# WMATA Red Line Collision



## jackal

> At least one person was killed when a Metro train derailed and collided with another train between the Takoma and Fort Totten stations in Northeast at about 5 p.m. Monday.


http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/2...ast-one-killed/

Also: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/getthere/...ml?hpid=topnews


----------



## WhoozOn1st

CNN is now reporting two fatalities and showing some poor-quality early wreck video. One train underrode/overrode the other. Unlike the Metrolink/UP cornfield meet of last September there doesn't appear to be any telescoping.


----------



## Spokker

Wow, this mass transit sure is dangerous.


----------



## Ryan

Spokker said:


> Wow, this mass transit sure is dangerous.


Yeah, not so much. How many people died on the roads today?

This story has been updated with a photo:

http://wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1702179

Now confirming 2 fatalities - my prayers to those involved and the first responders on the scene.


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

Here is a photo







Looks pretty bad.


----------



## Spokker

HokieNav said:


> Spokker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, this mass transit sure is dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, not so much. How many people died on the roads today?
Click to expand...

Well, duh. But the few deaths on railroads each year (unless Metrolink screws things up) works against it. They become high profile incidents that are covered at length and have long, drawn out investigations. Most stories about automobile fatalities are ignored by the vast majority of the public.

Just check out this story from an LATimes blog: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009...c-accident.html

Mother kills her kid in what police determined was driving at unsafe speeds in wet conditions. No arrests. No penalties. Is her license going to be taken away? Probably not.


----------



## sunchaser

That wreck is sure starting to look really bad...I hope there is no more fatalities. 

Praying for all people involved.


----------



## Ryan

Press conference just wrapped up:

1. Trains were traveling in the same direction, one of the fatalities was the operator of the second train that rear ended the first. I've read unconfirmed reports that the first train derailed prior to the accident, but nothing official.

2. 4 fatalities, making this the deadliest accident in WMATA history.

3. Rescue efforts are still ongoing.

4. MARC Brunswick line is shut down at this location, as the CSX tracks parallel Metro's tracks.


----------



## Ryan

Spokker said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spokker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, this mass transit sure is dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, not so much. How many people died on the roads today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, duh. But the few deaths on railroads each year (unless Metrolink screws things up) works against it. They become high profile incidents that are covered at length and have long, drawn out investigations. Most stories about automobile fatalities are ignored by the vast majority of the public.
> 
> Just check out this story from an LATimes blog: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009...c-accident.html
> 
> Mother kills her kid in what police determined was driving at unsafe speeds in wet conditions. No arrests. No penalties. Is her license going to be taken away? Probably not.
Click to expand...

This isn't the thread discuss it, but none of this backs up your assertion that mass transit is dangerous.


----------



## cmthru

This is from METRO's Rail & Bus Service page as of 8:06pm. Guess they don't watch the news.

Disruption at Fort Totten. Trains are turning back at Rhode Island Ave & Silver Spring due to a train experiencing mechanical difficulties outside of Ft. Totten. Shuttle service has been established.


----------



## Ryan

One could say that having a train parked on top if it could count as a "mechanical problem".

On a more serious note, WUSA 9 is reporting that the death toll is likely to climb as more bodies are recovered.


----------



## D.P. Roberts

It's the main story on CNN's website now. Casualties are now listed as 6 dead, "scores" injured, 70 people being treated at the scene.

That's bad. Very bad. However, as the article also noted, it's only the second fatal crash in 33 years for the Metro. I doubt any stretch of roadway can say the same.


----------



## Amtrak839

Spokker said:


> Wow, this mass transit sure is dangerous.


Hardly. I'll take Metro over driving on the Beltway any day.


----------



## Spokker

HokieNav said:


> This isn't the thread discuss it, but none of this backs up your assertion that mass transit is dangerous.


I was being sarcastic.


----------



## fizzball

A friend's husband and toddler were on the rear-ending train, about three cars back. They "bounced around" but walked away unscathed. The kiddo, nearly 3, came home and began reenacting the incident while "ignoring momma, who keeps coming over every few seconds and hugging him tightly."

She requests you hug all loved ones tonight.


----------



## Spokker

D.P. Roberts said:


> I doubt any stretch of roadway can say the same.


Of course, but I think the vast majority of people think they are in more control when they are in their car. High-profile accidents like this reinforce that belief even though, on a passenger-mile basis, mass transit systems are much safer than driving.


----------



## cpamtfan

This wreck reminds me of the 1950 LIRR collision, but that was far worse then that one. My prayers to all the familys of the victims. Hopefully this was not a wreck caused by the operator being destracted.

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## sunchaser

fizzball said:


> A friend's husband and toddler were on the rear-ending train, about three cars back. They "bounced around" but walked away unscathed. The kiddo, nearly 3, came home and began reenacting the incident while "ignoring momma, who keeps coming over every few seconds and hugging him tightly."
> She requests you hug all loved ones tonight.



Please pass along that I'm very glad to hear they are ok. It can be very scary for small ones to witness things like that.

I hope he does well with it.


----------



## AlanB

cpamtfan said:


> This wreck reminds me of the 1950 LIRR collision, but that was far worse then that one. My prayers to all the familys of the victims. Hopefully this was not a wreck caused by the operator being destracted.
> cpamtfan-Peter


DC Metro is fully automated. So unless they were having some problem prior to the crash, the operator would not have been in control of the train, the computer would have been in control.

That of course begs the question of what did actually happen? Was the train for some odd reason operating with manual control? Or did something go wrong with the computers?


----------



## awalker1829

There's been some discussion about the possibility of a technical fault with the control system in other forums. Last report I heard was that the investigators were focusing on either signal issues or operator error. Either way, this adds to an already bad year for rail transit-five major incidents since May 2008 and 32 fatalities. Compared to motor vehicle statistics, that's low but compared to recent years for rail transit it is very bad. The two Boston Green Line wrecks are pretty much attributed to human error, as was the San Francisco wreck and the Chatsworth, California wreck.

As for the type of accident, this is definitely an override with telescope. Front of the second train is GONE and the floor is ripped away. I sure hope that the wreck was not the result of operator distraction, but we'll have to wait to find out. Pretty much every other wreck mentioned above was due to operator distraction and the FRA and FTA are really up in arms about that. FYI, the T canned a transit coach operator a week or so ago for violating their new policy.


----------



## Ryan

Spokker said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't the thread discuss it, but none of this backs up your assertion that mass transit is dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> I was being sarcastic.
Click to expand...

That's pretty tasteless in this situation.

As of this morning we're up to 9 dead, and trains across the system are in fully manual mode until investigators figure out what happened. Bus service is in place to carry folks around the affected stations, and service on the MARC Brunswick Line is suspended. This is also the same ROW that that Capitol Limited uses, yesterday's WB departure made it out before the accident, but it's unknown (to me at least) if today's trains in/out of WAS will be able to get past. You can see in one of the pictures below that MARC was able to move some equipment past the wreck site overnight, so the tracks are at least there and undamaged.

Here is the "best" collection of pictures that I've found yet this morning (if you're averse to blood, you may want to pass - there are several pictures of blood on the exterior of one of the cars involved):

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Dr...in_Crash__.html


----------



## PRR 60

AlanB said:


> cpamtfan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This wreck reminds me of the 1950 LIRR collision, but that was far worse then that one. My prayers to all the familys of the victims. Hopefully this was not a wreck caused by the operator being destracted.
> cpamtfan-Peter
> 
> 
> 
> DC Metro is fully automated. So unless they were having some problem prior to the crash, the operator would not have been in control of the train, the computer would have been in control.
> 
> That of course begs the question of what did actually happen? Was the train for some odd reason operating with manual control? Or did something go wrong with the computers?
Click to expand...

Although Metro typically runs with both automatic train operation and automatic train control, the operator still has immediate override capability to take over operation or put the train into emergency.

It is way, way too early to speculate about cause, but a failure of the train detection circuitry, rendering the stopped train invisible to the system, has to be a consideration. And to clarify about computer control, the trains are not operated by a central, remote system. Each train has the control system on board. That on board system controls ATC compliance and station stops. Door openings and closings, and station departures are controlled by the train operator.


----------



## Spokker

HokieNav said:


> That's pretty tasteless in this situation.


Yeah, it was. I apologize.
Hey, check out these pictures with splattered blood on the door straight from the scene!


----------



## henryj

PRR 60 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cpamtfan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This wreck reminds me of the 1950 LIRR collision, but that was far worse then that one. My prayers to all the familys of the victims. Hopefully this was not a wreck caused by the operator being destracted.
> cpamtfan-Peter
> 
> 
> 
> DC Metro is fully automated. So unless they were having some problem prior to the crash, the operator would not have been in control of the train, the computer would have been in control.
> 
> That of course begs the question of what did actually happen? Was the train for some odd reason operating with manual control? Or did something go wrong with the computers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although Metro typically runs with both automatic train operation and automatic train control, the operator still has immediate override capability to take over operation or put the train into emergency.
> 
> It is way, way too early to speculate about cause, but a failure of the train detection circuitry, rendering the stopped train invisible to the system, has to be a consideration. And to clarify about computer control, the trains are not operated by a central, remote system. Each train has the control system on board. That on board system controls ATC compliance and station stops. Door openings and closings, and station departures are controlled by the train operator.
Click to expand...

This was my thought too. With all the safety devices and controls, this is one of those accidents that just can't happen........but it did. Something or someone made a huge mistake. Unfortunately the operator is dead so all they have are the recorders and testing of the on board systems. I used to love to ride in the first car to watch the track ahead. Now days I ride in the middle of the train.


----------



## Ryan

News sources have corrected themselves down to 7 confirmed fatalities.

Apparently the 1000- series cars aren't equipped with the same data recorders as newer cars, so since the second train consisted of 1000-series cars, there's not going to be a lot of data to evaluate on that front.


----------



## Guest

HokieNav said:


> Spokker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, this mass transit sure is dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, not so much. How many people died on the roads today?
Click to expand...

IMHO, it is how people view such accidents.

Just how many highway accidents, which involve only two vehicles, result in 7+ fatalities (this Metro accident)?

Just how many highway accidents, which involve only one vehicle, result in 250+ fatalities (Air France)?

In other words, there are fewer accidents on mass transit, but when they do occur, many more lives are lost in that one incident.


----------



## AlanB

Speaking of the 1000 series cars, the NTSB has already said in a press conference today that it recommended to the WMTA and the builder of the cars that they needed more structural strength or that they should be retired otherwise. Neither was done apparently and the NTSB's predictions of what would happen to the cars in a crash are now quite visible in the accident photos. Sadly.


----------



## Ryan

AlanB said:


> Speaking of the 1000 series cars, the NTSB has already said in a press conference today that it recommended to the WMTA and the builder of the cars that they needed more structural strength or that they should be retired otherwise. Neither was done apparently and the NTSB's predictions of what would happen to the cars in a crash are now quite visible in the accident photos. Sadly.


Yeah, the NTSB sure didn't pull any punches:



> NTSB’s Debbie Hersman this morning confirms that the the striking train was a 1000-series car and that the struck train was a mix of 3000- and 5000-series. She notes that the NTSB has "long been on record" about the crashworthiness of the 1000 series. "We recommended to WMATA to either retrofit those cars or phase them out of service," she says. "Those concerns were not addressed."


----------



## Murjax

Does the Metro have dispatchers, or someone in a command center controling the switches and signals, or is that automated too?


----------



## VentureForth

The DC system is about the most automated system in the US. In fact, whereas most US rail transit systems are operator controlled and computer/automation backed, the DC system is reverse - fully automated with human back up. This arrangement has been a problem with WMATA for years.

Somewhere in the over 3000 articles about this incident was a note that the operator on the rear train apparently engaged the manual override but for whatever reason, it didn't engage. Could be an overzealous reporter for all I know, because as mentioned, the 1000 series doesn't have a data or voice recorder.

With regards to AlanB's noting of the NTSB comments, sure, it may have lacked structural strength, but again, if the accident were avoided, it would be a mute point. No matter how structurally sound a vehicle is, the g forces on a body decelerating from 40 or 50 MPH to 0 in half a second can damage any body. Don't forget one of the Metrolink disasters from a few years ago where the train hit a Jeep at a grade crossing, the fatalities came from passengers receiving blunt force trama to their abdomen from the club seating table arrangement.

To answer Murjax, I don't know. I have heard of operators asking to manually override the system and being refused, but I can't really say if ALL the operations are automated. However, I do assume that there is a command center, but that the switches and signals are automated.


----------



## henryj

Murjax said:


> Does the Metro have dispatchers, or someone in a command center controling the switches and signals, or is that automated too?


I assume that they have every kind of control available as the system is supposed to be state of the art. That means there should have been some form of automatic train stop if the operator is incapacitated or if the train ignores a speed restriction or red light and I wonder if they don't have GPS tracking plus they have a huge dispatching center where they know where every train is at every second. They run thousands of trains everyday and they don't run into each other. So something extraordinary happenned to make this accident occur. If you notice, it happenned on a blind curve. So I just wonder if the operator had somehow taken manual control became frustrated with the delay and ignored a signal or speed restriction. The only other possibility that I can think of is somehow the trains computer went nuts or it's systems failed somehow. That they can probably determine even with the devastation. Think there might be a few hundred lawsuits after this??????????

This from wikipedia:

On January 6, 1996, during the Blizzard of 1996, a Metro operator was killed when a train failed to come to a stop at Shady Grove station. The four-car train overran the station platform and struck an unoccupied train that was awaiting assignment. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation found that the crash was a result of a failure in the train's computer-controlled braking system. The NTSB recommended that Metro grant train operators the ability to manually control the braking system, even in inclement weather. Additionally, investigators recommended that Metro prohibit parked rail cars on tracks used by inbound trains.[33]

The November 3, 2004 accident at Woodley Park-Zoo/Adams Morgan station.On November 3, 2004, an out-of-service Red Line train rolled backwards into the Woodley Park-Zoo/Adams Morgan station and hit an in-service train stopped at the platform. No one was killed, but 20 people were injured.[34] A 14-month investigation concluded that the train operator was most likely not alert as the train rolled backwards into the station. Safety officials estimated that had the train been full, at least 79 would have died. The train operator was dismissed and Metro officials agreed to add rollback protection to more than 300 rail cars.[35]

During normal operation on revenue tracks (used for passenger services), trains are controlled by an automatic train operation system that accelerates and brakes the trains automatically without operator intervention. However, all trains are manned with train operators who close the doors (they can optionally be set to open automatically), make station announcements, and supervise their trains. The operator can manually override a train when necessary.[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metro

and:

http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/board_of_...ionStopping.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_train_operation


----------



## PRR 60

There are two types of manual operation. One, the train operation system (ATO) is taken over by the operator, but speed compliance and safety is still ensured by Automatic Train Control (ATC). The operator cannot force the train over the speed limit for the location and cannot operate if the block is red.

The second type of manual operation is full manual with all systems disengaged - ATO and ATC. This type of operation is limited to a very restricted speed - typically 15mph. It is used rarely, and only under the direction of the dispatcher.

The automated operation of Metro is similar to BART in the Bay Area and PATCO in South Jersey.


----------



## henryj

PRR 60 said:


> There are two types of manual operation. One, the train operation system (ATO) is taken over by the operator, but speed compliance and safety is still ensured by Automatic Train Control (ATC). The operator cannot force the train over the speed limit for the location and cannot operate if the block is red.
> The second type of manual operation is full manual with all systems disengaged - ATO and ATC. This type of operation is limited to a very restricted speed - typically 15mph. It is used rarely, and only under the direction of the dispatcher.
> 
> The automated operation of Metro is similar to BART in the Bay Area and PATCO in South Jersey.


This from "All Aboard":

_My first impression is that the operator of the second train was creeping up on the first one. This is standard procedure on rapid transit systems, not usually a problem unless the operator violates procedures._

_ _

_Automatic block signals allow trains to proceed after coming to a full stop, except for those protecting interlockings. On New York City subways, you can see the tripper drop after the train stops. This allows the train to pass the signal. After stopping, the train is supposed to proceed at restricted speed, able to stop within half the distance that the operator can see. _

_ _

_In this case, the operator passed two signals this way, then accelerated far beyond restricted speed._

_ _

_The Long Island Rail Road had a terrible rear-ender west of Jamaica in the early 1950's. The operator of the second train saw a signal ahead change from stop to clear, but it was for the train between him and the signal!_


----------



## p&sr

henryj said:


> Additionally, investigators recommended that Metro prohibit parked rail cars on tracks used by inbound trains.


Good idea. While they're on the subject, maybe parking rail cars on tracks used by Outbound Trains should also be prohibited?


----------



## Spokker

Guest said:


> IMHO, it is how people view such accidents.
> In other words, there are fewer accidents on mass transit, but when they do occur, many more lives are lost in that one incident.


For auto accidents news stations should do a best of the week. They will surely find more than nine deaths and 70 injuries.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

Spokker said:


> For auto accidents news stations should do a best of the week. They will surely find more than nine deaths and 70 injuries.


In a single auto accident?


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

HokieNav said:


> Yeah, the NTSB sure didn't pull any punches:
> 
> 
> 
> NTSB’s Debbie Hersman this morning confirms that the the striking train was a 1000-series car and that the struck train was a mix of 3000- and 5000-series. She notes that the NTSB has "long been on record" about the crashworthiness of the 1000 series. "We recommended to WMATA to either retrofit those cars or phase them out of service," she says. "Those concerns were not addressed."
Click to expand...

The recommendation that the 1000 series trains be retired long ago, is apparently the lead story this evening for the 5pm TV news.

However, as it appears now, the second train being a 1000 series is only applicable to how it survived (or not survived) the crash, not that it being a 1000 series caused the crash, right?


----------



## mucomix

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=al0qfHi1lYyY

I cant add any thing. But thought some one may like the link.


----------



## PRR 60

henryj said:


> This from "All Aboard":
> _My first impression is that the operator of the second train was creeping up on the first one. This is standard procedure on rapid transit systems, not usually a problem unless the operator violates procedures._
> 
> _ _
> 
> _Automatic block signals allow trains to proceed after coming to a full stop, except for those protecting interlockings. On New York City subways, you can see the tripper drop after the train stops. This allows the train to pass the signal. After stopping, the train is supposed to proceed at restricted speed, able to stop within half the distance that the operator can see. _
> 
> _ _
> 
> _In this case, the operator passed two signals this way, then accelerated far beyond restricted speed._
> 
> _ _
> 
> _The Long Island Rail Road had a terrible rear-ender west of Jamaica in the early 1950's. The operator of the second train saw a signal ahead change from stop to clear, but it was for the train between him and the signal!_


On an automated system in manual operation (ATO cut-out), the operator cannot violate the speed restriction even if he or she tries. The ATC will not permit it even in manual operation. If ATC says 20mph, the operator can push the throttle all the way forward if he wants. Once the train hits 20mph, the throttle will drop-out and the brakes will engage. If the ATC says stop, the train stops, no matter what the operator does. Total manual operation with ATC cut-out is used very rarely, only under the direction of the dispatchers, and never at more than 15mph regardless of what the signals say. I believe train speed control limits the operation to 15mph whenever ATC is cut-out.

The Washington Metro is not the LIRR of the 1950's. It is a modern, automated rapid transit system. The train control system limits what the operator can do. Once again, I hesitate to speculate about cause, but just about the only viable scenario for this type of accident on a system controlled by modern ATC is a failure of some aspect of ATC system. The operator simply does not have enough control to blunder into this accident.


----------



## George Harris

A few thoughts, in no particular order:

In the early days WMATA was way too enamoured with automation, and I suspect still are. Some of it is not too bright. The fatal collision at Shady Grove a couple years ago was a train under automatic control being operated on icey rail. The operator wanted to go manual so he could take more distance to stop, but was told NO by the control center. He had a choice, lose his job or risk his life. He bet wrong and lost.

The WMATA cotrol center was, and maybe still is inadequately small. Teh assumption was that automation would make the hand of man near unnecessary. Were they ever wrong, and still do not seem to have learned.

If Rhor built cars, these are the first set of cars. They had a lot of teething tourbles. I think these were the first rail cars Rohr had ever built, and maybe also the last.

The WMATA cars are all lightly built. Strength can be had without excessive weight, but the car builders in Europe and elsewhere propogandize that such is not possible. Management buys into that so does not require the strength that they ought to.

When the analysis is done, it will be found out that there were multiple errors and defects that all came together. There will be no one single cause.

Fail-safe failed to happen.

The "derailment in 1982" that was mentioned occurred because the control center threw a switch under a train (which should not be possible with normal track circuits), and actually under a car, so that one end went down one track and one end went down the other, crusing the side of the car against the middle wall between tracks that began just beyond the crossover. This accident was further compounded by the fire department finding that their radios did not work in the Metro tunnels. There was a "leaky coaxial cable" that would pick up the Metro frequencies, but not the fire department frequencies. That I regard as beyond stupid.


----------



## Neil_M

George Harris said:


> A few thoughts, in no particular order:
> 
> The WMATA cars are all lightly built. Strength can be had without excessive weight, but the car builders in Europe and elsewhere propogandize that such is not possible. Management buys into that so does not require the strength that they ought to.


Still banging that old drum? Best way to survive a crash is not have one in the first place. Anything else is just window dressing.


----------



## Ryan

True, but to ignore the fact that sometimes accidents happen would be foolhardy.


----------



## jackal

Neil_M said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> A few thoughts, in no particular order:
> 
> The WMATA cars are all lightly built. Strength can be had without excessive weight, but the car builders in Europe and elsewhere propogandize that such is not possible. Management buys into that so does not require the strength that they ought to.
> 
> 
> 
> Still banging that old drum? Best way to survive a crash is not have one in the first place. Anything else is just window dressing.
Click to expand...

To be fair to George Harris, it appears WMATA did everything they realistically could to eliminate crashes from happening (automatic train stop, automated controls to virtually eliminate the human error element, etc.), but as George said, it's foolhardy to assume that an accident will NEVER happen despite every possible effort to prevent it. There is something to be said about build quality and crash standards as a last-resort backup.


----------



## DET63

Spokker said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spokker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, this mass transit sure is dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, not so much. How many people died on the roads today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most stories about automobile fatalities are ignored by the vast majority of the public.
Click to expand...

Unless the accident occurs at a railway crossing or otherwise involves a train.

:angry:


----------



## DET63

It appears that there was a "perfect storm" of problems—with braking, signaling, train-operator procedures, car-body construction, etc. However, until everything is known (and we hope all the problems will eventually be identified and corrected), it is useless to speculate as to what exactly caused the accident.

I'd still rather be in a train wreck than a plane or even a car accident. In fact, I was once in a train accident, on the EB _Empire Builder_ in June of 1973 when it struck a cultivator being pulled by a tractor a few miles west of Minot, ND. AFAIK, there were no injuries, though the train was delayed for a couple of hours once it got into Minot.


----------



## Spokker

jackal said:


> There is something to be said about build quality and crash standards as a last-resort backup.


Doesn't that reduce the amount of energy that is saved taking mass transit?


----------



## jackal

Spokker said:


> jackal said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is something to be said about build quality and crash standards as a last-resort backup.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't that reduce the amount of energy that is saved taking mass transit?
Click to expand...

Somewhat, but not entirely, especially if technologies like regenerative braking are used. No matter how you slice it, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail will almost always beat rubber-tire-on-asphalt (especially single-occupancy-vehicle-rubber-tire-on-asphalt).

I'm not saying I'm 100% supportive of full FRA crashworthiness standards and the heavy trains in America (though big, heavy trains are fun to look at...make the little European ones look like toys!  ). I'm just saying there's something to be said for the resiliency of heavier equipment in the event of a protective system failure like Metro just experienced.


----------



## PRR 60

George Harris said:


> ...If Rhor built cars, these are the first set of cars. They had a lot of teething tourbles. I think these were the first rail cars Rohr had ever built, and maybe also the last.


Rohr built the first generation BART cars, which entered service in 1972. Metro started in 1976. The Rohr Metro cars are similar in many ways to the first BART cars. These cars where built in the recession era of the early 1970's when aerospace was in the dumps and companies like Rohr were trying to find some other market. BART offered that opportunity, and the fact that Rohr was a California firm helped a bit was well. Once Rohr had the tooling and the production set-up for BART, the Metro work was a natural follow-up.

In all fairness, after in initial shake-out, the Rohr cars have been pretty reliable at both Metro and BART. The first generation PATCO cars (southern NJ) had their problems as well, and they were built by Budd. I think that any new designs that push the technology envelope have start-up issues.


----------



## Neil_M

HokieNav said:


> True, but to ignore the fact that sometimes accidents happen would be foolhardy.


Yes, but its a subway train, how heavy do you make it exactly? Lets face it, running into the back of another train is a very very silly thing to do, FRA regs are of little consequence then, when you are bouncing round in the car.

That sort of rear ending crash is just not a good thing, same as a head on. All bets are off by then.

I will never agree with the approach in the US of making trains crashworthy, as it is the classic case of door locking after horse bolting.

Sure, you make your cars as strong as you can, but your prime interest should be to keep the trains apart as far as possible. That's more achievable than the crash proof train, nearly as daft as the crash proof plane or the unsinkable ship......


----------



## Ryan

Neil_M said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but to ignore the fact that sometimes accidents happen would be foolhardy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but its a subway train, how heavy do you make it exactly?
Click to expand...

Heavy enough to not disintegrate the way the 1k car did on impact. The idea that we'll be able to fully prevent railcars from ever coming into contact with one another is the very definition of hubris.

Look, I understand US v Euro crashworthiness standards is a matter of deeply held debate that nobody is ever going to change their opinion on. So perhaps rather than sully this thread with a back and forth argument that accomplishes little we can leave this matter be for the time being?


----------



## Ryan

Greater Greater Washington, a local trainsit-oriented blog published a great explanation of how the control system is supposed to work on Metro trains and some of its shortcomings:

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=2695

It's a very well written, easy to follow (even for someone with a degree in Political Science like me) writeup.


----------



## Neil_M

HokieNav said:


> Heavy enough to not disintegrate the way the 1k car did on impact.


Ok, so what speed would you recommend having your collision at?


----------



## AAARGH!

I saw on CNN where the NTSB indicated the rear (moving train) train's controls (dials, control stick, etc...) were all found to be in the automatic position, suggesting computer failure and not the operator's error. They also stated the emergency brake 'mushroom' button was depressed and the brakes on the first car had the tell-tale blue markings indicated they were in emergency brake mode. However, they could not yet estimate how far away the brakes were applied.


----------



## PRR 60

AAARGH said:


> I saw on CNN where the NTSB indicated the rear (moving train) train's controls (dials, control stick, etc...) were all found to be in the automatic position, suggesting computer failure and not the operator's error. They also stated the emergency brake 'mushroom' button was depressed and the brakes on the first car had the tell-tale blue markings indicated they were in emergency brake mode. However, they could not yet estimate how far away the brakes were applied.


It suggests an ATC failure, not necessarily computer failure. There are lots of elements in the ATC system from track circuity and wayside relays to the on board systems that control speed compliance. Note that the ATC system is active even if the train's ATO is cut-out, so even in what the media is calling "manual" operation, the operator could not make an error that would result in a collision.


----------



## AAARGH!

PRR 60 said:


> It suggests an ATC failure, not necessarily computer failure. There are lots of elements in the ATC system from track circuity and wayside relays to the on board systems that control speed compliance. Note that the ATC system is active even if the train's ATO is cut-out, so even in what the media is calling "manual" operation, the operator could not make an error that would result in a collision.


They also indicated they would be looking very closely at the track once the debris was cleared today. PRR, this correlates to what you state about track circuitry, etc...

Does anyone know what percentage of the WMTA's cars are 1000 series? If they have to replace them, how many are there?


----------



## Ryan

About a quarter overall.

The problem is that the delivery of the 6k cars just completed, and the RFP for the 7k cars just went out, so there's a lot of design work in the pipe before WMATA gets anything new (unless they go back and order more 6k cars). The 7k order was going to be a big one - enough to replace the 1k cars and add enough new cars to expand service to Dulles on the Silver Line. If the decision is made to start retiring the 1k cars early, look for shorter trains and more crowds in the future.


----------



## VentureForth

A comprehensive article in the Washington Post has a pretty good list of possibilities. One question I have which was brought up before but I haven't heard today was why the first train was stopped. Here's a possible scenario: Circuit problem in track causes first train to stop. For some reason it uses a technology not updated in train 2. But if track circuitry was intermittent, is there not some sort of checksum that would light up the control board at HQ?

More questions: they keep touting that the 1000-series cars needed to be reinforced or replaced. I haven't read anything about their electronics being upgraded. Was that ever done?

Why is there evidence that the emergency brake was: engaged in the cab, showed wear on the rotors and showed wear on the tracks; yet no one felt the train slow down?


----------



## Ryan

The first train was stopped because there was a 3rd train stopped at the platform loading/discharging passenger at Ft Totten station.


----------



## AlanB

VentureForth said:


> More questions: they keep touting that the 1000-series cars needed to be reinforced or replaced. I haven't read anything about their electronics being upgraded. Was that ever done?
> Why is there evidence that the emergency brake was: engaged in the cab, showed wear on the rotors and showed wear on the tracks; yet no one felt the train slow down?


Well if the electronics were updated, one thing that they didn't do was to install black boxes.

As for the second question, first witness testimony is always unreliable. Second, judging from the satellite shot of the curve where the accident happened, I'd say that the poor operator probably had less than 20 seconds warning that she was in trouble. That probably means that the brakes were on for no more than 15 seconds or so. That would barely be enough to really make a noticable difference in speed prior to the impact. Even if someone did realize that the train was slowing, they would probably just attribute it to the collision itself.


----------



## Tony

I would think it is just regular human nature to expect (1) computers never make mistakes and (2) the computer will automatically correct for any mistakes. Given that, the operator might have had a long reaction delay while she attempted to resolve that consistency, between her faith in the system and what she was seeing, in her mind.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

In a SoCal take on the D.C. wreck situation, L.A. Metro Rail and Metrolink folks are watching the investigation closely. The Red and Purple lines use Alstom signaling equipment similar to the D.C. Metro's, and Metrolink is in the midst of installing an automatic train stop system in the wake of last September's deadly UP/Metrolink cornfield meet.

MTA keeps tabs on D.C. crash inquiry


----------



## George Harris

Neil_M said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> AThe WMATA cars are all lightly built. Strength can be had without excessive weight, but the car builders in Europe and elsewhere propogandize that such is not possible. Management buys into that so does not require the strength that they ought to.
> 
> 
> 
> Still banging that old drum? Best way to survive a crash is not have one in the first place. Anything else is just window dressing.
Click to expand...

Yes I am, and with no apologies to anybody for doing so. These people that are trying to sell glorified tin cans as rail cars have blood on their hands as far as I am concerned.

If you think all accidents are preventable, you do not live in the world of reality.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

From an NTSB wreck investigation update issued today:

"Investigators found metal to metal compression streak marks on both rails of the track for about 125 feet ending near the approximate point of impact, consistent with heavy braking.

*"Investigators conducted tests at the accident site last night with a similar train and found that when the train was stopped at the same location as the stopped struck train, the train control system lost detection of the test train."* (emphasis added)

Full press advisory:

NTSB ISSUES UPDATE ON INVESTIGATION INTO COLLISION OF TWO METRORAIL TRAINS IN WASHINGTON, D.C.


----------



## Spokker

George Harris said:


> Yes I am, and with no apologies to anybody for doing so. These people that are trying to sell glorified tin cans as rail cars have blood on their hands as far as I am concerned.
> If you think all accidents are preventable, you do not live in the world of reality.


We should all drive Hummers then. Those who sell Hyundai Accents have blood on their hands.


----------



## Spokker

Tony said:


> I would think it is just regular human nature to expect (1) computers never make mistakes and (2) the computer will automatically correct for any mistakes.


The software is programmed by a human, and humans are fallible, so software will always be fallible.


----------



## Ryan

Spokker said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I am, and with no apologies to anybody for doing so. These people that are trying to sell glorified tin cans as rail cars have blood on their hands as far as I am concerned.
> If you think all accidents are preventable, you do not live in the world of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> We should all drive Hummers then. Those who sell Hyundai Accents have blood on their hands.
Click to expand...

Not really, all cars sold in the US have to live up to some pretty tough crash safety standards.

That said, my transportation to/from the train station is a Chevy Suburban.


----------



## George Harris

Spokker said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I am, and with no apologies to anybody for doing so. These people that are trying to sell glorified tin cans as rail cars have blood on their hands as far as I am concerned.
> If you think all accidents are preventable, you do not live in the world of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> We should all drive Hummers then. Those who sell Hyundai Accents have blood on their hands.
Click to expand...

The difference is that YOU chose the Accent or whatever four wheeled tin can you bought, and presumably understand the trade-offs. Having a number of years ago seen the aftermath of a accident between two trucks where the police and wreckers did not know that there was a Pinto between them until they pulled the trucks apart, I am inclined to avoid very small cars, even if it means that I drive less to keep my gas bills from being excessive.


----------



## Spokker

George Harris said:


> The difference is that YOU chose the Accent or whatever four wheeled tin can you bought, and presumably understand the trade-offs. Having a number of years ago seen the aftermath of a accident between two trucks where the police and wreckers did not know that there was a Pinto between them until they pulled the trucks apart, I am inclined to avoid very small cars, even if it means that I drive less to keep my gas bills from being excessive.


No, not everybody can afford huge trucks and must purchase economy cars to stay mobile. 
We all choose what our rail systems are like by voting for representatives that do not care about rail transit and fail to fund it properly. We chose this by striking down rail-related measures in the past, or not getting them on the ballot at all. Only this past year have some of those mistakes been rectified, but it's not enough as the nation's rail fleet is badly aging. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/us/25tra..._r=1&ref=us

Rail systems, even DC Metrorail, continue to be statistically safer than driving a personal automobile. You are probably more likely to be killed in an auto accident on the way to the station than while riding on the train.


----------



## TVRM610

VentureForth said:


> Why is there evidence that the emergency brake was: engaged in the cab, showed wear on the rotors and showed wear on the tracks; yet no one felt the train slow down?


I have personally been on several trains going into emergency ( twice on Amtrak, multiple times on shortlines) and the E-Break is not instant. Several seconds usually pass between the sound of the air dumping and the abrupt stopping of the train.

Like Alan said, by the time the E-brake was pushed till the impact, there would have most likely not been any noticeable slowing of the train.... it all happened in seconds. If the train had slowed any... the accident would have been much more manageable. This train had to have been really moving for this type of accident.

Just like the metrolink accident in Cali... it is so unfortunate that this happened at such a blind curve, if this had been in a straight section, the engineer would have seen the train in time.


----------



## jackal

TVRM610 said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is there evidence that the emergency brake was: engaged in the cab, showed wear on the rotors and showed wear on the tracks; yet no one felt the train slow down?
> 
> 
> 
> I have personally been on several trains going into emergency ( twice on Amtrak, multiple times on shortlines) and the E-Break is not instant. Several seconds usually pass between the sound of the air dumping and the abrupt stopping of the train.
> 
> Like Alan said, by the time the E-brake was pushed till the impact, there would have most likely not been any noticeable slowing of the train.... it all happened in seconds. If the train had slowed any... the accident would have been much more manageable. This train had to have been really moving for this type of accident.
> 
> Just like the metrolink accident in Cali... it is so unfortunate that this happened at such a blind curve, if this had been in a straight section, the engineer would have seen the train in time.
Click to expand...

I've actually plugged railcars (by uncoupling from them and having the air hoses separate) and then watched the brake piston (clearly visible on freight cars) actuate. It really is a several second delay before the piston moves and probably a good 8-10 seconds before it is fully engaged (the piston is fully out) and probably more until the air in the cylinder and in the dual compartment reservoir are equalized.

That said, I always assumed the brakes on most subways and light rail cars were electrically actuated...I never really hear air hissing when the brakes are applied or released.


----------



## AlanB

jackal said:


> That said, I always assumed the brakes on most subways and light rail cars were electrically actuated...I never really hear air hissing when the brakes are applied or released.


Not sure about the DC Metro, but the NYC subway cars are air.


----------



## Neil_M

George Harris said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> AThe WMATA cars are all lightly built. Strength can be had without excessive weight, but the car builders in Europe and elsewhere propogandize that such is not possible. Management buys into that so does not require the strength that they ought to.
> 
> 
> 
> Still banging that old drum? Best way to survive a crash is not have one in the first place. Anything else is just window dressing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I am, and with no apologies to anybody for doing so. These people that are trying to sell glorified tin cans as rail cars have blood on their hands as far as I am concerned.
> 
> If you think all accidents are preventable, you do not live in the world of reality.
Click to expand...

It helps if the engineers are not busy texting people.....

You can't prevent accidents entirely but you can have more control over what happens to stop trains colliding, rather than come up with some purely random nonsense about building indestructible rail vehicles and controlling what happens in a crash.

Better see if Superman can come up with Kryptonite Railcars....


----------



## jackal

Neil_M said:


> It helps if the engineers are not busy texting people.....You can't prevent accidents entirely but you can have more control over what happens to stop trains colliding, rather than come up with some purely random nonsense about building indestructible rail vehicles and controlling what happens in a crash.
> 
> Better see if Superman can come up with Kryptonite Railcars....



That's the thing, though--it's NOT nonsense. The two work in conjunction together.


----------



## Ryan

AlanB said:


> jackal said:
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I always assumed the brakes on most subways and light rail cars were electrically actuated...I never really hear air hissing when the brakes are applied or released.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure about the DC Metro, but the NYC subway cars are air.
Click to expand...

Mix of air and hydraulic here, mostly air.


----------



## Neil_M

jackal said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> 
> It helps if the engineers are not busy texting people.....You can't prevent accidents entirely but you can have more control over what happens to stop trains colliding, rather than come up with some purely random nonsense about building indestructible rail vehicles and controlling what happens in a crash.
> 
> Better see if Superman can come up with Kryptonite Railcars....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the thing, though--it's NOT nonsense. The two work in conjunction together.
Click to expand...

True.

To my mind that seems not to be the case in the US.

Leaning more towards one thing than the other.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

George Harris said:


> If Rhor built cars, these are the first set of cars. They had a lot of teething tourbles. I think these were the first rail cars Rohr had ever built, and maybe also the last.


You know, Rohr built another glorified tin-can everyone seems to love around here. The Turboliners.

That being said, crashworthiness and weight are probably mildly correlated but not by much. Crashing into an immovable object, you have the choice of driving a Mercedes W124 body sedan, or a Hummer. Which would you pick? If you pick the Hummer, you picked wrong. It doesn't have airbags, it has very limited crush structure, and you are likely dead if the speed was all that high due to all kinds of deficiencies in its design. Indeed, it is the very weight that allows it to run on the road without meeting passenger vehicle crash standards.

On the other hand, the Mercedes W124 is a study in crashworthiness. There are 72 patents covering the various design aspects of the cars frontal crash structure alone. Depending on model, (after all there were everything from the crank-windowed, vinyl uphostered, radio-less 2-litre 84bhp 4 cylinder diesel 200D to the fully loaded 322bhp 5 litre V8 tuned by Porsche 500Es) it weighs less than half what a Hummer does. Volvo's 240 design, a grand old battlewagon of a car, is one of the best rated safety cars ever and its even lighter.

You can build a safer vehicle by just adding weight. Its true. But you don't have to add much weight to significantly increase safety.


----------



## TVRM610

Neil_M said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> AThe WMATA cars are all lightly built. Strength can be had without excessive weight, but the car builders in Europe and elsewhere propogandize that such is not possible. Management buys into that so does not require the strength that they ought to.
> 
> 
> 
> Still banging that old drum? Best way to survive a crash is not have one in the first place. Anything else is just window dressing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I am, and with no apologies to anybody for doing so. These people that are trying to sell glorified tin cans as rail cars have blood on their hands as far as I am concerned.
> 
> If you think all accidents are preventable, you do not live in the world of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps if the engineers are not busy texting people.....
> 
> You can't prevent accidents entirely but you can have more control over what happens to stop trains colliding, rather than come up with some purely random nonsense about building indestructible rail vehicles and controlling what happens in a crash.
> 
> Better see if Superman can come up with Kryptonite Railcars....
Click to expand...

This kinda goes without saying but I will say it anyways... The engineer on this train was EXTREMELY alert if the evidence that the E-brake had been applied and engaged 100+ feet out. One report online suggest that the engineer would not have been able to see the stopped train until 600 or so feet out. If this train was moving at 60 mph for this engineer to have realized that this train was on the same track, apply the brakes, then to have them taken effect for even 100 feet, she had to have acted extremely fast.

Despite some weird and uncalled for headlines... I do not think this accident will in any way be chalked up to engineer failure.

Even if you were referring to the metrolink accident.. I still say something is fishy there... while the engineer should not have been texting railfans while on duty... I have trouble believing that was the key cause of the accident, and signal malfunctions did not play any role. But that is for a different thread...

My point is... take all cell phones away and only hire perfect engineers and accidents can still happen.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

Green Maned Lion said:


> Crashing into an immovable object, you have the choice of driving a Mercedes W124 body sedan, or a Hummer. Which would you pick? If you pick the Hummer, you picked wrong. It doesn't have airbags,...


Well, the W124 itself doesn't even have side air bags (_does it even have a front passenger air bag_?).

In terms of crash safety, it is so very "old school" (_with what a safety design dating way back to 1984_?), lacking completely with any of the state-of-the-art safety systems today's top sedans offer.

Technology is constantly moving forward. Anything which might have once been a showcase of the best at the time it came out, leaves only a "romantic" memory later on, as technology leaves it behind especially after decades.


----------



## AmtrakWPK

> It helps if the engineers are not busy texting people.....


I don't think you have to take the cellphones away, just make using them while on the job for anything other than legitimate railroad use (i.e., emergency use when the engine's radio doesn't or can't do the job) an immediate termination offense, with a written permission, upon hiring, for the company to randomly inspect the engineer's cellphone records, and check them against the engineer's working-time records.

It has been widely reported that in this most recent crash the engineer on the moving train, who was killed in the crash, not only was NOT using her cellphone, her cellphone was found to be in her (zippered-up) backpack.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Since it takes forever for govt. investigations and even longer for the "Final" report to be released,

and considering the current state or "reporting" in our so called media,especially in incidents involving

death and major injuiries, most "reports" seem to stress the blame the engineer/pilot/driver etc.

without consdering that automated and high tech solutions while miracles of engineering that exist

today!Easy answer: "the person was on their phone or stoned or drunk!!"We need quicker investigations,

more honest and informed reporting and government reports that dont have to be approved by

everyone in Washington and politically cleared before the truth is reported in the classified pages or the

4AM version of the local news!


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crashing into an immovable object, you have the choice of driving a Mercedes W124 body sedan, or a Hummer. Which would you pick? If you pick the Hummer, you picked wrong. It doesn't have airbags,...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the W124 itself doesn't even have side air bags (_does it even have a front passenger air bag_?).
> 
> In terms of crash safety, it is so very "old school" (_with what a safety design dating way back to 1984_?), lacking completely with any of the state-of-the-art safety systems today's top sedans offer.
> 
> Technology is constantly moving forward. Anything which might have once been a showcase of the best at the time it came out, leaves only a "romantic" memory later on, as technology leaves it behind especially after decades.
Click to expand...

The car was sold in the US with a standard drivers airbag from '86 (the first year it was sold here) an optional passenger airbag from '89, and standard passenger airbag from '92. It was the first car in the United States to be sold with a modern airbag as standard. It also has pyrotechnical seatbelt pre-tensioners (another first, by the way) and remote-folding rear-seat headrests (yet another first) as well as a unique single pantographic wiper arm that clears more of the windshield, percentage-wise, of any design but the W140s twin-arm pantographic system. It also was the second design to offer the now industry-standard Multi-link rear suspension system.

Furthermore, its body structure was the stiffest in production when it went into production in 1985. It was the stiffest in production when it went out of production in 1996! Its replacement, which was retrogressive in almost every way but build cost (not to mention being extremely rust prone!), was, in fact, 3% less stiff in torsional stiffness, and 2% less stiff in bending resistance. It is capable of supporting 915% of its weight on its roof- compared to 720% of its W210 replacement.

Here is where your logic falls down: The W124 was the last mid-size Mercedes to be designed before the advent of Lexus. Like all other Mercedes built in those days, it was built on a cost-plus basis, and whatever it cost to build was what it cost to build. It was engineered to an ideal, not a price. It was aerodynamic, very good handling, very good ride, fast with six and eight cylinder engines, and was unquestioned as the safest car in the world. It was, for a decade, the blueprint from which all other cars were designed. Today, Mercedes is pretty well regarded. 20 years ago, they were considered, and in fact, were, peerless.

Its successor, the W210, was raced into production. The W124 was so expensive to build that in order to maintain sales momentum in the US, they were sold at a minimal profit for the 1994 and 1995 model years. In fact, on one particular model built to satisfy their most loyal of customers, the E300 Diesel, was sold at a loss per car of about $1400. The W210's number one design brief? Cut 25% build cost out of the E-class range. It failed to do that, until the M112 V6 and V8 engines came on line in 1998.

Excluding side-impact airbags, whose value I concede, all advances in automotive safety succeeding the W124 was in the area of electronics, a dubious area indeed. The W124 chassis, by the way, was eventually fitted with side airbags. It is still in production in South Korea, and was until the introduction of the Hyundai Genesis models, considered the best executive car in Korea- as the Ssangyong Chairman.

The design and engineering of automobiles reached their zenith with the debut of the Series-3 W124 in 1993- and have been downhill ever since.


----------



## DET63

With all due respect, we're getting a little bit off-topic here. The issue is the crashworthiness of the DC Metro trains, not that of automobiles.

Here is a question that I have: on the San Francisco BART system, there are A, B, and C cars. A cars must be placed at the end of the train; they have a wedge-shaped cab end, meaning it is not possible to walk through the cab end of one to another car. B cars, on the other hand, must be placed in the middle of the train; there is no operator's cab. C cars have a smaller cab than the A cars, and a vertical, not sloping front, so they can be used anywhere in the train. Typically they are cars 4 & 5 of an 8- or 9-car train, or 5 & 6 of a 10-car train. As far as I know, a train may include A, B, and C cars, or B & C cars, or A & B cars, or C cars only. Cars purchased at different times can be run in the same train.

So here's the question: Can cars purchased at different times be used in the same Metro trains? For example, I've read that the following train in the DC accident had a 1000-series car, and that these cars will probably be removed from service, which will cause disruptions (fewer and/or shorter trains in particular). But can these cars be assigned to service in the middle of trains only, or are they incompatible with other cars?


----------



## Ryan

The Washington Metro has 1k through 6k cars, of which the 1k, 2k and 3k have been rehabbed. In theory, you can make a consist of any type of cars (they're in permanently married pairs, so consists are always an even number of cars up to 8), in practice I think that there are some "oddities" that make certain combination not act quite right. You usually see the 6k series be in consists all their own, but I have seen them mixed in to others on occasion.

Metro recently put out the RFP for the 7k series cars, which were to replace the 1k and add enough new cars to support the extension to Dulles. For the first time, WMATA specified that the new cars need not be compatible with the old cars, although I recall reading something that when the 4k series cars go in for their rehab that they'll be made compatible with the 7k series. But, since the RFP just went out and no decision has been made yet, all of this is still years down the tracks.

The Red Line is going to be back fully in operation, except it'll be running something like 15 minute headways with a 35 MPH max speed - that's going to put a major crimp in moving folks into the city this morning.


----------



## George Harris

jimhudson said:


> Since it takes forever for govt. investigations and even longer for the "Final" report to be released, and considering the current state or "reporting" in our so called media,especially in incidents involving death and major injuiries, most "reports" seem to stress the blame the engineer/pilot/driver etc. without consdering that automated and high tech solutions while miracles of engineering that exist today! Easy answer: "the person was on their phone or stoned or drunk!!"We need quicker investigations, more honest and informed reporting and government reports that dont have to be approved by everyone in Washington and politically cleared before the truth is reported in the classified pages or the 4AM version of the local news!


Leaping to conclusions is the favorite form of exercise for the media, so anything they come up with should be, if not almost an automatic response to do so, discounted by any listener/watcher with more intelligence than a cabbage. In general, watch the pictures and ignore the sound, and be very careful about even believing the pictures, as what is just outside the frame could be very significant.

Yes, somewhat quicker completion by the NTSB of their reports would be nice, but I would rather have comprehensive and correct than speed. In general, "poitically correct" is not part of the NTSB mandate. Sometimes they seem to be harder on the management and rules enforcement and more lenient on the front line people, and they do have certain obsessions with certain forms of automation but otherwise they are generally very good. In case of disagreement between the NTSB and almost anybody else, I would tend to believe the NTSB take on things.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Thanks, I believe you are correct, my point is really about the media, perhaps govt. spokespersons

can be clearer about not jumping to conclusions or mass hysteria since most folks outside washington and

new york tend to get their "news" off the net or on a text from someone who saw it on "fox noise" or

one of the bloggers that doesnt have a clue!The NTSB Is usually correct, of course the FAA and other

govt. agencies seem to be able to ignore their findings/recommendations etc. Im not in DC anymore but

it seems that with the new Obama gangin town things might be improving!Glad to hear the Red Line is

back in operation, my old lifeline!!!Also great that the operator seems to have been doing a first rate

job and tried to be heroic!


----------



## George Harris

jimhudson said:


> it seems that with the new Obama gangin town things might be improving!


Suggest that you leave the politics out of it. A lot of us are not at all enamored with the actions of the Obama gang, considering it basically a no substance smoke and mirrors act, with what little substance there is downright scarey. Not to get a political flame war started, just to remind people that there are other opinions out there concerning the crowd in charge.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program . . . .


----------



## Ryan

Inevitable? Yes.

Premature? I think so.

Already, the lawsuits begin to fly.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/49460067.html


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

http://www.news8.net/news/stories/0709/638736.html

I just saw a story on CNN where they displayed a couple of these videos on YouTube. According to CNN, the driver in the Green Line video was identified and suspended without pay for five days.

They were careful not to insinuate that the operator that was killed was guilty of any of this, but their main contention seemed to be that pax have gotten spooked.


----------



## Spokker

HokieNav said:


> Inevitable? Yes.
> Premature? I think so.
> 
> Already, the lawsuits begin to fly.
> 
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/49460067.html


A hundred million seems a bit much. I would sue for medical expenses and lost wages from work, and maybe a little bit for emotional distress, but I doubt it would even reach a million dollars. More like 10 grand.


----------



## Ryan

What's particularly galling is that some of the suits that were filed this week were against WMATA and the operator of the second train personally, alleging that she wasn't paying proper attention and that her recklessness caused the collision. By all accounts, she did a D--M fine job to get on the brakes at all, given the speed and limited site distance as you go around the curve. That sort of thing is really, really appalling to me.

In news related to ALC's posts, WMATA has changed their policy - get caught using an electronic device while operating a train or a bus and you're fired on the spot.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

HokieNav said:


> What's particularly galling is that some of the suits that were filed this week were against WMATA and the operator of the second train personally, alleging that she wasn't paying proper attention and that her recklessness caused the collision. By all accounts, she did a D--M fine job to get on the brakes at all, given the speed and limited site distance as you go around the curve. That sort of thing is really, really appalling to me.
> In news related to ALC's posts, WMATA has changed their policy - get caught using an electronic device while operating a train or a bus and you're fired on the spot.


Do they have dead man's switches in those cabs? I mean with all the automation with the WMATA I wonder if it's possible that the drivers get lulled into a sense of-- "an accident is never going to happen" ?


----------



## AlanB

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Do they have dead man's switches in those cabs? I mean with all the automation with the WMATA I wonder if it's possible that the drivers get lulled into a sense of-- "an accident is never going to happen" ?


Well yes and no.

If the motorman is in manual, then yes there is a dead man's feature that would be active.

If the train is in automatic, then the computer won't care if the driver's awake, alive, or not. The train would just make its next regularly scheduled stop and then it would sit there until someone came to investigate why the doors didn't close.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

AlanB said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they have dead man's switches in those cabs? I mean with all the automation with the WMATA I wonder if it's possible that the drivers get lulled into a sense of-- "an accident is never going to happen" ?
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes and no.
> 
> If the motorman is in manual, then yes there is a dead man's feature that would be active.
> 
> If the train is in automatic, then the computer won't care if the driver's awake, alive, or not. The train would just make its next regularly scheduled stop and then it would sit there until someone came to investigate why the doors didn't close.
Click to expand...

... And nobody sees the possible fault in that last bit?


----------



## tp49

HokieNav said:


> What's particularly galling is that some of the suits that were filed this week were against WMATA and the operator of the second train personally, alleging that she wasn't paying proper attention and that her recklessness caused the collision. By all accounts, she did a D--M fine job to get on the brakes at all, given the speed and limited site distance as you go around the curve. That sort of thing is really, really appalling to me.


That's for the jury ultimately to decide. That is if the case even makes it to trial. There's a good chance it would be settled out of court.


----------



## AlanB

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they have dead man's switches in those cabs? I mean with all the automation with the WMATA I wonder if it's possible that the drivers get lulled into a sense of-- "an accident is never going to happen" ?
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes and no.
> 
> If the motorman is in manual, then yes there is a dead man's feature that would be active.
> 
> If the train is in automatic, then the computer won't care if the driver's awake, alive, or not. The train would just make its next regularly scheduled stop and then it would sit there until someone came to investigate why the doors didn't close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... And nobody sees the possible fault in that last bit?
Click to expand...

This crash is the perfect example of why it doesn't matter. From all info currently available, the poor operator of the train was exactly where she was supposed to be, did everything she was supposed to do in the most timely matter, and a dead mans feature wouldn't have changed the outcome. It is possible that maybe her last second actions of hitting the mushroom, may have saved a few lives by slowing the train ever so slightly.

But otherwise, if the system works right, having a deadman's feature while on auto is useless. If the system fails, it won't matter if you've got a deadman's feature or not. Heck, even if she had been running manually, it wouldn't have mattered. The system told her that the track was clear, she would have come around that curve at close to the same speed and the results would have been tragically similar.

And looking at from the other side of things, I'd much rather have a train on auto pull into a station, open its doors and then just sit there if the operator is somehow incapacitate, than have a deadman's feature that stops the train in the tunnel. Now you've got to send someone down the tunnel to get the train and in the meantime you've got passengers panicking, since there will be no announcement, and eventually passengers trying to get out while in the tunnel and possibly being electrocuted or hit by another train. So no, I see no fault in that.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

In a way it is a dead man's switch... in principle. It does make more sense on a closed system. I guess I am in the mindset of having a heavy-rail system with grade crossings and trespassers where you want the engineer in control.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> In a way it is a dead man's switch... in principle. It does make more sense on a closed system. I guess I am in the mindset of having a heavy-rail system with grade crossings and trespassers where you want the engineer in control.


Heavy rail, definitionally, does not have grade crossing (or very many if it does). A subway is an example of heavy rail, as is an elevated. I think you're thinking of commuter/intercity rail.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Green Maned Lion said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a way it is a dead man's switch... in principle. It does make more sense on a closed system. I guess I am in the mindset of having a heavy-rail system with grade crossings and trespassers where you want the engineer in control.
> 
> 
> 
> Heavy rail, definitionally, does not have grade crossing (or very many if it does). A subway is an example of heavy rail, as is an elevated. I think you're thinking of commuter/intercity rail.
Click to expand...

And I think you mean "very few if it does". But we all make lexical mistakes, I am the prime example! :lol:


----------



## George Harris

Green Maned Lion said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a way it is a dead man's switch... in principle. It does make more sense on a closed system. I guess I am in the mindset of having a heavy-rail system with grade crossings and trespassers where you want the engineer in control.
> 
> 
> 
> Heavy rail, definitionally, does not have grade crossing (or very many if it does). A subway is an example of heavy rail, as is an elevated. I think you're thinking of commuter/intercity rail.
Click to expand...

WMATA has no grade crossings except in their yards in locations where the only road vehicles going across these crossings are their own.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

George Harris said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a way it is a dead man's switch... in principle. It does make more sense on a closed system. I guess I am in the mindset of having a heavy-rail system with grade crossings and trespassers where you want the engineer in control.
> 
> 
> 
> Heavy rail, definitionally, does not have grade crossing (or very many if it does). A subway is an example of heavy rail, as is an elevated. I think you're thinking of commuter/intercity rail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WMATA has no grade crossings except in their yards in locations where the only road vehicles going across these crossings are their own.
Click to expand...

I know. I would consider WMATA a heavy-rail system. It seemed to me that ALC was making the all-too-common mistake of confusing heavy rail with commuter/regional/inter-city/long-distance rail. Too many people make it. I actually sat through a presentation by someone who was extoling the wonderful virtues of light-rail over heavy-rail. You know, things like greater frequency and much higher capacity.


----------



## AlanB

Green Maned Lion said:


> I know. I would consider WMATA a heavy-rail system. It seemed to me that ALC was making the all-too-common mistake of confusing heavy rail with commuter/regional/inter-city/long-distance rail. Too many people make it. I actually sat through a presentation by someone who was extoling the wonderful virtues of light-rail over heavy-rail. You know, things like greater frequency and much higher capacity.


Well lower capacity is why it is called light rail. Frequency however has nothing to do with anything.


----------



## Spokker

Light rail can be hard to classify. It's sort of one of those things where you know it when you see it.

In my neck of the woods there is a light rail line that is fully grade separated and a light rail line with sections that are street running, subway running and on an aerial. Versatility seems to be its strongest virtue.


----------



## George Harris

At one point in time, the "heavy rail" - "light rail" meant exactly that. The high volume subway systems like NYC used a heavier rail section, in their case, the 100 lb/yd 100ARA-B section, and light rail systems, such as street cars amd interurbams used much lighter weight rail, frequently 75 lb/yd or less, all the way down to 56 lb/yd. The exception being in streets, the rail section sometimes/freqently had a built in flangeway. This sort of stuff is called "girder rail" in this country and "grooved rail" in Europe. One of the most common of these weighted 128 lb/yd.


----------

