Yesterday (Thursday), the Bergen Record newspaper of Hackensack had another editorial ("Frosty in Hoboken") about the commuter amenities in Hoboken Terminal. This editorial was more focused than the first editorial on the lack of response from NJT personnel, and was very sarcastic.
Today, the paper carried a long opinion piece on the same topic ("To NJ Transit, a toilet is an amenity"), which again heavily criticized NJTransit management. The writer also criticized Governor Christie for his support of the NJTransit Chairman and the Commissioner of the DOT, writng that this is just short of "Heckuva job, Brownie."
The writer also mentioned that he commutes through Hoboken Terminal daily, and has yet to see any work crews other than at the PATH station. Appearently, this issue has now become personal. Hopefully, this means that media pressure on NJT will continue.
The link to the Bergen Record is www.northjersey.com. For reasons unknown to me, I cannot insert any links directly to newspaper articles into any of my documents.
John WR MidlandMike Maybe if they move the shops they will relocate the whole yard, and avoid future salt water problems. Henry has pointed out the DL&W had a facility in Denville.
MidlandMike Maybe if they move the shops they will relocate the whole yard, and avoid future salt water problems.
Henry has pointed out the DL&W had a facility in Denville.
Denville is handy to that suburban end of line whereas the meadows is handy to the terminal zone. Would it be useful to retain a facility for normal terminal zone operations?
MidlandMike IIRC the shops at this yard were also flooded. Maybe if they move the shops they will relocate the whole yard, and avoid future salt water problems.
IIRC the shops at this yard were also flooded. Maybe if they move the shops they will relocate the whole yard, and avoid future salt water problems.
OvermodNot moving the trains was nothing more sinister than bureaucratic stupidity (imho).
Specific individuals made decisions to store locomotives and cars in the Kearny repair facility. The decisions were unrelated to the bureaucratic structure. In the hearings Executive Director Jim Weinberg explained the basis for the decision was that management officials had never experienced such a severe storm and therefore they ignored the weather forecasts.
If there is a silver lining in this tragedy -- it is that next time they'll be smrt enough to move!
I'd like to think that it won't be Chicken Little overreaction, like Rita after Katrina. But considering the cost of the NJT assets, and the certainty of enormous repair cost for even partial flooding, erring on the 'conservative' side -- and having a coherent rapid-response plan to move equipment -- would be a good thing to see.
Historical analogy: After the Titanic sinking, White Star went massively overboard on lifesaving equipment, extending to having lifeboats in rotating davit arrangements for rapid loading, on the then-building Britannic,
In 1915, the Britannic, loaded with injured soldiers, hit a mine (and probably suffered a coal-dust explosion) and sank in less than 35 minutes, heeling over so that some of the fancy lifeboats were blocked. ow many were drowned?
RME
Overmod ... Not moving the trains was nothing more sinister than bureaucratic stupidity (imho). No need to inject political supposition -- or broad-brush caricature of Republicans or the current NJ administration -- into this discussion. The magnitude of the storm surge was recognized long before it reached the Jersey coast and the upper harbor, and any idiot knows (1) there will be waves on top of that surge, and (2) look at a topo map if you have to, and see if any of your assets lie below the level that is coming... if you are going to imply that NJT people voluntarily put their heads in the sand for some bureaucratic/career reason, or to 'satisfy' some perceived political agenda or propaganda .. I can only say 'show me the cites' before you should expect me to give it credence. ... RME
...
Not moving the trains was nothing more sinister than bureaucratic stupidity (imho). No need to inject political supposition -- or broad-brush caricature of Republicans or the current NJ administration -- into this discussion. The magnitude of the storm surge was recognized long before it reached the Jersey coast and the upper harbor, and any idiot knows (1) there will be waves on top of that surge, and (2) look at a topo map if you have to, and see if any of your assets lie below the level that is coming... if you are going to imply that NJT people voluntarily put their heads in the sand for some bureaucratic/career reason, or to 'satisfy' some perceived political agenda or propaganda .. I can only say 'show me the cites' before you should expect me to give it credence.
Earlier in this thread there was a reference to statements made by the NJT official that he was aware of the weatherman's reports but he made the conscious decision to rely on historical precedent that the meadow yard had not flooded in previous hurricanes. The magnitude of the storm surge was predicted but it's accuracy can't be known until it happens. I take them at their word that they believed it would not flood, and would not accuse them of letting the equipment flounder for "career reason, or to 'satisfy' some perceived political agenda..." Decisions are based on values, and disregard of climate extremes seems to be a consistent underlying theme (IMHO).
blue streak 1 Maybe the bureaucratic stupidity came from statements from higher ups maybe months prior to "SANDY" stating that the persons expressing alarm were a bunch of kooks. "IRENE" was a big fluke. Mind sets can come from months of statements from you[r] supervisor(s).
Time to break out the tinfoil hat, Alice. And the wire brush.
Go back and look at the meteorological data for Sandy ... for any hurricane, for that matter. Tell me how long between when the disturbance reaches hurricane force, and the time it makes continental landfall. [Hint: it is not a month, let alone 'months'. No amount of down-the-rabbit-hole 'logic' will refute this.
A somewhat better theory is to ignore the reported growth or magnitude of the storm. It's no longer possible to be taken by surprise as those poor bastids on Long Island, having their little 'storm parties' in 1938, were. We havwe satellites. We have cameras. We have hysterical weatherpeople blowing every little event into a Major Risk Event... but they also provide us with plehty of tools and resources, even as reported over the air, to understand what is going on and what the implications are likely to be.
I am reasonably sure that somewhere in the PA infrastructure there are people who understand how tides work, and understand that the direction can influence the rise of level (ever been to the Bay of Fundy?) Now the storm track is known, and hence the effective direction of the surge mass is known, and it is not rocket science to figure out what the effective surge level at some point of interest up the Harbor or into the Hudson is going to be. And even if not, the calculations can be done HOURS before the storm surge begins to make levels rise.
Now if supervisors are too stupid to ignore this, or don't have the education or the training or the insight or the resolve to go look at the data -- well, what they got was its own reward. But your claim that it reflects some longstanding bias against climate change or whatever is... well, Bill and Ted had an excellent word for it.
Overmod [Not moving the trains was nothing more sinister than bureaucratic stupidity (imho). No need to inject political supposition -- or broad-brush caricature of Republicans or the current NJ administration -- into this discussion. The magnitude of the storm surge was recognized long before it reached the Jersey coast and the upper harbor, RME
[Not moving the trains was nothing more sinister than bureaucratic stupidity (imho). No need to inject political supposition -- or broad-brush caricature of Republicans or the current NJ administration -- into this discussion. The magnitude of the storm surge was recognized long before it reached the Jersey coast and the upper harbor, RME
MidlandMikeWhen it comes to weather, remember NJ has a Republican administration, and the party line is that climate change is not believable . Recall earlier in this thread there was a study on how climate change would effect NJT (IIRC it was sponsered by a Hoboken democrat). When the study was completed it was, as they say, dead on arrival. It also concluded that they would have 20 years to prepare. So as the hurricane approached, there might be a tendency to regard the extreme storm serge as more alarmist exaggeration by those same climate scientist. Instead they decided a bigger threat was inland valley flooding, which they had seen in previous hurricanes. This also explains why the administration is not pressing the issue.
That's not what he meant, and you know it.
Even down here in Tennessee, online railroad groups were commenting about how the storm was going to be not only severe, but a 'perfect' confluence of two weather patterns. Tracking it at least five days before it actually hit. Commenting on how the weather was beginning to influence theinfrastructure as the storm was only just arriving.
If you want a true example of a fleet being caught without adequate warning, look at the Martz buses in Wilkes-Barre during the Agnes-generated flood. If we were talking something like a supercell tornado system, then there might be some justification for not moving a large number of cars expediently. That just wasn't the case for Sandy.
John WR MidlandMikeThis also explains why the administration is not pressing the issue. Well, Mike, your explanation is consistent with the facts here. But I think the idea that all Republicans ignore weather reports and prefer to deny global warming is a bit of a stretch.
MidlandMikeThis also explains why the administration is not pressing the issue.
Well, Mike, your explanation is consistent with the facts here. But I think the idea that all Republicans ignore weather reports and prefer to deny global warming is a bit of a stretch.
I'm not so cynical that I think that everyone in that or any party all think in lockstep. I don't know that the NJT managers are affiliated with any party, but they know the institutional culture they operate in. The cynical explanation seems to fit in this case.
John WR MidlandMikeFor a political appointee to admit a $100 million mistake, it would be a career ending event. For the kind of salaries NJT management makes why didn't they realize that substituting their judgement for weather reports by the best experts around was not a good decision?
MidlandMikeFor a political appointee to admit a $100 million mistake, it would be a career ending event.
For the kind of salaries NJT management makes why didn't they realize that substituting their judgement for weather reports by the best experts around was not a good decision?
When it comes to weather, remember NJ has a Republican administration, and the party line is that climate change is not believable . Recall earlier in this thread there was a study on how climate change would effect NJT (IIRC it was sponsered by a Hoboken democrat). When the study was completed it was, as they say, dead on arrival. It also concluded that they would have 20 years to prepare. So as the hurricane approached, there might be a tendency to regard the extreme storm serge as more alarmist exaggeration by those same climate scientist. Instead they decided a bigger threat was inland valley flooding, which they had seen in previous hurricanes. This also explains why the administration is not pressing the issue.
John WR MidlandMikeAnyway what I am advocating is that they survey their yards for weather and geologic hazards, and make contingency plans for their next natural disaster. Mike, That is a wise recommendation. As I understand it that is exactly what NJT is doing. While we here and other observers agree storing equipment in the Kearney yard was not a good idea it is not at all clear that NJT management sees this as a mistake. And the legislators charged with overseeing them seem inclined not to dispute their view.
MidlandMikeAnyway what I am advocating is that they survey their yards for weather and geologic hazards, and make contingency plans for their next natural disaster.
Mike,
That is a wise recommendation. As I understand it that is exactly what NJT is doing.
While we here and other observers agree storing equipment in the Kearney yard was not a good idea it is not at all clear that NJT management sees this as a mistake. And the legislators charged with overseeing them seem inclined not to dispute their view.
For a political appointee to admit a $100 million mistake, it would be a career ending event.
We have another shot at NJT's lack of planning
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/17/storm-sandy-njt-idUSL1E9CGEFO20130117
henry6 oltmannd So, you park'em one per block. The following trains could wheel up to the stop signal at medium (30mph) speed. Jitney sweeps along the line and collects the crews. QED Go read the timetables, schedules, books of rules, operating procedures, etc. before you comment further. This is for your own sake...
oltmannd So, you park'em one per block. The following trains could wheel up to the stop signal at medium (30mph) speed. Jitney sweeps along the line and collects the crews. QED
So, you park'em one per block. The following trains could wheel up to the stop signal at medium (30mph) speed. Jitney sweeps along the line and collects the crews. QED
Go read the timetables, schedules, books of rules, operating procedures, etc. before you comment further. This is for your own sake...
You get an approach signal, the rule is medium speed prepared to stop at the next signal.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
John, I think we can all agree that storing equipment in a yard located in a salt marsh during a record storm serge is not a good idea. I always wondered why so much equipment was located there, rather than at the outer suburban yards where I would have expected it to be at the end of the day they shut down. I'm guessing some of it was relocated from Bay Head.
Anyway what I am advocating is that they survey their yards for weather and geologic hazards, and make contingency plans for their next natural disaster.
MidlandMikeThe point I was trying to get across is that a better plan may be to have designated storage yards that have been pre-evaluated as to survivability for various weather situations which may be predicted.
That is a valid point. Certainly if we are looking for a place to store rail equipment (or anything) in the event of a severe storm we should try to find the best place available.
In this case there was a storm that was the worst in recorded history. We cannot expect advance preparation for it since there was insufficient reason to expect it. But what NJT might have done upon hearing the weather reports was to look around and see what was available. To the extent higher ground yards were available they could have been used. And if more storage was needed higher ground mainline track could have been used also.
No doubt there would have been problems. A generally confused situation, fallen trees and even downed wires. But severe salt water damage could have been avoided.
I'm sure there are different ways to park trains out on the line, but this seems a last resort. The point I was trying to get across is that a better plan may be to have designated storage yards that have been pre-evaluated as to survivability for various weather situations which may be predicted.
henry6 MidlandMike [ So you would ignore safety rules, perhaps have a train run past a signal at speed greater than visual limit, hit the back of a parked train and crush the engineer. It would be better it the train was left to the flood. No you don't ignore anything. There are rules, regulations, etc. which allows for all kinds of operations in an emergency or out of the ordinary procedures. Doesn't any railfan today know about schedules, timetables, books of rules, special rules, etc? In short doesn't any railfans know how a railroad operates?
MidlandMike [ So you would ignore safety rules, perhaps have a train run past a signal at speed greater than visual limit, hit the back of a parked train and crush the engineer. It would be better it the train was left to the flood.
[
So you would ignore safety rules, perhaps have a train run past a signal at speed greater than visual limit, hit the back of a parked train and crush the engineer. It would be better it the train was left to the flood.
No you don't ignore anything. There are rules, regulations, etc. which allows for all kinds of operations in an emergency or out of the ordinary procedures. Doesn't any railfan today know about schedules, timetables, books of rules, special rules, etc? In short doesn't any railfans know how a railroad operates?
In my original post I said "Then the next train approaches until the red signal and then proceeds at reduced speed until it comes up to the first parked train." I think your reply was "D--- the signals..." which lead me to believe that you were ignoring safety. Various rules sometimes allow you to proceed at restrictive speed past a red signal depending on the situation, but they don't allow you to just ignore the signal.
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.
MidlandMikeAs I said in my original post, the trains should be left in non flood prone yards, not the ones that were predicted to flood.
I agree. And I would add that they were left in one of the worst places that existed.
John WR MidlandMikeLet's think some more about the idea of parking trains out on mainlines rather than yards, before a hurricane. It is true, Mike. All of the problems you foresee might have happened. And they might not have happened. Probably some would have and some wouldn't have and it would have taken a while to get everything untangled. Instead of that NJT choose the worst possible option: The swamp. The information they had -- the weather prediction -- was that the place would flood. They ignored that information and didn't even try to save their equipment. John
MidlandMikeLet's think some more about the idea of parking trains out on mainlines rather than yards, before a hurricane.
It is true, Mike. All of the problems you foresee might have happened. And they might not have happened. Probably some would have and some wouldn't have and it would have taken a while to get everything untangled.
Instead of that NJT choose the worst possible option: The swamp. The information they had -- the weather prediction -- was that the place would flood. They ignored that information and didn't even try to save their equipment.
John
As I said in my original post, the trains should be left in non flood prone yards, not the ones that were predicted to flood.
henry6 Signals be damned...this is an emergency...rules applications and radio communications under close supervision would get the job done. The job can be done if one has the conviction to get it done.
Signals be damned...this is an emergency...rules applications and radio communications under close supervision would get the job done. The job can be done if one has the conviction to get it done.
henry6There is something about the computer systems and power cars and power available from the locomotive not so much to pull but to power the trainsets...it was discussed earlier...
Perhaps things have changed since those not very good old days, Henry. When NJT first began it seems that a train would break down every month or two. I was either on the broken down train or on the next train that had to push it. But once NJT got new locomotives the breakdowns stopped. It has been many years since I've been on a train that broke down.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.