Incident at Hoboken Station

[Devil's Advocate]

Apparently one of two event recorders was not functioning during the trip in question. The status of the other recorder is currently unknown. According to the NTSB the current rules state that only the lead locomotive or cab car must have a working event recorder functioning properly during active commercial operations. PTC was not discussed in detail but the NTSB did take a moment to acknowledge that even with PTC not all accidents can be prevented. Personally I think preventing a train from plowing into an active passenger station is probably worth adding to the PTC requirements in the future, perhaps as part of a Phase 2 or 3 sometime down the road, but for now I'm thinking a directive from the FRA to inspect all passenger train event recorders from the 1990's and earlier might be worth considering.

 

[TinCan782]

Apparently one of two event recorders was not functioning during the trip in question. The status of the other recorder is currently unknown. According to the NTSB the current rules state that only the lead locomotive or cab car must have a working event recorder functioning properly during active commercial operations. PTC was not discussed in detail but the NTSB did take a moment to acknowledge that even with PTC not all accidents can be prevented. Personally I think preventing a train from plowing into an active passenger station is probably worth adding to the PTC requirements in the future, perhaps as part of a Phase 2 or 3 sometime down the road, but for now I'm thinking a directive from the FRA to inspect all passenger train event recorders from the 1990's and earlier might be worth considering.

Informative clip. A functioning event data recorder needs to be on the head end (loco or cabcar). I'm guessing there is no requirement for the trailing loco to have a functioning recorder (by functioning, I mean powered on).

 

[Rover]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/black-box-recovered-nj-transit-wreck-recorded-no-information-article-1.2814884

The front end of the train has another, newer recorder which investigators hope was working, but they have not yet been able to get at it because of safety concerns in the mangled front end of the train.

He said he started his shift at 6:46 a.m. that morning and felt “fully rested,” had his turned off cell phone stored in his backpack, and successfully conducted a required brake test at the beginning of the train’s run.

The engineer of the train told National Transportation Safety Board the train was going 10 miles per hour as he entered the station, felt fully rested and does not remember the fatal crash, NTSB vice chair Bella Dinh-Zarr said at a press conference.
“The engineer says he has no memory of the accident. He remembers waking up on the floor of the cab,” Dinh-Zarr said.

 

[jis]

Informative clip. A functioning event data recorder needs to be on the head end (loco or cabcar). I'm guessing there is no requirement for the trailing loco to have a functioning recorder (by functioning, I mean powered on).

The only requirement is to have an operating event recorder in the front unit.

If the unit in the locomotive was merely powered off when it was not working as a controlling unit, that is fine. OTOH, if it was completely inoperative that would be a problem since the train did operate in the opposite direction with the locomotive as controlling unit when it traveled fro Hoboken to Spring Valley at some point.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

more from NTSB, note how it says do not draw conclusions yet ??

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/pr20161006.aspx

 

[fairviewroad]

more from NTSB, note how it says do not draw conclusions yet ??

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/pr20161006.aspx

The event recorder shows train speed was about 21 mph when it collided with the bumping post.

That is amazing. Based on passenger interviews, as well as the amount of damage, I had guessed the train's speed would have been closer to 35-40 mph. I did not think it could cause that much damage (and continue that far beyond the bumping post) at just 21 mph. Yeah, I know....physics and all. But still...

 

[Dutchrailnut]

also note 38 seconds before crash train speed was down to 8 mph , so basically already entering platform area.

 

[Bob Dylan]

also note 38 seconds before crash train speed was down to 8 mph , so basically already entering platform area.

Very interesting! So when you consider that the train accelerated from 8-21 mph entering the Station and the engineer says he doesn't remember what happened it almost certainly had to be either mechanical failure or human error!
Well see when the NTSB Report comes out which it was!

 

[neroden]

Excuse me, Rover, I don't mean to be rude, but please get your terms accurate. You are not talking about the conductor, but the engineer. You are in good company, however, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo had it wrong at the press conference in Hoboken with NJ Gov. Christie. The conductor is in charge of the train, but does not operate it. (This from a former NJ Transit crew dispatcher. )

You are correct greatcats. No rudeness taken, bty. Thank you for pointing that out! I admit I have been lazy in noting what the titles referred to. I am thankful that I have finally got this straight in my head. That said, any news article I read or watch, I will be wary of the terms used to describe the employees of any train...

It's a curious concept to grasp anyhow. The conductor is responsible for train's movements but the engineer is the one who actually operates it. If the conductor is the one in charge why is he or she promoted into the position of engineer? Never really made much sense to me but I presume that's because my career comes from a different era and background.

Conductor was a separate craft from engineer. The conductor is, in a real sense, management, and engineer is not. But the engineer position was more popular -- go figure. This led to the weird idea of a conductor being "promoted" to engineer -- it's not really a promotion, but lots of conductors wanted to be engineers and NOT vice versa. Conductors in the early 19th century had vast authority -- basically considered the same as the captain of a ship -- and in fact, they still do, but since they're in contact with the dispatcher most of the time, they don't normally exercise that authority since the dispatcher has more authority over most things. Back in the days before telegraphs, the conductor's authority was much more significant.

The conductor is the one with authority to throw people off the train; with authority to allow people *on* the train without tickets when it seems necessary; the authority to order the train to move; the authority to order the train not to move; the authority to throw the engineer off the train (actually read about one incident of this when the engineer had violated a rule); the authority to kick police officers off the train (yep), to search passengers' rooms, and generally to make *decisions* about the train. This authority is less obvious with respect to train movement because of dispatch and signalling, but for example, if the train might need to be stopped due to something happening on board (rather than a mechanical defect in the locomotive), it is up to the conductor whether to stop it.

 

[greatcats]

Good post- In the case of commuter trains, it is not inaccurate to say that some conductors want to be promoted to engineer to get away from the evil passengers!

 

[Thirdrail7]

Here are a couple of updates: It Metro-north seems is covering the liability for their passengers from New York State.


https://www.nj.com/traffic/2019/11/...ken-train-crash-gets-15m-from-nj-transit.html

Woman injured in Hoboken train crash gets $1.5M from Metro North

The New Jersey Law Journal first reported the Metro North settlement with......who sued the agency and Metro North. (NJ Transit runs Metro North west of the Hudson River commuter service under a contract.)


Metro North officials confirmed it is covering the cost of the settlement because Story got on the train in New York state.

 

[Thirdrail7]

The engineer involved in the collision has been reinstated to his position.

https://www.nj.com/traffic/2019/09/...al-hoboken-train-crash-gets-his-job-back.html

Engineer with sleep apnea who caused fatal Hoboken train crash gets his job back

Please allow a brief fair use quote.

By Larry Higgs | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
The engineer who was operating an NJ Transit train that crashed in Hoboken Terminal in September 2016, killing a woman walking through the station and injuring 108, will return to work after winning an appeal.

Thomas Gallagher, who blacked out at the controls on Sept. 29, 2016, due to undiagnosed sleep apnea, won his arbitration case on Aug. 28 and will be reinstated as an engineer, as long as he meets medical conditions and continues sleep apnea treatment. He was suspended and subsequently fired after the crash, a decision that he appealed.

They say he will be confined to the yard but I don't know if that will hold up if NJT doesn't have a "yard engineer" position.

Gallagher will resume his duties working in train yards, but will not be in passenger service, the board ruled. While he isn’t banned from operating trains with passengers on board, arbitrators left that decision up to NJ Transit. Agency officials must be satisfied Gallagher has “demonstrated strict compliance with the conditions of his reinstatement.”


“While NJ Transit opposed the reinstatement of Mr. Gallagher, we are required to comply with the legal decision made by the arbitrator. Under provisions clearly defined in that decision, NJ TRANSIT can and will restrict his duty to non-passenger trains,” said Nancy Snyder, a spokeswoman. “The decision lays out rigorous testing and compliance that Mr. Gallagher must adhere to including training and re-certification for operating a locomotive as well as strict medical oversight.”

NJ Transit will be strictly enforcing compliance in all of these areas, she said.

Best I knew, even the engineers in yard service were passenger engineers, that are holding yard assignments.

Any ideas, @Dutchrailnut?

 

[Dutchrailnut]

They usually are all unrestricted passenger Engineer, but can be company restricted to yard service only. it would take concessions by Union to protect such a job from not being bumped by a senior man.
and they will usually have a exit clause as to, if restricted Engineer is required to run a train outside that restriction his punishment will be commuted.

 

[Anderson]

They usually are all unrestricted passenger Engineer, but can be company restricted to yard service only. it would take concessions by Union to protect such a job from not being bumped by a senior man.
and they will usually have a exit clause as to, if restricted Engineer is required to run a train outside that restriction his punishment will be commuted.

Given the type of train, so would any passengers who ride it...

*rimshot*