Does anyone else think that horrific passenger train accidents, such as the most recent Metrolink disaster last Friday, might have very well been avoided if passenger rail lines and freight railroads did not have to be so closely intertwined. I understand that the engineer of the Metrolink train was found to have run right through a signal, but it distubs me that mistakes such as this one could so easily lead to such a horrible tragedy. I live in Denver, where new light rail and commuter rail lines are in the making, and I know that our RTD is constantly having to fight, tooth and nail, to get the funding they need to proceed with the contruction of these lines. With the federal government being so stingy with their funds for badly needed city rail transit all over the country, many transit agencies are forced to resort to buiding their commuter lines in close proximity to long-standing frieght railroads. In addition, the French contractor that employed the engineer of that Metrolink train, also employs many drivers of the RTD's bus routes in and around Denver. It is well known, where I live, that the employees of the French company, Veolia, are not nearly as well trained as the RTD's very own bus and light rail operators. Although many of their drivers, many of whom are from several different countries, are very good, they all have had limited training compared to the Regional Trasit District's drivers, and many of them also speak very limited English. The decision was made here in Colorado by the legislature back in the late 1980's to encorporate privatization into the public transit sector, thereby saving on costs for running busses and light rail trains, but there is often a distinct difference between riding a bus run by the RTD and one operated by one of the contracted companies.
I would like to know what others may think about this. Thanks
-Liz
The engineer was originally trained by Amtrak, who used to provide engineers to Metrolink. When Metrolink decided to bid out engineers and conductors, the Amtrak was judged "non competitive" by Metrolink and Veolia won out. The Amtrak employees assigned to Metrolink had the option of relocating on the Amtrak system, or switching to Veolia as new employees...and the majority chose the latter.
One of the reasons the Amtrak bid was considered "non competitive" was that they wanted to limit the liability that Amtrak would have in the face of a major accident. Their lawyers foresaw that a major accident could result in shutting down Amtrak nationwide as a result.
My train videos - http://www.youtube.com/user/karldotcom
I'm not sure if your concern is about mixing passenger and freight, or having a subcontractor whose operating crews are sub par.
My 2 cents are that I see nothing about this collision that would have made it better if it was 2 passenger trains colliding instead of passenger and freight colliding. I feel if we had 2 passenger trains colliding the human toll might have been even worse.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
"I understand that the engineer of the Metrolink train was found to have run right through a signal"
Liz, the NTSB has responded brusquely to that assertion by Metrolink, and Metrolink's board of directors subsequently backpedalled, seeming to concede that it was indeed premature to conclude that the engineer was entirely at fault, if at all. A lot of evidence remains to be collected from a variety of sources and carefully analyzed. Metrolink's spokesperson has now resigned.
"Many transit agencies are forced to resort to buiding their commuter lines in close proximity to long-standing frieght railroads."
There are a number of possible reasons for mixing freight and passenger service on the same right of way, even the same trackage, cost being only one of them. The NIMBY (not in MY backyard!) reflex is a strong deterrent to building anything from scratch, as is the "No tax, cut spending!" reflex.
"It is well known, where I live, that the employees of the French company, Veolia, are not nearly as well trained as the RTD's very own bus and light rail operators. Although many of their drivers, many of whom are from several different countries, are very good, they all have had limited training compared to the Regional Trasit District's drivers, and many of them also speak very limited English."
Oh dear! My ears go back when I hear "it is well known that...." That's the basic ingredient of unsupported (and too often downright erroneous) rumors, usually based on some sort of prejudice. In this case, it sounds like a bit of xenophobia. Have you researched these rumors? Can you site specific, verifiable facts that prove these employees are comparatively ill-trained? You say yourself that "many...are very good," and it sounds as if your chief concern is that they speak accented English, perhaps with a limited vocabulary and irregular syntax. (My ears have similar difficulties interpreting the speech of Panhandle Texans and most Americans under 20!)
"There is often a distinct difference between riding a bus run by the RTD and one operated by one of the contracted companies."
Again, may one ask specifically HOW the ride differs?
Look, granted it would be simpler to have commuter trains operating on dedicated tracks. But freight traffic has coexisted with passenger traffic for generations, both in North America and abroad. There have been accidents--in previous eras they were even worse--, but the recent safety record is not at all bad. Positive Train Control might well be an improvement, but it will only be implemented if the public is willing to pay for it in one way or other. (The cost to private carriers will be passed on to shippers, and higher consumer prices will result.) I'd be willing to make some small personal sacrifices to bring it about, but I'm afraid I'm in the minority.
Regarding the Metrolink collision, no doubt you've seen some of the published or broadcast images: Considering the masses and velocities involved (so far, it appears that the commuter train was doing about 40 mph at the moment of collision), don't you think it rather encouraging that only 25 immediate fatalities (out of around 220 passengers and employees) have been counted? And rather remarkable that the second and third coaches remained intact, upright, and on or near the tracks? Believe it or not, I think there is evidence of progress even in the midst of that grim occurrence.
--JawboneJon
Response to JawboneJon
Thanks for your input. Just wanted to respond to a couple of things.
I can only speak from experience when it comes to comparing Veolia bus service to the RTD and the other 2 private transit agencies that run the region's bus routes. Coming home late from work tonight on a Veolia-run bus route, I noticed the driver was running about 7 minutes ahead of schedule on the route. I briefly mentioned this to her as I was exiting the bus. I have a friend who has operated busses for the RTD for the past 10 years. He tells me that sticking to a designated schedule is strictly enforced, and that it's okay to run late if there are forces outside of the driver's control causing him/her to run late, but that there is no excuse for running early. I have often missed busses run by Veolia that were running up to 10 minutes ahead of schedule!! I've been riding the bus and LR here for years, and when Veolia was brought in about 4 years ago, I noticed a big difference in how often their drivers run ahead of schedule and get lost on their routes compared to the RTD and the other 2 contracted companies that operate the routes. I call or email the RTD with complaints about the drivers running "hot" about once every week. I've seen both American-grown and immigrant employees perform the same errors, but I've heard from some Veolia employees who train new operators that it's often difficult working with some foreign-born employees due to some communication barriers. This is just what I've heard from several different employees, but I'm not prejudiced in any way. I imagine it would be pretty difficult for me to go to another country and learn a new language very quickly. My bus driver friend is originally from Yugoslavia and did not speak a word of English when he first came to Denver. He's an excellent driver and trainer.
Sorry...I guess all this "bus stuff" is a little off the subject :)
I found it interesting what you wrote of the reasons for mixing freight and passenger service. You agree that a money issue is part of the problem. I have another friend who works on the RTD FasTracks project; a voter-approved initative which includes building a series of commuter rail lines branching out from Metro Denver. He talks about how the RTD is having to find every possible way to reduce the cost of completing this project, mostly due to the rising cost of buiding materials and the lack of federal funding. I also receive a monthly news letter via email about this project's progress. A couple of recent issues mentioned that DMU or EMU trains will need to be used for the newest line instead of LR because LR vehicles would "not withstand a collision with a freight train". I notice that our current LR lines never have to cross the BNSF railway. Although they run side-by-side in many areas, there is never a way for them to cross. For example, the southwest corridor line crosses BNSF tracks once via a bridge. I don't see why the passenger rail and freight tracks would have to cross eachother on the west corridor (to be completed) since this seems to work for the lines already in use. But would they have to worry about right-of-way between freight and passenger trains because they wouldn't have the funding to build such bridges? If this is true, I think incidents such as Friday's accident prove that it's worth the extra money to include such safety features. However, I know that, sadly, I'm also in the minority as being willing to make some personal sacrifices to bring about safer and more efficient transit.
Thanks for your input
Replying to fafnir:
Yes, I think it was on Saturday that a person identifying himself as a teenaged railfan called LA news/talk AM station KCBS and said he had been in a brief text-message conversation with the Metrolink engineer "shortly before" the crash. Another teen railfan had a similar story. The NTSB has requested cell-phone records to check this story out, but its initial reaction was cautious. The NTSB spokesperson said that a similar report, following a past accident in the Boston area, had turned out to be "inaccurate."
Apparently, Metrolink has a rule forbidding an engineer to use a cell phone while in control of a moving train but permitting cell-phone use if the train is standing still. If records confirm cell-phone use in this case, it may be critical to establish the timing, since a few minutes before the collision Train 111 was standing at the Chatsworth station.
What I don't know yet is what medium the Pomona dispatcher uses for voice communication with a train crew on the road? I thought for a while that maybe cell phones were used for that purpose, but now I question that premise.
--Jon
Back to you, Liz--
At this point I find it a bit difficult to comment on your postings, Liz, because they touch on several general areas of interest/concern for which I doubt there are hard and fast answers. I remember visiting Denver exactly once, about 15 years ago, to attend a short conference out in Broomfield, so I'm not all that familiar with your metro area. I've also taken a brief look at Denver's RTD "Fastrack" web site, and I have to applaud the intent of its ambitious vision. But I also have to agree that financial strictures, while necessary, can jeopardize both the safety and the success of any such project if taken to unreasonable extremes. Better to scale back or defer, I think, rather than settle for shoddy (and possibly dangerous) execution.Personally, I have reservations about "privatization" initiatives. But I think the sort of deficiencies you describe in contractor-operated bus service may have as much to do with corporate culture as anything else. As such, they can afflict an agency-operated system as easily as a privately-contracted one. If management conveys a miserly attitude as the overriding emphasis in that culture, to the detriment of user satisfaction and employee pride (AND discipline-- they tend to go hand-in-hand), it is likelier that rules will be flouted and service will suffer, not to mention safety.Ultimately, of course, much depends on overall public support for the transportation system, both in terms of use and of general attitude. The latter, of course, is crucial in determining the adequacy of continuing funds for operation and maintenance, as well as of initial outlays for construction and/or expansion. To cite what appears to me a relevant example, San Diego's successful light-rail "Trolley" system seems to be an object of considerable civic pride. It started small, three decades ago, was carefully planned and implemented, and gradually expanded as its usefulness was proved on each new segment. It still needs subsidies, but a majority of people in the region seem to accept it as worthwhile.
Back to the specific question with which you began this thread, that of mixing freight and passenger traffic on the same infrastructure base. Surely, grade separation is a better way to ensure safety in the design of a system. That's why we have freeways. But at-grade all-rail crossings CAN be made reasonably safe by incorporating automatic-interlocking technology to keep trains apart. It has been in effective use for well over a century, and no doubt computerization has brought enhancement. But that's equally true of same-track train separation. For much of my professional career I was involved in quality assurance, and truly I don't mean to minimize safety concerns; but I fear that NO system will ever prove PERFECTLY safe-- unless it's one in which nothing ever moves!At risk of pummeling the obvious, I'm inclined to believe it all boils down to a question of "acceptable risk" as to how much money we're willing to spend to achieve what level of safety. So the big, relevant question is: Are we being ADEQUATELY and HONESTLY informed about the trade-offs, both on an initial and on a continuing basis? Additionally, do we temper our own idealism with realistic evaluations of what's really "acceptable"? That's tough, of course. Accidents like last week's Metrolink crash tend to bring the "perfectionist" ideal to the fore. And, while that can and should intensify the quest for improvement, we probably need to be careful not to overreact.-Jon
It also comes to a point of knowledge, transparency and several other factors that I will not go into detail here. One of the problems is that the public does not see what goes on within agencies or have knowledge about issues of great importance therein. We have to step back and look at the "professionals" who manage, design and operate our transit systems. Do they really know what they're doing? In many cases, they know their business and do it well. Unfortunately, in many cases they have no clue what they're doing.
I am presently involved in the oversight of a major transit project and frankly, I am disturbed by what I see going on. The contractors designing and building the system have no background in transit construction and don't even know the basics of electric railway construction. One of our officers saw a crew laying rail for this project and asked them about the rail bonds. Their reaction was "what are rail bonds?" We're paying these "professionals" millions of dollars for a taxpayer funded system and they have no idea what they're doing.
The fact that a contractor was operating the Metrolink system is no surprise. In many cities, the transit agencies contract out all operations-that's what my local transit agency does. The fact that many of these contractors don't know what they're doing isn't much of a surprise either. Hopefully there will be lessons learned from this, but I have my doubts.
Re this topic: I wonder if any of you got to read yesterday's WALL STREET JOURNAL (9-19-08)? It has two articles based on the accident. The longer one tries to define railfans (excuse me, their locution "rail fans") as a subculture and managed to misspell Tehachapi ("-pee") and omit Fred Frailey's first name. (The later online version corrected those two errors.)
The second and shorter article tried to define as a class adolescent kids (boys I assume) who TM or call engineers and conductors on their cell phones while train is in motion. Was that even allowed? If so, it's a loophole that needs to be closed IMHO. But I did feel that the newspaper, confronted with our "little" hobby, made us sound as though we were viewed through the wrong lens of the microscope, so to speak.
Comments?
Cell phone usage (outside of California) is mostly regulated by carrier rules. Here in Tucson, Old Pueblo Trolley-Street Railway Division has adopted the policy of Sun Tran (Tucson's transit system). Motormen/Drivers are prohibited from using cell phones or other personal electronic devices when the vehicle is in motion.
Like it or not, railfans will be under scrutiny until the furor over this wreck dies down. The problem for railfans (much like that of attorneys) is that a few bad apples ruin the reputation of the entire group.
jawbonejon wrote:The NIMBY (not in MY backyard!) reflex is a strong deterrent to building anything from scratch, as is the "No tax, cut spending!" reflex.
As a regular participant in my local Area Commission meetings, the NIMBY reaction (which is often whipped-up by lobbyists and other special interests) stems from the incorrect assumption that if I buy land, you should have any say in how I use that land.
I grew up in a developing rural area where corn fields were being replaced by housing developments (and the farmers who were barely scraping by were able to make some good money for a change). People in the developments would become attatched to a cornfield "in their back yard" that was actually owned by the same farmer who sold them their land originally (often by way of a developer).
As the neighborhood would grow, the need for retail and other services in the neighborhood would lead to requests to put in a strip mall, gas station, or big-box retailer on the beloved farmland. Of course, this is the time the neighbors would band together and spend thousands to oppose the new development. It never seemed to dawn on them to buy the land together and make it a neighborhood park or something they could control.
On rare occasion they'd ask the government to buy the land for them, but mostly they just opposed any developmet (except of course their own development of cloned houses that ruined my view of the countryside as I commuted to and from the city each day).
Recently CSX has suggested putting an Intermodal Facility up the road from my house. Residents living within a 10 mile radius were howling and handwringing about "increased truck/rail traffic" in the area and how it impacts "the safety of the children".
To my dismay, I've heard people attempt to justify NIMBY views with their religion. To me it would seem incompatible with "thou shalt not covet ... anything that is thy neighbor's".
With so many strong opinions on this, I started to think about what I'd do if someone wanted to do something I disliked on my neighbor's property. What if they were too noisy? In my case, I live about 300ft from the "Whistle" sign on the Norfolk Southern Sandusky Line at milepost 6 heading out of Columbus (and I love it!). For any sane argument against noise, the neighbor would have to be louder than honking locomotives. :)
If it's an eyesore, I suppose I could keep my blinds shut or plant some trees to block the view. If my neighbor dumped waste on my land then I could sue to have that stopped. Then there are the options of moving away or buying enough buffer land so that nobody can bother you.
Finally, regarding the "no tax, cut spending" remark calling it a "reflex", I think asserting that it's a reflex suggests that no thought has gone into it. The reality for most people I know is that they are aware of incredible amounts of waste and misspending in the government already, and until that is diminished there's plenty of fat to pay for such projects if you simply look for it.
Transit is a wonderful service to pay for entirely with user fees. In my city, we have no passenger rail of any kind. Instead we have the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) corporation that is owned by the government and funded with a .5% sales tax. Anyone why buys anything in the city pays for the bus service. Amusingly, even though we all pay for it, we're not all allowed to use it. The company demands a fare to use the busses we paid for!
I'd like to explore making the bus system fare-free so truly anyone who pays for it may ride it, or funded entirely by the riders so that everyone who rides it pays for it. Both would seem to be more appropriate than taking money from people who don't find the service to be useful.
Also, when it comes to the Metrolink safety issue, presumably the tax would have had to pay for several tunnels as well as normal infrastructure just to separate the main lines. But then the maintenence costs would fall exclusively to Metrolink whereas now I'd imagine they're benefitting from UP funding on tunnel, track, and other maintenance. So spending more on infrastructure might actually result in less safety if the funds didn't exist to maintain the improvements.
I often here statements like "we shouldn't put a price on safety", but those arguments are absurd. You have to put a price on safety or else nothing will ever get done - we can always spend more to make something safer, but there comes a point where it's not worth it. Per rider mile, commuter rail is extraordinarily safe.
In order to get the best value for the money, we need to expose the true costs to consumers so that they can decide what level of safety they want for their money. As it stands, the cost of transit is a shell game - and nobody really knows what anything really costs, or even how much they're paying.
Freight and passenger operations benefit from shared facilities just as buses, cars, and trucks do on roads.
The one advantage is that trains can be automated more easily than road vehicles with a policy of open access that does not require guidance and separation gear. Even so, railroads have been reluctant to go the extra step for cab signaling or positive train control where risk with professionals and monitored practices is much lower than on the roads, and where exposure to death, injury, and damage is lower overall.
Regardless of in-house or out-sourced training, I would hope the standards for a passing grade are the same and sufficient to assure safe operation and practices.
First, Trains newswire carried a story about railfans witnessing a green signal. What struck me was that one of the news photos showed an apparent lone worker or inspector at a signal shortly after the accident. A tragic grade crossing accident on the Chicago-St Louis line was caused by a signal maintainer not properly restoring the crossing signals to working order and returning to the scene to cover up his malfeasance.
Second, while the train crew may be a good source of information; railfans need to refrain from direct telephone or text communication that distracts attention from operation. The only exception would be to converse during a stop at a station or signal.
Finally, I skimmed an article in Railway Gazette ('05?) about aluminum car welds "un-zipping" in a British train collision and causing the car to split open. It seems that the welds were not adequate for the necessary strength. I was struck by the relative lack of damage to the freight cars jack-knifed across the tracks that had little to do with buff strength.
HarveyK400 wrote: First, Trains newswire carried a story about railfans witnessing a green signal. What struck me was that one of the news photos showed an apparent lone worker or inspector at a signal shortly after the accident. A tragic grade crossing accident on the Chicago-St Louis line was caused by a signal maintainer not properly restoring the crossing signals to working order and returning to the scene to cover up his malfeasance.Second, while the train crew may be a good source of information; railfans need to refrain from direct telephone or text communication that distracts attention from operation. The only exception would be to converse during a stop at a station or signal.Finally, I skimmed an article in Railway Gazette ('05?) about aluminum car welds "un-zipping" in a British train collision and causing the car to split open. It seems that the welds were not adequate for the necessary strength. I was struck by the relative lack of damage to the freight cars jack-knifed across the tracks that had little to do with buff strength.
I believe either this thread or a similar one mentioned that use of cell-phones is prohibited on USA railways. If not, it should be, or NORAC or the [other side of USA's] rules book.
TM'ing too IMHO, which was the actual cause of the tragedy it seems. Perhaps the technology has gotten ahead of the rules, regs and/or legislation? If so, I'd think the company would prohibit it if at all possible.
I don't know of a single recent cell phone that hasn't got a voice mailbox. You're there in the cab until you reach your destination or are relieved, so what's the point in getting messages in real time anyway??
It would be cool if kids were in the vanguard NOT to TM or phone. Perhaps BNSF's CRS program should think about getting people on board with the notion. After all, you wouldn't insist on speaking to someone who is in a very important meeting or in the middle of a baseball game; doesn't the operator of a train deserve the same consideration?
I guess if the RR's want to get nasty they could; no cell phone is completely private even if the other end is a land-line. IOW assume someone's out there listening to (or reading) you. - a.s.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.