wyomingrailfan wrote:I'm am considering joining the Air Force and that jobs allows no naps....ever.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD wrote: wyomingrailfan wrote:I'm am considering joining the Air Force and that jobs allows no naps....ever.Don't kid yourself!
zardoz wrote: One day, many years ago, on a morning inbound rush hour train I was approaching the Main Street Evanston station, which is just beyond a curve. As I approached the station, I noticed that the signal just before the station showed a "clear" indication. But because I was experienced on this line, I knew that a clear signal was unusual at that location at that time. Because of this, I did not proceed like I had a "clear"; instead, I slowed the train down to about 30 (from 70) as I went into the curve, sure enough, there was a train sitting in the station. I was able to stop short of the train without an emergency application. The preceeding signal had given me a "false clear'. If I didn't have the experience to know something was wrong, C&NW would have made the national news that morning, and I wouldn't be here to write this.
Hey zardoz -
That's really heads-up railroading ! Good catch !
For a report of both an engineer who ran past 3 restrictive signals, and the opposing engineer who also thought that something was amiss, refer to my post a few minutes ago (6:19 PM) under the "How can a signal be missed?" thread here, at the bottom of Page 3 of 3 of:
http://cs.trains.com/forums/3/1536152/ShowPost.aspx#1536152
- Paul North.
tree68 wrote:California wants to pass a law codifying what most railroads already have in their rulebooks, and Diana Feinstein wants to require a technology she probably can't explain.Talk about your knee-jerk reactions.
California wants to pass a law codifying what most railroads already have in their rulebooks, and Diana Feinstein wants to require a technology she probably can't explain.
Talk about your knee-jerk reactions.
I think it's more appropriately a jerk reacting!
mp
With 25 dead and more than 130 injured, last week's head-on crash between a Metrolink commuter train and a freight train could test that limit for the first time since its enactment in 1997, experts said.
Brian Panish, a defense attorney who is representing two victims of the crash and has litigated past train accidents, said payouts could range from $5 million to $10 million for each death or serious injury. So the $200 million limit could be easily met or exceeded.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has scheduled a briefing Tuesday with officials from Metrolink, the National Transportation Safety Board and others. The liability limit is one of the issues she plans to raise.
"We want to make sure that people can recover what they deserve," Boxer said in an interview Thursday. "Clearly, people have to have justice."
Boxer said she and her staff were looking at options for dealing with the limit, including an approach like the one established by the Price-Anderson Act for nuclear disasters in which Congress can step in to make up the difference if the liability limit is reached.
Another option could be for Congress to act to waive the cap in this case.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., questioned the wisdom of having a liability
"I strongly believe there should not be a liability cap that shields railroads from taking full responsibility for their actions," she said through a spokesman. "I also believe the railroads should be encouraged to embrace collision avoidance systems so that serious accidents can be avoided."
The $200 million limit was imposed as part of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997. Lawmakers included it as part of a package of measures meant to help stabilize the carrier, which is perennially financially troubled.
Some experts have subsequently questioned whether the liability limit in the law would even apply to accidents not involving Amtrak trains. Some also question the constitutionality of the cap, saying defense attorneys could argue that victims' rights to due process under the law had been violated if they were deprived of the ability to obtain redress.
However, since the cap has never been exceeded, no court has ever dealt directly with either of those questions.
"Nothing has tested the $200 million limit. It's an absolutely open question," said Stephen C. Yeazell, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles law school. "The bottom line is, I don't think it's ironclad."
Panish said he would question the cap in court if it imperils the ability of his clients to obtain damages. "Why should the victims bear some of the cost when it's no fault of theirs?" he asked.
Panish said his first move would be to ask Metrolink to waive the cap for this crash. Metrolink spokesman Francisco Oaxaca declined comment on that possibility. Oaxaca said Metrolink has insurance coverage up to $150 million.
Beyond the questions being raised by Boxer and Feinstein, there appears to be little interest in Congress in revisiting the cap.
With elections looming and Congress set to recess at the end of next week, aides to the chairmen of the House and Senate committees with oversight of rail said no moves were afoot to change the cap.
I was wondering how long this was going to take:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9K6rx9J470
Someone used MS Train Simulator to simulate the conditions of the crash..... I watched the video, and it's not very well done.
Thank you so very--very much for your FIRST-HAND report on the effects of diabetes. Somehow my gut tells me the Chatsworth Metrolink engineer was definitely NOT to blame for this horrible crash. I just know something SUDDEN and strange happened to cause this wreck. I think the likely 2 (TWO) main causes of this would be Diabetic BLACK--OUT OR possibly a FALSE CLEAR Signal (Green ?? ) at the very key switch "Control Point Topanga". That is what I can figure out that fits my gut feeling of a Horrible Hellish tragedy truly ending it all for this poor stricken train (Metrolink) .
As far as the major media they love manufacturing sensational headlines and soundbytes. It is very very sad and tragic what the media circus has done to the family of the engineer. If the major media was practicing REAL Journalism they would put the public interest FIRST by investigating this issue of diabetics operating public transportation vehicles (trains) . The media also very bedly needs to investigate WHY the USA still in 2008 uses such a PRIMITIVE signal system that was developed in the 1930s. I mean SHEESH!!! by now our railroad signaling systems should have many good--solid ANTI COLLISION features that would INTERVENE if any train attemped to violate any Red signal. The Amtrak Northeast Corridor HERE IN THE USA has been using Automatic Train Contol for about 20 YEARS now since the 1987 Gunpow (RIcky Gates) incident. That tragic Amtrak crash is also known as the "Chase Maryland crash. Here is the wikipedia entry for that now 21 year old event : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chase,_Maryland_rail_wreck
It is now way--way--way PAST Time that the rest of the nation enjoys the benefits of that NEC safety system. If it works RELIABLY on the very busy NEC it WILL WORK in the rest of the nation.
Thank you very much Larsend and everyone else for reading my thoughts at this very very tragic and sad time for railroading !! I hope and pray that valuable safety lessons WILL be learned and INSTALLED THIS TIME around.
--- Daniel
larsend wrote:I seem to remember reading that the Metrolink engineer was a diabetic.If that was the case, his blood sugar could have unexpectedly dropped, causing him to pass out and possibly die.My wife is a diabetic and last year her blood sugar dropped. We were talking normally when she suddenly passed out. It was as if she had been hit over the head by a club. It was very sudden. Luckily we had an emergency Glucagen Hypokit and I was able to use it to bring her blood sugar up to normal.If this happened to the Metrolink engineer, it would explain the missed or ignored signals.The question becomes then, did Metrolink know of his diabetes and, if so, why was he allowed to run a train?
I seem to remember reading that the Metrolink engineer was a diabetic.
If that was the case, his blood sugar could have unexpectedly dropped, causing him to pass out and possibly die.
My wife is a diabetic and last year her blood sugar dropped. We were talking normally when she suddenly passed out. It was as if she had been hit over the head by a club. It was very sudden. Luckily we had an emergency Glucagen Hypokit and I was able to use it to bring her blood sugar up to normal.
If this happened to the Metrolink engineer, it would explain the missed or ignored signals.
The question becomes then, did Metrolink know of his diabetes and, if so, why was he allowed to run a train?
Just because the man had diabetes, that doesn't automatically mean he passed out.
He still sent a text message before the crash.
Reality TV is to reality, what Professional Wrestling is to Professional Brain Surgery.
daniel3197 wrote: Thank you so very--very much for your FIRST-HAND report on the effects of diabetes. Somehow my gut tells me the Chatsworth Metrolink engineer was definitely NOT to blame for this horrible crash. I just know something SUDDEN and strange happened to cause this wreck. I think the likely 2 (TWO) main causes of this would be Diabetic BLACK--OUT OR possibly a FALSE CLEAR Signal (Green ?? ) at the very key switch "Control Point Topanga". That is what I can figure out that fits my gut feeling of a Horrible Hellish tragedy truly ending it all for this poor stricken train (Metrolink) .As far as the major media they love manufacturing sensational headlines and soundbytes. It is very very sad and tragic what the media circus has done to the family of the engineer. If the major media was practicing REAL Journalism they would put the public interest FIRST by investigating this issue of diabetics operating public transportation vehicles (trains) . The media also very bedly needs to investigate WHY the USA still in 2008 uses such a PRIMITIVE signal system that was developed in the 1930s. I mean SHEESH!!! by now our railroad signaling systems should have many good--solid ANTI COLLISION features that would INTERVENE if any train attemped to violate any Red signal. The Amtrak Northeast Corridor HERE IN THE USA has been using Automatic Train Contol for about 20 YEARS now since the 1987 Gunpow (RIcky Gates) incident. That tragic Amtrak crash is also known as the "Chase Maryland crash. Here is the wikipedia entry for that now 21 year old event : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chase,_Maryland_rail_wreckIt is now way--way--way PAST Time that the rest of the nation enjoys the benefits of that NEC safety system. If it works RELIABLY on the very busy NEC it WILL WORK in the rest of the nation. Thank you very much Larsend and everyone else for reading my thoughts at this very very tragic and sad time for railroading !! I hope and pray that valuable safety lessons WILL be learned and INSTALLED THIS TIME around. --- Daniel --- Daniel larsend wrote:I seem to remember reading that the Metrolink engineer was a diabetic.If that was the case, his blood sugar could have unexpectedly dropped, causing him to pass out and possibly die.My wife is a diabetic and last year her blood sugar dropped. We were talking normally when she suddenly passed out. It was as if she had been hit over the head by a club. It was very sudden. Luckily we had an emergency Glucagen Hypokit and I was able to use it to bring her blood sugar up to normal.If this happened to the Metrolink engineer, it would explain the missed or ignored signals.The question becomes then, did Metrolink know of his diabetes and, if so, why was he allowed to run a train?
Freight running on the NEC, even now, does not have positive stop. The train can operate at 15 mph all day long through any signal as long as the engineer acknowledges any downward aspect change. The LSL system enforces that the train slow down to the speed for the next most restricting aspect. The most resticting aspect is "restricting".
Just after the turn of the century, the ICC required RRs to start putting in train stop of cab signals on their busiest divisions. The depression stopped all that. Since the industry as a whole still isn't revenue adequate (by the STB definition) that means they just barely have enough coming in to cover basic equipment and ROW maintenance. Funding PTC is beyond their means. Heck, even funding capacity improvments to cover the next 25 years is beyond their means.
Now, if Uncle Sam would llike to foot the bill, the RRs might change their tune.... I notice Sen Feinstein didn't mention helping to pay....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd wrote: Now, if Uncle Sam would llike to foot the bill, the RRs might change their tune.... I notice Sen Feinstein didn't mention helping to pay....
I am sure that is what she has in mind.
ButchKnouse wrote: Just because the man had diabetes, that doesn't automatically mean he passed out.
That is true.
ButchKnouse wrote: He still sent a text message before the crash.
What time did he send that text message? He could have sent it when he was stopped at the station.... I have sent text messages to people who are right next to me, but it will not send for a little, then it will "hang in cyber-space" for a little longer, then it will be recieved by my friend's phone. What should have been a 2sec text message, took around 2minutes.
wyomingrailfan wrote: BaltACD wrote: wyomingrailfan wrote:I'm am considering joining the Air Force and that jobs allows no naps....ever.Don't kid yourself! I'm not. No, seriously I am, which is odd because I like trains. But I like aviation too-a lot.
actually the air force has several jobs that allow and expect you to take naps, when you can, wherever you can.
Ever wonder how you get a jet to fly 15 hours to its bomb run and 15 hours back with two pilots, ones always taking a nap!
I did a tour with the AF and believe you'll learn to take a nap almost every chance you get
inch
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/4309
inch53 wrote: wyomingrailfan wrote:I'm am considering joining the Air Force and that jobs allows no naps....ever.I did a tour with the AF and believe you'll learn to take a nap almost every chance you getinch
Same with the Army.
greyhounds wrote: inch53 wrote: wyomingrailfan wrote:I'm am considering joining the Air Force and that jobs allows no naps....ever.I did a tour with the AF and believe you'll learn to take a nap almost every chance you getinchSame with the Army.
Same with the Marines
PaulWWoodring wrote the following post at 09-15-2008 6:02 PM:
I was really shocked to hear the spokeswoman for Metrolink admit agency culpability for the accident (their engineer's actions). First rule of any type of accident like this (or even a personal fender-bender) is say nothing, admit nothing, let the SOB's prove it! She opened the agency up to hundreds of millions of $$$$ in lawsuits without a fight. As has been said by others here, there is usually more than one factor involved in a major fatal accident. The Metrolink engineer supposedly had something like 12 years, so he's no rookie, although I've seen veteran engineers do stupid stuff as well, but less likely he'd be "texting" than a younger guy. There seems to be very little doubt at this point that the Metrolink train ran a red, but why is what the investigation will be all about. One thing that I think most would agree with, this will probably speed up the process of installing positive train control on just about every passenger route in the U. S.
Re Ms Tyrell. I think she was pretty upset bout this. Also the following was on Metrolinks web site:
9/14/08 STATEMENT FROM RON ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY (METROLINK) REGARDING THE COLLISION BETWEEN A METROLINK COMMUTER TRAIN AND A UNION PACIFIC FREIGHT TRAIN ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2008 IN CHATSWORTH, CA. Metrolink staff has recently made comments regarding the possible cause of the September 12, 2008 tragedy in Chatsworth. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has characterized these comments as premature and has ordered Metrolink to withhold further comments at this time, pending investigation, and we agree.
Last comment I heard Ms Tyrell was (not sure of a good word here) suspended from her Media duties.
http://www.mdrails.com/images/balcony_falls_csx.jpg
Signals could be confusing especially when you have the Sun, Fog, Rain and Railfans as distraction.
http://home.comcast.net/~pugopolis/gth5.html
"I am just curious to ask why the locomotive engineer from Metrolink did not survive the impact but the guy's in the Union Pacific came out with scratches? If was head collision for both locomotives would they have the same rate of fatalities? - Awesome!"
My guess, is that the UP had an anti-ride up plate (do not know the exact name) while the Metro did not have this plate. The plate (from what I hear) prevents the coupler from the (in this case) Metro from riding up into the UP cab. I could be wrong though...
Snoq. Pass RR wrote: "I am just curious to ask why the locomotive engineer from Metrolink did not survive the impact but the guy's in the Union Pacific came out with scratches? If was head collision for both locomotives would they have the same rate of fatalities? - Awesome!"My guess, is that the UP had an anti-ride up plate (do not know the exact name) while the Metro did not have this plate. The plate (from what I hear) prevents the coupler from the (in this case) Metro from riding up into the UP cab. I could be wrong though...
Correct. Also, as I understand it, the UPs are biggerand heavier than the Metro, and there was a second UP behind the first where Metro had a coach. so the Metro train gave and the UP held fast.
-Morgan
Flashwave wrote: Snoq. Pass RR wrote: "I am just curious to ask why the locomotive engineer from Metrolink did not survive the impact but the guy's in the Union Pacific came out with scratches? If was head collision for both locomotives would they have the same rate of fatalities? - Awesome!"My guess, is that the UP had an anti-ride up plate (do not know the exact name) while the Metro did not have this plate. The plate (from what I hear) prevents the coupler from the (in this case) Metro from riding up into the UP cab. I could be wrong though...Correct. Also, as I understand it, the UPs are biggerand heavier than the Metro, and there was a second UP behind the first where Metro had a coach. so the Metro train gave and the UP held fast.
It would be the locomotive same size and weight? Would they have the same kinertic energy at 40MPH?
Awesome wrote: Flashwave wrote: Snoq. Pass RR wrote: "I am just curious to ask why the locomotive engineer from Metrolink did not survive the impact but the guy's in the Union Pacific came out with scratches? If was head collision for both locomotives would they have the same rate of fatalities? - Awesome!"My guess, is that the UP had an anti-ride up plate (do not know the exact name) while the Metro did not have this plate. The plate (from what I hear) prevents the coupler from the (in this case) Metro from riding up into the UP cab. I could be wrong though...Correct. Also, as I understand it, the UPs are biggerand heavier than the Metro, and there was a second UP behind the first where Metro had a coach. so the Metro train gave and the UP held fast. It would be the locomotive same size and weight? Would they have the same kinertic energy at 40MPH?
Nope. I could dig through the first page and find the exact makes, but the UPs were much bigger than the Metro engine. it would be akin to one brick hitting two larger bricks, one behind the other.
The bigger hammer will always win.
BaltACD wrote: Awesome wrote: Flashwave wrote: Snoq. Pass RR wrote: "I am just curious to ask why the locomotive engineer from Metrolink did not survive the impact but the guy's in the Union Pacific came out with scratches? If was head collision for both locomotives would they have the same rate of fatalities? - Awesome!"My guess, is that the UP had an anti-ride up plate (do not know the exact name) while the Metro did not have this plate. The plate (from what I hear) prevents the coupler from the (in this case) Metro from riding up into the UP cab. I could be wrong though...Correct. Also, as I understand it, the UPs are biggerand heavier than the Metro, and there was a second UP behind the first where Metro had a coach. so the Metro train gave and the UP held fast. It would be the locomotive same size and weight? Would they have the same kinertic energy at 40MPH?The UP train had 2 units and 17 cars (I think) which would have been in the neighborhood of 1000 to 1500 tons, plus the 400 ton mass of the two units.....the Metrolink train was a single engine and 3 cars (I think)....a total mass of less than 500 tons. The bigger hammer will always win.
What puzzles me about this incident, is that if the preliminary reports are correct, and the Metrolink engineer did not apply any brakes prior to impact, when the trains collided why wasn't the entire Metrolink train just shoved backwards (or off to the side, as this happened on a curve)?
Why did the locomotive get shoved straight back into the first coach? With only the weight of three free-rolling coaches behind the locomotive, I wouldn't think the weight of the coaches would be of sufficient mass to resist the backwards motion of the locomotive of the commuter train (after it was hit), to the point of providing so much resistance that the kinetic energy was sufficient to overcome the draft gear structure, and cause the 'telescoping' that happened.
The new locomotives from EMD and GE are not your old time engine.
The new "ACEs" that UP (and other big railroads) have been buying have Sound and Vibration Isolated, Armored Cabs designed to protect the Crews, Black Boxes, and the Video Camera. They have the "Anti-Climber" plate on the front end designed to drive any object they hit, down, away from the cab.
As they look into this, it's possible the NTSB will find the UP Freight won the crash impact. That the much lighter Metrolink Locomotive was driven backwards from the point of impact into the lead car. The coach vestibule is designed to crush (remember that when you move forward into the Vestibule prior to a stop) but, why was the FRAME of the double deck coach not strong enough to hold back entry of the Diesel into the passenger compartment?
Don U. TCA 73-5735
I don't understand why the UP cab came out better off than the Metrolink cab.
The trailing tonnage and mass of each locomotive is pretty much irrelevant. It's really just a matter of "where'd the energy go"?
I believe that both cabs were built to the current FRA std which includes anti-climbers and stonger and bigger collision posts, so I don't understand why their was so much deformation of the Metrolink cab and not much at all on the UP cab. It should have been close to a tie.
oltmannd wrote: I don't understand why the UP cab came out better off than the Metrolink cab.The trailing tonnage and mass of each locomotive is pretty much irrelevant. It's really just a matter of "where'd the energy go"? I believe that both cabs were built to the current FRA std which includes anti-climbers and stonger and bigger collision posts, so I don't understand why their was so much deformation of the Metrolink cab and not much at all on the UP cab. It should have been close to a tie.
I know the F59PH was built to an older crash worthiness standard, EMD got out of the passenger locomotive market (at least for now) and one of the reasons is difficulty in reengineering their product line to meet the new standard....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
oltmannd wrote: The trailing tonnage and mass of each locomotive is pretty much irrelevant. It's really just a matter of "where'd the energy go"?
If 2300 tons collides with 250 tons, I would think that the mass is ALL that matters. F=MA.
WHERE the energy (force) goes would be determined by structural designs.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.