Amtrak derailment in Philadelphia

5 dead - truly awful.

No Amtrak service between New York and Phiilly. NJT cross-honoring between Trenton and New York.

Terrible. A 6th person died overnight at Temple U. Hospital. Evidently the derailment happened near the spot of a similar incident in the 1940's - 79 people killed then, a lot of soldiers on leave from the war.

Does anyone know if excessive speed was the cause of the accident?

marylago said:

3Ha, they say the train was going twice the speed limit for that curve (100MPH vs. 50MPH).

 Oh, God, not like that MetroNorth train in the Bronx a few years ago?  How can train passengers ever feel safe??? (Rhetorical question emoticon)

Such a terrible tragedy. And if caused by taking a turn at double the recommended speed, how senseless.

One thing I will not do again after all these recent accidents is ride in the front car. Same story every crash with worst of it being in the front.

7 dead, 8 critical.  Possibly some still missing.  Pics are horrific.   What a terrible thing.

Unfathomable. My prayers are lifted for all the families and for the dead and injured.

A favorite cousin works in DC  Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. That was her train. She left early because she had a migraine.

There are no coincidences.

This is very sad. We should all be very concern that a train in our country can't go 100 miles per hour. 

It seems that 60+ years ago a trip from NY to DC was done on the train in less time than it is done today on the Acela. Wonder why? Aging infrastructure. The AVE in spain goes almost 200 miles per hour. 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/13/the-next-amtrak-catastrophe.html?source=TDB&via=FB_Page

"It seemed totally beyond belief that the train ride from New York to Washington could have been faster in 1964 than it was the year I was reading this article. But it was true: I was so floored by this that I called Amtrak and some rail experts I know to check, and it checked out. The reason: aging sections of track that trains have to slow down for."

pmartinezv said:

This is very sad. We should all be very concern that a train in our country can't go 100 miles per hour. 

The author of that article raises larger points, but he acknowledges that the curve and the neighborhood, not the infrastructure, are why trains can't go 100 miles per hour where the derailment occurred.

In this case, the train was entering a curve where the speed limit was 50 mph.  Clearly the train was capable of going over 100 mph. 

According to your logic, we should all be able to go 65 mph around sharp curves in our cars.

DaveSchmidt said:

pmartinezv said:

This is very sad. We should all be very concern that a train in our country can't go 100 miles per hour. 

The author of that article raises larger points, but he acknowledges that the curve and the neighborhood, not the infrastructure, are why trains can't go 100 miles per hour where the derailment occurred.

The article also mentions how there is technology that should have been installed that could have prevented this accident and it wasn't. I was not referring solely to this stretch. 

mumstheword said:

 Oh, God, not like that MetroNorth train in the Bronx a few years ago?  How can train passengers ever feel safe??? (Rhetorical question emoticon)

 It was a tragedy but train passengers are safer than people who drive or ride in cars. The problems that led to this tragedy need to be fixed, but you are safe if you ride a train. Nothing is absolutely safe. I hope you realize this every time you step into a car.

This is newsworthy because (1) it doesn't happen often and (2) it involved many people and a lot of property. Car collisions are more common and usually involve fewer people and less property. But train travel is safer per hour or per mile. 

I offer these points because we, as humans, have a tendency to fear things beyond their true danger, and we also have a tendency to feel safe at times when we are at risk. I hope a little bit of a rational view can help.

There are recent reports that two trains before the one in the accident (one Amtrak and one Septa) were struck by projectiles, in one case causing the train to be evacuated and the passengers to continue by bus.  Isn't it possible that the train cab's window was pierced or shattered by a similar projectile (like a rock thrown from an overpass), briefly knocking out the driver?  I don't know the setup in the cab, but maybe the driver lost consciousness, fell on the switch or lever that controls speed, increasing the speed, and when he came to, engaged the brake (tragically too late)?

Hate to speculate, but what's MOL for?  In response to chopin, historically, train engines have had "dead man" switches that the engineer must grip continuously.  If the engineer loses consciousness, and lets go the switch, the brakes are automatically engaged.  TBH, I don't know whether modern equipment still has this fail-safe.

mjc said:

Hate to speculate, but what's MOL for?  In response to chopin, historically, train engines have had "dead man" switches that the engineer must grip continuously.  If the engineer loses consciousness, and lets go the switch, the brakes are automatically engaged.  TBH, I don't know whether modern equipment still has this fail-safe.

 An article I read today stated that Amtrak trains sound a buzzer if the controls haven't been touched in 30 seconds, but that the buzzer can easily be silenced by a semi-conscious engineer. 

I've been on 3 Amtrak trains since the accident and other than canceling all segments between NYC and Philadelphia, there doesn't seem to be much impact to schedules (and by extension, average travel speeds).

Thanks, marcsiry.  There's nothing like actual knowledge, even on MOL. : )