There is WAY too much speculation of causes and effects. This does absolutely no good especially to Mr. Conrad. I hope the moderator will halt this discussion until such time as the OFFICIAL report is released.

The media will feast on this like a shark on a tuna if we keep this up.
Ira Schreiber
Former G-16 owner.

Who is the investigating authority? Does the state have folks who are qualified to investigate rail accidents? Not normally a state function. Would there be reason for federal investigation?

Tom P

For the purposes of the investigation, this is not a train, it's an amusement park ride. The FRA has no jurisdiction.

The first disqualifier is that the gauge is less than 24 inches. (16")
Even if the gauge wasn't a factor, it would qualify as insular.

We think of it as a miniature railway, but as far as the state is concerned, it's no different than a roller coaster, merry-go-round or tilt-a-whirl.

I understand that there is an official investigation underway to determine the cause of the derailment. If a cause is determined, what exactly will be done with that information?

In other words, what is the purpose of the investigation?

It would depend who is doing the investigation. If one wishes to be glib and perhaps curt about it, the likely point of the investigation is to 1) establish the exact cause(s) of the accident, and 2) give the opportunity to attempt to prevent a re-occurrence not just at this particular park/ride, but any other such park/ride. A tertiary cause may be to establish or suggest probable blame, possibly to be followed by disciplinary and/or tort action to or by parties involved.

To make up examples: Supposing that this accident was deemed to be caused by the failure of a speed governor on the locomotive's engine, or the failure of a braking mechanism. Is this a mechanical failure caused by wear, neglected maintenance, defective parts, or even tampering? Allegedly, an inspector was supposed to ascertain the proper functioning of this train, but falsified the inspection report. Did the accident occur on something that was supposed to be inspected but wasn't?

Someone died in this accident. It's possible, just possible, that this death was avoidable. It is imperative that the parties involved at least attempt to prevent the possibility of this kind of tragedy happening again, whether it be by a change in procedure, a change in equipment, or whatever. To NOT "investigate" such an accident is irresponsible.

I understand that the investigation is being conducted by the Spartanburg County Coroner.

Yes, I agree that a purpose of simply learning the cause, so the error is not repeated in the future is a good enough reason for the investigation. Initially, I was thinking that the investigation would be in the interest of the accident victims and their litigation, but I am not sure now if that would be the case. Although I wonder if the difference between a cause of negligence or an act of God, for instance, might make a difference in the litigation.

It will be interesting to hear the results of the investigation, and especially the technical reasoning behind the findings. Considering all the possibilities of contributing factors and how they might have combined to cause the accident, a successful discovery of the cause would seem to be a daunting technical challenge to say the least.

[quote="Ron Travis"] Initially, I was thinking that the investigation would be in the interest of the accident victims and their litigation, but I am not sure now if that would be the case. [/quote]

It's highly unlikely that government investigatory resources would be brought to bear for the purpose of subsidizing hypothetical private tort actions, although you might well wonder about that the next time you're stuck seemingly for hours behind a serious car accident while the reconstructionists are at work.

Rather, the subject investigation is presumably being done to determine whether or not criminal charges are appropriate. It's certainly not being undertaken as a matter of academic curiosity.

I found this in a media report published March 19th, which seems to answer effectively the queries about the investigation. I should point out that, in my admittedly limited experience in public safety, there is typically a bit of "negotiation" that goes on to decide amongst related agencies who actually ends up with the job of investigating an incident like this, involving anything from whose equipment was involved to which insurance company has the biggest potential payout to which agency can bring the most investigative resources to which jurisdiction is most likely to get a conviction in the case of criminal charges being filed. Of course, there's nothing that says that multiple investigations with multiple agendas can't occur/proceed, either.:

George,

Thanks for that insight. I agree with your observation that the investigation will not be done for the purpose of academic curiosity. I notice that the speculation about the cause, which is going on in the news media and the general public, is being countered by speculation made public on behalf of the locomotive engineer and his lawyer. So it seems like there is more at stake here than just the academic study of the cause, or the desire to prevent a future occurrence of such an accident. Further disciplinary action might be forthcoming for others besides the engineer and the state inspector. I expect that there will be more than one investigation, and they may not come to the same conclusion.

Huh?!

Moderators, can we delete this thread now??!!