Metrolink Wreck

[user 1215]

How can the conductor see the light from inside the train, especially when it's moving loco-forward? I see in the article that it was observed from the station, but wasn't there an additional signal before the one at the switch, ie: at the end of the platform? It almost seems convenient that the conductor (for the first time, and through his attorney) is collaborating what Railfans were stating about the light earlier.

Another Sanchez question: Regardless of the light, the switch was fouled. The rails were bent "badly". A) Why couldn't Sanchez visually verify the alignment of the switch? B) If the rails were bent so bad, why didn't Sanchez feel them? Why didn't he even hiccup on the throttle?

The final point of the article was an interesting observation I've made a bunch of times - what good is calling out the signals if you don't call green? If you miss calling one, then it will be assumed green. Call out all signals, and the conductor would know if you missed one (if he's trained well on the route).

 

[AlanB]

How can the conductor see the light from inside the train, especially when it's moving loco-forward? I see in the article that it was observed from the station, but wasn't there an additional signal before the one at the switch, ie: at the end of the platform? It almost seems convenient that the conductor (for the first time, and through his attorney) is collaborating what Railfans were stating about the light earlier.

No, the yellow warning signal was before the station stop, so the in theory "red" signal was the next signal that the train would encounter. So the conductor would have been able to see it as he was closing the doors on the train, a procedure that would have him hanging out the door as he closed the rest of the doors on the train and the train started up. He's supposed to visually verify that he's not dragging anyone in a closed door.

Another Sanchez question: Regardless of the light, the switch was fouled. The rails were bent "badly". A) Why couldn't Sanchez visually verify the alignment of the switch? B ) If the rails were bent so bad, why didn't Sanchez feel them? Why didn't he even hiccup on the throttle?

Well if his full attention was indeed out the window, then he would have been able to see that the switch was set against him. He probably wouldn't have seen it in time to stop before crossing the switch and damaging it, but still he would have stopped and probably with enough time to get the UP train stopped before a collision. Even if there wasn't enough time to stop UP, at least the closure rate would have only been 40 MPH or less instead of 80+.

And while AFAIK a train that I've been on has never run a switch set against us, I'd imagine that to someone sitting in 250,000 pound locomotive that it wouldn't seem like much more than any ordinary bump in the road. I have been on a subway train that crossed a spring switch and beyond the clang as the switch slaps closed after each set of wheels, you wouldn't know that you'd crossed a spring switch.

The final point of the article was an interesting observation I've made a bunch of times - what good is calling out the signals if you don't call green? If you miss calling one, then it will be assumed green. Call out all signals, and the conductor would know if you missed one (if he's trained well on the route).

First, both the conductor and the engineer have to be well trained on the route, that's required by FRA regs. As for calling out all signals, there seems to be two schools of thought on this one and both have some merit. As mentioned above, CSX and NS both require all signals to be called. RR's west of the Miss don't require clears to be called.

A few years back the Texas Eagle derailed on bad track because the crew missed a warning call from another train about the bad track. They missed that call because a defect detector that was closer to them was busy transmitting and it stepped on the other radio call. After that incident many RR's proceeded to shorten the messages broadcast by DD's to help prevent such a scenario in the future. In the same vein it's thought by some that calling every signal creates too much chatter that could also lead to the same issue. In addition, it's just one more thing to distract the engineer from doing something else, like perhaps noticing someone laying on the tracks.

Bottom line is that it goes both ways. There are good reasons to call all signals, and there are good reasons not to do so. Frankly the best solution would be to ensure that every train has cab signals, and that those signals are also relayed visually on the conductor’s radio or some other device that he/she can always see.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

How can the conductor see the light from inside the train, especially when it's moving loco-forward? I see in the article that it was observed from the station, but wasn't there an additional signal before the one at the switch, ie: at the end of the platform? It almost seems convenient that the conductor (for the first time, and through his attorney) is collaborating what Railfans were stating about the light earlier.
Another Sanchez question: Regardless of the light, the switch was fouled. The rails were bent "badly". A) Why couldn't Sanchez visually verify the alignment of the switch? B) If the rails were bent so bad, why didn't Sanchez feel them? Why didn't he even hiccup on the throttle?

The final point of the article was an interesting observation I've made a bunch of times - what good is calling out the signals if you don't call green? If you miss calling one, then it will be assumed green. Call out all signals, and the conductor would know if you missed one (if he's trained well on the route).

he suffered from type 2 diabetes's and was sent home twice for failing to control it. maybe he went to a diabetic shock and passed out

 

[WhoozOn1st]

Don't know if we're in for a spate of reports about the wreck

Does three days in a row constitute a "spate?"

12-5-08 L.A. Times story, a more comprehensive version of the AP story (lifted from the Times) on the UTU site:

Signal was green, says crewman

It includes a reprise of the earlier video.

A synopsis of the story linked above appeared on the TrainsMag News Wire on 12-8-08, so I'll take this golden opportunity to gratuitously point out that YOU SAW IT HERE FIRST, courtesy of WhoozOn1st.

Majored in Theatre, minored in self-promotion. :lol:

 

[WhoozOn1st]

During last Sunday evening's weekly On Track On Line live chat session - an enjoyable alternative while waiting for Amtrak Unlimited weekly chat to be restored - a question arose regarding whether Metrolink had ever had a year without a collision. None of us knew, so I decided to look into it.

No annually-indexed Metrolink accident info found yet, so I'll keep looking for that. If anybody has suggestions for where to look I'm all eyes. Maybe I'm going about it wrong.

What I DID find was that no matter how I worded search parameters the results included scads of links to lawyers - ambulance chasers - and I gave up counting after about 20.

Understand that I have no kneejerk problem with attorneys. I count one among my pals, and I've had a couple do some good work on my behalf.

Still and all, as I searched for Metrolink accident stats I couldn't help feeling at least somewhat that the Chatsworth victims, survivors, and their families are as chum in the water to provoke a feeding frenzy.

Sad on all fronts.

 

[WhoozOn1st]

"David R. Solow has been widely criticized since the Chatsworth wreck that killed 25."

Crash thrusts Metrolink's chief into the limelight

He was hired from New Jersey Transit in 1990.

 

[rogers55]

On Nov 17 a wildfire burned through that area.

Any tests of the signals after that time would be suspect at best.

 

[WhoozOn1st]

With five (count 'em) major articles in just over a week we are now officially in spate territory, and the one linked below is the most extensive to date.

Train Crash's Roots Run Deep

"Metrolink was considered such a pipsqueak by one freight rail [sic] that its senior executives would not even return telephone calls from the transit line's leaders..."

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Train Crash's Roots Run Deep

They seem to be arguing that the lack of automatic train stop explains why Metrolink is far more dangerous than the MBTA Commuter Rail system. One of the problems with this is that I don't think the MBTA Commuter Rail system has any automatic train stop outside the NEC tracks.

 

[WhoozOn1st]

Cripes, the L.A. Times is really cranking out the Metrolink wreck stories. This is the 6th in 11 days, and of the current flurry the first one on a weekend.

Safety of Rail System Assailed

"A two-month review of the five-county commuter train operation found that a far great focus on safety was needed..."

 

[amtrakwolverine]

caltran doesn't have automatic stop nether does tri-rail or sounder or METRA. none of those have automatic stop why isn't the press picking on them.

 

[Neil_M]

caltran doesn't have automatic stop nether does tri-rail or sounder or METRA. none of those have automatic stop why isn't the press picking on them.

Possibly because they haven't had any big pile ups?

"Train company has no crashes and kills no passengers" isn't much of a news story really.....

 

[amtrakwolverine]

caltran doesn't have automatic stop nether does tri-rail or sounder or METRA. none of those have automatic stop why isn't the press picking on them.

Possibly because they haven't had any big pile ups?

so if there saying metrolink didnt have any ATS system and that caused the wreck. why aren't they saying that those other commuter trains are going to suffer the same fate. its not metrolinks fault. they just supply the trains. its the company they hired that suppled the engineers thats the problem. there engineers must be colored blind sense they run red lights. the last train had 2 engineers in the cab and it still ran a red light and side swiped a freight train.

 

[Neil_M]

caltran doesn't have automatic stop nether does tri-rail or sounder or METRA. none of those have automatic stop why isn't the press picking on them.

Possibly because they haven't had any big pile ups?

so if there saying metrolink didnt have any ATS system and that caused the wreck. why aren't they saying that those other commuter trains are going to suffer the same fate. its not metrolinks fault. they just supply the trains. its the company they hired that suppled the engineers thats the problem. there engineers must be colored blind sense they run red lights. the last train had 2 engineers in the cab and it still ran a red light and side swiped a freight train.

Its the press. They don't understand railways (or much else of what they write or broadcast),the details of how the railway company man their operations are just that, detail. They see 'Metrolink' on the side of the train and see a big pile of debris and human misery. That's what sells the story.

 

[WhoozOn1st]

caltran doesn't have automatic stop nether does tri-rail or sounder or METRA. none of those have automatic stop why isn't the press picking on them.

Maybe because those outfits haven't had 25 dead and 135 injured in a corn field meet lately.

Not long after the wreck at Chatsworth a former NTSB guy noted that "In this country we regulate by counting tombstones."

In the wake of the carnage our Senators from California, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, jammed through the rail safety bill that had been languishing. IIRC, attached to it were the reauthorization of Amtrak, a bump in funding for it (yet to be actually appropriated), and railroad work rules changes.

The overall bottom line following the Metrolink wreck is that positive train control is now mandated by 2015 (and sooner in Metrolink's operating area), with freight railroad support. As I see it, after dragging their feet for many years they couldn't get out of it this time. Continued opposition to, and/or sloth on implementation of, PTC after the Chatsworth catastrophe might jeopardize public funding for stuff they want.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Maybe because those outfits haven't had 25 dead and 135 injured in a corn field meet lately.
Not long after the wreck at Chatsworth a former NTSB guy noted that "In this country we regulate by counting tombstones."

In the wake of the carnage our Senators from California, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, jammed through the rail safety bill that had been languishing. IIRC, attached to it were the reauthorization of Amtrak, a bump in funding for it (yet to be actually appropriated), and railroad work rules changes.

The overall bottom line following the Metrolink wreck is that positive train control is now mandated by 2015 (and sooner in Metrolink's operating area), with freight railroad support. As I see it, after dragging their feet for many years they couldn't get out of it this time. Continued opposition to, and/or sloth on implementation of, PTC after the Chatsworth catastrophe might jeopardize public funding for stuff they want.

The MBTA Commuter Rail system has had, in the last few years:

A death of a child at a grade crossing with two tracks; the child decided it was safe to cross as soon as one train cleared the grade crossing (while the gates were still down). There was another train that came on that track and killed that child. PTC would not have saved that child's life; deciding to grade separate any crossing with enough rail traffic to justify a second track would have.

Someone (a high school student, I think) crossed a track to get from one platform to another, and got hit by a train. PTC wouldn't have helped; where space is available, I think that it ought to be possible to lay out stations in ways that make it impossible to get somewhere useful by crossing tracks that aren't supposed to be crossed.

A large number of injuries when a stray freight car hit a train. Again, PTC wouldn't have helped; maybe having the derail powered and controlled by the dispatcher (if in fact it wasn't) would have prevented this accident.

I have to wonder if PTC would really prevent the majority of commuter rail related deaths that have occured in the last five years. I suspect PTC is getting all the attention because single accidents with moderately large death tolls always seem to get more news media attention than large numbers of accidents with relatively small per-accident death tolls that end up killing more total people over time. The number of people who have died in the collapse of skyscrappers in the US in the last ten years is probably plenty close to the number of people who have died in automobile accidents in the US each and every month for the last ten years. Somehow skyscrappers collapsing gets more attention than automobile and road safety.

 

[AlanB]

A large number of injuries when a stray freight car hit a train. Again, PTC wouldn't have helped; maybe having the derail powered and controlled by the dispatcher (if in fact it wasn't) would have prevented this accident.

Actually in this accident, ACSES (Amtrak's version of PTC on the NEC) did help. It's thanks to the system and cab signals that the engineer realized that something was coming towards him that shouldn't have been. Without ASCES, he might not have had enough time to actually stop the train before the freight car hit. As it was, that warning gave him enough time to get on the radio to ask for permission to back up. Sadly that didn't arrive in time and even then it's hard to say just how much difference it would have made had he gotten permission.

But again, I think that the injuries would have been far more numerous and serious, but for the fact that the engineer had enough warning to bring his train to a stop.

On the other side of the coin, if the commuters didn't line up at the doors when their station is near, there would have been many less injuries too. The fact that people were standing awaiting the next station stop contributed to many of the injuries that did occur.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

caltran doesn't have automatic stop nether does tri-rail or sounder or METRA. none of those have automatic stop why isn't the press picking on them.

Maybe because those outfits haven't had 25 dead and 135 injured in a corn field meet lately.

Not long after the wreck at Chatsworth a former NTSB guy noted that "In this country we regulate by counting tombstones."

In the wake of the carnage our Senators from California, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, jammed through the rail safety bill that had been languishing. IIRC, attached to it were the reauthorization of Amtrak, a bump in funding for it (yet to be actually appropriated), and railroad work rules changes.

The overall bottom line following the Metrolink wreck is that positive train control is now mandated by 2015 (and sooner in Metrolink's operating area), with freight railroad support. As I see it, after dragging their feet for many years they couldn't get out of it this time. Continued opposition to, and/or sloth on implementation of, PTC after the Chatsworth catastrophe might jeopardize public funding for stuff they want.

your not getting my point. there going after metrolink cause it didn't have PTC. why wait until one of the other company's suffer the same accident. there not demanding they figure a way to stop this there just going after metrolink it self. forcing metrolink to get PTC is not going to solve anything if it happens on other commuter line cause it didn't have PTC. why not look at the bigger picture and find a way to make it affordable for all trains and railroads to have PTC or ATS in the US to prevent this from happening again.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

your not getting my point. there going after metrolink cause it didn't have PTC. why wait until one of the other company's suffer the same accident. there not demanding they figure a way to stop this there just going after metrolink it self. forcing metrolink to get PTC is not going to solve anything if it happens on other commuter line cause it didn't have PTC. why not look at the bigger picture and find a way to make it affordable for all trains and railroads to have PTC or ATS in the US to prevent this from happening again.

I think most of the cost of a selling a PTC system may be not the cost of building the electronic gadgets, but the cost of the liability insurance if some accident occurs in which 100 people die, where there is a lack of clear evidence to convince a jury that the maker of the PTC system shouldn't pay out the $200 million or whatever it is. If you want to build electronics that you can sell at affordable prices, there are plenty of less safety critical opportunities that are likely to carry vastly lower product liability costs.

I'd also like to know why the PTC proponents aren't proposing that we ban automobiles until a PTC system for automobiles can be developed.

There are plenty of articles out there about things like carbeurators and vacuum pumps for small airplanes, where product liability difficulties sometimes lead to difficulties for owners in buying replacement parts. I don't see why PTC would be any different.

 

[AlanB]

caltran doesn't have automatic stop nether does tri-rail or sounder or METRA. none of those have automatic stop why isn't the press picking on them.

Maybe because those outfits haven't had 25 dead and 135 injured in a corn field meet lately.

Not long after the wreck at Chatsworth a former NTSB guy noted that "In this country we regulate by counting tombstones."

In the wake of the carnage our Senators from California, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, jammed through the rail safety bill that had been languishing. IIRC, attached to it were the reauthorization of Amtrak, a bump in funding for it (yet to be actually appropriated), and railroad work rules changes.

The overall bottom line following the Metrolink wreck is that positive train control is now mandated by 2015 (and sooner in Metrolink's operating area), with freight railroad support. As I see it, after dragging their feet for many years they couldn't get out of it this time. Continued opposition to, and/or sloth on implementation of, PTC after the Chatsworth catastrophe might jeopardize public funding for stuff they want.

your not getting my point. there going after metrolink cause it didn't have PTC. why wait until one of the other company's suffer the same accident. there not demanding they figure a way to stop this there just going after metrolink it self. forcing metrolink to get PTC is not going to solve anything if it happens on other commuter line cause it didn't have PTC. why not look at the bigger picture and find a way to make it affordable for all trains and railroads to have PTC or ATS in the US to prevent this from happening again.

No, with respect I think that he did get your point as did all of us. You are quite correct, the media should be going after everyone that doesn't have it. I don't think that any of us would argue that point with you. We all support and want PTC.

The simple truth though is that the media and newspaper's don't care about what makes sense or what's good for people, or what might save lives. They care about selling newspapers. They care about selling ads, be they TV, radio, or newspaper ads.

Right now the Metrolink crash is in many peoples minds, especially in the LA area. So anything that sells another newspaper is going to get printed. They are going to milk this story for as long as they can, because people will watch the TV and see an ad, people will by the papers and see an ad. That is their primary focus.

But head to Chicago where what happened in LA isn't major news anymore and hasn't been since the day of the accident, and the media there doesn't care. They won't car until and unless there is an accident in Chicago that might have been prevented with PTC technology in place. The Chicago media isn't going to get lots of readers because they run a story about how maybe people might die one day because there is no PTC on the trains. The people just won't care. They want the big sexy, flashy, attention getter headlines. A story about PTC in Chicago isn't flashy right now.

Perhaps if the RR's here in NYC didn't have PTC, maybe that might help a bit with our market here to get it more in the national headlines. But we do have PTC here, so for us here it isn't a story at all.

 

[WhoozOn1st]

your not getting my point. there going after metrolink cause it didn't have PTC. why wait until one of the other company's suffer the same accident. there not demanding they figure a way to stop this there just going after metrolink it self. forcing metrolink to get PTC is not going to solve anything if it happens on other commuter line cause it didn't have PTC. why not look at the bigger picture and find a way to make it affordable for all trains and railroads to have PTC or ATS in the US to prevent this from happening again.

KISS ALIVE, your point is not getting got mainly because there doesn't seem to be one. PTC is now mandated across the board by 2015. Nobody, including the press, is "going after" Metrolink. Okay, maybe that idiot USC professor who hates trains, but he hardly counts.

Metrolink is under the gun for a number of reasons, the first of which is the deadly Chatsworth cornfield meet. All else flows directly from that. I do think, however, that UP should be taking equal heat, and we haven't seen that. UP is after all one of the PTC foot dragging freight railroads. "It's not a proven technology" is code for "We don't wanna pay for it."

Metrolink also suffers the consequences of operating in the spotlight of the nation's second largest media market. I'd wager that if a comparably deadly wreck had occurred on, say, Rail Runner, all these major changes would not be occurring so quickly, if at all. Sad to say, but there's a major difference between a deadly wreck in L.A. and a deadly wreck in a relative media backwater.

Finally, to look at the big picture, as you urge, PTC is not a matter of affordability, but of will. In my view the deaths of those poor Metrolink 111 passengers were not in vain. Given the changes underway as a result of the Chatsworth wreck, I consider them true martyrs in the cause of railroad safety. Their sacrifices created the will for change that had been so sadly lacking.

 

[jis]

Finally, to look at the big picture, as you urge, PTC is not a matter of affordability, but of will. In my view the deaths of those poor Metrolink 111 passengers were not in vain. Given the changes underway as a result of the Chatsworth wreck, I consider them true martyrs in the cause of railroad safety. Their sacrifices created the will for change that had been so sadly lacking.

It is said that each safety rule is etched in someone's blood. The PTC rule is now etched in the blood of the 25 deceased at Chatsworth. While it is true that PTC will not eliminate all fatalities in all forms of railroad accidents, it will address a rather large segment of the space of possible events leading to fatalities, and that is good.

 

[jis]

I'd also like to know why the PTC proponents aren't proposing that we ban automobiles until a PTC system for automobiles can be developed.

I think it is quite safe to say that PTC which stands for "Positive Train Control", is not being pushed for automobiles mostly because they are not "Trains", perhaps?

As for an equivalent other system, all safety systems are about cost vs. benefit. The average number of fatalities in a single auto event is rather low when compared to those in trains and even more so in planes, that is why different criteria are used, and rightly so, for these different modes of transportation.

 

[WICT106]

Would Automatic Train Stop ( for example, the Santa Fe's Intermittent Inductive Train Stop ) protect against head-on collisions ? Would it have protected against the sort of collision discussed here ? Would cab signals, either alone or in concert with ATC or ATS have prevented this sort of event ?

 

[AlanB]

Would Automatic Train Stop ( for example, the Santa Fe's Intermittent Inductive Train Stop ) protect against head-on collisions ? Would it have protected against the sort of collision discussed here ? Would cab signals, either alone or in concert with ATC or ATS have prevented this sort of event ?

Let me first preference my reply with the disclaimer that until all the facts are revealed in this accident by the NTSB, some if not all of what I say, could be invalidated.

ATS cannot prevent head-on collisions.

And in this specific case I see nothing that suggests that it would have changed the above statement and would not have prevented the collision. It might however have reduced the closing speed between the two trains, and therefore have lessened the severity of the collision and quite possible have saved some if not all lives.

As for whether cab signals would have helped, that we will probably and sadly never know. Since we don't really know what happened inside that engine, its mere speculation to talk about this. But if indeed the signal wasn't as bright as it was supposed to be, or if indeed as several claim the signal was showing clear, then assuming that in between his text messages Mr. Sanchez had glanced at his console, he might have realized that something was majorly wrong and stopped his train before crossing the switch.

If the cab signals were working in concert with ATS, then he'd have a rather loud horn blaring in his ears to distract him from his text messaging once he passed the red signal. Again, that would have given him time to slow and perhaps even stop his train prior to being hit by the freight, but I would think that a collision still would have occurred. It's highly unlikely that he could have radioed the UP train fast enough for them to start stopping prior to hitting him. But again, it certainly would have decreased the closing speeds, maybe 40 to 50 MPH, and probably saved lives.

Had he failed to acknowledge that horn and deal with things, ATS would have eventually kicked in and started stopping the train. But those extra seconds that the ATS system would have given him to take action would have been critical. By the time ATS started braking, I’d guess that they would have been mere seconds away from the collision. Again, every MPH slower is a help, but I’d guess that closure still would have been in the 60 MPH to 70 MPH range.

With PTC in place however, the computer would have started demanding that Mr. Sanchez take action to slow the train as he approached the signal prior to the switch. If he didn’t, it would have begun slowing the train itself long before it got to the signal. It’s unclear if the train would have stopped prior to crossing the switch, as there are too many variables in that equation since there is no system in place and we don’t know what parameters might get set for the system.

Additionally had the commuter train still crossed the switch, the freight crew would have received an immediate warning that something was in its way and they too could have applied their brakes rapidly. Again, I suspect that with the distances involved here that an accident might still have occurred, but it would have been a low speed event with maybe a 15 to 20 MPH closure rate, instead of the near 80 MPH rate experienced.