Why was the CA accident so deadly?

[davekelly]

Teffy,

I'm up in Lubbock (Raiderland) so I guess you know where we stand up here when it comes to Aggies lol. About those guys that solicited you. It's up to you, but I would consider reporting them to the Texas Bar. It's guys like that that give the rest of us a bad name! I'm sure you see it in your business. Some guy that cut's corners, hires incompetant drivers and as a "hell with safety" attidude in order to shave costs, give honest operators a bad name.

Sorry to hear about the accident you are involved in. Hopefully, the jury will get it right. About the McDonald's thing. This is my favorite. Little known to the public is that woman had severe burns to about 75% of her privates which required the damaged parts to be removed. Originally she had just adked McDonalds to cover her medical expenses (it seemed that the top was not put on the coffee cup). McDonalds refused which is why it went to trial. McDonalds could have finished this whole thing for a couple of thousand dollars (the same result as the jury you were forman off without the cost of litigation and the use of precious jury resources). At trial a McDonald's representative stated that although it got a numerous complaints that its coffee was too hot, it was not going to change it's practices because their profits from coffee were very very good. This kinda ticked off the jury. Which is right? I don't know what the answer is. It's hard to really take a stand without knowing all of the facts. Unfortunately, all the facts are not easily available. I'm afraid that unless one is willing to do a lot of digging, most of us will never know all the facts of the terrible trajedy in California. Hopefully the right and just resullt will happen and things will be better in the future for everyone.

I am undecided on the issue of punitives. There are times I think they are excessive, but there are other times when a heavy punitive award is the only way to get a defendant to change his/her/its way. I think it was Georgia that had an idea once to take all punitive awards and put them in a fund to assist victims of uninsured motorists. I don't know what happened about that move - but it seemed to make sense as punitives is not meant to award a plaintiff, but rather to punish a defendant.

Although I love trains (both model and real) the railroads have an interesting history. Automatic couplers and airbrakes only became widespread when the cost of them was justified. As long as it was cheaper to hire new folks and perhaps take care of minor injuries such as amputated fingers, the link and pin coupler and hand brake wheels were good enough.

I do want to applaud you for being a juror. The jury system is the backbone of our judicial system which, believe it or not, is the envy of folks in many many countries. The system, however, is only as good as the people who are on juries. It's not an easy job (I"ve been on two juries and several military court martials) but it is something that makes this country what it is.

Bob, bottom line, we may not always agree on things, but it's way cool that we can discuss our differences in a dignified and civil matter. I understand and respect your opinions that are based on your own life experiences and I am pretty sure that you understand and respect mine. That is what is so cool about most of the model railroader folks I've met. Now, if you decide to take a stand different than me on DCC or airburshes, we may have to get nasty over here. (just joking!!!).

Keep railroading!!

Dave

[Anonymous]

Dave:

What part of Texas are you in, I'm in the Port Arthur area.

Several years ago I was running the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo for Metro (I own a charter bus company) and was run into on a Saturday . Tuesday I had three letters from lawyers wanting to represent me, by Friday I had eleven letters. One letter even started out "Dear Mr Stephens Don't trust anyone that solicits you through the mail..."

I expect you to chuckle at this where most people won't. I assumed that he graduated from A & M. For the others A & M doesn't have a law degree.

I had a drunk man in an unisured pickup with three other people in it, run into the back of my bus that was completely off the road and now I'm being sued because one of the drunks died. Two strippers and two guys, all married but not to each other, out at 2:30 AM. No windshield wipers in the rain and an estimated speed of over 60 mph in a 45 mph limit. No drivers license, no inspection sticker, no current registration. Houston PD didn't find the driver until six weeks later and by then he was sober. They can't sue the driver because he doesn't have anything, but my insurance is worth $5,000,000.00, yes, that's five million dollars. It has been unreal what these "blood suckers" have come up with trying to prove that it was my fault.

Now let me back up a little bit. I go to a lawyers house almost every Tuesday to enjoy the trains and fellowship. Stephanie (wife) says that being with Steve and the guys puts me in a good frame of mind for the week. Almost every lawyer that I've met has been a nice guy. I still have trouble with the occupation I guess. Like Mickey Dee being sued for $4,000,000.00 for hot coffee - what not sue her son - he was driving the car and stepped on the brakes too hard. I've never heard anyone go to a resturant and ask for a cold cup of coffee. It was later toned down but look at the expense to McDonalds. We all pay for those stupid decisions.

It seems like we don't have to be responsiable for anything that happens to us anymore, we can always say that it was someone elses fault.

I ve been in business for over forty years and have seen some pretty bad cases get paid off because of dumb juries.

They made a mistake one time and put me on a jury and then compounded it by my being elected forman - verdict, pay the womans Dr. bills and the heck with punitive and all the rest. Made two lawyers very unhappy.

Have a good day and let me get off this soapbox.

Bob

[davekelly]

Just an additional thought.

If it turns out that after investigation and analysis that running the locomotive first would have resulted in no deaths and that previous studies etc were published that said that, yet the railroad opted to run car first as it would save 20 minutes per trip and say $50,000 in construction (spread out and amoritized over say 10 years) would it still be silly to find the railroad liable? I kinda liken this to what if you had your child (let's say an infant) in a car seat in your car. A drunk driver hits you on the interestate. Your child was thrown from the seat and suffered life altering injuries. It turns out the car seat manufacturer (who did not cause the accident at all - the drunk driver wasn't even an employee of the company) knew that under certain conditions a child could be thrown from the seat and that for $4.00 in parts the seat design could be changed to prevent this, but opted not to modify the seat in this way so as to have a price that was a little lower and thus increase its market share and profitability, would you think it offensive to sue the car seat manufacturer to at least help cover the cost of your child's medical expenses over the next dozen years or so? Just a thought.

[davekelly]

Teffy,

Yeah I think the railroad will get sued. Interesting that you said the "vultures (laywers) are talking to the injured. Interesting that you feel for the injured ("how far will $20,000 go if there is insurance") yet call those that will help the injured get compensated "vultures." No one says that the injured cannot sue the railroad themselves. Nothing prevents an individual from suing someone or something pro se'. Of course there is nothing that says contingency fees (where the attorney gets a percentage of any award) is manditory. Again, if a plaintiff wants to sue and pay his or her attorney an hourly fee, then that is perfectly acceptable. If the cost to do this is too high, perhaps its because the defendant hopes to force the plaintiff to pay more than he or she can afford. This is why there are contingency cases because the average individual cannot afford to sue a large entity (such as a railroad). Of course, believe it or not, attorneys don't make a dime on contingency cases if their client loses. Would love to see physician say that if you aren't cured you won't get a bill.

Your example from Louisiana is interesting. I dont know about Louisiana (where a ku klux klan leader can run for governor) but in Texas, trying to sign up injured folks at the seen is grounds to get one's law license revoked. Several attorneys here in Texas a few years ago lost their licencses for doing just that at a plane crash. Of course I don't see anything wrong with investigating the scene of a crash immediately after it happened. Don't the news reporters do the same thing?

The train accident you talked about is interesting. Yes, it seems like a dumb fact (the 90 degree crossing or lack thereof) that got the railroad in trouble. We all think it is dumb, but obviously the jury didn't. It's funny and I've said this a thousand times, it seems that everyone bashes attorneys for the "outrageous" results of a trial and the "outrageous" money awards given. But, you know what? Attorneys don't set the award. Juries do. I find it interesting that folks that I know that complain the most about legal awards are the same ones that complain about jury summons and brag about how they got out of it.

Yup, I've talked to lawyers about the "real world." I am one.

Dave

[Anonymous]

As I understand it, the jeep was actually driving down the rails and was between the rails (not at a crossing). As such, it was lower at the point of impact than it would have been had it been on a crossing. From what I understand, the lead car pushed the jeep down the rails until it hit a switch, which then made it easy for the lead car to ride up over the jeep instead of tossing it aside like a cowcatcher would.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by davekelly

Ken,

I don't think anyone is blaming the railroad. There was an accident caused by this guy and deaths occurred. The question is, what can the railroad do differently if possible to prevent a similar occurrence. Again, no one here, I think, is blaming the railroad. If you heard about a person that had their house broken into and stuff stolen because he didn't lock his door, wouldn't you suggest that he do so in the future? That isn't blaming him for the criminal conduct of the thief is it? Of course not, its just some ideas on how to prevent being the victim of future criminals.

Dave:
If you think that the railroad isn't going to get sued you are niave (SP). From the description of this guy do you really think that their was insurance on the SUV? If their was, how far will $20,000.00 go? I'll bet that many of the vultures (lawyers) are already visiting the injured and relatives of the dead so they can sign 'em up, maybe for a class action suit as that will be more money in the lawyers pockets. If this idea offends you then talk to lawyers and you'll find out that this is the real world.

When their was a motorcoach accident in New Orleans a couple of years ago the cops had to get the lawyers out of the way at the crash scene. They were doing their own investagation and talking to victims. All this, so they could sue the bus company up to the five million dollars insurance that they carried.

It irratates me very much when their is a large settlement for a train/car accident as it wasn't the trains fault. It's not like the loco can run down the street to hit the car. I remember one accident where the drunk was racing the train on a parallel road and hit the first car behind the loco at the crossing. The railroad was at fault because, get ready, it wasn't a ninety degree crossing so the driver had trouble seeing the train. The engineer had been blowing the horn at the guy while they were running together down the road.

It's a sad state of affairs but that's the way it is.

Bob

[METRO]

IF it turns out that the push mode running did have an impact of the severity of the crash, I propose that the government require that CCUs should have some of the same crash safety measures that are standard on locomotives.

It just makes sense, to me at least, that if one end of the train is armoured and designed to survive a crash so to should the other end. Simple things like a plow and reinforced pilot could save lives, and probably not cost too much over the long run.

Just a thought,

~METRO

[davekelly]

Ken,

I don't think anyone is blaming the railroad. There was an accident caused by this guy and deaths occurred. The question is, what can the railroad do differently if possible to prevent a similar occurrence. Again, no one here, I think, is blaming the railroad. If you heard about a person that had their house broken into and stuff stolen because he didn't lock his door, wouldn't you suggest that he do so in the future? That isn't blaming him for the criminal conduct of the thief is it? Of course not, its just some ideas on how to prevent being the victim of future criminals.

[eastcoast]

IN MY OPINION...
[:(] The Metrolink tragedy that happened was very unfortunate.
My heart goes out to the families of those victims and to those
who will live with the scars, physical and emotional for long
periods of time. This was a CRIME, as it is every time a vehicle
illegaly crosses in front of an approaching train. It makes NO
difference what configuration the commuter was in. METROLINK
did nothing wrong,but many will say otherwise. I can only pray that
these tragedies can be lessened or avoided in quick time. I have
read the facts and the reports of trains operating EVERY DAY without
problem. Then, when this occurs, (we) ATTACK THE RAILROAD???

PROSECUTE THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE, had not the SUV been
on the tracks, we would not be having this discussion. [:(!]

If you have been involved directly with this,
I offer my prayers to you and your families.
Kenneth

[retsignalmtr]

i think that most of the railroads that have push-pull operations do so to avoid having to turn the train around at the end of it's run or having to use 2 A units to run around the train to reverse direction. here in NY metro north uses push-pull as well as mu cars and there was an accident several months ago when a mu train hit a flatbed truck stuck on the tracks. lots of damage to the train but no fatalities.

[Anonymous]

In the Chicago area (I think Northwestern Indiana) several years ago, a semi-truck carrying loads of steel coils (read - really heavy and dense) went around the gates, and the commuter train cab-car struck the trailer. One of the steel rolls essentially rolled through the car, killing the engineer and several passengers...

My point - besides the fact that a loco is heavier, and better "armored", is that if the coil had hit the loco, there would have been more dense "stuff" (turbine, frame, etc.) to slow and/or stop the steel coil. There are also no passengers in the loco - fewer people in harm's way.

Also - at least in Chicago - there is logic behind cab-first and engine-first running. The commuter trains are run loco facing away from Chicago. That way, when they come into the stub-end siding in Chicago Union Station, the loco (producing all the exhaust and smoke ) is farthest away from the staion - for better air quality in the station and on the platforms (and it STILL gets pretty bad in there sometimes).

Not speculating on what happened in CA, Just adding some opinions from someone with a mech eng degree.

Rob

[TurboOne]

While we all should stay civil during any discussion, we all are speculating. Logic does suggest, like many have said, that a heavy engine might have made a difference. For those that disagree that is fine, just remember we all are train fans. We don't want anything to happen to our railroads, nor th the real ones. Here in CA all the news has been the train wreck, so we have a lot of knowledge of what has been reported. For the first two days, I saw Train wreck and a little Iraq on the news. Hours of coverage, interviews, speculation from "experts". These experts that I have seen, have said they believe a engine would have faired better. Most won't define better.

Anyways like Brian said we have seen much local coverage, and have quite a bit of infomation. We are sharing that, and , of course our opinion.

Stay cool all, and have a geat day [8D] [8D] [8D] [8D] [8D] [8D]

Tim [8D] [:)]

[Anonymous]

I beleive that if the loco was in the pull mode, the severity of the accident would have been much less. I saw a few pictures in the paper and it showed the markings that the rescuers painted on the side of the cars. It showed that a good portion of the fatalities were from the lead car that hit jeep. There was alot of force moving there to knock over the UP loco. I think in 6 months we will see the results of the investigation.

Bob

[Anonymous]

you may have just seen the nothbound Metrolink... the southbound one is the one that was in push mode and where the cab-car struck the jeep

[Anonymous]

I disagree. The footage of the accident I saw showed that an F59 was on the lead end, not a cab car.

[Anonymous]

the preliminary case is set to be hear in a couple weeks... Mr. Alvarex's lawyer is asking for a psyciatric evaluation be done before he is formally charged in the hearing.

[davekelly]

Please don't blame lawyers. If lawyers do not "try anything" for their clients they are liable to be sued for legal malpractice. Bottom line, if a lawyer does "try anything including blaming the victim", and the defendant in this case "gets off" then blame it on the jury. You know the thing that people brag about getting out of.

[retsignalmtr]

i do believe that the push
-pull setup there contributed to the severity of the accident and had the locomotive been leading it wouldn't have been so severe. i wonder if the perpetraitor of this crime might use this as a defense argument in his trial and could possibly get off or get a reduced charge of just abandoning a vehicle out of it. lawyers will try anything including blaming the victim.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jsoderq

First this is a mopdel railroad forum and this terrible tragedy has nothing to do with model railroading.

There was an article in my newspaper about one of the people who died. He was a model railroader. Therefore, this does have to do with us...

[Anonymous]

my end is not speculation.... I live in the Greater Los Angeles area and have watched all of the media coverage... so I know what I am talking about.

[METRO]

I'd actually argue that this does have something to do with model railroading, as my understanding of commuter equipment I've learned to build my layout has helped me to better understand the accident.

Also, we are all railfans and humans, people have died and it is natural to want to know how it happened and why. So while what we write may be conjecture, it is informed theory based upon what we have learned from our hobby. We may not be federal transportation investigators but between all of us we do have a good working knowledge of trains and how they are designed.

~Metro

[jsoderq]

First this is a mopdel railroad forum and this terrible tragedy has nothing to do with model railroading. Secondly, you are all posting speculation when you have no knowledge of the facts. Please refrain from this practice.

[METRO]

The Bombardier Bi-Level coaches and CCUs used on Metrolink are a copy of a design originally developed for GO Transit in Toronto, as such they are designed for colder weather operations and, in Toronto, have plows. These however were not opted for use by Metrolink as LA really doesn't get all that much snow.

Also because of their efficent design, the trucks on Bi-Levels are very close to the ends of the cars. The lack of a plow and the adjoining reinforcement on the front of the CCU leaves the truck rather exposed when running in push mode.

Take a look at this picture here:
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/misc-m/metl-c628abr.jpg
as you can see the the front pilot is not that large, and angles up at the corners rather dramatically, not offering the truck much protection.

If a Jeep's engine block were to be thrown at a locomotive in pull mode however, the result probably would have been very different. Modern commuter locomotives are designed to absorb the impact of a road vehicle with as little destruction to the train as possible. The F40s, F59s and F59PHIs used by Metrolink follow a standard GM design for dealing with crashes. They have strong pilots with large plows, their wheels are protected by skirting on the front sides, and their noses, which are made out of carbon fiber or steel, are slightly pointed to channel the force of a crash off to the sides and away from the main body of the locomotive. Most passenger locomotives have had features such as these since the GG1 and it's famous "battering ram" nose design.

See this Metrolink F59PHI:
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/misc-m/metl875adt.jpg
Note the features listed above, that coupled with the massive weight of the unit would have probably kept the inital train on the tracks.

~METRO

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by brclem

the engien block from the jeep got caught under the wheel which lifted and derailed the train... even in pull mode this would have derailed the train because iof the type of SUV it was... JEEP's are known for having a bullet proof engien... so a stronger more dense engien would have derailed any train with the engien under the wheel of the train.

oh yeah... the brakes were never applied even after hitting the jeep because the engineer died possibly on impact with the jeep

Actually a locomotive usually has better pilot / plow protection, which may have kept the engine block from the Jeep from ever reaching the wheels of the train.

Where did you hear that the brakes were never applied?

[Anonymous]

the engien block from the jeep got caught under the wheel which lifted and derailed the train... even in pull mode this would have derailed the train because iof the type of SUV it was... JEEP's are known for having a bullet proof engien... so a stronger more dense engien would have derailed any train with the engien under the wheel of the train.

oh yeah... the brakes were never applied even after hitting the jeep because the engineer died possibly on impact with the jeep

[n2mopac]

We can cry "don't speculate" all we want, but the laws of physics cannot be changed. If the heavier locomotive is in the rear of a train when it hits an object the momentum of that heavy locomotive WILL put much greater stresses on the cars and their trucks that it is pushing causing a greater probability that they will "jack knife" and "accordian." With the locomotive in the lead it is certainly less likely to derail than a lighter cab car is and the following cars have a lesser total inertial to overcome in the rapid hault of a crash. The pushing locomotive was NOT the cause of this crash and the train certainly could have derailed and accordianed with a leading locomotive, but a trailing or pushin locomitive makes this outcome more likely in the event of a crash.

Ron

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Roadtrp

I thought that collisions between trains and automobiles were usually similar to an automobile running into a dog.

The train might be dented, but would suffer no real damage. The automobile would be smashed to smithereens. Why was this accident so different??

[%-)]

This FRA # 20 order information is from Trainorders, but it shows the FRA has investigated the push pull mode in light of accidents, and no conclusion has been determined. It is interesting to note the leading cars weight much less than a diesel and it would stand to reason they might derail or ride up over the object easier in comparison to a much heavier diesel.
We will wait for the FRA report in about six months.

I know that this has been mentioned here before but here a few points of interest contained in the FRA Emergency Order 20....

There is no evidence that push/pull or EMU operations are in any way over represented in passenger train accidents. All rail passenger operations, like other forms of transportation, involve some risk of injury due to collision with other vehicles or fixed structures. In certain accident scenarios (e.g. , where the passenger consist in question is impacted from the rear), push-pull operations with the cab car forward actually offer greater protection. However, in collisions involving the front of the passenger train, cab car forward and MU operations do present an increased risk of severe personal injury or death when compared with locomotive-hauled service. This risk is of particular concern where operations are conducted at relatively higher speeds, where there is a mix of various types of trains, and where there are numerous highway-rail crossings over which large motor vehicles are operated.

Highway-rail crossings . Cab-forward and MU operations pose a somewhat heightened risk of severe injury for passengers should an accident occur, in comparison to locomotive-hauled passenger coaches. Operators should give consideration to closer interface with private crossing holders that use the crossings for truck access, give greater attention to liaison with law enforcement authorities, and explore other means that may reduce risk at both public and private crossings. Accelerated application of locomotive alerting lights (already authorized by regulation and required by statute) may offer another opportunity for risk reduction. This order requires that each railroad's interim safety plan address these grade crossing issues in the context of cab-forward and MU operations. FRA is very concerned about the safety of such operations in absence of a plan to address grade crossing hazards.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jdavid93225

The train was travelling in a "pusher" configuration in that the locomotive was behind the train pushing it, rather than being in the lead pulling it. In this arrangement, the engineer sits in the "Cab Car" which is on the opposite end of the train from the locomotive. This car has been designed so that the locomotive can be remotely controlled from the cab car by the engineer. Since the weight of the locomotive was so much greater than the weight of the cars ahead of it, the cars were basically sandwiched between two locomotives after the lead car (cab car) became derailed. I believe this is the primary factor contributing to the seriousness of the accident.

I am in total agreement with this, though some experts will argue that pusher mode had nothing to do with it. The cab car does not offer the same protection as the locomotive would. Without any kind of pilot or plow on the front, debris from the automobile was easily swept under the truck. Some people say that this, combined with the fact that the train struck a switch, is what derailed the train.

I am of the opinion that the cab car was on the ground well in advance of the switch, as a direct result of the debris. Once on the ground, all bets are off, and the train is at the mercy of friction. I'm not sure that the mass of the engine at the rear of the train increased the severity. It may have actually helped slightly, by continuing to provide some amount of brakeing. The sandwich effect is not as great a factor as the loss of protection without the engine in the lead.

Had the engine been on the front, it is possible that the fatalities would have been limited to 2 or 3, most likely crew, and passenger injuries may have been reduced by 50%. The second commuter train might not even have been involved.

[davekelly]

It will be interesting to see the results of the investigation (I am assuming there will be). If it turns out that having the locomotive in push mode was a major factor I think we'll see some changes throughout the industry. I've always wondered about the safety aspect of the push-pull concept. When I was a kid I loved to race my trains around the circle of track I had - engine first, or engine pushing. Yes, I know our models don't exhibit the physics of real trains, but the derailments of my old Lionel stuff always seemed worse in push mode. Besides - Engine first always looks more cool.