|
|
| Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train (680238) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 6 of 7 |
||
|
| (680646) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 12:23:54 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Jersey Mike on Sat Sep 13 12:13:25 2008. This was the account given of what's apparently SOP at the interlocking, in LAT:Tom Dinger, a retired Amtrak engineer, said the common practice is for northbound passenger trains to effectively pull over onto a side track at the Chatsworth station until southbound freight trains have passed. Between Chatsworth and Simi Valley there is only one set of tracks because of narrow tunnels that trains use to go beneath the Santa Susanna Pass. "We were always stopped at Chatsworth to wait for the heavy UP [Union Pacific Railroad] trains to get off the hill," said Dinger, 64, of Silver Lake. "The UP train was almost at the siding -- it was less than a mile away. It's a shame." Dinger said locomotive operators go no faster than 40 mph around the curve where Friday's crash took place. He speculated that the freight train was going no faster than 25 or 30 mph. Dinger said the Metrolink engineer should have seen a trackside signal that would have warned him that a freight train was approaching. But because of the late-afternoon time of the crash, the engineer might not have seen that signal light because of the sun, Dinger said. "I hope and pray he didn't overlook the signal," he said. |
|
|
| (680647) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 12:27:12 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Jersey Mike on Sat Sep 13 12:18:58 2008. That's the DIB rule, OK. But what about the case where the engineer literally forgets what the indication at the distant signal his train already passed was? My (limited) understanding is that the engineer must stop his train and seek confirmation from control. |
|
|
| (680649) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Sep 13 12:34:10 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 12:27:12 2008. The times that I've ridden the single track Metrolink lines and we've had to pull over for freight trains you could hear the engineer in contact with control or whoever. There was lots of radio communication. I don't think that they just rely on an engineer seeing a signal on such a busy one-track corridor. That's partly why I find this accident so shocking. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (680653) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Sep 13 12:52:44 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 12:27:12 2008. It's curious that so far that none of the passengers have reported hearing the train brake. Assuming that he was looking he should have seen the approaching freight train at some point before they collided. Although from the Google map this appears to be the worst place possible for an accident from a line of sight perspective. |
|
|
| (680681) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Sep 13 14:16:00 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Jersey Mike on Sat Sep 13 12:18:58 2008. The delay in Block rule would have helped Mike its not the speed of DIB rule that will prevent accidents but fact a train must be prepared to stop at next fixed signal. |
|
|
| (680688) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 14:31:46 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Sep 13 14:16:00 2008. The delay in Block rule would have helped Mike its not the speed of DIB rule that will prevent accidents but fact a train must be prepared to stop at next fixed signal.Yes, but if it's an approach signal displayed at the distant signal to the interlocking, even if it were not subject to DIB rule, wouldn't the engineer still have to be prepared to stop at the next signal? I can see how the DIB rule helps in that no matter how permissive the signal indication, the engineer has to be prepared to stop at the next signal with the train's speed not in any event to exceed 40 mph. Of course, the engineer could have disregarded the rules....we'll find out fairly soon once they download the black boxes and hear any relevant testimony. |
|
|
| (680694) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sat Sep 13 14:51:34 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Parkchester (East 177th St) on Fri Sep 12 23:17:18 2008. Not sure if they have cab signals on the Camden and Brunswick Lines, but if I had to take a guess, my gut instinct would be to say no. |
|
|
| (680697) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sat Sep 13 15:11:00 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Fri Sep 12 23:59:03 2008. There are also no damn seat belts on Metrolink Trains. It might be an idea whose time has come for the powers-that-be out here in sunny So. Cal that these M link cars be fitted with protective seat belts. I know, the echo you hear is the cost being prohibitive but I wonder if they consider that cost more expensive than preseving the life of their passengers. This is not the first time there has been an accident on the Metrolink Line, only the worst of the bunch. |
|
|
| (680700) | |
Re: Metrolink Engineer Blamed by Metrolink |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Sep 13 15:17:39 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Jersey Mike on Sat Sep 13 09:53:09 2008. Mike, your post was prescient.Commuter line says engineer at fault |
|
|
| (680702) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 13 15:19:47 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sat Sep 13 15:11:00 2008. No train has seat belts. Nor do buses.Also, it's questionable how seatbelts would help in the case of cars turning on their sides (maybe Metrolink should have gone with single-level cars to help prevent cars tipping over, as well—you have 16-foot-tall, 10' 6"-wide cars running on a track that's 4' 8½" wide, after all.) Or maybe there shoulda been enough signaling on the road to insure that the crash didn't happen in the first place. They don't send out flaggers to protect the rear of a stopped train anymore, like they used to in the old days. |
|
|
| (680707) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Sep 13 15:26:13 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sat Sep 13 15:11:00 2008. Hey, Unca Fred! Glad to see yer bones around! :)After seeing how that Bomba split open like a cheap can of liver, I'll definitely pass on riding any of those pathetic excuses for a railcar on NJT or elsewhere. I was amazed at how severely those tin cans were gutted. And from the looks of things, seatbelts wouldn't have done any good at all. :( |
|
|
| (680714) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Chicagopcclcars on Sat Sep 13 15:36:53 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Jersey Mike on Sat Sep 13 09:53:09 2008. Over on TO is a post much contrary to what you have been saying...to the effect that IT IS a daily procedure for train 111 to wait for the Leesdale freight at the CP outside of Chatsworth. You maybe need to rethink repeating "hit the Metrolink by running a freight."Here's the post: The Leesdale had a green signal out of C.P. Davis(East switch-Santa Susana siding - heading S.P.eastbound on into tunnel 26)after meeting an Amtrak Surfliner.(heard this signal called out on my scanner by the Leesdale) That effectively sets up the Leesdales routing on that green and 2 yellow signals up to C.P. Topanga(west switch Chatsworth siding). There is a signal on the hill between C.P. Davis and C.P. Topanga Eastbound signal post 442.6 - located at the east end of tunnel 26. I did not hear the Leesdale's signal call-out for 442.6 due to the hilly/rocky location. This eastbound signal should have been yellow for the Leesdale as well as the signal at C.P. Topanga, had the Leesdale made it that far. Usually the Leesdale would be lined into the siding at Chatsworth(C.P. Topanga)with the Metro 111 coming up the main after stopping at Chatsworth station. The 111 should have had a red signal at C.P. Topanga and stopped before the switch as in the daily routine. This info should be considered preliminary only and not misconstrued as anything else! My prayers go out to all the people involved here. P5r24 The post reproduced for convience to all. Jersey Milke, just how familiar are you personally with this trackage? Is it first hand as you have implied? David |
|
|
| (680742) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 16:15:28 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Chicagopcclcars on Sat Sep 13 15:36:53 2008. This also squares with the report given by Mr. Dinger, the retired AMTK engineer who spoke to the LA Times. (AMTK's Coast Starlight and Pacific Surfliner trains go through the interlocking in question). |
|
|
| (680744) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Sep 13 16:19:07 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Sep 13 15:26:13 2008. NJTs are of a very different design then those of Metrolink.The metrolink type bilevel cars however DO run on nearly every other commuter rail agency outside of the northeast. |
|
|
| (680746) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Sep 13 16:26:40 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 13 15:19:47 2008. No train has seat belts. Nor do buses.Actually, the MTA (1) and Coach USA (31 or so) do have buses with seatbelts at every seat. |
|
|
| (680747) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Sep 13 16:27:24 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Sep 13 16:26:40 2008. The proof is here. Lap belts on all seats are standard. |
|
|
| (680756) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Sep 13 16:37:13 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by R30A on Sat Sep 13 16:19:07 2008. I would *hope* so ... seeing how the car peeled was beyond frightening. :( |
|
|
| (680759) | |
Re: **Breaking News** — Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 13 16:41:28 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by R30A on Sat Sep 13 16:19:07 2008. Is VRE outside the northeast?Metra runs none of the BBD bilevels. |
|
|
| (680760) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 16:44:28 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Sep 13 16:37:13 2008. The telescoping is obviously disturbing, but what's most frightening is that once the engineer made whatever errors in judgment or fell unconscious due to sudden illness, the stage was set for a horrific crash. When safety is ultimately contingent on 100% reliability of the engineer, there are eventually going to be problems. |
|
|
| (680762) | |
Re: **Breaking News** — Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 16:47:15 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** — Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 13 16:41:28 2008. Is VRE outside the northeast?Didn't you get Mr. Kummant's memo about 'Southeast Regional' service? |
|
|
| (680764) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Chicagopcclcars on Sat Sep 13 16:48:27 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 16:15:28 2008. Thanks. I thought to myself that I doubt if any SubChatters had a membership to TO. Without a membership, I'm grandfathered...guest can only view the first page/ and the earliest posts of a thread. The Metrolink thread is now on eight pages.Also from TO, most responders feel the commuter loco lifted its rear end on impact which overrode any anticlimber on the commuter coach aiding the telescoping that occurred. And for the record, the Union Pacific locos were SD70ACes, not SD70Ms and there were four authorized persons in the UP cab. David |
|
|
| (680765) | |
Re: **Breaking News** — Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Sep 13 16:48:34 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** — Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 13 16:41:28 2008. I don't think that Caltrain does either. But he did say nearly. Dallas, Seattle, LA, Salt Lake, New Mexico?, Miami, San Diego, and maybe some others do. |
|
|
| (680771) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Sep 13 16:56:19 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 16:44:28 2008. Agreed, but my thoughts extend way beyond this particular wreck with respect to the cars. A more common occurrance on "mixed railroads" is "load shift" causing a sideswipe on adjacent tracks. NYCRR went out of their way to align their Empire corridor tracks to put passenger service on two tracks, frieght on the other two tracks with left and right hand running so that a pax train and a freight train on adjacent trackage would be going in the same direction to minimize the risk. So in this case, my own thought processes are going completely elsewhere. |
|
|
| (680772) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Chicagopcclcars on Sat Sep 13 17:02:05 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Sep 13 16:56:19 2008. You know I thought bout this very same thing riding Metra Electric inbound from 212th ST. The CN had roughly the equivalent of a five track right of way and they put one of two mainline tracks right adjacent to the NB Metra. All I could think of was if there ever was a shifted load, it was taking out the Metra train unless it took out catenary supports instead. But the Metra in that territory is only two tracks with center mast catenary supports.David |
|
|
| (680774) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Hoghead on Sat Sep 13 17:08:30 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Jersey Mike on Fri Sep 12 23:45:37 2008. ATS stands for automatic train stop. If you pass a non-clear signal, the train air brakes set. You can't acknowledge a signal after passing a non-clear signal. The non-clear signal requires acknowledgement as you are passing the signal. |
|
|
| (680775) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Sep 13 17:08:58 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Chicagopcclcars on Sat Sep 13 17:02:05 2008. Yeah, sorry for thinking about it like an engineer ... friend of mine had a shifted steel beam on a flat come through the nose, smash into the cabinet in back, then rotated around, cutting the cab wall off, then his seat off the floor dumping him onto the floor. He went on permanent disability after that. :(I see an awful lot of rulemakings coming out of this wreck next year. :( |
|
|
| (680776) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 17:10:29 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Sep 13 16:56:19 2008. I'm not endorsing the model of Metrolink bilevels by BBD that Metrolink has - they've had their problems, and the latest, horrific crash will probably reveal some details about why the Metrolink locomotive telescoped through the bilevel coach. But already we've seen the cars left the rail after prompting by an SUV, and they experienced intrusion into the passenger compartment in collision with a BNSF locomotive.I still haven't seen any report on how fast the Metrorail train was going, although 35-40 mph is the estimate given based on what most engineers do, with the UP train estimated at 25-30 mph, so we're talking about - even on those numbers - something like 60-70 mph combined speed. |
|
|
| (680777) | |
Re: **Breaking News** — Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Sep 13 17:14:29 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** — Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Easy on Sat Sep 13 16:48:34 2008. Caltrain has some, although I think they are mostly gallery cars. |
|
|
| (680779) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 17:15:10 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Chicagopcclcars on Sat Sep 13 16:48:27 2008. Thanks for passing that on.Something awry definitely happened with the telescoping. Metrorail/Veolia seems to report that their train of 350-400 passengers had only one conductor, who survived; the engineer is a confirmed fatality. Any word on the UP crew and whether any survived or jumped clear in time? |
|
|
| (680780) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Sep 13 17:17:10 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 17:10:29 2008. I don't know that you can combine the speeds like that and get a useful number. Momentum would be the mass of each train multiplied by the velocity of each train. A slower moving freight train could have more momentum than a faster moving commuter train. |
|
|
| (680781) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 17:20:16 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Easy on Sat Sep 13 17:17:10 2008. I just wrote that to give a basic idea of the estimated speeds involved; certainly I'm not pretending to resolve the momenta into components or address how the collision energy was dissipated or anything like that. Just trying to say that it was a fairly high speed collision. |
|
|
| (680782) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Chicagopcclcars on Sat Sep 13 17:20:38 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 17:10:29 2008. In regards to the telescoping, like I posted before, several over on TO feel that the commuter loco jumped up at its rear end upon impact and overroad any anticlimber protection the coach might have had. I think a feature of the NTSB reports is listing distances traveled and it looks like the commuter loco traveled zero feet forward upon impact, if not negagtive afterwards, especially given the total weight of the two SD70ACes and the freight train behind. Going from 40 MPH or whatever speed accumulated from the station stop to zero!!! That impact is hard for me to grasp.David |
|
|
| (680783) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Sep 13 17:20:57 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 17:15:10 2008. I usually only see one conductor on Metrolink trains. As they very rarely check tickets that's probably all they need. It was only a 3-car train after all.It was reported (LA Times IINM) that one of the UP crew was removed from the wreckage this morning and that he didn't survive. |
|
|
| (680784) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Sep 13 17:22:13 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Chicagopcclcars on Sat Sep 13 17:20:38 2008. That seems to match the Metrolink pax reports that the train came to an immediate stop. |
|
|
| (680786) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Sat Sep 13 17:25:31 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Sep 13 10:43:01 2008. At Roselle Park and Union on the Conrail section of the RVL there are Gantlet tracks which enable the freight trains to pass by high level platforms without getting close to them. There is an explanation HERE if you scroll down to where it says "Examples Worldwide", and then "America". |
|
|
| (680788) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 17:27:07 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Easy on Sat Sep 13 17:20:57 2008. As they very rarely check tickets that's probably all they need.What's the deterrent to free rides? |
|
|
| (680789) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Sep 13 17:28:37 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 17:20:16 2008. I figured that you knew, but a few might have misunderstood. |
|
|
| (680790) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Chicagopcclcars on Sat Sep 13 17:28:51 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 17:15:10 2008. You're certainly welcome.David |
|
|
| (680791) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Sep 13 17:29:48 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 17:27:07 2008. Because there are Lost Angels on the train and they can see what is in your pocket, and see if your ticket is any good. If it is not, they heard you all up into the front car and run a locomotive through it.ROAR |
|
|
| (680792) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Sep 13 17:33:50 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 17:27:07 2008. I've seen them check on the San Bernardino line and a kid got a ticket, but that was the only time that I've ever seen them check. I'm not a regular rider, but I did use Metrolink to commute to work for a month and not only was I never checked for a ticket on Metrolink, but I was never even checked on the connecting OCTA bus that gives free rides to Metrolink riders.I really don't know what the incentive is to not "steal" rides. A monthly pass is $280 or so depending on where you're commuting to and from. I doubt that the fare evasion fine is that high, but maybe it is. |
|
|
| (680793) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 17:42:41 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Easy on Sat Sep 13 17:33:50 2008. Metrolink's website is only displaying the emergency message so any info that way will have to wait.Can passengers purchase tickets on board? |
|
|
| (680794) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Sep 13 17:47:34 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 17:42:41 2008. No, you have to buy tickets before you board. |
|
|
| (680800) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Sat Sep 13 18:35:47 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 14:31:46 2008. The DIB rule reminds engineers that they are approaching an interlocking and to be extra careful. It's most useful where MAS is over 40 as the engineer will be more likley to stop if he is surprised by a STOP signal.In this case the engineer was probably accustomed to going at 40mph out of the station and maintaining it around the bend. What should have jogged his memory might have faded into the background. Also, the DIB rule doesn't help if the STOP signal looks like an Approach for some reason to the engineer. |
|
|
| (680818) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by gold_12th on Sat Sep 13 19:32:40 2008, in response to **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Easy on Fri Sep 12 20:01:24 2008. Death toll is rising to 24135+ injured. |
|
|
| (680820) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Sep 13 19:37:25 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by gold_12th on Sat Sep 13 19:32:40 2008. It's 25 now as one of the hospital victims passed away. They are apparently still recovering bodies from the bottom of the wreckage, but they have announced that no one else left on the train is alive. |
|
|
| (680828) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by 9 local on Sat Sep 13 19:55:03 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Easy on Sat Sep 13 19:37:25 2008. So that not only makes this the worst disaster in Metrolink history, it's the worst in the US since Big Bayou Canot. And it was entirely preventable. Can't fault the cab-car this time: the F59 was leading. It's really tragic when something like this happens, and we should try to keep the victims and their families in our thoughts. And Bombardier really needs to make their cars safer. |
|
|
| (680832) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 20:02:13 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Jersey Mike on Sat Sep 13 18:35:47 2008. In this case the engineer was probably accustomed to going at 40mph out of the station and maintaining it around the bend.But I'm not sure why that would be the case. The DIB rule seems to reinforce approach rule in that the engineer should operate his train prepared to stop at the next signal. What's the 40-0 mph comfortable braking distance on three BBD bilevels hauled by the particular Metrolink locomotive in question? You seem to be the DIB rule somewhat like a grade timed signal on NYCT, but is that correct? The NYCT expectation is that the engineer should approach at the posted speed expecting the next signal to clear (to be sure, any engineer who actually guides his train towards a grade timed signal at the posted speed is probably living dangerously, but leave that aside). But the DIB rule offers no expectation that the next signal will be clear if the engineer guides his train at it with a speed of 40 mph. Rather, the engineer is supposed to ensure that his train doesn't exceed 40 mph, and also ensure that his train is able to stop at the next signal. Is that your understanding as well? What should have jogged his memory might have faded into the background. This is certainly possible, but it still seems like a clear lapse in judgment. The engineer should know that the last signal was an approach, but even if he doesn't know that, he should know that it was governed by the DIB rule. And if he forgot both of those things, then he should stop and radio control. Leaving the station and going at MAS seems to indicate that the engineer is behaving as though he were instructed by a clear signal. Also, the DIB rule doesn't help if the STOP signal looks like an Approach for some reason to the engineer. This is true, although possibly by that point in time, the engineer would have seen the UP train. I haven't read that either train applied brakes, although that doesn't mean that brakes weren't applied. |
|
|
| (680833) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Sep 13 20:02:13 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Jersey Mike on Sat Sep 13 18:35:47 2008. What if you did this:Areas of track where you can't see around a corner, approaching an interlocking, should always be treated as a prermanent approach signal - that is, a signal should be at the beginning of that track block permanently set to "Approach" (and perhaps a posted speed limit at the signal lamp of 30 mph). |
|
|
| (680840) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 20:22:44 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Sep 13 20:02:13 2008. Areas of track where you can't see around a corner, approaching an interlocking, should always be treated as a prermanent approach signal - that is, a signal should be at the beginning of that track block permanently set to "Approach" (and perhaps a posted speed limit at the signal lamp of 30 mph).That's pretty much what the DIB rule did in the wake of the Silver Spring/Georgetown Jct collision. The distant DIB signal ahead of a station means that the train must be prepared to stop at the next (home) signal, and the train's speed can't exceed 40 mph. But if the engineer simply forgets or ignores that, what is the enforcement mechanism on Metrorail? Metrorail doesn't have one, and the consequences can be tragic. Metrorail also doesn't have cab signals. Perhaps the engineer in question simply forgot the prior signal aspect and the physical characteristics of his railroad, but again, what's to mitigate that? |
|
|
| (680842) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Sep 13 20:24:34 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 20:22:44 2008. Good points by you. Would posting a wayside signal there have made a difference? Dunno. A cab signal and an audible alarm would be cool, but as you point out, Meetrolink doesn't have that. |
|
|
|
Page 6 of 7 |
||
