Reader Emails

Internet Geniuses Are All Train Experts After Amtrak Derailment

Want to have your business advert seen by over 600,000 people per month? Email us at Turtleboysports@gmail.com for more information, and check out our website about types of advertising we offer.

Follow us on Twitter and like us on Facebook

 

 

 

Guest Blog

So, recent events down in Philly have attracted my attention. As the anti-Clive of Turtleboy Sports, I feel obligated to continue the tradition. No, I’m not pulling a Modest Proposal here. I’m taking actual research, specifications, rules and regs. The whole shebang. And maybe some shaming of the hundreds of newly-minted internet railroaders who are automatically putting the blame on the guy at the throttle in the recent Amtrak wreck down in everyone’s favorite source of cheesesteak sandwiches. I’ll try and keep this short, sweet, educated and to the point, only because the mass of internet railroaders don’t seem to like to do research.

Screen Shot 2015-05-21 at 11.06.07 AM

From the start, we’ve had an accident in Philly involving an Amtrak train (specifically train No. 188) that was speeding, with the resulting derailment killing eight and wounding over two hundred people. And if you don’t believe how much of a mess it is, this aerial shot should give some perspective:

Screen Shot 2015-05-21 at 11.06.55 AM

See that? That right there is utter devastation. The fact that anyone could have survived something like that is nothing short of a miracle. Already believed to be a factor is the speed. The section of track where this tragedy occurred has a 50 mph speed limit, while the train was going approximately 106 mph. Right there you’ll have people (like Mayor Michael Nutter) insisting the engineer is automatically at fault, because he is logically supposed to be in complete control of that train. To an extent, they are correct. However, in the wake of more recent tragedies involving passenger trains (the Metro North accident at Spuyten Duyvil Station a few years back immediately comes to mind, as speed was a factor there as well), this one has me a bit skeptical that the engineer was negligent.

To shutup the internet experts, I’d like to dial the clock back a bit. Earlier in the evening, both a SEPTA commuter train and an Amtrak Acela had reported being hit with some sort of projectiles on that same section of track roughly twenty minutes earlier. And those projectiles did some damage, breaking the windows on both of those earlier trains;

Screen Shot 2015-05-21 at 11.08.44 AM

And pictures of the locomotive on the Amtrak train that derailed, No. 601, show similar damage to the windshield;

Screen Shot 2015-05-21 at 11.09.06 AM

Now, obviously the casual observer could say “oh, some rocks could have hit it when it jumped the tracks,” and I wouldn’t rule that out of possibility. However, at least one of the crew on No. 188 is reporting that they might have been hit by something. That attracted the attention of the FBI, who’s now looking at that windshield, and the NTSB is suggesting that something may have in fact hit the train prior to the derailment.

Now, let’s tackle that glass for a moment. The glass used on railroad equipment, whether locomotives or passenger cars, isn’t your average safety glass. The glass standards are set by the Federal Railroad Administration, and it isn’t like those standards are very lax either. There are two types of FRA glass, Type I and Type II. So, how do you test that? Well, it’s outlined under Title 49, Subtitle B, Chapter II, Part 223 in the Code of Federal Regulations. Appendix A explains the exact requirements for the testing;

Appendix A to Part 223—Certification of Glazing Materials

As provided in this part, certified glazing materials installed in locomotives, passenger cars, or cabooses must be certified by the glazing manufacturer in accordance with the following procedures:

  1. General Requirements

(1) Each manufacturer that provides glazing materials, intended by the manufacturer for use in achieving compliance with the requirements of this part, shall certify that each type of glazing material being supplied for this purpose has been succcessfully tested in accordance with this appendix and that test verification data is available to a railroad or to FRA upon request. 

(2) The test verification data shall contain all pertinent original data logs and documentation that the selection of material samples, test set-ups, test measuring devices, and test procedures were performed by qualified personnel using recognized and acceptable practices and in accordance with this appendix.

  1. Testing Requirements

(1) The material to be tested (Target Material) shall be a full scale sample of the largest dimension intended to be produced and installed.

(2) The Target Material shall be representative of production material and shall be selected on a documented random choice basis.

(3) The Target Material shall be securely and rigidly attached in a fixture so that the fixture’s own characteristics will not induce test errors.

(4) The Target Material so selected and attached shall constitute a Test Specimen.

(5) The Test Specimen will then be equipped with a Witness Plate that shall be mounted parallel to and at a distance of six inches in back of the Target Material. The Witness Plate shall have at least an area which will cover the full map of the Target Material. 

(6) The Witness Plate shall be an unbacked sheet of maximum 0.006 inch, alloy 1100 temper O, aluminum stretched within the perimeter of a suitable frame to provide a taut surface.

(7) The Test Specimen will be positioned so that the defined projectile impacts it at an angle of 90 degrees to the Test Specimen surface. 

(8) The point of impact of the defined projectile will be within a radius of 3″ of the centroid of the Target Material. 

(9) Velocity screens or other suitable velocity measuring devices will be positioned so as to measure the impact velocity of the defined projectile within a 10% accuracy tolerance, with test modifications made to guarantee that the stipulated minimum velocity requirements are met. 

(10) The Test Specimen for glazing material that is intended for use in end facing glazing locations shall be subjected to a Type I test regimen consisting of the following tests:

(i) Ballistic Impact in which a standard 22 caliber long rifle lead bullet of 40 grains in weight impacts at a minimum of 960 feet per second velocity.

(ii) Large Object Impact in which a cinder block of 24 lbs minimum weight with dimensions of 8 inches by 8 inches by 16 inches nominally impacts at the corner of the block at a minimum of 44 feet per second velocity. The cinder block must be of composition referenced in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Specification C33L or ASTM C90.

(11) The Test Specimen for glazing material that is intended for use only in side facing glazing locations shall be subjected to a Type II test regimen consisting of the following tests:

(i) Ballistic Impact in which a standard 22 caliber long rifle lead bullet of 40 grains in weight impacts at a minimum of 960 feet per second velocity.

(ii) Large Object Impact in which a cinder block of 24 lbs minimum weight with dimensions of 8 inches by 8 inches by 16 inches nominally impacts at the corner of the block at a minimum of 12 feet per second velocity. The cinder block must be of the composition referenced in ASTM C33L or ASTM C90. 

(12) Three different test specimens must be subjected to the ballistic impact portion of these tests.

(13) Two different test specimens must be subjected to the large object impact portion of these tests.

(14) A material so tested must perform so that:

(i) there shall be no penetration of the back surfaces (side closest to Witness Plate) of the Target Material by the projectile. Partial penetration of the impact (front) surface of the Target Material does not constitute a failure; and

(ii) there shall be no penetration of particles from the back side of the Target Material through the back side of the prescribed Witness Plate.

(15) Test specimens must consecutively pass the required number of tests at the required minimum velocities. Individual tests resulting in failures at greater than the required minimum velocities may be repeated but a failure of an individual test at less than the minimum velocity shall result in termination of the total test and failure of the material.

(16) After successful completion of the prescribed set of required consecutive tests, a manufacturer may certify in writing that a particular glazing material meets the requirements of these standards.

  1. Material Identification

(1) Each individual unit of glazing material shall be permanently marked, prior to installation, to indicate that this type of material has been successfully tested as set forth in this appendix and that marking shall be done in such a manner that it is clearly visible after the material has been installed.  

(2) Each individual unit of a glazing material that has successfully passed the Type I testing regimen shall be marked to indicate:

(i) “FRA Type I” material;

(ii) the manufacturer of the material;

(iii) the type or brand identification of the material.

(3) Each individual unit of a glazing material that has successfully passed the Type II testing regimen shall be marked to indicate:

(i) “FRA Type II” material;

(ii) the manufacturer of the material;

(iii) the type or brand identification of the material.

Now, to summarize the important points (and condense some of the information in there for the people who I guarantee just skimmed through that information);

  1. You need to shoot the windshield with a .22LR round
  2. You need to throw a block of concrete that weighs at least 24lbs at the windshield
  3. Neither can punch through the back of the glass (as damage to the impact surface does not equate to a failure of the material), and there can’t be any penetration of “particles” (or shrapnel) through the back of the glass.
  4. The individual glass must be marked with all of the relevant information indicating if it’s Type I or Type II.

*Addendum: That shit’s tough!

There’s also PTC, or Positive Train Control. It’s a safety system meant to stop a train if it a) runs through a signal or b) goes over the speed limit. Something like this could have prevented an accident like this, and it can prevent them once the system comes online. Bostian knew that and believed in the technology’s promise (on a website called trainorders.com). Beyond that, I’ll leave it to the readers to do their homework on the requirements for the system and the problems there have been with implementation, only because I find them too numerous complex to list here in an manner that is easy to grasp the concepts.

While I can’t say for certain what happened, I do think this; something was either thrown or shot at that train. It either distracted or incapacitated the engineer, who didn’t have enough time to bring the train down to the 50 mph speed limit of that curve. Could it be possible that Bostian did do something wrong? I wouldn’t rule it out, but I find it highly unlikely.

But, to sum up what some people (at least on the WCVB Facebook Page) are saying about the engineer and how they clearly know it’s all his fault because the train was over the century mark;

Screen Shot 2015-05-21 at 11.12.16 AM

Now, I just want to point out to that last expert some technical specifications, as well as some other details… The locomotive involved is a Siemens-built ACS-64 locomotive. It can put out between 6,700 and 8,600 horsepower, with tractive effort starting anywhere between 61,000 and 63,000 lbs when below 40 mph, and in the lower 20,000 range when at its max speed. And you wonder how in the sixty-some odd seconds before the crash it accelerated up to 106 mph?

In closing, I’ll leave the final comments to someone who clearly gets it;

Screen Shot 2015-05-21 at 11.12.06 AM

Did everyone hear that? That was the sound of the mic dropping and hitting the floor.

Want to have your business advert seen by over 600,000 people per month? Email us at Turtleboysports@gmail.com for more information, and check out our website about types of advertising we offer.

Follow us on Twitter and like us on Facebook

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 Comment(s)
  • Taryn
    May 21, 2015 at 1:18 pm

    This is obviously a guest because it’s written in complete sentences and paragraphs without typos every other word. Or someone’s trying to keep us guessing. I don’t want to jump to conclusions before a thorough investigation. 😉

    • Clive Turtleboy
      May 21, 2015 at 1:29 pm

      I don’t like jumping to conclusions either Taryn. It’s just in the back of my mind, something about the derailment screams screwy…

  • 308
    May 21, 2015 at 12:20 pm

    No mention of whether this train could have been taken over by an outside controller (ie malicious hacker) as was the case recently brought to light of the ability to affect control of flight systems of commercial jets via the onboard entertainment system wifi. Are there similar weaknesses involved with commuter rail such as this?

    Also no mention of threats against the rail system by isis and warnings released by the FBI in the days prior to this event

    [No mention by those quick to judge or by the media in general]

    • The.Kurgen
      May 21, 2015 at 12:25 pm

      Thats a great point, I have been following the airline hack but was am unaware if the train controls are actually connected to the network. I’d be interested in seeing if this is actually possible or not.

      • Clive Turtleboy
        May 21, 2015 at 1:12 pm

        Kurgen, they can be. But that means the route that it runs on needs to be automated (i.e. run by a computer system). You’ll see subways like that, but even then you’ll still have a guy up front in case of a mechanical or technological failure. As for the Northeast Corridor, the system that they use will hit the brakes if the train either passes a signal at danger or (at least in some spots) goes too fast.

        • The.Kurgen
          May 21, 2015 at 1:18 pm

          thanks for the informative post, keep up the great work

  • The.Kurgen
    May 21, 2015 at 11:47 am

    I’d have to agree with the author wholeheartedly on this, too many times in the past people always jump to conclusion on why things happen, why not just let the investigators earn their paycheck and let them do their job. Perhaps it was his fault, perhaps there was a malfunction, perhaps it was terrorism, or maybe it was just a freak accident and no one is to blame. It doesn’t always have to come down to blaming someone does it? Well if it does then maybe white priviledge caused it. Personally I think Saida Grundy did it. lol she was trying to eliminate the white male population of Philly.

  • Meh
    May 21, 2015 at 10:53 am

    Couple things: yes, let the investigation continue before spouting your mouth. Agreed.
    Next: this is obv a guest commentary because it is borderline incoherent in an attempt to sound intellectual.
    Lastly: all those regulations = tl;dr

    • Clive Turtleboy
      May 21, 2015 at 1:14 pm

      Sorry if it seems like a bunch of rambling. I had some issues simplifying all the information in such a way where it was still easy to understand. For me, I know what I’m talking about, but that’s because I wrote it and I have the image in my head… Just something I’ll need to keep in mind in the future.

      And ya, those are just the regulations for the glass that needs to be used. Trust me when I say I haven’t even scratched the surface on the full rule book yet!

Comment on this Post

*

RELATED POSTS
Guest Blog: Janay Rice Can’t Stop Tweeting About Adrian Peterson Kicking The Shit Out Of His Kid
Guest Blog: Minnesota Moron Wears Worst Adrian Peterson Outfit Ever
This Ice Dancing Guy Hates Turtleboy Sports So Much I Can’t Help But Respect Him