Serious Metro North Derailment

[nkalanaga]

News reports keep mentioning the locomotive's data recorders.  Do the cab cars also have data recorders?  The engineer has been quoted as saying he applied the brakes and nothing happened.  It would be interesting to compare the two sets of data.

If the cab car says the brakes were applied, and the loco says they weren't, that could raise some very troubling questions about push-pull operations.  On the other hand, if the two data sets agree, and the brakes were applied late, that would clearly be operator error.

Apparently I, and other armchair investigators, were wrong, and it wasn't a track problem.

I originally asked what the speed limit is before the curve, but a few minutes later found this on WCBS's website:
"Two event recorders from the train have been examined, and preliminary information indicates that the train went through the curve just ahead of the station at 82 mph, in a zone where the speed limit drops from 70 mph to 30 mph, according to NTSB board member Earl Weener."
So it was speeding before reaching the curve.  That doesn't look good.

[C855B]

Ruh-roh... http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/metro-north-derailment-report-100573.html

[Philip H]

If he had zero'd out, what was he doing in that train?

[C855B]

I'm seeing more and more news coverage of this accident drift into discussions about PTC, and that it should be "universal", or at very least aggressively mandated on lines with passenger traffic. I'm not versed in exactly how this will change operations - though I can edu-conjecture - but it will change them.

[PJPickard]

So it is now widely reported the engineer was asleep...don't the controls have a "dead mans" feature? I am pretty certain many engines do.

Also I was wondering....I have spent a lot of time commuting (not on metro north) and being a railfan type I am certain that if I was on that train(and if I was a regular rider on it) I would have noticed we were going too fast. I just always pay attention to stuff like that.  I rode that exact route in June while at the NYC historical society convention.

Do the cars have a air brake pull handle the passengers can get access to? I know the NYC subway cars do. Then I have to wonder if they did if I would have gone for it...I'd like to think I would have, but its hard to say. To slow from track speed to 30mph for the curve must take what, about 1/2 mile,  so you would have roughly 20+ seconds to realize you were going to fast, and then to act.


What about the conductor? I wonder why he/she didn't notice the excess speed and radio the engineer.

Paul

[C855B]

So it is now widely reported the engineer was asleep...don't the controls have a "dead mans" feature? I am pretty certain many engines do.
...

All engines do. The "dead man" feature (like a pedal or lever) morphed a long time ago into a system which monitors the common locomotive controls, checking to see if any control was moved in the last X seconds. Exceed the time limit, you get a buzzer, which you can either acknowledge directly on the alerter or twiddle with something to let it know somebody is still at the helm. Exceed X+Y, and things start shutting down. This is usually not a problem because you're blowing the horn more often than one would think.

If (...conjecture time...) the alerter timeout was something like 60 seconds, which is in my experience where many are set, on a commuter train with high accel/decel rates and things like 30mph curves inserted into 70+mph territory... well... you can get into a boatload of trouble in 60 seconds. I did an engineering study 40 years ago on the SP commute trains, and discovered that in the right circumstances the train was achieving 0-60 in about 30-40 seconds.

[packers#1]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/03/us/new-york-train-crash/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Not an official report, but considering that these remarks caused the NTSB to remove the union from the investigation, I'd say they're true

[nkalanaga]

This is mentioned in the article Sawyer Berry links to, but I read some of the reports years ago.  Studies have clearly shown that it's possible to continue functioning while asleep.  Both train crews and truck drivers have been shown to be able to operate while basically unconscious as long as nothing unusual happens.  In one study, done with one of the Canadian railroads, an engineer ran for several blocks, adjusting speed as needed for curves and grades, with his eyes open, and the EKG showed he was asleep.  When they shunted a signal, and gave a red block where he "always" had a green, he went right through it.  Truckers can do the same thing if they know the road well, and I'm sure I'VE done it driving home after working a long night.  The operator looks awake, and works the controls as if awake, but is basically on autopilot.

[Chris333]

I'm surprised there isn't some sort of automation that wouldn't allow a train to travel that fast in an area like a sharp curve. Like something that at least trips the brakes. Don't subways have something like this?

[packers#1]

I'm surprised there isn't some sort of automation that wouldn't allow a train to travel that fast in an area like a sharp curve. Like something that at least trips the brakes. Don't subways have something like this?

I'm pretty sure that's what they're talking about Positive Train Control for; from what I've read, situations like this is exactly why it was invented. However, I too am surprised there wasn't already automation for this curve, considering dropping to thirty is cutting the speed limit down by over half

[C855B]

As I said above, I'm concerned about the open discussion of PTC in the generic-media news coverage of this accident. PTC was mentioned at least in concept by the press after a similar inattention incident in Los Angeles a little while back, and it resulted in some policy adjustments.

This time PTC is being talked about outright in the most active media market in the world. Frankly, with all the attention I am worried that this will turn into a PTC mandate for all passenger-carrying lines. That will have a chilling effect on Amtrak's long-distance service since many of their trains run on secondary and tertiary mains that in no way can justify the millions it will take to upgrade to PTC. We're talking about the Southwest Chief over Raton, Cal Zephyr across Nebraska, and the Coast Starlight between San Jose and Santa Barbara, for starters. Heck, over Raton the two Amtrak trains are the only thing on the line, and the conversion from semaphores (!!!) and signal lines still on poles to PTC will be a massive undertaking. Like that's gonna happen.

[conrail98]

As I said above, I'm concerned about the open discussion of PTC in the generic-media news coverage of this accident. PTC was mentioned at least in concept by the press after a similar inattention incident in Los Angeles a little while back, and it resulted in some policy adjustments.

This time PTC is being talked about outright in the most active media market in the world. Frankly, with all the attention I am worried that this will turn into a PTC mandate for all passenger-carrying lines. That will have a chilling effect on Amtrak's long-distance service since many of their trains run on secondary and tertiary mains that in no way can justify the millions it will take to upgrade to PTC. We're talking about the Southwest Chief over Raton, Cal Zephyr across Nebraska, and the Coast Starlight between San Jose and Santa Barbara, for starters. Heck, over Raton the two Amtrak trains are the only thing on the line, and the conversion from semaphores (!!!) and signal lines still on poles to PTC will be a massive undertaking. Like that's gonna happen.

According to this it is:

https://www.aar.org/safety/Pages/Positive-Train-Control.aspx#.Up9cNqW-Sfs

The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA) requires Class I railroads to install PTC systems on tracks that carry passengers or toxic-by-inhalation (TIH) materials. Based on a January 2012 final Federal Railroad Administration rule, AAR estimates that PTC technology will have to be deployed on approximately 63,000 miles of U.S. freight rail lines. This will involve the installation of PTC capability on thousands of locomotives; a large, new wireless communications network and tens of thousands of track-side devices connected to signals, switches and other wayside devices.

As originally written, the RSIA mandated that PTC be put into service by the end of 2015. Since enactment of the legislation, railroads have devoted enormous human and financial resources to develop a fully functioning PTC system, and progress to date has been substantial.

So yes, it is happening, and it's happening everywhere that meets the criteria above. The Raton line will go away and so will the Chief, the writing has been on the wall for quite some time now,

Phil

[C855B]

The AAR piece is wishful PR fluff. 2015 ain't gonna happen. I've seen too many similar mandates get pushed back because the timeline was unrealistic given the physical effort, and that was relatively minor things like rolling stock safety updates. The TIH wording means pretty much every hunk of track other than maybe power plant spurs for coal traffic.

However, I agree that Raton is a goner. The Chief will probably just get moved to the Transcon, they'll simply serve Albuquerque from Belen. I'm actually more concerned about the Cal-Z on the ex-CB&Q across Nebraska, 'cause UP isn't about to let them on their tracks, and BNSF's corresponding line to Powder Valley is way over capacity as it is, bottlenecked at Grand Island. It's a mess up there.

[nkalanaga]

Off topic, but "I'm actually more concerned about the Cal-Z on the ex-CB&Q across Nebraska, 'cause UP isn't about to let them on their tracks".

Does anyone here remember Hank Williams' "California Zephyr" song?  The worst line was "The Union Pacific's queen", but he also had it routed through Santa Fe on the way from L.A. to Colorado...