FRA reform and Amtrak

[bretton88]

FRA Reform

Before you dismiss these as the ramblings of some nobody in the northeast, I've heard these ideas from several of my professional colleagues. Its a real issue among us planners. Now, I know we have railroad men here, and they can dissect this at will whether any of this is a good idea. I'd love to hear opinions and criticisms. As I said, this is a real debate in the "suits and ties" circle, aka planners, like me.

 

[RCrierie]

Go look up some of the rather gruesome HSF accidents in Germany and Japan with 90+ Fatalities; and then look at the death counts from local heavy rail systems that don't have to comply with FRA regulations -- Washington DC Metro.

This is why Buff Strength is good

More Buff Strength is good II -- a 34% fatality rate of the people on board the train -- out of 295 people on it; 101 died.

More Buff Strength is good III -- 15% fatality rate. Out of over 700 on board, 107 die.

BTW; guess what? the DC Metro collision should never have occured!

"Train 112 rear-ended Train 214,[4] which was stopped between the Takoma and Fort Totten stations while waiting for another train to leave the Fort Totten station."

Metro was built with special signalling equipment out the ass; to allow near total automatic control of the trains by computers and other equipment, with the operators only checking out the window to at each station stop to see if anyone was stuck in the doors of each car.

That....did not work out in practice.

"On June 7, 2005, a train operator in the tunnel beneath the Potomac River, between the Foggy Bottom and Rosslyn stations, had a green signal to proceed but noticed red lights ahead and engaged the emergency brakes. His train missed colliding with the one ahead of it by 35 feet, and the train behind his missed colliding by 20 feet.[35] Another incident occurred in March 2009, near the Potomac Avenue station, when one train missed colliding with another by 500 feet after the Automatic Train Protection system failed.["

So there's considerable evidence against the EUR/JAP system of "avoid collisions".

 

[Rider]

I have often seen this forum criticized for having too many undefined acronyms - but after a couple of years of reading I have finally gotten to where I usually know what is being talked about. You know, things like OBS, OTP, OP, and station codes etc.

The article and comments in this link are among the best examples of obscure writing I have seen. It does not occur to me that anything being said is anywhere near interesting enough to put much effort into trying to find out what is actually being discussed.

I don't suggest it shouldn't be here - it's an open forum and I appreciate that very much - but I'm guessing many readers of AU are still scratching their heads as I am. Anyone care to offer a plain language translation of the gist of the discussion?

 

[Ryan]

"On June 7, 2005, a train operator in the tunnel beneath the Potomac River, between the Foggy Bottom and Rosslyn stations, had a green signal to proceed but noticed red lights ahead and engaged the emergency brakes. His train missed colliding with the one ahead of it by 35 feet, and the train behind his missed colliding by 20 feet.[35] Another incident occurred in March 2009, near the Potomac Avenue station, when one train missed colliding with another by 500 feet after the Automatic Train Protection system failed.["

I don't know where you copied this from, but the Washington metro doesn't have any green signal indications.

 

[Trogdor]

Go look up some of the rather gruesome HSF accidents in Germany and Japan with 90+ Fatalities; and then look at the death counts from local heavy rail systems that don't have to comply with FRA regulations -- Washington DC Metro.

This is why Buff Strength is good

More Buff Strength is good II -- a 34% fatality rate of the people on board the train -- out of 295 people on it; 101 died.

More Buff Strength is good III -- 15% fatality rate. Out of over 700 on board, 107 die.

Fatality rates of those on board in an accident are meaningless unless also combined with statistics showing how often such crashes occur. There have been plenty of plane crashes with 100% fatality rates, yet flying is the safest mode of intercity transportation in the country.

BTW; guess what? the DC Metro collision should never have occured!
"Train 112 rear-ended Train 214,[4] which was stopped between the Takoma and Fort Totten stations while waiting for another train to leave the Fort Totten station."

Metro was built with special signalling equipment out the ass; to allow near total automatic control of the trains by computers and other equipment, with the operators only checking out the window to at each station stop to see if anyone was stuck in the doors of each car.

That....did not work out in practice.

WMATA has had a number of safety violations over the years. They are possibly one of the worst large transit operators in the nation for safety. That's not the fault of the technology, or the (lack of) buff strength of their Breda cars. If properly inspected and maintained, the technology works fine.

Vancouver has had a 100% automated (driverless) rail transit system for 25 years, and they have never had any accident caused by the computer (the only incidents they have had involved trains operating under manual control), and they run much closer headways than WMATA does (90 seconds or less during the peak).

So there's considerable evidence against the EUR/JAP system of "avoid collisions".

If there's "considerable evidence" you certainly failed to provide it, a couple of anecdotes notwithstanding.

 

[jis]

More Buff Strength is good II -- a 34% fatality rate of the people on board the train -- out of 295 people on it; 101 died.

If you honestly believe that buff strength will help save people when a bridge falls on top of a train, I do have some prime beachfront property in Nevada to offer you.

 

[RCrierie]

I don't know where you copied this from, but the Washington metro doesn't have any green signal indications.

Yes they do. It's just a different color (white) in the middle of the signal. WMATA signalling showing the 'stop' signal.

The source for that claim was a Washington Post article, which is not expected to be totally versed in the exact colors of the WMATA signal system.

 

[Ryan]

Trust me, I'm well familiar with WMATA's signalling system. If it's a different color, then it isn't green, correct? (and technically it's "lunar", not "white")

As Trogdor already pointed out, your claims fail on a much more fundamental level than your sources not being able to get the details correct.

 

[RCrierie]

Trust me, I'm well familiar with WMATA's signalling system. If it's a different color, then it isn't green, correct? (and technically it's "lunar", not "white")

The matter of the fact remains that the operator of that train in the tunnel was given a signal to proceed ahead; that the track was clear -- it's irrevelant whether the signal was green or lunar/white -- and he found the track ahead occupied by another train.

Likewise; the June 2009 collision was a result of faulty signals incorrectly reporting the track state (occupied/unoccupied) to the system.

WMATA only has to maintain 106~ miles of track; of which about half is underground and largely out of the weather; yet it's been having near continuous problems with the automated signalling and control equipment for the last twelve plus years.

This does not inspire my confidence in the "avoid collision" school of thought for railroad safety, given that I have been reading about said problems in the Washington Post's METRO section for about a decade...

***

BTW; since you appear to be a fellow DC area-er; have you read this book yet?

The Great Society Subway: A History of the Washington Metro by Zachary M. Schrag?

I found it in my local MoCo Public Library; and it has some real interesting tidbits about the Metro system buried in endless recounting of the legal/political battles to build the system -- such as proposals to have underground stations have bare rock walls and ceilings instead of the vaulted ceilings; and the problems brought on by system expansion and inadequate funding resulting in the system not meeting the design standard of eight car trains except for rush hour on certain lines.

 

[Ryan]

I have not, it's on my Amazon wishlist, but I haven't pulled the trigger on getting it yet. I never seem to remember to just stop by the library to borrow a copy.

I only pointed out the green/lunar thing because the quote was unsourced and I tend not to trust any sources that can't get basic facts correct.

Edited for spelling

 

[The Journalist]

I read that book a while ago. It was a good read. Wish I could find it again...

 

[George Harris]

EUR/JAP European / Japanese

The WMATA cars have speed commands displayed on the dashboard. White versus green is quibbling. About the same as the speed limit where the CZ was hit. I was reported in more than one place as being 80 mph, where everyone here or most at least should know that the speed limit was 79 mph. That error does not discredit the statement in the same article that the actual train speed was 78 mph.

The problem that WMATA has is a failure of detection. Simply put, the train that was struck on the section going out to Silver Spring had dissapeared from the system so that the following train thought it had a clear track in front of it. The why I do not know.

At the time WMATA was designed there was a great faith that technology would solve all problems. Unfortunately this was not the way things worked out. Almost all the colissions that WMATA has had have resulted from this misplaced faith in technology. Look up and read the NTSB reports.

(NTSB = National Transportation Safety Board)

I have not read the links on crashworthiness, but I am a believer thatr more than you get in European standards is better. At least with the long earodynamic nose on high speed trainsets, there is a nice long crumple zone.

 

[Ryan]

The WMATA cars have speed commands displayed on the dashboard. White versus green is quibbling.

It's not quibbling, it's attempting to evaluate the value of an unknown source. If a writer can't bother to get the details right, I'm not going to put a whole lot of faith in anything else the writer has to say on the topic.
Now knowing that it was the Washington Post, it makes sense.