The Chicago derailment

[Anonymous]

How many of you were aware of the train derailment up in Chicago?I heard that the train was speeding

[Anonymous]

Yes the train was speeding. The train was doing around 60 mph in a 10 mph. crossover. The two units were the new MP-36phi or something like that. The leading unit had some significant damage. Hope this helps.

[JoeKoh]

ouch!
stay safe
joe

[eolafan]

This derailment was on the old Rock Island line that paralells the Dan Ryan Expressway, and yes the train was doing 69 mph approaching a 10 mph crossover signal (red over green) and supposedly (according to the Chicago Tribune this morning) the engineer either did not see or ignored that signal (two signals actually). I had to wonder if the signal was a dwarf signal close to the ground or one on a signal bridge overhead. The locomotives in question seem to me to have the engineers seating position quite a bit further back than those on the EMD F40PH units, and also the nose of the units are much longer than the F40 and are sloped so that I could understand an engineer not seeing a signal close to the ground, especially at nearly 70 mph, but if the signals are on a bridge then this possibility is non existent.

[wabash1]

it dont matter if it is a dwarf signal or a mast signal you can see the signal . either he didnt see the correct signal ( either a light burned out or interpted wrong) and the result was a derailment. from a distance you can see the signal on the ground or above. i would venture to say he had the wrong indication showing. not many engineers would run 50 mph over the speed limit on perpose.

[wabash1]

2 more questions

1) is the metra on cab signal system?
2) what did the tapes read was he in emergency before he derailed. did the signal system show on the tapes and was the indication a diverging clear .

my previous statement is made due to the fact if the red aspect was out it would be interpited as a clear not diverging and it would be kept secreat from the public.

[Anonymous]

Oh c'mon Wabash......the carrier would never keep safety issues or malfunctions from the public. Look at the remote safety issue. The companies safety records differ from the BLE's. Of course we believe the company...............yeah right.
Ken

[eolafan]

Wabash, I do believe METRA is on a cab signal system, and NO he was not in emergency when he went into the cross-over.

[Mookie]

It sound like, to me, that no matter what signals were in use, the engineer was just plain going too fast! I can be so profound at some times! Any further word on engineer impairment? And where was the conductor?

Maybe like the NY ferry captain - and the Mookie on any car ride - couldn't stay awa....

[edblysard]

Was this the crews regular run?
If so, where was the conductor?
Both are responsible for keeping the train under control.
And if it was their regular assignment, they already knew the speed limit, on tangent track or through crossovers.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[CShaveRR]

The conductor was probably busy collecting fares. I can't imagine that he was oblivious to the fact that they were on the "wrong" track and were going to cross over at 47th, but that's possible.

No cab signals on the ROCK.

The signals for 47th Street are on a signal bridge, if I read my CORA timetable graphics right. There is no way that a trained engineer could mistake a Diverging Clear with the top light out for a Clear, in broad daylight.

My suspicions are that the engineer was not fully attentive, and did not have the clear signal he claims to have had. as an "agreement" employee, I almost hate to have to say it, but it doesn't look good for him or his story.

I hope Metra installs a higher-speed crossover there, now that the original one was wiped out. Even a 20-mph (#15) crossover would be good.

[wabash1]

on a dwarf signal as stated before yes that could be seen as a clear. if it is a over head signal no mistake. he was not paying attention.

iron ken i can understand how you would take exception to the statement . I know all about the ble and the carrier fight on remotes we have had several mishaps with them and we have reported them to the fra. but because the carrier doesnt do anything to the employees operating them ( time off for rule violation) the fra wont follow up with the claim. in other words its going to take a very bad haz-mat spill with death and evacuations before anything will happen.

Ed you are right to a point. this dont haft to be the engineers regular run to be out there. the fra made a mistake ( in my opinion) when they said to be current on a territory up to a year. not 6 months like before. it might have been 11 months since this engineer made this run and he was leagle according to the carrier and the govermant..

There is other questions but i will wait til i see more information on this incedent.

[Wdlgln005]

Metra engineer says signals told him to stay on track

October 16, 2003

BY ROBERT C. HERGUTH Transportation Reporter




The engineer of the Metra train that derailed over the weekend told federal investigators that trackside signals indicated just before the incident he was to continue on the current path, not cross to adjacent tracks.

It was at that crossing point just south of 47th Street that the Metra Rock Island District Line train derailed late Sunday afternoon.

The switch had been thrown by a dispatcher for the train to cross from the easternmost tracks to the western ones. The speed limit is 10 mph at the crossover, but the train was traveling at 67 mph, just below the 70 mph limit for continuing on the straight stretch.

"The train's engineer was interviewed on Tuesday," the National Transportation Safety Board said in a Wednesday statement. "He reports that he believed the signals were set for continued operation on track 1, with no crossover movement indicated."

NTSB experts are testing the "signal system on the route . . . to determine if it is operating as designed."

Metra officials, however, have no evidence of signal malfunction.

The NTSB also noted the engineer, while holding nine years of "railroad experience," just became an engineer in July.

"The best news is everything ran on time today," said Metra spokesman Dan Schnolis, adding all damaged track has been replaced and schedules have returned to normal.

[CShaveRR]

One article I read somewhere (in more than one place) says that the approach signal (actually would have shown as Approach Diverging) may not have been changed in time for the engineer to see it.

So here's my question: is the dispatcher's console monitored by an event recorder, too? Wouldn't it be interesting if the route were lined up only a short time (we're talking seconds here) before the train hit the crossover? There has to be a point where the engineer stops looking at his clear signal and concentrates on the track beyond it. I, for one, would be interested in knowing how the two times (the time the route was lined up and the time of the incident) compare to each other.

[wabash1]

Exactly what i was waiting for. the previous signal should have been a approach diverging. if it was clear then i would keep going. all of these signals are recorded also when they are lined and when the signal was taken if he took the clear i assume that the next switch could not be lined as our dispatchers can not line a switch on us after taking the previous signal. the only exception is if we take a approch signal previous and then get a diverging approach at nest signal. ( why you ask this is because we are down to a speed that lets us stop at next signal when we get there it is procede and at the speed of the signal and track turn out speed) In my opinion if the dispatcher lined the switch the indication was that the train had not taken the previous signal and showed he had time to reroute the train.. in talking with our dispatchers the system is not perfect. they tryed lining a train who showed he was 10 miles away when he was about to take the signal they was working on lining. what happened is the signal dropped on him causing him to stop. the dispatchers had no idea he was at that signal. the rule is you dont change a signal or route with out contacting engineer to make sure he can stop his train safely before taking that signal. sounds like this didnt happen.

[eolafan]

From reports coming out of NTSB and METRA Headquarters and reported in this mornings Chicago Tribune, the rookie engineer simply ignored the signals (his first out of LaSalle staion was amber over amber telling him to slow to 10 mph) but he ignored three signal indications and....WHAM! He has been suspended without pay until the final report from NTSB.

[wabash1]

advance approach it seems like the powers to be are covering something . this signal tells me to prepare to stop at second signal. not prepare for a diverging route.

[wabash1]

advance approach it seems like the powers to be are covering something . this signal tells me to prepare to stop at second signal. not prepare for a diverging route.

[CShaveRR]

Wabash1, in the General Code of Operating Rules, amber-over-amber is in fact Approach Diverging.

Today's report says that the route was lined up in plenty of time for the engineer to see all signals connected with the move (so there goes that theory!).

[wabash1]

on that road it may be but on the 2 roads i run its advance approach, approach diverging is yellow over green. Now correct me if i am wrong but isnt the metra just a mass transit service operated on old or even current frieght rail? and that its not considered light rail but it uses regular passenger cars and engines?

[eolafan]

My understanding is (from newspaper accounts) that the signals were lined up at the time this train left LaSalle St. station and that his first signal (of three) was amber over amber, followed by amber over green, so they are saying he should have had plenty of warning of his need to prepare to cross over tracks.

[CShaveRR]

If this engineer had a yellow-over-green, it's a signal not shown in the Metra section of the CORA book (in fact, there are no signals where yellow and green appear together!).

Wabash1, I know one of "your" railroads must be the NS, and you're right about the definitions on that railroad...but they aren't Metra's!

[Anonymous]

37 years on the RR as an Engr., and I have yet to see the truth come out, when the public is involved, as far as responsibility goes, for a derailment from the carrier. There is a whole lot more at play here then the public, or the NTSB, will EVER know. His whole life is in the toilet, by the way. I KNOW !!

[wabash1]

My definition comes from the ns true. but as it was stated that this is the old rock island line, in that it is a old freight line. and that the signals may have been from that old signal system. I know it is hard to believe but as a engineer i do know that differant roads signals mean diferant things. and as some people in this forum Im slightly confused at the meaning of those signals. I know the meanings but the indication is what is confusing.

Now every body get off the floor from falling out of your seats ( ed this means you) as a engineer said he didnt know everything.

[kenneo]

CShaveRR: " ... may not have been changed in time for the engineer to see it."
Wabash1: " ... Exactly what i was waiting for. the previous signal should have been a approach diverging. if it was clear then i would keep going...."

This is a good practical excercise for our new DSt. On the SP when I was DSing, if you needed to change a signal or switch position after the locomotive of an aproaching train had departed the last control point prior, you would set the signal at "STOP" and then contact the train to get an exact location and determine if he thought he could stop prior to your changed signal. If so, and if he was 3 or more signals from your changed signal, you could bend the iron. If not, he had to come to a complete stop at the signal before you could bend the iron. That way, if he could not get stopped, all you had was a signal violation chargable to the dispatcher. No train wreck.

Incidents such as this are caused by a DS not paying attention to his job, by a DS having too much territory, or by the DS not protecting prior to authorizing.

Now, had he departed LaSalle under a restricting signal, there is no excuse for him. The signal he would have had at 47th street probably should have been red over yellow, preceeded by either a yellow over yellow or yellow over red, preceded by a yellow over yellow (dual head) or flashing yellow (signal head). (I don't know how the Rock set up its signals, so I am WAGing on the sequence of signals.)

At one time, a signal "Diverging Clear" could be given (Red over Green or Red over Lunar), but that aspect disappeared 20-25 years ago, except, perhaps, on the old Wabash.

I noticed that he had only 9 months as qualified. What you want to bet that he was the only one in the cab? Inexperience on the handle is the primary reason that firemen were required on passenger trains even though they had been removed elsewhere. Certain kinds of jobs require mentoring and experience under a trainer for a lot longer that some others, and dispatching and locomotive engineers are among them.

[wabash1]

well the signals i figure he would get was a clear ( green over red ) then a yellow over green approach diverging and then a red over yellow diverging appraoch. if the distaance is to short your yellow over yellow. if anything was changed it would have been a clear leaving then disp changed route should have went to yellow over red or a red over red over yellow. ( or yellow over yellow restricting is what you say it is on that line) this would mean get it down to a crawl. then put the blame on the disp.

One thing keeps comming to mind. where he derailed it seems like someone gave me the impression that the station was not far away ( a dozen cars or so) if not this statement dont mean nothing if so why was he running so hard I am aware that these passenger trains can piinch down real quick and stop ( not like freight) but still i see no reason to cowboy these things in at that close to a stop at that speed. I know some people get a sense of accomplishment or grattitude if they can do this ( we have something similar in freight) but when its all done the old head guys are not impressed and only self accomplishment is achived. a lot of risk for very little gain. and then the railroad wont release the truth anyways it is always the operator fault regardless of anything else.

[zardoz]

Wabash-

Running a suburban train in so close to a station is a necessity in order to make the schedule. Of course, there is some leeway, one does not have to go from "run8" to "full service" at the same spot every time; however, there is very little 'extra' time built in for a more leisurely stop, and frequently that 'extra' time is absorbed by 'runners' (late commuters running for the train that the conductors are required to wait for), people on the wrong side of the platform, or someone with multiple suitcases and kids trying to get on or off the train.

Each different length of train has different stopping differences, with the long trains (7-9 cars) stopping very quick [one 10-car train we ran on the CNW stopped so well, that you could set the brake at 70mph at one end of the station platform (15 cars long) and make a controlled station stop by the opposite end of the platform], and the shorter trains (3-4 cars) requiring longer stopping distances. By the way, I am refering to passenger car lengths (90').

And what kenneo said about the length of time allowed before one all alone in the cab is WAY too short. Sure, if everything is going well and by the book, equipment is functioning as intended, and everyone is on time, then yes, a person with only 9 months can handle it.

But when things start going wrong, and innovation and quick thinking are needed, as well as the ability of concentrating on multiple concerns (forn B orders, slow orders, tresspassers on the right-of-way, reading and understanding your schedule [where to stop, where not to], looking for the tree in the distance which is your spot to either set the brakes or to stop the train using the third coach behind two deadhead coaches, Commuter Control on the radio asking you to tell the conductor that a lady forgot her package in the third car, yadayadayada, decisions and actions are required quickly, and someone with limited experience is likely to have problems.

I am not saying this was the cause of the derailment, I was merely confirming kenneo's point. However, a situation as just described COULD be the cause of such an occurrence!

[wabash1]

See it wouldnt pay for me to work on a commuter or even a passenger t rain. If there was a lady in the 4th coach bitching about her pakages .hey sit down shut up i aint going back . train master wants what. he can kiss my and the guy would be a bug on the engine if he stayed in front of the engine. i might start out with 500 people on the train, and if they start complaining we will lose them 1 at a time and if they are a close family they all can go. freight is so much easier.

[zardoz]

Wabash-
I know, I know. What you said is how we often felt, but ya gotta follow the rules, cause most of the officials from the railroad rode home from downtown Chicago on the trains, so they had "spies" everywhere -- all little yuppie toads just waiting to be able to snitch on someone to help their own pathetic career.

But the hours were regular, and they paid by the mile, as well as overtime...made for some real high-paying jobs, with regular hours as a bonus. But lots of guys could not get over the very feelings you mentioned, that's why lots of the older guys stayed in the pool.

[kwboehm]

So, does anyone have a final verdict to the Rock Island District fiasco? Also what's the deal with the latest Metra foul up on the Milwaukee near Wetern Ave.?