As Ed pointed out above...We need to be very aware of what we post online....

http://www2.wspa.com/news/2011/mar/22/b ... -vi-74719/

I said the exact same thing when my car hydroplaned and hit the guardrail at 60mph. That being said I wasn't speeding and even if I had been going twenty it may have still happened. In fact when I was about 17 something similar did happen at a much lower speed. I pulled away from a complete stop and made a right turn and something (greasy spot maybe) made the backend spin all the way around. I could of been going even slower I guess but dang....do I need to get out and walk...



I said something similar over and over when I was spinning the spinny thing at the park with a bunch of kids on it and one of them fell off. I still will not touch it to this day because I felt so terrible. But the parents of the child did not blame me at all. In fact I think they were sympathetic toward me because I felt so horrible that my actions could of possibly caused the child to be hurt. I still was not operating it recklessly or dangerously as it is made to spin and kind of pointless if you don't spin it at all. The kid simply lost their grip and slipped off. It would of likely happend at half the speed and maybe even at a quarter. I even asked the kids repeatadly if they wanted me to slow down, if they wanted to stop so they could get off, if they were hanging on good and tight and were safe. I still feel I should not of been spinning it so fast although my kids themselves spin it faster than I was spinning it that day.


Once again, that is stuff people say when they are upset that an accident happens and they feel they could of done something different that MAY have changed the outcome.


How would you feel if you wrecked your car doing 65 in a 65mph zone and killed your family? You do know that 65 is not as safe as 5 dont you, so you do know you shouldn't of been driving that fast right? That right front tire lose a couple pounds of pressure in a week and it has been a couple days since you checked it,so you do know you shouldn't of been driving that fast right? You was thinking about what to get to eat and you wasn't paying 100% attention to the road, so you do know you shouldn't of been driving that fast right? Of course you have done all that (and worse) a million times and no accident occured so is it really reckless or dangerous...was it really unreasonable to be driving 65...or does it just seem that way because something bad happened...something you utter because you feel horrible....something you could of done differently that MAY have changed the outcome....


Of course everyone loves to blame someone else for something and yet complain about being unfairly blamed when it is them...human nature I guess...

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20110324/NEWS/303230050/Conductor-believes-pin-broke-in-fatal-train-crash-attorney-says

Posted at 2am. Though I just found this report, it was posted long before my post on here. I did nothing more than restate what was already released, and is a VERY likely cause of the accident.

But that is not the point. My comments are directed to you saying this, and it simply is not true:

"As far as the first lap, second lap faster, third lap faster statement. He never said that any of those were unsafe speeds or that he felt it was a danger or reckless in anyway. You can read into it all you want."

I dont think he used the word unsafe, reckless, or danger though, did he? Am I mistaken and he specificaly said that that speed was a danger, that he was acting reckless or unsafe? If I missed it then I truly apologize.

As I said you can read those things into what he is saying. I do at first until I realize who is talking. I consider Matt to be a bit of a plain talker and to speak without constructing what he says. He just kind of blurts things out and seems to like to talk. But the guy is meticulous at his work and seems to be very concerned about safety and having things just right. I don't know if you have ever read his blog but I still have a good bit of it saved for offline use and it is filled with 'this is good but I want better' and 'replaced this just to be safe' and 'keep working until it is right' sort of statements. I would love to post some but I am not sure I should. All I could think of when reading Matts blog was SERIOUSLY....this much work and effort for a two-bit part-time gig that he was hired less than a year ago for.....seriously....

Like I said I think the guy was just feeling bad about it and was saying 'if I had been going slower then it wouldn't of happend and I should of known that' rather than saying it was unsafe, reckless, or a danger in some way. Like if he was going 10 and a accident happened then he would of thought going 5 would of been safer and he should of known it. Like if he was going 5 and a accident happened then he would of thought going 2 would of been safer and he should of known it. It doesn't matter what the speed was...he feels bad and blames himself....as any caring human does when they feel they could of done something....anything.....and should of known it.

In other words, I think he was second-guessing everything...anything....everything....because something bad happened and he may have been able to do something differently and change the outcome.

That is my point....guess I am not the greatest at talking either. :)


I think he would of said the same thing if he had been going 1mph...speed is always the first thing to grab onto when something happens....if only I had been going slower....but who can say if it would of made any difference at all.

It is like saying 'if only he had wore (or not wore) his seat belt' or other similar things... ya know... just grabbing at any explanation...anything that makes sense out of it....something...

We need to be careful about what is said or not said...

People have been hurt, someone has died.

Our discussions and thoughts in the absence of primary knowledge are just rumors and conjecturer... Except some have had experience with similar equipment... or at least railroad experience... our comments may be construed by others with less knowledge about railroads as fact.

Apparently the news media has found our site, and some will be monitoring what is said here. It is likely that some lawyers will we looking here... What we say may be used later

So far, one of our members has already sent an alert about the discussion, a second has questioned how it is related to railroad preservation. It is likely to be used by some to attempt to extend amusement park inspection rules to additional sites... It will likely increase insurance costs for some groups.

This isn't a gag order... but a warning... but it could become a gag order.

Randy, your always friendly moderator

I noticed they left out all the stuff that was fixed.They quoted where he stated the problems that he found coming into the job, the problems he encountered regarding the job but left out everything he worked on and fixed. They seem to be making him out as some person that seen all kinds of problems and didn't do anything about them. That is sad...


Here are a few quotes from his blog showing the opposite side of the coin...















(instead of just a two rail crossing)













please note these are not in any order...just random copy/paste...

This is my last post in this thread. I will go back to lurking...

I have a few questions that some might be able to answer. It is not conjecture or speculation. The way this story has been presented suggests that the whole railroad operation was under the control of Mr. Conrad.

Information revealed that the train was to be inspected by a state official, but the inspection was not properly completed.

Other than the higher authority of that state inspector, was the safety and physical condition of the entire railroad system entirely in the hands of Mr. Conrad?

Was the track inspected by a higher authority as well?

Does the inspection that would have checked the speed control also include inspecting the wheel flanges for excess wear and thinning?

Mr. Conrad did mention in his blog that track had deteriorated since being rebuilt several years ago, and that the poor track condition was causing derailments. Had that condition been entirely corrected prior to the fatal run?

Was the track gage checked?

Were the spikes checked to make sure they held the gage when the train was passing around the curves?

Was there a speed limit?

Was there a speedometer?

Although your questions are valid and perhaps intriguing, about the only folks qualified to properly and accurately answer such questions are either reported as defendants in litigation as a result of the accident, or they are potentially defendants in same. As a result, I would be surprised if anyone in a position to give accurate answers can or will do so, for the time being.

I am just discussing the media coverage as it relates to the purpose of this board.


The media reported that the train passed inspection. So the operator was operating a train that passed inspection. After the accident the inspector admitted not taking the train out for a run though.


One person was hired in April 2010 for a part-time position restoring and operating the train ride. Others work at the park and do other job duties that may be used to help restore the ride (like grounds work and so forth) but the one person was specifically hired to restore the ride.


The track deterioration and poor track condition was noted on the blog by the employee in April 2010. The media coverage does not mention all the work on the train, track, and even drainage and run-off areas around the track that had been performed since the person was hired which is odd since it is contained in the same blog they are quoting from. They also do not mention that around the middle of this month the employee stated that he walked the track pushing the track gage with "no problems presented". They also do not mention that a train (not sure which of the two) was taken out for a test run around the middle of this month. I think the media may mention some Christmas runs which would of been in between the time the initial problems with the track was noted and now although they do not bother to explain that detail either.



All in all I would say the media coverage is about on par with most media coverage nowadays. I will reserve comment on how I feel about media coverage nowadays though.




And with that being said, I am going to go lock my laptop in the closet so I will stop posting....

I missed this.

Sounds much more sensible than some of the other media coverage.


I have trouble accessing it using that link though, this one works better for me...
http://www.wltx.com/news/article/129593 ... -to-Crash-

Since Mr. Conrad and his lawyers are speculating and offering theories about the cause of the derailment, I think it is only fair that all of the details that could contribute to a derailment be considered. Here are a few things to consider, although I will refrain from speculating on the cause of the derailment.

If the video that includes the crash is authentic, it indicates that the train passed through the train shed or “tunnel” in about 3 seconds. Looking at the satellite map, it looks like the shed is about 90 feet long. So that would be just over 20 mph. From the video perspective of the passing landscape, it looks like it was traveling about 20 mph. At least two other videos of the train ride with other engineers driving show a good visual sampling of speed, and it appears to be about half the speed Mr. Conrad was traveling.

A train rounding a curve produces centrifugal force that pushes sideways on the outer rail of the curve. Although Mr. Conrad reportedly checked the track gage while walking the loop, it is possible for track gage be okay when thusly checked, but to widen as a train passes, especially on curves. This can result from spikes that are not firmly anchored due to decomposition in the ties. So when a locomotive or car wheel encounters such a spot in a curve the wheel flange momentarily forces the outer rail of the curve outward, and after the wheels pass, the rail springs back into acceptable gage.

This amounts to an outward kinking of the outside rail when a wheel passes. When the kink first allows the wheels to track sideways, it creates an increased potential to keep moving outward at a tangent to the curve. Then when the wheels pass by the center of the kink and are forced back toward proper gage, their outward flange pressure against the outside rail surges much higher than it would be in the curve on average. This surge in flange pressure against the outside rail tends to further pull the spikes and push the rail out from gage. Ultimately, the process will either tip the rail over, or have the flange bite so hard that it climbs the rail and leads the wheel over the rail and into a derailment.

When a park train is repeatedly run in only in one direction on a closed loop, its wheel flanges will wear on the outside wheels because those flanges are forced against the outer rail of the curves. This wear can cause the gage of the wheelsets to widen, as the wear reduces the thickness of the outer flanges. The wear also changes the flange profile so that the entire sidewall of the flange makes running contact with the railhead. With an unworn flange, only the fillet at the base of the flange makes contact with the rail. However, as the flange wears, the fillet is reduced so that the entire sidewall of the flange contacts the rail.

When such a worn wheel flange enters a curve, it is forced sideways against the outer rail. And because the entire flange sidewall is contacting the railhead, a lifting action is created whereby the flange wants to climb the rail. To some extend the weight borne by the wheel will resist the lifting action. But the greater the wear and flange wall / railhead contact, the greater the lift. Lubrication of the worn flange will reduce its ability to lift in a curve, whereas dry rail and rust formation will enhance the ability of the flange to lift.

The higher the speed, the greater the centrifugal force in a curve, and the higher the centrifugal force, the greater the lift produced by worn flanges on the outside rail. And that lift can be further increased by a rail that kinks outward as a train passes.

Oh dear, we're going to need a new word. "Dooced" is only about getting fired for your blog.

You know, there's two kinds of blogging. There's the stream-of-emotion type, often seen on Twitter and LiveJournal. The goal is to vent, and this type seems quite popular, "All my friends are doing it". The examples are limitless, but here's one that may have helped coin the word I mentioned. http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/11_09_2001.html

And then there's the other kind, where the goal is to educate and/or demonstrate your professional skills within your niche. This is where blogging rises above the old mass media. Example. http://dankaminsky.com/2008/07/11/consensus/

People judge you two ways: The civility and professionalism of your demeanor; and the actual things you say. They kinda need to fit your application. Obviously an official instituttional blog needs to be polished and professional. Now what what about an "Unofficial" blog written by an insider in a "Friend to the Institution" capacity, that could be mistaken for the official blog? Such as http://thevmtrailyard.blogspot.com/ (scroll down for the VMT bits). It is not the organization's official blog, and they have no legal liability for it. But it does call for more professionalism, no ranting about busted knuckles, or "my dog died" etc.

And then you have the hybrids, which you are well known within an industry etc and it's definitely your personal blog, but you talk about work, or subject areas relating to your employment. Jeremy Zawodny is an example. http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/

The Dooce thing was widely publicized: "Blog about work, get fired." Needless to say it had a chilling effect on blogging. There were no guidelines and tech wizards did not like being gagged. So Jeremy Zawodny helped Yahoo write blogging guidelines that struck a fair balance between duty and free speech.

Other companies keep it real simple: "1. You do not blog about Fight Club." :)

I have no idea when we will hear the results of an official investigation, if the results are ever made public. But assuming they are made public, I think there is a possibility that not everyone will agree with the findings. It is also possible that the findings will be wrong.

A critical fact to discover would be the exact point where the derailment began. Marking on the ties should clearly indicate the derailed wheels. But even more subtle marks, dents, gouges, or scratches on the rails could narrow it down further. Particularly, the outside rail of the curve could display markings that would indicate not only that the wheel flange climbed over the rail, but also indicate exactly where that happened. I hope the site has been carefully covered with tarps to keep the rain off of the tracks so any subtle rail scratches do not become obscured by rust, which can occur in short order on shiny metal.

Also important would be to carefully inspect the locomotive trucks to see if there is any damage that would indicate that they collided with the blunt ends of the trestle guardrails after the locomotive derailed. The ends of the guardrails themselves should likewise be checked for impact damage. If impact damage is found on the trucks and on the guardrails, it should be correlated to see if it indicates exactly how the trucks might have collided with the ends of the guardrails. The reason that this is important is that Mr. Conrad’s lawyers are claiming that the derailment was likely caused by a broken pivot pin on the rear truck of the locomotive.

While that could indeed cause a derailment, it is also possible for the truck to remain operationally engaged by the male and female features of the truck pivot bosses even though the pivot pin has broken or even fallen out and is missing.

The fact that a truck has separated from the locomotive during a derailment could be evidence of a scenario where a broken pivot pin did actually cause the derailment. Or the truck separation could be simply the result of a locomotive being upset by a derailment caused by other factors.

How easily the trucks would separate from an upset locomotive would depend on exactly how they are mechanically retained to the pivot bosses by the pivot pins. This varies with railroad equipment. With some types of rolling stock, the pivot pin does not retain the truck. It only serves to keep the male and female features of the pivot bosses aligned should they happen to separated from extreme vertical bounce.

If the trucks of the locomotive involved in this derailment were actually retained by a bolt and nut connection, one would not expect them to readily become detached when the locomotive was upset in a derailment.

If a pivot pin were to break, as is being claimed by Mr. Conrad and his lawyers, it could have caused a truck separation and resulting derailment. And the fact that the truck had separated would be clear in the debris of the wreck. In this case, however, it appears that both trucks of the locomotive separated from the locomotive.

This issue about the possibility of a broken truck pivot pin causing the derailment makes it extremely important to discover exactly where the derailment began. If it began ahead of the blunt ends of the guardrails, it is possible that the derailed trucks snagged the guardrails and were ripped out from under the locomotive.

Depending on how the trucks were retained by their pivot pins, this ripping-out event could have broken both pivot pins. There are in fact many possible differing scenarios of derailment, truck separation, and pivot pin breakage that would all show similar, but not identical evidence in the aftermath. Only by careful examination could the scenarios that did not occur be ruled out in order to discover the scenario that did occur.

There may indeed be a broken truck pivot pin in the wreckage that would support the theory that its breakage caused the derailment. But it is also possible that the pin broke in response to the forces of the derailment, as opposed to the theory that the broken pin caused the derailment.