Kind of glad Amtrak is slower than Europian Trains

[Paulus]

RRUserious... This train was going 119 mph... Amtrak trains run at that speed and higher. So the analogy works perfect.

The only trains that currently run above that speed are the Acela trains, or am I mistaken about that? The majority of the Amtrak trains do not run anywhere near that speed.

Northeast Regionals travel at up to 125mph

 

[June the Coach Rider]

RRUserious... This train was going 119 mph... Amtrak trains run at that speed and higher. So the analogy works perfect.

The only trains that currently run above that speed are the Acela trains, or am I mistaken about that? The majority of the Amtrak trains do not run anywhere near that speed.

Northeast Regionals travel at up to 125mph

OK, but those also travel on the same tracks as the Acela trains, but those are the only trains that run that fast. With the statement that Amtrak Trains run at that speed or higher, it makes it seem like the majority of trains run that speed and that is only true for the NEC at present time, I bellieve the midwest high speed has not started yet but they would be added to this.

 

[Trogdor]

One peculiarity that was mentioned in the discussion on this on the TO Board is that at least on certain railroads one has to stop to copy a restriction order but not so for a release order!!! Now that befuddles me, but on some reflection it sort of makes sense.

It does make sense in that you want to make sure the engineer absolutely has everything correct and is paying full attention when copying down a new restriction, because the potential harm in messing that up is very high. On the other hand, releasing a restriction is less important because the potential downside of screwing that up is adhering to a restriction that isn't there (meaning, maybe you go too slow through an area; worst case there is you just wind up a little late, but no safety is jeopardized).

The stop to copy rule also generally only applies if there is a single person in the cab. If there is a second engineer, or if a conductor happens to be up there, the person not at the controls can copy the restriction on the fly because his/her eyes don't need to be on the railroad.

As for the whole using radio while moving deal, it happens all the time, even with a single man in the cab. How fast a train is going really has nothing to do with it. Radios are different from cell phones in that you don't really lose as much awareness (really, the biggest danger with cell phones is that putting the phone next to your ear blocks out a lot of ambient noise from entering through that ear, and your brain subconsciously depends on that in maintaining situational awareness; it has nothing to do with not having a hand free, or with talking to someone). It's no worse than talking to a person next to you.

It's actually quite amazing when trains have to operate through areas with Form B restrictions (maintenance of way), where the engineer has to call the foreman in charge of the work gang, on the fly, as he's approaching their work limits, get the specific clearance from said foreman to operate through the work zone, read back said clearance, word for word, while following signals, blowing horns at crossings, etc., sometimes with radio transmissions of poor quality. But it happens, all over the place, thousands of times every day, without incident.

If an engineer can't talk on the radio and operate the train at the same time, he shouldn't be an engineer.

 

[RRUserious]

Here's something I'll be the most wild-eyed train fanatic doesn't know. The average speed for the entire system for this year. Or this month. Or any time frame. We all know what the SCHEDULE pretends their speed is. But being hours late, for any reason, means they are traveling much, much slower in reality. And before you can make any global statement about the system's speed, you need to know what that speed is. Not outliers like a fast run in the Northeast Corridor. That really says nothing about Amtrak. I'm quite sure that when they say airliners go 550 mph at cruising speed, the airliners are actually going that speed a lot m ore often than not. When they say 75 mph for trains, I have no idea what they all are going, but I rode several and know the speed varied from 0 (for long stretches) to whatever the best part of the track allowed (which may be less than what the train is capable of). It may be we can't discuss this realistically because we just don't have data. May never have data.

 

[RRUserious]

One peculiarity that was mentioned in the discussion on this on the TO Board is that at least on certain railroads one has to stop to copy a restriction order but not so for a release order!!! Now that befuddles me, but on some reflection it sort of makes sense.

It does make sense in that you want to make sure the engineer absolutely has everything correct and is paying full attention when copying down a new restriction, because the potential harm in messing that up is very high. On the other hand, releasing a restriction is less important because the potential downside of screwing that up is adhering to a restriction that isn't there (meaning, maybe you go too slow through an area; worst case there is you just wind up a little late, but no safety is jeopardized).

The stop to copy rule also generally only applies if there is a single person in the cab. If there is a second engineer, or if a conductor happens to be up there, the person not at the controls can copy the restriction on the fly because his/her eyes don't need to be on the railroad.

As for the whole using radio while moving deal, it happens all the time, even with a single man in the cab. How fast a train is going really has nothing to do with it. Radios are different from cell phones in that you don't really lose as much awareness (really, the biggest danger with cell phones is that putting the phone next to your ear blocks out a lot of ambient noise from entering through that ear, and your brain subconsciously depends on that in maintaining situational awareness; it has nothing to do with not having a hand free, or with talking to someone). It's no worse than talking to a person next to you.

It's actually quite amazing when trains have to operate through areas with Form B restrictions (maintenance of way), where the engineer has to call the foreman in charge of the work gang, on the fly, as he's approaching their work limits, get the specific clearance from said foreman to operate through the work zone, read back said clearance, word for word, while following signals, blowing horns at crossings, etc., sometimes with radio transmissions of poor quality. But it happens, all over the place, thousands of times every day, without incident.

If an engineer can't talk on the radio and operate the train at the same time, he shouldn't be an engineer.

"Nothing to do with it". That's really too extreme. What is coming through makes all the difference in the world. Whoever is listening has to be multitasking. And multitasking has been PROVEN to lower efficiency at all tasks being done. Some tasks cant' afford a loss of efficiency.

 

[TVRM610]

There are several sections that run at 110...

Keystone Corridor

Michigain Corridor

Illinois Corridor

Section of 100 for the Lake Shore Limited and Empire Corridor

And of course 90 for Chief & California Corridor.

The majority of Amtrak trains run at 90 or above...

 

[Trogdor]

As for the whole using radio while moving deal, it happens all the time, even with a single man in the cab. How fast a train is going really has nothing to do with it.

"Nothing to do with it". That's really too extreme. What is coming through makes all the difference in the world. Whoever is listening has to be multitasking. And multitasking has been PROVEN to lower efficiency at all tasks being done. Some tasks cant' afford a loss of efficiency.

No, "nothing to do with it" is not too extreme. It's exactly the truth.

An engineer on a train does not need to slow down his train to speak to the dispatcher on the radio. The engineer will spend just as much time talking on the radio at 79 mph as he would at 20 mph, or stopped (except when the reason for being stopped requires some additional contact with the dispatcher in order to get going again). On the NEC, or anywhere else where speeds above 90 mph are allowed, trains aren't going to slow down to talk to the dispatcher. They will say what they need to say, listen to what they need to listen to, while maintaining whatever speed they happen to be running. The various PTC systems in effect at those higher speeds do add an extra layer of protection, but they exist whether the engineer is on the radio or not.

In fact, the time when the engineer is most likely to pay less attention to talking on the radio is when he's operating at restricted speed and has to focus on the alignment of switches, possible banners, broken rails, etc. But that's when the train is going really slow, not really fast.

 

[RRUserious]

As for the whole using radio while moving deal, it happens all the time, even with a single man in the cab. How fast a train is going really has nothing to do with it.

"Nothing to do with it". That's really too extreme. What is coming through makes all the difference in the world. Whoever is listening has to be multitasking. And multitasking has been PROVEN to lower efficiency at all tasks being done. Some tasks cant' afford a loss of efficiency.

No, "nothing to do with it" is not too extreme. It's exactly the truth.

An engineer on a train does not need to slow down his train to speak to the dispatcher on the radio. The engineer will spend just as much time talking on the radio at 79 mph as he would at 20 mph, or stopped (except when the reason for being stopped requires some additional contact with the dispatcher in order to get going again). On the NEC, or anywhere else where speeds above 90 mph are allowed, trains aren't going to slow down to talk to the dispatcher. They will say what they need to say, listen to what they need to listen to, while maintaining whatever speed they happen to be running. The various PTC systems in effect at those higher speeds do add an extra layer of protection, but they exist whether the engineer is on the radio or not.

In fact, the time when the engineer is most likely to pay less attention to talking on the radio is when he's operating at restricted speed and has to focus on the alignment of switches, possible banners, broken rails, etc. But that's when the train is going really slow, not really fast.

I haven't asked how you could possibly know that without being in every train. But I will point out that European trains are traveling much faster. PLUS even trains in the US aren't going that speed except for bursts. You'll just keep arguing and arguing and nothing will make a dent, so I suppose I'll just stop following this thread.

 

[jis]

As for the whole using radio while moving deal, it happens all the time, even with a single man in the cab. How fast a train is going really has nothing to do with it.

"Nothing to do with it". That's really too extreme. What is coming through makes all the difference in the world. Whoever is listening has to be multitasking. And multitasking has been PROVEN to lower efficiency at all tasks being done. Some tasks cant' afford a loss of efficiency.

No, "nothing to do with it" is not too extreme. It's exactly the truth.

An engineer on a train does not need to slow down his train to speak to the dispatcher on the radio. The engineer will spend just as much time talking on the radio at 79 mph as he would at 20 mph, or stopped (except when the reason for being stopped requires some additional contact with the dispatcher in order to get going again). On the NEC, or anywhere else where speeds above 90 mph are allowed, trains aren't going to slow down to talk to the dispatcher. They will say what they need to say, listen to what they need to listen to, while maintaining whatever speed they happen to be running. The various PTC systems in effect at those higher speeds do add an extra layer of protection, but they exist whether the engineer is on the radio or not.

In fact, the time when the engineer is most likely to pay less attention to talking on the radio is when he's operating at restricted speed and has to focus on the alignment of switches, possible banners, broken rails, etc. But that's when the train is going really slow, not really fast.

I agree with your assessment. Actually at higher speeds because of the very strong protection provided by things like ACSES or ERTMS, it really does not matter what speed the train is going at. And indeed it is at lower speeds on unprotected track where more attention needs to be paid. And of course over speeding on unprotected track, as was being done in Spain, is something that one has to diligently protect against. That is the situation where distraction has the most chance of causing problem, not when the train is under ERTMS or ACSES protection. In that situation worst case you will get a penalty brake application and embarrassment.

 

[June the Coach Rider]

There are several sections that run at 110...Keystone Corridor

Michigain Corridor

Illinois Corridor

Section of 100 for the Lake Shore Limited and Empire Corridor

And of course 90 for Chief & California Corridor.

The majority of Amtrak trains run at 90 or above...

OK, but this still is not at or above the 115 that was discussed and said that Amtrak runs at or above that speed. I take the LSL every time I have to travel anywhere west, where is the 100, must be at night in Ohio.

 

[TVRM610]

On the train orders website it was brought up that this exact thing happened on the NEC about 20 years ago. A metroliner went through the Elizabeth "S" curve at 120 mph (rated for 55). All the cars stayed on the track.

Amfleets are pretty good after all huh?

 

[jis]

Yup. Amfleets have relatively low CG and are heavy enough not to fly off easily. but even more remarkable was the fact that the AEM-7 stayed put. Of course all of them needed wheel jobs and they had to take the track out of service to realign it. I doubt that Superliners would have survived such an experience unscathed.

Incidentally now you cannot pull that stunt on that curve anymore since the signal system enforces a speed lower than what is safe speed.

Another example was train 66 at Back Bay. That one actually ended much worse. And that too you cannot do anymore because the signal enforces a safe speed limit now.

These are two cases where the signal system is used to enforce civil speed limit, sicne until ACSES was installed there was not way to enforce civil speed limits on the NEC, other than to hack it through the signal system to the extent one could.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

That lower CG is a legit reason for me to avoid overly high vehicles. Rollover accidents ahve much more deaths than simple collisions. I will trust than Amtrak is safe enough to not get me killed, but this means zero more Megabus for me.

I still feel secure on a Superliner.

 

[TVRM610]

Yup. Amfleets have relatively low CG and are heavy enough not to fly off easily. but even more remarkable was the fact that the AEM-7 stayed put. Of course all of them needed wheel jobs and they had to take the track out of service to realign it. I doubt that Superliners would have survived such an experience unscathed.
Incidentally now you cannot pull that stunt on that curve anymore since the signal system enforces a speed lower than what is safe speed.

Another example was train 66 at Back Bay. That one actually ended much worse. And that too you cannot do anymore because the signal enforces a safe speed limit now.

Wow.. I just looked up the 66 at Back Bay.. I was not familiar with that one. For others reading along 30 mph curve in a tunnel taken at 103 mph.. terrible accident but everyone survived.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Yup. Amfleets have relatively low CG and are heavy enough not to fly off easily. but even more remarkable was the fact that the AEM-7 stayed put. Of course all of them needed wheel jobs and they had to take the track out of service to realign it. I doubt that Superliners would have survived such an experience unscathed.
Incidentally now you cannot pull that stunt on that curve anymore since the signal system enforces a speed lower than what is safe speed.

Another example was train 66 at Back Bay. That one actually ended much worse. And that too you cannot do anymore because the signal enforces a safe speed limit now.

Wow.. I just looked up the 66 at Back Bay.. I was not familiar with that one. For others reading along 30 mph curve in a tunnel taken at 103 mph.. terrible accident but everyone survived.

Any link to the case? I'm having trouble finding anything on it.

 

[Bus Nut]

What about the Acela derailment? It begs a question: How good does the infrastructure have to be to get more speed? High speed isn't just a matter of a bigger engine.

In my uninformed opinion my #1 fear on Acela is somebody taking out a bridge. Too many old, low bridges, too many boating accidents.

 

[Bus Nut]

"Nothing to do with it". That's really too extreme. What is coming through makes all the difference in the world. Whoever is listening has to be multitasking. And multitasking has been PROVEN to lower efficiency at all tasks being done. Some tasks cant' afford a loss of efficiency.

But here's the thing: they did research on truck drivers. And they found that while texting while driving increased the risk of crash by 27 times, talking on the phone did not increase their risk of crash or near-crash. Now, take under advisement that talking on the phone DOES increase risk of crash for non-commercial drivers. Cars, SUVs, pickups.

I would say there are a couple of likely reasons but one reason is that a commercial driver is more likely to be engaged in conversations with their dispatcher (rather than trying to do sales calls or take personal calls). Thus, the conversation doesn't take them off the job, mentally, and the calls are not emotionally taxing. The Federal regulations on cell phone use specifically allow companies to set up a one-touch system so that drivers can place or pick up calls. However, if you have your hand off the wheel holding a phone or if you are caught dialing a phone, you face $1000s in fines. Dialing is a kind of texting. It requires use of the spatial reasoning part of your brain that is needed to drive. Even if you try to dial without looking you won't really be seeing your surroundings.

Given the research that's been done on road users in North America, I am very skeptical that a routine communication with the dispatcher about track approaches would be distracting in that way.

According to media reports following the accident, the operator's last transmissions were apparently screaming his (inappropriate) approach speeds to the dispatcher. (Do Spanish news media listen in on scanners? I guess so?) So unless we hear otherwise from the accident investigation I have a hard time believing that those communications indicate inattention to the task at hand.

It's important when we make decisions about operational protocol that it's based on facts and safety, not gut feelings and data that's not really applicable.

 

[jis]

There are several sections that run at 110...

Keystone Corridor

Michigain Corridor

Illinois Corridor

Section of 100 for the Lake Shore Limited and Empire Corridor

And of course 90 for Chief & California Corridor.

The majority of Amtrak trains run at 90 or above...

OK, but this still is not at or above the 115 that was discussed and said that Amtrak runs at or above that speed. I take the LSL every time I have to travel anywhere west, where is the 100, must be at night in Ohio.

No the 110mph segment on the LSL is between Hudson and Albany, and a little bit between Albany and Schenectady. You won;t necessarily be able to tell since it is actually smoother than a lot of the 79 mph areas on its run.
I think since in terms of train count NEC has a large proportion of trains operating and most of them operate at 125mph or above, one can make the statement that TVRM makes without being way off base.

 

[Ryan]

It may be we can't discuss this realistically because we just don't have data. May never have data.

It's not that hard to come by.

Cardinal WAS-CHI:



DSC_7093 by Ryan Stavely, on Flickr

Empire Builder CHI-PDX:



DSC_7506 by Ryan Stavely, on Flickr

Coast Starlight SEA-LAX:



The End by Ryan Stavely, on Flickr

Capitol Limited CHI-WAS:



End of the road by Ryan Stavely, on Flickr

 

[June the Coach Rider]

There are several sections that run at 110...

Keystone Corridor

Michigain Corridor

Illinois Corridor

Section of 100 for the Lake Shore Limited and Empire Corridor

And of course 90 for Chief & California Corridor.

The majority of Amtrak trains run at 90 or above...

OK, but this still is not at or above the 115 that was discussed and said that Amtrak runs at or above that speed. I take the LSL every time I have to travel anywhere west, where is the 100, must be at night in Ohio.

No the 110mph segment on the LSL is between Hudson and Albany, and a little bit between Albany and Schenectady. You won;t necessarily be able to tell since it is actually smoother than a lot of the 79 mph areas on its run.
I think since in terms of train count NEC has a large proportion of trains operating and most of them operate at 125mph or above, one can make the statement that TVRM makes without being way off base.

Oh, that would explain why I never experienced it. I come on the Massachusetts part, so never go thru the Hudson and Albany area.

 

[jis]

Oh, that would explain why I never experienced it. I come on the Massachusetts part, so never go thru the Hudson and Albany area.

Actually you might have experienced it for a bit between Albany and Schenectady, since that is a part that the Boston section does travel over after joining the New York section in Albany.

 

[VentureForth]

I know this was now a long time ago, but the intent of my post was to indicate that for the most part, any communications that can distract a driver are generally short and to the point. I'm on the Palmetto right now and I was listening on the scanner until my batteries gave out. Most of the conversation was the driver calling out the signals, conductor verifying or the conductor verifying a defect detector. I heard one question from the dispatcher to the engineer - which the engineer (not the conductor) replied to regarding speed.

Situational awareness and cockpit management is essential in both aircraft and driving trains.

The accident in Spain appears to have occurred when the dispatcher called the train to have a conversation about the approach into Santiago de Compostella. It's conceivable that the conversation originated in the more sophisticated section of the route and obviously carried through to the scene of the accident as the driver was still on the phone at the time. Preliminary indications are that the driver then had to scramble through paperwork to understand what was being relayed to him.

My question is where was the other driver? What was he doing? Was he even in the cab?

 

[TVRM610]

My question is where was the other driver? What was he doing? Was he even in the cab?

What makes you think there was another driver?

Almost all amtrak trains operate with one engineer. I would think the high speed passenger trains all run with one driver.. all though that's just a guess.

 

[Bus Nut]

Well, I have to eat my words--news reports indicate he accepted a phone call (not sure if this is actually phone or radio) from assistant conductor which the judge(?) called "inappropriate".

He also ignored three audible warning tones. Not sure what that means, but ... not good.

Anyway, as others have said, bit of a vindication here for FRA on a number of counts.

 

[TVRM610]

Warning tones? First I've heard about that. If that's true then I take back all my defending of his actions. But seeing as this track was not ATC (or the like) I'm not sure what type of warning tones there were. Will be interesting to hear.