
The Wreck of Amtrak 188 - danso
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/magazine/the-wreck-of-amtrak-188.html
======
danso
From the beginning of the story:

> In much of Asia and Europe, engineers are protected by a technology known in
> the United States as positive train control, or P.T.C...Amtrak has been
> working on its own in-house version of P.T.C., called the Advanced Civil
> Speed Enforcement System, or Acses, for almost a decade. But owing to
> insufficient funding and a row with the F.C.C., which Amtrak said had been
> slow to approve the use of the requisite radio bandwidth, its actual
> implementation has been piecemeal. At the time of the accident, large
> portions of the Northeast Corridor, including Frankford Junction, were not
> online. Practically speaking, that meant engineers were working with no
> safety net.

Near the end of the story:

> _In late May, Joseph Boardman, Amtrak’s C.E.O. and president, promised that
> the installation of P.T.C. on the Northeast Corridor would be completed by
> the end of 2015, a pledge he has kept: Today, the system is active on all
> routes, with the exception of substantial stretches of track owned by the
> State of Connecticut. (A spokesman for the Connecticut Department of
> Transportation said it hoped to have P.T.C. installed on all state-owned
> track by 2018.)_

A technology that had stalled for a decade -- for ostensibly "hard" and
"complicated" reasons -- is completed within months after a disaster. Just
goes to show how much tragedy and politics has an effect on implementation and
prioritization of engineering improvements.

~~~
chishaku
For understanding the scope of the political problem, the American Society of
Civil Engineers has an infrastructure scorecard.

The national scorecard for 2013:

    
    
        Dams D
        Drinking Water D
        Hazardous Waste D
        Levees D-
        Solid Waste B-
        Wastewater D
        Aviation D
        Bridges C+
        Inland Waterways D-
        Ports C
        Rail C+
        Roads D
        Transit D
        Public Parks & Recreation C-
        Schools D
        Energy D+
    

Pennsylvania got a B for Rail in 2014. Michigan got a D for Drinking Water in
2009 (most recent grade).

[http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/](http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/)

~~~
e_hup
I don't know anything about the American Society of Civil Engineers, but don't
they have every reason to make these grades as low as possible?

~~~
themartorana
This seems unnecessarily conspiratorial considering we know for a fact that
the US's infrastructure is literally crumbling beneath our cars and trucks.

~~~
ghaff
Not to say that there aren't issues, but "crumbling US infrastructure" has
been an on-again off-again news story for literally decades during which time
we've had periods like the stimulus package for "shovel-ready" projects. I
suspect infrastructure spending, especially in a country as large as the US,
is essentially an unlimited sinkhole.

~~~
furyg3
But then fix the sinkhole. Regionalize it, manage it better, change the
incentives. I don't know what the answers are, but there's a whole host of
countries that have great quality roads, bridges, and public transport.

And no, the 'size' of the US isn't a very good excuse. If a backwater road in
Minnesota is run down, ok, but we're talking about major infrastructure in
urban areas.

------
Someone1234
Can I ask a stupid(?) question: So this Positive train control system seems
super complicated. Dedicated radio frequencies, track signal loops, and so on.
And all this complexity has been holding it up for years...

So my question is this: Car navigation as a problem set is similar but
massively harder than train navigation. My car can tell me speed limits, which
lane to be in, and knows information about all major roads in the area.

Why don't trains have a Google Maps-like system? You have 1/100th fewer
"roads," you have directional assurances, you have speed limits set by a
single authority (no city, state, federal distinction, etc), and so on.

Heck if you've played Train Simulator you KNOW that they have all of this
route information digitised somewhere. So why not just throw it in an app,
hook up GPS, and get it deployed tomorrow instead of ten years from now?

Is this a classic example of over-engineering the problem?

~~~
rayiner
> Car navigation as a problem set is similar but massively harder than train
> navigation. My car can tell me speed limits, which lane to be in, and knows
> information about all major roads in the area.

Your car navigation isn't "positive control." It can't slow your car down for
you, and when it fucks up (like Uber's navigation does 50% of the time on the
way to Union Station), it can't fuck up control of the car. It's a
fundamentally advisory system that is not designed to be _trusted_ (and very
often is not trustworthy). You could hack together an app to tell an Amtrak
driver the speed limit in any given location, but that wouldn't have helped
Amtrak 188. To prevent that crash you needed a system that can override the
train operator and slow the train.

Once you give the computer authority to override the driver, a huge amount of
complexity sets in.

First, a substantial portion of the Northeast Regional track does not have
cellular coverage. The trains have no way to communicate information in those
areas. If you're PTC is going to slow down a train in a dead zone, it's not
going to be acceptable to not be able to relay that information off the train.
That requirement drove the system design. A big part of the delay in deploying
PTC was setting up the necessary wireless communications infrastructure.

Then there is the issue of integrating with the existing signaling system.
Your car navigation doesn't interact with the signal lights and tell you when
to stop. The PTC needs to be able to do that. It'd be a recipe for disaster to
have a computer system that can slow down or stop a train but had no idea what
the signaling system was doing.

~~~
dopamean
> It's a fundamentally advisory system

Couldn't the train's computer simply advise the engineer (that's the guy
controlling the train correct?) to slow the hell down when traveling too fast
in a particular zone? Would that not be a step in the right direction? Maybe
the system could even require that the engineer dismiss the warning by
actually applying the brakes. Maybe after that doesn't happen the train can
apply the brakes for you.

That doesn't seem that complicated. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'd
love to hear some specifics about what complexity that adds.

~~~
rayiner
How does the train know where it is? Remember, Amtrak runs some locomotives
that are decades old. It's not like there is a "train's computer" equipped
with GPS to know where it is.

~~~
CamperBob2
There's this thing called GPS. It would cost about $100 to have the train
"know" where it is. I don't understand this argument at all.

Why are humans even in this particular loop? It's a _train_ , not a car or an
aircraft! It's not going anywhere it didn't go before, and it has no business
going 1 MPH faster or slower past any given point on the track than it did the
last time! You could implement a half-dozen fail-safe redundant controls for
less than what it takes to pay an engineer to sit there and do a robot's job
poorly.

~~~
rayiner
Have you ever ridden on a train? All sorts of shit happens on the tracks that
requires extensive communication with other trains on the corridor. It's not
just the same cycle of events repeating every day.

~~~
CamperBob2
No, actually, I haven't, not since I was too young to remember. What would be
an example of a situation where it's important to rely on human judgment
during changing track conditions?

~~~
vacri
Children playing on the track ahead. Fallen tree across the tracks. Moist
leaves on the rails. Road crossing not clear. Probably a bunch of more nuanced
things that someone familiar with driving trains would know. You need a wide
array of failsafed sensors to replace a human doing all of these. Certainly
more than the $100 you suggest.

Hell, in my state, the electronic comms for trains get adversely affected by
caterpillar plagues from time to time.

~~~
CamperBob2
_Children playing on the track ahead. Fallen tree across the tracks._

I think we're talking about very different vehicles here. These are avoidable
hazards on the _road_. There is nothing a train driver can do except fill out
the necessary paperwork afterwards, and likely spend some time on a
therapist's couch.

~~~
vacri
> _There is nothing a train driver can do_

Not even sound a horn to help alert the kids? Start slowing the train to give
the kids more time to alert and escape, or reduce damage to the train and
reduce chance of derailment in the case of the tree?

Trains don't stop on a dime, but neither do they take a mile of runway. I've
been on a passenger train in the US South that had to do an emergency stop,
and it stopped within it's own length.

~~~
Symbiote
That train wasn't going very fast. It's close to 1700m for a train travelling
at 125mph (the fastest allowed with conventional signalling in Britain).

~~~
vacri
Not every event that happens uses worst-case data. In any case, while I don't
know the actual class of rail where this emergency stop happened, this wiki
article[1] suggests that most mainline track in the US is class 4, which
allows a max of 80mph for passenger trains.

Out of curiosity, why do you mix metric and imperial in the same context?
Stopping distance in metric for a speed in imperial?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_speed_limits_in_the_Unite...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_speed_limits_in_the_United_States)

~~~
Symbiote
British usage is a mess, they were the units I found. I didn't really think
about it. I also can no longer find the table of stopping distances I found
this morning.

The official rules for driving cars in Britain have the same daft combination
of units: [https://assets.digital.cabinet-
office.gov.uk/media/559afb11e...](https://assets.digital.cabinet-
office.gov.uk/media/559afb11ed915d1595000017/the-highway-code-typical-
stopping-distances.pdf)

~~~
gsnedders
FWIW, the British railway still uses miles and chains for measure.

------
OliverJones
This business of mischief-makers throwing rocks at trains is a real thing and
has been for a long time. In 1974, in rural coastal Connecticut, I was on the
way to a beach, on a footbridge over the Eastern Corridor tracks. There were
two middle-school-age boys. One had a brick in hand, and the other said "hey,
here it comes." I intervened and prevented that brick from hitting the
engineer's windshield.

But they probably waited for the next train.

~~~
ScottBurson
Yeah, I think some cracking down on this might be a good idea, even if it
means blanketing hundreds of miles of track with lights and surveillance
cameras.

Whoever threw that rock at this train is a mass murderer and should be treated
as such.

~~~
ScottBurson
Here's probably a better idea: get rid of the windshields; replace them with
steel plates. Put some cameras on the roof and monitors on the inside where
the windshields were. You could even use IR-sensitive cameras at night, to
better spot people on the tracks.

~~~
jcrawfordor
There is some use of cameras instead of windows on the train involved -
instead of the conventional wing mirrors, it has rearward-facing cameras for
watching the platform.

The operators hate it, and have raised concerns about safety. The quality of
human vision, related to both resolution and more importantly dynamic range,
is much, much better than any extant camera and display system (especially
affordable ones). The system you propose simply wouldn't allow the operators
to see well enough, even with very expensive equipment used.

------
davidf18
Part of my work involves healthcare patient safety -- principles learned from
aircraft, nuclear power, oil & gas, safety, etc.

What I found notable was that two months (March vs. May) prior to the
accident, the "optimal" break time for train engineers between runs was
reduced to 90 mins from about 2.5 hours. The union had protested this change,
but to no avail.

If the train the engineer had come in late for any reason, the break could be
less than 90 minutes.

In my view, it was certainly unwise to have made this shortening of break time
for engineers _before_ the completion of PTC on the line (it at all).

~~~
jsprogrammer
If you read more of the article, it says that the engineer came in about 30
minutes late due to an issue with a computer system before leaving New York.

The article also said that Amtrak declined to speak about the engineer's
schedule that day.

~~~
davidf18
Thanks for adding that info...

------
cesarb
Forgive me for my ignorance, but wouldn't adding a few balises to the track
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balise)),
and the matching receiver in the trains, be enough to limit the train speed to
what the track allows? Or would even a simple system with fixed balises need
FCC approval?

~~~
gsnedders
The political will has always seemed to be to go for a better solution than a
few balises, probably in part given there is so much fight to get anything
that installing some balises would likely hold back introducing anything
better in the near future.

------
app
I was on a Northeast Corridor trip once when the train was struck from the
side by a rock. It sounded like a gunshot went off inside the car-- everyone
jumped and there were more than a few shouts. I can imagine being hit head-on
by a rock at night would be enough to distract an engineer for a few critical
minutes. What a shame.

------
pluckytree
If this article is completely true, it’s sad to hear he would never pilot a
train again even if exonerated. That sounds like how teachers are treated if a
student accuses them of impropriety and their careers are over even if they
are innocent. Is that a uniquely American thing?

~~~
mturmon
Your analogy is not really valid. Although the NTSB is not talking, the cause
is reported to be "loss of situational awareness". In essence, the conductor
was in some degree at fault because he was controlling the speed and the train
was going 105mph instead of 55mph.

There could have been other contributing factors (rock, tough schedule), but
it seems likely that their severity will not be known -- the information just
is not there.

Surely you would concede that the right course of action here is not obvious?

~~~
bsder
Actually, the right course of action is perfectly obvious--he should be
restored to driving trains. No other train engineer has been scrutinized so
carefully, and he came out with flying colors.

Sadly, he will not be, because the company needs a scapegoat to cover their
lack of adopting the technological safety system that can mitigate the human
errors that are inherent in the current system.

If he never drives a train again, every single manager in his chain should be
fired--including the CEO as they made the choices to set the system up this
way.

------
djsumdog
I feel like that article had a massive amount of fluff. I understand trying to
build a narrative, but the article felt like one of those modern
sensationalized documentaries where they take 45 minutes to explain a 10
minute thing (e.g. everything on the History channel).

They do build a narrative around the driver to make him more human and help
the reader relate, but for everything else, if I wanted to read a narrative
I'd pick up a novel.

------
rconti
Can someone well-versed in train operation help explain the difference between
operating a train on these kinds of routes and schedules and, say, operating a
tractor-trailer or bus?

The article keeps mentioning the difficult tasks of operating the train --
obey every speed limit sign, every trackside control, speed up here, slow down
there. But it doesn't illustrate how these demands are different from the
demands placed on the operators of other vehicles. If anything, it seems
tractor trailer and bus driver schedules are far more demanding, and they have
even more things to look out for while operating their vehicles.

On the side of the difficulties of operating a train, I can see how the
endless line of tracks unfurling in front of you can be mesmerizing/tiring
(like driving in a snowstorm), and how the 'relative' safety of being secured
to tracks can lull you into a false sense of security on stretches where speed
changes are not required. Furthermore, of course, the demands of keeping a
train on the right set of tracks through various switches can be difficult,
because trucks don't face the same risk of head-on collisions with no ability
to stop or veer off course at the last second.

Still, without knowing anything about the difficulty of operating the train
controls themselves, I find myself wanting for more information to illustrate
the unusual demands placed on train operators that are not placed on other
long-haul motor vehicle operators. I don't dispute that it's a demanding job,
and the consequences greater than those of crashing a tractor trailer, but I'm
unable to understand how without more information.

~~~
mentat
I'd guess that the amount of momentum in a quickly moving train makes any
changes take a lot longer to take place and mistakes harder to address in
time. You don't just stamp the brakes to stop or push the accelerator to speed
up. The cycle time on system changes requires "tending".

~~~
rconti
Others also pointed out trains are big and heavy, which I thought of more in
terms of an advantage (doesn't exactly speed up all that quickly) or neutral
in terms of impact on the conductor (if it crashes, yes, it's a big deal, but
assuming it doesn't, it's not).

I hadn't thought about it in terms of cycle time and 'tending' as you mention.
You're right that having to plan things ahead, and watching the consequences
of your earlier actions unfold slowly can be quite stressful. I imagine it
also demands much more in terms of multi-tasking because you can't just
respond to an immediate need, you need to keep more 'balls in the air' at a
given point in time because of how slowly the controls respond. Excellent
point, thank you.

~~~
Symbiote
I think planning ahead is the main thing, resulting from the huge momentum of
the train and the low friction with the track. It's essential to stop in the
correct places, but it's also necessary to keep accelerations smooth (we don't
want all the wagons bumping together, or slipping wheels), including up and
downhill. Driving must also be efficient, and with good planning it's easily
possible to coast many miles on a slight gradient. (Did everyone just get off
the train at the stadium? Then the braking distance will change. Except it's
raining now, so it's longer.) Acknowledge every signal, and run to time —
being early means being stopped, which is wasteful (and annoying for
passengers, if this is a passenger train), being late means delaying other
trains.

\--

I read some of the accident reports from the British RAIB, since they're often
interesting. It's hardly ever one failure, even for something that seems
straightforward. Some of the reports show charts of management structures,
since many problems come down to organizational mismanagement — the safety
equipment exists, but perhaps wasn't maintained, or a fault wasn't repaired
soon enough. By doing 50-page investigations into accidents (or near-misses)
with no injuries, hopefully serious accidents will be avoided — and it seems
to work, I think it's the safest railway network in the world.

List of all publications:
[https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/catalogue-of-
inves...](https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/catalogue-of-
investigation-reports-and-bulletins)

Recent example (PDF)
[https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/491086/R012016_160111_Washwood_Heath.pdf)
— a 49 page report for an accident with no injuries.

------
jmilloy
> It was a tricky series of maneuvers for even the most experienced engineer:
> speed up out of North Philadelphia Station; slow for a gradual curve at
> North Second Street; throttle open again for the straightaway, where the
> speed limit is 70 m.p.h.; and dump speed for the sharp 50-m.p.h. curve.

I don't know how to operate a train. Does pushing a throttle up or down count
as a "manoeuvre"? What's "tricky" about this? Am I missing something, or is
the author embellishing here?

edit: grammar

~~~
dtparr
I'm similarly ignorant on all the intricacies of driving a train, but my
understanding is that the coupled nature of a train vs. a rigid body make the
dynamics more difficult to deal with than you might imagine. That being said,
I don't know how much that affects the difficulty of the operator at this
point or whether that's all worked out in the train's control software.

You can see what the engineer's station look like in the type of train
discussed in the article here:

[http://www.eweek.com/mobile/slideshows/amtraks-new-
siemens-l...](http://www.eweek.com/mobile/slideshows/amtraks-new-siemens-
locomotive-with-digital-controls-cruises-rails.html)

Looks like there is a combined throttle/braking control on the left side, then
(multiple?) brakes on the right.

Also FYI, maneuver isn't an error, it's the American English spelling.

~~~
jcrawfordor
Yes, if I'm correct you are seeing the dynamic control on the left (forward
for acceleration, reverse for dynamic braking) and the air brakes on the right
- the big left handle is the train brake (sends the change down the brake line
to the cars as well) and the smaller right handle is the locomotive-only brake
(often used to get slow down the loco first so the coupler slack will get
taken up and prevent bumping the passengers around or damaging equipment). The
little LCD display shows some calculations to help the engineer make good
braking decisions.

Above the dynamic control on the left you see a small rotary lever - if I'm
not mistaken this is the reverser, which simply selects between forward,
neutral, and reverse. As a fun fact, this lever pops out and is used as the
"key" for the train. For safety reasons, the engineer removes it when they
leave the cab so that it's difficult to get it out of neutral.

The big red button left of the dynamic control is the alerter acknowledge.
This is the dead-man protection on locomotives and I suspect may factor into
the conclusion on this investigation. When an alarm sounds, the operator has
to press that button. The alarm becomes very jarring so it might have brought
a confused or unconscious operator back to attention.

------
inanutshellus
Web designers - Take note of the NYTimes.com header that appears after you
scroll down to the content. These dynamically-appearing headers are a good
idea, but nobody seems to get the nuance right.

If I scroll until the top of the article is at the top of the page, then start
reading, I suddenly can't because this inept header just appeared covering the
top 10% of the page. Now I have to scroll back up to see the content.

If it had appeared when the massive full-screen image WAS the top 10% it'd've
been a perfectly seamless header introduction, but instead they wait until
there's something valuable at the top of the page to introduce it.

</gripe>

~~~
uuoc
Just open up developer tools, use the "find element" tool to find the header,
then delete nodes until the header disappears.

Now there's no header at all.

~~~
catbird
Or use a javascript bookmarklet to remove all elements with position:fixed
attribute :-)

[http://alisdair.mcdiarmid.org/kill-sticky-
headers/](http://alisdair.mcdiarmid.org/kill-sticky-headers/)

------
chrismartin
So, microsleep? Absence seizure?

