Amtrak Press Conference Feb 1st, 2016

This is a Channel 6 Action News report from Philadelphia about the NTSB investigation into the May 12, 2015 derailment of Amtrak Train 188 at Frankford Junction. Eight people were killed and hundreds injured.

The central point of the report is that the newly released NTSB evidence appeared to rule out many possible mechanical or technical explanations, leaving investigators focused heavily on engineer Brandon Bostian and, specifically, why the train accelerated to 106 mph before entering the curve.

The report says investigators found no evidence of mechanical or equipment failure involving the locomotive, tracks, or signals. Toxicology testing also found no evidence of alcohol or drugs in Bostian’s system, and examination of his cellphone indicated that he wasn’t using it while operating the train.

That leaves the unexplained acceleration as the major issue.

What Bostian initially told investigators

Bostian cooperated with the NTSB and was interviewed twice shortly after the derailment.

During his interviews in May, according to the report, he said he had no recollection of what happened after the train passed North Philadelphia station until the derailment several miles later.

That’s important because this missing period encompasses the crucial time when the train accelerated dramatically.

What changed six months later

By November, Bostian told investigators that he could remember some portions of that previously missing period.

He now recalled doing things involving the train’s speed and brakes. However, his memory then became unclear again as the train approached the critical period immediately preceding the derailment.

Bostian described the memory this way:

“The memory from there is very vague.”

He then struggled to characterize it, saying he hesitated to call it “dreamlike” because that might imply that he had been asleep—and he specifically said:

“I don’t believe I was asleep at all.”

Instead, he described it as essentially a “foggy memory.”

So his account had evolved from essentially:

May: I don’t remember what happened during this entire stretch.

to:

November: I now remember portions of that stretch, including adjusting speed and brakes, but my memory becomes foggy around the crucial period.

Why attorneys representing victims questioned this

The report interviews two Philadelphia attorneys representing victims and families. They were reviewing the more than 2,000 pages of information released by the NTSB.

They focused specifically on the evolution of Bostian’s memory.

One attorney characterized the issue as Bostian’s “changing story,” saying that it began with:

“I have no recollection whatsoever”

and had now become, in the attorney’s characterization:

“I have memory of what occurred, but I mysteriously have a gap.”

The attorneys therefore weren’t simply questioning whether Bostian remembered the crash. They were questioning why his recollection of the period leading to it had changed substantially between interviews.

One attorney says they intend to question Bostian under oath.

The other makes the strongest statement in the report:

“We can already tell from the statements that there are glaring inconsistencies.”

What the report does—and doesn’t—establish

There’s an important distinction here.

The news report does not establish that Bostian was lying.

It establishes that his recollection changed.

Initially, he couldn’t remember events after North Philadelphia. Months later, he remembered some events from that period but still couldn’t remember the crucial circumstances explaining how the train reached 106 mph.

The attorneys representing victims characterize those differences as “glaring inconsistencies.” That’s their interpretation, rather than a conclusion presented by the NTSB in this report.

Likewise, Bostian explicitly rejected the suggestion that describing his memory as “dreamlike” meant he had fallen asleep.

Where the investigation stood

At the time this story aired, the NTSB had essentially finished the fact-gathering phase.

Investigators would next analyze the evidence—including the approximately 2,000 pages released that day—and determine a probable cause for the derailment.

The reporter says the expectation was that the NTSB would announce that probable cause at a hearing sometime in the spring.

So the unresolved question at the heart of this particular report is very narrow:

If the locomotive, track and signals were functioning; Bostian wasn’t intoxicated; and he wasn’t using his phone, why did Train 188 accelerate to 106 mph—and why couldn’t Bostian explain it?

And the new wrinkle was that Bostian’s memory had partially returned between May and November, while the most important part of the sequence remained unexplained.