Metrolink Wreck

[Joel N. Weber II]

It would also be clever if the next generation corridor equipment planning that is in the bill that, IIRC, Congress has almost managed to pass, would take into consideration equipment that would operate at 250 MPH that can operate anywhere in the country that has catenary. But maybe I'm actually thinking of the generation after the next generation.

Regardless of whether California needs to mix freight or not, somewhere in the country, being able to run a high speed capable train on track shared with freight will be useful. In the greater Boston area, for example, if the North South Rail Link gets built so that an underground Central Station or North Station provides a connection to the Green Line in addition to the Orange Line, Amtrak might want to bypass Back Bay, in which case bringing the Fairmount Line back to four tracks (which it apparently once had) might be a good idea; two tracks could be used to make the various commuter stops, and two tracks could be used for trains that don't stop along the Fairmount Line, both freight and Amtrak (it's going to be very hard to find any other good way to get rail freight from Conley Terminal where the container ships get unloaded to the rest of the rail system, and keeping the freight off the platform tracks will make high level platforms possible without having to worry about the width of the freight cars).

I'm not sure how this is going to work nationally with platform height compatibility, since while I was trying to find the ACSES paper I stumbled across something saying that trains that operate faster than 125 MPH are not allowed to have internal stairs for low level platforms, and presumably California is not planning for northeast platform height (and really, northeast platform height is dumb for bi-level long distance trains).

 

[GG-1]

Aloha

When I first heard about this my first concern was about family and friends, then I wondered how could there be sufficient impact to drive the metrolink engine telescoping into the car. After seeing the pictures I now understand that something caused the Metrolink engine to go "on the ground" and the UP engine ripped open the car.

I feel sad that, again, the investigators are being second guessed, please lets just pray for the people and await the full investigation.

Mahalo

Eric

 

[Guest_TransAtlantic_*]

Meanwhile, the California high speed rail folks probably still think those Metrolink coaches are ridiculously overbuilt, and probably still want their high speed trainsets to have permission to be built to lesser crashworthiness standards. The Implementation Plan goes into some detail about wanting an exemption to the usual US crashworthiness standards.

The California High Speed Rail trains will run on dedicated tracks - i.e. no sharing with freights. So there's no need to meet the FRA standards, which exist because of passenger rail sharing tracks with freights.

That's not true.

For example, it is currently planned for high-speed rail to share Caltrain's tracks into San Francisco. Caltrain is required to accommodate Union Pacific's customers on the Peninsula line. This sometimes means that, not only is there a freight on the tracks, but also that it sometimes runs during the day.

I once has the unusual experience of passing a short UP train (two engines, a tank car, and a gondola, as I recall) going the same direction as my train, having them pass us at a station stop, and then passing them again -- during my commute home. I waived at the engineer and conductor on the second go.

The line up the peninsula will not be high-speed - it will be a high-speed trainset using a shared right-of-way, just as they do beyond the limits of the high-speed portions of the lines in France...

 

[tp49]

Channel 2 News in L.A. just aired a report about two teenage "train enthusiasts" in Moorpark who knew the Metrolink engineer (perished), and one said he was texting with the engineer moments before the collision. Distraction?
I checked the station's website, but apparently the aired report has not been posted online yet. I'll look again later, but here's the link:

CBS 2

EDIT: If the report is accurate, and what the kid said is true, I'm guessing the NTSB will want to talk with those boys.

if its true then both the metrolink driver and the boys are at fault. the driver should not have been texting while driving. same thing if it was a car. the boys could be be charged with causing the wreck and be charged with negligent homicide.

I'd hardly think the boys would be found at fault. There is a serious lack of an unlawful act on thier part requisite to even remotely find them culpable and I don't think they would even face any civil liability for "causing the wreck.". However, it does to me show fault on the part of the Metrolink engineer. However, since Metrolink basically admitted liability this point is moot.

Also, it is not illegal in California to send text messages while driving (though it should be and the bill passed the legislature and is waiting for the Governor's signature).

 

[Tony]

Of course even if Metrolink does require that, or had this happened east of the Mississippi, the engineer most likely would have called out the wrong signal aspect and therefore the conductor wouldn't have assumed that anything was wrong.

If the Metrolink engineer didn't see the signal (because he was distracted texting?), he would not have called out anything, right?

 

[Tony]

I'd hardly think the boys would be found at fault. There is a serious lack of an unlawful act on thier part requisite to even remotely find them culpable and I don't think they would even face any civil liability for "causing the wreck.". However, it does to me show fault on the part of the Metrolink engineer. However, since Metrolink basically admitted liability this point is moot.

I am not as sure. The boys themselves have admitted, and willing provided the evidence, that they knew they were intentionally distracting (by texting with) an engineer who was in control of a moving train.

Is there really that much difference between some boys throwing something physical in front of a moving train and thus causing its accident, or some boys throwing something electronic?

If the some boys shined something like a search light, intentionally, into the eyes of a moving train's engineer, causing him to be temporarily blinded, would those boys be responsible?

That doesn't forgive, or lessen, the Metrolink engineer's own responsibility. It just raises some interesting questions about the "train enthusiast" boys.

 

[AlanB]

I'd hardly think the boys would be found at fault. There is a serious lack of an unlawful act on thier part requisite to even remotely find them culpable and I don't think they would even face any civil liability for "causing the wreck.". However, it does to me show fault on the part of the Metrolink engineer. However, since Metrolink basically admitted liability this point is moot.

I am not as sure. The boys themselves have admitted, and willing provided the evidence, that they knew they were intentionally distracting (by texting with) an engineer who was in control of a moving train.

Is there really that much difference between some boys throwing something physical in front of a moving train and thus causing its accident, or some boys throwing something electronic?

If the some boys shined something like a search light, intentionally, into the eyes of a moving train's engineer, causing him to be temporarily blinded, would those boys be responsible?

That doesn't forgive, or lessen, the Metrolink engineer's own responsibility. It just raises some interesting questions about the "train enthusiast" boys.

I'm pretty sure that TP49 is correct, especially since I know what he does for a living.

But here's the big difference between the things that you mentioned and what the boys did, time and avoidability. The engineer can't avoid a thrown rock or a search light or anything else like that. A text message doesn't go away with time. It's like an email; it stays there until you decide to read it. The engineer had a choice; he could have avoided reading that message until he was stopped at a station or off duty. He had the luxury of time.

He choose not to avail himself of that luxury. Additionally, and at least according to the preliminary and not fully confirmed info, the engineer wasn't reading the text message at the time he passed the red signal, he was sending his own reply. That takes the onus off of the boys totally. The boys weren’t holding a gun to his head and saying “you had better reply right now or I’m going to shoot you.”

If all of this is true, the engineer made a horribly bad choice. But it was his choice, he wasn’t forced to do it and he could have avoided replying, and even reading. He’s now paid the ultimate price for that choice.

 

[AlanB]

Of course even if Metrolink does require that, or had this happened east of the Mississippi, the engineer most likely would have called out the wrong signal aspect and therefore the conductor wouldn't have assumed that anything was wrong.

If the Metrolink engineer didn't see the signal (because he was distracted texting?), he would not have called out anything, right?

Again with the realization that we are at present doing nothing more than speculating, it's hard to say what the engineer did. They will know however what he did from the recorder and the conductor's testimony.

I personally see two possibilities; the first one however is less likely. 1) The engineer didn't see the signal and didn't call it out. In that case however, the conductor assuming that he wasn't somehow distracted, should have immediately realized that something was wrong and contacted the engineer. Failing to establish contact or not getting a good answer, the conductor should have pulled the emergency cord to stop the train until he could figure out what was wrong.

2) The engineer did see the signal, but misread it and called out the wrong aspect. That would allay any fears or intervention by the conductor.

 

[jackal]

Wow. Sad. Scary, too, since this is the line I ride most frequently when I visit California (my grandparents live in Simi). Got the note this morning (morning Singapore time, anyway--we're 16 hours ahead of PDT!) from my grandmother by email and have just now sat down to do a little more investigation (I figured there'd be good discussion on AU...).

Of course even if Metrolink does require that, or had this happened east of the Mississippi, the engineer most likely would have called out the wrong signal aspect and therefore the conductor wouldn't have assumed that anything was wrong.

If the Metrolink engineer didn't see the signal (because he was distracted texting?), he would not have called out anything, right?

Again with the realization that we are at present doing nothing more than speculating, it's hard to say what the engineer did. They will know however what he did from the recorder and the conductor's testimony.

I personally see two possibilities; the first one however is less likely. 1) The engineer didn't see the signal and didn't call it out. In that case however, the conductor assuming that he wasn't somehow distracted, should have immediately realized that something was wrong and contacted the engineer. Failing to establish contact or not getting a good answer, the conductor should have pulled the emergency cord to stop the train until he could figure out what was wrong.

2) The engineer did see the signal, but misread it and called out the wrong aspect. That would allay any fears or intervention by the conductor.

My completely uneducated guess is that it was #1. Railroad crews do get very familiar with their territories, but if the conductor was talking to a passenger or otherwise occupied, I doubt he would have realized that the engineer missed a signal. I doubt he misread the signal--it's pretty easy to tell clear (green) from anything else, and if it was anything else, then he would more than likely have known to pay more attention to what he was doing. I wonder if dispatch got any signal call-outs on tape--if he called out clear, the thought occurs to me that he may have realized that he missed the signal but called "clear" out anyway as a sort of "cover up" for missing the signal, banking on the fact that it was actually clear (a bet he lost). We won't know until the results of the tapes are released (or if someone finds it on railroadradio.net--not likely, as the only main SoCal receiver is in the Inland Empire).

If he did simply miss the signal, how far after the last control point or other signal (absolute or intermediate) did this happen? I get the impression that it happened pretty quickly. I suppose if I were home, I could grab out my Altamont timetable, figure out the milepost of that last tunnel and then trace back to the milepost of the previous signal...but my timetable is about 14,623 air miles behind me...(though only 6,665 as the crow flies!)

Still, when the engineer and conductor felt the train cross a switch without an appropriate signal indication called out, someone should have reacted (although, of course, trains cross lots of unsignaled switches to random sidings and spurs all the time, so again, it may not have really been noticed--unless, of course, something did happen and the locomotive did derail!).

In any case, I strongly agree that it's high time for PTC. The newer implementations are vastly cheaper than CTC, and there is no reason it could not be effectively implemented nationwide on all types of track. And there's no excuse for not installing it on lines used by passenger trains--especially in high-traffic regions with commuter trains (like SoCal).

As an aside, until PTC gets implemented, an appropriate solution would be to return a fireman/assistant engineer to the cab of the train. There really does need to be two sets of eyes looking out the front of the train (either two sets of human eyes or one set of human eyes plus a set of computerized PTC eyes). Frankly, I hope the STB/NTSC/FRA (or whoever deals with this type of thing) recommends or makes a rule to this effect. (Amtrak does it; why shouldn't Metrolink?)

One more question: I assume it is a good thing that this train was in pull mode. Had the train been in push mode, what do you think would have happened? I assume the death toll would have been much higher.

Meanwhile, the California high speed rail folks probably still think those Metrolink coaches are ridiculously overbuilt, and probably still want their high speed trainsets to have permission to be built to lesser crashworthiness standards. The Implementation Plan goes into some detail about wanting an exemption to the usual US crashworthiness standards.

The California High Speed Rail trains will run on dedicated tracks - i.e. no sharing with freights. So there's no need to meet the FRA standards, which exist because of passenger rail sharing tracks with freights.

That's not true.

For example, it is currently planned for high-speed rail to share Caltrain's tracks into San Francisco. Caltrain is required to accommodate Union Pacific's customers on the Peninsula line. This sometimes means that, not only is there a freight on the tracks, but also that it sometimes runs during the day.

I once has the unusual experience of passing a short UP train (two engines, a tank car, and a gondola, as I recall) going the same direction as my train, having them pass us at a station stop, and then passing them again -- during my commute home. I waived at the engineer and conductor on the second go.

The line up the peninsula will not be high-speed - it will be a high-speed trainset using a shared right-of-way, just as they do beyond the limits of the high-speed portions of the lines in France...

Are you sure of this? If it's restricted to non-ATS CTC speeds (79mph), that would add an extra hour to the trip between L.A. and SFO. Maybe they're planning on adding some sort of PTC on that stretch, which would allow it to hit some higher speeds (90? 110? 125? 150?).

 

[WhoozOn1st]

Los Angeles Times:

Metrolink blames engineer

Technology exists to keep trains apart

Ventura County Star:

Metrolink takes full blame

As is often the case, the online headlines differ from the print headlines that I use for the links.

 

[Tony]

If all of this is true, the engineer made a horribly bad choice. But it was his choice, he wasn’t forced to do it and he could have avoided replying, and even reading. He’s now paid the ultimate price for that choice.

While I agree, it does take two to carry on an active conversation using instant messaging. I still believe that both sides of the conversation share the consequences of doing just that. It is clear that the "boys" knew they were carrying on an active conversation with an engineer of a moving train. It is unclear if the term being used in the news reports of "boys" means a minor, but that might be irrelevant because a minor can't themselves subscribe to cell phone service.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

Bottom line is those boys are not required, to know that its against railroad rules, to use electronic devices other than those supplied by railroad.

Mr sanchez however should know and is/was 100% responcible.

He earned himself the reputation of having killed more passengers than Ricky Gates, only difference Ricky Gates is alive and served a prison term.

violating rules is not much difference if you violate rule G (alcohol or substance) or using a device not allowed.

 

[Guest_sweet tea_*]

If all of this is true, the engineer made a horribly bad choice. But it was his choice, he wasn’t forced to do it and he could have avoided replying, and even reading. He’s now paid the ultimate price for that choice.

While I agree, it does take two to carry on an active conversation using instant messaging. I still believe that both sides of the conversation share the consequences of doing just that. It is clear that the "boys" knew they were carrying on an active conversation with an engineer of a moving train. It is unclear if the term being used in the news reports of "boys" means a minor, but that might be irrelevant because a minor can't themselves subscribe to cell phone service.

texting≠instant messaging, and it does not carry the expectation of an immediate response.

if you place a call to your surgeon buddy to invite him to dinner and he answers the phone despite the fact that he's got a patient open in front of him, would you think it was your fault for calling him or his for answering?

texting is even less blame-worthy than a regular phone call could have been, since the whole point is that you can read the message when you have a minute, rather than having to chose between answering the call or letting it go to voice mail. if someone wants to tell me something during a time i can't answer the phone, i prefer them to text me, so i don't have to worry that it's an emergency.

if the engineer really was responding to them, then yes, that's grade-A poor judgment.

-- someone who texts, calls, IMs, etc. regularly.

 

[Dan O]

He earned himself the reputation of having killed more passengers than Ricky Gates, only difference Ricky Gates is alive and served a prison term.violating rules is not much difference if you violate rule G (alcohol or substance) or using a device not allowed.

I think there is a distinction between using illegal drugs and having impaired judgment versus texting. One ie illegal all the time. The other may be against the rules to do while driving or being an engineer on a train. The engineer appears to have used poor judgment and it cost his live and many others. It was an accident and these types of accidents (doing something that distracts oneself) happen frequently while driving cars, etc. I'd hazard to guess most people have done similar (cell phone/adjust radio/adjust air conditioning/reprimand kids/etc) and the great majority of the time had no adverse results.

Dan

 

[-Jamie-]

If all of this is true, the engineer made a horribly bad choice. But it was his choice, he wasn’t forced to do it and he could have avoided replying, and even reading. He’s now paid the ultimate price for that choice.

While I agree, it does take two to carry on an active conversation using instant messaging. I still believe that both sides of the conversation share the consequences of doing just that. It is clear that the "boys" knew they were carrying on an active conversation with an engineer of a moving train. It is unclear if the term being used in the news reports of "boys" means a minor, but that might be irrelevant because a minor can't themselves subscribe to cell phone service.

They're being referred to as "boys" because they're all around 15.

 

[tp49]

If all of this is true, the engineer made a horribly bad choice. But it was his choice, he wasn’t forced to do it and he could have avoided replying, and even reading. He’s now paid the ultimate price for that choice.

While I agree, it does take two to carry on an active conversation using instant messaging. I still believe that both sides of the conversation share the consequences of doing just that. It is clear that the "boys" knew they were carrying on an active conversation with an engineer of a moving train. It is unclear if the term being used in the news reports of "boys" means a minor, but that might be irrelevant because a minor can't themselves subscribe to cell phone service.

News reports have indicated that the "boys" are juveniles in the 15-16 year old age range.

These are the reasons I believe the District Attorney would not charge, let alone investigate these juveniles. First, looking at the statutes they commited no crime. It is not a crime to send a text message. There is also nothing in the Manslaughter statute that would be applicable here either as there is no "unlawful act" to stick on them.

Second, there is a problem with the exact certainty of the evidence. The only thing they have is the juvenile's cell phone with a time stamp of when the message was received by the juvenile. Phones don't necessarily receive a text message immediately after it is sent. There can be a lag of up to a couple of minutes.

Third, as stated by others here, the engineer did not have to reply to the message. This goes along with my second point as it is possible that the engineer sent the text message while dwelling at Chatsworth and wasn't replying while operating

the train.

From a civil standpoint I don't see any liability on the juvenile's part either. They sent a text message which does not require an immediate response. They did nothing unlawful or even remotely negligent. There is also an issue of fairness. As an example your friend is driving on his way home from work. You send him a text message asking him if he's going to happy hour with you. As he looks away to read to read it traffic stops, he looks back up at traffic to see it stopped but it's too late and he rear-ends the car in front of him. Are you responsible for the wreck? No, because your friend could have waited until he was stopped at the light or got home to read it.

However, again in the civil instance Metrolink already publicly conceded that they are fully liable thus the point of liability is moot and will not even be considered.

 

[WhoozOn1st]

However, again in the civil instance Metrolink already publicly conceded that they are fully liable thus the point of liability is moot and will not even be considered.

It may be too soon to say that the issue of liability is moot, Metrolink's early "mea culpa" (based on blaming the engineer) notwithstanding. The NTSB investigation has hardly begun. In any case, legal issues are clearly on the minds of Metrolink's leaders. The agenda of today's special SCRRA (Southern California Regional Rail Authority) meeting:

1. Call to Order

CLOSED SESSION

2. Closed Session

(a THREAT TO PUBLIC PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACIILITIES – Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957) - (Consultation with Metrolink’s Chief Safety Officer)

(b CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: (Subdivision (b of Government Code Section 54956.9 : (multiple potential cases) - Anticipated litigation arising out of the September 12, 2008 collision between a Metrolink train and a Union Pacific freight train on the Ventura County Line, near the city of Chatsworth, CA.

3. Chief Executive Officer’s Report

4. Board Member Comments

5. Adjournment

The Board Executive Committee Special meeting, scheduled for September 16, 2008 is CANCELLED

________________________

The entire current Emergency Alert is here: Metrolink Emergency Alert

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

It may be too soon to say that the issue of liability is moot, Metrolink's early "mea culpa" (based on blaming the engineer) notwithstanding. The NTSB investigation has hardly begun.

There's a limit to how much impact the NTSB investiagtion has to the question of what the courts will decide about who has to pay the injured parties. Or at least, there is with small airplanes, but I'd assume trains are similar. This article says:

Even though the Safety Board's report is not admissible in court, the IIC's deposition is, and anything you tell the IIC can be discovered during deposition.

(Earlier in that article, it states that IIC standards for Investigator-in-Charge.)

 

[lrdc9_metroplitan_sub]

Of course even if Metrolink does require that, or had this happened east of the Mississippi, the engineer most likely would have called out the wrong signal aspect and therefore the conductor wouldn't have assumed that anything was wrong.

If the Metrolink engineer didn't see the signal (because he was distracted texting?), he would not have called out anything, right?

I thought only CSX had the engineer "call-out" the signal?

 

[AlanB]

Of course even if Metrolink does require that, or had this happened east of the Mississippi, the engineer most likely would have called out the wrong signal aspect and therefore the conductor wouldn't have assumed that anything was wrong.

If the Metrolink engineer didn't see the signal (because he was distracted texting?), he would not have called out anything, right?

I thought only CSX had the engineer "call-out" the signal?

All CSX crews, as well as NS crews routinely call signals.

BNSF and UP usually do not.

 

[access bob]

Of course even if Metrolink does require that, or had this happened east of the Mississippi, the engineer most likely would have called out the wrong signal aspect and therefore the conductor wouldn't have assumed that anything was wrong.

If the Metrolink engineer didn't see the signal (because he was distracted texting?), he would not have called out anything, right?

I thought only CSX had the engineer "call-out" the signal?

All CSX crews, as well as NS crews routinely call signals.

BNSF and UP usually do not.

tonight on the news they had a representative of the NTSB on TV that said they will be reviewing the tapes since the engineer had to call out the signals on the radio.

not sure how accurate that was, they also said the conductor was very seriously injured and have not yet been able to talk to him.

Bob

 

[-Jamie-]

There's supposed to be a news conference held by the NTSB at 7:00pm PST tonight on KNBC's website. Here's the direct link to the feed: http://www.knbc.com/videostream/10954229/detail.html

 

[BlueJeanGirl]

All CSX crews, as well as NS crews routinely call signals.
BNSF and UP usually do not.

For Amtrak crews operating on the following, at least in southern CA:

BNSF and UP require anything but a "clear"/"proceed" be called by the engineer and acknowledged by the conductor or another member of the operating crew.

SCRRA and SDNR require all signals be called by the engineer, anything but "clear,"/"proceed" must be acknowledged by the conductor or another member of the operating crew.

FWIW AMTK 784 met Metrolink 111 at our usual time and place on Friday. We were the last train to go through that area.

Has anyone else heard the report that a passenger on 111 claims they left CWT on a clear?

~BJG

:::whose trains were annulled Saturday and Sunday, but working Monday:::

 

[TVRM610]

Is it not possible that the dispatcher could have lined this up incorrectly? This whole thing seems quite fishy... as has been stated the signal should have received a stop indication, AND the switch should have been lined against him. I'm pretty sure that trailing a switch should have been noticeable as well... if not by the engineer then at least to a dispatcher that the switch was broken.

I heard a report that a dispatcher did try to warn them.

As for the kids texting the engineer... the kids are 150% innocent in this case. There is no way they should ever be convicted of anything. I honestly think that the texting has nothing to do with the crash. I happen to know for a fact that many RR employees often text while "on duty" and in fact I'm not even sure it is against RR rules on all railroads..

 

[Guest_Spokker_*]

I happen to know for a fact that many RR employees often text while "on duty"

Oh, great.