I don’t think Blumenthal is calling for anything that the railroad industry has not already recognized as being essential to safety.
NTSB safety recommendation
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/_layouts/ntsb.recsearch/Recommendation.aspx?Rec=R-13-017
Synopsis: On May 28, 2013, at 11:57 a.m. eastern daylight time, Metro-North passenger train 1559, traveling westbound at 70 mph, struck and killed a track foreman working on the Metro-North New Haven Line, Subdivision 7, in West Haven, Connecticut. The accident occurred at milepost (MP) 69.58 on main track 1.
Recommendation: TO METRO NORTH RAILROAD: Immediately implement redundant signal protection, such as shunting, for maintenance-of-way work crews who depend on the train dispatcher to provide signal protection. (R-13-17) (Urgent)
Safety Recommendation History
From: NTSB To: Metro North Railroad
We note that, on April 2, 2014, your operations control center (OCC) implemented an automated, enhanced employee protection system that allows an employee in the field to control the application of the blocking device using a computer-generated, random code known only to that employee. This system provides the recommended redundancy and control to the roadway worker, rather than to OCC personnel, thus protecting track workers. Accordingly, Safety Recommendation R-13-17 is classified CLOSED—ACCEPTABLE ACTION.
tomikawaTT BaltACD Across the pond 'redundant' is the code word used for terminating excess and/or unqualified personnel. In this instance the term seems to fit Rep. Blumenthal perfectly on so many levels. [In my best Mel Blanc voice] "That's Senator, I say Senator, Blumenthal, son." Having clarified that, does the Right Honerable Senator have any railroad experience beyond running a Lionel train around the tree as a kid. Or did he just stay at a Holiday Inn??? This is something the folks who add things to the rulebooks can address - without any, "I'm from Washington and I'm here to," help... Chuck (Technically competent railfan)
BaltACD Across the pond 'redundant' is the code word used for terminating excess and/or unqualified personnel. In this instance the term seems to fit Rep. Blumenthal perfectly on so many levels.
Across the pond 'redundant' is the code word used for terminating excess and/or unqualified personnel. In this instance the term seems to fit Rep. Blumenthal perfectly on so many levels.
[In my best Mel Blanc voice] "That's Senator, I say Senator, Blumenthal, son."
Having clarified that, does the Right Honerable Senator have any railroad experience beyond running a Lionel train around the tree as a kid. Or did he just stay at a Holiday Inn???
This is something the folks who add things to the rulebooks can address - without any, "I'm from Washington and I'm here to," help...
Chuck (Technically competent railfan)
Railroaders have lost control of railroad rule books. The rules now are written in legalese with as many 'gotcha's' as possible by the legal department in the effort to PYA and make sure that if an event happens the employees involved can be found to have violated some rule.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
On the surface, I would trust Chuck's wisdom more than that of a senator who may-or may not--understand just what was involved in this particular incident. Certainly, there are contributors to these threads who have a far greater knowledge of the situation than someone who simply knows that it occurred as the result of man failure (if he knows that much).
Johnny
Across the pond 'redundant' is the code word used for terminating excess and/or unqualified personnel. In this instance the term seems to fit Sen. Blumenthal perfectly on so many levels.
Sorry to have put him in the wrong band of theives.
It is redundant but the point is not the redundancy itself. In other words, the point is not to have two signals instead of one. The point is to get the control directly into the hands of the track workers rather than passing it from one party to another in a way that can lead to misunderstandings.
It would probably be technically feasible to connect the track workers directly to their permission without a any reduncancy. But such connection has traditionally been done by the use of a shunt, which is redundant to the train control signals.
Connecticut US Senator Richard Blumenthal has called for the FRA to mandate "Redundant Signal Protection," which if intalled on Metro North's New Haven line would have saved the life of Metro-North foreman Robert Luden in May, 2013.What exactly is "Redundant Signal Protection."
What is redundant about it?Is it merely a device to shunt the two rails to indicate the track is occupied?
If so, isn't that something railroad maintenance workers frequently fail to use? I reference the tragic deaths of two Amtrak workers in Chester, PA, in early April who did not use a shunting device to signal the track on which they were working was occupied, even though it was presumably available.
RJ Emery near Santa Fe, NM
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.