I see what you are saying. The discussion of the topic is fraught with problems, including the objection you have raised. But if I did not want to discuss something really bad that happened to me, I would not come onto a public discussion forum and announce that I did not want to talk about it.

He did indicate that he felt unjustly criticized over the incident. I happen to agree with him, having studied the details of the accident very carefully. I was really surprised that he would come on here and say what he said. Sometimes when people open a conversation by talking about something they say they don’t want to talk about, they really do want to talk about it.

I don't know, question why he would post there in the first place?

The man posted and started the conversation. Like others, I'm confused why you have such a burr under your saddle as to why this would lead to questions about what the initial post was all about. Like Ron Travis just posted, it's reasonable for someone to read the initial post and go with it, as it's also my experience that people who don't want to talk about something, they usually don't talk about it.
Don't want a conversation? Don't start one. Seems pretty simple to me.

Here is the public announcement of the accident investigation findings:

http://www.goupstate.com/article/201105 ... ?p=1&tc=pg

I wish Matt good luck with the recovery of both his health and reputation.
However, I do not believe that this investigation found the complete explanation for this accident. The cause was determined to be excessive speed with no other contributing factors of defective track or train equipment. Excessive speed puts the blame on Matt. Defects of track and equipment spreads the blame out to others. I hope his legal defense is capable of conducting an investigation that discovers the entire cause rather than just a part of it.

Ron, can you give us more details? Why was he criticized unjustly?

Chris.

His reply tells you why he feels that it was unjust.



Beating it further, based on bits and pieces found on the web, would most likely not be productive. It is a rare accident investigation where everyone agrees on one single cause. Most things are caused by a chain of events, any one of which, if broken, would have prevented the accident.

As a PURELY THEORETICAL example... "Excessive speed, a soft spot in the track, uneven loading in the cars, somebody leaning at just the wrong moment, a worn flange, soft springs (if they even exist), all combined to cause a derailment" That's a possible scenario for something like this.

You've probably watched Mythbusters, and if you have, you've probably seen where they try and replicate certain results. Often a seemingly minor change will produce what they're looking for. If we do this, this, this and this... All of which have to line up perfectly.

Aside from Matt, (who's lawyer would likely suggest that he not comment any further on this incident at this time) we weren't there that day. We don't know all the conditions, we don't know what happened. It's impossible to totally reconstruct it. In a case like that, anyone in the airline industry will tell you that the easy answer is "Pilot Error". Since they're ultimately responsible for the safety of the flight, it's a logical choice. Unfortunately, it's not always the right one.

Without all the facts, reaching conclusions about the cause is an exercise in futility. On the other hand, it's much easier to say this case may be far more complex than the simple "He went too fast" conclusions folks are jumping to.

I am Matt's wife, Heather. I wanted to take a minute and thank you all for your kind words of support. I'm not sure I can adequately describe what it means to both of us.

I can't give any details about the accident itself. However, I will clarify what little I can.

In case someone missed it, Spartanburg Public Safety also did a news conference on 7/19/11. Their conclusions were different from the Coroner's, which was released on 5/23/11. Here is a link to the SPS video:

Part 1
http://video.wspa.com/v/42930119/clevel ... erence.htm

Part 2
http://video.wspa.com/v/42930121/clevel ... part-2.htm

Part 3
http://video.wspa.com/v/42930122/clevel ... part-3.htm

I'll also point out that the Spartanburg Coroner works for Spartanburg County, who owns the trains and park. The Coroner hired outside consultants.

Also, there was a lot of talk about Matt's maintenance blog and why it was removed. I could not sleep the night of the accident. So, about 5 am, I was on the computer. I saw the bookmark to his blog, and went to see what it said. There was quite a bit of identifying information on there about our kids. So, I decided to make the blog private. Except, in my sleep deprived haze, I mistakenly deleted it completely. I was rather relieved when that reporter said she had saved screenshots of it. However, the media chose to make it seem as if Matt was trying to hide something, instead of recognizing it for what it was: a mom trying to protect her kids.

As for people being curious about the accident, I think that's simply human nature. Having said that, however, I hope y'all understand why we can't really say anything else right now. Matt just worries so much about accidents now... I think he just wanted to do what little he could to keep y'all and your passengers safe.

Heather

The criticism was energized by the coroner's investigation showing the sole cause to be excessive speed. If that conclusion was incomplete, and if part of the cause was locomotive truck defects and/or track defects, then Matt was unjustly criticized because others would have been partly responsible for the track and/or truck defects.

Regarding the coroner's investigation, I do not believe that their computer model fully accounted for the dynamics of potentially tipping over on the curve. They said that they computer modeled the train and track, and the model showed the train tipping over at the accident site every time they ran the model. Well, sure, if it shows it upsetting once, it will show an upset every time. It is a computer model.

I expect they have a model that shows the outside wheels fixed to the outer rail as a parameter, and then the model shows the effect of centrifugal force on the train mass. In the actual event, the upset begins, and then the outer flange begins to disengage from the rail. At a high enough production of centrifugal force, the initiation of the upset will have enough momentum to carry right through to a full upset. At less centrifugal force, during the initiating upset, the disengaging outer flange may climb the rail, derail, and cancel the upset, simply resulting in a derailment. So an upset can cause a derailment that cancels the upset. The rising part of the train on the inside of the curve drops back down as the outer flange climbs the rail.

But there is also evidence that the train did not tip over at as a result of high speed on the curve. Looking at the photos, it appears that the locomotive trucks were torn off by snagging the trestle guard rails. That would mean that at the earlier point where the train left the track, it did not upset or tip over. It simply derailed. It had to be upright in order for the trucks to snag the guardrails. It appears that the locomotive was upset by falling off the side of the trestle, and not due to the initial derailment. If that is the case, the computer model has to be wrong.

I conclude that the locomotive wheels climbed the outer rail on the curve and derailed. Excessive speed could have been the sole cause, or a combination of factors could have been involved. They include the following:

1) Sharp flanges increasing the ability to climb the rail.

2) Rail rust increasing the flange / rail friction to increase the ability to climb the rail.

3) Excessive wear / travel in the truck swing motion.

4) A track kink.

There is a video that clearly shows several track kinks and the locomotive tracking reaction to them. The tracking reaction appears to be greater than the offset of the kink. This could be explained by excessive travel in the swing motion of the model GM locomotive trucks. In other words, the truck runs off center into the kink. And when the kink begins to return, the locomotive body continues to run outward on the excessive swing motion. So the centrifugal force of the curve is increased by the kink and the excessive swing motion.

If you add sharp flanges to that effect, you get a cause that amounts to considerably more than just excessive speed. It may be that the track kinks were corrected by the time the accident occurred. However, they did exist during the time the train was in operation carrying passengers. So, obviously the kinks and excessive motion were accepted by the operators and owners of the train. I cannot believe that these kinks would not qualify as track defects. The locomotive trucks should have been thoroughly disassembled and checked for excessive flange wear and excess swing motion.

He was going almost 3 times the recommended speed. At what point do you finally relent and allow that speed was the sole cause? I bet it wouldn't of derailed at 8mph, which is the manufacturer speed in a curve-he was calculated to be in excess of 22mph. When you push things that hard, can you justify calling the weak link "defective"?? Hell, how many full gauge excursion railroads don't make it to 22mph??

You say it's possible that track and/or train defects could of caused the wreck? All indications are that he was not only the resident expert on the train and track, but that he also did most of the work too. He actually seemingly seeked out that job because it was a 'rail' job, and was working for free there before that. A web search turns up his name in conjunction with other rail projects going back to at least the 90s, many of them miniature rail.

Robert

I think you finally relent and allow that speed was the sole cause at the point where other possible causes can be ruled out. I agree that it probably would not have derailed at 8 mph. But, if there were contributing causes, we do not know that the train would have derailed at 24 mph had those contributing causes not existed.

My point is that at a certain speed, something is going to break, that is a given. Maybe even a part that might of got replaced if it was inspected. But at 3x the speed?

If some driver wipes out his car going 80mph in a 30mph zone and kills someone, can you really say a broken mirror, bald tire, or worn out brakes is the cause? If I point a gun at your head, and it goes off because the sear is worn out, is the sear really to blame?

My point is at a certain point, you're clearly reckless. 8mph is the speed, not only for simple engineering reasons, but it helps to cover your butt if something else isn't up to par, and lessons the impact if it does fall apart. Once the safety barrier is so thoroughly exceeded, you have no safety margin.

I understand your point. But say you are going 31 in a 30, and you run over someone because your brakes suddenly fail. I don’t believe that the 1 mph violation would place the entire blame on you as negligence. I do not know how that needle would be threaded, but there are bound to be degrees in the contribution to cause and blame.

If the entire accident investigation were made public, it might convince me that they found the sole cause. But from the small synopsis that has been released, I am not convinced that they found the entire cause.

How do they know how fast he was going? It is easy to clock the video when the train was running through the shed. There are much fewer reliable reference points as the train approaches the derailment point. Where exactly did they clock the speed? Other videos show other operators slowing down for the curve where the derailment occurred. Did the operator have a speedometer in the locomotive? Did the operator know the speed limit? The investigators said they determined the speed based on clocking the video—and based on the fact that the operator stated that he was going fast. What possible relevance can the statement that he was going fast have if you have accurately clocked the speed? Do they really know that he was going around 23 mph?

Did they run the train through the curve at various speeds to see how it acted? If not, why not? Why build a computer model and rely only on that when you have the actual train to test? I just think the investigation needs to be thorough and I am not convinced that it was. Only after it is thoroughly investigated, should the blame be decided. It may very well fall on more than one person or organization. The accident was investigated by the highway patrol and by a consultant. If I am not mistaken, the consultant stated that he had never seen an accident like that before.

Thanks for your posts Matt and Heather. I'm certain that the victim, his family, and you and your family are all in the prayers of many of the folks here.