Amtrak

[Allen]

Is there a day that goes by where Amtrak doesn't kill someone?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/south-carolina-train-crash-leaves-least-2-dead-115645912.html

[leftyo]

it does seem they are involved in quite few incidents lately.

[Dan Shapiro]

Just wait until Moonbeam Brown gets his "bullet train".

[clintonhater]

Just wait until Moonbeam Brown gets his "bullet train".

The Japs (who I think first developed them) have been running them for decades and love them. They've been copied in France & Germany, where they're also hugely successful. Now the Chinese are building what will be the longest high-speed tracks in the world, with the fastest trains. Why can't the same be done in this country? Many reasons, from tolerating engineers who play with their cells or smoke dope (either would warrant a death sentence in China!) to antiquated tracks & road-beds. Now, instead of upgrading our Third World rail infrastructure, there's momentum building to finance another manned moon trip--billions will be wasted for...what? How was your life improved by previous moon landings? Maybe I'm crazy, but I think I might get a little more use out of a fast & safe rail service.

[Allen]

The Japs (who I think first developed them) have been running them for decades and love them. They've been copied in France & Germany, where they're also hugely successful. Now the Chinese are building what will be the longest high-speed tracks in the world, with the fastest trains. Why can't the same be done in this country? Many reasons, from tolerating engineers who play with their cells or smoke dope (either would warrant a death sentence in China!) to antiquated tracks & road-beds. Now, instead of upgrading our Third World rail infrastructure, there's momentum building to finance another manned moon trip--billions will be wasted for...what? How was your life improved by previous moon landings? Maybe I'm crazy, but I think I might get a little more use out of a fast & safe rail service.

While I agree with you I feel much of Amtrak's problems are caused by Amtrak. I myself had a close encounter with an Amtrak train. Our current RR infrastructure is fine for cargo trains that drive the speed limits and creep around tight curves and through crowded cities. The Amtrak engineers seem to think no laws apply to them and fly thru cities at 70mph and 150mph or so on the straight-a-ways. These old rails and sometimes wooden trestles just weren't designed to handle such.

As far as the moon goes I can see setting up a missile base there at the most but we do have bigger and more important fish to fry.

[clintonhater]

The Amtrak engineers seem to think no laws apply to them and fly thru cities at 70mph and 150mph or so on the straight-a-ways. These old rails and sometimes wooden trestles just weren't designed to handle such.


THAT'S the problem! Can't run 21st C. high-speed trains on 19th C. tracks!

How 'bout we end the wars in Afghan & Iraq (or start another one in Ukraine) before building missile bases on the moon?

[RED]

Come on guys you are all full of it. I got the following from a UP Railroad Engineer with 20 years experience.

1.The CSX freight train was stopped and unmanned.

2. The Amtrak was on the wrong track.

3. There was a "signal suppression" in effect (they were off).

4. A rail or a switch could have broken.

5. Under a signal suppression, their speed was likely to be less than 49MPH.

[Allen]

They always have a reason for wrecking but the simple fact is: they do wreck and cost lives.

As stated before, I have had first hand experience seeing how they operate. Back when I worked and back when Amtrak traveled our states in this region I never saw Amtrak going a moderate or slow speed. 70mph+ through towns and cities is too fast for any kind of vehicle that has practically no brakes. Every morning that I worked I had to pass over the tracks. The cross over has two cross arms covering 3 lanes of traffic each way. There is a metal terminal building within 100' of the interchange that is a blind but the cargo trains creep and sometimes add cars here so never a problem. One particular morning as I was going to work, with the "all clear", I crossed through and noticed Amtrak was barreling down on me, the front of the engine was even with the closest edge of the building, so within 100'. After seeing me on the tracks the engineer THEN sounded the horn. The train was going so fast that 2 or 3 cars (including the engine) had made it through before the cross arms could flash, alarm, and start moving down. The train missed the rear of my car by only 2 or 3 feet and I wasn't poking along. This is a 6 lane highway on the edge of town---very well traveled. I can rarely say this but: "I was there".

There are hundreds of trains that travel constantly every day. Wrecks happen but are rare compared to Amtrak. Has to be something going on.

[Griff Murphey]

My wife and I like Amtrak - it's the only affordable rail travel available in the USA as far as long haul scenic rides and the fun of dining and having a few beverages as the country rolls by.

As a rail buff I wonder if the problem in part is that railroads don't own the passenger trains. The government owned passenger trains are traveling on rails they don't own... That is I think an issue. No corporate pride involved....

[JB White]

Allen, I too experienced a near miss but not quite as close. Not Amtrak but a CP freight. About 1:00 am I was making a crossing when I noticed one set of lights blinking but the gates were up and dark. My car window was down and I heard the rumble so I chose to stop. A car coming the other way sped through the crossing and was narrowly missed the same as you. Only after the second loco was through the crossing did things light up and the gates come down. A call to the town PD got me a woman on the line (assuming a "civilian" employee) saying I should contact the railroad. "WHAT?? No! I called you. Why not get a cop out here with a marked car to watch traffic while you call the railroad. Got their number? Then get it because I surely don't!"

As far as brakes are concerned, I know for a fact they have brakes. On a millwright call I worked on a brake testing dyno. Simulated braking to the equivalent of a two mile long freight. As you said though.."practically" no brakes for all intended purposes and you're right.

Car brakes vs. truck brakes. Sure trucks have better brakes because they have to. Doesn't mean a 40,000 pound truck can stop as quickly as a 3,000 pound car. Trains have MUCH better brakes than trucks and look how long it takes them to stop. I use that analogy when coaching kids who think they can pull in front of a moving semi because "Trucks have better brakes" as their not-so-genius friends have told them.

[Allen]

Perhaps a better term would have been "takes a long distance to stop all that weight especially at high speeds" but I was trying to keep it brief.

My father was hit by a train. He was in his brand new (at the time) 1947 Chevrolet. The car stalled while crossing the tracks and would not restart quick enough. I guess he didn't have time to run from the car. Perhaps there was no cross arms or other warnings, maybe he was trying to beat the train. This time I wasn't there. He was not injured but the train slid him sideways for about a mile before it could stop.

[dryheat]

I have never understood how people "stall" on the tracks and manage to get hit by a train. Just a a story; when I was in jr. high the school bus we were in was approaching the tracks. The coal train traveled it a couple of times a day. We were about to cross in front of a moving train when one kid spoke up: Bus driver, are you going to stop! The driver slammed on the brakes and swerved into a snowbank. That kid might have saved our lives. Inattention causes a lot of accidents.

[clintonhater]

...maybe he was trying to beat the train.

You think?

[RED]

One reason for the recent train crashes is the amount of training required to drive a train. An airline pilot is well trained and it takes months and years to have enough training and experience to sit in the Captains chair in a commercial airliner. Yep, a airline pilot makes more money but there is a bigger demand for them and they should be paid a lot, but the truth is the RR engineer undergoes weeks of training... not years and receives almost as much (90%) money.

The airliner pilot has spent 1,000's of hours in the co-pilot's seat. There ain't no co-pilot on a railroad train.

But with that being said, the real problem with railroads is the unions. There is a us versus them relationship that is poisonous. The RR companies work the ass off their employees. Long hours, always on call, no set work hours, that destroys family life, and the unions actually promote and sustain the abuse.

Talk to a real down to earth honest Engineer and he hates the union and fully understands why the company does what it does. Too many RR guys are afraid to buck the unions and are scared they would lose their $50+/hour job.

[ray55classic]

Trains have some pretty efficient air brakes but when you consider that most rail cars whether a flatbed , a boxcar , tanker or gondola have a 100 ton [200,000lb] carrying capacity ,
add in the weight of the cars themselves , add the locomotives weight , steel wheels on steel tracks and trains at times miles long
it's a wonder they can stop at all with that much mass moving at speed.

[jon_norstog]

The public doesn't own the tracks, but they were built with public resources - huge land grants in the 19th century, and then big federal money during WW II when practically all the track in the US was refurbished as part of the war effort. Here's a test for you: those rails have dates cast into the web. Check them out, see how many are dated 1942, 43, 44, 45.

the railroads treat those tracks as if they owned them, but it was the American people that paid for building them.

Why am i posting this? Ask yourself that when your Amtrack coach is sitting on a siding in the middle of Montana waiting for a freight train to pass by.

jn

[RED]

Here's a test for you: those rails have dates cast into the web. Check them out, see how many are dated 1942, 43, 44, 45.

Link???

Just because a railroad was built in the 1940's doesn't mean the rails are that old. They are continually being replaced and upgraded. BTW none of the 3 most recents wrecks was caused by old worn out rails. In every case, human error was to blame and in the most recent case it looks like a incorrectly positioned switch was the case and not the fault of the Amtrak crew that paid with their lives.

[Mark in Ottawa]

High speed trains have to have their own dedicated line and need to be elevated over all road intersections to avoid interactions with cars, trucks or pedestrians. This makes their cost prohibitive unless there is a very large passenger demand. The reason for the dedicated track is that the track must be super-elevated (i.e. banked) to suit the design speed of the train. If the train speed and the banking of the track are coordinated, the train can safely manage the curve and the load from the train is at right angles to the rail and there is no wear on the rail. If the train is too fast, then the rail wears out on the inner side and if the train is too slow, the rail wears out on the outer side of the curve. Cargo trains travel at a much slower velocity than high speed passenger trains and depending on the deign speed of the track, one side of the rail or the other will wear out if both types of train are using the same track. About 40 years ago there was an attempt to deal with this by building a passenger train that could use cargo track by having the superstructure of the rail car tilt. It was not a technical success. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAC_TurboTrain. Financially high speed trains are a difficult proposition in North America because of the long distances and the somewhat sparse populations compared to China, Japan or Europe.

[clintonhater]

the railroads treat those tracks as if they owned them, but it was the American people that paid for building them.



The principal reason railroads lost freight hauling revenue after WW II, and many went bankrupt, was competition from long-distance trucking; who paid for the highways those trucks travel on? (And, by the way, destroy in so doing.)

[Vern Humphrey]

The Japs (who I think first developed them) have been running them for decades and love them. They've been copied in France & Germany, where they're also hugely successful. Now the Chinese are building what will be the longest high-speed tracks in the world, with the fastest trains. Why can't the same be done in this country?

The simple answer is, there isn't a high-speed rail system in the world that makes a profit. They all operate at a loss.

If they WERE money-makers, private enterprise would build them. Since they're losers, governments build them, and syphon money out of the taxpayer's pocket to pay their huge losses.

[clintonhater]

The simple answer is, there isn't a high-speed rail system in the world that makes a profit. They all operate at a loss.

If they WERE money-makers, private enterprise would build them. Since they're losers, governments build them, and syphon money out of the taxpayer's pocket to pay their huge losses.

Well, can't you say the same thing about public roads? Never heard that they were supposed to turn a profit. (I'm sure you're aware that fuel taxes & license fees come no where close to covering road bilding & maintenance costs.)How about publically financed police & fire depts--are they expected to be self-supporting? Like public roads, fire & police protection, passenger rail is a public-service, and if taxpayers don't foot the bill, who will? One fact beyond dispute is that Europeans LOVE their rail service as much as I did when I was there, and I can't believe they aren't aware that their taxes pay for it.

[Vern Humphrey]

Well, can't you say the same thing about public roads? Never heard that they were supposed to turn a profit.
Two wrongs don't make a right. If you say highways are a drain on the taxpayer's pocket I won't argue. But I WILL argue that doesn't justify another, even greater drain.

[clintonhater]

Just reported: CSX Freight worker failed to turn track switch back to original position after using it to divert freight train on to a siding. Wonder if he'll report back to work tomorrow. A bonanza for the negligence lawyers.

[Allen]

Just reported: CSX Freight worker failed to turn track switch back to original position after using it to divert freight train on to a siding. Wonder if he'll report back to work tomorrow. A bonanza for the negligence lawyers.

Probably that guy from the Unstoppable movie.

[leftyo]

Just reported: CSX Freight worker failed to turn track switch back to original position after using it to divert freight train on to a siding. Wonder if he'll report back to work tomorrow. A bonanza for the negligence lawyers.

union protected, probably wont get more than a write up.

[Clark Howard]

Check out the photos of the Engineer and Conductor who were killed.

[clintonhater]

Check out the photos of the Engineer and Conductor who were killed.

Whatever their shortcomings, I don't think they contributed to the accident--after the switch had been thrown which shunted their train from the main line on to the siding where the freight was sitting, all they could do was go along for the ride--though they reportedly hit their brakes immediately.

[Major Tom]

Flying to destinations, train trips across country used to thrill me. No more! I'll drive to where ever I want to go and take my chances with the semi trucks which clog all the highways.

[clintonhater]

Flying to destinations, train trips across country used to thrill me. No more! I'll drive to where ever I want to go and take my chances with the semi trucks which clog all the highways.

In the '60s & '70s, after I'd acquired a vehicle with a good stereo system, I can clearly remember when long-distance driving on the Interstates was a real pleasure; in fact, I'm now mortified to think of the gas I wasted on needless trips, like driving a 200 m. RT on Sunday to go back to the same gunshow I'd spent all day Saturday at! Sure, there was the occasional semi that had to be passed (though none of the outrageous "truck-trains" now allowed!), but it was a brief interruption to a pleasant drive.

I have to believe that there are easily a thousand semi rigs on the road now to every one then! And in rolling terrain, where you're forced to pass them going uphill, then have them blast past you doing 80 going downhill--there's just no place I'm wanting to go badly enough to endure hours of that kind of stress. Since winter began, a dozen or more 30-50 vehicle traffic pile-ups due to snow & ice have been shown on TV--they look like big-rig parking lots with only a handful of passenger cars mixed in among them.

[Vern Humphrey]

Let's hope that autonomously-driven vehicles help solve this problem.

[clintonhater]

Let's hope that autonomously-driven vehicles help solve this problem.

Before that happens, how 'bout we demand enforcement of laws already on the books that limit how long a truck driver can drive without stopping to sleep.

[Allen]

Yeaaaa nobody died this time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5359297/Amtrak-train-BREAKS-APART-traveling-125mph.html

[Vern Humphrey]

Before that happens, how 'bout we demand enforcement of laws already on the books that limit how long a truck driver can drive without stopping to sleep.

That's one of the things driving the development of autonominously-driven vehicles. The driver has to sleep, the truck doesn't. It can run 23 hours a day, so with autonomous-drive, you get two trucks for the price of one.

[leftyo]

That's one of the things driving the development of autonominously-driven vehicles. The driver has to sleep, the truck doesn't. It can run 23 hours a day, so with autonomous-drive, you get two trucks for the price of one.

thats what the trains are for, 2 or 3 guys can move what it takes hundreds of trucks to move, and get it done quicker.for the amount of material moved, commercial trains are quite safe, its the amtrak line that generally has safety issues (this one accident not being their fault for once).

[dryheat]

I like auto pilot in planes. Maybe on ships. Alpha star cruisers, certainly. Cars and trucks? Not so much.

[Vern Humphrey]

thats what the trains are for, 2 or 3 guys can move what it takes hundreds of trucks to move, and get it done quicker.for the amount of material moved, commercial trains are quite safe, its the amtrak line that generally has safety issues (this one accident not being their fault for once).

But trains don't go everywhere. Trucks are still needed. And autonomously driven trucks will be safer and much cheaper.

[clintonhater]

But trains don't go everywhere.

They used to--almost. Before most lines were driven into bankruptcy by competition with trucks, which had the competitive advantage of highways provided at tax-payer expense; every analysis of the decline of American railroading reaches this conclusion. Yes, trucks were needed for short hauls, but they weren't hauling freight coast to coast as now.

Don't doubt robot-trucks would be cheaper, but safer??? You've got to be kidding.

[Vern Humphrey]

They used to--almost. Before most lines were driven into bankruptcy by competition with trucks, which had the competitive advantage of highways provided at tax-payer expense; every analysis of the decline of American railroading reaches this conclusion. Yes, trucks were needed for short hauls, but they weren't hauling freight coast to coast as now.

Don't doubt robot-trucks would be cheaper, but safer??? You've got to be kidding.

As things stand, self-driven automobiles have racked up millions of miles, with no accidents caused by the self-driven vehicles (although some human-driven vehicles have caused accidents with them.)

[dryheat]

As things stand, self-driven automobiles have racked up millions of miles,-

On the test track? How many of these things are actually out on the road?

[leftyo]

off the top of my head, i believe tesla's self driver has had accidents on the road. dont know about others as its not a big topic of interest for me.

[clintonhater]

off the top of my head, i believe tesla's self driver has had accidents on the road. dont know about others as its not a big topic of interest for me.

Don't have 50 grand to spend on one? I don't either, though I'd love to have any kind of electric, long as I, not it, was doing the driving.

[Vern Humphrey]

off the top of my head, i believe tesla's self driver has had accidents on the road. dont know about others as its not a big topic of interest for me.
From https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/tesla-model-s-autopilot-fatal-crash.html

Eight months after a fatal crash involving a Tesla Motors car operating in a computer-assisted mode, federal auto-safety regulators said their investigation of the car found no defects in the system that caused the accident and said Tesla’s Autopilot-enabled vehicles did not need to be recalled.

[JB White]

Vern, that article sums up what I have always seen as a fault/faults in the system. So, the system worked as designed but the system isn't up to snuff as it should be. It couldn't identify an 18 wheeler in bright sunlight. The driver wasn't paying attention. There was seven seconds to react but it didn't. It doesn't need to be recalled so long as a driver is paying attention and keeps his/her hands on the wheel at all times.

If it couldn't tell an 18 wheeler at an intersection due to extenuating circumstances, what about simpler things we don't often encounter. Can it tell the difference between a ball rolling into the road and a paper cup? Can it tell the difference between a hotdog wrapper and a kid's loose kite? Can it see whether or not the deer in the ditch is browsing or looking to possibly bolt? Will it suddenly stop or know to change lanes to get that extra 11 feet just in case it does?

Doesn't matter how many miles are logged as it can't compare to the trillions being driven on the roads regularly. The system cannot compensate for human nature and complacency when work is turned over to a machine.

[leftyo]

Vern, that article sums up what I have always seen as a fault/faults in the system. So, the system worked as designed but the system isn't up to snuff as it should be. It couldn't identify an 18 wheeler in bright sunlight. The driver wasn't paying attention. There was seven seconds to react but it didn't. It doesn't need to be recalled so long as a driver is paying attention and keeps his/her hands on the wheel at all times.

If it couldn't tell an 18 wheeler at an intersection due to extenuating circumstances, what about simpler things we don't often encounter. Can it tell the difference between a ball rolling into the road and a paper cup? Can it tell the difference between a hotdog wrapper and a kid's loose kite? Can it see whether or not the deer in the ditch is browsing or looking to possibly bolt? Will it suddenly stop or know to change lanes to get that extra 11 feet just in case it does?

Doesn't matter how many miles are logged as it can't compare to the trillions being driven on the roads regularly. The system cannot compensate for human nature and complacency when work is turned over to a machine.

correct, you have to read the full article to comprehend what it says. short summary is driverless vehicles arent happening yet.