NTSB Issues Investigative Update on Washington State Amtrak Derailment

As part of its ongoing investigation into the Dec. 18, 2017, derailment of an Amtrak passenger train in DuPont, Washington, the National Transportation Safety Board released an update about the agency’s investigation.

NTSB investigators interviewed the engineer and the qualifying conductor, who were in the lead locomotive during the accident trip.  Both suffered serious injuries as a result of the derailment and were not able to be interviewed until the week of Jan. 15, 2018. The following information is among that provided by the engineer and qualifying conductor during interviews with NTSB investigators:

The engineer, a 55-year-old male, was hired by Amtrak in 2004 as a conductor and then promoted to locomotive engineer in 2013. 

In the five weeks preceding the derailment, the engineer had qualified on the Point Defiance Bypass section of track following the completion of seven to 10 observational trips in the locomotive as well as three trips operating the equipment, two northbound and one southbound.

• The engineer said he felt rested at the start of his shift.
• The engineer recalled that as the train passed milepost 15.5 it was traveling about 79 mph.
• The engineer told investigators that he was aware that the curve with the 30 mph speed restriction was at milepost 19.8, and that he had planned to initiate braking about one mile prior to the curve. 
• The engineer said that he saw mileposts 16 and 17 but didn’t recall seeing milepost 18 or the 30 mph advance speed sign, which was posted two miles ahead of the speed-restricted curve. 
• The engineer said that he did see the wayside signal at milepost 19.8 (at the accident curve) but mistook it for another signal, which was north of the curve.
• He said that as soon as he saw the 30 mph sign at the start of the curve, he applied brakes.  Seconds later, the train derailed as it entered the curve.
• The engineer said that he didn’t feel that having a qualifying conductor in the locomotive with him was a distraction.
• The engineer also said that he would not have gotten behind the throttle if he had any reservations about his readiness to operate the train.
• The qualifying conductor, a 48-year-old male, was hired by Amtrak in 2010 as an assistant conductor and was promoted to conductor in 2011.
• At start of shift, he said he took part in the job briefing conducted by the conductor and the engineer. They went over general track bulletins and other items.
• The qualifying conductor told investigators that he felt rested and alert at the start of his shift. He had never worked with the engineer before. He told investigators that the engineer appeared alert during the job briefing and while operating the train.
• The qualifying conductor told investigators that there was minimal conversation between himself and the engineer during the trip. Instead he said he spent time looking at his paperwork to help learn the territory.
• Just prior to the derailment, the qualifying conductor said he looked down at his copies of the general track bulletins. He then heard the engineer say or mumble something.  He then looked up and sensed that the train was becoming “airborne.”

These accounts by the crewmembers in the lead locomotive of the accident train are just two sources of information that will be considered as the investigation progresses. In the coming weeks, investigators will compare these accounts with video captured from the inward- and outward-facing locomotive cameras, information from the locomotive event data recorder and other sources.

In addition to human performance and operations, investigators are continuing to develop information in a wide range of areas, including signals and train control, track and engineering, mechanical, crashworthiness, survival factors and recorders.

The investigation is expected to last 12-24 months.