|
|
| Re: Metrolink collides with freight (680238) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 7 of 7 |
||
|
| (680845) | |
Re: Metrolink collides with freight |
|
|
Posted by timz2 on Sat Sep 13 20:34:29 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Sep 13 20:24:34 2008. If I understand correctly, the train stopped at Chatsworth station, which happens to be about halfway along a long siding or short stretch of double track -- maybe 11500 ft. The train pulls out of the station on straight track and continues on straight track to the signal, which is about a mile north of the station.So no question of the signal being hidden around a bend-- right? |
|
|
| (680848) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 20:37:48 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Sep 13 20:24:34 2008. Would posting a wayside signal there have made a difference?Well, adding a wayside signal would mean - at least to me as amateur observer - adjusting block lengths in the area such that one adds a block between, say, the end of the station nearest to the home signal and the home signal. If that work were done, then the movements into the home signal would be governed by the leaving signal at the station. The overall effect is to improve the interlocking design from the safety perspective. But there is a 'D.I.B.' sign that's supposed to be posted at the end of the station in the DIB rule case that seems to have been at issue (the sign is to remind, since the distant signal to the interlocking was located prior to the station). It would seem that if that were the case, the engineer disregarded the pertinent operating rule. If the railroad left out the sign, then I would figure that they violated the FRA rule in question. |
|
|
| (680850) | |
Re: Metrolink collides with freight |
|
|
Posted by Chicagopcclcars on Sat Sep 13 20:40:27 2008, in response to Re: Metrolink collides with freight, posted by timz2 on Sat Sep 13 20:34:29 2008. Are any of you guys reading my posts from TO. There's a strong implication over there that train 111 waits for the Leesdale EB everyday. Which would make all the arguments about unexpected signals, freight moves in front of, etc moot.Davcid |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (680854) | |
Metrolink statement to LAT Re: Metrolink collides with freight |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 20:45:56 2008, in response to Re: Metrolink collides with freight, posted by timz2 on Sat Sep 13 20:34:29 2008. There's a google map of the area in question here, with the line traced out.LAT reports: I spoke earlier to Francisco Oaxaca, a spokesman for Metrolink. The following is an overview of the systems in place that are supposed to help trains safely travel tracks in the Southland. A quick review: The accident happened on a stretch of single track that runs through the Santa Susana Pass. There is double track immediately to the south of the crash site near the Chatsworth station (it runs from about DeSoto Avenue to Rinaldi Street). To the west of the pass, there is about 7,600 feet of double track near Simi Valley and another 8,000 feet of double track about five miles south of the Moorpark station. In Los Angeles County, Metrolink owns the tracks used by the Ventura County-bound trains. That means it's also up to Metrolink to maintain the tracks and signals and to dispatch its trains. The Metrolink dispatch center is located in Pomona. At the center, dispatchers look at computer screens with schematics of all the rail lines in the area on which they can electronically monitor the progress of trains -- dispatchers can also see trains on tracks owned by others, such as the Union Pacific. Electronic signals are sent to the signals along the tracks from the center. It is up to the engineer on the Metrolink train to see the signal and abide by it. “The engineer sees the signal, and then will contact the conductor over the radio and will call out the signal he or she has observed and the location and the conductor will repeat back that they did receive the communication from the engineer,” Oaxaca said. I asked him if Metrolink knows if such a communication occurred on Friday. “That’s going to be part of our investigation and that’s what we’re working with the NTSB on,” Oaxaca said. The train that crashed on Friday had one engineer and one conductor, as is usual for Metrolink. The engineer was killed, according to Metrolink, but Oaxaca said that the conductor, who survived, is believed to have been in the rear car of the three-car train. “I haven’t seen any statement from the conductor yet,” Oaxaca said. Metrolink has 20 of its trains cross the Santa Susana Pass each day. Oaxaca did not know the number of freight trains that use the tracks (Amtrak also has service on those tracks), but said the Union Pacific freight train is a regular train. “That is a daily freight train," he said. "It’s a regular traveler on those tracks…They don’t fall on a regular schedule like we do. It’s my understanding that an encounter of our train and the freight train is a fairly regular occurrence -– not necessarily in that particular location. It can be in other locations depending on how early or late that freight train is coming.” Note to readers: Obviously, there is still a lot of information that has not been released about the crash of Metrolink Train 111. Metrolink officials said earlier that the train crash was their fault and that the engineer ignored a red signal telling him to stop. --Steve Hymon |
|
|
| (680857) | |
Re: Trainorders ( Metrolink collides...) |
|
|
Posted by timz2 on Sat Sep 13 20:48:46 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Chicagopcclcars on Sat Sep 13 16:48:27 2008. "Without a membership, I'm grandfathered...guest can only view the first page/ and the earliest posts of a [Trainorders] thread."You can read everything-- just subscribe to the thread and all the posts are e-mailed to you, with links to the later pages of the thread. |
|
|
| (680858) | |
Re: Metrolink collides with freight |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 20:49:58 2008, in response to Re: Metrolink collides with freight, posted by Chicagopcclcars on Sat Sep 13 20:40:27 2008. I just posted a statement from Metrolink to LA Times to the same effect, with one caveat: while the UP train runs daily, Metrolink via its spokesman asserted that the meet had a variable location, but damned if doesn't screw around with a railroad timetable I say! I'm fairly sure that unless Metrolink runs trains without timetables, there is in fact a scheduled window, which although it might be missed, is definitely scheduled in. |
|
|
| (680882) | |
Re: Metrolink collides with freight |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Sep 13 21:45:57 2008, in response to Re: Metrolink collides with freight, posted by Chicagopcclcars on Sat Sep 13 20:40:27 2008. This is nice. But who is to say that this was this engineers usual run. Perhaps he was normally on a different run where it would not have been the custom to wait for that fright train.ROAR |
|
|
| (680886) | |
Re: Metrolink collides with freight |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Sep 13 22:01:07 2008, in response to Re: Metrolink collides with freight, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Sep 13 21:45:57 2008. "Know thine territory?" :-\ |
|
|
| (680903) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Sep 13 22:27:02 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Sep 13 20:37:48 2008. Did that rule ever apply to this railroad?ROAR |
|
|
| (680906) | |
Re: Metrolink collides with freight |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Sep 13 22:28:09 2008, in response to Re: Metrolink collides with freight, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Sep 13 22:01:07 2008. Jah... but all of the schedules of somebody elses railroad?ROAR |
|
|
| (680908) | |
Re: Metrolink collides with freight |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Sep 13 22:29:40 2008, in response to Re: Metrolink collides with freight, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Sep 13 22:28:09 2008. Heh. Helps to know YOURS though ... that's what they expect when the eagle qwappeth ... :) |
|
|
| (680972) | |
Re: Metrolink collides with freight |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 14 02:55:41 2008, in response to Re: Metrolink collides with freight, posted by Chicagopcclcars on Sat Sep 13 20:40:27 2008. Invite the guys from TO over here. Toad Cluck doesn't deserve their insight. |
|
|
| (680973) | |
Re: Metrolink collides with freight |
|
|
Posted by Mr Mabstoa on Sun Sep 14 02:58:26 2008, in response to Re: Metrolink collides with freight, posted by timz2 on Sat Sep 13 20:34:29 2008. But what controls exist on this line for engineers running red signals or speeding? |
|
|
| (680975) | |
Re: Metrolink collides with freight |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Sep 14 03:48:26 2008, in response to Re: Metrolink collides with freight, posted by Mr Mabstoa on Sun Sep 14 02:58:26 2008. "God." Welcome to REAGAN country. :( |
|
|
| (680990) | |
Re:Invite TO Over Here/ Was: Metrolink collides with freight |
|
|
Posted by Chicagopcclcars on Sun Sep 14 08:25:55 2008, in response to Re: Metrolink collides with freight, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 14 02:55:41 2008. You don't know what some outsiders think about "over here"? For instance you haven't noticed someone doesn't seem to post on weekends for the last two months??? Reality check.David |
|
|
| (681017) | |
Re: Metrolink collides with freight |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun Sep 14 09:41:02 2008, in response to Re: Metrolink collides with freight, posted by Mr Mabstoa on Sun Sep 14 02:58:26 2008. Theoretically, unless there is a cab signal system in effect on the territory (i.e. ASC, Automatic Speed Control, ATC, Automatic Train Control, etc.) which would stop a train with a penalty brake application, there truly is no way, unless there is an associated derail at the signal location, like at the New Haven Line drawbridges (CP 230, CP 244, CP 256, CP 261), to stop a train that passes a red signal. |
|
|
| (681092) | |
Re: Metrolink collides with freight |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Sep 14 11:44:41 2008, in response to Re: Metrolink collides with freight, posted by Mr Mabstoa on Sun Sep 14 02:58:26 2008. The engineer knows the rules, he knows that he is responsible for safe operation. He sees the signals, and operates his train accordingly.What else is needed. ROAR |
|
|
| (681113) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sun Sep 14 12:13:43 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sat Sep 13 00:06:09 2008. Thank you for displaying your lack of understanding of physics.If two cars hit each other at 40 MPH, it isn't like they are hitting a wall at 80MPH, but rather, 40 MPH. Think about it. the key here is how fast that freight was moving, since they usually move slower than passenger trains. |
|
|
| (681135) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sun Sep 14 12:38:47 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Sep 12 23:27:25 2008. Do tell what happens to Amfleets, please.108MPH is a moderately speedy collision? |
|
|
| (681138) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sun Sep 14 12:40:33 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Sep 12 23:51:52 2008. I consider the NTSB to be another full of bull agency. Two years to write a report? If that doesn't tell you something, then you have to get your brain checked.Yes, they said if it was full, 100 people COULD have been killed. But I think now 25 PEOPLE DIED in this metrolink train, so Hmm... |
|
|
| (681144) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Sep 14 12:57:18 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sun Sep 14 12:13:43 2008. WTF!Methinks ewe knead a better edjukation! ROARING |
|
|
| (681146) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Sep 14 13:04:24 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Sep 14 12:57:18 2008. I don't know. If he said two cars of equal mass and a solid wall that didn't bend or break he might be right. From the perspective of the occupants of either car the result would be an immediate stop. |
|
|
| (681148) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Sep 14 13:10:45 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Easy on Sun Sep 14 13:04:24 2008. HMM... yes. From the "occupant's" point of view, the occupant is still moving east at say 40 mph, and if he hit an immovable object, then his impact speed and the damage done to him would be the same as hitting a wall at 40 mph.But on the trains, there is still the energy of an equivalent 80 mph impact to be dissipated. Yes, half of the impact would be on one train and half of the impact on the other, assuming trains of equal mass and speed. Still the *ENERGY* is that of an 80 mph impact. ROAR |
|
|
| (681151) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sun Sep 14 13:22:38 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 13 00:59:28 2008. No, it wouldn't.I read here that there was an accident on MNRR that involved two sets of BUDDs. one was moving slowly, and rear ended by a high speed one. There was no telescoping, but the BUDD in the rear ran over a good portion of the last car ov the front train. NO TELESCOPING. Also, take a look at the UP loco. Not that it is mostly INTACT, even the NOSE, while the nose of the metrolink loco appears to have been PUSHED ALL THE WAY into the loco. |
|
|
| (681153) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sun Sep 14 13:25:21 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 13 00:12:45 2008. At 108MPH, I would say the BUDD coaches performed pretty well.And the pullman Standards MUs were the ones that tore through a bi-level 35 or so years ago. And the newer BUDDs, M1s to the Arrows to Amfleets, are very well built. |
|
|
| (681188) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Sep 14 15:16:09 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Sep 13 22:27:02 2008. My understanding was that FRA ordered it in response to the Georgetown Jct collision between MARC/CSXT and AMTK. |
|
|
| (681205) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Sep 14 15:42:52 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Sep 14 15:16:09 2008. But does that apply to every railroad. What if this is a different situation. This is what the LION was asking.ROAR |
|
|
| (681208) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Sep 14 15:58:19 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Sep 14 15:42:52 2008. It's an FRA rule, so it applies to every railroad under FRA jurisdiction. See here for the details and explanation. |
|
|
| (681219) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Sep 14 16:18:50 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Sep 14 15:58:19 2008. I believe - maybe our MNCR people here can confirm? - that CP Harriman and one or two other interlockings on the Port Jervis Line were re-done to avoid the delay in block. |
|
|
| (681256) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by pd11604 on Sun Sep 14 17:22:34 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Sep 12 23:23:16 2008. and UP locomotives can be found on the East Coast |
|
|
| (681274) | |
Re: Metrolink collides with freight |
|
|
Posted by Mr Mabstoa on Sun Sep 14 17:55:14 2008, in response to Re: Metrolink collides with freight, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Sep 14 11:44:41 2008. I'm sure Robert Ray knew the rules and probably felt that he was being responsible for ther safe operation of his train.And even with safety controls we know what happenned that day on August 28, 1991. |
|
|
| (681276) | |
Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Sep 14 18:02:15 2008, in response to Re: **Breaking News** - Metrolink Train collides with freight train, posted by pd11604 on Sun Sep 14 17:22:34 2008. We already *knew* that part as pictures of them have been posted here.ROAR |
|
|
| (681278) | |
Re: Metrolink collides with freight |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Sep 14 18:06:00 2008, in response to Re: Metrolink collides with freight, posted by Mr Mabstoa on Sun Sep 14 17:55:14 2008. Aye... Therein lies the rub.Please adjust your sarcasm detector accordingly. ROAR |
|
|
| (681281) | |
Re: Metrolink collides with freight |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Sep 14 18:13:06 2008, in response to Re: Metrolink collides with freight, posted by Mr Mabstoa on Sun Sep 14 17:55:14 2008. An important piece of safety equipment named "David Berram" also failed to work to stop Robert Ray, even after multiple and very serious overshoots of the platform (by over half a train length...that sort of thing) and other "erratic" operations.Ray was also not in his full uniform, but as the line goes, 'how often do you look at a man's shoes?' |
|
|
| (681352) | |
Re: Metrolink collides with freight |
|
|
Posted by Mr Mabstoa on Sun Sep 14 20:24:48 2008, in response to Re: Metrolink collides with freight, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Sep 14 18:06:00 2008. No sarcasm intended Lion, just that humans need safety systems to override poor judgements.Even a operator with an excellant safety record may get sleepy, distracted or in a rush to get back on schedule. |
|
|
|
Page 7 of 7 |
||
