I don’t see why we should be admonished to not speculate on the performance of Mr. Conrad when he and his lawyers are going public with their speculation about his performance. If we must wait for the official investigation, then why should they not do likewise?

In reading the police report, I noticed that one of the officers used the term 'crime scene'. I hope this was just a poor choice of words on the officer's part, and not a portent of things to come.

You want speculation? Fine.



I have seen specific video evidence that the three-lap, slow-medium-fast run practice described above is/was standard operating procedure at this park/railroad. This is what they did all the time, apparently--whether by the engineer's choice or park management's, you can speculate.

I speculate that your statements exclude the very real possibility that SOMETHING MECHANICAL went wrong--that a throttle stuck, that brakes suddenly failed to properly function, that an engine or speed governor failed, that a rail joint or flange snapped at the wrong place at the wrong time, etc. The potential failures I just listed above include three separate ways for the train to go "too fast" that are not the fault of the engineer.

In one of the numerous media reports, the (now-fired) inspector was supposed to inspect, among other things, THE GOVERNOR of the locomotive.

Review what "Jay611" posted.

I have had the misfortune of being in a rental car where the brakes failed, at speed in busy suburban rush-hour traffic. It was by the grace of the Powers That Be that I was able to extricate myself from that situation, flying clean through a red-light intersection with the horn blaring, up a hill while downshifting, and getting into a driveway with the parking brake, without killing anyone else or being killed, along with superior emergency training on my part. Even though it was most decidedly someone else's fault, I was pretty badly shaken after that afternoon, and probably said a few things I shouldn't have. Imagine if I had hit a kid or bicyclist, or another car.

This event is tragic on multiple levels. I was saddened to learn an Interchange regular was involved.

Any one who has had the responsibility of operating railway equipment, from park trains, to trolleys to mainline freights can imagine what Mr. Conrad is going through. My friends who are engineers on Class One's have gone through training to prepare for the all too likely scenario that someone is killed by the train they are operating. The feelings of guilt and of "what could I have done differently" are common even when there was nothing the engineer could have done. I remember learning this lesson from a local engineer when I was a kid, and it has stuck with me every time I have been at the control stand.

I will await the final investigation.

As a child who spent many - MANY - hours riding the MTC G-16 in Asbury Park, I feel tremendous sadness for all of the injured kids and their families.

I perceived the release of the Mr. Conrad’s statements about speed as being intended to speculate or even confirm the cause of the derailment. My only intent above was to parse the words of Mr. Conrad’s statement because others here and on other forums were, in my opinion, misinterpreted those words as to their literal meaning. You will notice that I began my last paragraph with, “This language seems to….”

You say the slow-medium-fast run practice was standard operating procedure. I said the same thing in my conclusion based on Mr. Conrad’s statement above. When I speculated that the words meant that the speed at which the derailment occurred was an experiment, I was allowing for the possibility that Mr. Conrad’s words meant this: The slow-medium-fast run practice was standard operating procedure, but Mr. Conrad at the time of the derailment, was exceeding the highest speed that was typical of the slow-medium-fast run practice. The words of his statement clearly and easily allow that interpretation.

Again, I am just talking about the words of Mr. Conrad’s statement. I have no idea what the actual facts of the derailment were. I agree that Mr. Conrad should not have given a statement, and that it should not have been made public. I also agree with others who say that we cannot assume that Mr. Conrad meant or even said what appears in the statement.

I do disagree, however, with your conclusion that the words of the statement can be easily interpreted to mean that a mechanical failure caused the train to go too fast against Mr. Conrad’s will, or that brakes failed. Mr. Conrad stated that he “knew better than to drive the train that fast."

To me, those words sound like Mr. Conrad was controlling the action, rather than something happening that was beyond his control. The words, “knew better than to…” indicate that he was making a judgment about his action. It does not seem like a person would judge whether their action was right or wrong if the action were beyond that person’s control.

To your point about things that can cause a train to go too fast and not be the fault of the engineer: I can see a governor causing that problem, as you say, but not a broken rail or flange. Moreover, I utterly fail to see the likelihood that an engineer would say, “I knew better than to drive the train that fast" in response to a rail or flange breaking and causing a derailment, if the speed was within the proper limit. Although the words could mean that driving the train too fast caused a broken rail or flange.

Updated story:

http://www2.wspa.com/news/2011/mar/22/1 ... r-1601189/

The remarkable news is that the pastor's family that lost the child, while in mourning, are in full-forgiveness mode and peace has been made.

The not surprising move is that another family with minor injuries who walked away from the accident have filed suit for gross negligence, with particular aim against the $600,000 state tort limit.

Matt Bumgarner
Alexander Chapter-NRHS

The more I read reports of this the more it reminds me of mikes train land in suffolk VA back in 1995-6 i think it was. The trolley, was going too fast on their backyard RR...which was either 15" or 16"... I know they had a G-16 that was not in use at that time, however the coaches were being towed behind a yellow SW1200.

Back to the trolley they had... it was new... had been on the property for maybe 3-4 months... It was a windy day... at least 25-40mph gusts... and that trolley was full to the max... not to mention it was top heavy by design (I want to say it was 4 1/2 to 5 feet tall from the frame and maybe 10-20 feet long). I watched that flip when I was about 5 I think it was? maybe 6. I remember the screams... the gore... and I was next in line to ride it.

The wind played a factor in that, just as much as the operator did by running high speed, and not having the passengers seated with the weight evenly distributed. Had it been the SW running, it would not have rolled the way it did, thanks to a lower center of gravity.

The company, was taken to court and that was the ultimate demise of the store. The cause was the operator, along with many other factors, therefore not one person could be singled out for blame.

Now I hate to speculate... But if you look at the wreck. The train derailed on the straight away, not the curve. so it made it around that curve with no problem (however just off the curve the ties and rail are displaced and out of gauge). A dip in the rail, might have caused the truck pin to dislocate from the bottom of the engine, seeing as they weren't locked in place (clearly if they stayed on the rails after the wreck), and that would be the sensation Matt describes... "The back of the engine veered to the right". The pin coming out, and the centrifugal force from the coaches still on the curve, would cause it to swing hard to the right.

I've spoken to Matt before. He is a VERY nice and honest person, and has been involved in railroading for years. He knows as well as the next man, speed is not an issue if the track and equipment can handle it. As said before, those who want to point fingers at him... there's no stopping you. But for those of us who know what this is like, for those of us who want to see this examined from every possible angle, we will wait for the final report in the upcoming weeks.

In the mean time, continue to pray for all parties involved.

On another note, this will also affect the live steam communities. The outcome of the investigation will determine what changes will need to be taken for public runs on small operations.

See here in reference to the Kentucky wreck: http://www.chaski.com/homemachinist/vie ... 1d35a080b6

Edit: Typos

Will investigators and lawyers pour over the pages of RYPN looking for insight??? Would your stated analysis become part of the investigation or proceedings even if it is only speculation. "Why did you speculate that?" "What insight did you have to cause you to say that?" If post get deleted or edited is that considered tampering with evidence in any way? Is anything said here even considered as evidence of....... This is a whole new ballgame.

Still seems like very good advice to me.

JD

Video of the actual wreck taken from what looks like the rear car:
http://www.rideaccidents.com

Speculation or not take a look at the fence line the train is passing about 7 seconds before the wreck and count the poles in the fence as they go by. Depending on if the poles are set at 8 or 10 foot centers one can calculate that the trains seconds before the accident is doing anywhere from 16 to just over 20 MPH.

Wether the track was built to handle that or not, thats still way to fast for a small kids ride.

I wouldn't assume the video was recorded at, or is playing at, real speed. It may very well show the actual speed, but none of us looking at it from outside could possibly know.

How do you know it hasn't been altered by somebody who either wants revenge for their injuries, or is looking for financial gain. Without some visible reference to actual time, the assumption is unsupportable.

My 2 cents worth... and I have to say I'm a bit shocked by the ghoulish nature of the site the video is posted on.

Steve Hunter

For something truly chilling, watch the "Blogs could prove pivotal in fatal train derailment" video.

They're using the guy's blog to implicate maintenance standards.

What would YOUR progress blog say about YOUR operation?

Yikes.

Here is a non-speculative observation:

By tradition, most of the rides in an amusement park are intended to produce thrills and chills. When I was a child, I thought I was going to be killed during one roller coaster ride I remember. But that is the point of those rides. They are intended to create the illusion of high risk to personal safety.

A notable exception in my experience was the train ride. That was always a subdued, aesthetic, introspective sort of experience. I don’t recall of lot of people acting hyper excited and screaming while riding the train as they did when riding the roller coaster. The train ride moved right along, but it was a confidence-inspiring ride rather than a wild thrill ride.

When I watch the video of the ill-fated train ride, I get the impression that thrills and chills were intended to be part of that particular train ride experience.

Can you imagine someone not saying something like "if only I had ..." after something like that. Seems pretty common to me, at least for caring people who feel a sense of responsibility for their actions as decent people do.

If you have kept up with Matt then you know the guy has significantly improved everything to do with the tracks and trains, and I mean everything. Yes his blog makes it sound like everything was in rough shape and obviously nothing is ever perfect. That is truly what is detailed in his blog is that he wants things to be a perfect as they can and you can only do so much. His blog never said the trains are unsafe and I plan to go extra fast and hurt people. His blog talked about the problems and what he was doing to fix them to a reasonable and safe state before operating them. He implies (and maybe even states outright) that he wants the trains and tracks to be improved so they are even safer for use not that they are dangerous and deadly to begin with and they aren't going to be fixed.

I mean seriously, do you think the guy intentionally wanted to hurt people or that he thought the speed would be an issue? You think he thought that it was dangerous but he was going to do it anyway with a train load of passengers. Give me a break. The guy is upset and feels responsible as any human would feel in this situation. He could of just as easily said "if I had never driven the train that day then it wouldn't of happened" or "if I had called into work it wouldn't of happened" or a million other things but that is just distress after-the-fact talking not an admission that he knew he was doing wrong and did it anyway.

If anyone was lax in their duties it was obviously the inspector and THAT has been very clearly determined.

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 mean the guy could of drove the train at a snails pace and an accident could still occur. I have had auto accidents sitting completely still and at 65mph, neither of them was my fault. If I had driven slower it may not have happened. If I had driven faster it may not have happened. If I had taken a different route it may not have happened. If I had stopped to pee it may not have happened. None of those makes the accidents my fault but simply states things I may have done that MAY have changed the outcome.

As far as a cellphone video or handheld video cam....please....you should see the video of me driving my kids around in the gokart. It looks fast as heck and scary as heck too. But it wasn't half as fast as it looks or the least bit scary to even my young daugher who dislikes anything fast and/or scary.

Anyone that knows the least bit about Matt (even from the internet) wouldn't begin to blame the guy or think he acted recklessly or in an unsafe manner. Why would a guy that obviously cares about the trains and tracks being safe go totally against that during train operation? He wouldn't.

There is no need to read anything into it. He said, “I was going too xxxx fast.” He said he knew better than to drive the train that fast.