the_traveler
Engineer
If you or a family member are killed or injured because "xx" bought an "off the shelf" rail car and saved some money, I'm certain you will be glad that they saved 10% and did not go with the higher strength car!
Passenger train derailment in the Bronx
- Thread starter AmtrakBlue
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
With all due respect,
(1) I don't think the Europeans or Japanese value their lives, or the lives of their family members, any less than Americans do and yet they live with "lesser" standards and haven't adopted the FRA standards.
(2) There's always a trade-off of safety and cost -- and cost here doesn't mean only monetary, but environmental, time, etc. -- and there's always another mechanism/policy/etc. that could be implemented to make things safer than now by some degree, but there's always a point where we don't add the next extra step because it would cost more than it would save. To use a cliche example, the roads could be safer if the maximum speed limit was 40, or 25, or 10 mph, but we don't impose 40 mph on expressways or 25 mph on most main roads/highways or 10mph on most residential side streets. No transport (or any other) system has actually run, or could run, on a "one fatality is too many!" basis.
(3) All else being equal, anything that makes passenger rail more expensive or difficult/inconvenient tends to make it more likely, even if only marginally, that people will drive, and we all know that train travel is safer than driving. To go back to my example, if Amtrak could buy 60 cars rather than 50 cars at the same price, it could carry more people that would otherwise be driving, some percentage of whom would have died in road accidents.
(1) I don't think the Europeans or Japanese value their lives, or the lives of their family members, any less than Americans do and yet they live with "lesser" standards and haven't adopted the FRA standards.
(2) There's always a trade-off of safety and cost -- and cost here doesn't mean only monetary, but environmental, time, etc. -- and there's always another mechanism/policy/etc. that could be implemented to make things safer than now by some degree, but there's always a point where we don't add the next extra step because it would cost more than it would save. To use a cliche example, the roads could be safer if the maximum speed limit was 40, or 25, or 10 mph, but we don't impose 40 mph on expressways or 25 mph on most main roads/highways or 10mph on most residential side streets. No transport (or any other) system has actually run, or could run, on a "one fatality is too many!" basis.
(3) All else being equal, anything that makes passenger rail more expensive or difficult/inconvenient tends to make it more likely, even if only marginally, that people will drive, and we all know that train travel is safer than driving. To go back to my example, if Amtrak could buy 60 cars rather than 50 cars at the same price, it could carry more people that would otherwise be driving, some percentage of whom would have died in road accidents.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
I substantially agree with John's position as stated above.
VentureForth
Engineer
T
train person
Guest
That's quite a rather foolish and flippant statement. The vehicles that derailed yesterday obviously complied with whatever rules regarding strength appllied at the time of their purchase, yet people still died because the emergency windows popped out allowing the passengers to be expelled from the vehicle. So applying your rather childish analogy, surely the next step is the total removal of the windows, just board them up. After all, most people are so engrossed in their i-device they probably wouldn't notice.Go one step further, strap them into their seats, after all, total safety is what you desire.
Even if the vehicles involved in yesterdays disaster where 1000 times 'stronger' (which according to you is a good thing) if the vehicles had ended up in the river, what use would that have been to the poor unfortunates? Stronger vehicle=heavier=sink quicker, so would people then be calling for rail vehicles that float?
The engineer claimed the brakes didn't respond, so regardless of how safe or unsafe a certain rail vehicle is because of how 'strong' it is, having working brakes is more of an issue than just making things 'stronger', because if the brakes had worked (if that indeed is the cause of the accident) then nobody would have died and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Would we? And that would be a much better state of affairs.
MattW
Conductor
It's been reported to be 75mph, then 70mph, then the 30mph curve, but this is third-hand, I do not know personally.
According to a Post on trainorders (which I can't Post or Link) the Metro North Train involved in the Accident was Running 82 MPH when it entered the 30 MPH Curve! It sources an NTSB Member by Name, not sure if this is True??? :unsure:
OlympianHiawatha
Engineer
If the speed limit for the section prior to the curve is 70 MPH and the train was at 82 MPH why was there not a penalty application? During the Presser Mr. Weener said the throttle went to idle 6 seconds before the crash and at the same time Brake Pressure went to zero. This is very interesting.
'tis true, just stated at press conference.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
I believe the 30mph speed limit commences at least at CP 12 about 0.4 miles from the crash location, and perhaps a little before that. So yes, something happened that still awaits an explanation if it was doing 82mph.
The speed limits mentioned are not signal speed limits. They are civil speed limits (PSR or TSR)). The MNRR system, like the old PRR system absent ACSES does not enforce civil speed limits (PSR or TSR). The train would have had "Clear" signals all the way. It was upto the engineer to keep the train at the track speed limits or below. So it is not at all surprising there was no penalty brake application.
If that business about 6sec before the crash is true then it would seem that the train had blown through speed limits approaching CP12. that does not look good for the operator on the face of it. However, only a full investigation will reveal exactly what happened.
The speed limits mentioned are not signal speed limits. They are civil speed limits (PSR or TSR)). The MNRR system, like the old PRR system absent ACSES does not enforce civil speed limits (PSR or TSR). The train would have had "Clear" signals all the way. It was upto the engineer to keep the train at the track speed limits or below. So it is not at all surprising there was no penalty brake application.
If that business about 6sec before the crash is true then it would seem that the train had blown through speed limits approaching CP12. that does not look good for the operator on the face of it. However, only a full investigation will reveal exactly what happened.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,507
The NTSB has turned the railroad back to Metro North. MN can now begin the work to reopen the tracks.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,507
The 30mph limit starts at MP 11.5 (through MP 9.9). Eastbound, prior to coming up to MP 11.5, the speed is 75.
George Harris
Engineer
What I see as foolish and flippant is your response, in fact much of it downright silly. See my response to John's statements, which will have to be given later.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryan
Court Jester
I'd be more interested in reading a substantive response then some petty insults.
You can do better.
You can do better.
N
Nathanael
Guest
And this is why Positive Train Control is being mandated. The lazy Class Is should expect NO delays in the deadline for the mandate.
NW cannonball
Conductor
Thanks Chamilton, for posting a voice of reason.
NW cannonball
Conductor
For those who haven't yet seen it, NTSB posted a "B-roll" video on their website Monday. It's a silent string of short bits, with close shots of some of the damaged railcars. Shot while the investigation and re-railing going on.
Car 6345 has been righted, and appears to have got the worst damage (about 01:24 in the video). You can see why some passengers spoke of broken windows and "eating rocks". The right side back half of that car looks it was scraped real hard on the ground, ballast, cobblestones, whatever. Ugly. But no crumpling or bending or crushing.
Car 6345 has been righted, and appears to have got the worst damage (about 01:24 in the video). You can see why some passengers spoke of broken windows and "eating rocks". The right side back half of that car looks it was scraped real hard on the ground, ballast, cobblestones, whatever. Ugly. But no crumpling or bending or crushing.
T
train person
Guest
Silly? Maybe. Just taking things to their logical conclusion….. Two ways of dealing with rail accidents, make sure you don't have them, or try to deal with the consequences of the first minute or so of whatever disaster befalls your train. One of those is easier to do, the other one not so. Taking a rather blinkered view about perceived vehicle strength seems a bit narrow minded to me. Seeing as the NTSB are saying the locomotive was still powering until some seconds before taking the curve and the brakes didn't get applied until too late, then engineer error is looking likely, and there is a similarity with the Spanish crash, lack of automatic train control when approaching a much lower speed restriction. Until that issue is addressed, car strength is just not worth getting over excited about, is it?
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Now there are reports that the Motorman dozed off and woke up too late. If that turns out to be the case then this would be a prime example of an accident that would not have occurred if PTC was in place and operational. In other words in another two years when ACSES is supposed to be in service on this segment a similar accident would become highly unlikely. I know that there are some who oppose PTC for what I consider to be pretty dubious reasons.
Ryan
Court Jester
It seems as though our efforts would be much better spent trying to prevent accidents than mitigate the consequences of a train taking a 30 MPH curve at 80 MPH, or blowing a red signal and going head on into a freight train.
And the lazy government railroads like Caltrain and Metro-North?
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Metro North just signed a contract to install ACSES in its entire network thus deploying PTC for its entire network. They will meet the 2015 deadline.
Actually most lazy government railroads will meet the deadline as it turns out. The only misses that might occur would be due to FCC issues regarding radio spectrum availability for the radio segment.
Actually most lazy government railroads will meet the deadline as it turns out. The only misses that might occur would be due to FCC issues regarding radio spectrum availability for the radio segment.
Last edited by a moderator:
