Amtrak derailment near Union station - Chicago 3/27

[me_little_me]

You are NOT an NTSB or FRA investigator.

Again. DO NOT SPECULATE!

We are simply looking at pictures and saying what we see. That doesn't require you or anyone to get mad at us for 'speculation.' I honestly don't see the point in getting angry at nothing. Nobody said they were NTSB/FRA.

I'm NTSB

New Train Speculator Boy

 

[Steve4031]

Why must every thread deteriorate like this. Bunch of damn clowns.

 

[Seaboard92]

You are NOT an NTSB or FRA investigator.

Again. DO NOT SPECULATE!

We are simply looking at pictures and saying what we see. That doesn't require you or anyone to get mad at us for 'speculation.' I honestly don't see the point in getting angry at nothing. Nobody said they were NTSB/FRA.

I'm NTSB

New Train Speculator Boy

You sir just won the Internet.

 

[Dakota 400]

Please forgive my ignorance, just trying to learn.

The phrase "picked a switch": what does that mean?

 

[CCC1007]

Please forgive my ignorance, just trying to learn.

The phrase "picked a switch": what does that mean?

It means that at least one car failed to take the same path that the rest of the train had already taken.

 

[Dakota 400]

Thank you CCC1007.

 

[Acela150]

I will say this once. DO NOT SPECULATE!

You are NOT an NTSB or FRA investigator.

Again. DO NOT SPECULATE!

I'm starting to grow a very very low tolerance for speculation!

Leave the investigation to the NTSB and or FRA.

I must have missed when you got promoted to moderator.

That's not my point. My point is as soon as something happens, someone has something to say about it. And how many times is it good? How many times is it not a rumor or speculation? And I think that especially after 188 where rumors were horrid. I'm allowed to get frustrated at things like this.

So did it pick a switch in the ladder?

I will say this once. DO NOT SPECULATE!
You are NOT an NTSB or FRA investigator.

So did it pick a switch in the ladder?

Based on the pictures from this tweet, https://twitter.com/CapturedNews/status/846400605312704513 I'm going to say that seems very likely.

Again. DO NOT SPECULATE!
I'm starting to grow a very very low tolerance for speculation!

Leave the investigation to the NTSB and or FRA.

We are simply looking at pictures and saying what we see. That doesn't require you or anyone to get mad at us for 'speculation.' I honestly don't see the point in getting angry at nothing. Nobody said they were NTSB/FRA.

Again. Remember how horrid the rumor mill got during the 188 incident. In the days and months after. It gets frustrating very quickly.

Why must every thread deteriorate like this. Bunch of damn clowns.

Exactly why I don't post here as much.

 

[JohannFarley]

I will say this once. DO NOT SPECULATE!

You are NOT an NTSB or FRA investigator.

Again. DO NOT SPECULATE!

I'm starting to grow a very very low tolerance for speculation!

Leave the investigation to the NTSB and or FRA.

I must have missed when you got promoted to moderator.

That's not my point. My point is as soon as something happens, someone has something to say about it. And how many times is it good? How many times is it not a rumor or speculation? And I think that especially after 188 where rumors were horrid. I'm allowed to get frustrated at things like this.

So did it pick a switch in the ladder?

I will say this once. DO NOT SPECULATE!
You are NOT an NTSB or FRA investigator.

So did it pick a switch in the ladder?

Based on the pictures from this tweet, https://twitter.com/CapturedNews/status/846400605312704513 I'm going to say that seems very likely.

Again. DO NOT SPECULATE!
I'm starting to grow a very very low tolerance for speculation!

Leave the investigation to the NTSB and or FRA.

We are simply looking at pictures and saying what we see. That doesn't require you or anyone to get mad at us for 'speculation.' I honestly don't see the point in getting angry at nothing. Nobody said they were NTSB/FRA.

Again. Remember how horrid the rumor mill got during the 188 incident. In the days and months after. It gets frustrating very quickly.

Why must every thread deteriorate like this. Bunch of damn clowns.

Exactly why I don't post here as much.

At the risk of getting told off by you for no particular reason (again), this is a bit of a different situation than 188, and I don't think that you should equate the discussions of the 2 incidents. There really is no need to tell people off for having a discussion and talking about what is going on, that is what we do here, this is a forum. We have discussions about what we are interested in, in this case it's Amtrak. Now I'm sorry if our questions and observations offended you in any way. Why don't we let this discussion get back on topic?

 

[fairviewroad]

This just happened. http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Amtrak-Train-Derails-in-Chicago-417198143.html

A comment on the link site.

Philip Kulina · Crown Point, Indiana
Wow, almost 18 passengers per car.

Phil must be a newbie, thinking that passengers would be booked into the two baggage cars, diner, and cafe/lounge.

Even if you subtract four cars and call it a "7 car train" that still makes just 28 passengers per car. And yes, some passengers certainly detrained before Chicago. But there are no "D" stops on train 49, meaning new passengers could have boarded up to and including the final station stop prior to Chicago (which is South Bend).

Unlike an outbound regional that would certainly empty out as it approaches, say Quincy or Pontiac, one would expect Chicago to be a draw for westbound boarding passengers. So while the commenter's math is wrong, it certainly is a fair point to say it was well under capacity. Whether that's a reasonable passenger count given time of year and operational constraints if a fair question.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I will say this once. DO NOT SPECULATE!

You are NOT an NTSB or FRA investigator.

Again. DO NOT SPECULATE!

I'm starting to grow a very very low tolerance for speculation!

Leave the investigation to the NTSB and or FRA.

I must have missed when you got promoted to moderator.

No kidding. This guy has it completely backwards. Being a hobbyist group unrelated to actual investigators should make our various assumptions and speculations harmless to anyone who is directly involved. That being said, Acela150's severe overreaction to simple inquiries does give me pause. Makes me wonder where his hyper defensiveness and overactive tribalism comes from. What has he seen that worries him so much?

 

[PaulM]

It means that at least one car failed to take the same path that the rest of the train had already taken.

Thank you CCC1007.

But the answer begs the question of whether the switch in question changed its position between the time the rear wheel of the previous car took the correct path and the derailment, or whether something happened to the front wheel of the derailed car to cause it to take the correct path one minute and then take the wrong path when it hit the still functioning switch.

AU is primarily a forum for Amtrak riders and potential riders, not railroad (as in mechanical) engineers. We appreciate information from specialists; but please define jargon.

 

[PaulM]

It means that at least one car failed to take the same path that the rest of the train had already taken.

Thank you CCC1007.

But the answer begs the question of whether the switch in question changed its position between the time the rear wheel of the previous car took the correct path and the derailment, or whether something happened to the front wheel of the derailed car to cause it to take the correct path one minute and then take the wrong path when it hit the still functioning switch. Or would the answer cross the line into unwelcome speculation?

AU is primarily a forum for Amtrak riders and potential riders, not railroad engineers (as in mechanical, industrial, civil, etc.). I appreciate information from specialists; but please define jargon.