Any up daye on the Metrolink accident in the LA area??

http://www.knbc.com/videostream/10954229/detail.html

I heard it was an english spanish translation thing. Even when you call on the phone you have to pick english or spanish with this company, THIS IS SO WRONG, a multicultural country is soon a country divided...Now people are dead...

quote:

Originally posted by Artisan:
I heard it was an english spanish translation thing....Now people are dead...

I heard it was a block signal violation thing....People are dead nonetheless.

The engineer, who may or may not have been TEXTING on his cell phone, apparently ran an absolute (red) signal. THAT is why people are dead!

Given the great improvements in technical gadgets these days, one wonders why there is not an auto stop signaling device from the absolute red signal to the engine.

Ed

I saw last night that he was supposed to stop and wait where 2 lines merged to one, but he didn't. Now, how could he have gone through if he had a red light? Shouldn't the switch have been thrown the other direction? Do real railroads have non-derailing switches, too?

CarGuy,

Don't know what you mean by a "non-derailing" switch on the real railroad, but just think about a 260,000 pound F40PH running through the trailing points of a switch. The switch throw rods and point gauge maintaining straps will surely be bent all to ****! The locomotive and train just keep going.

I will confess I don't know much about Metrolink, but do their locomotives have a cab signal system? On certain Northeast Railroads if a red signal is received in the cab and not acknowledged within a certain amount of time the train goes into emergency.

Also, while purely speculation, perhaps something occurred like in the infamous BNSF cornfield meet video thats circulating on youtube, where the engineer on the train that was to hold the siding thought he had a clear signal, and instead had a stop signal, he went into emergency at the signal but the momentum of the train carried it past the switch and into the front end of the passing train. It is rumored that drug use was involved in that crash though.

My hearts and prayers go out to those lost,

From the news this AM, it looks like the Metrolink engineer who died in the crash ran a signal. The news also mentioned the engineer might of been texting at the time and possible a switch was not working which would of taken the train to the siding. So in other words they don't know yet.

When you think about it, that is an AWFUL LOT of responsibility for just ONE MAN. My god, texting or heart attack or daydreaming or sleeping or diabetic attack or drugs etc et al...There should be 2 men in EVERY cab, IMO. Can a 747 be flown w/ one man? YEP, can an ocean line be controled by one man, yep...but cost cutting and mechanization rules ehh? Oh, don't forget to PRESS 1 FOR ENGLISH.........................

I agree 100% with the suggestion that passing a red should automatically throw the emergency on. It won't happen until something tragic like this and then even then it might not. The technology is definitely there. I believe there's a role for gov't as well funding this. Hey, they fund roads.

I'm curious to know if the train was running backwards. I understand that the freight locomotive telescoped the first car, causing most of the casualties. If it wasn't running backwards, it could have propelled the passenger locomotive. Also, thought telescoping was pretty much a past thing and that the structure of the train had been significantly increased to prevent that from happening.

As well, my guess is that texting might be something that's prohibited for the engineer.

BTW, I ride VRE daily and we have only 1 engineer as well. We share tracks with freights. I don't believe we've had any fatalities. Hoping our luck holds.

quote:

Originally posted by SE18:

I'm curious to know if the train was running backwards. I understand that the freight locomotive telescoped the first car, causing most of the casualties. If it wasn't running backwards, it could have propelled the passenger locomotive. Also, thought telescoping was pretty much a past thing and that the structure of the train had been significantly increased to prevent that from happening.

.

It wasn't the freight locomotive that telescoped the 1st car, it was the Metrolink Locomotive,the force of the collision sent the metrolink locomotive backwards into the commuter car

I read where the conductor of UP engine #8465, an SD70ACe, also perished. The article said the UP engine had a camera, and authorities were going to check any signal indications.

Apparently, the Metro engineer was texting railfans right at the time of the crash. If true, this is so "not good." Just as the homeland security hysteria was receding, this pops up.
http://cbs2.com/video/?id=77167@kcbs.dayport.com


Kent in SD

I don't believe any system is 100%. Some cab signal/speed control systems do require Restricted Speed far enough in advance to get stopped at a red. But others don't do anything until the red signal is actually passed, or very nearly so. That type of system would not have made much difference in the Chatsworth wreck. The train would have skidded past the fouling point anyway and still be hit by the freight. The speed may have been lower though.

Consider our BNSF operation. We have to stop 18,000 ton trains on down grades within one-half a car length of the red absolute at sidings in order to fit between the switches. Screw up just a little bit and you've passed the signal and fouled the track. There is no system I know of to prevent that. Even if the line were equipped with ATS the engineers would have to routinely acknowledge the red signal and continue to the close stopping point. The same mistake as before still fouls the other track and can result in a collision. The only way to address that situation is to lengthen the sidings so there is an automatic stopping buffer zone on each end. But no RR is going to do that. I guarentee that if our sidings were longer the BNSF would simply run longer trains and we'd be right back to square one.

quote:

The article said the UP engine had a camera, and authorities were going to check any signal indications.

They've already acknowledged that the U.P. train was in the good and operating on a proper signal so the camera in the U.P. loco will likely not shed any light on the cause. Unfortunately I don't think the Metro train had a camera and that's the one needed.

Wyhog

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Wyhog,

It was reported in the La Times today that Robert Sanchez the Metrolink engineer was on his cell phone sending text messages. In the process Sanchez ran a red signal and the rest of the story unfolded.

Artisan, I agree 100% that there should be two men in the cab of every passenger train. This is not rocket science. Two pairs of eyes are better than one. They used to do it before they got rid of the fireman. The railroads don't want to pay someone just to ride around but the alternative is what you just got at Chattsworth unless you do it by automating better systems to stop a train. The technology exist. It's a question of money. Billions for Iraq, zero for stuff like this. Ray

I saw an interview on local L A television with a young man who claimed to be a friend of the Metro engineer and that person said he and his friends received a text from the engineer one minute before the crash. Ed

I think some may be jumping to conclusions as I did myself. Yes, the Engineer sent a text one minute before the crash. However, the NTSB is stating that the spoksperson for Metroliner spoke a little prematurely, as they said they would not have the real answers for several months.

They also stated that the Engineer would have had to have missed 3 red lights and not just one. I find this hard to believe when the a conductor and others who worked with him mentioned that he was never careless, and that he traveled this route many times, and knew this was a highly traveled area that he had gone through. The NTSB is not convinced that it was not a signaling breakdown/error. I would imagine there will be numerous law suits coming out of this. I feel so bad for everyone. The 135 that were injurred are all in critical condition. Hopefully the death toll will not go up.

JoeG

quote:

I guarentee that if our sidings were longer the BNSF would simply run longer trains and we'd be right back to square one.

If that's the case then maybe the trains should be shortened to a safe length.
Can you hear the rr reaction to that! The railroad lobbing industry would rev up to full power in Washington!


Ed

Quote from a So Cal Teen foamer:

"Here it is, Youtube user doglover1000 ran His mouth about texting the Engineer of Metrolink train 111 which collided with the Union Pacific freight at Chatsworth. Signals were ignored, Too busy Texting!"


Videos by local teen railfans:
Relevant You Tube videos

quote:

They also stated that the Engineer would have had to have missed 3 red lights and not just one. I find this hard to believe

As I've said, there is a lot of crap posted about this wreck. It was not 3 reds, it was 3 signals. The first two were either Yellow then Yellow, or Flashing Yellow then Yellow. Only one red was possibly ran and no one knows for sure about that one.

quote:

Youtube user doglover1000 ran His mouth about texting the Engineer

Running his mouth has nothing to do with the final result of the investigation. I guarentee you that the NTSB would have checked the engineer's cellphone records as a matter of their standard investigative technique. They have done this in the past even when nobody "ran their mouth".

quote:

the NTSB is stating that the spoksperson for Metroliner spoke a little prematurely

Yeh no kidding. I was appalled when I heard her say that. By the way, she has now been fired been resigned.

Wyhog

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Wyhog,

Gentlemen--A good friend of mine was in the accident. He sat next to a girl who was pretty smashed up--she needs two vertebrae fused, and had the back of her scalp torn off. She spent the night in the hospital next to the conductor. Here's what my friend had to say:

quote:

The conductor says (my friend shared a room with him the second night at the hospital), and he kept saying over and over again "I got no signal, I was clear to go...". The conductor had open heart surgery yesterday for a hole in his heart, plus two broken legs, not sure if he'll make it yet I guess. I walked with him around my shoulder for about 50 yards after the accident, I feel bad that we made him walk now.

I post this, because I wonder if the Conductor also is in radio communication with the dispatcher. Can anyone shed any light on what he was saying?

(I posted this on the 3-rail page as well, hoping for some insight)

The engineers are supposed to radio all signal indications to the conductor back in the train and then the conductor is supposed to acknowledge that via radio to the engineer. He is equally responsible under the rules to see that the engineer is slowing down on an Approach and is stopping for a red.

No the conductor is not usually in contact with the dispatcher.

quote:

kept saying over and over again "I got no signal, I was clear to go...".

I wouldn't go too much on what the conductor says when in shock and pumped full of pain drugs.

I don't know what MetroLink's rule requirements are but from that statement, if it were coming from a more lucid man, I'd guess the normal procedure was to call only less than Clear signals and he is saying that the engineer never radio'd him about getting an Approach or Stop signal. Given his current state I wouldn't bet on anything and my speculation will only add to the mis-information that is out there. But you did ask for an opinion.

Wyhog