Amtrak Accident in Chicago

[TVRM610]

My theory ? This fairly new Engineer thought the restricted signal was just for interlocking, where he just crossed over to other track.He/she did not realize the restricted signal governs till a better signal is passed.

Well #1, I think that anyone allowed to operate a passenger train in this country knows very well that a signal governs your train until the next signal appears, alot of training and testing has to be completed before you can even set foot in a locomotive.

and #2, along with the "student engineer" there was an engineer. Not only was this a fully qualified engineer, he also was training another engineer, which means that he most likely had alot more seniority than a typcial engineer, and alot of experience. Also there was a assistant in the cab as well, who also is fully qualified and is very familiar with railroad rules. All three of the engine crew should have fully known what each signal indication means.

Also, it is railroad rules to call the signals, meaning everyone on the operating crew must be told what the signal indication is as they pass. In the case of Amtrak, where the Conductor of the train rides inside the train, not in the locomotive like a freight train, the signals must be called out over the radio.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

According NTSB only two people were in the cab, the engineer actually running and the engineer priviously outlawed and deadheading to Chicago.

No others were reported in the cab.

The outlawed engineer can and should not be participating in train operations so calling signals would not have been appropriate.

 

[battalion51]

This is why I still am a fan of calling signals on the radio. It keeps everyone in the loop, and could have been instrumental in the prevention of this accident.

 

[VentureForth]

Also, it is railroad rules to call the signals, meaning everyone on the operating crew must be told what the signal indication is as they pass. In the case of Amtrak, where the Conductor of the train rides inside the train, not in the locomotive like a freight train, the signals must be called out over the radio.

Hmmm... I wondered about that. I didn't know if there was a passenger conductor and an operations conductor on Amtrak. Are there usually still a minimum of two in the cab? Sounds like it would be easy to get bored up there...

 

[battalion51]

Amtrak runs with a Conductor and Assistant Conductor on almost all its runs. The Conductor has to have at least a fair amount of time in service, as well as be qualified on the physical characteristics. The Conductor is ultimately responsible for everything that happens with their train, and their name is one of two on all paperwork (the other being the Engineer). Many AC's will carry Conductor qualifications, but they report to the Conductor, and do not have to be qualified on the physical characteristics.

According to the Union contract if an Engineer is to run one train he can operate solo if the run is under 6 hours. If the Engineer is to change trains he can run solo if the combined runs is less than 10 hours. If those times are exceeded Amtrak is required to provide a Fireman for the train. A vast majority of Amtrak trains will operate with only one man in the cab. The Palmetto, Lake Shore Limited, Capitol Limited, and Carolinian for example will never have two scheduled people on the head end.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

Calling signals over radio turns into big radio fiasco when done at metropolitan area's like New York and Chicago.

The sheer amount of radio traffic will turn in to one continous radio call with no options to call dispatchers etc.

 

[TVRM610]

Well, every amtrak train that I have been on has had the engineer call each signal over the radio, and the conductor has responded to it. I have not been on this particular train, so perhaps something was different, but this is something that I have always heard done over the radio.

Sorry about the 3 people, I had read elsewhere that there was a student engineer, an engineer, and another crew member (possible a foreman) had not heard that there were only two. Either way, I do not believe that any fully qualified engineer would not know that the signal governs his train until the next signal indication, much less a qualified engineer on a mainline railroad.

 

[battalion51]

Calling signals over radio turns into big radio fiasco when done at metropolitan area's like New York and Chicago.The sheer amount of radio traffic will turn in to one continous radio call with no options to call dispatchers etc.

While that is a valid point, it is done in many places across the country. It's done in Miami and DC on CSX, and out in LA on BNSF (and maybe UP). If you have a Dispatcher channel and a road channel it can be done. Now I will say though that it's not as necessary in areas where Cab Signals are in effect, because the engine will throw on a penalty application if the signal isn't complied with.
Also for the record, in order for an Engineer to qualify to be an instructor you have to have a clean operating record for the previous two years, and be qualified on the physical characteristics your job works on.

 

[PerRock]

According NTSB only two people were in the cab, the engineer actually running and the engineer priviously outlawed and deadheading to Chicago.No others were reported in the cab.

The outlawed engineer can and should not be participating in train operations so calling signals would not have been appropriate.

Sorry about the 3 people, I had read elsewhere that there was a student engineer, an engineer, and another crew member (possible a foreman) had not heard that there were only two. Either way, I do not believe that any fully qualified engineer would not know that the signal governs his train until the next signal indication, much less a qualified engineer on a mainline railroad.

Thats odd. because just about the only fact that was consistent (besides the fact that an Amtrak train ran into a freight) was that there was 3 people in the cab. a couple even said that the Conductor was in the most serious condition and the Jaws were used to get him out.

peter

 

[Dutchrailnut]

Even fire Dept reports only two people extricated from cab, no jaws were used, but the doors needed to be forced open due to deformation of cab.

 

[GG-1]

It does boggle the mind what could have happened if the rear of the freight had been an LPG tank car or some other dangerous hazmat. While we still sympathize with the injured and hope for everyone's recovery, the outcome could have been SO much worse.......

The rear of a train can not have LPG or hazmat cars, both next to engine and rear end would have a idler car.

Aloha

IIRC correctly a HAZMAT car must have 5 cars between it, the engine, Cars containing Live Stock, People, and the end of the train.

 

[battalion51]

The HAZMAT rule will vary from one railroad to the next. I looked through three different rule books (GCOR, CSX Operating, and NORAC) and could find no specific instructions governing how much distance HAZMAT must receive. I'm going to guess its a railroad by railroad rule, and possibly even division to division rule that governs those movements.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

NTSB: Amtrak Train Followed Dispatcher

Feds Say Engineer Followed Instructions To Switch Tracks Before Crash

CHICAGO (CBS) ― The NTSB spent the weekend in Chicago collecting perishable evidence and released some of their findings before investigators left town. Key evidence came from a signal recording and interviews with the train conductor and engineers, as CBS 2's Joanie Lum reports.

Sunday afternoon, NTSB investigators looked at the mangled tracks where the crash occurred. The Amtrak train was traveling about 40 mph when it applied its brakes for nine seconds and skidded some 500 feet, hitting a stopped freight train on the same set of tracks Friday.

Investigators confirmed that a signal at the crossover in Englewood, 1.7 miles south of the crash site, showed what's called a restrictive red over yellow light signal, meaning the train should have been going less than 15 miles an hour.

The facts are the train should not have been operated at a speed in excess of 15 mph and yet it was operating at 40 mph.

NTSB investigators say the engineer saw the restrictive signal but they refuse to say whether the signal was misinterpreted. Investigators say they'll do more follow-up interviews and might even dismantle the locomotive to see if mechanical issues contributed to the collision.

Before it plowed into the back of a freight train on the South Side on Friday, an Amtrak train followed instructions from a Michigan-based dispatcher to switch tracks, apparently to avoid the standing train.

"The problem here apparently was that two trains were on the same track at the same time at the same location," said Robert Sumwalt, the National Transportation Safety Board's vice chairman. "Obviously, that is not supposed to happen."

Amtrak's Pere Marquette train out of Grand Rapids, Mich., was loaded with holiday shoppers and going just over 30 mph when it slammed into a Norfolk Southern freight train near 52nd Street. Sixty-two people were injured.

Federal investigator Robert Sumwalt says investigators aren't assessing blame at this point.

The freight train was stopped, waiting for a signal to proceed.

Data from the passenger train's event recorder show that the engineer of the Amtrak train switched tracks "in accordance with signal indicators" controlled by a Norfolk Southern dispatcher in Dearborn, Mich., Sumwalt said.

Tests performed Saturday on the signals showed they were "working as designed," he said.

There also did not appear to be any mechanical problems with the Amtrak train, although the brakes are too badly damaged to be analyzed.

After making the track switch, the engineer of the Amtrak train told the NTSB that he saw the freight train ahead of him and applied the emergency brakes. The collision occurred nine seconds later, Sumwalt said.

Six teams of federal investigators fanned out around Chicago on Saturday to interview witnesses and gather evidence at the scene. While the on-site portion of the investigation is wrapping up, it could take several months before the NTSB arrives at a probable cause.

In addition to data from the event recorder, the NTSB also retrieved 36 hours of "good quality" security camera footage from a Norfolk Southern freight yard camera that shows the crash, but not the signals, Sumwalt said.

He said the trains involved in the crash were not equipped with positive train control, a system that can slow or stop a train when personnel on board fail to obey signals or spot obstacles ahead.

But he stopped short of saying the system could have prevented Friday's crash.

Initial estimates put the cost of the crash at $1.3 million.

The Associated Press and STNGWire contributed to this report.

 

[TVRM610]

The HAZMAT rule will vary from one railroad to the next. I looked through three different rule books (GCOR, CSX Operating, and NORAC) and could find no specific instructions governing how much distance HAZMAT must receive. I'm going to guess its a railroad by railroad rule, and possibly even division to division rule that governs those movements.

Actually there is a Hazmat Rulebook that each railroad also follows. I know because every year we have to go over it and take a test for it at the shortline railroad I work for (even though we do not carry any hazmat materials).

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Page 7-14 of the Boston MPO's Journey to 2030 report claims that railroads are required to accept hazmat shipments, including radioactive waste, and to transport them through populated areas, on the theory that this is safer than shipping those materials by truck. It makes it sound like railroads don't have the ability to opt out of carrying hazardous materials should someone wish to ship them via that railroad, though perhaps there are railroads that in practice don't seem to get much of any of that business.

 

[TVRM610]

Page 7-14 of the Boston MPO's Journey to 2030 report claims that railroads are required to accept hazmat shipments, including radioactive waste, and to transport them through populated areas, on the theory that this is safer than shipping those materials by truck. It makes it sound like railroads don't have the ability to opt out of carrying hazardous materials should someone wish to ship them via that railroad, though perhaps there are railroads that in practice don't seem to get much of any of that business.

Honestly I do not know. The railroad I work for is a "shortline" with only a handful of businesses on the line. There would be no reason for us to ever have a hazmat car on our railroad (unless a chemical company were to build next to our line).

I'm not sure a railroad would ever be forced to carry a hazmat car, but that would be a bit unusual. It would make sense to me that any railroad would want any car they can get, more cars more $$$. Obviously all the main lines take hazmat anyway, and a shortline refusing a new customer would be extremely rare.

 

[had8ley]

It does boggle the mind what could have happened if the rear of the freight had been an LPG tank car or some other dangerous hazmat. While we still sympathize with the injured and hope for everyone's recovery, the outcome could have been SO much worse.......

The rear of a train can not have LPG or hazmat cars, both next to engine and rear end would have a idler car.

Aloha

IIRC correctly a HAZMAT car must have 5 cars between it, the engine, Cars containing Live Stock, People, and the end of the train.

The last rules class I took there was an exception to the five car rule. You could run with one car of cover if that was all you had in your train. Otherwise, the hazmat is set out or left. Also there is track termed "exempted" by the FRA, that NO hazmat can travel on and the track is restricted to 10 mph or less. If you work on one of these exempted pieces of track you should never even see a hazmat car. These are usually branches that the multiple short lines have gobbled up since the Class 1's shed most of them. George could probably give us more details.

 

[had8ley]

Well it doesn't even necessarily have to be a clear signal, what I meant by "clear signal" was an indication that didn't indicate restricting or stop. A "clear signal" could mean, Clear, Medium Clear, Limited Clear, Slow Clear, Advance Approach, Approach, Medium Approach, Limited Approach, Slow Approach. All of those indications give you permission to proceed past the signal (and if it ends in approach and isn't Advance Approach) reduce to medium speed and be prepared to stop at the next signal, but the block you are in is clear.

"Clear" signal meant green on our railroad. Went back to the days of when a ball was hung on a cable to denote if the block ahead was "clear" or occupied. The definition of a block is the distance between two signals.

 

[had8ley]

Investigators confirmed that a signal at the crossover in Englewood, 1.7 miles south of the crash site, showed what's called a restrictive red over yellow light signal, meaning the train should have been going less than 15 miles an hour.
The facts are the train should not have been operated at a speed in excess of 15 mph and yet it was operating at 40 mph.

NTSB investigators say the engineer saw the restrictive signal but they refuse to say whether the signal was misinterpreted. Investigators say they'll do more follow-up interviews and might even dismantle the locomotive to see if mechanical issues contributed to the collision.

But he stopped short of saying the system could have prevented Friday's crash.

OK. Here might lie the answer. On our RR a yellow over red is an "approach" signal which restricts freight trains to 30 mph and passenger to 40 mph. With so many people in the cab it is terribly easy to be distracted. If, indeed, the engineer misinterpreted the signal he was doing the speed he thought he needed to be doing (40). Personally, I am amazed at how freight and passenger trains can operate so well in the Chicago area vs. the NEC which does not have to contend with 150 car freight trains on a 24 and 7 basis.

 

[had8ley]

The HAZMAT rule will vary from one railroad to the next. I looked through three different rule books (GCOR, CSX Operating, and NORAC) and could find no specific instructions governing how much distance HAZMAT must receive. I'm going to guess its a railroad by railroad rule, and possibly even division to division rule that governs those movements.

The Haz-Mat book is a separate and apart book (in pamphlet form) from the GCOR.

 

[RR TRANS ENGR]

I have no knowledge of the physical characteristics involved and am only surmising some possible issues.

It is sounding like that the last signal prior to the accident was the interlocking signal governing the diverge!?

R/Y is apparently Restricting under the applicable rules.

R/Y can mean Diverging Approach or Medium Approach under other rulebooks.

I wonder if this engineer operated on territories when R/Y means something different than Restricting, and misinterpreted the Restricting aspect!?

Another possibility is that after clearing the low-speed diverge, the Engineer forgot the last aspect while accelerating!? A similar incident leaving a station stop caused the Feds to issue the "delay-in-block" rule.

SAM

 

[battalion51]

Sam, one of my internal sources suggested that the Engineer in charge at the time of the incident was qualified on 8 different rule books, or something to that effect. When you think about the number of railroads in the Chicago area this does seem plausible, since Engineers may be required to run on UP/BNSF/CP (GCOR), CSX (CSX Operating), NS (whatever book they use), CN (whatever book they use), Amtrak, etc. I still firmly believe that modifications should be made to GCOR, and an attempt should be made to get all railroads (at least the big seven) on board with it.

 

[Guest]

Simpleton, here, reporting in.

Signals and speed be dam*ed, doesn't the problem boil down to one train being on the wrong track?

Isn't it possible that the freight was on the wrong track?

Isn't it possible that a dispatcher put 2 trains on the same track, erroneously?

 

[TVRM610]

Simpleton, here, reporting in.
Signals and speed be dam*ed, doesn't the problem boil down to one train being on the wrong track?

Isn't it possible that the freight was on the wrong track?

Isn't it possible that a dispatcher put 2 trains on the same track, erroneously?

She's got a point, no one claims the signal was giving a stop indication. Wether it was for Restricted or Medium Speed is really neither here nor there, either way he should never have been given ANY signal to proceed into an occupied block.

Of course we all know had he been operating at 15 MPH the accident probably would not have occurred (a three car passenger train at that speed stops pretty quick in emergency... speaking from experience) or would have been very minor at worst.

I am somewhat surprised that a train would be able to travel over 20 mph in a frieght yard where hand thrown switches are used (I had read somewhere that the engineer had hand thrown a switch before the accident?).

 

[Guest]

"He's"

She's