One of the comments posted with the video states that the derailment location is about 3:25 into the clip. There seems to be a lot of flange squeal at and around that point. I agree that they look like they run a bit fast; perhaps they were way overdue for some sort of accident.

As a contractor who has constructed numerous 24" railroads thoughout the eastern two thirds of the U.S., I feel a comment on the Louisville accident may be in order.
First and foremost is track conditions.
At one Zoo where I was involved, they brought in a volunteer crew from a Class I railroad to rework the track. It was a disaster. They knew nothing of pre-curving rails or cross elevation for park railroads.
My crew went back in to rework the track and wound up with a safe and smooth ride.
In fact, years later, the railroad was expanded and we got the contract to do the expansion. Prior to opening to the public, I took a test train out. The railroad paralled a four lane parkway and I was able to pace the 35 mph road traffic. This was a stock CPH.
Operators were cautioned never to use high gear for that reason.

I have seen some terrible trackwork and the operators always wondered why they had derailments.
Ira Schreiber
Aurora, CO

One of the families involved has apparently begun legal action.
A story from the Louisville Courier Journal is posted in the Flimsies section.

Chicago, North Shore & Milwaukee RR switched from A.A.R. wheel tread taper to cylindrical treads to match the Chicago Transit Authority, as they also ran over each other's track, with some 90 foot radius, better than 90 degree curves. Both companies continued to handle interchange freight cars on their straighter tracks, so their track standards couldn't have been far off.

[Correction thanks to Jeff, below, who noticed its need.]

Jim,
I think you meant "Cylindrical" treads, not "Conical".

Jeff

Notice from the above video that the train has TWO stations within the park, each somewhat distant. That means the train provides a real public-transit use within the park.

By contrast the Oakland zoo train only has one station, it's just a kiddie ride. And notice the speed... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgTla_yk ... re=related

I remember the first time I saw a light-rail train after a few months at the museum. I was like "Holy smokes, they drive fast!" Well, yeah, they're transit. They have somewhere to get.

Accident report has been issued
http://www.kyagr.com/pr/documents/LouisvilleZooTrainaccidentreport.pdf

along with exhibits to the report
http://www.kyagr.com/pr/documents/Exhibits1thru10.pdf

Looks as though the fines were "maxed" on each violation...Ouch!

sc 'doc' lewis

If I can still do basic arithmetic the fines total $37,000. What is going to really hurt is the liability. While the report only states the KDA investigators findings and does not offer the Zoo's defense, if upheld those findings are damning.

This is one more example of why those of us who carry the general public need to take the time and trouble to do it right. The shortcuts which seem to have been taken here seem to have cost the zoo more money than they could have possibly saved.

GME

I can't tell from reading the text of the accident report whether or not the fine for the operator error was levied against the zoo or the operator. I would hope that it was against the zoo, since clearly the operator was doing what little she was trained to do to the best of her ability.

The report is pretty damning of the Zoo's practices and procedures. Hopefully it will be a wake-up call to clean up their act and not the reason to end the train ride, which overall looks to be a well-done attraction.

In watching the YouTube video of the train ride, I think that this ride would be a good candidate to use the automated GPS narration system that has been discussed elsewhere in this forum before, and was adopted by the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic RR. I'm sure you could arrange for it to broadcast through speakers, rather than headphones, and it would free the operator to devote full concentration to running the train, once a standard safety announcement is made before the train starts moving.

Obviously the person had not the slightest clue how to stop the train. Sounds like a safety culture problem, with the bad advice about pumping brakes and disabling warning lights.

I get the impression they had some sort of "westinghouse style" automatic brakes, and in the drawings I see at least four trainlines, either air or electrical. I wonder if the warning light/alarm was monitoring trainline air pressure from the rear, and maybe, that valve working in reverse caused the light to be "always on" so they disabled it?

Anyway, what I find the scariest is the government. These guys had no real core competence in inspecting this type of train, and it really shows. They had a Chance technical rep on hand, and they could have relied on his advice, but instead they sent him home rather than ask the zoo to bring some lights.

And then they measured the brake shoes. Clue #1: they couldn't find the center of a hole (transfer punches are your friend, and also confirm the hole is the size you think it is.) Clue #2: All the coach brakes were substantially below condemning limits... "um, maybe we're doing something wrong"? Indeed they did notice that a new part from Chance was also below condemning limits, but they decided this was the zoo's fault that Chance didn't have out a TSB on it.

Can you imagine if some local mounties (aggies in this case) came by and looked at your railroad operation in light of THEIR strict interpretation of AAR and FRA regs?

The way I read that paragraph is that while the replacement shoes provided by the manufacturer were not to the same specification as the original shoes, the difference was de minimis and merely noted for the record. As no new specification had been issued, the prior specification as to thickness still applied and the shoes themselves were worn beyond the acceptable tolerance regardless of width.

As for the core competence of the inspectors - This is an amusement park ride which interests us only because it looks like a train. A surprising number of amusement park rides use a railroad type technology. (If you go to Disneyland there is a "real railroad" hauling people about and an incredible number of rides. The vast majority of those rides use some form of railroad or railroad-and-canal-boat technology.) From a regulatory standpoint this does not make them trains. They are still amusement park rides.

GME

:

The brakes used are tractor/trailer type truck brakes.

The design is this; there is a big spring that is under compression in a housing under each truck that provides the braking energy, the brake systems air is only used to compress the spring which releases it, that same way the 18-wheeled trucks use the system. If there is a train break, the car brakes work automatically by the released air allowing the big spring to extend and applying the brakes. The brake would stay on 100% until compressed air was added to the train lines to overcome the energy of the spring, and its one tough spring! 70psi is needed to release the brakes.

Cycling these brakes would only release them and maybe reapply (if the system had enough time to recharge) and doing so would not gain the engineer anything in the way of control. That young amusement ride operator was not trained in the physics of the system at all.

I hope the Zoo is sued to the max extent that they can be. There is no excuse for a single injury to anyone that was on that ride.

Unfortunately some people with engineers' disease, and other people, think that if "pumping the brakes" helps to prevent skids in highway vehicles, then they know better than the dumb experts that it will work with trains. I have ridden with New Orleans streetcar operators who also rapidly pump or fan the brake handle.

The Los Angeles RTD (now replaced by the MTA) once had a bus crash when the driver had problems stopping on a down-grade freeway off-ramp. She too pumped the brakes to make them work -- and guess what? She ran out of air and then really was out of control!

It's all about training and retention.

So we start with an operator who had not received either adequate or proper training from her employer on the on the equipment she was employed to operate generally and none at all on the specific piece of equipment to which she was assigned that day. Then we add that a piece of safety equipment - the warning light - had been willfully disabled by those employed to maintain said equipment. We top this off with the fact that one of the vital systems - the brakes - was not maintained by those employed to do so to any standard that anyone can find and did not perform as intended.

Not that I wish to sound like a gramophone record with the needle stuck in a groove, however this incident, like most such, was preventable. It appears to me that if the Zoo's management had done their job insuring that the maintenance people had properly done theirs and that the operator had the necessary tools in terms of training and experience, not to mention brakes which worked like they should, than this would not have happened. Not withstanding whatever inherent problems there may be with the design of the equipment, this would not have happened if the people in charge had insisted on strict compliance with the maintenance and operating manuals.

I now yield the lectern...

GME