Metrolink Wreck

[WhoozOn1st]

If this sort of stuff is gonna continue ad nauseum, perhaps the best place for it would be a Metrolink Wreck Conspiracy Theories thread. That way the congenitally suspicious would have a place to play without the facts getting in the way.

 

[RailCon BuffDaddy]

Umm, this WAS a discussion of facts - unless you're one of those who always accept the word of authority as "fact" without question. Perhaps that is also congenital...

RailCon BuffDaddy

 

[leemell]

I recently found a 2008 article, "Metrolink Chatsworth Crash - Was the Light Green?" at http://laist.com/200...ink_crash_w.php, after perusing the recently-released NTSB Report on the accident. The report barely addresses the real issues, imho.

(from the Ventura Star) "The NTSB found the PROBABLE (emphasis mine, weasel wording theirs) cause of the Sept.12, 2008 collision that killed 25 and injured nearly 100 was the engineer's failure to stop at a red light. Engineer Robert Sanchez, who was killed in the crash, was texting 22 seconds before the crash."

[snip]

Just sign me,

RailCon BuffDaddy

"Probable cause" is the wording used in all NTSB accident reports --- be it train, plane or automobile. No engineering report can be made with absolute 100% certainty and this reflects that real world fact.

 

[RailCon BuffDaddy]

leemell -

I must admit this particular revelation is an eye-opener. Even more eye-opening is this from http://www.helicoptercrashes.com/ntsb-crash-investigation:

"NTSB probable cause determinations are not admissible in evidence [49 USC 1441(e)]. Private litigants must prove the cause of the crash to a jury without the benefit of the conclusions of the NTSB accident investigations."

Now, would you care to comment on my earlier post and responses above? We are talking about lives lost and others changed forever.

RailCon BuffDaddy

 

[George Harris]

A few things:

When I said that I did not have the NTSB report in front of me, I meant exactly that, I did not have it where I could look at it at the time of my previous answer. I do have one and have read it through shortly after it was available.

As to feeling when you trail through a switch set against your movement, the conductor you talked to has a more sensitive butt than I do. It is in effect the same as going through a spring switch, which is still done in a lot of places on the US railroad system. Normally it feel no different tha trailing through the curved side of a switch set for your move.

Don't see how whether the line operated by CTC or ABS, manual block, or timetable and train orders has anything to do with the need or lack of need for an engineer in the cab. Having CTC does not equal having ATS. I am not going to go into the ins and out of how signal systems operate beyond that, but there are some other things you said that indicate a lack of understanding in this area.

Again, othere than under yard speeed rules, trains do not operate by line of sight alone, as it is very normal for a train to be able to stop within half the length of track they can see.

The above is as far as I am going to go.

See WhoozOn1st post.

 

[leemell]

leemell -

I must admit this particular revelation is an eye-opener. Even more eye-opening is this from http://www.helicopte...-investigation:

"NTSB probable cause determinations are not admissible in evidence [49 USC 1441(e)]. Private litigants must prove the cause of the crash to a jury without the benefit of the conclusions of the NTSB accident investigations."

Now, would you care to comment on my earlier post and responses above? We are talking about lives lost and others changed forever.

RailCon BuffDaddy

Sir,

The NTSB is charged with determining probably cause to find and fix safety related issues, NOT find fault. Have you ever searched a major vehicle wreck? I have. That the NTSB did not find the cell phone means nothing. Something that small could be anywhere, it it exists at all any more. More than likely it is in a myriad of tiny pieces. Other than that, I don't understand your question. It seems to be a very straight forward NTSB report, just like all the others I have read and I have read many.

I will not comment any further on your posts.

 

[RailCon BuffDaddy]

To all who were kind enough to respond,

After you finish defending the NTSB, perhaps one of you could contact them and mention that in their report RAR1001, the September 12, 2008 Chatsworth Metrolink collision, they include a photo of the "run-through" switch (Fig. 7, p. 23). They state the track view is looking East - however, the tracks run North-South at that point. Also the purported "damaged switch", ("bent back like a banana" per wikipedia's entry) is not evident and is inconsistent with other published photos of the "damaged switch". Oh well, it can't be used as evidence in court - perhaps with good reason.

RailCon BuffDaddy

 

[George Harris]

After you finish defending the NTSB, perhaps one of you could contact them and mention that in their report RAR1001, the September 12, 2008 Chatsworth Metrolink collision, they include a photo of the "run-through" switch (Fig. 7, p. 23). They state the track view is looking East - however, the tracks run North-South at that point. Also the purported "damaged switch", ("bent back like a banana" per wikipedia's entry) is not evident and is inconsistent with other published photos of the "damaged switch". Oh well, it can't be used as evidence in court - perhaps with good reason.
RailCon BuffDaddy

If you go back to page 5, you will see a schematic of the area, and see the statement "east [geographically south]" on that page twice! That is, the timetable direction of the railroad is west from Los Angeles, regardless of the precise compass direction. Thus, when the description of the direction of the picture is given as looking east, it is talking about timetable direction east, not necessarily compass direction east.

Wikipedia may say "bent back like a banana" but the NTSB report does not. I have now looked at the picture in the report. For what it is worth, according to the time stamp on the picture, it was taken 21 hours after the accident. The gaps I see between point and stock rail do suggest it could have been run-through. The shine you see right at the point of the right hand switch rail would indicate wheel flange contact, which does not normally happen on a detail 5100 switch when properly positioned. (AREMA Detail 5100 is the formal descirption of switch point shape commonly referred to as a "Sampson switch point". There is damage to the switch but the nature and extent cannot be ascertained by looking at one picture. It would take some walking around, close looks, measurements, multiple pictures, analysis and some discussion.

I am not defending the NTSB per se, but see nothing in the points you have raised that justifies attacking their analysis and conclusions. Sometimes they do tend to provide somewhat simplistic explanations for things, but I think that has a lot to do with their normal audience.

An aside: It is normal to give a section of railroad a designated timetable direction that has only an approximate relationship to the points of the compass. I understand that Southern Pacific considered San Francisco the west pole of the planet for their purposes and all their lines were designated as running east from there. Thus, sitting in Oakland you would be going east toward Sacramento and standing on the same track you would be going east if you were going in the opposite direction toward Los Angeles.

 

[RailCon BuffDaddy]

George -

Thanks for response. Let's say I accept your answer about the direction stated in Fig. 7 p. 23. Look at Fig 8 on p. 26, which shows ONE signal on the right side of main track at CP Topanga facing West, geographically North. Here are two photos which show TWO signals, one on the right side of main track and the other on the left side of siding. Photo in NTSB report actually appears to be a cropped shot of photo #1 below, with the signal on the left just out of view. Other explanation could be that BOTH photos below are fakes - which explanation do you choose? Did NTSB crop this shot to deceive?

Photo #1 http://www.justiceandrailroadsafety.com/files/Photo2RedSignalsatCPTopanga.jpg

Photo #2 http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2010-01/51738161.jpg

RailCon BuffDaddy

 

[AlanB]

The NTSB doesn't make policy, they don't make rules, and they don't testify in court hearings. Their sole purpose is to try and figure out what went wrong and to make recommendations to the governing body, be it the FRA or the FAA or whomever, about how to avoid a repeat of that type of accident. They have no reason to deceive anyone. It serves them no purpose. They don't get a bonus for making things come out a certain way, or an extra weeks vacation in the Caribbean, or whatever.

If they cropped the photo, then they did so because only the signal in the photo was the relevant or governing signal for that train. No need to show a signal for the other track that the engineer would not be looking at or paying attention to.

 

[RailCon BuffDaddy]

If they cropped the photo, then they did so because only the signal in the photo was the relevant or governing signal for that train. No need to show a signal for the other track that the engineer would not be looking at or paying attention to.

Umm, this certainly puts a new spin on everything. There were witnesses who said the signal was green, the NTSB guy who said the red signal may have been poorly visible, the conclusion that the Metrolink engineer went through the red signal because he was was busy texting, but NOWHERE that I have ever found was the issue of TWO SIGNALS even mentioned!! If NTSB's intent is to find the truth, they have failed, imho. If their intent is to plant seeds of deception in the public's mind via the mass media, they seem to have succeeded.

RailCon BuffDaddy

 

[jis]

Umm, this WAS a discussion of facts - unless you're one of those who always accept the word of authority as "fact" without question. Perhaps that is also congenital...

RailCon BuffDaddy

Umm. not quite. It was a laundry list of observations by a person who has an axe to grind and apparently less than stellar knowledge of rail operations and signaling systems and protocols in use on the line, who is trying to disprove a theory that more or less is consistent with the known facts, without providing an alternative theory which can be sustained based on known facts. Hence Whooz's characterization of it as a "Conspiracy Theory". And BTW this has nothing to do with defending the NTSB. What is your alternative theory and what facts support it? If you start off with "the signal was green", or that an adversely set switch cannot be run through in a trailing direction without noticing a bump in a well sprung passenger car or locomotive ... well....

 

[RailCon BuffDaddy]

jis -

Will you kindly post my response to AlanB before I respond to you? Also, it would be nice to know if I pass the code challenge.

RailCon BuffDaddy

 

[AlanB]

If they cropped the photo, then they did so because only the signal in the photo was the relevant or governing signal for that train. No need to show a signal for the other track that the engineer would not be looking at or paying attention to.

Umm, this certainly puts a new spin on everything. There were witnesses who said the signal was green, the NTSB guy who said the red signal may have been poorly visible, the conclusion that the Metrolink engineer went through the red signal because he was was busy texting, but NOWHERE that I have ever found was the issue of TWO SIGNALS even mentioned!! If NTSB's intent is to find the truth, they have failed, imho. If their intent is to plant seeds of deception in the public's mind via the mass media, they seem to have succeeded.

RailCon BuffDaddy

NO! It changes nothing.

If the signals were set correctly for the freight train, as reported, then the other signal would have been red no matter what. Can't have the track about to be used by the freight train cleared in the opposite direction. Even if that signal were still somehow green, something that is highly, highly unlikely, the engineer would still be at fault if he looked at that signal. The engineer would only look at the signal for his track; not the other track.

Second, one thing that you need to understand is that the signals follow what the switch does. That's why the NTSB is insisting that the signal had to have been red. After their testing, at no time did that signal not turn to danger (or red) when the switch was set against the oncoming Metrolink train. On the other side, for the freight train, when that switch was thrown to permit the freight to come by, every time it turned that signal to clear for the freight train. This is how automated signals work.

Nothing other than a failure in the relay boxes could ever set the signal to clear for the approaching Metrolink train if the switch was set against that train. The signal has to be red, baring some mechanical failure in the signal's control circuits. That is the nature of the signals and the interlockings that they govern.

 

[AlanB]

jis -

Will you kindly post my response to AlanB before I respond to you? Also, it would be nice to know if I pass the code challenge.

RailCon BuffDaddy

Jishnu can't do as you request; only a member of the staff here can see the hidden guest posts. While I regret that we had to resort to doing this, we didn't use to, unfortunately it's the only way that we can protect our members from the spammers that like to post their slim on our board. Because of them, unfortunately people such as yourself using our guest posting feature have to suffer and wait until someone from the staff sees and approves of your post. It's a bummer; but such is the world we live in unfortunately.

The only way around it would be for you to register an account with us, at which point your posts would show immediately. It also provides a few other advantages too. No pressure, just explaining why things are the way they are and how you can make your life easier.

 

[RailCon BuffDaddy]

trying to disprove a theory that more or less is consistent with the known facts

Sounds like something less than a wholehearted endorsement of the NTSB's conclusions, does it not?

without providing an alternative theory which can be sustained based on known facts. Hence Whooz's characterization of it as a "Conspiracy Theory".

You want it both ways, don't you? If I don't provide an alternative theory, it's a "conspiracy theory".

If you start off with "the signal was green"

Umm, WHICH signal?

or that an adversely set switch cannot be run through in a trailing direction without noticing a bump in a well sprung passenger car or locomotive

I defer to the real live conductor I spoke to.

Now, assuming you are a railroading professional, please answer this honestly - Is texting a routine way for engineers and conductors to work around an obsolete, overloaded radio system, as I noted in my original post?

RailCon BuffDaddy

 

[AlanB]

or that an adversely set switch cannot be run through in a trailing direction without noticing a bump in a well sprung passenger car or locomotive

I defer to the real live conductor I spoke to.

Now, assuming you are a railroading professional, please answer this honestly - Is texting a routine way for engineers and conductors to work around an obsolete, overloaded radio system, as I noted in my original post?

RailCon BuffDaddy

I doubt very much that the conductor has ever gone through a switch set against him, and if he did, it is highly unlikely that he would notice. All that happens in this case is that the wheels force the switch over to the correct position. There is no derailment, there is no extra bumps beyond the normal one would encounter going over a switch. Any extra slight bump would only be felt in the engine as it forced the switch to bend into the other position.

I've been through a spring switch move than once, other than hearing the springs slap the switch back the other way, you would not know that the wheels had just pushed that switch over to the other position.

And NO, texting is not a way around radio procedures. One engineer from Metrolink would be highly unlikely to even know the cell phone number of an engineer over at Union Pacific.

Besides, the radios are not overloaded. I always travel with a scanner, and while I don't ride the line in question all that often, there in never constant chatter on the radio. Even in the east where traffic is a bit higher, and rules are different, 90% of the time the radio is silent.

 

[RailCon BuffDaddy]

If the signals were set correctly for the freight train, as reported, then the other signal would have been red no matter what. Can't have the track about to be used by the freight train cleared in the opposite direction.

My point is that I have NEVER EVEN SEEN ANY REFERENCE TO MULTIPLE SIGNALS. Now, lets assume both signals were red:

Second, one thing that you need to understand is that the signals follow what the switch does.

So, which path would the freight train barreling East (geographically South) at 40 mph have taken??

That's why the NTSB is insisting that the signal had to have been red. After their testing, at no time did that signal not turn to danger (or red) when the switch was set against the oncoming Metrolink train.

Umm, someone DID have to fix that run-through switch BEFORE the NTSB tested it, didn't they?

On the other side, for the freight train, when that switch was thrown to permit the freight to come by, every time it turned that signal to clear for the freight train. This is how automated signals work.

I ask this in all seriousness - WHAT COLOR IS "CLEAR"?

Nothing other than a failure in the relay boxes could ever set the signal to clear for the approaching Metrolink train if the switch was set against that train. The signal has to be red, baring some mechanical failure in the signal's control circuits. That is the nature of the signals and the interlockings that they govern.

This seems to leave wiggle room for mechanical error, imho. Also, it's worth noting that the siding in question has a spur track leading off of it just East (geographically South) of the Chatsworth Metrolink Station.

I don't know if the issue of passengers and freight sharing the same track ever comes up here, but if you truly want to get to the root cause of this tragedy, that would be the place to look, imho.

RailCon BuffDaddy

 

[jis]

trying to disprove a theory that more or less is consistent with the known facts

Sounds like something less than a wholehearted endorsement of the NTSB's conclusions, does it not?

It is not for me to endorse anything or not in the first place. But I have not seen any evidence presented so far to questions NTSB's conclusions. And your arguments appear to me to be mostly spurious so far.

without providing an alternative theory which can be sustained based on known facts. Hence Whooz's characterization of it as a "Conspiracy Theory".

You want it both ways, don't you? If I don't provide an alternative theory, it's a "conspiracy theory".

No actually it is a random fishing expedition wasting everyone's time

If you start off with "the signal was green"

Umm, WHICH signal?

The one that the Metrolink was facing, since that is the one that an unreliable witness thought was green?

or that an adversely set switch cannot be run through in a trailing direction without noticing a bump in a well sprung passenger car or locomotive

I defer to the real live conductor I spoke to.

And the real live conductor told you that he can tell when he passes over a switch set the other way in trailing direction? Amazing!

Now, assuming you are a railroading professional, please answer this honestly - Is texting a routine way for engineers and conductors to work around an obsolete, overloaded radio system, as I noted in my original post?

Actually that is a red herring. Because even if that were the case that does not excuse anyone missing a red signal. And in this case the texting was not related to any control or operations issues but was chatting with a railfan.

 

[MikefromCrete]

"Clear" is railroad jargon for "green."

 

[RailCon BuffDaddy]

"Clear" is railroad jargon for "green."

Thank you, Mike. Would you care to answer this - in the photo below, which path will an oncoming freight train take?

RailCon BuffDaddy

 

[WhoozOn1st]

Please do not feed the trolls.

 

[AlanB]

"Clear" is railroad jargon for "green."

Thank you, Mike. Would you care to answer this - in the photo below, which path will an oncoming freight train take?

RailCon BuffDaddy

One cannot tell based upon the evidence in that photo.

One would need to see either a closeup photo of the switch or the signal on the single track section that would have been facing the freight train.

It's not possible to reach any conclusions by looking at the signals for trains going in the other direction.

 

[AlanB]

If the signals were set correctly for the freight train, as reported, then the other signal would have been red no matter what. Can't have the track about to be used by the freight train cleared in the opposite direction.

My point is that I have NEVER EVEN SEEN ANY REFERENCE TO MULTIPLE SIGNALS. Now, lets assume both signals were red:

So what? It doesn't matter! The engineer doesn't look at both signals, he only looks at the one for his track. So it doesn't matter that there are two signals.

Second, one thing that you need to understand is that the signals follow what the switch does.

So, which path would the freight train barreling East (geographically South) at 40 mph have taken??

I'm currently traveling across country by train, so I'm using a cell phone connection and have no intention of downloading the entire NTSB report to find out. Winging things from memory, I seem to think that the freight was to go straight through the switch, but again I'm really not sure.

That's why the NTSB is insisting that the signal had to have been red. After their testing, at no time did that signal not turn to danger (or red) when the switch was set against the oncoming Metrolink train.

Umm, someone DID have to fix that run-through switch BEFORE the NTSB tested it, didn't they?

NO. I suspect that they tested it both broken and after fixing.

However, fixing the bent points on a switch would in no way affect what happens to the signals as the switch is thrown.

On the other side, for the freight train, when that switch was thrown to permit the freight to come by, every time it turned that signal to clear for the freight train. This is how automated signals work.

I ask this in all seriousness - WHAT COLOR IS "CLEAR"?

Green.

Nothing other than a failure in the relay boxes could ever set the signal to clear for the approaching Metrolink train if the switch was set against that train. The signal has to be red, baring some mechanical failure in the signal's control circuits. That is the nature of the signals and the interlockings that they govern.

This seems to leave wiggle room for mechanical error, imho. Also, it's worth noting that the siding in question has a spur track leading off of it just East (geographically South) of the Chatsworth Metrolink Station.

Well nothing is ever 100%, but the NTSB tested it multiple times. They place monitoring equipment on the circuits to see what's going on, etc. And if the equipment had failed that one time, then the odds are that it would have failed again in subsequent years.

I don't know if the issue of passengers and freight sharing the same track ever comes up here, but if you truly want to get to the root cause of this tragedy, that would be the place to look, imho.
RailCon BuffDaddy

There is no issue with sharing tracks. This country has been doing so successfully for over 100 years.

Besides, if we're going to start doing that for trains, then I guess we should make trucks take a different highway than the cars.

 

[RailCon BuffDaddy]

One cannot tell based upon the evidence in that photo.
One would need to see either a closeup photo of the switch or the signal on the single track section that would have been facing the freight train.

It's not possible to reach any conclusions by looking at the signals for trains going in the other direction.

But AlanB wrote:

Second, one thing that you need to understand is that the signals follow what the switch does. That's why the NTSB is insisting that the signal had to have been red. After their testing, at no time did that signal not turn to danger (or red) when the switch was set against the oncoming Metrolink train. On the other side, for the freight train, when that switch was thrown to permit the freight to come by, every time it turned that signal to clear for the freight train. This is how automated signals work.

So the engineer in the oncoming train has no idea which path he is about to take, and there is no relation between one side of a signal and the other? And next time, I should "just take the train"???

RailCon BuffDaddy