Metrolink Wreck

[AlanB]

Come on, it's all of you against me - surely you are not too scared to post my last message, are you? Or do you need to wait until you can gather enough responses to bury it first?

RailCon BuffDaddy

I've explained this once before to you, but I'm going to do it once again. Guest posts thanks to idiots who like to spam our forum must be approved by a staff member now. Once upon a day, guest posts showed up immediately, but alas not any more. It's the only way that we can protect against spammers posting dirty pictures on our forum, a forum that has members under the age of 18.

And since some of the staff is currently traveling home by train, like me, it takes time before we see your post and can approve it.

And I'm going to warn you one last time, keep making posts like this one where you try to goad us into something and it will be your last. My patience is wearing thin with you, and I think that I've been very patient with you. Some of the staff currently won't even approve your posts anymore because they're tired of your nonsense so they leave things for me. If you wish to keep posting here, I'll ask you to please be a bit more respectful. The staff and I don't get paid for this, Amtrak doesn't own this forum, it is privately owned. And the staff is all volunteer. We do this because we like trains and because we want this forum to remain both a pleasant place for our members and a place where people can come and ask questions about Amtrak or train in general.

This will be your last warning, after this is you continue in this vein, I can assure you that it will be your last post that gets approved.

 

[RailCon BuffDaddy]

Because the "magic" sensor can't see into the future to see that the oncoming train is going to creep farther forward than it's supposed to. As soon as it does, the signal facing the video camera turns red.

Obviously, the "magic" sensor could have and SHOULD have been farther back. Another viewer of the video noted that the camera train DID run a red signal at almost 40 mph. Now this wasn't really fair, because camera train has no time to react, or so the video makes one believe - but if you watch carefully, you notice that TWO SEGMENTS of the clip were DELETED, for some reason. Who knows what those missing segments might have revealed.

Given the timing involved, there's no signal system in the world that would have stopped that collision, it's simple physics. You can't stop a train on a dime.

Apparently the standard headlight protocol for unsignaled territory would have worked just fine - the oncoming train is on the main track and moving, or he would have dimmed his headlight when he stopped. And, who knows what the oncoming train's camera might have revealed.

PTC may have stopped the Chatsworth crash, but it wouldn't have done a thing in the crash depicted in the video.

How so? If the Metrolink was stopped with PTC, it would be on the single track, and the Leesdale Local would have stilled careened into it at 40 mph.

As has been mentioned, train travel is FAR safer than vehicle travel.

Given the potential for disaster, I remain, alas, unconsoled...

 

[Ryan]

Also, there's a simple solution.

Spend 30 seconds, sign up for an account and your posts will appear as soon as you press the button. As long as you don't break the rules, you can post to your heart's content!

 

[Trogdor]

RailCon is getting more looney toons by the day.

Next he'll express amazement at the magic of electricity that allows a light to illuminate through a shaded lens, filtering the color of said light and giving the observer the impression that a given light is "green" or "red" (such magical devices we have these days).

 

[AlanB]

Because the "magic" sensor can't see into the future to see that the oncoming train is going to creep farther forward than it's supposed to. As soon as it does, the signal facing the video camera turns red.

Obviously, the "magic" sensor could have and SHOULD have been farther back. Another viewer of the video noted that the camera train DID run a red signal at almost 40 mph. Now this wasn't really fair, because camera train has no time to react, or so the video makes one believe - but if you watch carefully, you notice that TWO SEGMENTS of the clip were DELETED, for some reason. Who knows what those missing segments might have revealed.

No, the sensor is exactly where its supposed to be.

Given the timing involved, there's no signal system in the world that would have stopped that collision, it's simple physics. You can't stop a train on a dime.

Apparently the standard headlight protocol for unsignaled territory would have worked just fine - the oncoming train is on the main track and moving, or he would have dimmed his headlight when he stopped. And, who knows what the oncoming train's camera might have revealed.

That's a nicety, not a requirement. Not all engineers dim the headlight when stopped and another train approaches. The other trains' camera, if there was one, would have revealed that its engineer ran a red signal.

PTC may have stopped the Chatsworth crash, but it wouldn't have done a thing in the crash depicted in the video.

How so? If the Metrolink was stopped with PTC, it would be on the single track, and the Leesdale Local would have stilled careened into it at 40 mph.

First, even if PTC only stopped the Metrolink train (and we'll come back to this idea in a minute), that would have made the closure rate between the two trains only 40 MPH, instead of the 80 MPH combined speed with which they collided. That would have saved many, if not all lives lost. There is a huge difference between a 40 MPH collision and a 80 MPH collision.

Second, PTC must be installed on all engines leading trains operating within PTC territory. This is why Metrolink doesn't already have it installed, because UP must also do so. However, had PTC been in operation, it would have applied the brakes to both trains the second that Metrolink ran the red signal. Most likely that would have prevented the collision entirely, but worst case scenario if the freight couldn't be stopped quite quick enough, we'd be talking about a collision of probably 15 MPH or less. That would have saved all lives and resulted in only minor injuries.

As has been mentioned, train travel is FAR safer than vehicle travel.

Given the potential for disaster, I remain, alas, unconsoled...

Once again, I ask, where is your outrage against cars & trucks? I expect an answer!

 

[Ryan]

Do we have the technology to make PTC such that it enforces the signal BEFORE you get to it? For example in Chatsworth, instead of PTC and kicking in after the engineer blew past the red signal, there was some logic that said "OK, there's a red signal 100 yards ahead, this train is moving at 30 MPH and would need 500 yards to stop, therefore I must apply the brakes right now!"

Apply that logic test over and over and over as a train approaches a red signal, and it makes it very hard for the train to make it past a red signal. You'd have to build a lot of info into the system (braking distance vs speed curves, etc), but it would make it pretty hard to run 2 trains into one another.

Then of course the real question is "Is the expense of such a system worth it?".

 

[Trogdor]

Do we have the technology to make PTC such that it enforces the signal BEFORE you get to it? For example in Chatsworth, instead of PTC and kicking in after the engineer blew past the red signal, there was some logic that said "OK, there's a red signal 100 yards ahead, this train is moving at 30 MPH and would need 500 yards to stop, therefore I must apply the brakes right now!"

That's exactly what PTC is suppsoed to do.

These systems are quite advanced and have logic built in with very conservative braking curves and such, and will actually apply a penalty brake long before the "drop dead" decision point for slowing down for a speed restriction or signal.

I don't recall all the specific details, since it's not my area, but having been to a presentation on PTC at a conference last year, my vague memory says that for the given equipment operating, the PTC system will require that the engineer be below the speed/braking curve for a given restriction, with that curve set at some very conservative distance (i.e. in normal operation, you could be beyond that curve and still slow down/stop in time), PLUS an error factor to account for the possibility that the system is slightly off in where it thinks you are. So, as an example, if a train under normal conditions requires 2,500 feet to stop from its given speed, the system would start enforcing a penalty brake at 3,000 or 3,500 feet from the "target."

The downside to this is that it's actually going to take you longer to get where you're going (assuming no speed increases on the railroad), because while a good engineer will know his train well enough to know when to apply the brakes for a given stop or speed restriction, the system will force them all to slow down far in advance of that.

 

[AlanB]

Do we have the technology to make PTC such that it enforces the signal BEFORE you get to it? For example in Chatsworth, instead of PTC and kicking in after the engineer blew past the red signal, there was some logic that said "OK, there's a red signal 100 yards ahead, this train is moving at 30 MPH and would need 500 yards to stop, therefore I must apply the brakes right now!"

Yes, that technology exists and that's how it would actually work anyhow. Many light rail trains also already have speed enforcement, where the operator gets a few seconds to deal with going over the speed limit, before the brakes are applied.

Since the Metrolink train was operating in a block that would have required it to be able to slow to a stop before the red signal, once the engineer got above a certain speed as he accelerated away from the platform the PTC would have started blaring a horn to let him know that he was above the safe speed for that block. Had the engineer failed to reduce the speed within a few seconds, the computes would have stopped the train automatically.

It is still potentially possible that the train would have made it through the switch and onto to the main, but it wouldn't have been very far past that switch before it reached a full stop. And of course, as I already noted, if the train had made it past the red signal then the PTC would have shutdown the freight engine too. But it is equally likely that it would have stopped before the signal and crossing the switch set against it.

 

[Ryan]

OK cool, I thought that might be the case but wasn't sure. I'm thinking that might be RailCon's point, but he's doing a terrible job communicating it.

 

[Trogdor]

OK cool, I thought that might be the case but wasn't sure. I'm thinking that might be RailCon's point, but he's doing a terrible job communicating it.

In 6 or 7 (lost count) pages of rants, he has demonstrated that he clearly does not have a point.

 

[jis]

PTC would not have allowed the Metrolink to get upto a speed from which it could not be brought to a standstill short of the stop signal that it faced, and indeed it would have enforced the stop short of the signal irrespective of what the engineer did or did not do. Same is true of ACSES on the NEC, which is certified to conform to the requirements of a PTC system.

 

[RailCon BuffDaddy]

Do we have the technology to make PTC such that it enforces the signal BEFORE you get to it?

How about what I said in post #552? - "Obviously, the "magic" sensor could have and SHOULD have been farther back." This might be more economical, and is already the case in some places. I'll bet all you "railroad enthusiasts" even know where. The Amtrak/PTC lobbyists/union busters among you might have to look it up...

RailCon BuffDaddy

 

[Ryan]

It's not as simple as just putting the sensor farther back. The distance should (and does, it seems) vary with the speed and stopping distance of the train.

 

[MattW]

Do we have the technology to make PTC such that it enforces the signal BEFORE you get to it?

How about what I said in post #552? - "Obviously, the "magic" sensor could have and SHOULD have been farther back." This might be more economical, and is already the case in some places. I'll bet all you "railroad enthusiasts" even know where. The Amtrak/PTC lobbyists/union busters among you might have to look it up...

RailCon BuffDaddy

How much farther back? Don't forget that a light locomotive move has considerably less stopping distance than a loaded coal train. The only way to have an effective stopping distance is to have a computer dynamically calculate stopping distance based on weight, speed, grade etc. so to stop trains that run red signals for all trains in all conditions is to have the sensor for that very far back. Far enough perhaps that the engineer can no longer see the signal and wouldn't know when to proceed which means you should place the signal back at the sensor which kind of renders the whole point moot. The traditional signaling system has served us well for a hundred years with very few accidents in general, and even fewer that weren't caused by human error (as in the incident at hand, Chatsworth).

Also, you seem to be changing your tune. Earlier, you were deriding the railroad industry for not caring enough about passengers, yet when people mention PTC which will have huge safety benefits, you deride the PTC supporters.

 

[leemell]

Come on, it's all of you against me - surely you are not too scared to post my last message, are you? Or do you need to wait until you can gather enough responses to bury it first?

RailCon BuffDaddy

What are you? Thirteen years old? You childish responsses and lack of real knowledge would seem to point to that.

 

[RailCon BuffDaddy]

Do we have the technology to make PTC such that it enforces the signal BEFORE you get to it?

How about what I said in post #552? - "Obviously, the "magic" sensor could have and SHOULD have been farther back." This might be more economical, and is already the case in some places. I'll bet all you "railroad enthusiasts" even know where. The Amtrak/PTC lobbyists/union busters among you might have to look it up...

RailCon BuffDaddy

How much farther back? Don't forget that a light locomotive move has considerably less stopping distance than a loaded coal train. The only way to have an effective stopping distance is to have a computer dynamically calculate stopping distance based on weight, speed, grade etc. so to stop trains that run red signals for all trains in all conditions is to have the sensor for that very far back. Far enough perhaps that the engineer can no longer see the signal and wouldn't know when to proceed which means you should place the signal back at the sensor which kind of renders the whole point moot. The traditional signaling system has served us well for a hundred years with very few accidents in general, and even fewer that weren't caused by human error (as in the incident at hand, Chatsworth).

Also, you seem to be changing your tune. Earlier, you were deriding the railroad industry for not caring enough about passengers, yet when people mention PTC which will have huge safety benefits, you deride the PTC supporters.

Sensor appears to be right at the signal in THIS video - which unfortunately is also right at the switch, with NO margin for error. Some places have the sensor & signal set back 220 yards, I believe, which makes sense. Headlight signaling makes sense, also - and has been around a long time. I am ALL for greater rail safety, but not necessarily expensive, lengthy pie-in-the-sky schemes which will surely be thwarted by an industry intent on cutting corners at every turn - and won't even admit that cell phones are the primary way that rail crews try to insure their safety in this environment.

RailCon BuffDaddy

Moderator Comment:

I do no understand the point being made here. This may be because I am on a V E R R Y S L O W conection. But the video does show the crash.The video does not show the Chatsworth Situation. It took me almost hour to receive the video.

 

[Trogdor]

Do we have the technology to make PTC such that it enforces the signal BEFORE you get to it?

How about what I said in post #552? - "Obviously, the "magic" sensor could have and SHOULD have been farther back." This might be more economical, and is already the case in some places. I'll bet all you "railroad enthusiasts" even know where. The Amtrak/PTC lobbyists/union busters among you might have to look it up...

RailCon BuffDaddy

How much farther back? Don't forget that a light locomotive move has considerably less stopping distance than a loaded coal train. The only way to have an effective stopping distance is to have a computer dynamically calculate stopping distance based on weight, speed, grade etc. so to stop trains that run red signals for all trains in all conditions is to have the sensor for that very far back. Far enough perhaps that the engineer can no longer see the signal and wouldn't know when to proceed which means you should place the signal back at the sensor which kind of renders the whole point moot. The traditional signaling system has served us well for a hundred years with very few accidents in general, and even fewer that weren't caused by human error (as in the incident at hand, Chatsworth).

Also, you seem to be changing your tune. Earlier, you were deriding the railroad industry for not caring enough about passengers, yet when people mention PTC which will have huge safety benefits, you deride the PTC supporters.

RailCon is confusing PTC (which is coming, and currently only exists in a few locations) with standard block signals. Whether his confusion is intentional or just due to his own ignorance...not sure.

Signal blocks are not based on train stopping distance. The "magic sensor" to which he refers is a track circuit, which simply indicates whether or not a train is in a given block. There is no moving track circuits farther back. That's not the point of a track circuit.

PTC will have (and in the cases where it already exists, currently has) all the necessary braking curves figured out, and will enforce restrictions and signals prior to the train getting there. All the computations related to stopping distance will be done on the locomotive and not on the track.

Track circuits will never (and have never been designed to) tell you that a train is about to violate a signal. You simply can't move the "sensor" back, because that would be the same as moving the entire signal block, and that doesn't solve the problem of an engineer not paying attention to the signals in the first place.

 

[AlanB]

Do we have the technology to make PTC such that it enforces the signal BEFORE you get to it?

How about what I said in post #552? - "Obviously, the "magic" sensor could have and SHOULD have been farther back." This might be more economical, and is already the case in some places. I'll bet all you "railroad enthusiasts" even know where. The Amtrak/PTC lobbyists/union busters among you might have to look it up...

RailCon BuffDaddy

First, there is nothing magic about the sensor.

Second, it's job is to indicate to the signaling system when the train leaves one block and moves into the next block. Moving it further back only changed the length of the blocks, one gets shorter and one get longer.

 

[AlanB]

Do we have the technology to make PTC such that it enforces the signal BEFORE you get to it?

How about what I said in post #552? - "Obviously, the "magic" sensor could have and SHOULD have been farther back." This might be more economical, and is already the case in some places. I'll bet all you "railroad enthusiasts" even know where. The Amtrak/PTC lobbyists/union busters among you might have to look it up...

RailCon BuffDaddy

How much farther back? Don't forget that a light locomotive move has considerably less stopping distance than a loaded coal train. The only way to have an effective stopping distance is to have a computer dynamically calculate stopping distance based on weight, speed, grade etc. so to stop trains that run red signals for all trains in all conditions is to have the sensor for that very far back. Far enough perhaps that the engineer can no longer see the signal and wouldn't know when to proceed which means you should place the signal back at the sensor which kind of renders the whole point moot. The traditional signaling system has served us well for a hundred years with very few accidents in general, and even fewer that weren't caused by human error (as in the incident at hand, Chatsworth).

Also, you seem to be changing your tune. Earlier, you were deriding the railroad industry for not caring enough about passengers, yet when people mention PTC which will have huge safety benefits, you deride the PTC supporters.

Sensor appears to be right at the signal in THIS video - which unfortunately is also right at the switch, with NO margin for error. Some places have the sensor & signal set back 220 yards, I believe, which makes sense. Headlight signaling makes sense, also - and has been around a long time. I am ALL for greater rail safety, but not necessarily expensive, lengthy pie-in-the-sky schemes which will surely be thwarted by an industry intent on cutting corners at every turn - and won't even admit that cell phones are the primary way that rail crews try to insure their safety in this environment.

RailCon BuffDaddy

This could be your most ridiculous statement to date.

Engineers on most RR's are banned from using their cell phones. Therefore it could not be "the primary form of communication between trains". And again, engineers don't trade phone numbers.

 

[AlanB]

RailCon BuffDaddy,

I've politely asked you now three times to answer my question, yet you continue to ignore it and to post ridiculous and often silly information. I believe that I've been more than polite with you, taking my time to try and explain things, and providing answers to your questions. You however seem unwilling to reciprocate.

Therefore this will be my last post to you, and the above post will be the last one approved by the staff. Since you can't answer my question, a reasonable question, this conversation is now over. Sorry! But I gave you three chances.

Goodbye.

 

[RailCon BuffDaddy]

What was your question and why is it significant to this thread, which concerns the Chatsworth Metrolink accident?

RailCon BuffDaddy

 

[Ryan]

and won't even admit that cell phones are the primary way that rail crews try to insure their safety in this environment.

I'm really wildly curious what evidence he has to back this statement up.

Perhaps if he were to answer this question (not that I'm holding my breath), you might let that one slip through, Alan?

Or RailCon can actually register for an account, but I don't see that happening either.

 

[jis]

Do we have the technology to make PTC such that it enforces the signal BEFORE you get to it?

How about what I said in post #552? - "Obviously, the "magic" sensor could have and SHOULD have been farther back." This might be more economical, and is already the case in some places. I'll bet all you "railroad enthusiasts" even know where. The Amtrak/PTC lobbyists/union busters among you might have to look it up...

Your ignorance and arrogance are both breathtaking :help:

 

[AlanB]

What was your question and why is it significant to this thread, which concerns the Chatsworth Metrolink accident?

RailCon BuffDaddy

I'm going to reverse myself and allow for this post to go through. Please don't mistake my generosity, as I won't do this again!

My question is, you're all upset over rail safety and this accident in California with Metrolink. Where is your outrage for the carnage on the highways, the Metrolink crash killed less than 0.1% of the number of people killed on our highways? Why aren't you concerned about that?

As for why it is significant, first, simply because I've been very polite and tolerant with you. It's nice to answer others questions when they've been busy answering yours.

Second, it's relevant because I'm trying to understand why you are so fixated on this one accident and don't seem to care a whit about other forms of transportation that kill many more people than trains kill.

 

[George Harris]

Do we have the technology to make PTC such that it enforces the signal BEFORE you get to it?

How about what I said in post #552? - "Obviously, the "magic" sensor could have and SHOULD have been farther back." This might be more economical, and is already the case in some places. I'll bet all you "railroad enthusiasts" even know where. The Amtrak/PTC lobbyists/union busters among you might have to look it up...

Your ignorance and arrogance are both breathtaking :help:

The "magic sensor" has no magic to it at all. It is simply the track circuit. I think it would be wasting my fingers to try even the most basic of explanations.

The limit of a track circuit is set by the presence of an insulated joint in the rails, which is usually located at or slightly in advance of a signal. (Yes, I know that there are now coded track circuits that make insulated joints unnecessary except to prevent dirct short circuits in turnouts and a few other place, but I am not signal engineer and really do not know how to explain it. I let the signal guys tell me where they want the IJ's and then tell them they should not be dead opposite each other.

The track circuit did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday. The original form was invented in 18 something or other, I think 1880 something. That is why for many years semaphores were used. These things were first used before light bulbs were common, if not before they were invented. An oil lamp would not be bright enough to be seen it the daytime.

There have been many improvements since, but the basics of having a small electric current in the rails with the wheels completing the circuit to announce the presence of a train has been around for well over 100 years.

I am sure that the next hit will be something to the effect of why we are still using obsolete technology or some such. Announcement: old does not equal obsolete.