# Another Metrolink Collision



## WhoozOn1st (Nov 21, 2008)

"This is reaching a point where it's more than happenstance. It just seems like there's too many situations here that need to be cleaned up."

Metrolink train hits freight cars

The train was in pull mode. In the actual paper there's a post-collision photo of the locomotive - clearly a sideswipe. Happened on the San Bernardino Line, which we did not ride at our Gathering. Two people in the cab.


----------



## jis (Nov 21, 2008)

WhoozOn1st said:


> The train was in pull mode. In the actual paper there's a post-collision photo of the locomotive - clearly a sideswipe. Happened on the San Bernardino Line, which we did not ride at our Gathering. Two people in the cab.


Maybe now they will put a third person in the cab to keep an eye on the other two? :lol:


----------



## Alice (Nov 21, 2008)

Followup story, Metrolink ran a red light:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-la...0,5521219.story


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Nov 21, 2008)

jis said:


> WhoozOn1st said:
> 
> 
> > The train was in pull mode. In the actual paper there's a post-collision photo of the locomotive - clearly a sideswipe. Happened on the San Bernardino Line, which we did not ride at our Gathering. Two people in the cab.
> ...



Well if they are all texting and dont have PTC then they cant do very much :unsure: :unsure: :unsure: h34r:

Man thats bad news for metrolink


----------



## sechs (Nov 21, 2008)

Who operates Metrolink and where else should I avoid them?


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Nov 21, 2008)

sechs said:


> Who operates Metrolink and where else should I avoid them?


Veolia Transportation, an arm of a French conglomerate.

Wikipedia entry: Veolia Transportation

Around here, Veolia also operates at least some San Diego-area bus lines, and Sprinter (which I recently badmouthed in these forums for unrelated reasons).

EDIT: Amtrak was the original operations and maintenance contractor for Metrolink, which began service in 1992.


----------



## JAChooChoo (Nov 21, 2008)

sechs said:


> Who operates Metrolink and where else should I avoid them?


*Los Angeles regional commuter service.*


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Nov 22, 2008)

JAChooChoo said:


> sechs said:
> 
> 
> > Who operates Metrolink and where else should I avoid them?
> ...


No. The ruling agency is Southern California Regional Rail Authority, with operations and maintenance contracted out.

About Metrolink


----------



## gswager (Nov 22, 2008)

They found a new way to communicate besides cell phone- talking each other (both engineers) too much. I think it should be banned, too. Or put up a sound proof wall up. That's one of my conspiracy.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Nov 22, 2008)

Alice said:


> Followup story, Metrolink ran a red light:http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-la...0,5521219.story


The above link appears to have been taken down, apparently replaced/superseded by this one from the 11-22-08 Times:

Metrolink train ran red light before crash, officials say

Metrolink staff have been tasked with looking for ways to get rid of Veolia as operator.


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 22, 2008)

I'll be interested to hear a cause on this one. It seems pretty obvious that there was a stop signal being displayed at the end of that siding, not to mention the cars moving through the siding being clearly visible. I don't know how Veolia trains their engineers, but something doesn't seem to be working out right. Maybe its time agencies start looking at Amtrak to be their operator again...


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Nov 22, 2008)

battalion51 said:


> Maybe its time agencies start looking at Amtrak to be their operator again...


Amtrak does not believe their operation is safe enough for them to be able to buy an affordable liability insurace policy to be able to operate Metrolink, I thought.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 22, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> battalion51 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe its time agencies start looking at Amtrak to be their operator again...
> ...


It's not that Amtrak doesn't believe that they aren't safe enough, it's that they are smart enough not to accept such an agreement that puts all the liability on them. Additionally I think that I remember reading some place once that Amtrak can't legally enter into such an agreement.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Nov 22, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > battalion51 said:
> ...


While I don't recall the exact details of the Metrolink-Amtrak split, I don't think the primary issue was one of assumed liability. That may have been used as an excuse, but IIRC the bottom line was largely responsible for the estrangement. That is, Amtrak wanted more than Metrolink was willing to pay. Veolia won the operations/maintenance contract on bid, while Bombardier and other outfits were in the running as well.

If others know more, I'm sure we'd all be interested to know.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Nov 23, 2008)

is this going to be a regular thing now. metrolink running into freight trains.


----------



## jis (Nov 23, 2008)

WhoozOn1st said:


> While I don't recall the exact details of the Metrolink-Amtrak split, I don't think the primary issue was one of assumed liability. That may have been used as an excuse, but IIRC the bottom line was largely responsible for the estrangement. That is, Amtrak wanted more than Metrolink was willing to pay. Veolia won the operations/maintenance contract on bid, while Bombardier and other outfits were in the running as well.


My recollection is that there were two issues. One was that Amtrak was not permitted by law to sign any contract in which it could not guarantee that it would not be forced to run the contract at a loss, thus diverting money from main Amtrak operations to run the contract.

The insurance issue was a corollary that followed from the first, that is it could not take on exclusive responsibility to cover the risk for all mishaps.

This in effect sank both the MBTA deal and the Metrolink deal since both found some other outfit to meet their conditions better. AFAICT both are having a few interesting issues with their choice. Of course there is no telling what other issue they would have had had they chosen Amtrak either.

Again this is just my recollection, so please take it with a due pinch of salt and all that. <_<


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 23, 2008)

jis said:


> WhoozOn1st said:
> 
> 
> > The train was in pull mode. In the actual paper there's a post-collision photo of the locomotive - clearly a sideswipe. Happened on the San Bernardino Line, which we did not ride at our Gathering. Two people in the cab.
> ...


They should just install automated train control systems on the line. Then they could replace the engine crew with one man and a dog. The man's job is to feed the dog, and the dog's job is to bite the man if he tries to touch anything to override the computer.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Nov 23, 2008)

AlanB said:


> It's not that Amtrak doesn't believe that they aren't safe enough, it's that they are smart enough not to accept such an agreement that puts all the liability on them.


But I thought they were wording this as being unwilling to take financial responsibility for any mistakes that were their fault. And if that's the case, that's bad, because it leaves them with a disincentive to spend money in ways that would actually be cost effective ways of reducing risk.

It really is best if the contracts are structured in such a way that the bean counters will have the proper incentives to spend money on cost effective risk mitigation measures.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 24, 2008)

Essentially, if Amtrak took on the level of liability that the contract required of them, every asset of Amtrak everywhere could be taken to cover a court judgment. The way these other outfits work is that they set up subsidiary companies, so if the loss gets too great, there is nobody to collect from. Veolia's home is in France. What do you think our chances are of collecting from a company in a country that has refused to pay their bonds from WW1?


----------

