# Passenger train derailment in the Bronx



## AmtrakBlue

Just heard on GMA. Haven't looked up a link yet (fixing breakfast).


----------



## SarahZ

http://www.businessinsider.com/metro-north-train-derails-in-the-bronx-2013-12


----------



## SarahZ

Another: http://nypost.com/2013/12/01/metro-north-train-derails-in-the-bronx/


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Thanks Sarah.


----------



## guest

At least 2 reported dead.


----------



## guest

Is that the same track set that Amtrak NYP to Albany trains use?


----------



## VentureForth

I believe so.

A passenger quoted to ABC7 that it seemed to be traveling faster than usual and jumped a curve.

I hope this isn't Spain all over again.


----------



## Fan Railer

4 fatalities as of right now. And, no. This derailment occurred right after the split from the amtrak used tracks, which lead to 34th street NYP. MNR trains go to Grand Central.

Seems like an unfortunate case of one or maybe more of the following:

1.) Speeding

2.) Engineer negligence

3.) Engineer health problems


----------



## SarahZ

CNN link:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/01/travel/new-york-train-derails/index.html

They confirmed the cars didn't enter the water.

This is so sad.


----------



## Fan Railer

Some photos by Trevor Logan:

http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/43519-mnraccident-photos/


----------



## Rule G

Fan Railer said:


> 4 fatalities as of right now. And, no. This derailment occurred right after the split from the amtrak used tracks, which lead to 34th street NYP. MNR trains go to Grand Central.
> 
> Seems like an unfortunate case of one or maybe more of the following:
> 
> 1.) Speeding
> 
> 2.) Engineer negligence
> 
> 3.) Engineer health problems


Or a track defect, or equipment malfunction,or a debris strike.

Let's not automatically blame the engineer based on a quote from an injured passenger.


----------



## Fan Railer

Rule G said:


> Fan Railer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4 fatalities as of right now. And, no. This derailment occurred right after the split from the amtrak used tracks, which lead to 34th street NYP. MNR trains go to Grand Central.
> 
> Seems like an unfortunate case of one or maybe more of the following:
> 
> 1.) Speeding
> 
> 2.) Engineer negligence
> 
> 3.) Engineer health problems
> 
> 
> 
> Or a track defect, or equipment malfunction,or a debris strike.
> 
> Let's not automatically blame the engineer based on a quote from an injured passenger.
Click to expand...

Time will tell. Might be all of them (track was poorly maintained, AND there was speeding, which caused poorly maintained track to fail). We'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## SubwayNut

One thing that's certain, the train was a dual-mode P32 from Poughkeepsie and was in push mode with the dual-mode P32AC-DM pushing the 7 Shoreliner cars (there the same design as Amtrak's Horizons)


----------



## jis

The derailment is south (about 0.4 miles or so south) of the Amtrak connection. So once the confusion settles down it is likely that Amtrak service will resume.


----------



## Fan Railer

According to the engineer, it was a brake issue:



> A law enforcement official on the scene and familiar with the investigation said the train operator told investigators he applied brakes to the train, but it didn't slow down.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

_*WNBC *_reports Engineer survived alright and was the one who made the 911 call. Although the desk anchors on this seems to be knowledgeable even to details on the cars and push-pull config, no confirmation if it was actually Engineer or one of the Conductors.


----------



## CHamilton

Via KING 5 TV on Facebook.







One professional railroader commented:



> Sharp curve. Same spot where a CSX freight derailed a few months ago.


----------



## Railroad Bill

A sad day for the passengers and crew and the families of those lost. 

Hope we can refrain from placing blame for the accident until all the evidence is in. :mellow:


----------



## PRR 60

jis said:


> The derailment is south (about 0.4 miles or so south) of the Amtrak connection. So once the confusion settles down it is likely that Amtrak service will resume.


Looking at the aerial, the accident site is just south of the junction with the Amtrak west side connection. With the number of first responders and others on the scene, Amtrak operation may be disrupted for a while.


----------



## AlanB

CHamilton said:


> One professional railroader commented:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sharp curve. Same spot where a CSX freight derailed a few months ago.
Click to expand...

That professional is incorrect! This derailment is north of the SD station. The CSX freight derailment was south of the SD station. One has nothing to do with the other as the two sites are at least 1/4 of a mile apart, if not closer to a 1/2 mile apart.


----------



## SarahZ

My goodness. Look how close it came to going in the water.


----------



## CHamilton

Commuter Train Derails In The Bronx Killing 4





First responders gather around the derailment of a Metro North passenger train in the Bronx borough of New York on Sunday.
Craig Ruttle/AP


----------



## AlanB

Based upon what I'm seeing from live shots, assuming that the power & signal systems weren't damaged in the accident; Amtrak will be able to resume service as soon as they get some of those rescue crews out of the way.

Additionally, MN should be able to run limited service on this line using the eastern most track which was not damaged at all. It won't be anything approaching normal, but again once rescue crews are cleared in theory it should be possible to resume some service.

The middle track will need some work, as well as the removal of the engine and a few cars before it can be used. The outer or westernmost track will require an extensive rebuilding before it can carry trains again.


----------



## Railroad Bill

I guess if we are looking for silver linings.. another few feet and it might have wiped out the station and caused many more serious injuries for those on the overhead platform.


----------



## Paulus

Is that a station that the train would have been expected to stop at?


----------



## AlanB

Paulus said:


> Is that a station that the train would have been expected to stop at?


No.

This train was an express making very limited stops. It's last stop was Tarrytown several miles north and its next stop was to be 125th Street in Manhattan.


----------



## NE933

Eastern track seems ok, but the earth and ballast underneath likely have to be checked for shifting.


----------



## the_traveler

For those not familiar with the area, the tracks on the left in the photo posted by Charlie in post #17 are those used by Amtrak to get to NYP. The tracks on the right (where the derailment happened) is only used by MNRR going to Grand Central. The junction of the 2 lines is at the top of the photo.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

Does _*Metro North*_ use in-cab video?


----------



## Blackwolf

OlympianHiawatha said:


> Does _*Metro North*_ use in-cab video?


I was just thinking the same thing. Also, being that close to a station, I would think a security camera or two may have recorded the event.

The cars themselves actually appear to have held up very well, with no passenger compartment intrusion or major structural failure. The injuries and fatalities are likely caused from not being restrained inside. Not a good day.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

I am always amazed in cases like this how the media and other folks take as gospel what the Governor or some other pee-pot politician says.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

_*WNBC*_ reports Amtrak is restoring Empire Corridor Service. That is relief considering this is one of their busiest travel days.


----------



## jis

There are some reports that at least two of the fatalities are individuals that were ejected from the train. Awaiting more info.


----------



## MrFSS

There was a lot of discussion on CNN about if trains should have seat belts.


----------



## PRR 60

OlympianHiawatha said:


> _*WNBC*_ reports Amtrak is restoring Empire Corridor Service. That is relief considering this is one of their busiest travel days.


Amtrak has reversed that and is not operating through the area.


----------



## amamba

Wow, that looks scary. Thanks for the reporting here that has helped me to understand the location of the tracks compared to Amtrak, etc. I really appreciate the great information that I get from this forum. My heart goes out to anyone affected by this incident.


----------



## NE933

Some observations of mine from the photos:

1. The lead car has debris on the roof above the cab area, in the form of either soil, or vegetation, or both, in addition to scrape marks on the side facing the Hudson River, indicating it likely turned over and then righted itself from the forces generated in the accident; such a maneuver would indeed create violent motions sufficient to throw passengers out.

2. Had it gone off the tracks a little further, the station would have been hit and the carnage factor way up, with people on the platform getting wiped out and rail cars deformed similar in the way the German ICE was, from hitting a hard stationary object.

3. Not accident related, but interesting, is a photo revealing the long dormant south track (Spuyten Duyvel used to be a wye configuration) that would enable traffic to run from the bridge to southbound. Old printed materials I have state that the need for such movements were rare, and so the track was taken up, except for a few feet shown in the picture.

This is a big downer, and I feel bad for the losses involved and the effects it shall have in many areas, causing more uncertainty, distress, grieving, and sadness.


----------



## AlanB

NE933 said:


> 3. Not accident related, but interesting, is a photo revealing the long dormant south track (Spuyten Duyvel used to be a wye configuration) that would enable traffic to run from the bridge to southbound. Old printed materials I have state that the need for such movements were rare, and so the track was taken up, except for a few feet shown in the picture.


That is the track that some railfans are hoping to see restored such that one the LIRR starts sending some trains to Grand Central, Metro North will be able to send some Harlem line trains to NYP. Hudson line trains of course would just follow the route currently used by Amtrak, were this dream of getting MN to NYP ever realized.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

What difference, if any, is there between the Blue and Red stripe Coaches?


----------



## AlanB

Blue are owned by NY State and Metro North solely. Red ones are in theory New Haven line cars, even though Metro North uses them wherever and however they see fit, but are at least partially owned by CDOT and the State of CT.

Same is true of engines.


----------



## battalion51

IIRC red striped coaches are owned by CDOT whereas blue striped coaches are owned by MTA. Could be wrong, but that sticks out in my mind.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

your right, both are in pool service and can be used on any of 3 lines or branches.


----------



## Gingee

So in this picture the train was headed north?


----------



## MrFSS

Gingee said:


> So in this picture the train was headed north?


 No - south. The engine was on the "rear" of the train pushing it. The engineer was in the lead car (cab car) controlling the engine from there.


----------



## George Harris

jis said:


> There are some reports that at least two of the fatalities are individuals that were ejected from the train. Awaiting more info.


I would consider being ejected from the train highly unlikely unless the person was in the vestibule between cars at the time. Note the absence of crumpling of the coaches compared to those in the Spanish derailment. Consider this an illustration of why I consider reducing the strength requirements of passenger cars to be similar to that required in Europe to be *a very bad idea.*


----------



## Train person

George Harris said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are some reports that at least two of the fatalities are individuals that were ejected from the train. Awaiting more info.
> 
> 
> 
> I would consider being ejected from the train highly unlikely unless the person was in the vestibule between cars at the time. Note the absence of crumpling of the coaches compared to those in the Spanish derailment. Consider this an illustration of why I consider reducing the strength requirements of passenger cars to be similar to that required in Europe to be *a very bad idea.*
Click to expand...

Perhaps the lack of crumpling might be to do with the difference in speed between the 2 accidents, and the lack of running into a concrete retaining wall might help as well.As for the ejection of passengers from the train, did none of the windows break....?? Broken windows, vehicles rolling over, indeed, why would anyone be ejected through the window space?


----------



## jis

I learned that now it is known that three of the fatalities were ejected through emergency windows that popped out on their own. This will likely be a significant area of inquiry as to how to prevent such from happening in the future.


----------



## George Harris

Train person said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are some reports that at least two of the fatalities are individuals that were ejected from the train. Awaiting more info.
> 
> 
> 
> I would consider being ejected from the train highly unlikely unless the person was in the vestibule between cars at the time. Note the absence of crumpling of the coaches compared to those in the Spanish derailment. Consider this an illustration of why I consider reducing the strength requirements of passenger cars to be similar to that required in Europe to be *a very bad idea.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps the lack of crumpling might be to do with the difference in speed between the 2 accidents, and the lack of running into a concrete retaining wall might help as well.As for the ejection of passengers from the train, did none of the windows break....?? Broken windows, vehicles rolling over, indeed, why would anyone be ejected through the window space?
Click to expand...

Since I wrote what did, I have seen the same report or similar that Jis quoted in post just above. As he said, that emergency windows popped out will be investigate. Not supposed to have happened. Have seen videos of Spanish accident. Stand by what I said on strength issues.


----------



## TVRM610

I'm not sure why people want to argue about strength issues. USA has much higher strength requirements and the equipment holds up much better in accidents. This to me is a proven fact based on actual accidents USA vs. Europe.


----------



## John Bredin

TVRM610 said:


> I'm not sure why people want to argue about strength issues. USA has much higher strength requirements and the equipment holds up much better in accidents. This to me is a proven fact based on actual accidents USA vs. Europe.


What people want to argue about is whether that better performance in accidents does or doesn't outweigh the extra cost from (1) heavier passenger/commuter cars that have to be (2) specially designed for the U.S. market.

If Amtrak or a commuter operator can afford only 50 cars built to FRA requirements but could buy 60 cars "off the shelf" from a European or Japanese manufacturer, and if they're going to use 10% more fuel or electricity than the off-the-shelf cars, then how many lives are saved by FRA-compliant cars is only half the equation. (Made-up numbers for example, of course.)

Of course, this is complicated by Buy-American requirements; Amtrak or a commuter authority, spending at least partly Federal money for a car purchase, can't just have the same cars that would be sold to a non-U.S. railway shipped from an overseas factory but have to have at least some of the manufacturing occur here. (That complicates back the other way in that, even absent a Buy American *legal* requirement, I'm sure we'd see final assembly plants in the buying agency's state as part of sweetening the bidding politically. Federal Buy-American requirements don't require, for example, a Metra bi-level final assembly plant in Illinois.  )


----------



## the_traveler

If you or a family member are killed or injured because "xx" bought an "off the shelf" rail car and saved some money, I'm certain you will be glad that they saved 10% and did not go with the higher strength car!


----------



## John Bredin

With all due respect,

(1) I don't think the Europeans or Japanese value their lives, or the lives of their family members, any less than Americans do and yet they live with "lesser" standards and haven't adopted the FRA standards.

(2) There's _*always*_ a trade-off of safety and cost -- and cost here doesn't mean only monetary, but environmental, time, etc. -- and there's _*always*_ another mechanism/policy/etc. that could be implemented to make things safer than now by some degree, but there's _*always*_ a point where we don't add the next extra step because it would cost more than it would save. To use a cliche example, the roads could be safer if the maximum speed limit was 40, or 25, or 10 mph, but we don't impose 40 mph on expressways or 25 mph on most main roads/highways or 10mph on most residential side streets. No transport (or any other) system has actually run, or _*could*_ run, on a "one fatality is too many!" basis.

(3) All else being equal, anything that makes passenger rail more expensive or difficult/inconvenient tends to make it more likely, even if only marginally, that people will drive, and we all know that train travel is safer than driving. To go back to my example, if Amtrak could buy 60 cars rather than 50 cars at the same price, it could carry more people that would otherwise be driving, some percentage of whom would have died in road accidents.


----------



## jis

I substantially agree with John's position as stated above.


----------



## VentureForth

I've seen articles popping up with passengers declaring that it was "Driver Error" because he didn't slow down. This is really irritating - how on Earth does a passenger even know if the driver applied the brakes and they failed or if he didn't do anything at all?


----------



## train person

the_traveler said:


> If you or a family member are killed or injured because "xx" bought an "off the shelf" rail car and saved some money, I'm certain you will be glad that they saved 10% and did not go with the higher strength car!


That's quite a rather foolish and flippant statement. The vehicles that derailed yesterday obviously complied with whatever rules regarding strength appllied at the time of their purchase, yet people still died because the emergency windows popped out allowing the passengers to be expelled from the vehicle. So applying your rather childish analogy, surely the next step is the total removal of the windows, just board them up. After all, most people are so engrossed in their i-device they probably wouldn't notice.Go one step further, strap them into their seats, after all, total safety is what you desire.

Even if the vehicles involved in yesterdays disaster where 1000 times 'stronger' (which according to you is a good thing) if the vehicles had ended up in the river, what use would that have been to the poor unfortunates? Stronger vehicle=heavier=sink quicker, so would people then be calling for rail vehicles that float?

The engineer claimed the brakes didn't respond, so regardless of how safe or unsafe a certain rail vehicle is because of how 'strong' it is, having working brakes is more of an issue than just making things 'stronger', because if the brakes had worked (if that indeed is the cause of the accident) then nobody would have died and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Would we? And that would be a much better state of affairs.


----------



## Paulus

NTSB reporting that preliminary investigation showed he was going 82 mph into the 30mph curve. Anyone know what the normal speed limit for the prior section was?


----------



## MattW

It's been reported to be 75mph, then 70mph, then the 30mph curve, but this is third-hand, I do not know personally.


----------



## Bob Dylan

According to a Post on trainorders (which I can't Post or Link) the Metro North Train involved in the Accident was Running 82 MPH when it entered the 30 MPH Curve! It sources an NTSB Member by Name, not sure if this is True??? :unsure:


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

If the speed limit for the section prior to the curve is 70 MPH and the train was at 82 MPH why was there not a penalty application? During the Presser Mr. Weener said the throttle went to idle 6 seconds before the crash and at the same time Brake Pressure went to zero. This is very interesting.


----------



## Paulus

jimhudson said:


> According to a Post on trainorders (which I can't Post or Link) the Metro North Train involved in the Accident was Running 82 MPH when it entered the 30 MPH Curve! It sources an NTSB Member by Name, not sure if this is True??? :unsure:


'tis true, just stated at press conference.


----------



## jis

I believe the 30mph speed limit commences at least at CP 12 about 0.4 miles from the crash location, and perhaps a little before that. So yes, something happened that still awaits an explanation if it was doing 82mph.

The speed limits mentioned are not signal speed limits. They are civil speed limits (PSR or TSR)). The MNRR system, like the old PRR system absent ACSES does not enforce civil speed limits (PSR or TSR). The train would have had "Clear" signals all the way. It was upto the engineer to keep the train at the track speed limits or below. So it is not at all surprising there was no penalty brake application.

If that business about 6sec before the crash is true then it would seem that the train had blown through speed limits approaching CP12. that does not look good for the operator on the face of it. However, only a full investigation will reveal exactly what happened.


----------



## PRR 60

The NTSB has turned the railroad back to Metro North. MN can now begin the work to reopen the tracks.


----------



## PRR 60

The 30mph limit starts at MP 11.5 (through MP 9.9). Eastbound, prior to coming up to MP 11.5, the speed is 75.


----------



## George Harris

train person said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you or a family member are killed or injured because "xx" bought an "off the shelf" rail car and saved some money, I'm certain you will be glad that they saved 10% and did not go with the higher strength car!
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a rather foolish and flippant statement. The vehicles that derailed yesterday obviously complied with whatever rules regarding strength appllied at the time of their purchase, yet people still died because the emergency windows popped out allowing the passengers to be expelled from the vehicle. So applying your rather childish analogy, surely the next step is the total removal of the windows, just board them up. After all, most people are so engrossed in their i-device they probably wouldn't notice.Go one step further, strap them into their seats, after all, total safety is what you desire.
> 
> Even if the vehicles involved in yesterdays disaster where 1000 times 'stronger' (which according to you is a good thing) if the vehicles had ended up in the river, what use would that have been to the poor unfortunates? Stronger vehicle=heavier=sink quicker, so would people then be calling for rail vehicles that float?
> 
> The engineer claimed the brakes didn't respond, so regardless of how safe or unsafe a certain rail vehicle is because of how 'strong' it is, having working brakes is more of an issue than just making things 'stronger', because if the brakes had worked (if that indeed is the cause of the accident) then nobody would have died and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Would we? And that would be a much better state of affairs.
Click to expand...

What I see as foolish and flippant is your response, in fact much of it downright silly. See my response to John's statements, which will have to be given later.


----------



## Ryan

I'd be more interested in reading a substantive response then some petty insults.

You can do better.


----------



## CHamilton

Despite Metro-North Crash, Riding the Rails Is Safer Than Riding a Car



> ...Sunday’s catastrophe — the first time passengers have died in Metro-North’s more than 30-year history — might prompt more than a few commuters to consider handing in their monthly commuter-rail passes and making the trip to work by car instead. But that would be a mistake — and not just because the traffic entering and exiting Manhattan during rush hour could be its own circle of hell. Despite the recent accident, traveling by rail is far safer on a mile-by-mile basis than riding in a car — though neither is as safe as flying. Here’s a quick rundown of the fatality rates for different modes of transportation, taken from a recent paper in Research in Transportation Economics(and hat tip to this piece by Leighton Walter Kille, which directed me to the original research):
> 
> 
> CARS/LIGHT TRUCKS: 7.28 fatalities per billion passenger miles
> COMMUTER/LONG-HAUL TRAINS: 0.43 fatalities per billion passenger miles
> BUSES: 0.11 deaths per billion passenger miles
> AVIATION: 0.07 deaths per billion passenger miles...
> 
> As Sunday’s derailment shows — along with the nearly 90 fatal auto crashes that occur every day on average — there’s still plenty of room for improvement in transportation safety. But it’s getting from point A to point B in America has likely never been safer than it is today.


----------



## Nathanael

Paulus said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to a Post on trainorders (which I can't Post or Link) the Metro North Train involved in the Accident was Running 82 MPH when it entered the 30 MPH Curve! It sources an NTSB Member by Name, not sure if this is True??? :unsure:
> 
> 
> 
> 'tis true, just stated at press conference.
Click to expand...

And this is why Positive Train Control is being mandated. The lazy Class Is should expect NO delays in the deadline for the mandate.


----------



## NW cannonball

Thanks Chamilton, for posting a voice of reason.


----------



## NW cannonball

For those who haven't yet seen it, NTSB posted a "B-roll" video on their website Monday. It's a silent string of short bits, with close shots of some of the damaged railcars. Shot while the investigation and re-railing going on.

Car 6345 has been righted, and appears to have got the worst damage (about 01:24 in the video). You can see why some passengers spoke of broken windows and "eating rocks". The right side back half of that car looks it was scraped real hard on the ground, ballast, cobblestones, whatever. Ugly. But no crumpling or bending or crushing.


----------



## train person

George Harris said:


> train person said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you or a family member are killed or injured because "xx" bought an "off the shelf" rail car and saved some money, I'm certain you will be glad that they saved 10% and did not go with the higher strength car!
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a rather foolish and flippant statement. The vehicles that derailed yesterday obviously complied with whatever rules regarding strength appllied at the time of their purchase, yet people still died because the emergency windows popped out allowing the passengers to be expelled from the vehicle. So applying your rather childish analogy, surely the next step is the total removal of the windows, just board them up. After all, most people are so engrossed in their i-device they probably wouldn't notice.Go one step further, strap them into their seats, after all, total safety is what you desire.
> 
> Even if the vehicles involved in yesterdays disaster where 1000 times 'stronger' (which according to you is a good thing) if the vehicles had ended up in the river, what use would that have been to the poor unfortunates? Stronger vehicle=heavier=sink quicker, so would people then be calling for rail vehicles that float?
> 
> The engineer claimed the brakes didn't respond, so regardless of how safe or unsafe a certain rail vehicle is because of how 'strong' it is, having working brakes is more of an issue than just making things 'stronger', because if the brakes had worked (if that indeed is the cause of the accident) then nobody would have died and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Would we? And that would be a much better state of affairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I see as foolish and flippant is your response, in fact much of it downright silly. See my response to John's statements, which will have to be given later.
Click to expand...

Silly? Maybe. Just taking things to their logical conclusion….. Two ways of dealing with rail accidents, make sure you don't have them, or try to deal with the consequences of the first minute or so of whatever disaster befalls your train. One of those is easier to do, the other one not so. Taking a rather blinkered view about perceived vehicle strength seems a bit narrow minded to me. Seeing as the NTSB are saying the locomotive was still powering until some seconds before taking the curve and the brakes didn't get applied until too late, then engineer error is looking likely, and there is a similarity with the Spanish crash, lack of automatic train control when approaching a much lower speed restriction. Until that issue is addressed, car strength is just not worth getting over excited about, is it?


----------



## jis

Now there are reports that the Motorman dozed off and woke up too late. If that turns out to be the case then this would be a prime example of an accident that would not have occurred if PTC was in place and operational. In other words in another two years when ACSES is supposed to be in service on this segment a similar accident would become highly unlikely. I know that there are some who oppose PTC for what I consider to be pretty dubious reasons.


----------



## Ryan

It seems as though our efforts would be much better spent trying to prevent accidents than mitigate the consequences of a train taking a 30 MPH curve at 80 MPH, or blowing a red signal and going head on into a freight train.


----------



## Paulus

Nathanael said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to a Post on trainorders (which I can't Post or Link) the Metro North Train involved in the Accident was Running 82 MPH when it entered the 30 MPH Curve! It sources an NTSB Member by Name, not sure if this is True??? :unsure:
> 
> 
> 
> 'tis true, just stated at press conference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And this is why Positive Train Control is being mandated. The lazy Class Is should expect NO delays in the deadline for the mandate.
Click to expand...

And the lazy government railroads like Caltrain and Metro-North?


----------



## CHamilton

jis said:


> Now there are reports that the Motorman dozed off and woke up too late.


Metro-North Engineer Was Dozing Just Before Train Derailment, Sources Say


----------



## jis

Metro North just signed a contract to install ACSES in its entire network thus deploying PTC for its entire network. They will meet the 2015 deadline.

Actually most lazy government railroads will meet the deadline as it turns out. The only misses that might occur would be due to FCC issues regarding radio spectrum availability for the radio segment.


----------



## jis

Thanks Charlie. That is the article that I saw, but I was then on a plane about to get off and head to my car so did not have the time to add the link, specially given the bizarre mobile interface one has to deal with from a smartphone.


----------



## Paulus

jis said:


> Metro North just signed a contract to install ACSES in its entire network thus deploying PTC for its entire network. They will meet the 2015 deadline.
> 
> Actually most lazy government railroads will meet the deadline as it turns out. The only misses that might occur would be due to FCC issues regarding radio spectrum availability for the radio segment.


Reports I was reading was saying 2019 at the earliest for installation. And I fully expect Caltrain to miss it with their CBOSS nonsense.


----------



## jis

2019 for Metro North? Really? Where did you see that?

I don;t know anything about Caltrain. California is an empire unto itself anyway.


----------



## Paulus

jis said:


> 2019 for Metro North? Really? Where did you see that?
> 
> I don;t know anything about Caltrain. California is an empire unto itself anyway.


http://nextcity.org/theworks/entry/signaling-upgrades-might-have-prevented-sundays-metro-north-deaths


----------



## jis

Paulus said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2019 for Metro North? Really? Where did you see that?
> 
> I don;t know anything about Caltrain. California is an empire unto itself anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> http://nextcity.org/theworks/entry/signaling-upgrades-might-have-prevented-sundays-metro-north-deaths
Click to expand...

Ah OK. Thanks. Clearly I had wrong information. Apologies for adding to the confusion.
This particular event is going to give an enormous amount of gas reflex to a lot of people who have been shouting from rooftops that PTC is unnecessary. They keep getting proved wrong over and over again, but that does not seem to deter them at all. Specially on intensively used passenger routes I cannot see any justification for holding the position that PTC is unnecessary.

Indeed I did not know that Metro North has been foolish enough to take a public position on this. It should serve them right to have their hands slapped on that as a result of this incident.

Of course everyone pleads poverty since there is a limited budget and you have to make some decisions about priorities.

NJT has also been dragging its feet, as usual pleading poverty. They do have a contract out, but again don;t know what the dates are for expected deployment.

Around NEC, it is not even some new invention that they have to deploy. It is basically Amtrak's ACSES overlaid on essentially the same CTC cab signaling system as what Amtrak uses.


----------



## VentureForth

Unnamed sources, "all but admitted", etc. His Union will be working overtime for him in the coming weeks.

When these trains are operated in a push-pull configuration, can the driver be seen by the passengers like they can in the Bombardier Bi-Level cab cars? I know in Japan on most of the commuter trains, there is a privacy curtain between the driver and the passengers that can be pulled down at the discretion of the driver. Other long distance trains have control cabs that are completely out of sight of the passengers.

In lieu of an Automatic Train Stopper/Controller or PTC or whatever anyone wants to come out with, there has got to be some sort of logical threshold where it makes sense to have two sets of eyes in the cab instead of just one...


----------



## WinNix

jis said:


> Now there are reports that the Motorman dozed off and woke up too late. If that turns out to be the case then this would be a prime example of an accident that would not have occurred if PTC was in place and operational. In other words in another two years when ACSES is supposed to be in service on this segment a similar accident would become highly unlikely. I know that there are some who oppose PTC for what I consider to be pretty dubious reasons.


There is no greater force for change than a tragedy that could have been prevented using safety methods that should have already been in place. It happens too often, and across too many aspects in life.


----------



## PRR 60

VentureForth said:


> Unnamed sources, "all but admitted", etc. His Union will be working overtime for him in the coming weeks.
> 
> When these trains are operated in a push-pull configuration, can the driver be seen by the passengers like they can in the Bombardier Bi-Level cab cars? I know in Japan on most of the commuter trains, there is a privacy curtain between the driver and the passengers that can be pulled down at the discretion of the driver. Other long distance trains have control cabs that are completely out of sight of the passengers.
> 
> In lieu of an Automatic Train Stopper/Controller or PTC or whatever anyone wants to come out with, there has got to be some sort of logical threshold where it makes sense to have two sets of eyes in the cab instead of just one...


What is sounds like is not sleeping, in the traditional sense, but what is commonly called "highway hypnosis." You are seemingly awake and can perform repetitive functions, but your brain is partially switched off. You can snap out of the trance and not remember what happened in the last few minutes. Anyone who has had it happen, and I have, will attest it is really scary and seems to be unrelated to fatigue.


----------



## Ryan

I'd guess it's a rare person that hasn't had it happen, especially when completing a task that you've done many, many times, like driving to/from work or operating a train over the same territory.

Having a second set of equally impaired eyes won't help. Computers will.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Yep, my car knows the way home from the theater I work at 3 weeks each summer. Amazing, isn't it. Luckily, I've never gone so far as almost being in an accident, that i can recall.


----------



## jis

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/03/us/new-york-train-crash/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Now it is union representative making statements about nodding off....

Yes, indeed, it sounds like "Highway Hypnosis" and yes I have experienced it and it is scary like hell. Imagining getting that in a vehicle that does not have as responsive brakes as in a car is doubly scary. Then again poor application of brakes is what causes many spinouts in such situations.

Ironically, it is possible that emergency brake application only exacerbated the situation. Of course we will know if that was the case when the NTSB report comes out.


----------



## Fan Railer

VentureForth said:


> When these trains are operated in a push-pull configuration, can the driver be seen by the passengers like they can in the Bombardier Bi-Level cab cars? I know in Japan on most of the commuter trains, there is a privacy curtain between the driver and the passengers that can be pulled down at the discretion of the driver. Other long distance trains have control cabs that are completely out of sight of the passengers.


There indeed exists a window on the cab door that separates the Engineer from the passenger compartment, but one would have to be standing right up against it to really see the engineer and what he's doing. We don't know if this window was covered in this situation, but some engineers choose to cover it, while others don't. The view you see is similar to this (standing):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yT90tkOyqI

And sitting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AXv5egf048


----------



## VentureForth

RyanS said:


> I'd guess it's a rare person that hasn't had it happen, especially when completing a task that you've done many, many times, like driving to/from work or operating a train over the same territory.
> 
> Having a second set of equally impaired eyes won't help. Computers will.


I've certainly experienced this and it really is scary as hell. I've blown through stoplights and by the grace of God didn't hit anyone. On the other hand, I have been hit indirectly by someone induced by this same condition.

I am not advocating a second set of eyes in every metro or even commuter operation. Frequent stops would reduce the likelyhood of dozing, whereas express operations over long routes without ATS/PTC/ATC and subject to Class I rail rules shared with freight (perhaps not even at the same time) would be more susceptible.

So Metro North has gone all these years without the need. But how much prevention could have been bought for what the payout its gonna be?

I believe that FRA crash standards kept the casualties much lower than it could have been. However, preventing it in the future is a better plan.


----------



## Ryan

"Blowing through stop lights" reminded me of one time where this (or something similar) happened to me.

There was an intersection near where I grew up that was protected by a stop sign. To leave my house and go anywhere north or west, you had to stop at the sign and then left. I must have driven that intersection thousands of times between when I got my license and graduating from college.

Some time later, on a visit home, I was driving that way with my Mom as a passenger. While I was gone, the stop sign was replaced by a traffic light (you can see where this is going). Engaged with Mom in conversation and on autopilot, I pulled up to the red light, looked both ways and blew right through it after a "California stop". Mom politely asked me what I was doing, running a red light (ok, it may not have been that polite and may have involved a 4 letter word or two, as did my reaction), and I realized what I had done. I was so "in the zone", I literally didn't see the red signal at all. Completely invisible. At least the (mostly) stop and look both ways was ingrained into me so I didn't pull out too closely to the car that was coming at the intersection with a green light.


----------



## CHamilton

FRA Calls for Immediate Safety Measures for Metro-North (Bloomberg)

How Did Metro-North Go From Model System to Target of Scrutiny? (Chicago Trib)


----------



## train person

VentureForth said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd guess it's a rare person that hasn't had it happen, especially when completing a task that you've done many, many times, like driving to/from work or operating a train over the same territory.
> 
> Having a second set of equally impaired eyes won't help. Computers will.
> 
> 
> 
> I've certainly experienced this and it really is scary as hell. I've blown through stoplights and by the grace of God didn't hit anyone. On the other hand, I have been hit indirectly by someone induced by this same condition.
> 
> I am not advocating a second set of eyes in every metro or even commuter operation. Frequent stops would reduce the likelyhood of dozing, whereas express operations over long routes without ATS/PTC/ATC and subject to Class I rail rules shared with freight (perhaps not even at the same time) would be more susceptible.
> 
> So Metro North has gone all these years without the need. But how much prevention could have been bought for what the payout its gonna be?
> 
> I believe that FRA crash standards kept the casualties much lower than it could have been. However, preventing it in the future is a better plan.
Click to expand...

In these sort of accidents what you have done matter less than what you haven't done. Luck also pays a part, such as the train not being Monday morning full, or it not ending up in the river. Prevention is better than cure…...


----------



## RRUserious

Just curious. With GPS, is it possible a train's throttle could be made to drop to whatever is considered a safe limit? Of course, that couldn't be a sharp line. If a train is in a 70 mph zone and approaching a 30 mph zone, the slowing process would have to start within the 70 mph zone. On our local freeways, they have digital signs alerting drivers to what the safe speed is in a dynamic way. This is partly due to the fact that there are curves that prevent drivers from seeing a slowdown or stoppage ahead. By reducing the speed of cars, it becomes easier for the cars to brake when they round the curve and see slow moving traffic. The whole system depends on drivers heeding the signs, but if they buy that it is for their own benefit, then maybe they will. If a train route has curves and forest that blocks vision, then it really needs data on what's ahead. And if engineers space out, then maybe it is expecting too much for them to be timely in decelerating.


----------



## Paulus

NTSB has kicked the union out of the investigation. Not surprising, I've been absolutely amazed that the union was making official comments that the engineer was dozing off. Aside from the NTSB's concerns with release of confidential information, that's a complete dereliction of their duty to defend him in the inevitable disciplinary process, especially given that it is entirely possible that he could face criminal charges.


----------



## jis

RRUserious said:


> Just curious. With GPS, is it possible a train's throttle could be made to drop to whatever is considered a safe limit? Of course, that couldn't be a sharp line. If a train is in a 70 mph zone and approaching a 30 mph zone, the slowing process would have to start within the 70 mph zone. On our local freeways, they have digital signs alerting drivers to what the safe speed is in a dynamic way. This is partly due to the fact that there are curves that prevent drivers from seeing a slowdown or stoppage ahead. By reducing the speed of cars, it becomes easier for the cars to brake when they round the curve and see slow moving traffic. The whole system depends on drivers heeding the signs, but if they buy that it is for their own benefit, then maybe they will. If a train route has curves and forest that blocks vision, then it really needs data on what's ahead. And if engineers space out, then maybe it is expecting too much for them to be timely in decelerating.


Yes. That is the entire thrust of PTC.... to use distance to target, current speed, train weight and route gradient characteristics information to compute a braking curve and enforce that using the control systems available on the locomotive. The engineer essentially is presented with a target speed curve which s/he either sticks to or the system takes over and enforces it.


----------



## VentureForth

Paulus said:


> NTSB has kicked the union out of the investigation. Not surprising, I've been absolutely amazed that the union was making official comments that the engineer was dozing off. Aside from the NTSB's concerns with release of confidential information, that's a complete dereliction of their duty to defend him in the inevitable disciplinary process, especially given that it is entirely possible that he could face criminal charges.


 Somehow, I think that the Union rep and the attorney are planning to use the dozing off as a defense, rather than stating that as an admission of guilt.


----------



## RRUserious

Pretty scary defensive tactic. Can't believe it'd save the guy's job. Unless it meant a transfer to a job not responsible for other people's lives. Hmmm. I wonder what the attorney would say is "the right job" for a guy who might lose consciousness at any moment. Lawyer? I think I've heard of public defenders who've dozed off during trials.


----------



## guest

We're stretching out the topic pretty good now...


----------



## PRR 60

MTA Metro-North Railroad Announces Full Hudson Line Service Thursday


----------



## WhoozOn1st

No alerter in the cab car, or in half the trains operating push-pull:

Doomed Metro-North Train Had Warning System, Just Not in Operator’s Cab -- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/nyregion/as-metro-north-resumes-service-riders-get-back-to-routine.html?pagewanted=1&hp

"The Metro-North Railroad train that derailed on Sunday included a system designed to warn an operator of a potential accident. But such an “alerter,” which can automatically apply the brakes if an operator is unresponsive, was not in the cab where William Rockefeller apparently fell into an early-morning daze while operating the Manhattan-bound train. It was at the other end of the train."

"Three days after the train tumbled off the Hudson line’s rails in the Bronx, killing four people and injuring more than 70, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority said that an alerter system had been installed in the locomotive pushing the train from the rear, but not in the front cab, where the engineer was positioned, properly, at the time of the crash.

"The train was in a 'push-pull' configuration, common on Metro-North. In such arrangements, trains are pushed by a locomotive in one direction and pulled in the other."

"In effect, trains configured and equipped like the one in the derailment employ the “alerter” system on only half of their runs."

Graphic of cab interior: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/12/04/nyregion/Safety-Features-on-Metro-North-Cars.html?ref=nyregion

If the article is accurate about alerter timing, and had an alerter been present, it seems there would have been a window in which the engineer could have suffered a lapse of consciousness without the alerter kicking in:

"An alerter system is designed to sound an alarm after 25 seconds of inactivity, and to apply brakes automatically if an engineer does not respond within 15 seconds."

So while an alerter might have helped prevent the derailment, perhaps not?


----------



## Nathanael

jis said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/03/us/new-york-train-crash/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
> 
> Now it is union representative making statements about nodding off....
> 
> Yes, indeed, it sounds like "Highway Hypnosis" and yes I have experienced it and it is scary like hell.


The really scary thing is that most people don't realize it's happening to them until it's been going on for a long time. People therefore overestimate their abilities.
I've been told that in order to reliably avoid highway hypnosis one should never, ever drive for more than 2 hours -- as an extreme limit -- at a time, without stopping and doing something else. Think about it...


----------



## Nathanael

Paulus said:


> And the lazy government railroads like Caltrain and Metro-North?


Well, yeah. And I have to be fair: I just found out that BNSF, alone among the freight railroads, says that it *WILL* comply with the law. The others plan to break the law.

The other railroads who say they are going to comply with the law are all government railroads:

(1) Amtrak, for not only the NEC, Keystone, and Springfield, but also Empire to Schenectady and Michigan corridor

(2) Metrolink in LA

(3) Coaster in San Diego

(4) SEPTA in Pennsylvania

Meanwhile, several of the others, including Metra and the South Shore Line, have *outright stated* that their PTC implementations are being delayed by the class I freight railroads.

Metro-North does deserve particular opprobrium, because implementing ACSES and Pennsy cab signals is not complicated and so there's no excuse for the delay. And LIRR, from what I can tell, just delegated its implementation to Metro-North. (Uh... right.)

All the freight railroads chased the chimera of radio, and were being stupid, which has delayed them, but they're stuck with it now -- should've gone with trackborne data transmission and short-distance balises.


----------



## RRUserious

Nathanael said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/03/us/new-york-train-crash/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
> 
> Now it is union representative making statements about nodding off....
> 
> Yes, indeed, it sounds like "Highway Hypnosis" and yes I have experienced it and it is scary like hell.
> 
> 
> 
> The really scary thing is that most people don't realize it's happening to them until it's been going on for a long time. People therefore overestimate their abilities.
> I've been told that in order to reliably avoid highway hypnosis one should never, ever drive for more than 2 hours -- as an extreme limit -- at a time, without stopping and doing something else. Think about it...
Click to expand...

I don't buy that. I've driven across North Dakota and Montana. But never alone. Not sure I'd bother alone. When I have one or more passengers, the social interaction keeps one conscious. Also, when my wife and I did it, we brought along recordings of Balkan songs we both knew. I think this hypnosis must be for solo drivers.


----------



## CHamilton

25 Train Tragedies Could Have Been Prevented in the Past Decade by This Technology



> An automated system that could have averted a December 1 commuter rail crash in New York City is stalled in a tug-of-war between Congress and the rail industry


From _Scientific American!_ PTC is suddenly getting a lot of mainstream coverage.


----------



## Anderson

The concern I've heard about PTC is that there's really no ability to override a messed-up signal, among other related issues.

As to the MNRR crash...if he was doing 83, he was speeding for anywhere south of _Cold Spring_. I have to seriously ask, even ignoring PTC, why there wasn't an automated overspeed stop in place for a train going well outside the speed limit?


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> The concern I've heard about PTC is that there's really no ability to override a messed-up signal, among other related issues.
> 
> As to the MNRR crash...if he was doing 83, he was speeding for anywhere south of _Cold Spring_. I have to seriously ask, even ignoring PTC, why there wasn't an automated overspeed stop in place for a train going well outside the speed limit?


MNRR equipment overspeed control is set to max speed of 90mph since they could potentially run at 90mph somewhere in their journey. So there is no means to enforce other civil speed limits.
As for the 30mph on the Spuyten Duyvil curve, signal speed enforcement can be used to enforce that, by jiggering the signal algorithm at CP 10 and CP 12 to display (NORAC) Approach (or the MNRR equivalent) as the most permissive signal entering the block that has the curve in it. Indeed this is what might happen for immediate mitigation. Similar use of signal speed enforcement is used for example on the Back Bay and Elizabeth curves on Amtrak NEC.


----------



## RRUserious

This reminds me of discussions about Air France 447. Particularly the idea of feeding black box info to the ground continuously. The more expert people said data was offloaded at the end of flights for such things as detecting unscheduled maintenance required. Well since this commuter train had a black box, it could be somewhat ameliorating if black box data was systematically collected. The notion is that bad habits by certain personnel could be detected on "safe trips" and used to give additional training where safety standards are not met.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

When driving my tractor trailer the federal government requires us to stop for 30min ever 8 hours. So the government thinks you can drive up to 7.5 hours between breaks. I have done in the past the full 10 hours (back than it was the limited) with out stopping.

It all about keeping yourself focus on the task at hand.


----------



## greatcats

I too was a bit surprised that the union made comments the way they were stated. As a former railroad employee, I feel terrible for Mr. Rockefeller. I have also been a commercial bus driver and had things go wrong, too.  Granted, this is a very serious accident, but apparently he has had a conscientious work record. Life for him must be hell right now.


----------



## greatcats

The highway hypnosis point also recalls the 2011 Amtrak wreck in Nevada that was hit by the truck. One difference with the trucker was that guy had a rather poor driving record. May he too rest in peace.


----------



## RRUserious

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> When driving my tractor trailer the federal government requires us to stop for 30min ever 8 hours. So the government thinks you can drive up to 7.5 hours between breaks. I have done in the past the full 10 hours (back than it was the limited) with out stopping.
> 
> It all about keeping yourself focus on the task at hand.


Of course, you could stop for truck stop coffee. That always helps with that last part. Oh, and then there's CB ("Breaker breaker")


----------



## SubwayNut

Anderson, read the New York Times Article, it provides a really good explanation of how MNR's cab signaling works and how the accident might have been prevented in pull mode where a loud buzzer would have sounded to wake the engineer up from his trance and not push-mode where the only 'dead-man's break' is an easy to engage foot petal. I've seen a printed copy of today's Times and the graphic in the paper is huge!

JIS nailed the immediate solution.


----------



## CHamilton

Lack of Sleep: What It Does to Your Brain



> Behind the controls of the Metro-North train that derailed in New York earlier this week was a tired driver, according to new reports that engineer William Rockefeller fell asleep at the wheel.
> 
> 
> Could lack of sleep cause such a fatal mistake?...
> 
> Early morning hours, like when the Metro-North train crashed, are some of the most vulnerable times for sleepy accidents, Howell said, especially for people whose circadian rhythms favor a later sleeping schedule and make it biologically difficult to function well after waking up with an alarm clock at 5 a.m.
> 
> Reports that Rockefeller had been driving for 20 minutes since his last stop and felt zoned out before the accident suggest that he probably fell asleep before the crash, Howell added.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

SubwayNut said:


> JIS nailed the immediate solution.


It appears the actual immediate solution is to put two people in the cab:

Federal Agency Orders Changes At Metro-North After Derailment -- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/07/nyregion/metro-north-is-ordered-to-modify-its-signal-system.html?hp&_r=0

"Five days after a fatal Metro-North Railroad derailment in the Bronx, the Federal Railroad Administration issued an emergency order on Friday requiring the railroad to have two people in place to operate trains at potentially precarious sites.

"The directive to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which operates Metro-North, said the personnel requirement would remain until the railroad updated its signal system to better enforce speed limits."

THEN other changes:

"The order calls on Metro-North to provide the railroad administration with a list of main track locations where maximum allowable speeds drop by more than 20 miles per hour. The railroad is to identify 'appropriate modifications to its existing automatic train control system or other signal systems to enable adequate advance warning of and adherence to such speed restrictions,' the administration said."


----------



## Blackwolf

Sounds like there will be a few new job opportunities opening up in New York very quickly...


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

WhoozOn1st said:


> No alerter in the cab car, or in half the trains operating push-pull:
> 
> Doomed Metro-North Train Had Warning System, Just Not in Operator’s Cab -- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/nyregion/as-metro-north-resumes-service-riders-get-back-to-routine.html?pagewanted=1&hp
> 
> "The Metro-North Railroad train that derailed on Sunday included a system designed to warn an operator of a potential accident. But such an “alerter,” which can automatically apply the brakes if an operator is unresponsive, was not in the cab where William Rockefeller apparently fell into an early-morning daze while operating the Manhattan-bound train. It was at the other end of the train." [...]
> 
> So while an alerter might have helped prevent the derailment, perhaps not?


An alerter would be the logical countermeasure towards falling asleep, I would imagine that fixing this will be amongst the NTSB's recommendations to MN... Still people fall asleep even with alerters.


----------



## jis

FRA has required MNRR to identify all places on their railroad where speed limit drops from one section to next by more than some threshold (20 or 30mph I forget which), and then modify the signals to use signal speed enforcement to enforce the lower speed. This will naturally take some time to complete. In the interim they are requiring that trains that pass through such areas be staffed with two operators at least through such sections.

This is exactly what I mentioned as the most likely immediate mitigation. In 4 or so years when MNRR gets around to install ACSES II, all this will become a non-issue since ACSES can enforce civil speed limits independent of the signaling

And the good Governor who is as clueless as they come, and would serve himself well if he stopped talking for a bit, has asked LIRR to be forced to do the same without realizing that LIRR has been doing so for the last decade and a half, and using a 7 aspect signaling system to boot, unlike MNRR's 4 aspect one. Politicians! Heaven help us!

BTW, if FRA actually enforces this order seriously, expect MNRR service frequency to be halved, since that is the only way they will be able to double the staff in the cab, at least until they are able to hire and train adequate number of new Engineers. If it applies to Amtrak running on MNRR too then Amtrak might face the same problem on MNRR, so expect to see adverse effect on Empire Service too. They could mitigate it somewhat by allowing a conductor trained person to be the second person, but still there will be adverse impact on train frequencies is what I am hearing.


----------



## SubwayNut

I finally got around to adding a blog post to my website about a walk I took up to Inwood Hill Park to view the derailment. You could see it far and clear across the river and the park was full of genuine press folks with huge telephoto lenses getting there shots under the Henry Hudson Bridge. It took me awhile to decide what I wanted to do with my photos but since I've also gone to witness Metro-North's other 3 major mishaps this year it only seems fitting to cover everything.


----------



## Anderson

I'm just wondering...how much of the "second operator" rule is going to result in a second operator boarding at one station, riding in/out a stop, and then getting off _a la_ the Indiana labor rules back in the 60s? Looking at an MNRR map:

-On the Hudson Line, I see no drops of _more_ than 20 MPH until Croton-Harmon. There's a major drop immediately south of the station (75 to 40). From there, you've got a slow curve into Yonkers (drop from 75 to 50), the infamous Spuyten Duyvil curve (75 to 30, then back to 60 before Marble Hill), and then the drop on your way into Grand Central.

-On the Harlem Line, you have a curve south of White Plains (which could simply be avoided by moving the speed limit increase right north of White Plains to just south of the curve), a possible case just north of Valhalla (a 65/50 drop followed immediately by a 40 curve) and one just south of Mount Kisco (75/45).

-On the New Haven Line, you have a possible case at New Rochelle (one track drops 70 to 30, but I think almost all trains make that stop), a 75/45 at the state line just north of Port Chester, 75/50 just south of Stamford (possibly avoided if you split the drop and move a 75/60 south of the 60 curve right there). You have a 70/45 just north of South Norwalk, 75/40 at the Saugatuck River, 70/45/30 just south of Bridgeport, 45/75 north of Bridgeport, and a 75/30 on the way into New Haven.

--There's a tight 60/40/20 at the start of the New Canaan Branch.

--There's a 75/10/30 situation at the start of the Danbury Branch, but the short distance between South Norwalk and that might have an effect here.

--There's a 75/10/59 at the start of the Waterbury Branch. Further up, there's a 59/25/50 around Derby Junction, a 50/25/50 around Ansonia, a 59/30/59 around Seymour, and the 59/50/30/10 on approach to Waterbury might qualify as well.

It sounds to me like you're going to have a _lot_ of employees doing glorified deadheading from Yonkers or 125th Street into GCT.


----------



## MattW

I'm not sure the 2nd employee requirement is quite as dire as is being said. Most of what I'm going say I draw from lurking in various other parts of the internet. The requirement isn't for a full-time engineer the whole route, just another qualified person in the head end. MNRR already requires a second person when operating at least into GCT from 125th street, not sure if they require one outbound. Getting a 2nd person into the cab when a P32 or Brookville is leading might be trickier though. Another solution the various people floated was for MNRR to step down the speeds so instead of say 70mph to 30mph, it might be 70 to 50 to 30, or so it's not on the razor edge of the requirement, 70 to 55 to 35 to 30. I of course can't speak as to the legality or practicality of these solutions, but it at least seems logical to me.


----------



## jis

Frankly, it should not take them more than a month to address the half a dozen or so locations that are the worst by changing the most permissive signal indication entering the section. When the infamous Back Bay incident happened, AFAIR (the details may be a little off) Amtrak had the signals changed within weeks. FRA had imposed a Stop and proceed at Restricting Speed PSR for that period from the signal at Ruggles all the way to Back Bay (i.e. that automatic signal was always red!). Played enough of a havoc with schedules which motivated Amtrak to fix it post haste.

That trick won't work at Spuyten Duyvil since the signal at CP 12 is a home signal and is not passable like a automatic block signal is.

THE FRA order to MNRR as it goes into effect, will affect all Amtrak trains operating on MNRR territory on the NEC and Empire Service too.


----------



## VentureForth

Looks like the already have a lot of fixes in place: The Daily News

Wonder if these changes will work both from the loco AND from the cab car...

Note the Sperry Doodlebug on the left track. Same company that failed to find a major defect that could have taken out the Silver Meteor a couple weeks back South of Savannah...


----------



## jis

Of course it will work from both ends. How would it not? I am confused. They did exactly what I said they'd do, i.e. change the most permissive aspect of the signal leading into the curve block to Approach (from Clear), which automatically enforces 30mph.

MNRR has only 4 signal speeds it can enforce using its current signaling system, and those are 20, 30, 45 and 90. Anything else has to be manually operated upon, hence the radio verification etc. Boy there will be a lot more chatter on radio until they get PTC in place in 4 or 5 years according to their current plans.

You are assuming that the defect was present when the Sperry unit inspected the track. That is not known so the innuendo is probably uncalled for.


----------



## Ryan

Obviously it's their fault for not being able to see into the future.


----------



## VentureForth

jis said:


> You are assuming that the defect was present when the Sperry unit inspected the track. That is not known so the innuendo is probably uncalled for.


It's not so much innuendo as it is speculation. I'm in no position of authority and isn't that what we do here? Speculate and armchair quarterback?

I would suspect that it is Sperry's responsibility to detect something imminent - not count on a passenger train travelling at 89mph to detect.

Cold weather breakage doesn't happen at a random spot on the track. Fatigue or stress fractures don't begin and manifest in a week. I would suspect that is precisely why a company such as Sperry is hired.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

jis said:


> Of course it will work from both ends. How would it not? I am confused.


To be fair, until this accident, I thought all the cab cars on pax trains I ever rode on had alerters in them... So it is a valid question if you do not understand the systems in question. Not all of us have your insight into railroad technology


----------



## George Harris

Venture Forth: Ever been involved in any form of inspection or search for defects or faults that could lead to defects? My guess would be that the answer to that is no.


----------



## VentureForth

Now that is innuendo. George, I work on airplanes and am very familiar with NDI. When you deal with aluminum cans that can burst at 30000 feet (ala Hawaiian Airlines), prevention through inspection becomes extremely important.

And our product sees temperature variation extremes every single time they fly.


----------



## Ryan

Then perhaps you can educate us on what fault was present in the rail that Sperry should have caught and missed, rather than just slam them.


----------



## Tokkyu40

the_traveler said:


> If you or a family member are killed or injured because "xx" bought an "off the shelf" rail car and saved some money, I'm certain you will be glad that they saved 10% and did not go with the higher strength car!


American buffer strength requirements mandate a rigid frame like a 1952 Nash. European and Japanese requirements mandate a crumple zone like a 2012 Mercedes. In a collision I have my own preferences as to which car I would rather be in.

Other countries have had problems with derailing and bringing a bridge down on the train (Germany and Australia) or derailing and slamming into an unyielding structure (Spain and Japan). We haven't had that yet, but we do have trains colliding with obstructions and telescoping or killing passengers who are thrown around inside the car by the sudden stop. These accidents are much safer in other countries who use crumple zones in the ends of the cars, and seem to be just as safe as ours when they derail into an open field.

We're starting to graft the ends of the Mercedes on our Nashes. Crash testing has shown that the "weaker" car is much safer for the passengers.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

Tokkyu40 said:


> These accidents are much safer in other countries who use crumple zones in the ends of the cars... Crash testing has shown that the "weaker" car is much safer for the passengers.


SoCal's new Metrolink coaches and cab cars employ Crash Energy Management - essentially crumple zones - and I believe are the first rolling stock in the U.S.A. to do so.




Metrolink's old-style cab car at left; Hyundai-Rotem Crash Energy Management cab car at right. (WhoozPhoto)​


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Good Lord Metrolink's fleet is getting even uglier...


----------



## Bob Dylan

Hooray for Hollywood!!! It's LA and SoCal Micah! :lol:


----------



## WhoozOn1st

"Federal Railroad Administration Launches Operation Deep Dive: Inspectors to conduct 60-day comprehensive safety assessment of Metro-North"

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04883

"On Monday, December 16, U.S. Department of Transportation technical and human factors experts will begin a comprehensive review and assessment of safety-critical procedures and processes at Metro-North. The rail safety team will look at:


Track, signal and rolling stock maintenance, inspection and repair practices;
Protection for employees working on rail infrastructure, locomotives and rail cars;
Communication between mechanical and transportation departments at maintenance facilities;
Operation control center procedures and rail traffic controller training;
Compliance with federal Hours of Service regulations, including fatigue management programs;
Evaluating results of operational data to measure efficiency of employees’ execution and comprehension of all applicable federal regulations;
Locomotive engineer oversight;
Engineer and conductor certification; and
Operating crew medical requirements."


----------



## GG-1

VentureForth said:


> Now that is innuendo. George, I work on airplanes and am very familiar with NDI. When you deal with aluminum cans that can burst at 30000 feet (ala Hawaiian Airlines), prevention through inspection becomes extremely important.
> 
> And our product sees temperature variation extremes every single time they fly.


Aloha

Having lived on Oahu at the time. And Having a number of friends that were employed by Aloha. And worked on the TV movie Miracle Landing about the accident, I would not use the term "burst". A leading edge of a roof section rivets failed, causing a 20 foot section of roof to be ripped off in the wind. Remember that the plane landed safely, with the only loss of life, a stewardess that was standing in the isle where the roof failed.

Metal fatigue is a fact of life and exist in all metals, we must deal with the reality that all things can fail.


----------



## CHamilton

Report Finds Punctuality Trumps Safety at Metro-North 



> The Metro-North Railroad has fallen prey to a “deficient safety culture” that prizes on-time performance at the expense of protecting riders and workers, according to a blistering federal review that was ordered after a spate of rail disasters.
> 
> The review, from the Federal Railroad Administration, found that the commuter railroad’s operations control center pressured workers “to rush when responding to signal failures,” and that workers struggled to secure the track time needed to perform essential repairs.
> 
> Even policies as pedestrian as the use of cellphones have created dangers: Amid confusion about the rules, cellphone use is “commonplace and accepted” among track workers on the job.
> 
> The inquiry, known as Operation Deep Dive, was prompted by the fatal derailment on Dec. 1 of a Hudson line train in the Bronx; it killed four passengers and injured more than 70 others. But the scope of the analysis was far-reaching — no passenger railroad has ever been the subject of such an investigation of its safety culture — and its conclusions were withering for a system that was, less than a year ago, considered one of the nation’s most dependable.


----------



## WinNix

CHamilton said:


> Report Finds Punctuality Trumps Safety at Metro-North
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Metro-North Railroad has fallen prey to a “deficient safety culture” that prizes on-time performance at the expense of protecting riders and workers, according to a blistering federal review that was ordered after a spate of rail disasters.
> 
> The review, from the Federal Railroad Administration, found that the commuter railroad’s operations control center pressured workers “to rush when responding to signal failures,” and that workers struggled to secure the track time needed to perform essential repairs.
> 
> Even policies as pedestrian as the use of cellphones have created dangers: Amid confusion about the rules, cellphone use is “commonplace and accepted” among track workers on the job.
> 
> The inquiry, known as Operation Deep Dive, was prompted by the fatal derailment on Dec. 1 of a Hudson line train in the Bronx; it killed four passengers and injured more than 70 others. But the scope of the analysis was far-reaching — no passenger railroad has ever been the subject of such an investigation of its safety culture — and its conclusions were withering for a system that was, less than a year ago, considered one of the nation’s most dependable.
Click to expand...

I cannot help but chuckle at the concept of MNRR making on-time performance its number 1 priority overall. I agree with the notion on-time performance is important, and I agree that it should not be the #1 overall top priority company-wide - safety should be. However, if this is true, then the action they are dedicating the most energy to, they consistently fail at. I find it kind of sad. If they make safety their #1 priority, are they going to have the same success?

I live directly beside one of the stations, and my wife commutes to work on the train. Usually, I time my work down to the minute when I need to leave my house to meet her train based on their schedule. Every day, including weekends. I would call it a surprise if the train is within 3 minutes of its schedule. I will even take weather conditions into account here. I discount icy weather and any windy/rainy day in the fall when leaves come into play. At least then I know they will be 5-10 minutes delayed (again, I totally understand that). I suppose my bitterness also comes from the fact the trains have been getting slower over the past year. If MNRR is going to add 10-20% of travel time to my line, then why is this still happening? You have 10 extra minutes of travel, and the end result is the same? Over the past year, what exactly are they doing with that extra 10-20% of time that doesn't involve safety?


----------



## jis

Many additional lower speed limits have been added approaching a low speed zone and even some of those speed limits have been reduced. This has caused Amtrak to add 6 to 8 mins or so to the scheduled run from NHV to NYP. So it is no surprise that MNRR trains are seeing 10% to 20% additional time in their schedule.

For some reason I don't understand why the current MNRR chief thinks that this will be permanent forever. I do not understand why that should be so given that MNRR is installing ACSES II which is designed to address exactly the problem being addressed by this "large hammer" approach using all that they got, which is a 4 enforceable speed cab signal system and static speed limit boards that cannot be enforced.. I would have imagined that once ACSES II was fully deployed they should be able to raise the speed limits again. But I suppose MNRR does not expect to fix the basic management problems that they have had leading to this sorry state of affairs. Which begs the question, why is the new CEO getting paid the big bucks?


----------



## WinNix

Thank you for mentioning the NHV line side of things, I only have first hand experience with the Hudson and Harlem. What you state correlates exactly with those lines, and it makes sense. I am all for slowing down for safety. However, I would have expected the extra margin of safety would give a greater chance for on time performance and/or reliability. We get slower trains and get told that safety is/was not the top priority - really odd.

Don't try too hard to understand it because it might end up driving you crazy. I like to use this example - over this past winter, why would MNRR place a higher priority on repainting the platform overhangs/ceilings instead of actually clearing the same platform of snow & ice? It wasn't even look salted. I read a few posts of yours about the speed limit system they are using and I agree with your thoughts on it.

I'm looking into taking the Mass Casualty/Rescue drill MNRR has at their cronton-harmon yard. Its been a few years since I've taken it, but I am sure they have updated it in light of recent events. If they have any interesting tidbits I'll report back.


----------



## AlanB

WinNix said:


> Don't try too hard to understand it because it might end up driving you crazy. I like to use this example - over this past winter, why would MNRR place a higher priority on repainting the platform overhangs/ceilings instead of actually clearing the same platform of snow & ice? It wasn't even look salted.


I don't know that this is the case; but it could well be that the painting was contracted out to an outside vendor, whereas salting would be in house crews.


----------



## Thirdrail7

An update. I suspect a jury WOULD find Metro-North at least partially responsible for the incident since they didn't install a cab signal drop because it would add "50 seconds to the schedule." However, the engineer is being counter sued. 

*Exclusive: Former Metro-North engineer William Rockefeller's $10M lawsuit going to trial*
https://www.lohud.com/story/news/20...h-going-trial-william-rockefeller/3576462002/



> A federal judge ruled Friday that former Metro-North engineer William Rockefeller can try to convince a jury the railroad is to blame for the 2013 derailment that killed four passengers when he fell asleep at the controls of a speeding train, but warned that might not be a good idea.
> 
> U.S. District Court Judge Vincent Briccetti said Rockefeller's attorney presented enough evidence for “a reasonable juror” to conclude Metro-North bore responsibility for the Dec. 1, 2013, derailment on a curve approaching the Spuyten Duyvil station in the Bronx.
> 
> Briccetti turned back Metro-North's attempt to have the case dismissed before trial and set Nov. 4 as the start date for a jury trial in Rockefeller’s $10 million lawsuit against his former employer.
> 
> But, in a stark assessment of Rockefeller’s prospects, Bricetti reminded Rockefeller’s attorney that Metro-North was countersuing for more than $10 million, the cost of the Hudson Line train that was destroyed.
> 
> “You run the risk of winning and then losing big time,” Briccetti told attorney Ira Maurer during the hearing in U.S. District Court in White Plains. “Does your client understand that?...What do you want to do? Do you want to roll the dice?”


----------



## Anderson

I can't speak to his personal finances, but depending on his situation (in terms of assets and liabilities) and NY bankruptcy law, I could see this being a case where rolling the dice would make sense insofar as if he "loses big", he can just bankrupt out and leave MNRR up the infamous creek.


----------



## Acela150

After reading the article IMO he got a deal. No disciplinary action from MNRR, collecting a decent disability claim from the MTA, and the RRB. But I think he has a good case against MNRR. But the counterclaim from the MNRR is one that Norfolk Southern is well known for doing. Personally if I were on the jury I would grant the now former engineer the $10 million. And deny the counterclaim. I would deny the counterclaim on the basis that MNRR could have prevented the incident. But I think the judge is spot on that they really should settle it outside of a jury.


----------



## Thirdrail7

I know this is older but I guess we all missed it. I know I did.

Metro-North engineer in fatal Bronx derailment drops $10M lawsuit
https://www.lohud.com/story/news/in...etro-north-spuyten-duyvil-lawsuit/2000179001/



> The decision centered on concerns that if the case went to trial Rockefeller could be on the hook for $10 million. The figure was the estimated cost to replace the Hudson Line train that flew off the rails while going 82 mph along a curved section of track in Spuyten Duyvil on Dec. 1, 2013, explained Rockefeller’s lawyer, Ira Mauer.
> 
> Metro-North had countersued, claiming Rockefeller owed the railroad for destroying its train.
> 
> “I’d be exposing my client to a potentially significant counterclaim award that would be as devastating to him as the accident was to the families of those impacted by the derailment,” Maurer said.


----------

