Philadelphia Amtrak Up and Running Again After Derailment

This one fills in the windshield/projectile issue that was teased but not explained in the previous Fox 29 report. It also gives us more detail about what investigators and the victims’ attorneys were thinking shortly after the crash.

What had changed at Frankford Junction

This Action News report aired on the first day Amtrak resumed Philadelphia–New York service after the derailment.

The first northbound train left 30th Street Station at 6:07 a.m. and reached the crash area roughly 15 minutes later.

Reporter Dan Cuellar makes the point that although service had resumed, things weren’t exactly “back to normal.” Amtrak had activated Automatic Train Control (ATC) on the northbound track.

The report describes ATC as a computerized system capable of intervening if a train violates the speed restriction in that area.

That’s especially significant because Train 188 had entered the curve at 106 mph—more than twice the posted speed limit.

The victims’ attorneys immediately questioned why that protection wasn’t already operating there before the derailment.

The windshield investigation

This is the missing piece from your previous transcript.

Investigators were examining the possibility that something had struck Train 188’s locomotive shortly before it derailed.

The FBI had examined the locomotive at a secure facility in Delaware and had reached one specific conclusion:

The windshield had NOT been struck by a bullet.

However, that did not mean investigators had concluded nothing struck it.

The report says the NTSB announced that it had not ruled out the possibility that the windshield was struck by some other object.

There was a reason investigators were taking this seriously.

Two other trains traveling through the same general area that night—a southbound Acela and a SEPTA Trenton Line train—had reportedly been struck by objects before Train 188 crashed.

SEPTA also told Action News that children sometimes threw objects at trains from bridges crossing the railroad tracks.

So at this stage there was a legitimate investigative question:

Could Train 188 also have been struck by an object, potentially distracting or incapacitating Bostian immediately before the train accelerated and derailed?

The NTSB had not yet answered that question.

Bostian’s memory is again central

The report then says:

“Train engineer Brandon Bostian has told investigators he does not remember anything that happened in the moments before the derailment.”

That wording is useful because it’s more specific than simply saying he didn’t remember the crash.

At this point, the public understanding was that Bostian had a memory gap covering the crucial moments immediately preceding the derailment.

Then the report shifts to the victims’ attorneys.

One attorney says:

“It always raises red flags when someone who’s been involved in an accident going too fast has a sudden claim…”

The transcript appears to cut the quote off there, but the context makes clear he’s expressing skepticism about Bostian’s reported loss of memory.

Importantly, that’s an attorney representing victims speaking—not an NTSB finding.

The victims’ attorneys dismiss the projectile theory

Attorneys Tom Kline and Robert Mongeluzzi, representing four victims—including two Spanish tourists and New York executive Daniel Armand—called the projectile theory a “red herring.”

Their attention was instead on two things.

First, Bostian was operating a train at more than twice the posted speed limit.

Second, Amtrak had a safety system capable of overriding excessive speed but hadn’t activated it on that northbound section before the crash.

One attorney summarizes the issue:

“You have a train engineer who is operating a train at twice the posted speed limit…”

and then points to:

“…a system which could override him…”

So their theory of responsibility was already becoming clear: regardless of speculation about a projectile, why was the train traveling 106 mph, and why wasn’t a safety system in place to prevent it from doing so?

Another interesting detail: Bostian’s experience on this route

The report says investigators were placing a “sharp focus” on Bostian and adds that he had only been operating this particular route for a few weeks.

That’s another fact being examined at this early stage, although the report does not establish that his relative newness to the route caused the crash.

The NTSB cautioned that determining the actual probable cause could take up to 12 months.

Now the first three reports tell a much clearer story

The sequence you’re giving me is becoming particularly useful because we’re seeing how the narrative evolved as evidence came in.

Days after the crash: Train 188 entered the curve at 106 mph. Bostian says he can’t remember the crucial moments. Investigators haven’t ruled anything in or out. Two other trains were struck by objects that evening, and investigators examine Train 188 for evidence of a strike.

Shortly afterward: FBI analysis rules out a bullet hitting Train 188’s windshield, but the NTSB says another type of object has not yet been ruled out. Victims’ attorneys dismiss the projectile possibility as a “red herring” and focus instead on Bostian’s speed and Amtrak’s lack of automatic speed enforcement on that track.

Approximately six months later: Bostian’s account has changed in an important way. He now remembers some things from a period he previously couldn’t recall, including manipulating the train’s speed and brakes. But his memory of the crucial portion remains “foggy.” Meanwhile, investigators have found no evidence of locomotive, track or signal failure, drugs/alcohol, or cellphone use.

And there’s an important nuance emerging: the attorneys were skeptical of Bostian’s memory loss almost immediately. Their later criticism of his “changing story” wasn’t something they developed only after his November interview. In this earlier report, they’re already publicly questioning his inability to remember the moments preceding the crash.

If you keep sending these, I’ll keep treating them as pieces of the same timeline rather than summarizing each one in isolation. That should make any contradictions or genuinely new information much easier to spot.