Metrolink train #111 from Union Station in Los Angeles (California) to Moorpark (California).
Head-on collision of Metrolink versus Union Pacific freight train. Metrolink was in "pull" mode with the locomotive leading.
Looks extremely bad. There must be fatalities.
Posted by Southwest Chief (Member # 1227) on :
Yes Smitty it is just an awful scene and there are several fatalities. It might end up being Metrolink's worse wreck.
I'd hate to speculate this early, but I think Metrolink may have ran a signal or the signals were not operating properly.
This Map shows where the collision took place. If you pan down (south) a bit you will see where the line goes down to single tracks due to the tunnels. Metrolink had just left Chatsworth and was heading North. UP was heading south. The wreck occurred close to the signals where Metrolink would have been held. UP may have also ran a signal, but this is northwest and far from the wreck site.
Starlight and other trains will obviously be annulled for several days.
Terrible tragedy. I'm praying for those whose families may be affected by this.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
From Hyatt Regency Greenwich--
This incident is being reported on WQXR 96.3; as Mr. Smith notes, it doesn't sound good.
Addendum: I've now had a chance to read my Times ("comp" at this hotel):
While obviously too early to tell (and the NTSB Investigation report will not likely be available for a year), it likely is a case of human error.
Posted by HopefulRailUser (Member # 4513) on :
17 dead so far. The Surfliner northern section will not run for now. The Starlight will start and end at SBA, at least today, with "alternate transportation" provided to and from LA.
I find this whole thing very frightening. Seems that collisions like this should be impossible, there should be so many fail safes that it can't happen. Metrolink itself seems doomed to have serious accidents.
Posted by Konstantin (Member # 18) on :
I grew up in Chatsworth in the 1960's. I lived about 1/2 mile from the point of collision. It is sad to see this.
Typically, about how many freight trains come through this track each day? When I lived there, there was only one passenger each way, the Coast Daylight, and quite a few freight trains.
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
The Metrolink's engine is INSIDE the first passenger car - no wonder there are unfortunately so many casualties.
Now for my soapbox - and I make no apologies for directing this at certain posters. Out of respect for those affected, I think it best we leave the speculation to the professional investigative authorities. There is no way of us knowing what happened. I've seen a friend's life wrecked by speculation about what he did or didn't do - and the report completely exonerated him. But it was too late as the damage had been done by idle speculation on forums such as this and in the media.
Geoff M.
Posted by JONATHON (Member # 2899) on :
The Victum count is now at 24 (foxnews) , the Metrolink Enigine has been removed from the First Car it telescopes into, they say there exspecting worse when they remove the colapsed second floor of the first car, and that Friday's crash is now the worst Rail disaster in the past 15 years.. its very sad, say a preyer for those who were involved and that the suvivors in the hospital are ok
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
A Metrolink spokesperson says the rail line's preliminary investigation shows that the Metrolink engineer ran a red signal and was the probable case of the crash. This is unusual, coming in advance of the NTSB investigation and findings, and the NTSB itself says it's too soon to tell. The New York Times story is at:
Death toll at 25 as of 9:30 CDT Saturday and expected to climb further; some 40 victims are in critical condition.
I wonder if Metrolink wanted the spokesperson's statement made in order to cushion the impact of inevitable lawsuits, much as many hospitals now are admitting mistakes and apologizing for them so that wronged patients will be more willing to settle than litigate.
Posted by Doodlebug (Member # 4564) on :
News reports are now emerging that the Metrolink engineer may have been text-messaging railfans on his cellphone at the time of the accident.
On our news tonight all that was said was Metrolink thought the engineer failed to stop at a red light. Speaking of news doesn't our poster Mike live in Beaumont TX? I hope he and his family are safe. If anyone hears please post it.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
From Riverside CT--
I practically fell out of the chair at Hyatt's restaurant this morning at Breakfast when I noted that Metrolink had announced it was he engineer's fault.
But as Matt Wald was quick to note in the Times, "it aint over" until the NTSB files their report:
Finally volks, to close on a lighter note, there was a bagpiper performing at the Wedding (outdoors) yesterday (anyone ever hear the Wagner "wedding' processional played by a bagpiper before?).
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Konstantin,
You must have gone to Chatsworth, eh? I went to Taft. Same era, though I might be a little younger, class of 1974.
This is not good on any level. There are rumors today that the Metrolink engineer failed to heed signals. If he did, first, watch for a demand for a work rules change: Two in the cab, calling and confirming signals. Second, the families will own Metrolink.
Now, if there is a signal systems error attributable to UP, then the last is true for UP vice Metrolink.
Disclaimer: IRA position in UNP.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doodlebug: News reports are now emerging that the Metrolink engineer may have been text-messaging railfans on his cellphone at the time of the accident.
If this proves to be the case, it has to be the most irresponsible act ever......missing a signal to mess with a tiny keyboard.
Posted by Southwest Chief (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: ...Now, if there is a signal systems error attributable to UP...
I believe Metrolink now owns the portion of track where the collision took place, and it is dispatched by Metrolink. So I'm assuming they are responsible for the signaling system. It's part of the Metrolink Ventura Sub. Slightly past Moorpark at CP Las Posas is where the UP Santa Barbara sub takes over.
Posted by Doodlebug (Member # 4564) on :
Associated Press reports that the National Transportation Safety Board has requested cell phone records of two teen-agers and the Metrolink engineer and has also interviewed the teens and their families.
Also, a split apparently has emerged between the Metrolink board and its communications department over the issue of blaming the engineer for running a signal.
I predict this will mark the beginning of the end for passenger cab cars. Before long state and/or federal regulations will require a locomotive or dedicated cab car at the front end. Metrolink and other push-pull services may even take the initiative themselves to save face. I expect riders will demand it. This is, after all, the second major accident with Metrolink involving fatalities in the lead passenger car.
Reports in my local paper implied this wouldn't have happened if freight and passenger trains weren't using the same tracks, as if passenger trains wouldn't collide if they were coming towards each other on the same track.
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
Smitty -- I couldn't get any sound with the first video link you posted
Posted by CG96 (Member # 1408) on :
But Mr. Toy, this appeared to be a "cornfield meet," in that both locomotives were headed towards each other. Cab cars had nothing to do with it, except that they might have been at the other end of the train.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
quote:Originally posted by RRRICH: Smitty -- I couldn't get any sound with the first video link you posted
That link was only good while they were broadcasting the live events of the crash.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
NTSB reported yesterday that the signals were working properly, and that the radio transmissions show that the crew did NOT call out on the radio the last two signals. They passed a flashing yellow signal, and it was not called out on the radio. They passed a red signal, and it was not called out on the radio. So not only did one crew member (the engineer) miss two signals, but the damn conductor didn't notice something unusual going on????? Just like in airplane accidents, there is never a single error made....it is always a chain of errors that leads up to a crash.
Posted by Doodlebug (Member # 4564) on :
Two points:
Smitty is correct about the chain of errors cause for the crash. Rail and commercial air transportation entities have procedures that are based on redundancy and multiple checks so that operational safety is as protected from individual mistakes as possible. So assuming the reports that Metrolink ran a stop signal are correct, more than one person made a mistake.
Second, the Metrolink spokeswoman who said the accident was caused by Metrolink's training running a stop signal has resigned.
As a former journalist now involved in media relations, I sympathize with her plight.
Posted by Railroad Bob (Member # 3508) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Toy: I predict this will mark the beginning of the end for passenger cab cars. Before long state and/or federal regulations will require a locomotive or dedicated cab car at the front end. Metrolink and other push-pull services may even take the initiative themselves to save face. I expect riders will demand it. This is, after all, the second major accident with Metrolink involving fatalities in the lead passenger car.
Reports in my local paper implied this wouldn't have happened if freight and passenger trains weren't using the same tracks, as if passenger trains wouldn't collide if they were coming towards each other on the same track.
It's amazing how the "lay" media can get it so wrong when they attempt to report on railroad operating issues and procedures. There has been a wealth of misinformation and speculation by so many in this case...the latest casualty seems to be Denise Tyrell of Metrolink. But Mr. Toy, you do know that the locomotive was LEADING in the wreck, right? The train was in the supposedly safer pull-mode. There may be the rare instance, (wild speculation here) that in some wrecks a train might have less injuries operating in "push" mode. For example, a rear-end collision by another train coming up from the rear...
Posted by Railroad Bob (Member # 3508) on :
smitty and doodlebug; today it is being reported that the main track switch at CP Topanga was "run through," ie. broken. It was a "trailing point" movement for Metro. Kitty Higgins (NTSB Board member and now one of the lead investigators) commented that it was "bent like a banana." One would think that this switch was lined for the UP freight meet with Metro 111, and that the controlling sig. there, if working properly, would have been red-over-red for the Metrolink train. And to make things even murkier, a witness has surfaced saying he "saw" that sig. as clear, or green. Our best bet now is to let cooler heads prevail and allow the NTSB to do their meticulous, methodical work...
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Railroad Bob: Our best bet now is to let cooler heads prevail and allow the NTSB to do their meticulous, methodical work...
The NTSB is extremely good at what they do. Sooner or later (most likely later), there will be a definitive answer as to what took place. Unfortunately, the NTSB can only recommend "fixes" when they find ill procedures. (The NTSB has been recommending for years that the cargo belly of commercial aircraft have a fire extinguishing system, but the FAA has chosen to ignore these recommendations).
As far as the witness who saw the green signal, my two cents follows: Of course this person has to be interviewed, however, his statement could be proven incorrect. I've been involved in training classes that demonstrate how witness statements can be totally wrong. I've seen examples of two police officers witnessing the exact same event, yet they report two different things. The human element can not be corrected sometimes. Same thing with traffic accidents---the witness stories are usually conflicting, which is why (in serious cases) an accident reconstruction specialist will follow the evidence to come up with a cause. The NTSB will do the same thing.
Posted by Greg (Member # 66) on :
One of the NTSB recommendations from the 2002 BNSF/Metrolink crash in Placentia was for installation of PCTS:
"The Safety Board also reiterated a recommendation to the Federal Railroad Administration to facilitate actions necessary for development and implementation of positive train control systems that include collision avoidance, and require implementation of positive train control systems on main line tracks, establishing priority requirements for high-risk corridors such as those where commuter and intercity passenger railroads operate."
A former head of the NTSB interview on KNX radio over the weekend thought the latest accident might be enough for Congress to finally mandate PTCS installation.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
quote:Originally posted by Greg: A former head of the NTSB interview on KNX radio over the weekend thought the latest accident might be enough for Congress to finally mandate PTCS installation.
Look at all the horses running loose. Is that the sound of a barn door closing I hear?
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Before everyone gets all warm and fuzzy about PTC, remember anything invented by man has the possibility of error. Note Smitty's "it is always a chain of errors that leads up to a crash." All PTC does is put one more link in the chain, which also gives it one more place to break. Increased complexity does not necessarily lead to increased safety. The NTSB and before it the ICC are notorious for recommending expensive mechanical solutions to solve all human error accident, and also while making these recommendations blithely ignoring both examples of their failure and any thought of cost-benefit ratios.
I hear some dolt sounding shocked that they were depending upon a "red light" to tell the engineer what to do. What do you think we all do when driving down a city street?
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Originally posted by Railroad Bob:
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Toy:
I predict this will mark the beginning of the end for passenger cab cars. Before long state and/or federal regulations will require a locomotive or dedicated cab car at the front end. Metrolink and other push-pull services may even take the initiative themselves to save face. I expect riders will demand it. This is, after all, the second major accident with Metrolink involving fatalities in the lead passenger car.
Reports in my local paper implied this wouldn't have happened if freight and passenger trains weren't using the same tracks, as if passenger trains wouldn't collide if they were coming towards each other on the same track.
It's amazing how the "lay" media can get it so wrong when they attempt to report on railroad operating issues and procedures.
There has been a wealth of misinformation and speculation by so many in this case...the latest casualty seems to be Denise Tyrell of Metrolink. But Mr. Toy, you do know that the locomotive was LEADING in the wreck, right? The train was in the supposedly safer pull-mode. There may be the rare instance, (wild speculation here) that in some wrecks a train might have less injuries operating in "push" mode. For example, a rear-end collision by another train coming up from the rear...
More speculation here, but some railroad personnel on other forums have noted the lack of underframe support on the Bombardier bilevels. The construction of this type of railcar may indeed be lacking.
Also, you get rid of cab cars, you also get rid of EMUs and DMUs. Never mind light rail (streetcars/steam interurbans), which generally have not had a leading locomotive since steam days. (I suspect it would be bizarre to see something like an ALP-46 pulling a BART or NYCTA subway train, at the very least.)
Posted by TruckTrains (Member # 6938) on :
Holy cow! Thats horrible
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Railroad Bob: But Mr. Toy, you do know that the locomotive was LEADING in the wreck, right?
Nope. I just saw the photos of the passenger car blasted to pieces and assumed it took the direct impact. I've seen a lot of train wreck pictures and never saw that kind of damage in anything that didn't take a direct hit.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Toy:
quote:Originally posted by Railroad Bob: But Mr. Toy, you do know that the locomotive was LEADING in the wreck, right?
Nope. I just saw the photos of the passenger car blasted to pieces and assumed it took the direct impact. I've seen a lot of train wreck pictures and never saw that kind of damage in anything that didn't take a direct hit.
You know, it wasn't until I took the time to read and study a day or two afterwards that I realized the locomotive was leading. The photo which made most of the news outlets did look rather like it had been a cab control car up front.
I'm thinking that there will be some serious inquiry into the quality of Metrolinks rolling stock now......as in are the ends of the cars sturdy enough to withstand a collision and prevent 'telescoping'? Initial observation seems to suggest not.
Posted by sbalax (Member # 2801) on :
Service between SBA and LAUPT was not restored yesterday afternoon and will not happen today (Tuesday, 16 September). Hopefully it will happen tomorrow. The Starlight will terminate here with transfers to Los Angeles.
Frank in overcast SBA
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
Does the Coast Starlight sit at the SBA station overnight, or is there a nearby yard where they can take it for servicing and cleaning?
Posted by sbalax (Member # 2801) on :
Smitty--
I believe they use a siding just east of State Street. Or they may take it to Oxnard where there is probably more room.
All--
Although the Amtrak website still says no service today I just spoke with an agent who assured me that trains (in particular 775) are operating. That said, our friend from here, Gibg, is going to take the Flyaway to LAUPT and, hopefully, the train up here. The agent was surprised that the website wasn't updated. I wasn't.
Frank in SBA
Posted by yukon11 (Member # 2997) on :
quote:Originally posted by Greg: One of the NTSB recommendations from the 2002 BNSF/Metrolink crash in Placentia was for installation of PCTS:
"The Safety Board also reiterated a recommendation to the Federal Railroad Administration to facilitate actions necessary for development and implementation of positive train control systems that include collision avoidance, and require implementation of positive train control systems on main line tracks, establishing priority requirements for high-risk corridors such as those where commuter and intercity passenger railroads operate."
A former head of the NTSB interview on KNX radio over the weekend thought the latest accident might be enough for Congress to finally mandate PTCS installation.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Here is the situation of the area, listed in the direction of the Metrolink train:
446.8 CP DeSoto, east end siding 445.5 Chatsworth Station 444.4 CP Topanga, west end siding 444.0 east portal Tunnel No. 28 443.9 west portal Tunnel No. 28 (tunnel 537 feet long)
Allowed Speeds Freight: 40 mph throughout the area. (60 mph west of 437.7) Passenger: 50 mph – 440.9-442.6 40 mph – 442.6-444.5 70 mph – 444.5-453.1 Through turnouts at CP's DeSoto and Topanga and on the siding between those points, 45P/40F
Approximate point of collision: milepost 444.2. Collision was in middle of a curve with a central angle of about 90 degrees, so visibility was very limited. Not certain whether Metrolink was on siding or main, but either way, the speed limit for both trains at the point of collision was 40 mph.
I will make no speculation on what went wrong, and would consider it inadvisable to do so.
Posted by yukon11 (Member # 2997) on :
I was also wondering about PTC, "Positive Train Control". I did not even know what PTC was until the term appeared in a newspaper column, this summer, in regard to the proposed SMART train (Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit) which, if approved on the Nov ballot, will have a train between Larkspur, north of the Golden Gate, to Cloverdale, Calif. SMART will run on Northwestern Pacific tracks, and the newspaper column said there could be problems in cooperation if the train initiative is approved and it starts running in a about six years.
SMART wants PTC, but Northwestern Pacific says that Positive Train Control is unrealistically optimistic". The NWP will not only have to coordinate its acitivity with SMART, but it has to establish cooperation and connection schedules with Union Pacific (ugh!), especially in regard to a solid-waste train that NWP plans to operate.
This is going to get interesting if the SMART train initiative passes in November.
Richard
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: Here is the situation of the area, listed in the direction of the Metrolink train:
446.8 CP DeSoto, west end siding 445.5 Chatsworth Station 444.4 CP Topanga, east end siding 444.0 west portal Tunnel No. 28 443.9 east portal Tunnel No. 28 (tunnel 537 feet long)
[...]
Approximate point of collision: milepost 444.2.
So, playing dumb here, the Metrolink's last signal was about 0.2 miles behind it, at the end of twin track? If both were doing 40mph then the freight would never have even seen his signals drop back to red as the Metrolink entered the section - assuming, of course, the freight did have clear signals to begin with. There is a video on YouTube which demonstrates this happening - if anybody wants the link, PM me as I don't feel it appropriate to post publically, though you can probably find it easily.
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: I will make no speculation on what went wrong, and would consider it inadvisable to do so.
I couldn't agree more, for the reasons I stated in my earlier "rant". Just goes to show the true rail(way|road)man you are.
Geoff M.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
As a private pilot and a regular reader of NTSB reports, I could not agree more with Mr. Harris and Mr. Geoff M. about speculation on the causes of transportation accidents until the investigators have done their job and reported their findings. What at first seemed a clear cause often ends up an irrelevancy.
Posted by MontanaJim (Member # 2323) on :
here come the lawsuits. Thats just great, sue the heck out of metrolink. That will bring the victims back to life. And it will result in higher fares for future passengers, as im sure metrolink will pass on the costs to them, just like all businesses do.
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: Before everyone gets all warm and fuzzy about PTC, remember anything invented by man has the possibility of error. Note Smitty's "it is always a chain of errors that leads up to a crash." All PTC does is put one more link in the chain, which also gives it one more place to break. Increased complexity does not necessarily lead to increased safety. The NTSB and before it the ICC are notorious for recommending expensive mechanical solutions to solve all human error accident, and also while making these recommendations blithely ignoring both examples of their failure and any thought of cost-benefit ratios.
I hear some dolt sounding shocked that they were depending upon a "red light" to tell the engineer what to do. What do you think we all do when driving down a city street?
The "dolts" are certainly abounding in this case, George. Colored lights have worked pretty well for the first century-and-a-half on the railways. I agree with your views on the PTC system. It requires its own dedicated radio frequency to operate, I believe. Might not work too well in the mountains perhaps, and is incredibly expensive. I am not hearing anything mentioned about the old style tried 'n true ATS (Automatic Train Stop) systems, which use the simple analog inductors on the engine axle and one on the ground. I believe they are used on the Needles and Marceline Subs, to just name a couple of locations. If I recall, in order for Amtrak to have a 90 MPH limit, ATS was required, but I've been out of the loop for a few years now; could have changed. ATS would be a LOT cheaper than PTC, that's for sure...
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geoff M: [QUOTE]So, playing dumb here, the Metrolink's last signal was about 0.2 miles behind it, at the end of twin track? If both were doing 40mph then the freight would never have even seen his signals drop back to red as the Metrolink entered the section - assuming, of course, the freight did have clear signals to begin with. There is a video on YouTube which demonstrates this happening - if anybody wants the link, PM me as I don't feel it appropriate to post publically, though you can probably find it easily.
Without a signal map and track charts, I do not know where the signals are, but I would say you are probably correct in thinking that the freight had passed the last approach signal before the Metrolink train fouled the circuit. Therefore, he most likely passed a clear signal and would not have seen the next signal before seeing the train itself. Since the freight was on a downhill grade of about 1.0%, he probably was going close to his 40 mph speed limit. The accordioning of the freight cars behind the engines also makes a speed in that range appear to be likely.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
I don't know too much about railroad operations---I'm just a passenger and railfan. But I can pass along what I'm reading in other sources from the experts....the freight train was apparently going approximately 40 MPH and was in dynamic breaking, so there was no slack on the cars they were hauling. Does that make sense?
Posted by delvyrails (Member # 4205) on :
As noted earlier, these severe accidents always are attributed to a number of causes. If any was not present, the accident would not have happened.
Chief among them in my opinion is the habit of expediting freight trains over passenger trains. You'd expect this to be routine on Union Pacific, but not at Chatsworth where a passenger carrier, Metrolink, owns and dispatches the line.
If that eastward UP freight had been safety in the hole at the next siding west of the impact site, this acccident would not have happened.
It's grievously interesting to note that if the commuter train HAD stopped short of the red signal, getting the freight train into the siding there at Chatsworth would have consumed enough time to set the commuter train several minitues behind schedule.
So neither doing the safest course nor keeping its trains running on time seems particularly to have been important for Metrolink in this case.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Even though I'm the "railroad apologist' around here, Mr. Pawson, and normally hold that the Class I industry owes Amtrak little if anything in the way of priority handling, I take a different point of view when a public agency, as you reported, owns and dispatches the rail line in question. For example, in your backyard, NS had best not expect any train operated by either passenger agency (Amtrak or SEPTA) to be "holed' for the convenience of their freight operations.
Even though, to put it mildly, I am "shocked" by the amount of speculation made by official sources (possibly Metrolink's "spin lady' went too far and that is why she is now gone), I believe we must be mindful of Mr. GeoffM's earlier admonishment. I patiently await the NTSB's report which will not likely be a public document for at least one year.
Finally, again regarding Mr. GeoffM's earlier comment, lest we not forget the matter of the hapless security guard at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing incident who was indicted, tried, and convicted by the media, but who was later 'exonerated' by Law Enforcement.
Posted by CG96 (Member # 1408) on :
Automatic Train Stop (ATS), with the analogue inductors, is something of an obsolete technology. It is also expensive, with a return on investment such that many RRs have chosen not to install it. I also have my doubts as to, if installed, ATS would make any difference here in actual operation. The trains in question would have passed all wayside indicators before crashing. Cab signals alone would be a much better choice in these situations.
It should also be noted that for any speeds in excess of 80 mph, either cab signals alone, or Automatic Train Control, or ATS, must be used. That has been a US regulation since at least 1951. That regulation was also part of the downfall of many passenger trains, as, rather than install these systems at the time the reg was promulgated, many private RRs simply chose to reduce their speed limits to 79 mph or less.
Posted by RR4me (Member # 6052) on :
A little ray of sun in this tragic accident, see http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/v/9770647 - this guy has survived two train wrecks. Personally, if he boarded ahead of me, I might think abotu waiting for the next train!
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: I'm reading in other sources from the experts....the freight train was apparently going approximately 40 MPH and was in dynamic breaking, so there was no slack on the cars they were hauling. Does that make sense?
Yes. It was on a downgrade of about 1.0% and 40 mph is the speed limit at that location.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by delvyrails: It's grievously interesting to note that if the commuter train HAD stopped short of the red signal, getting the freight train into the siding there at Chatsworth would have consumed enough time to set the commuter train several minitues behind schedule.
That is simply not true. The cornfield meet was only about 1000 feet beyond the turnout, which means no more than 2 minutes after the time of the collision the freight train would have been clear of the turnout so that the Metrolink train could move. The turnouts to this siding were 40 mph turnouts, which is also the freight train speed limit on the main line in this area.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
There is now some better real information availble:
There was some information from the NTSB that appeared last night. According to another web sites it was:
Train speeds at time of collision: Freight train 25 mph, Metrolink train 42 mph. Point of impact is determined to be MP 444.123.
Points passed by Metrolink train: Chatsworth Station is at MP 445.5 (Stop made there.) Devonshire St. grade crossing is at 445.20. Chatsworth St. grade crossing is at 444.70. CP Topanga is at 444.5, with a detector just west (geographically north) of there.
Beyond the point of collision: East portal of Tunnel #28 is 444.00.
The grade is 1.0% uphill for #111 from Lassen St. (MP 445.70), but on the 6º curves the grade drops to 0.76%.
Distance from station stop to collision point is 1.37 miles, From CP Topanga switch to collision, it is 0.38 miles. From tunnel portal to collision, it is 0.12 miles.
Posted by delvyrails (Member # 4205) on :
In toy trains, it may be exciting to arrange "running meets" or photo finishes between trains; but done day in and day out on a real railroad, it will eventualy lead to disaster--and it did!
Putting a freight train travelling on a single track and operating in the opposite direction in the space scheduled to be occupied simultaneously or nearly so by a passenger train should be outlawed.
It's a matter of safety and has nothing to do with inter-railroad "politics".
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Pawson, I am quite fearful that the possible NTSB recommendations arising from their investigation of this incident could place so many burdens upon any jurisdiction desiring to start a rail passenger system that such proposal will simply be "scrubbed'.
Somehow, I think implementation of the "recommendations" either by regulatory agency directive or enacted legislation will make the "79 MPH" directive (which I think, but not certain, germinated with the 1946 CB&Q Naperville, IL incident) look like the proverbial Sunday School Picnic.
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by delvyrails: Putting a freight train travelling on a single track and operating in the opposite direction in the space scheduled to be occupied simultaneously or nearly so by a passenger train should be outlawed.
Sorry but that is simply impractical. Firstly, it could equally have been another passenger train coming instead of a freight, so your solution doesn't improve the situation there at all. Secondly, doing this would imply absolute priority to passenger trains with full protection up to and into the next siding - which then leads you to ask the question about what happens at the end of the next siding - in other words, you're just shifting the problem to the next siding instead. No freight would ever be able to move within the vicinity of a passenger train. Thirdly, you could have a case of a passenger train with minor casualties but the freight which it collided with was carrying toxic chemicals which leaked and caused an environmental disaster instead, so again no improvement on the situation.
American - in fact virtually all the world's - signalling works mainly on the principle that trains will stop at an absolute stop signal. Assuming in this case that this is what happened, and it wasn't some other failure, then for whatever reason one of those trains didn't - and there was no protection in place to allow for that. There are various ways of enforcing that, as has already been discussed by others.
After the UK's Clapham Junction accident, it was recommended that Automatic Train Protection be fitted throughout the network. Too expensive. So 20 years later we now have TPWS installed at all controlled (aka absolute stop) signals and selected other high risk signals. Rollout across the entire network took about 3 years IIRC. This consists of an arming loop and a trigger loop set a certain distance apart in the track, and a certain distance before the stop signal. If the train passes the trigger loop after the arming loop within a fixed interval of time then the brakes are applied and the train should come to a stand safely. At the signal itself is another arming and trigger loop right next to each other so anything correctly stopping at the signal and then restarting while still red will get tripped at the signal. Now, I wasn't particularly impressed at this as it was only fitted at certain signals and seemed a cheap and dirty solution, but it does appear to have worked - it has stopped a number of trains that were at risk of colliding.
IF, for example, this was a case of running a red light then TPWS would have prevented this particular accident - but I'm not saying that this was the case, which is up to the investigators to determine. I'm also not saying that TPWS is the solution to this - but the point is that a solution can be provided cheaply (for TPWS the relay circuitry is actually pretty simple and can be cut into existing circuitry using spare contacts. Microprocessor logic is equally simple).
Rules and laws are all good and well but it's the enforcing that is the problem.
Geoff M.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
While I should properly defer to Mr. GeoffM for further description, allow me to note that Clapham Jct is likely the businest grade X-ing in the world. All traffic from Waterloo, including the line out to my Sister's one-time "pad" in Barnes, as well as the 1960 steam-powered "boat train' for my first visit to the "Mother Country" AND all traffic from Victoria, such as the trains to Gatwick (GTW/EGLW) cross this "diamond".
When I was in railroad Labor Relations, one of my colleagues, was a US Army officer in charge of security on the eve of D-Day at this absolutely vital railroad facility. Evidently Gen. Eisenhower thought, and the Brits accepted, that security there should be in American hands (that is not to belittle the Commonwealth's contribution to the campaign, it is just recognition that most assets that day were American).
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Originally posted by RR4me:
A little ray of sun in this tragic accident, see this article - this guy has survived two train wrecks. Personally, if he boarded ahead of me, I might think about waiting for the next train!
That's why I thought your description in the first sentence of your post was curious. The more superstitious among us would indeed label this fellow a "jinx"...
quote:George Harris wrote:
Distance from station stop to collision point is 1.37 miles, From CP Topanga switch to collision, it is 0.38 miles. From tunnel portal to collision, it is 0.12 miles
That last distance is but 634 feet.
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: [..] Clapham Jn [...] Gatwick (GTW/EGLW) cross this "diamond".
Should really be in another thread but... LGW/EGKK is Gatwick. Clapham Jn is certainly not a diamond (possibly any more, I can't speak for several decades ago). In fact the two signalling centres that control it (Victoria and Wimbledon) leave most of the signals in auto ("fleeting" in American-speak) during the day. The two signalboxes are completely independent now and one cannot cross from one to another on the level - there are other connections via flyovers and diveunders. There is a poor quality photo at http://www.flickr.com/photos/innesross/220423096/ with Clapham in the top left where the rows of white lights are (no idea who the star of the photo is). I believe this panel is of 1960s vintage.
But it is certainly the busiest station in Britain.
Geoff M.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
One of the consequences of the Metrolink crash is that the Los Angeles Times almost immediately created an interactive online database giving personal details about the victims. Read about it here (the story also has a link to the database):
Ouch; was I ever mistaken regarding the IATA and the ICAO for Gatwick.
Now I haven't been over since 1986, but at the time the lines from Victoria and those from Waterloo X'd at Clapham at grade with one another. Evidently there has been an infrastructure improvement since them.
The IATA & ICAO airport codes are readilly available through Google; I should have checked.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
LA Times has a 30 page slideshow done by Californai PUC.
You might want to have a caution before viewing the slide show. There is one that might be disturbing.
Mr. Norman--
You might be interested to know that the buzz in the industry is that the BAA is ready to sell off Gatwick. Continental has already announced plans to pull out in favor of LHR.
Frank in dark and cool SBA
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Here's an interesting take on the accident from a singular source:
Mr. Kisor, apparently "The Daily Worker" lives on.
Mr. SBA Frank; off topic at a railforum (well, but then it appears that more members here than not have traveled overseas; some solely for the purpose of a marathon ride with a Eurailpass), yes "open skies" means that more carriers than UA (as successor to PA), AA (as successor to TW), and BA will serve LHR/EGLL than before. But then there is no restriction pursuant to the open skies treaty on an airport operator from establishing "landing slots', and I would think that LGW/EGKK is not going the way of CGX/KCGX (Meigs field).
With the demise of the "boutique' Trans-Atlantic carriers, such as EOS, Silverside, and whoever, Stansted (STN/EGSS), and Luton (LTN/EGGW) are sort of "dormant' at present. But despite what some here may wish, air transport will continue to be "The Only Way to Cross" (that Mr. Paulshore, is intentionally quoted as it is the title of a book ex libris on Trans-Atlantic sailings). The Queen Mary represents far less market share than does even Amtrak LD in their respective markets.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
My overseas travel, sadly, has been limited to that prescribed by the United States Army and was hardly recreational in nature.
I did have the opportunity to observe first generation US diesels toiling their final days in the Saudi Arabian desert however.
Posted by HopefulRailUser (Member # 4513) on :
Henry, that article was very interesting. It is amazing how it presented facts as possible facts and then just said the opposite might be true without any documentation as to why that was so.
For instance: "Metrolink claims its computer showed Train No. 111 going by a stop signal right into an oncoming Union Pacific freight train. (The three Union Pacific crew members were injured but survived.) But the actual signal indication on the tracks could have been different."
And men from Mars "could have" caused the whole thing I guess.
Did we really bomb Yugoslavia?
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
Slightly odd report. I thought NTSB had jurisdication; PUC is not something I've heard of. The report looked rather amateurish and, as stated, didn't present much evidence to back it up.
As far as I know, the only way they would have known that the Metrolink had passed the signal was if/when the switch became "out of correspondance" (not detected in the position determined by the interlocking). Track circuit occupancy alone is unlikely to have revealed it as the freight was so close to the switch anyway. Lucky for them to survive though with just 4 seconds to react.
It was reported on BBC Radio 2 this morning that "investigators had determined that the engineer had sent a text message one minute before the accident". But I see nothing to back that claim up beyond rumours and speculation.
Geoff M.
Posted by HopefulRailUser (Member # 4513) on :
Geoff, it was a local TV station here that became friends with the young men who were communicating with the engineer. And the station proudly keeps bringing that up. At any rate, they have shown the cell phone face with the message and the time of 4:22 pm several times.
However, I suppose that would be the time received. Could it not have been formulated and sent from the stop at the Chatsworth station?
PUC is the Public Utilities Commission here.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. GeoffM, the NTSB is considered over here to be an efficient agency; they have never been on the wrong end of a "Brownie, your doing a hekkuva job..." moment.
The Metrolink spokesman was obviously out of line; much earlier in the thread you will note I literally fell out of my chair (I was on my own with only my Times to keep me company that Morning) during Breakfast at an upscale hotel in an upscale community when I learned she was being judge and jury in the matter - and convicting her own man at that!!
That a Local agency, the California Public Utilities Commission, "got into it' is likely because it was an intrastate passenger train on which the fatalities occurred. That the UPRR, an interstate carrier, suffered damages exceeding a threshold, is likely the NTSB's direction, absent an invitation from a Local agency, to be afforded jurisdiction in the matter.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
The California Public Utilities Commission is the state agency that regulates railroads along with a lot of other things. Their teeth have been pulled on many of their railroad regualtions due to court decisions that they have been prempted due to the Interstate Commerce clause in the Constitution. Most of these court decision were the result of the PUC attempting to require certain things that the railroad companies considered as excessively onerous, so they took the agency to court and won.
Their cell phone rule is at docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/COMMENT_RESOLUTION/91003.htm
Funnily enough, I can not find the slide show on their web site, only on the LA Times site.
After the drive in front of the train accident there was a move to get the PUC to prhibit push mode operation. However, they found that even if they did, it would only apply to Metrolink, Caltrain, and other in state commuter agencies. It could not be enforced against Amtrak which runs push-pull trains all over the state, including the San Diego train that run 90 mph for part of their trips. The rule was opposed by all the commuter agencies that would be affected, so it died a quiet death.
The NTSB has no regulatory authority, but I beleive that they do have the authority to investigate any rail accident anywhere in the US regardless of whether or not the system is classified as being in "interstate commerce". They then make recommendations to all involved parties. Initially the NTSB only investigated aircraft accidents, so their early excursions into the railroad field led to some rather strange and silly looking discussions and recommendations. They still strongly promote PTC or any other form of external automatic control every chance they get. In this, they are really not that far from some of the doings of the old ICC, which would follow up an investigation of an accident in timetable and train order territory with a recommendation for installion of block signals, even if the line only carried a couple of trains a day.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Very interesting article in today's New York Times about engineer Sanchez:
That is interesting stuff, especially concerning Mr. Sanchez as a diabetic. I realize his medical file is confidential at this time, but if he was an insulin-dependent diabetic, especially if his blood sugar was diffcult to control (brittle), I find it troubling that he remained in a position where he was responsible for other's lives.
I live with an insulin-dependent diabetic (my wife), and she has lately had trouble keeping her blood sugar within bounds which has resulted in her wrecking the family car twice within the past year (yes, she's grounded now), and her falling and breaking her ankle recently.
Posted by JONATHON (Member # 2899) on :
Wow, I realy hope Rob Sanches is remembered for an Engineer who loved trains and his job and not as just someone who was playing with a cell phone, I text ALOT, all the time, and when I seen the news and they showed the tex massage on the kid's phone it was only about a line or so of words, witch takes only a very short time to write, at 40mph, you can see an aproaching sigal way more than the time required to write that, and whether he WAS texing at the time has yet to be proved, Robs cell phone was never found, nore any real proof that he was using it, even then, and if he was, is that what caused the crash? or just a bad coinsidance?
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
That, Jonathon, is something the investigators will likely determine in the fullness of time. That article raises more possibilities and theories, some of which could well render Mr. Sanchez innocent - or otherwise - hence my admonishment of speculation earlier.
Geoff M.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Geoff, you are absolutely correct that we should not speculate until NTSB has all the facts in and rules on them.
But we do anyway.
It is human nature to want to know the reasons behind things, and that is why the media tries to find them out as soon as possible. That's demand and supply at work in the information industry.
I guess all we can do is keep a "Not Yet Proven" mindset until it is otherwise.
Posted by City of Miami (Member # 2922) on :
What a sad story, re: NYT. The whole thing, really, but especially the suicide and family reaction. Nothing in life is simple and people are all so very complicated, including each and every other person who died in that crash. Zen teaches that the long concatenation of events is beginingless and endless.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
So what are you saying, City of Miami, that the engineer or maybe just someone on the train was packing bad Karma in his (or her) unchecked baggage? Maybe the TSA could get some dogs, trained in Zen, to sniff that stuff out. Sorry to be so flip, but I am going out on a limb with a prediction that when the truth comes out, it will be revealed that Mr. Sanchez should not have been operating an engine hauling a passenger train due to medical reasons.
Posted by City of Miami (Member # 2922) on :
Mike - Everyone on the train had their karma, i.e. not good or bad, just the inconceivable complex of events that led to each of them being who they are at that moment. Remember the fascinating book of Thornton Wilder on the subject: The Bridge of San Luis Rey? I merely meant to underline the opinion I read elsewhere by those more knowledgeable than I that not one thing caused this tragedy but a series of things, a change in any one of which would have averted the catastrophe.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
There are other ways of saying the same thing:
"A sparrowfart can eventually result in a hurricane." (I believe this is part of chaos theory.)
"Six degrees of Kevin Bacon."
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
I'm sorry -- I conflated two sayings: "[as influential] as a sparrowfart in a windstorm" and "the flutter of a butterfly's wing can spawn a hurricane."
Gettin' old and the cliches meld into one another.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
I wouldn't regard the (left-leaning) NY Times as too reliable of a news outlet nowadays. They've been anti-rail for a while now (which is yet another thing that kills the notion of left-wing politics and pro-rail advocacy going hand in hand). Not to mention, right-leaning Fox News indicates that texting may not have been the cause of the crash.
This incident is another black mark against Connex (nowadays Veolia Transportation), if anything. (And Connex is still operating the Luas in Dublin, Ireland too.) The LA Times reports on Veolia's efforts to lobby for delays in meal breaks, which would be troublesome for a railroad where the hoggers work 53-hour weeks and same-day split shifts resulting in 10½-hour days.
Posted by RR4me (Member # 6052) on :
Well, the suits have started. A brakeman on the freight has filed suit, along with his wife. Did they think the money would run out before they could get "theirs"?.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by RR4me: Well, the suits have started. A brakeman on the freight has filed suit
Associated Press coverage (courtesy of The New York Times) of the story noted by Mr. Railroad for Me:
Oh; and if anyone need ask the meaning of "loss of consortium" here you go.
Finally, that there was a Brakeman assigned to the freight suggests that it had much local work to do on its route. Through freights can be assigned a crew consist of Engineer and Conductor only. There is a remote possibility, and I do mean remote, that this was apparently a Local freight could be a factor in the allocation of fault from the incident.
Posted by City of Miami (Member # 2922) on :
I thought it was announced from the outset that this was a local freight that ran everyday. How might this fact be a factor in allocation of fault, Mr. Norman?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Lets hang on to that one for a year until the NTSB report is out, Mr City.
Note I did say remote.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by RR4me: Well, the suits have started. A brakeman on the freight has filed suit, along with his wife. Did they think the money would run out before they could get "theirs"?.
At the risk of stating the obvious:
Railroad employees are not covered by Workmen's Compensation. Therefore, if you are hurt on the job you must either depend upon the doubtful quantity of the "goodness of the heart" of your employer or find a lawyer.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris, there is no "goodness of heart" whatever under FELA. From the moment of injury, regardless of apparent fault, the employee and employer are quite simply "adverse parties".
True, the friendly railroad claim adjustor will be trying to offer an employee quick $$$ in exchange for the Release, but I think any employee with IQ sufficient to be hired and retained in railroad service knows, especially where the scope of the injury is undetermined, to accept any such offer.
What is most brutal is that an injured employee has no applicable health insurance. There is no subrogating by a health insurance carrier when the matter is settled...there is nothing....and if anyone around here has no health insurance and has needed medical attention, they know all well that health care providers can get rather "aggressive" with their collection efforts.
Finally, Patrick, if you are looking for a social injustice to rant about, first count your blessings in the not-for-profit sector you are covered by Worker's Comp, then read up on FELA and start ranting. I'll be in your corner on this one, as a dear long time friend (not a girlfriend, she's married) and railroad colleague quite simply had her life and her family "wrecked' over a FELA matter.
Posted by amtraxmaniac (Member # 2251) on :
I concur. It is unjust. And I'm not ashamed to say that is why I do non profit work and decided sometime in my 20's to forego my dream of being an engineer.
Blessings depend on your perspective. If you view the world by comparing yourself with the 'have nots', yes, I am fortunate. Unfortunately, these are trying times in both the public and private sector. My job is dependent on funding sources/aka, political: based on state and local budgets. Mr Norman, I take it you've followed the mess out here in California in terms of the budget crisis (finally passed-88 days late)....the point I'm making is that ALL sectors of employment are vulnerable to something. There are pro's and cons to any field, and (I don't believe anyone would disagree) an injustice is injustice: regardless of the source or cause.
And in terms of Worker's Comp, I've had my issues with them as of recently, so I don't exactly consider Worker's Comp a blessing. Lets just say I ended up spending money out of my own pocket when I was released prematurely and the medical issue persisted. I ended up spending thousands. The WC doctors did so very little, that the ailment got WORSE. I filed a complaint with WC that, for what I was told, likely went straight to the shredder. I was basically stamped as a malingerer even though to that point I had only missed a single day of work over the injury and I was not asking for time off: just appropriate medical treatment since the injury DID occur on the clock.
A blessing?!?!?! Lets try workers comp reform gone WILD.
Posted by amtraxmaniac (Member # 2251) on :
Back on topic, I ride Metrolink once in a great while and feel for this Sanchez fella. Before, we all crucify the guy, we don't know the facts as of yet. We have some pressumed facts. For all we know, prior to this tragedy, he could have been a very dedicated and skilled worker. He could have made an momentary lapse in judgement. None of us in here can, I believe, honestly say we haven't made a bad judgement or two in our jobs. But that highlights the pressure these guys are under. One lapse of judgement can cost several lives. This guy, if I'm not mistaken was in the middle of a double/split shift. Fatigue could have been a factor. But, again that's speculation.
My fear is that the traveling public will begin to look down on Metrolink employees and the service they provide. I hope the travelling public is tolerant and intellegent enough to realize that those who operate these trains are trained professionals who take their jobs very seriously. I know this must have effected the Metrolink ranks in ways we cannot comprehend. Those who utilize Metrolink need to show our confidence in them by getting RIGHT back on the trains.
Posted by Ham Radio (Member # 6587) on :
quote:
Finally, that there was a Brakeman assigned to the freight suggests that it had much local work to do on its route. Through freights can be assigned a crew consist of Engineer and Conductor only. There is a remote possibility, and I do mean remote, that this was apparently a Local freight could be a factor in the allocation of fault from the incident. [/QB]
The UP local is assigned to UP Los Angeles Service Unit with the applicable labor agreement (former SP Western Lines pact) in force. (Full disclosure: I work under this agreement.)
The job that was hit by the Metrolink train is currently bulletined for a three man crew consisting of an engineer, conductor and brakeman. By agreement, it pays a road day, or 175 miles equivalent.
I won't get into allocating fault, but the only train that had CTC authority to be on the section of track at the time of the collision was the UP crew. (Additional disclosure: I know and have in the past worked with the injured conductor)
We will wait for the final report and the tort system to shake it all out.
Posted by Konstantin (Member # 18) on :
I have not seen much information on the freight crew. Were they all in the locomotive just before the collision? Did any of them jump when they saw the Metrolink coming?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Patrick--
The same tripe of "no budget" moves forth here in Illinois. While the two Social Service agencies I had in my clientele are well funded from private sources and could "weather the storm" when both the State Child Protection (DCFS) and the Human Service (DHS) departments were 'broke' account no Illinois budget, there were some small agencies providing needed service with value to the taxpayers that could not. I know of one that did not and closed its doors (I'm sure there's more to the story to which I am not privy).
But back on the rails, to Mr. Ham Radio, thanks for confirming that this UP train is by Local Agreement assigned a Brakeman, and dispelling any thoughts on my part of "don't the papers know the difference between a Conductor and Brakeman?" (it's not 'featherbedding" in my mind Mr. Ham; if there is a lot of work to do en route, I know you need that third man), but let us, all of us, defer from speculation until "the pros' do their job. The NTSB is good, and I had the privilege to know a "good man" with the MILW who left the "sinking ship' (well, derailed train) to join that agency.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Mr. Harris, there is no "goodness of heart" whatever under FELA. From the moment of injury, regardless of apparent fault, the employee and employer are quite simply "adverse parties".
Tongue was firmly in cheek on "goodness of heart"
I felt it needed to be clearly stated that the UP train crew has no recourse except legal action to cover what anyone in any other industry would expect to happen as a matter of course, that is, their employer would cover their costs in this situation.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Mr. Norman, also concerning, "health care providers can get rather "aggressive" with their collection efforts." can also be regarded as somewhat of an understatment. After a car accident that had me off work for 6 weeks some 26 years ago, I called all my creditors and had credit problems from only two sources: the hospital and Sears. The hospital set the bill to collection 30 days after bill that came after my insurance paid their share which was also a week after my doctor said I could go back to work part time. Sears responded to my call by saying your account is closed until you return to work. I had never been late or even paid only the minimum. I have lived without them since.
Posted by JONATHON (Member # 2899) on :
Heres something, the kid said he recieced that txt a minute before the crash, the crash site is 2 minutes from the last Station, a text message takes between 10 and 15 seconds to reach the reciever, and thats only if you have a good signal, it can take 30 seconds to a few minutes, so this means the last text message sent would have been sent while the train was stoped in the station, or rite before it pulled away, and since the engineer and conductor never exchanced call to confirm the last to signals before impact means there may very well be a missing puzzle piece to this incident, and wouldnt breaking the Siding switch alert the Engineer? or was he incopasatated?
as for Metrolink admitting fault, I think they paniced when they relized there driver made the fatal mistake and decided admitting fault would soften the blow when it came to pointing fingers, but now if they prove that something else was the resone the Engineer fail to stop at the signal its to late to claim innocences
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
JONATHON, wud u plz let the NTSB do there job???
If they nead u az xpurt witnis, thayll call u
tks
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
Rite awn, Meester Gil!
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Wuzzup, OM and GBN, wid dis teentextese? U mkn fun of Jnthn?
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
Apparently, Jonathon was doing some heavy-duty railfanning the day they went over spelling in his school. No matter, GBN and I figured out the gist of his message; I still say that the NTSB may conclude that the ill-fated engineer was "incopasatated."
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
Gentlemen, from my teaching years I can see that Jonathon spells by sound not by sight. That is what happened when some school systems went "overboard" and made phonics the be-all.If you read his postings that way you can see how that fits. Jonathon,if you are not just playing around may I suggest you simply use the spell check on your computer. For those of you who do not understand what I am saying try pronouncing cough and dough. Or how about too,to, and two. Or dear and dear, Then you can see why a lot of kids simply gave up.
Posted by JONATHON (Member # 2899) on :
Sorry Im to busy to be spending lots of time on the computer, beside its not like you dont get the message
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
Jonathon's spelling should not be the issue here. We all have areas where our skills are lacking, but that does not make us incompetent. We all have our little quirks, and that just makes life all the more interesting. Jonathon is knowledgeable about many subjects relevant to this board and I think he makes a valid point about the timing of the text message and the knee-jerk fingerpointing (to use a mixed metaphor) by Metrolink.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
I'm with Mr. Toy. My current version of the free Mozilla Firefox browser has "as you type" spell check when entering text. It works well on this forum without requiring any extra steps.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
I appreciate Jonathon's clear explanation of the texting time issues, and also understand it as coming from someone who knows what he is talking about first hand. I don't. And at this stage of the game have no intent to learn. Nor do I see him as stepping on the NTSB's toes here, not that he could if he wanted to. The toes of the NTSB are already deeply buried under the feet of various legislative bodies, the Calif. PUC, every reporter anywhere close, and sundry other self important loudmouths all of which probably have less understanding of what happened than Jonathon, and by their supposed experience levels should well know better than to shoot of their mouth with much of what they are saying.
Trainlady, I don't even want to begin to talk about a lot of the nonsense that passes for necessary parts of education at the current time and its relationship to knowledge useful in life.
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
Amen, George!!!! Frightening isn't it. The sad thing is this nonsense has been going on for so long ( in my opinion)
Posted by zephyr (Member # 1651) on :
As sad as the orginial topic of this thread, humor has taken over. I consider Mr. "No-Sense-of-Humor" Norman's northerly post probably the funniest I've read hereabouts.
Until Mr. Toy trumped it:
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Toy: ...We all have areas where our skills are lacking, but that does not make us incompetent...
Yeh, baby. My "skills" at brain surgery are a little "lacking" (truth be told, I have none), but, heh, relax, and let me saw open your cranium and poke around a bit in your cerebrum.
"Lacking skills" does not make us "incompetent?" Mr. Toy, you're joking, right? If not, would you please guide me to a better dictionary. Mine defines "incompetent" as "showing a lack of skill."
But, on a serious note to you jokesters, I have a concern. And that is...
I'm not an official member of the Grammar Gestapo. Actually, I consider myself a sinner and "flaming liberal" in that area. But...I'd like to suggest to some around here that you're doing no one any favors for defending and justifying horrifically poor grammar.
Might it be better to encourage the grammatically-challenged "youngsters" to improve their skills? By continuing their formal education, or by other means. Do those of you who consistently "excuse" poor grammar also "excuse" (let's say, to your kids or grandkids) smoking (or pick your most hated vice) by pointing out "FDR" (or pick your relevant hero) did it?
Hmm---are y'all just being funny, and I got egg on my face for taking y'all seriously? If so, fine, the egg will wash off. If not, ur al a binch of frign eg heds.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by zephyr: As sad as the orginial topic of this thread, humor has taken over. I consider Mr. "No-Sense-of-Humor" Norman's northerly post probably the funniest I've read hereabouts.
Until Mr. Toy trumped it:
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Toy: ...We all have areas where our skills are lacking, but that does not make us incompetent...
Yeh, baby. My education and skills at brain surgery are a little "lacking" (truth be told, I have none), but, heh, relax, and let me saw open your cranium and take a look at your cerebrum.
"Lacking skills" does not make us "incompetent?" Mr. Toy, you're joking, right? If not, would you please guide me to a better dictionary. Mine defines "incompetent" as "showing a lack of skill." How does your dictionary define "incompetent." Please share.
My understanding of Mr. Toy's post, and one with which I agree, is that poor skill in one area does not equate to incompetence overall. I will admit to incompetence in hitching a team of mules to a wagon that I watched my grandfather do without pause to think, but since I was under 5 the last time I saw it because he replaced the wagon with a truck, I feel no embarassment about that form of incompetence.
Posted by zephyr (Member # 1651) on :
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: ...My understanding of Mr. Toy's post, and one with which I agree, is that poor skill in one area does not equate to incompetence overall...
Let's stipulate the obvious (to your interpretation of Toy's statement, not my read on it).
Lack of skills in a ka-zillion areas doesn't make us incompetent in other areas. That's life. That's true of all of us. A point so obvious it raises the question of "why state it?"
This all started with a humorous response, in Jonathon-lingo, that stated "let what will be a lengthy and thorough investigation play out."
Shortly thereafter, the Grammar Apologists started their predictable dance. Suddenly the "defense of mis-spelling" became the issue, rather than the point of Mr. Norman's post.
Well, I just don't care to dance that dance. But I do care to suggest to Jonathon to "improve your writing skills." By whatever means. You're young, you can do it, and it will be a life-long asset.
Posted by Ira Slotkin (Member # 81) on :
The Ungrammatical Poet
The quality of a piece of prose May be measured by knowledge the author shows About leaving infinitives to split and dribble, Or the indefatigable participle. Proper phrases, e.g. those adverbial, Prove to be a problem proverbial; Profuse punctuation (and alliteration) Prompt problems in a recitation; I have no doubt the subjective conjunction Plays some significant rhetorical function; Where to insert a semicolon Has suffered the spirit of many a solon; The dash – as distinguished from the hyphen – Ante- and pre- cedes a phrase to enlighten, Rather than splitting or joining two words Which would otherwise flee, each free as a bird.
‘Tis a burden in prose or in poems to be using Good grammar’s rules, they can be quite confusing. Although I concede: grammar that’s watched Is grammar well read, grammar top notched; Follow the rules and what one has to say Will gracefully rise like smoke o’er the fray. Still, I gratefully sighs ‘cause poetic license Exempts me from any grammatical crisis. I hope those whom my errors have thusly abused Are moved, or are touched, or dare I hope amused? Then I’ll not be chastised for guidelines discarded. Please attribute to anarchist views (held whole-hearted) My pattern and practice - and possibly worse - Of pitiful grammar, but pithful verse.
Ira
Posted by Railroad Bob (Member # 3508) on :
Good to see you back posting, Mr. Slotkin! Somewhere in the place where famous deceased wordsmiths go, Eddie Poe is smiling down on you in his macabre sort of way...must be that Halloween is drawing nigh. We needed a break from the somber Chatsworth wreck thread, anyway!
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by zephyr: But whether it be photography, or whatever path you choose to pursue, improving your grammatical skills will only make your vocational skills more effective.
Agreed. I regularly interview candidates for jobs in my company. Any CV [resume] that contains a number of grammatical errors shows a lack of care and those CVs go straight into the recycling container. While this forum isn't anywhere near as important as applying for a job, you'd be surprised at how many recruiters these days do some private investigation of their potential candidates - and that means potentially finding posts on forums which could alter their view of a candidate.
quote:Originally posted by zephyr: I guess what I'm trying to say is it's like a drunk's friends. Though most "friends" might buy him the next one, the "best" friend might say "Hey, Dude, give your liver a break."
Wow, that's deep. I might use it myself except I wouldn't fit into the "best" friend category!
Geoff M.
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by JONATHON: or was he incopasatated?
Incapacitated is one possible reason why nobody should be pointing fingers without fact. I believe they can tell a surprising amount from the autopsy and either rule in or rule out the possibility of involuntary incapacitation on the part of Mr. Sanchez.
Geoff M.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
ZING! Zephyr got me, and I take a bite of humble pie. As one who makes efforts to make sure the meaning of my written words are clear, I made a huge boo-boo. Even in areas where one is generally competent, we are all subject to the stupid move now and then. Unfortunately, the same may apply to engineers and other persons responsible for public safety, so some sort of redundancy is in order, either in the form of automated back-up systems, or adopting the FAA rule of a second pair of eyes in the cockpit.
Hundreds of lives shouldn't rely on an engineer never making a mistake.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Geoff M is absolutely correct about employment candidates being subject to checking-out on the Internet. Before I retired from my editorial job, I found myself Googling everyone who proposed to write a piece for my bailiwick. On a number of occasions certain derogatory information turned up.
Young folks need to take this to heart before posting anything on Facebook or MySpace.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Off topic, but I guess some of us must accept, difficult as it may be, that this is how young persons communicate with one another:
Speaking for myself, my current cell phone, an LG marketed by Verizon, is reasonably "loaded out' and probably can support text messages. I know it can support video as somehow in my pocket some combination of buttons got hit and darned if there isn't some kind of image, namely of what was around, displayed on the screen (if somehow SND got pushed, I'd be in debtor's prison). While during my "56 postings and poetry" joyride last July I made about a dozen calls as well as maybe four when out East for the wedding, "that's it' for cell phone use since June after returning from the trip that had me "hooking up" with Mr. and Mrs. Train Lady.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
It has recently become apparent that skill in forming coherent and well constructed sentences is not even, in the opinion of some, a requirement for running the country.
Posted by Railroad Bob (Member # 3508) on :
quote:Originally posted by TwinStarRocket: It has recently become apparent that skill in forming coherent and well constructed sentences is not even, in the opinion of some, a requirement for running the country.
But TSR, I still think we should build more nucular power plants. Or is that spelled/pronounced "nuclear?" (-: I'm the decider here...
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Bob, I was thinking more of potential deciders such as Tina Fey.
Posted by RR4me (Member # 6052) on :
Holy moly, or is that wholey moley? Has this thread proven knot theory?
Posted by JONATHON (Member # 2899) on :
Thanx Mr.Toy, as for my theory, thats out the window, today they anounced the tex was sent only 22 seconds before the crash, they didnt say if that was the time it was sent or receieved, just that it was 22 seconds before the crash
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Even more off topic, iPhone users may be delighted to know about this:
It seems as if some posters look askance at text-messaging, as if it's solely an obsession of careless youth.
For the deaf and hard of hearing who cannot use voice cell phones, texting is a lifesaver and an instrument of liberation.
A deaf Amtrak passenger at a sizable urban station, for instance, can use texting to call a taxi by texting to a a wireless relay service, which will relay the call to a taxi company.
Deaf pilots can use texting to obtain weather conditions at airports where they plan to land. (Believe me, it's not easy when thermals and gusts are tossing the aircraft like a salad.)
Deaf husbands can use texting to call their wives from cocktail lounges and tell them they're working late at the office.
Posted by MDRR (Member # 2992) on :
To take this somewhat back on topic, Both Amtrak (at least NEC), and Metro North put out a bulletin order yesterday prohibiting operating crews from using cell phones while on duty. I didn't see the exact wording but I assume with limited exceptions...
Posted by Judy McFarland (Member # 4435) on :
Mr Kisor: thank you for your info on texting for the deaf. I hadn't thought of that advantage for some.
Posted by amtraxmaniac (Member # 2251) on :
Texting is not soley an obsession of careless youth at all. It is actually cheaper to send a text than to make a peak-time call on most plans. It also allows DISCRETION when communicating. Its not just teenagers that require such discetion.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Amtraxmaniac, you are so right about discretion while texting. Two years ago, a Miss Deaf Texas was killed by a freight train while walking along tracks rapt in her text messager.
Texting while driving is even stupider than cell phoning while driving. But people who should know better do it anyway.
Posted by Floridian (Member # 8304) on :
The NTSB update posted on the other thread stated the engineer was working a split shift. What effect, if any, could that have had in contributing to the accident?
Also, is split shift scheduling commonplace (industry-wide - not just Metrolink)for engineers?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
"Split shifts" are quite commonplace in railroad, freight and passenger, service, Ms. Floridian. The Hours of Service Law permits such provided the break in service ("respite" in real railroadese) is not less than four hours and "suitable lodging" is provided for the break. In which case, the "respite" is a "time-out'; allowing the statutory "twelve hours" of service to be considerably extended. Example: an Engineer reports for duty a 6AM; he operates a train until 1130A at which time he is directed to go off duty (and provided "suitable lodging") and return to duty at 4PM. He then operates a train until 9PM. Overall time on duty 15hours, less 4.5hr 'respite'. Time 'at the throttle' 10.5hr, or "legal" under Hours of Service.
Posted by Floridian (Member # 8304) on :
GBN - Thanks for the explanation. I was worried that he had to go home between shifts.
Posted by The Chief (Member # 2172) on :
Well I don't think Norman should kick Jonathon, regardless of his spelling.
And BTW the NYTimes no longer is the newspaper of record in the U.S. It has fallen, like most dailies (18 out of the Top 20), as circulation spirals downward, and objectivity disappears, and that ultra-liberal bent manifests itself in the NYT news columns. "The Gray Lady?" I think not. Try "The Dead Lady." And besides, it doesn't even have comics.
Posted by City of Miami (Member # 2922) on :
I have another question: What is CP Topanga anyway? Is it the switch where there's a crossover to the siding? Why is it called Topanga and others 40 or 50, etc. Is that name of an intersecting street? What does CP stand for?
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Three people that should know what they were looking at say they saw the signal and it was green.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by City of Miami: I have another question: What is CP Topanga anyway? Is it the switch where there's a crossover to the siding? Why is it called Topanga and others 40 or 50, etc. Is that name of an intersecting street? What does CP stand for?
CP Topanga is the switch at the west (compass north) end of the siding. "CP" means "Control Point"
Way back on the first page of this thread:
Here is the situation of the area, listed in the direction of the Metrolink train:
446.8 CP DeSoto, east end siding 445.5 Chatsworth Station 444.4 CP Topanga, west end siding 444.0 east portal Tunnel No. 28 443.9 west portal Tunnel No. 28 (tunnel 537 feet long)
Allowed Speeds Freight: 40 mph throughout the area. (60 mph west of 437.7) Passenger: 50 mph – 440.9-442.6 40 mph – 442.6-444.5 70 mph – 444.5-453.1 Moving through turnouts at CP's DeSoto and Topanga and on the siding between those points, 45P/40F
Note: Even though the railroad direction is westbound for the train, the orientation of the track through Chatsworth station and the CP DeSoto to CP Topanga siding is almost exactly south to north, so there is no "sun in his eyes" possible.
Posted by City of Miami (Member # 2922) on :
Thanks, George. Is 'CP' railroadese for switch? I deduced from your post on the first page of this thread that CP designated the ends of the siding so must be the switches. Where do the names come from, i.e. DeSoto/Topanga, just out of curiosity. 'Control Point' - that's what I totally didn't know and couldn't find and google didn't help me out for once!
Posted by cubzo (Member # 4700) on :
Topanga is the name of an indian tribe that used to live in the area. and I would guess Desoto comes from the explorer.
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: Three people that should know what they were looking at say they saw the signal and it was green.
According to reports here and elsewhere, the last two signals were not called out. There is a signal at CP DeSoto, an intermediate one before Chatsworth, and the end-of-siding one at CP Topanga. The one at CP DeSoto apparently shows flashing yellow if the Topanga signal is red; the intermediate one showing steady yellow. This makes sense with the linespeeds and stopping distances quoted. Have there been any reports of whether or what aspect was called for the DeSoto signal? If it was called as green then the Metrolink had some sort of proceed aspect at Topanga; if it was called as flashing yellow then he didn't.
If the Topanga signal was showing a false proceed aspect then it doesn't matter what the data loggers in the interlocking show, as they only report what they commanded the signal to do, not what it actually did. Depending on the installation, one loose wire between the interlocking and the lamps themselves could be all it needs to false-feed the DR (green) aspect. This is what happened at Clapham (UK, late 1980s) which resulted in all new installations needing double-cutting of relays to help prevent stray wires false-feeding vital contacts.
Geoff M.
Posted by dnsommer (Member # 2825) on :
Shouldn't this entire thread belong in the commuter rail forum?
Dave S.
Posted by rresor (Member # 128) on :
To Geoff M:
With due respect, I think US signal systems are a bit more sophisticated than those in Britain, and it would take more than one loose wire to produce a false clear. Also, the signal at CP Topanga is an "absolute" (home) signal whose normal (default) display would be red. If it were green continuously, someone certainly would have noticed.
For the record, the engineer did call the signal at CP DeSoto as "advance approach" (flashing yellow), as I understand it. The next signal, just before the Chatsworth stop, would have displayed solid yellow (approach). It is almost inconceivable to me that the home signal at CP Topanga could have displayed clear in these circumstances.
In any case, all commands sent to, and responses received from, the field are logged. Again, the default indication would have been "stop". The dispatcher reversed the switch and then cleared the signal for the eastbound freight into the siding. That would have required the signal governing a westbound move on the main track to be red. As I understand it, tests by NTSB confirmed everything was in order. No loose wires.
A false clear is possible on an intermediate (automatic) signal if the track circuit doesn't shunt properly. On a home signal, it's literally impossible unless the signal is wired incorrectly -- and NTSB's tests would have uncovered that.
A bigger question, to me, is why engineer Sanchez took no action. If he was alert, he should have seen the red signal and also the freight, in time to initiate emergency braking. If he was incapacitated, in the time it took for the train to travel from the Chatsworth stop to the collision, the "alertor" in the cab should have stopped the train (they require a response every 30 seconds or so, and I understand it took 80 seconds from departure Chatsworth to the accident).
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
quote:Originally posted by dnsommer: Shouldn't this entire thread belong in the commuter rail forum?
Dave S.
LOL!!
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by rresor: To Geoff M:
With due respect, I think US signal systems are a bit more sophisticated than those in Britain, and it would take more than one loose wire to produce a false clear. Also, the signal at CP Topanga is an "absolute" (home) signal whose normal (default) display would be red. If it were green continuously, someone certainly would have noticed.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on which is more sophisticated! As I said before, we require double cutting which means it takes TWO loose wires doing the same false feed in order to get a wrong side failure. Double cutting in this instance means both the positive and return wires both being put through relay contacts, compared to your traditional method of just switching either one or the other, usually the positive.
All I was trying to do was explain how, if the onlookers were correct, a green could have been shown whilst the data loggers recorded a red being commanded. If the engineer did call an advance approach then that sounds like the signal *should* have been red.
I don't have the typical US signalling circuits with me at the moment but I agree that with your statements about false indications being "literally impossible". FWIW, US signalling circuits are very similar to UK circuits in the foundation levels, even using the same relay contact names. Where they sometimes differ is that of aspect control. That one possibility is as I stated above - far beyond the reach of data loggers as it's the final link between interlocking and signal lamps. An unlikely scenario but one which has happened before. And I'm not theorising that this is what happened here; just trying to explain one possible reason IF the onlookers were correct in their statements that the signal was green.
Geoff M.
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty195:
quote:Originally posted by dnsommer: Shouldn't this entire thread belong in the commuter rail forum?
Dave S.
LOL!!
The other forums are rarely used. Personally I think TrainWeb should amalgamate some of the forums - but that's another story.
Geoff M.
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
Yeah, Geoff -- they should call this forum "AMTRAK/VIA/Commuter/International/Tourist Trains/Bagpipes/Passenger Trains"
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
It does not seem unreasonable to me that the Metrolink crash is being discussed in the Amtrak forum. After all, an important consequence of the accident is that it gave considerable impetus to the passage of the rail safety bill (which included Amtrak funding) in the Senate.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
RRRICH: Yeah, Geoff -- they should call this forum "AMTRAK/VIA/Commuter/International/Tourist Trains/Bagpipes/Passenger Trains"
You are forgetting ponies, punctuation and drum therapy.
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
Twin Star -- we are also forgetting "the use of quotation marks"......... (LOL)
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
Further to my earlier statement about false feeds causing false proceed aspects, I stumbled across this website today which lists a fair few of them. There are pages for each of 1996 to 2004 but no later for some reason. Some reports are due to sunlight, others due to wire degradation, still more due to wiring faults whether design or installation faults, and various other reasons.
{Edit to correct link)
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Thanks for the link.
Funny, when a man goofs, the answer that everyone jumps on is an electrical or electronic babysitter. When the mechanical big brother goof up the answer that everyone jumps on is . . . another bigger and better electronic babysitter. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?
Posted by rresor (Member # 128) on :
With respect, Mr. Harris, Positive Train Control isn't just "a bigger and better babysitter". It's a totally different type of control philosophy than conventional block signals. Via the on-board computer, a dispatcher can authorize the train to proceed to a certain point and no farther. Back in the 1980s, Burlington Northern ran a PTC test for nearly three years in the Iron Range of Minnesota. As a test, an engineer was ordered to try to violate a movement authority. Under protest, as directed by a supervisor (with witnesses), he attempted to pass a red signal. The train was brought to a smooth "full service" stop by the computer. Further attempts by the engineer to release the brakes and move the train were futile.
The technology works just fine. It isn't absolutely, totally "fail safe" -- nothing is -- but it works a whole lot better than cab signals without any enforcement at all.