. This new line is a sort of bypass meant to replace an older one.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    The fact that they safely operated on the old track for years, then had a horrible crash on their very first run on the new track, makes me think it really did make a big difference. It's possible that this was just a horrible coincidence, but it seems more likely that something about the new line made it riskier. Maybe just the fact that the driver is less familiar with it? Allowing operations to start on a new line before important safety equipment has been installed is also a good way to make that installation happen very late. If you say "you cannot operate until this is done," it has a way of motivating people to get it done. If you say "you can operate now, just try to get it done" then it may take quite a long time to actually happen.
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      But it's the newness of the line that made the big difference, not the absence of PTC. (Or, perhaps, the newness of the line plus the absence of PTC.)
      - mikeash 9y ago
        I'm not sure what point you're making. If a new line is more dangerous then isn't that a pretty good argument for delaying its use until the safety systems are installed?
        AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        To review: You said that delaying the start of the new line until PTC was installed seems pretty reasonable. roywiggins replied that the line being replaced also didn't have PTC, so that switching to the new line meant swapping a line without PTC for another line without PTC, which is a net wash. You replied "It's possible that this was just a horrible coincidence, but it seems more likely that something about the new line made it riskier. Maybe just the fact that the driver is less familiar with it?" I presume that you're still arguing here for waiting until PTC was installed. I replied. Since you didn't seem to understand my reply, let me try again. There are lots of things that could make a new line more dangerous. Some of them could be fixed by PTC. Some of them would not. So unless you know that the cause of the crash is something that PTC would have prevented, then "the new line is more dangerous" does not imply "wait for PTC". Why is the new line more dangerous? Is it because it has a curve? The other line had far more. Is it because the new line had a curve that was lower speed than the rest of the line? It's possible that the other line had so many curves that there never was a place for fast running, and therefore that there never was a curve that you could be suckered into coming into too fast. Is the new line more dangerous because people aren't familiar with it? Well, that's what months of training runs are for. (They did do months of training runs, didn't they?) It's possible that the cause is a combination of all of this: A tight curve in the middle of a fast stretch, and engineers unfamiliar with the route ran into the curve too fast. If that's all true, then yes, PTC probably would have prevented the crash. Also note that all this is hindsight. When making the decision to open the new line, was it obvious that the new line (without PTC) was more dangerous than the old line (also without PTC)? Probably not. If anything, I suspect that the thinking was that the new line would be less dangerous - it wouldn't be cluttered up with a bunch of freight trains, running on a line without PTC, where a mistake could squish a passenger train. So if the thinking in advance is that the new line is at least as safe, and plausibly safer, even without the safety equipment, why would you wait?
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Define "relatively soon". In particular, how likely do you consider a delay? How likely do you consider a delay after that? You could wind up waiting several years, while your "ready to go" line just sits there, eating up maintenance costs but not being used. Also, define "ready". Is it ready when it's running, but is only 75% likely to actually stop a train if needed because of various bugs? (Note well: I do not know what PTC's bug track record is. I just know that such systems often have bugs that take a while to work out.) In the real world, projects that wait for everything to be ready before they ship at all are often very late. On the other hand, you don't ship something without basic safety features. So it all depends on whether you view PTC as a basic safety feature. (After the crash, it's easy to say "obviously it is", but I'm not sure that it's fair to use hindsight that way. PTC was supposed to be a small increment of safety to an already quite safe mode of transportation.)
  - mikeash 9y ago
    How likely are delays in other parts of the project? There are plenty of things that could be delayed and would physically prevent train service from running on the line. Is it really such a massive risk to to say that safety equipment must be installed before operations begin, even if the train could potentially make the run without it? I don't know about that "quite safe" thing. I looked up the stats in another comment in this tree and they look pretty bad for trains.

tomalpha 9y ago

According to a 2011 article[0], the US has (or at least had) the largest number of deaths per passenger-mile in the world. It’s easy to overweight recent events. Can this be true? It feels like there’s a piece missing somewhere. [0] https://pedestrianobservations.com/2011/06/02/comparative-rail-safety/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2011/06/02/comparative-ra...

rayiner 9y ago
It’s totally believable. China and Europe both implemented some form of positive train control, largely because much of their passenger traffic runs on relatively new track designed for passenger traffic. In the US, we’ve not built significant passenger rail track in a century. The only part of Amtrak’s network owned by Amtrak is the northeast corridor. Key parts of that infrastructure date to the 1800s (e.g. the tunnel under Baltimore). Everywhere else, Amtrak runs in freight track.
jdonaldson 9y ago
I came in here to vent about how unsafe our rail systems are. However, our deaths per passenger-mile are well below the EU average, and we're safer than all except UK, Denmark, and Netherlands: https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/25/how-safe-are-europe-railways https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/25/how-sa... Still, this wreck is sad, and also embarrassing. Our rail system is just not a meaningful transportation network, and is such a missed opportunity. Even small efforts at improving it seem to end in failure, or even disaster.
- niftich 9y ago
  Reading transportation fatality statistics requires some nuance. In the realm of railways, most fatalities tend to be suicides causing no additional deaths, which are often analyzed separately. The EU does this [1], while the Guardian article only raises this distinction halfway through. Once you exclude suicides, there are several other categories that are useful to distinguish: collisions (e.g. between two trains), derailments, accidents at road-crossings, and 'accidents to persons caused by rolling stock in motion' [2]. The share of accidents by category will tell you a lot about a particular country's issues; a relatively large amount of level crossing accidents may suggest that not enough of the rail network may be grade separated (e.g. Poland, Hungary, Romania), while a high share (and absolute number) of collisions or derailments would be a serious cause for alarm. Also consider this 2012 post [3] which compares collisions and derailments per usage by country between Europe and the US, originally written as a response to that 2011 article. [1] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Rail_accident_fatalities_in_the_EU http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?... [2] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Accidents_to_persons_caused_by_rolling_stock_in_motion http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/... [3] http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2012/07/us-and-european-rail-safety.html http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2012/07/us-and-european-rail-...

jimktrains2 9y ago

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L8TM-LGDt5M https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L8TM-LGDt5M The Pennsylvania Railroad had the equivalent of positive train control on all their mainlines by the late 50s. It's sad that we don't have it everywhere almost 60 years later

jdonaldson 9y ago
I'd like to think that the reason we're so lousy at railroads these days is that our best engineers have moved on to aviation and astronautics.
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  Actually, our freight rail system is the best in the world. The problem is there is no money for passenger server because the US is stuck in a car-centric mode of thinking about transportation.
betterunix2 9y ago
Is someone offering to pay? The reason we do not have a Pennsy anymore is that they went bankrupt, partly because they had to compete with subsidized highways and airports (there are various other reasons). The fact is that PTC is an expensive way to increase the safety of one of the safest ways people can travel. Automobiles are far more dangerous. If the billions of dollars being spent on PTC were instead used to expand passenger service (and take cars off the road) we would almost certainly save more lives. Also keep in mind that PTC solves just one of many ways that train wrecks can occur. It is not hard to find examples of other recent fatal incidents that PTC would have done nothing to prevent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valhalla_train_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valhalla_train_crash
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  > Is someone offering to pay? The reason we do not have a Pennsy anymore is that they went bankrupt, partly because they had to compete with subsidized highways and airports (there are various other reasons). I would say more than partially. Large portions of their revenue suddenly shifted to use those subsidized highways and airports. Sudden shocks are hard, even for a company doing financially well like the Pennsy was until the last few years. My point is more that this technology has largely existed for the past 60 years. Even implemented slowly over the last 30 years, that time would have left us with a system that had most of the benefits of PTC. > The fact is that PTC is an expensive way to increase the safety of one of the safest ways people can travel. Automobiles are far more dangerous. If the billions of dollars being spent on PTC were instead used to expand passenger service (and take cars off the road) we would almost certainly save more lives. No argument. I hate cars. Car culture is toxic and causes so many problems. > Also keep in mind that PTC solves just one of many ways that train wrecks can occur. It is not hard to find examples of other recent fatal incidents that PTC would have done nothing to prevent: Just because a safety feature wouldn't prevent every accident doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. The question is how much of a benefit does it bring?

cpitman 9y ago

I'd guess that until PTC becomes standard across the country, new lines may be deployed with out it. The lack of PTC certainly doesn't stop them from running trains on pre-existing lines today. I've spent almost the last decade involved with designing and implementing the messaging system behind PTC. Every one of these disasters makes me wish it was deployed everywhere. But for better or worse, railroads are incredibly change and risk intolerant. Everything goes through extensive testing before being rolled out into the field, which can add several years to any rollout plan.

ww520 9y ago

I've worked on two PTC projects, one successful and one failure, after hundreds of millions dollars. The successful one took about 6 years and is still on a trial basis. The failed one had an aggressive schedule but ran out of money after 3 years going nowhere. This thing is not as easy as it seems.

mulmen 9y ago
I'm interested in your experience, what makes it so hard? The PTC roll-out is not new but delays seem common, it's obviously hard but why? Once we figure it out in one place can that experience be applied elsewhere easily?
- elfchief 9y ago
  Yeah, this is really weird to me. They're talking about installing sensors on particular tracks and the like, after saying that it's GPS-based, but... why? Stick a GPS on the engine, load a database of maximum speeds, get instant safety. What'm I missing? (Yeah, you have to integrate with the engines themselves, but that seems like not a 6-year project, and especially not once it's been designed and tested. It probably also won't account for "stop, there's something else on the tracks", but just speed-checking seems like it would be a massive reduction of risk with very little complexity...)
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - dboreham 9y ago
    Even an app on the driver’s phone that alerts when they’re exceeding the speed limit would have prevented many of the recent crashes because the drivers weren’t incapacitated - just distracted or confused. Many recent cars also know when you’re driving over the speed limit and display an alert. Not billions of $
    - shagie 9y ago
      An AP Press reprint: http://www.dailyfreeman.com/general-news/20171219/engineer-in-fatal-amtrak-derailment-might-have-been-distracted-by-trainee-in-locomotive http://www.dailyfreeman.com/general-news/20171219/engineer-i... > Engineer in fatal Amtrak derailment might have been distracted by trainee in locomotive > Investigators are looking into whether the Amtrak engineer whose speeding train plunged off an overpass, killing at least three people, was distracted by the presence of an employee-in-training next to him in the locomotive, a federal official said Tuesday. > The official, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, said investigators want to know whether the engineer lost “situational awareness” because of the second person in the cab. Just distracted or confused is a real possibility that is being looked into.

bogomipz 9y ago

>"Railroads are under government orders to install positive train control by the end of 2018 after the industry lobbied Congress to extend earlier deadlines, citing complexity and cost" Amtrak receives well over a billion dollars a year in subsidies from the US Federal government[1], they should not be allowed to use cost as an excuse for not modernizing safety. Also I think if you sight safety as being too complex then maybe you have no business operating a monopoly passenger rail service. Lawmakers are just as much to blame for this tragedy as the incompetence and disregard at Amtrak. [1] https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2013/44782 https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2013/44782

mulmen 9y ago
Agreed on all points. In this case is there a (e:) more competent passenger carrier that could step in to replace Amtrak? My understanding of the subsidies is that there would be no passenger service without it. Is it feasible to have competitive rail service in the US, does anyone do it?
- rayiner 9y ago
  If a private carrier were allowed to take over the northeast regional segment and abandon everything else, it might be feasible. Amtrak runs a profit on this segment, but only because Congress foots the capital expenditures. But maybe a private entity could harness cost efficiencies to make it.
- niftich 9y ago
  Amtrak actually makes a profit [1][2] on both Acela and the slower services in the Northeast Corridor, but not anywhere else. If we suppose that a privatized passenger carrier would want to make a profit, shedding long-distance trains would be wise, but several Amtrak directors have been against doing so time and time again. [1] http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2012/12/amtrak-routes-by-2012-cost-recovery.html http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2012/12/amtrak-routes-by-2012... [2] http://www.riarp.org/blog/2014/11/25/september-amtrak-report http://www.riarp.org/blog/2014/11/25/september-amtrak-report
tjohns 9y ago

Fej 9y ago

The PATH subway system between NYC and NJ has been boasting on little ads inside the cars that they are implementing communications-based train control and positive train control. How would positive train control work underground, if it's GPS-based?

niftich 9y ago
If I accurately recall, PATH is rolling out Siemens Trainguard MT; a Communication-Based Train Control (CBTC) system which uses trackside (between-the-tracks) beacons and in-car equipment. Radar is used to figure out the vehicle's distance from the beacons. The system communicates using a wireless-and-wired network to a control center and keeps track of mobile blocks. Here's a brochure [1]. I'm not entirely sure, but I think GPS isn't used in Trainguard -- which makes sense; the beacons know where they are in relation to the track geometry, and locations only need to be resolved in track-space. [1] http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollectionDocuments/en/rail-solutions/rail-automation/train-control-systems/trainguard-mt-en.pdf http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollecti...

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

I'm not convinced this is operator error. This is the first run on this route so it's unlikely the engineer was asleep. 2nd Hand copy paste from another part of the web I visit. I couldn't find the original source: "If the wheels locked up at 81.1 MPH on the 1.4% down grade there would be no way to slow that lightweight train as in 41 seconds it would be into the 30 MPH curve. The engineer would not have time to release the locked-up brakes, apply sand and make a new braking application. Even with electronic brakes, the system does not work that fast. The NTSB should not take a year, like happened regarding the engineer who failed to stop at Hoboken, had failed to blow his horn at many crossing in his trip and the Conductor failed to check on his bad performance during that inbound train trip. That NJ Transit train had an inward facing camera but its recording was kept secret for over a year. This was a passenger only track and the rail conditions were not likely felt by the engineer as there were no prior locations where he could get a feel of the slipperiness of the rail head. This was a new line and even thought there were many qualifying test trips, it could be likely this was the first morning with just the right dampness, temperature to make very bad rail conditions. Were many test runs made at this early time of morning? As far back in the 1960, when single Budd Rail Diesel Cars were use on commuter runs with various station stops in an early Fall morning, some morning the rails were so slimy the RDC’s Rollacon anti-slide system would release the brakes when the wheels locked up, and the RDC would fail to stop at the platform and have to back up. One morning this happened at 3stations so when the engineer approached the terminal interlocking with a possible red signal, there was a very slow approach as going past a red signal could not be corrected by a short back up. Many East Coast electrified commuter railroads are very familiar with bad rail condition caused by ground up leaves on the rail head which creates carbon black and misty water for a very efficient lubricant that can only be eliminated with sand. But electric suburban cars do not have sand. There is an entire industry used to wash the rail head and apply solutions to improve the traction for these trains Railfans who own and use their own track motor cars (Speeders) become well qualified of the need to test for the rail conditions and learn the distance it would take to stop at any place on their run. A leaf ground-up track can be so slimy that a light track car can fail to get enough traction to go up a 0.10 % grade without spinning their power wheel. You cannot even gain any speed as the wheels will just spin out. And if you’re coming down a 1 or 2% grade, with is very common on many lines, you can go into a slide and wish you had an anchor to throw out. Being on a frozen rail track, and then have some very misty or rain situation, can be worst that being on a highway that was frozen over and then have been rain on over the ice. Sometimes in those cases a car rubber tire will just coast you over to the curb with just the crown on the street. Most cases a rail head can be worse than any highway surface for having traction. I believe the train 501 wheels locked up and the train slid into the 30 MPH curve at too high a speed. PS: Positive Train Control will not know of the possible bad rail condition and this wreck may have happened regardless of PTC in effect or not. That system cannot tell which is the worst case rail condition and is designed for the average expectation of conditions. So much for crewless trains, that will never happen. "

blibble 9y ago

overspeed protection has been standard on most national railways for decades is there any reason they invented a new system (expensive and slow to rollout) vs. using an existing tried and tested one? the main UK system (there are two) is nothing to write home about, but it is gloriously simple and was very fast and cheap to deploy: two metal transmitters live in the track bed coming up to a hazard, spaced such that they are 1 second apart at the maximum speed if the train detector passes over both in less than 1 second then the brakes are triggered automatically they look like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_Protection_%26_Warning_System#/media/File:Tpws_loop.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_Protection_%26_Warning_S...

cpitman 9y ago
PTC is a lot more than overspeed control, imagine any use case that would be enabled by electronically controlled trains connected to a highly available network.
- blibble 9y ago
  perfect is the enemy of good TPWS was always a stopgap (rolled out in the 90s while ETCS was being developed); as I said it was cheap and easy to deploy, and has prevented many accidents exactly like this one for 25 years ETCS does what you are describing, and has been live in the UK and Europe since the early 00s it works, and is slowly being rolled out everywhere replacing TPWS so, again, why re-invent the wheel? even the Chinese are adopting it

DigitalJack 9y ago

That this is a problem is just ridiculous. It's on freaking rails! There is absolutely no excuse for this. GPS, Inertial Nav, simply integrating speed over time, it should be absolutely dead simple to calculate exactly where the train is at all times. The article mentioned crap like differential GPS. Completely unnecessary. You don't need to be that accurate, I mean good grief, +/- 100 feet would be just fine for dealing with such gross overspeed detection. I can't believe this is actually a problem. Pure politics/bureaucracy. It's certainly not a technical problem.

sobellian 9y ago
> simply integrating speed over time This probably runs into issues with accumulated error, especially if the error in speed measurement has a serial correlation.
- DigitalJack 9y ago
  That’s what sensor fusion is for. That said, inertial nav can take a plane across the country without correction and get within sight of the target. I think integrating actual speed while on rails would be vastly more accurate. And really, it just need to augment gps.
  - sobellian 9y ago
    Sure, sensor fusion sounds reasonable. My mistake, I thought you were referring to GPS and speed integration as separate options.
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    Are you trying to reinvent already outdated ETCS level 2?
    - DigitalJack 9y ago
      I'm not inventing anything. And why would it be outdated if it works, and we (US) aren't using it.

zaroth 9y ago

Besides being a tragedy, this is a national embarrassment. It's a fucking train on a track on it's maiden voyage. And they crashed it. It should not be humanly possible to configure the train to run at 80 mph over a section of track rated for 30 mph. The idea that some people say we need billions of dollars to make this work only compounds the embarrassment. We want Level 5 self driving cars but we can't control a single variable (velocity) in a 1 dimensional problem space?! Shame. Shame. Shame.

iaabtpbtpnn 9y ago
The solution you're asking for exists and is called Positive Train Control. They didn't have it.
- zaroth 9y ago
  So who goes to jail? But I have a feeling that the money sucking industry selling a particular solution called "Positive Train Control" has managed to create some sort of undeployable monstrosity. And what we actually need is something completely different which costs virtually nothing to implement.
  - subway 9y ago
    Over PTC? Nobody would be going to jail... It's a relatively new technology, and legislation is already in place mandating it be universal by the end of 2018. I find difficulty in faulting either Amtrak or Sound Transit for not yet having 100% coverage -- both are actively rolling it out. Outside of PTC, multiple safety protocols were violated, with responsibility likely falling to the Engineer and possibly Conductor. In systems not equipped with PTC, the engineer and conductor both are responsible for knowing the allowable speed for a given block of track, with the conductor being responsible for "enforcing" the safe operation of the train -- i.e. yell at, or even remove the engineer from the controls and/or initiate emergency braking. (This is based on the way CSX operated when I was a freight conductor in '05. Obviously a decade later and a different railroad the responsibility hierarchy probably varies a bit, but I imagine it isn't terribly far off)

mindfulplay 9y ago

This is insane to think this happened in 2017 in USA. No other modern industrialized nation suffers these many embarrassing train derailments and with no blame/shame in the end. "Thoughts and prayers" my ass from WSDOT and Amtrak. It shouldn't take a billion dollars to figure this out. even the simplest techniques like proper railway training that they do in Japan would go a long way.