The Google Maps photo shows tracks 1 and 4 (north to south) intact with the bridges under replacement on 2 and 3. If I read the news statements it looks like the eastbound train was on track 1 and the westbound on the (normally eastbound) track 2, so the arrangement may be quite different than the satellite photos show. New Haven Line page in 1999 Amtrak ETT shows powered switches at MP 50.6 Fairfield (1-2 miles west of crash) with next interlocking at MP 55.3 CP255 in Bridgeport. What looks like switches in scene photos may include guard rail, and certainly includes rail separated from ties.
Evening National TV news reported each train was operating at 70 MPH at the time of impact.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Evening National TV news reported each train was operating at 70 MPH at the time of impact.
Looking at the overhead video linked earlier, I have my doubts about that assertion. (The TV news, not Balt's quotation, which is no doubt correct, given the state of journalism these days.) Given that the lead car's damage on the westbound is in a relatively small area, plus that area is less than a car-length west of the first damaged area on the eastbound where the trains came to a stop, 70 MPH at collision seems pretty far-fetched.
What does appear interesting to me is that small overlap between the collision damage on the two trains. That certainly suggests to me that the engineer on the westbound was bringing the train to a stop and nearly avoided the collision (assuming that the eastbound had come to a stop already). This sounds like good train handling in a bad situation to me. It will make for an interesting read when the NTSB report comes out after the investigation.
As you are well aware, only when the event recorders are downloaded will we know the true speed of both trains.
Can you tell I don't trust reporters to get things right?
Norm
According to the Associated Press (for those who still read the newspaper) regular Metro North shuttles are running between New Haven and Bridgeport where passengers transfer to buses to Stamford where they are trains to take them to Grand Central Station.
Here is the link: http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/05/connecticut_train_derailment_t.html
The complete information and schedules are on MNRR's web site.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Metro North also has a New Haven Line Service Plan. Here is a link:
http://web.mta.info/mnr/NewHaven/new-haven-line-service.html
ChuckCobleigh BaltACD Evening National TV news reported each train was operating at 70 MPH at the time of impact. Looking at the overhead video linked earlier, I have my doubts about that assertion. (The TV news, not Balt's quotation, which is no doubt correct, given the state of journalism these days.) Given that the lead car's damage on the westbound is in a relatively small area, plus that area is less than a car-length west of the first damaged area on the eastbound where the trains came to a stop, 70 MPH at collision seems pretty far-fetched.
Is Fairfield Metro a stop for the two trains involved (too lazy to look up the train numbers in all the blither) as it is for most trains on the New Haven line? It is just about a mile east of the accident site. Compare the braking and acceleration profiles for this equipment, and extrapolate to get a likely estimate for speed at the incident site.
An amusing calculation is to figure out the acceleration needed to produce "70 mph" at the site, or the braking that will stop the train from 70 mph in that distance...
I rather doubt that the train that was hit was running at 70 mph at the moment of the impact.
Johnny
John WR Metro North also has a New Haven Line Service Plan. Here is a link: http://web.mta.info/mnr/NewHaven/new-haven-line-service.html
Looking at an older ETT I find the allowable speed on both tracks to be 75mph but restrictions to 50 and 30 on certain curves and bridges in the area: MP53.2-53.5, 50; mp 54.7-56.0, 30. Interlockings CP255 at MP 55.3 which is entering Bridgeport station at 55.4. So, could both trains have been doing 70? Yes. And depending on the timing of the derailment of the cars in relation to the opposing train? Possibly, but, it is probable that both trains were doing permissible track speed at the start of the incident; by the time of the collision can be debated and determined possibly by mini calculations.
2 possibilities.
1. east bound as it derailed slowed down due to emergency brake application ?
2. West bound operator noted eastbound derailment and initiated emergency brake application ?
investigation will tell us but one item says over 3000 ft of track torn up. That could be for many reasons.
I have often held NJT in high esteem but Sandy tarnished that image. MNRR has flown to the top of the list in the wake of Friday's derailment by announcing today, Tuesday, that one of the two tracks will allow limited service through to New Haven beginning with the 3:07 GCT departure this afternoon; Amtrak says they will dispatch a train to Boston at 4PM from NYP and 3:10 west from Boston. There will be limited services through this evening with full services for both MNRR and Amtrak on Wed. This shows how much MNRR management understand their railroad and the commitment to service and not just running trains.
Releasing the track for service this afternoon should also get both equipment and crews in position for resuming normal service tomorrow.
Inspection 2 days prior found a joint in need of additional ballast and broken joint bars that were repaired.
Article also states that one train was stopped and the other was operating at 23 MPH at the time of the incident. Would have been nice if some of this information was reported in the initial reporting.
http://news.yahoo.com/track-inspection-found-problems-conn-crash-151753367.html
For every accident, so many excuses and rationalizations, minimization and deflections. Maybe a TV reporter caused the crash to have another story to misreport?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Actually this report is not inconsistant with the original reports. Reporters picked up what they heard and understood at that time and now are trying to piece that to today's report. The incident two days prior could not have been reported at the time of the accident because the investigation backwards had not yet begun and reporters are not accident investigators knowing what questions to ask who.
So as I understand, a joint was discovered to have insufficient ballast support, and two broken joint bars. Then the broken joint bars were replaced, but no work was done to add and tamp ballast. Then a 70 mph train derailed in that vicinity two days later.
That raises the question of whether those who discovered the broken joint bars and insufficient ballast considered whether the broken bars were caused by a lack of ballast support; or if the two defects were thought to be unrelated. It seems to me that the potential cause and effect relationship of the two defects would have been obvious to people with experience.
henry6 ...reporters are not accident investigators knowing what questions to ask who.
...reporters are not accident investigators knowing what questions to ask who.
Nor do they have access to or even knowledge of the "paper trail" of MOW activities like the NTSB professionals do, which is why we rely on the professionals to gather the facts and make the reports, in the time frame that is necessary to provide real information, as opposed to a headline.
Simple division of labor at work.
I am not ragging on the reporters for the MofW conditions that the NTSB found, however, to know that the derailed train was already stopped and the the moving train was in the process of stopping at time of impact would have been available information at the time and information that should have been reported at the time.
Considering the state of confusion that exists in such a situation, getting the absolute truth right at the outset is probably an impossibility. Witness statements can vary widely, some people won't speak to the press, responders are too busy to speak, etc.
CSSHEGEWISCH Considering the state of confusion that exists in such a situation, getting the absolute truth right at the outset is probably an impossibility. Witness statements can vary widely, some people won't speak to the press, responders are too busy to speak, etc.
Right, Paul...but also you will have witnesses who saw choo choo trains and others who saw two trains of M8's. The problem is that you have reporters who's knowledge of trains and railroading is closer to Thomas the Tank, The Little Engine That Could, and Lionel sets than being able to differentiate between MNRR, CONDOT, and Amtrak and the FRA and NTSB. And when you have to rescue and treat people, look for new hazards, and keep people away from the scene, you don't have time or thoughts to go looking up old NTSB reports and the work sheets on that piece of track for the past week or month or year. Too often an accident like this is the only time a reporter is not reading a fax or email and reporting that as news.
Well,
One of the main things that seems to be lacking from almost every major paper now is a transportation editor and a dedicated transportation reporter.
Basically Don Phillips old job at the Post…
With most railroads being out of the general public’s eye, papers seems to ignore hiring a reporter whose sole job is to report on transportation, be it the trucking industry, railroads, barges and the like.
Because of the tremendous amount of ship traffic, rail and truck traffic here, the Houston Chronicle has a transportation editor, she makes sure the facts, terms and such are correct, they even cover pipelines with a fair amount of accuracy.
Given the economics of newspapers now days, I don’t see any of the remaining big papers investing in such an editor or reporter.
I think I remember Phillips doing an op-ed piece in Trains on just such a problem back in the early part of the last decade.
Either him or King….
23 17 46 11
In reading the news article lined in the first post on this page, it does go into good detail about the track defect. The next step would be to tell us whether the defective rail joint is where the wheels hit the ground.
It is interesting to read between the lines in this story. A cracked joint bar was found at a joint with inadequate ballast support and evidence that the joint had excessive vertical movement as trains passed. If I saw that, I would conclude that the lack of support allowed the vertical movement, and that overstressed the joint bars. I would therefore fix the ballast problem and replace the joint bar.
However the story says they did not think the lack of ballast support was serious enough to halt traffic, so they let it go. But they did replace the cracked joint bar.
**Then they checked all the other joint bars for cracks.**
That at least suggests that they did not associate the ballast defect with the cracked joint bar, but instead, looked for the possibility that multiple joint bars had a quality problem that could cause them to crack.
I would be amazed if that is what they did, whether it caused the derailment or not.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.