Washington amtrack train had been tested on that curve before. This was

[applegrove]

just the first time passengers were on it. 30 mile an hour curve. Vibes to the people and their families.

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. Thanks. That curve looked tight.

The event recorders will tell the story.

[maxsolomon]

2. maybe without the weight?

I don't know what else would be different.

[applegrove]

4. Yes. 78 passengers is a lot of weight. 12 cars two engines. 13 went off the rails.

[snooper2]

15. it is insignificant- the train alone with cars weighed at least 1,750,000 lbs

the 78 people at an average weight of 200 is 15,600

That would be like putting an ounce of grass on your car hood thinking the suspension would compress even a micrometer...

[LanternWaste]

21. Or like airlines gauging number of passengers per flight

"That would be like putting an ounce of grass..."

Or like airlines gauging number of passengers per flight and adding less or more fuel to achieve more efficient flight times and fuel consumption based on that number.

Something they actually do...

[snooper2]

22. Passengers, luggage and fuel on an airliner is a whole different thing to a train LOL

one of those passenger cars weighs about the same as a MD-80

[trc]

23. Jet fuel use is measured by the pound

so adjusting the pounds of fuel needed to get x passengers from point a to point b with as precise a fuel load as possible does actually make sense. Why carry the extra weight if it is not needed. More weight equals higher fuel consumption, so having more fuel on board means using more fuel to carry the extra fuel.

[jmowreader]

8. What speed was it tested at?

You send a train going 79mph around a curve rated for 30 and it’s going off.

[maxsolomon]

27. i don't know and i don't know the speed

of the curve or the speed the train was going.

[Tipperary]

3. I heard earlier the train was going 79 mph. Not sure if that is correct.

[PearliePoo2]

9. I believe that 79 mph. is the top limit for trains on these particular tracks.

I have ridden these Cascade trains to Seattle and we never went over 79 mph.

[Tipperary]

11. But that would have been too fast for the curve I guess. I suppose all the facts will come out.

Very scary thing to see. I cannot imagine what those poor passengers went through.

[PearliePoo2]

5. 30 mile an hour curve?

Holy shit, initial reports coming in was that the train was going 81 mph!

By looking at the wreckage strewn all over and train cars landing in the woods and trees, I don't think 30 mph would DO THAT!

[WhiskeyGrinder]

6. I thought max speed there was 79mph? Where did you hear 30?

[PearliePoo2]

12. Yes it is. But I wouldn't think in a sharp curve though! 30 mph sounds right for a curve.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

13. So, you came up with 30 mph?

[PearliePoo2]

14. No, the OP is who said 30 mph for that curve.

But I have ridden this train and there are many, many places where it slows WAY down. (through towns, at crossings and in curves)

[WhiskeyGrinder]

16. My apologies, I misread.

[PearliePoo2]

18. No Prob Mate!

[WhiskeyGrinder]

20. .

[Tipperary]

17. I just now heard it was a 30 mph curve. I only caught the end of what they were saying.

It was on CNN.

[applegrove]

19. On CNN. Brooke Baldwin talking to some egghead or official.

[MichMary]

7. I've been out of the house

and just got in. Turned on the TV and saw what had happened. I think I heard someone say this was a "high speed train??" Anyone know--is this the kind they have in other countries.

[HipChick]

10. One's in other countries are faster..125 mph

I took a train from London to Glasgow..

[DrDan]

24. we took the high-speed train from Barcelona to Madrid - 300 kph (180 mph)

quiet, smooth . . . right smack on-time.

[VMA131Marine]

26. I've been on the Eurostar (186 mph) London-Paris

and the French TGV (200 mph) Paris-Geneva. Both were smooth and comfortable.

The Shinkansen also hits 200 mph but has been tested as high as 275 mph.

The Acela can hit 165 mph, but:

the Acela is designed with a top speed of 165 mph (266 km/h) and reaches a maximum speed of 150 mph (241 km/h) in regular service on three sections of track totaling 33.9 mi (55 km) in Rhode Island and Massachusetts.[57] The Acela achieves an average speed (including stops) of 81.7 mph (131 km/h) between Washington and New York,[58] and an average speed of 66.9 mph (108 km/h) from Washington to Boston.[59][3] The average speed from New York to Boston is a slightly faster 69.8 mph (112 km/h)

[Ezior]

25. No. I've seen the employee timetable for that train posted in a German train enthusiast forum

According to that poster on the German discussion board, the speed is limited to 79 mph for at least 10 miles, and even less than 79 mph for a few more miles (down to 30 mph), and I haven't seen a speed limit above 79 mph. That's not a high speed train IMO.

Usually, high speed rail systems have (at least) two tracks and overhead wire for electricity, and allow something like 100 mph (pretty slow for high speed rail systems) up to 200+ mph.

80 mph is a pretty normal speed for most trains in Germany. Some train lines are slower, but main lines are usually up to 100 mph for regional trains (often limited to 60-90 though), up to 125 mph for "Intercity" trains and up to 190 mph for high-speed ICE (Intercity Express) trains. And we love to complain that our trains are so slow, because the French trains (TGV) go 220 mph and let's not talk about Chinese or Japanese trains…


We have various systems in place (depending on how old / fast that rail segment is, PZB, LZB or ETCS) that make sure trains can't go faster than the speed limit and they come to a safe stop in front of red signals, even if the engineer falls asleep. Though the systems can be disabled to handle malfunctions, so disasters (or terrorist attacks) are possible.

[jmowreader]

28. Interesting development...

According to http://www.kgw.com/news/amtrak-cascades-train-derails-near-olympia-onto-i-5/500305839, the only part of the train that stayed on the tracks was the "rear locomotive."

It also says there's conjecture the train hit something before the derailment. And there are pictures that make it look like the back locomotive just pushed the cars off the track.

Whatever caused this, though, is not going to be fixed by defunding infrastructure to the tune of $150 billion per year for the hext ten years.

[ThoughtCriminal]

29. My guess is that the the train was using a control cab with a locomotive pusher

Saves time and costs, but there have been safety questions about this kind of arrangement since a Metrolink crash in Oxnard a few years ago. Just speculating here since I know the Cascades have a similar arrangement, but we should know more in the coming days and a lot more from the NTSB report.

https://www.planetizen.com/node/80825/safety-southern-californias-new-metrolink-cab-cars-questioned

[jmowreader]

30. And which cab is the pusher switches ends depending on the direction of travel, correct?

[ThoughtCriminal]

31. Yes

Possibly one of these:


The "control cab" is not a locomotive but an engineer controls the pusher from here. This saves having to turn the train or locomotive at each end - it just reverses direction and the engineer moves from one to the other. But the control car is much lighter than a locomotive and can make the train more vulnerable if it hits an obstruction. Also with a pusher arrangement and a head-end derailment, we have the inertia from 230-tons of locomotive. At 70+ MPH, physics is not your friend in that scenario.