Metrolink Wreck

[RailCon BuffDaddy]

You really need to learn more about railroading.

If he has a heart attack, the train stops. Here's up it works: If a set period of time goes by without the engineer making any inputs (change the throttle, apply/release the brakes, sound the horn, etc) then a little buzzer goes off and then engineer hits a button to acknowledge the fact.

If the engineer doesn't hit the button (if for example because he's had a heart attack), the train automatically stops.

But he can blow through through a switch set against him without ANYONE noticing - it seems the folks running the railroad need to learn a little more about railroading as well...

RailCon BuffDaddy

 

[AlanB]

I've traveled from NY to California over the past few days via train listening in to the radio chatter, what there is of it, and not once in over 2,000 miles has a dispatcher informed our train's crew that a freight is coming the other way. Heck, we sat for 20 minutes yesterday at a red signal waiting for our eastbound sister train with the crew guessing that's why we had a red signal. Not once did the dispatcher call the crew to confirm that's why we had a red light.

If I had to travel across the US by train, I would want to be in the cab with every other engineer on my cell phone speed dial - is that where you were? You might want to read the "railway signaling" entry in wikipedia, btw. It seems they had better safety protocols 150 years ago - and I'm NOT being sarcastic.

While I'd love a chance to sit up front for a bit of the journey, I surely would not relish the idea of 4 day and 3 nights sitting in a seat in the engine.

Please stop reminding us! It is a useless picture. It proves nothing!

I wonder if a juror might feel differently...

Only if you or a lawyer manages to confuse the heck out of them with some of the nonsense that you've been posting.

I can see you now driving your car and broadsiding someone because you ran a red light: "Well officer, the traffic light at the next corner was green so I figured that this one had to be green too."

Besides, there is no way that both signals could have been green. The only possible combinations are that is 1 is green and 1 is red or both are red. If both signals were green, then it's an accident waiting to happen. But again, the system would not permit such a condition.

If the red was poorly visible, then the conductor and witnesses might not have been able to tell WHICH signal was green from a mile away. Also, NONE of you want to acknowledge that the burden you place upon the single Metrolink engineer is MADNESS - WHAT HAPPENS IF HE HAS A HEART ATTACK?

I could see witnesses being confused, especially ones like you who don't understand how RR's work. But the conductor, if he could even see that signal, would not be confused. He would know better. And others have already addressed your "madness".

 

[AlanB]

You really need to learn more about railroading.

If he has a heart attack, the train stops. Here's up it works: If a set period of time goes by without the engineer making any inputs (change the throttle, apply/release the brakes, sound the horn, etc) then a little buzzer goes off and then engineer hits a button to acknowledge the fact.

If the engineer doesn't hit the button (if for example because he's had a heart attack), the train automatically stops.

But he can blow through through a switch set against him without ANYONE noticing - it seems the folks running the railroad need to learn a little more about railroading as well...

RailCon BuffDaddy

People blow through red lights every day in this country. When do you plan to start fixing that?

 

[Ryan]

You really need to learn more about railroading.

If he has a heart attack, the train stops. Here's up it works: If a set period of time goes by without the engineer making any inputs (change the throttle, apply/release the brakes, sound the horn, etc) then a little buzzer goes off and then engineer hits a button to acknowledge the fact.

If the engineer doesn't hit the button (if for example because he's had a heart attack), the train automatically stops.

But he can blow through through a switch set against him without ANYONE noticing - it seems the folks running the railroad need to learn a little more about railroading as well...

RailCon BuffDaddy

That's completely illogical.
And in a few years, it'll be impossible as PTC will automatically apply the brakes if you blow through a red signal.

Seriously, what exactly is your point with all of this? What is your theory? I'm hearing a lot of disagreement with what the NTSB said, a major lack of knowledge in how all of this works, but no coherent point.

 

[MattW]

If I had to travel across the US by train, I would want to be in the cab with every other engineer on my cell phone speed dial - is that where you were?

And do what? Call every other engineer on the entire railroad every five seconds to make sure they aren't anywhere near yours?

 

[RailCon BuffDaddy]

If I had to travel across the US by train, I would want to be in the cab with every other engineer on my cell phone speed dial - is that where you were?

And do what? Call every other engineer on the entire railroad every five seconds to make sure they aren't anywhere near yours?

Well, no - just the engineer on the next opposing train I encounter, since one cannot count on the dispatcher for this, apparently. Which reminds me, does anyone know who the Leesdale Local freight conductor was texting at 4:20 PM, right before the crash? Was his cell phone company-issued, as was the Metrolink counductor's?

RailCon BuffDaddy

 

[Trogdor]

If I had to travel across the US by train, I would want to be in the cab with every other engineer on my cell phone speed dial - is that where you were?

And do what? Call every other engineer on the entire railroad every five seconds to make sure they aren't anywhere near yours?

That's actually a good idea. The next time I'm in an automobile (which isn't often, fortunately), I'm going to have the cell phone number for every other driver in the city programmed into my phone, and call them to make sure they're planning to stop at the next red light, and to let them know that I'll be going through the intersection.

I actually hope this thread keeps going, because it's pretty entertaining!

 

[Ryan]

Well, no - just the engineer on the next opposing train I encounter, since one cannot count on the dispatcher for this, apparently.

Why would you have to rely on the dispatcher to tell you what's coming? Do you only stop at a red light if there is traffic in the area? How would you know what the next opposing train that you encounter is going to be?
Also:

Seriously, what exactly is your point with all of this? What is your theory? I'm hearing a lot of disagreement with what the NTSB said, a major lack of knowledge in how all of this works, but no coherent point.

 

[RailCon BuffDaddy]

And in a few years, it'll be impossible as PTC will automatically apply the brakes if you blow through a red signal.

And what a happy day that will be - meanwhile you should look up "defect detector" on wikipedia. And then read this from the NTSB report:

"According to recorded data for the power-operated switch at CP Topanga (about 377 feet west of the westbound Topanga signal), train 111 ran through the switch at 4:22:02 p.m.17 At this time, the train’s brakes were off and the throttle remained in position 4. A few seconds later, the defect detector just west of the CP Topanga switch broadcast a “no defects” message indicating that train 111 had passed the detector."

Maybe someone should see if CP Topanga has a defective defect detector - and no, I'm not being silly. Who could possibly make this stuff up?

 

[Trogdor]

And in a few years, it'll be impossible as PTC will automatically apply the brakes if you blow through a red signal.

And what a happy day that will be - meanwhile you should look up "defect detector" on wikipedia. And then read this from the NTSB report:

"According to recorded data for the power-operated switch at CP Topanga (about 377 feet west of the westbound Topanga signal), train 111 ran through the switch at 4:22:02 p.m.17 At this time, the train’s brakes were off and the throttle remained in position 4. A few seconds later, the defect detector just west of the CP Topanga switch broadcast a “no defects” message indicating that train 111 had passed the detector."

Maybe someone should see if CP Topanga has a defective defect detector - and no, I'm not being silly. Who could possibly make this stuff up?

You are the one that is making stuff up.

A defect detector checks the train for defects. Metrolink 111's train had no defects (meaning the wheels were in good condition, the brakes weren't stuck, the axles weren't overheating, etc.). Defect detectors don't check the track, they check the train.

Any other clueless statements you wish to make?

 

[George Harris]

Next, let me remind everyone what the uncropped picture of CP Topanga is:

[image]http://www.justiceandrailroadsafety.com/files/Photo2RedSignalsatCPTopanga.jpg[/image]

This is what the Metrolink conductor and witnesses were all seeing FROM A MILE AWAY - TWO SIGNALS 40 FEET APART. I SUPPOSE THEY ALL KNEW TO IGNORE THE ONE ON THE LEFT (sarcasm).

Absolutely!. Otherwise they would not be qualified to be part of an operating crew.

And if one is going to quote chapter and verse on regulations and procedures, it would be natural to assume there is good reason.

The good reason is that only the signal that was to the right of the track they were on applied to them. The signal on the left applied only to the track on the left. It was red because that track had been cleared for the oncoming train.

Did the nature of that section of track have anything to do with THREE PEOPLE being in the freight cab? Yet Metrolink had only ONE with 125 passengers lives in the balance?

To quote Perry Mason: "Incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial."
This whole whoop de doop about the picture and the presumption that there was a conspiracy inside the NTSB to high the left hand signal head has already been answered quite thoroughly. As least I think it was.

You post that brought it up was on 3 October 2011 at 9:40am, claiming among other things that the NTSB deliberately cut the left signal out of the picture.

The answer was posted on 3 October 2011 at 12:31 pm (noon plus 31 minutes, that is)

Again, your point escapes me entirely. Yes, on close inspection these are the same picture. A close examination shows the same people in the same positions, shadows identical, etc. Yes the NTSB picture was cropped, and it is stretched sideways somewhat. The cropping is just to the right of the left side signal mast. If you look at the position where the head of the left side signal is in the view in the NTSB report, that is approximately level with the head of the right hand signal, you can see part of the head of that signal. The presence or absence of the left hand signal and its indication are immaterial to the issue of whether or not the Metrolink ran its signal, as the right signal was the one governing his movement.
By the way, red in all directions is the default position of "home" signals on a CTC signal system. Therefore, seeing both of these signals red means only that westbound trains are to stop short of these signals. It does not indicate whether or not a train is approaching from the west, only that a westbound train is not allowed to pass this point. However, the norm is that when these signals hold a train it means that this has been the selected meeting point and there will be a train coming.

As to the "one cannot tell which path is cleared for an approaching train by looking at the signals shown in the picture", that is because these signals DO NOT govern his movements. If the picture was clear enough to see the position of the switch points, then you could tell, but the resolution of the picture is not that good. As Alan says, the train approaching would know.

For this particular location, his allowable speed would be the same as the speed limit on the curve for freight trains is 40 mph and the speed limit through the turnout is 40 mph.

As to the "shocked that passenger trains and freight trains run on the same track or in both directions on the same track" That statement was made by one of the US congresspeople or senators from California. It was and is downright silly. This sort of thing has been done in all countries for as long as there have been railroads.

 

[George Harris]

And what a happy day that will be - meanwhile you should look up "defect detector" on wikipedia. And then read this from the NTSB report:

"According to recorded data for the power-operated switch at CP Topanga (about 377 feet west of the westbound Topanga signal), train 111 ran through the switch at 4:22:02 p.m.17 At this time, the trains brakes were off and the throttle remained in position 4. A few seconds later, the defect detector just west of the CP Topanga switch broadcast a no defects message indicating that train 111 had passed the detector."

Maybe someone should see if CP Topanga has a defective defect detector - and no, I'm not being silly. Who could possibly make this stuff up?

You are the one that is making stuff up.

A defect detector checks the train for defects. Metrolink 111's train had no defects (meaning the wheels were in good condition, the brakes weren't stuck, the axles weren't overheating, etc.). Defect detectors don't check the track, they check the train.

Any other clueless statements you wish to make?

Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia Britannica. It is not exhaustive and frequently not accurate, either. If you want solid information on a subject you have got to go way beyond what is found in Wikipedia.

All the defect detector is telling us is that the train passed it before the point of collision. It is a machine that has no idea what authority the train has as it goes over it. In fact, defect detectors have no idea what train is going over it. In this case, it is known that the train that went over it was train 111 by its position relative to the point of collision. It was not because the detector recorded or gave the train number.

 

[Trogdor]

Well, no - just the engineer on the next opposing train I encounter, since one cannot count on the dispatcher for this, apparently. Which reminds me, does anyone know who the Leesdale Local freight conductor was texting at 4:20 PM, right before the crash? Was his cell phone company-issued, as was the Metrolink counductor's?

RailCon BuffDaddy

Now, this is just absurd. In the same sentence you both expect the engineer of one train to know exactly what the next train they will encounter will be, and who the crew is on that train (so you can send them a message saying...what, exactly?), but still think it's the dispatcher's responsibility to tell you what the next train you will encounter is?

So, if the dispatcher doesn't tell you what the next train is, how are you supposed to know who to send your text message to?

Of course, this is just a hypothetical, because in reality, it is not the engineer's job to know who is on the crew of the next train they encounter. It is, however, the engineer's job to (among other things) follow the signals, which the engineer of Metrolink 111 didn't do.

I'll let you in on another secret that you don't seem to comprehend: the track/signal layout at CP Topanga is as straightforward as they come (I know, as I've ridden in the cab of locomotives through there). There are two tracks, and two signals. If an engineer is qualified on the territory, he/she should know the location of every signal on the territory in question, and which one applies to which track. The other eyewitnesses (railfans on the platform) don't need to know which signal applies to which track, because they're not operating a train.

There are hundreds of places around the country where signals are around curves, or where, due to track curvature or whatever, you can be looking directly at a signal that appears to be right in front of you, but in fact it applies to another track. Despite all this, hundreds of thousands of people in the US travel safely on railroads (millions if you count transit, which is a different category) every day. The engineer, who, again, is qualified on the territory (or he won't be operating the train), knows this, and knows which signal applies to which track. The signal will never sneak up on an engineer, because the engineer already knows where the next signal is (even if it's "hidden" around a curve). An engineer not paying attention (because he was texting, for example) is violating the rules of the job. If he had followed the rules, the accident wouldn't have happened. But he didn't, and it did. It's not the dispatcher's fault. It's not the radio system's fault. It's not the "confusing" (to you, but nobody else) signal layout's fault. It's not the NTSB's fault. It's not the other freight train crew's fault.

The fact that you don't understand how someone is supposed to interpret a location where two signals are right next to each other just solidifies my earlier point that you know absolutely nothing, whatsoever, about railroading. The fact that you think you should be texting or calling other engineers on the railroad telling them where you are further demonstrates your ignorance of railroading. You still won't say what your point is, either. You just keep asking really dumb questions.

 

[RailCon BuffDaddy]

A defect detector checks the train for defects. Metrolink 111's train had no defects (meaning the wheels were in good condition, the brakes weren't stuck, the axles weren't overheating, etc.). Defect detectors don't check the track, they check the train.
Any other clueless statements you wish to make?

Perhaps some sneaky lawyer could put this more eloquently, but do you expect the jury to believe that a defect detector somehow manages to check that the wheels were in good condition, the brakes weren't stuck, the axles weren't overheating, etc., BUT DIDN"T HAVE A CLUE THAT THE SWITCH HAD BEEN RUN THROUGH!!?? Or just maybe the Metrolink engineer really had a green signal after all...

RailCon BuffDaddy

 

[George Harris]

This guy is getting most of his "information" from a web site www.justiceandrailroadsafety.com The group calls itself Justice and Railroad Safety and their header says,

The Chatsworth Metrolink Disaster:

Justice for Victims

Improve Railroad Safety for All

At the bottom of the page is this statement:

This web site is paid for by Justice and Railroad Safety. The information contained on these pages and on any pages linked from these pages is intended to provide general information only. You should consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction before relying upon any of the information presented here. | Law Firm Marketing by Law Promo

Therefore, this site seems to be little more than a lawyer advertizing and promotional site. They could hardly be considered an unbiased source of information.

Go down on the right side of their main page and click on the box labeled "DOCUMENTS" and you will find most (all?) the documents that RailCon has used or referenced.

 

[Ryan]

That's... depressing.

RailCon, what did you think that a defect detector is and what do you think that it should have done?

Are you ever going to get around to answering this?

Seriously, what exactly is your point with all of this? What is your theory? I'm hearing a lot of disagreement with what the NTSB said, a major lack of knowledge in how all of this works, but no coherent point.

 

[leemell]

This guy is getting most of his "information" from a web site www.justiceandrailroadsafety.com The group calls itself Justice and Railroad Safety and their header says,

The Chatsworth Metrolink Disaster:

Justice for Victims

Improve Railroad Safety for All

At the bottom of the page is this statement:

This web site is paid for by Justice and Railroad Safety. The information contained on these pages and on any pages linked from these pages is intended to provide general information only. You should consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction before relying upon any of the information presented here. | Law Firm Marketing by Law Promo

Therefore, this site seems to be little more than a lawyer advertizing and promotional site. They could hardly be considered an unbiased source of information.

Go down on the right side of their main page and click on the box labeled "DOCUMENTS" and you will find most (all?) the documents that RailCon has used or referenced.

Ok, now it all makes sense and sounds familiar. Been there and done that. This uninformed/half baked information that is lawyer ad/newspaper writer talk. It is being parroted by an equally ignorant and uneducated individual that suits his beliefs.

 

[AlanB]

A defect detector checks the train for defects. Metrolink 111's train had no defects (meaning the wheels were in good condition, the brakes weren't stuck, the axles weren't overheating, etc.). Defect detectors don't check the track, they check the train.
Any other clueless statements you wish to make?

Perhaps some sneaky lawyer could put this more eloquently, but do you expect the jury to believe that a defect detector somehow manages to check that the wheels were in good condition, the brakes weren't stuck, the axles weren't overheating, etc., BUT DIDN"T HAVE A CLUE THAT THE SWITCH HAD BEEN RUN THROUGH!!?? Or just maybe the Metrolink engineer really had a green signal after all...

RailCon BuffDaddy

Yes, I expect a jury to believe that, since that is the defect detector's job. It checks for dragging equipment, stuck brakes, and overheated wheels.

It does not check for the tiny scratch marks that would be on a wheel after running through a switch.

The job of a defect detector isn't to know what the train did or didn't do before it passed through the detector. It's just a simple mechanical & computerized device that looks for the aforementioned defects.

What you're proposing would be like asking a mechanic to know and call the the police because I ran a red light on the way to the car wash. The mechanics job is to figure out what is wrong with my car and fix it. Yes, the mechanic does something that the detector doesn't do, he fixes my car after determining what is broken. The defect detector just informs the crew that something mechanical is wrong. And there was nothing mechanically wrong with that train, other than perhaps a few scratches on the wheels.

 

[jis]

This guy is getting most of his "information" from a web site www.justiceandrailroadsafety.com The group calls itself Justice and Railroad Safety and their header says,

The Chatsworth Metrolink Disaster:

Justice for Victims

Improve Railroad Safety for All

At the bottom of the page is this statement:

This web site is paid for by Justice and Railroad Safety. The information contained on these pages and on any pages linked from these pages is intended to provide general information only. You should consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction before relying upon any of the information presented here. | Law Firm Marketing by Law Promo

Therefore, this site seems to be little more than a lawyer advertizing and promotional site. They could hardly be considered an unbiased source of information.

Go down on the right side of their main page and click on the box labeled "DOCUMENTS" and you will find most (all?) the documents that RailCon has used or referenced.

Ok, now it all makes sense and sounds familiar. Been there and done that. This uninformed/half baked information that is lawyer ad/newspaper writer talk. It is being parroted by an equally ignorant and uneducated individual that suits his beliefs.

The level of ignorance exhibited by the OP certainly suggested a possibility like this. Thanks for digging this up. Now at least I can stop participating in this silliness. :angry2:

 

[RailCon BuffDaddy]

Yes, I expect a jury to believe that, since that is the defect detector's job. It checks for dragging equipment, stuck brakes, and overheated wheels.
It does not check for the tiny scratch marks that would be on a wheel after running through a switch.

The job of a defect detector isn't to know what the train did or didn't do before it passed through the detector. It's just a simple mechanical & computerized device that looks for the aforementioned defects.

What you're proposing would be like asking a mechanic to know and call the the police because I ran a red light on the way to the car wash. The mechanics job is to figure out what is wrong with my car and fix it. Yes, the mechanic does something that the detector doesn't do, he fixes my car after determining what is broken. The defect detector just informs the crew that something mechanical is wrong. And there was nothing mechanically wrong with that train, other than perhaps a few scratches on the wheels.

Now the sneaky lawyer might ask HOW the defect detector manages to check all those things ON THE TRAIN, but cannot know about an abnormal action severe enough to, and I quote, leave the rail ends "bent in the shape of a banana". And please note that the Metrolink would have first made contact with the rail end tapers at the THICK END, NOT THE POINTED END. And that's also why I believe the conductor I spoke to, btw.

RailCon BuffDaddy

 

[AlanB]

Yes, I expect a jury to believe that, since that is the defect detector's job. It checks for dragging equipment, stuck brakes, and overheated wheels.
It does not check for the tiny scratch marks that would be on a wheel after running through a switch.

The job of a defect detector isn't to know what the train did or didn't do before it passed through the detector. It's just a simple mechanical & computerized device that looks for the aforementioned defects.

What you're proposing would be like asking a mechanic to know and call the the police because I ran a red light on the way to the car wash. The mechanics job is to figure out what is wrong with my car and fix it. Yes, the mechanic does something that the detector doesn't do, he fixes my car after determining what is broken. The defect detector just informs the crew that something mechanical is wrong. And there was nothing mechanically wrong with that train, other than perhaps a few scratches on the wheels.

Now the sneaky lawyer might ask HOW the defect detector manages to check all those things ON THE TRAIN, but cannot know about an abnormal action severe enough to, and I quote, leave the rail ends "bent in the shape of a banana". And please note that the Metrolink would have first made contact with the rail end tapers at the THICK END, NOT THE POINTED END. And that's also why I believe the conductor I spoke to, btw.

RailCon BuffDaddy

If the train had made contact with the pointed ends first, then it would have followed what ever direction the switch was pointed to. And once again, the damage to the switch would be far more severe than the damage to the engines wheels. While I'm not an expert on steel, personally I'd equate things like this; the engines wheels suffered about as much damage as the tires on your car would suffer running over a soda can. The soda can on the other hand would be destroyed.

As for how the detector can do one thing and not the other, the detector does what it was built to do. You would no more expect your dishwasher to tell you that your plate has a crack in it than one would expect a defect detector to tell you that the train damaged a switch a half mile away or whatever the distance actually is.

 

[Trogdor]

RailCon, this was already addressed. Defect detectors check the train, not the track. Running through a switch would damage the switch, but not the train. The detector would find nothing wrong with the train, because the train wasn't damaged.

How is that possible? Because the train is big and heavy, and the switch is relatively light.

It's the same way that you can bend a nail with a hammer, yet not damage the hammer at all.

 

[leemell]

You folks ought to just stop responding to this guy. He has his teeth in the bit of a conspiracy theory that is backstopped by a lawyer's propaganda that is aimed at scaring up clients. He puts in just enough truth and facts to make his theories plausible to the gullible and the gullible has bit it hard here.

Stop responding and he will go away.

 

[Dan O]

I have learned a few things from this last exchange.

1--I don't know anything at all about trains and railroads. No surprise there as it is not a big interest but there is much that has been said that I had no idea even existed.

2--There are some people here who do know a lot about the above. Good to know when I have a question.

3--What initially looks like a reasonable question (or in this case set of questions) about a subject I know nothing about can be quickly shown to be less than reasonable.

4--This forum can be more entertaining (and educational) than I thought.

Dan

 

[RailCon BuffDaddy]

I have learned a few things from this last exchange.

1--I don't know anything at all about trains and railroads. No surprise there as it is not a big interest but there is much that has been said that I had no idea even existed.

2--There are some people here who do know a lot about the above. Good to know when I have a question.

3--What initially looks like a reasonable question (or in this case set of questions) about a subject I know nothing about can be quickly shown to be less than reasonable.

4--This forum can be more entertaining (and educational) than I thought.

Dan

Glad you found the exchange entertaining and educational. You might really enjoy

, for a good bellylaugh on the foibles of a single engineer in a locomotive cab.
RailCon BuffDaddy