This is one situation where Amtrak's rather erratic timekeeping is beneficial. It makes it harder to set up the disaster. Remember also that the engineer has no steering wheel, so he cannot divert the train to an alternate route. Also, from the point of view of terrorists, even major train wrecks result in dissapointingly small death tolls.

The train is on the ground and much more reachable by law enforcement, so there are many more alternatives available to counter the terrorist. What can you do with the hijzcked plane other than shoot it out of the sky?

When He say "Amtraks Crashin", You can here an Amtrak Horn in the back round...

Any way I dont think Amtrak is a considerable target for terorist

I'm not entirely convinced that Europe's trains are less safe than either the UK or the USA, especially when the UK's directives usually come from Europe (the less said about that the better) and must thus be the same. Can you quote some EU and US directives so we can compare them please?

My shock in that wreck was to see the pictures with an apparently fairly modern concrete overpass structure down on the train. That is what I was shocked to see happen. We have both in the AREA standards and in most state highway standards requirements for pier setbacks, crash walls between piers, high overhead clearances, and similar features to prevent exactly that frome happening even when hit by a 200 ton diesel moving at 60 to 80 mph. Since we are talking foot-pounds (or Newton-meters) of energy here, twice the speed and half the weight equals the same impact. The only bridges I know of that have ever been taken out by derailed trains have either been older wooden bridges over the railroad or through trusses. Anybody out there that knows, please correct me if I need it.

I will hunt up the standards but it may be a few days before I get back to you. But one thing I do know, you may see crumpled sides in American train wrecks, but you do not see whole coach sides off like it had been held on by a zipper that broke.

I also know that any European equipment that operates in the US, such as the Talgo in the Northwest, is operated on a waiver from meeting US railway safety standards.

While we are talking about European equipment, when are you every going to get rid of your 19th century style hook and screw couplers? That sort of coupling was eliminated on this side of the Atlantic by the Railway Safety Appliance Act of 1895, which required automatic couplers, air brakes, ladders, and a few other such things. You can't tell me you are concerned with safety when it still requires a man to go between cars and put a chain link over a hook and then twirl a screw to hook them together, and oh yes, dunk under a big buffer on the corners of the cars to get in there and then back out. Outside Europe and India those things are museum pieces, even in so-called third world coutries. Almost everyone else uses the AAR style coupler.

A few years ago when just northeast of Baltimore, an Amtrak train moving at over 100 mph hit three freight diesels stopped on the main lnie, the death toll was something like 16. That is not 116, that is 16.

The designers of some aspects of that ICE train at one point were facing criminal charges. Now, that seems a little draconian. But, some of the things I read about concerning the ICE were, to put it politely, not very wise.

I'm not sure I've seen any US bridges like you're suggesting with crash walls and the like - maybe it's a new standard? Just one example of many that don't have such protection: http://www.drgw.ws/sidings/Moffat_Sub/Troublesome/Troublesome01.jpg

You're still talking a multiple failure leading to a catastrophic disaster rather than a single point of weakness. I honestly believe an Acela would fare equally badly if it were to plunge into a downed concrete bridge at 125mph, can opener style or not.

While we appear to be comparing US/European safety, let us not forget that lines that carry regular passengers in the US are not protected by signalling which enforces speed or observance of signals like virtually all European lines do. By that I mean indications sent from trackside to the train which enforce driver action or automatically apply the brakes if the driver does not respond, or responds inappropriately. I know there are a few such installations like on the Southwest Chief's route, and many commuter lines, but as a whole it just isn't as widespread as Europe.

I don't really want to change the subject by going into couplings, but all multiple units in the UK use an automatic coupling, not screw couplings. True, older rolling stock which is being phased out does still use screw, as do many freight trains. But as you can imagine, you can't change the entire network overnight.

Regaring Amtrak/Baltimore You may remember a crash that happened a few years ago in the UK. A 4x4 landed on the tracks and was hit seconds later by a passenger train doing 125mph. That train subsequently derailed and hit a loaded coal train travelling in the opposite direction which was travelling at 60mph. The actual closing speed was estimated to be 142mph. Just 10 people died despite the apparent carnage - a tribute to modern coach design. Four of those were in the leading engines which crashed head-on, so just 6 passengers in the coaches died.

I believe the criminal charges related to the design or maintenance of the wheel (which was the root cause of the Eschede accident), not the train itself.

To Littletrain: Relax. Nothing is ever or can be 100% safe or foolproof. Just take reasonable precautions and do not worry about what you can't control.

To Geoff M:

Couplers: OK, not overnight, but isn't 109 years enough?

You said, "let us not forget that lines that carry regular passengers in the US are not protected by signaling which enforces speed or observance of signals like virtually all European lines do"

Yes, we know that. That is one of several reasons why we call our people "engineers" and you call yours "drivers". It is expected in our world that the people operating the train will act with competence and responsibility whether they are watched or not, which does not appear to be the case in Europe. Having all that stuff you describe in place did not prevent the collision at Chase MD which was primarily because a potted engineer overran a closed switch and then stopped after it sank through his grass-induced fog that he was out on the main line. Just FYI, to the best of my knowledge the Sunset route Flomaton, Alabama to Tallahassee, Florida is still unsignaled, as is the Vermonter route north of White River Junction, Vermont. I remember asking one of the British guys I know, What's a SPAD? and finding out that it is Signal Passed At Danger. So far as I know running a red signal is still one of the fastest ways that an American Engineer can develop the need to find another way to make a living, so it does not happen often enough to need an acronym.

Coach design: Your example beautifully made my point about the British safety standards being higher than the continental version.

The DRGW bridge: Have no information about this structure as to when it was built. The near side of the piers appear to be at least 10 feet off the track centerline. The overhead clearance appears to be about 25 feet. It is hard to tell whether the crash wall connecting the piers is present in an end-on picture. My question still stands unanswered, can anyone tell me of a reasonably modern (say less than 50 years old) concrete bridge in the US or Canada over a railroad that has been taken down by a train?

For those that want the details on the Chase, Maryland accident, The NTSB report is:

Title: Chase, Maryland--April 12, 1991.
NTSB Report Number: RAR92-01*, adopted on 5/12/1992
NTIS Report Number: PB92-916302

And to answer your question NO it is not legal for us to carry guns. But then again the trainmasters know what conditions we have to work in and try to turn their heads when they can. Back in the 70's everyone I knew had a gun of some kind with them.

I may be stepping out of place by telling you all of this but this is why we tell the guys who want to hire out on the railroad it's not always a bed of roses.

Date & time: June 3, 1998, 10:53am
Train: ICE 884 Munich to Hamburg, leaving munich at 5:47am
Location: north of Hanover about 2 km short of Eschede station.
Speed at time of accident: 200 km/h (124 mph)
Train makeup: one electric locomotive on each end with 12 coaches in between, ICE 1 equipment.
Locomotive wheels, steel monobloc (standard virtually everywhere)
Coach wheels: "Bochum 84" having separate center discs and tires with a layer of rubber between the disc and tire. (These are fairly commonly used on light rail vehicles operating at 55 mph or less, but to my knowledge this is the only application to railway coaches, high speed or otherwise.)
Railway: 4 tracks, all mains but not a dedicated ICE line.
The bridge: Three span bridge consisting of two side spans and a single span over the tracks with a row of unconnected columns on each side of the railway. (These were described as being close to the track but no distance was given. It appears to have had simple spans rather than continuous spans.)

The accident: "About 6 km before the location of the accident, the tyre broke, but did not cause a derailment yet. About 200 m before the bridge, the tyre was caught in the flange guide of a switch, which broke off and derailed the first car to the right hand side. 120 m later, the derailed axle hit another switch, which caused the next bogie to go off track. The third car went far enough from the track to destroy a concrete pillar of the bridge, and was separated from the rest of the train. This triggered an emergency brake in both parts of the train. The bridge came down slow enough that the fourth car could pass it without being hit, but was catapulted to the side. The fifth car was cut in half by the bridge, the sixth was buried under the bridge, and the rest of the train crashed right into it." The broken wheel was on the leading axle of the trailing truck of the first car behind the locomotive. The first three cars came to a stop about 300 m beyond the bridge, derailed but reasonably intact and on the roadbed.

Casualties, 100 dead 88 injuries. (some reports say 102 dead)

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
See danger-ahead.railfan.net. It gives a good discription of the coaches and bridge that I had not read before, but basically confirms what I have already said.

The basic reliability of the railway concept can be seen by the fact that the train ran 4 miles at over 100 mph with a broken wheel. How much of the wheel was missing was not said.

As is usually the case, any major disaster requires several things to go wrong. It took a failed wheel going over a turnout to derail the train. If the derailment had been toward the other side and not hit the columns, the bridge would not have collapsed. If the design had been three span continuous, taking out the columns would have rendered the bridge unsafe for traffic, but it would not have come down. If the columns had been further from the track they might have been missed. If they had been connected by a continuous wall as in AREMA standards, the damage to the coach that hit them might have been worse, but the columns would not have come down.

SPADs - the average UK driver experiences less than one in his/her lifetime. The vast majority of SPADs are small scale, usually less than 10m past the signal. Others are caused by poor railhead conditions, equipment failure (causing a signal to go back to red in front of the driver), and emergencies (the signaller putting the signal back to danger). They are all called SPADs, elbeit in different categories, but the media and uneducated assume they are all the worst type of SPAD.

RE the bridge - the example quoted is, as I said before, one of many. I'm sure there are bridges to newer standards but, like I said, I have yet to see any.

Eschede - yes, you appear to have the right facts there. Like I said before, any Amtrak train would most likely have suffered much the same fate in such dire circumstances. As for any American bridge being taken down by a train, remember that Europe has had a grand total of ONE to the best of my knowledge - it's not as if they're falling down all over the place. Just out of interest, do you mean AREA standards, AREMA standards, or what - you quote both?

So I suggest we give this discussion a rest and agree that no one railway in the world is better than any other, some are better in some ways, some are worse in other ways.

I never said American engineers were perfect. I simply stated that it appears that a greater level of competence and responsibility is expected, and apparently usually attained in North America. If they were perfect the head on between BNSF and Metrolink would not have occurred. Nor would Chase, MD, or several other accidents. I still have no hesitation about getting on a train running on a line where there is nothing to prevent a collision other than the engineers of the trains on the line having the ability to read, understand, and follow a set of written train orders and instructions received over the radio.

I have been through the BR based safety training for MOW staff (OK, that's PWay to you) and it appears to be oriented toward the concept that everyone is a complete idiot and no one can be depended upon to do their job properly unless someone is breathing down their neck to make sure they do.

Yes, I agree that there are some things the some of the various European systems do some things very well. But on average, a lot of poor and obsolete practices and materials are made to look good simply because there is a lot of taxpayer money spent to make it so. That is a luxury we do not have. I feel that the German high speed turnout geometric design concepts are brilliant. The implementation is less so, as there are inconsistencies that have no satisfactory explanation. The pandrol clip, incidentally developed by a Norwegian, is also a brilliant idea. Why anyone would buy some of the other European rail clips twice is beyond me. Yes, you run some high quality reliable passenger services. Our problem is M O N E Y, money, getting our governments on any level to adequately fund rail systems. They have been too used to being able to count on the private railway companies as a source of tax revenue. We can only dream of the type of funding that goes into the rail systems in Europe.

The early concrete ties used in the US were British designs. They were demolished by our traffic. After a number of redesigns, they now work. Yes, European based but redesigned for the situation. The unwillingness to modify a European standard to be appropriate to local conditions is one of my main gripes, particularly when it is couple with, as it usually is statements that these are ‘international” standards, or world class state of the art or some such other bloated puffery.

As to the bridge you pictured, because of the angle whether the piers are connected with a crash wall cannot be determined. I cannot think of a bridge over a railroad built within the last 60 years that does not have some form of crash barrier incorporated into the piers. And, no I do not believe that a train of American equipment would have performed anything like as poorly as the ICE equipment. The coaches may have been crumpled, but they would not have come apart. That is, even if they did knock down the bridge. That should not have happened. I would have expected little more than chips off the concrete from a properly designed and constructed bridge if a train were to hit it.

I do feel some railways are better in some ways and some in others, but on average, some are much better than others. Not all are equal or even close to it.

But yes, we should give this discussion a rest.

Boy, are we ever getting off the subject!

But, in my humble opinion, they are a $10.00 solution to a $5.00 problem.

At this point their appears to be no rational justification for them. They probably still require a lot of work to be as good as a wood tie, and for now, are reputed to cost considerably more than either wood or concrete.

By work, I mean in service-testing under heavy traffic, development of design standards to ensure a reliable, consistent product, etc. Several of the early concrete tie installations in the US were disasters, and that was not a new product, only new to the US.

There is no environmental advantage to their use. A creosoted wood tie is probably the least environmental impact tie. It's basis is a natural material from a renewable resource with minimal manufactured imput, cutting and shaping only. Only the creosote is a non-renewable fossil fuel product. That comes out to about 30 pounds each, and gives you a product with a 30 plus year life.

Since plastics are usually derived from either oil or coal, a plastic tie would consume several times the amount of fossil fuel, likely even more than that required in the production of a concrete tie, including manufacture of the cement.

In the mid to late 1970's there was the Ced-rite tie, which was a particle board tie made out of old ties, with reisin and two or more reinforcing bars. It seemed to be a reasonably good product, but could not be made at a price to justify its use. A number of them were installed at that time in the Santa Fe main in Illinois near a test installation for concrete ties. I do not know whether any are still there or not.

Geoff M.

GoeffM: Looked at the trainorders messages. You left out one key word in the question: "passenger" I note that all your replies related to freight train derialments:
1. UP runaway under I-80 at Cheyenne
2. BN at Westminster CO, in 1985 "wreakage caught fire . . . melting the bridge beams"
3. UP at Albia (Portland OR) "resulting in weight restrictions" obviously the bridge remained standing.
4. Broomfield wreck - no details
5. I-80 at Granite WY knocked out of alignment by derrick in mid 1970's

My statements still stand. It appears that of the five listed, one collapsed due to collision and one due to fire.

None of your other posts mention *passenger* trains bringing down bridges either..... You asked a question, I gave an answer which you kind of acknowledge, but now you want to change the question to fit your *preferred* answer - at least that is what it appears to me.

I kind of agree with the comment about the melting bridge, except what do you define melting as? Metal which is pliable is not strictly speaking solid anymore, neither is it molten. I think it is more a case of interpretation and representation of the facts - saying "melted" is just an easy way out.

Geoff M.

Melted as in like ice cream, turning into a liquid state.