Metrolink Wreck

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
One cannot tell based upon the evidence in that photo.
One would need to see either a closeup photo of the switch or the signal on the single track section that would have been facing the freight train.

It's not possible to reach any conclusions by looking at the signals for trains going in the other direction.

But AlanB wrote:

Second, one thing that you need to understand is that the signals follow what the switch does. That's why the NTSB is insisting that the signal had to have been red. After their testing, at no time did that signal not turn to danger (or red) when the switch was set against the oncoming Metrolink train. On the other side, for the freight train, when that switch was thrown to permit the freight to come by, every time it turned that signal to clear for the freight train. This is how automated signals work.
So the engineer in the oncoming train has no idea which path he is about to take, and there is no relation between one side of a signal and the other? And next time, I should "just take the train"???

RailCon BuffDaddy
Of course the engineer of the oncoming train knows which track he's going to take.

That junction where the accident happened has 3 signals, your photo shows two of the three. The signal located along the single track section would indicate to the engineer which way the switch was set and therefore which track he would be moving on to.
 
George -

Thanks for response. Let's say I accept your answer about the direction stated in Fig. 7 p. 23. Look at Fig 8 on p. 26, which shows ONE signal on the right side of main track at CP Topanga facing West, geographically North. Here are two photos which show TWO signals, one on the right side of main track and the other on the left side of siding. Photo in NTSB report actually appears to be a cropped shot of photo #1 below, with the signal on the left just out of view. Other explanation could be that BOTH photos below are fakes - which explanation do you choose? Did NTSB crop this shot to deceive?
Again, your point escapes me entirely. Yes, on close inspection these are the same picture. A close examination shows the same people in the same positions, shadows identical, etc. Yes the NTSB picture was cropped, and it is stretched sideways somewhat. The cropping is just to the right of the left side signal mast. If you look at the position where the head of the left side signal is in the view in the NTSB report, that is approximately level with the head of the right hand signal, you can see part of the head of that signal. The presence or absence of the left hand signal and its indication are immaterial to the issue of whether or not the Metrolink ran its signal, as the right signal was the one governing his movement.

By the way, red in all directions is the default position of "home" signals on a CTC signal system. Therefore, seeing both of these signals red means only that westbound trains are to stop short of these signals. It does not indicate whether or not a train is approaching from the west, only that a westbound train is not allowed to pass this point. However, the norm is that when these signals hold a train it means that this has been the selected meeting point and there will be a train coming.

As to the one cannot tell which path is cleared for an approaching train by looking at the signals shown in the picture, that is because these signals DO NOT govern his movements. If the picture was clear enough to see the position of the switch points, then you could tell, but the resolution of the picture is not that good. As Alan says, the train approaching would know.

For this particular location, his allowable speed would be the same as the speed limit on the curve for freight trains is 40 mph and the speed limit through the turnout is 40 mph.

As to the "shocked that passenger trains and freight trains run on the same track or in both directions on the same track" That statement was made by one of the US congresspeople or senators from California. It was and is downright silly. This sort of thing has been done in all countries for as long as there have been railroads.

I do not know what you are looking for or why, but this appears in all manners to be a very straightforward run a red signal collision and nothing more. All these conspiracy theories and what-if and maybes are a waste of time and energy for all involved. By this point, I am primarily responding for the benefit of those that are unfamiliar to the basics of how railroads run and not for someone who appears to have some axe to grind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That junction where the accident happened has 3 signals, your photo shows two of the three. The signal located along the single track section would indicate to the engineer which way the switch was set and therefore which track he would be moving on to.
Well, I hate to mention this, but Fig.2, p. 5 of the NTSB report only seems to show ONE signal at CP Topanga, on the East side which is the Metrolink engineer's right side. Also, this drawing does not show the spur track off of the siding. And I'm having trouble believing the poor souls sitting on a siding have NO INDICATION if they are about to be rammed by an oncoming freight train.

RailCon BuffDaddy
 
That junction where the accident happened has 3 signals, your photo shows two of the three. The signal located along the single track section would indicate to the engineer which way the switch was set and therefore which track he would be moving on to.
Well, I hate to mention this, but Fig.2, p. 5 of the NTSB report only seems to show ONE signal at CP Topanga, on the East side which is the Metrolink engineer's right side. Also, this drawing does not show the spur track off of the siding. And I'm having trouble believing the poor souls sitting on a siding have NO INDICATION if they are about to be rammed by an oncoming freight train.

RailCon BuffDaddy
The figure in the NTSB report only shows the one signal that controlled the movements of the Metrolink train. It is the only signal that has any relevance to the accident. The signal on the other track in that photo is irrelevant, the Metrolink engineer wasn't obeying that signal. And the signal for the approaching UP train, not shown in any diagrams or photos so far mentioned in this topic would have told the UP freight engineer which track he was going to move onto.

Once the UP freight train had passed the switch, then and only then would the signal for the Metrolink train have changed its aspect and told the Metrolink engineer what to do.

And the problem is that the Metrolink engineer did not pay attention to that signal that controlled his train.

Finally, "the poor souls" were sitting on a siding. Their engineer failed to obey the signal and blew through the danger aspect (red light), through a switch set against him, went through a tunnel and rounded a curve before he plowed head on into the freight train. Had he not been distracted and obeyed that signal, the freight would have safely passed the passenger train on the other track.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know if the issue of passengers and freight sharing the same track ever comes up here, but if you truly want to get to the root cause of this tragedy, that would be the place to look, imho.
Nah, they should completely solve the problem once and for all! They should insist on a separate track for each train, so they could never collide even if the engineer fell asleep smoking dope. That will put the railroads out of business so there will be no trains and hence no chance of any train collisions :lol:
 
Finally, "the poor souls" were sitting on a siding. Their engineer failed to obey the signal and blew through the danger aspect (red light), through a switch set against him, went through a tunnel and rounded a curve before he plowed head on into the freight train. Had he not been distracted and obeyed that signal, the freight would have safely passed the passenger train on the other track.
Alan:

Minor correction that has nothing to do with the basic facts of the case: The Metrolink train did not get as far as the tunnel. The collision was about half was through the curve that extends most of the way between the turnout and the tunnel mouth.
 
Finally, "the poor souls" were sitting on a siding. Their engineer failed to obey the signal and blew through the danger aspect (red light), through a switch set against him, went through a tunnel and rounded a curve before he plowed head on into the freight train. Had he not been distracted and obeyed that signal, the freight would have safely passed the passenger train on the other track.
Alan:

Minor correction that has nothing to do with the basic facts of the case: The Metrolink train did not get as far as the tunnel. The collision was about half was through the curve that extends most of the way between the turnout and the tunnel mouth.
George,

Yes, thanks! :) My bad. Like I said, I'm winging some of this from memory, as I'm currently on the California Zephyr out of Chicago running on the UP detour route. My tenuous cell phone connection simply isn't strong enough to download huge reports.

Now that I think about it again, it was the freight train that had just come out of the tunnel and was halfway through the curve when to the crews surprise there was a Metrolink train where it shouldn't have been, right in front of them.
 
Now that I think about it again, it was the freight train that had just come out of the tunnel and was halfway through the curve when to the crews surprise there was a Metrolink train where it shouldn't have been, right in front of them.
Maybe you'd like to answer this question, from my original post -

WHY WAS THE SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH FOR TRAINS EXITING A TUNNEL WITH A METROLINK STATION LOCATED JUST AROUND A BLIND CORNER? (Over 40 years ago, from the top of Stony Point, I watched in horror as two juvenile delinquents dragged a cross-tie over the tracks just in front of a freight train exiting the same tunnel - it made a huge noise, but fortunately did not derail the train, which was moving slowly enough to stop within the track curve.)

RailCon BuffDaddy
 
Now that I think about it again, it was the freight train that had just come out of the tunnel and was halfway through the curve when to the crews surprise there was a Metrolink train where it shouldn't have been, right in front of them.
Maybe you'd like to answer this question, from my original post -

WHY WAS THE SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH FOR TRAINS EXITING A TUNNEL WITH A METROLINK STATION LOCATED JUST AROUND A BLIND CORNER? (Over 40 years ago, from the top of Stony Point, I watched in horror as two juvenile delinquents dragged a cross-tie over the tracks just in front of a freight train exiting the same tunnel - it made a huge noise, but fortunately did not derail the train, which was moving slowly enough to stop within the track curve.)

RailCon BuffDaddy
For the same reasons that we let drivers go 70 MPH around blind curves or over hilltops where they can't see that traffic hasn't suddenly stopped ahead of them. Or why do we often put stop signs or traffic lights around a blind curve? We trust in a system that in theory is supposed to work and that everyone will obey the rules of the road. When someone doesn't, bad things happen.

But we don't usually lower the speed limits on our highways because of it. And while I abhor the idea that so many were injured and killed in that Metrolink wreck, we kill more and maim more people every year on our highways than did this Metrolink accident. Yet we don't change the rules there at all.

So why should they change the speed limit here. The system has worked properly for many, many years without incident. All evidence points to the inattention of one person unfortunately. So they're not going to rewrite all the rules because of that.

Additionally, one big change that did come out of this crash is the mandate for Positive Train Control. Had that been in place at that time, it would have stopped the train when the engineer failed to do so. Now that work is underway to install PTC through out the country where passenger trains run, this type of accident will be even far more unlikely to happen because of one person's mistake or inattention.
 
Alan:

Enjoy your trip. Don't sweat not having the erpert. I have it both my work computer and my home computer, and soemwhere in my precise filing system, OK, OK for those that know me, multitudinous piles of papers, reports, plans, etc., a paper copy. For anything needed from there, ask adn ye sahll receive.

RailCon:

WHY WAS THE SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH FOR TRAINS EXITING A TUNNEL WITH A METROLINK STATION LOCATED JUST AROUND A BLIND CORNER?
You have already asked this one and it has been answered. :rolleyes: :angry:

It is called operation in accordance with signal indication. The signal preceeding the one at this location, officially CP Topanga at milepost 444.4, tells him what to expect at this location. The authority could just as well have been ABS or Manual block and there would still have been no need for him to run by line of sight.

I may not have stated this clearly enough, but only in yards and on low speed industry tracks do trains operate by line of sight. Under this situation the allowed maximum speed is defined, in concept but not necessarily word for word as being able to stop within half the range, looking out for obstructions, other trains, broken rails, switches not properly lined and not exceeding 15 mph. Sometimes the spped may be 10 mph, sometimes 20 mph.

In all other situations trains operate by the authority of signal indication, automatic block and train orders, manual block, timetable adn train orders, or some such. There are still lines in this country that host passenger trains with no signal system of any kind. The route of the Vermonter north of White River Junction is one. The line used by the Sunset when it ran east of New Orleans was unsignaled between Flomaton AL and Tallahassee FL.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To add a bit to what George said, I believe the maximum speed allowed on these unsignaled portions is 59mph for passenger trains and 49mph for freight (track conditions permitting)...faster than the 40mph in the signaled, CTC section where this crash took place.
 
To add a bit to what George said, I believe the maximum speed allowed on these unsignaled portions is 59mph for passenger trains and 49mph for freight (track conditions permitting)...faster than the 40mph in the signaled, CTC section where this crash took place.
Correct. The specific reference is 49 CFR 236. Specifically, paragraph 236.0 c, which says:

Where a passenger train is operated at a speed of 60 or more miles per hour, or a freight train is operated at a speed of 50 or more miles per hour, a block signal system complying with the provisions of this part shall be installed or a manual block system shall be placed permanently in effect which shall conform to the following conditions: . . .
Thus, on good track without signals, you are not permitted to have a speed limit of 60 mph or mose, but you can set it at 59 mph.

Likewise, the source of the commony used 79 mph limit is in 49 CFR 236, paragraph 236.0 d, which says:

(d) Where any train is operated at a speed of 80 or more miles per hour, an automatic cab signal, automatic train stop or automatic train control system complying with the provisions of this part shall be installed.
Edit: The full title of the part is: PART 236—RULES, STANDARDS, AND INSTRUCTIONS GOVERNING THE INSTALLATION, INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR OF SIGNAL AND TRAIN CONTROL SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND APPLIANCES
 
Last edited by a moderator:
May the Good Lord protect rail passengers - no one else seems interested...

RailCon BuffDaddy
 
May the Good Lord protect rail passengers - no one else seems interested...

RailCon BuffDaddy
May the Good Lord protect all automobile drivers - no one else seems interested in protecting them. In 2009 according to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics 33,808 people died on our highways. That's just the highways! That count doesn't include local streets & roads. And you're worrying about rail passengers because a fraction of that number died in the Metrolink crash.

On the other hand, rail passenger actually have far more protection that drivers, and far more regulations, rules & laws to help ensure their safety than do drivers. I can say with complete confidence that I'm safer on an train than I am in my car. And at risk of being a little full of myself, I do believe that I'm a pretty good driver.
 
May the Good Lord protect rail passengers - no one else seems interested...

RailCon BuffDaddy
May the Good Lord protect all automobile drivers - no one else seems interested in protecting them. In 2009 according to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics 33,808 people died on our highways. That's just the highways! That count doesn't include local streets & roads. And you're worrying about rail passengers because a fraction of that number died in the Metrolink crash.

On the other hand, rail passenger actually have far more protection that drivers, and far more regulations, rules & laws to help ensure their safety than do drivers. I can say with complete confidence that I'm safer on an train than I am in my car. And at risk of being a little full of myself, I do believe that I'm a pretty good driver.
The 2009 statistic of 33,808 fatalities is for all traffic fatalities on all types of roadways - interstate, arterial, collector and local. It is not just highways. While that is a substantial number, it is considerably less than the over 50,000 who died in 1980. That is the result of a lot of things like safer cars and better highway design.

However, there is no arguing that transportation modes of all types are safer than driving. It is often and accurately stated that the most hazardous part of any air or rail trip is the drive to the airport or station.
 
May the Good Lord protect rail passengers - no one else seems interested...

RailCon BuffDaddy
I guess this "no one else seems interested" is why Positive Train Control is being mandated over the next few years, right?

RailCon, seriously, what point are you trying to make, other than to demonstrate that you have absolutely zero clue whatsoever about how railroads operate? You don't need to keep proving to us that you don't know anything about railroading, because you made that quite clear in your first post, and have reaffirmed it in every subsequent post.
 
To add a bit to what George said, I believe the maximum speed allowed on these unsignaled portions is 59mph for passenger trains and 49mph for freight (track conditions permitting)...faster than the 40mph in the signaled, CTC section where this crash took place.
Interestingly, the Canadians (i.e. Transport Canada) have allowed upto 100mph on certain specific unsignaled territories using track warrants, for VIA Rail, in the Montreal - Ottawa - Toronto Corridor.

Then again, the Brits run many times the distance we do at 125mph using just TPWS, which is one step below what we call cab signals. Fortunately on the real HSR they are using the same TVM430 that the French use on their TGV lines. Most other higher speed lines are now getting equipped with ERTMS 2 (equivalent to or in some ways better than Cab+ACSES on our NEC) after all these years! For example the collision just outside of Paddington a few years back was completely avoidable with a even a rudimentary ATS system as used say on the SantaFe in the US.

As for no one being interested in protecting passengers, the US is actually one of the most conservative countries when it comes to signal and control protection for rail passengers. It would really help if folks would spend the time to learn about the systems in place before arriving at outrageous conclusions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I suspect most of the responders to my original post have more expertise in "railroading" than railroads. The deceased Metrolink engineer also continues to be subjected to "railroading". Smith of the Engineers Union, and the Conductor I spoke to, qualify as experts on RAILROADS, imho.

RailCon BuffDaddy
 
I suspect most of the responders to my original post have more expertise in "railroading" than railroads. The deceased Metrolink engineer also continues to be subjected to "railroading". Smith of the Engineers Union, and the Conductor I spoke to, qualify as experts on RAILROADS, imho.
All that I can say is a persuasive case has not been made yet to substantiate the claim that anyone is being railroaded. Just repeating a statement over and over does not make it so, no matter who the maker of the statement is and how many credentials they carry. Again all IMHO of course.
 
A few of us are railroaders. We don't need to speak to someone with the "Engineers Union" (what's that?), or some random conductor, because we deal with this stuff on a regular basis as part of our jobs.

Even those in this thread who don't work for railroads (none of whom, unlike you, are claiming or implying they have more expertise in railroading than the railroads) are giving you very good, accurate explanations of how things are supposed to work.

Railroading wasn't invented yesterday. Railroads in this country have been around for over 150 years. The various rulebooks in use today represent lessons learned over those 150 years. The investigators who wrote the accident report weren't born yesterday either.

Your questions, on the other hand, indicate that you really don't have the slightest understanding of how railroads operate. Given that, it doesn't matter if you spoke to an engineer or a conductor, or what they said. It doesn't mean that you suddenly understand what's going on, because, again, you clearly don't.

In various posts, you've demonstrated that you don't understand how signals work or what information those signals convey to the engineer, you don't understand how railroad crews communicate with each other, you don't understand how switches work, you don't understand how speed limits on the railroad are established, yet despite all that, you insist on furthering some ridiculous conspiracy theory about how the NTSB is involved in a coverup despite the fact that the most obvious, logical occurrence here was that the engineer was distracted and flat-out ran a stop signal. Most collisions on the main line are due to this cause (running a stop signal).

It was human error on the part of the Metrolink engineer. If you can't accept that, then there's nothing more anyone, anywhere, can explain to you on this topic.
 
I think we might as well bring this discussion to a close. It is obvious that no matter what anyone says Mr. RailCon has no interest in moving beyond his fixed opinions and has now resorted to attacking those who do not agree with nor support his viewpoints. It might be interesting to know who this person really is and the reason behind his attempts to support the unsupportable and substantiate various fallacies.

My last thought: There is this interesting thing about facts and reality: They are completely unaffected by opinions and belief regardless of who holds them or why they hold them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The questions I raised in my original post remain unanswered. Anyone who can accept "texting" as the cause of the Chatsworth accident is delusional or naive. All the time-tested safety protocols built into our railway system seem to have failed at one particular instant, supposedly allowing the Metrolink engineer to run through a switch set against him - AND NO ONE NOTICED??? Now, let the ad hominem attack continue...

RailCon BuffDaddy
 
It is called operation in accordance with signal indication. The signal preceeding the one at this location, officially CP Topanga at milepost 444.4, tells him what to expect at this location. The authority could just as well have been ABS or Manual block and there would still have been no need for him to run by line of sight.
George,

I am not as familiar with the signal aspects out west as I am with the ones out east here, basically NORAC area. Would Topanga have showed either red over green or flashing green, depending on whether the freight was supposed to stop on the passing track or not, the red indicating it was set for diverging track at the interlocking? Or would the indication be something else? Thanks.

For the OP, in contrast, in case he is interested, the signal at Topanga that the freight faced would have showed plain green if it was signaled to run straight through the interlocking without stopping at either end of the station. That is how the freight engineer knew he was going onto the diverging track, and was expected to modulate his speed based on his knowledge of the territory. I believe most of the west is route signaling, though Metrolink may be speed signaling. I am not quite sure. maybe George or Troqdor know for sure.
 
In looking through the report, the only reference I see to the signals the freight train would have seen indicates that they passed a yellow/yellow (approach diverging) signal at the intermediate signal west of CP Topanga. At Topanga, the freight would have seen either a red/green (diverging clear), if the route was clear at the other end of the siding, or a red/yellow (diverging approach) or red/flashing yellow (diverging advance approach) if he was to stop at the other end of the siding. The report (at least, what I've seen, unless it's hidden somewhere) doesn't specify whether the freight train's route had been set past CP Bernson.
 
Back
Top