Major derailment @ Spuyten Duyvil

pnaw10 wrote:Just catching up on several pages of posts here.

Trainer wrote:Well, the only thing that can be traced on a cell phone are calls and sending texts. However, there is no way to validate dozens of other things that could be done on a smart phone, such as reading files, playing games, listening to music, viewing photos, or even composing an e-mail provided that it had not been actually sent.

These may be the only things that the average consumer can trace on his or her own. Law enforcement and cell phone companies typically have access to even more history/activity logs that may be stored in the phone, or on the cell phone company's servers. And some email apps automatically save "drafts" every few minutes while you are writing an email. If those drafts are saved "to the cloud" (like with Gmail, for instance), they are actually being sent out of the phone to the server, even if you haven't hit the "send" button to the recipient yet. But this is moot if glennk's post above is correct about the phone being confirmed to be off at the time of the incident.

Looking at a picture will set off a bunch of things that will reveal when you looked at that picture. ...Ever looked at the list of recently used items your computer can display?... On a different level the file itself keeps records of when it was created, when it was last modified and when it was last accessed. ( on most computers and cell phones are more or less computers these days ) That can be manipulated and disabled but most people don't even know that exists and have no idea how to alter it's behavior. Some one who knows what he or she is doing can tell you all sorts of things and when you did them.

I live out in the woods. If you call my cell phone where there is signal it will ring. If you call my cell phone where there is no signal you'll get my voice mail. The phone is still on. If I decide to shut the phone off the network probably keeps track of that - shutting the phone off as opposed to just wandering out of range - but I can imagine turning the phone on and immediately going into airplane mode which shuts off the radio.... a forensic computer specialist will be able to tell all sorts of things, If it's the kind of phone with acceleramators in it they may even be able to tell how much he was banging around in the cab. Or that the phone detected fast deceleration and shut itself off.

lirr42 wrote:

ryanov wrote:I wonder is this the first accident that would very likely have been prevented by a fireman?

It's probably not the first incident. Plus, like it was said a couple pages back, MN does not like extraneous crew members riding up front because they feel it would distract the crew.

42 and Everyone: From what has been released so far by the NTSB and discussed here
by our members it looks to be that Engineer Rockefeller had dozed off and reacted
too late to slow down his train with the Spuyten Duyvil curve looming ahead...

This accident may not have happened if another member of the crew and/or maybe
a deadheading fellow employee was up front in the cab keeping him company on
that morning run...I realize that the crew has their duties such as collecting fares
and the Conductor could have gone up front to ride if there was extra time...

If the other scenario of defective equipment is found to be the cause I feel that
it must have been the worst feeling in the world for that Engineer knowing that
something very bad was going to happen and that he was powerless to stop it...

As mentioned previously the NTSB will be thorough in this investigation and
many of us here are confident that they will find the exact cause of this
tragic accident...

MACTRAXX

map193 wrote:I'm not familiar with this line at all so how far from the curve is the switch to the 30 mph zone? If the event recorder was showing that the air was dumped 6 seconds before the derailment that gives the train approximately 720 feet before it got to the curve if it was traveling at 82 mph. 720 feet can not possibly be enough to slow that train down 50 mph is it? Thank you in advance for your replies.

It was not 6 seconds before derailing, but before all motion stopped. That's how the NTSB phrased it in their briefing, and it is an important distinction. Once the lead car came off the tracks, it surely took several seconds for everything to come to a complete stop. That means the train began to derail almost as soon as the brakes were applied, if it indeed had not already begun to do so.

I have a question mainly poised to either Jaap or Noel Weaver since I know they've ran the territory for years, with Noel being retired at this point.

I am a hogger on The LIRR and there are a number of curves restricted by speeds listed in the timetable, I'm sure as there is in your territory. A handful of these curves that are restricted lower than MAS have a lower cab signal speed programmed so that when you approach them, the cabs will drop from 80 to 60 or 70 down to 40 (our cabs display the actual speed, not an aspect). Though not all curves are restricted via ATC, a few are. My question is, are any of your curves or permanent restrictions enforced via cab signal? The LIRR seems very choosy on which curves or points they restrict and most of them are not very low speed either like they should be.

Another question/comment would be to anyone in the know. It's obvious ASC/ATC could have prevented this accident, if implemented as I have stated above. Now, why the huge push for PTC? In a case like this, the train didn't need to STOP, but just slow down for the restriction. The biggest benefit of PTC is the positive stop feature when nearing a stop signal or obstruction. Why waste billions of tax payer dollars on PTC when ASC/ATC systems are more than capable of being tweaked to prevent something like this in the future? I don't see what the political agenda is for PTC if the same thing could be accomplished with an existing ATC system.

I fully believe in personal accountability, being a Locomotive Engineer, and don't like my job being taken away from me (in the way of PTC or an ATC mod which will restrict curves), but that is inevitable. I was trained to do a certain job and since I was set up running, my craft is being taken away from me. There is more automation on the horizon and this job will never be what it once was. Yes - in the name of safety, but relying less and less on the men and women which take pride in their craft and the safe operation of trains, relying solely on excellent training and vast knowledge of a difficult craft.

Where was the Metro-North President in all this? There have been no statements from his people on the accident.

Brokenrail, perfectly stated.

lirr42 wrote:

THIRD AVENUE EL wrote:Do the P32's have a dead man's pedal?

No, to my knowledge they have an alerter.

Shoreliners == dead man's pedal
M3/Cosmopolitans == dead man's controller (you have to push firmly down on the controller to move)
M7/A/M8/P32's == alerter

Not sure about the BL20's, though. Something tells me they don't have anything since they brake down more frequently than the alerter would go off

The P32's have an alerter system.

MACTRAXX wrote:

lirr42 wrote:

ryanov wrote:I wonder is this the first accident that would very likely have been prevented by a fireman?

It's probably not the first incident. Plus, like it was said a couple pages back, MN does not like extraneous crew members riding up front because they feel it would distract the crew.

42 and Everyone: From what has been released so far by the NTSB and discussed here
by our members it looks to be that Engineer Rockefeller had dozed off and reacted
too late to slow down his train with the Spuyten Duyvil curve looming ahead...

This accident may not have happened if another member of the crew and/or maybe
a deadheading fellow employee was up front in the cab keeping him company on
that morning run...I realize that the crew has their duties such as collecting fares
and the Conductor could have gone up front to ride if there was extra time...

If the other scenario of defective equipment is found to be the cause I feel that
it must have been the worst feeling in the world for that Engineer knowing that
something very bad was going to happen and that he was powerless to stop it...

As mentioned previously the NTSB will be thorough in this investigation and
many of us here are confident that they will find the exact cause of this
tragic accident...

MACTRAXX

But now we're getting into "what if" land. What if the Titanic was going slower? What if JFK had not gone to Dallas? What if Lincoln not gone to the theatre? MN rules do not require a conductor to constantly observe the engineer, except when operating into and out of GCT.

Think about how the NY subway has operated for years (maybe since Day 1) with timing circuits and trippers. A good motorman, running at the right speed, will come to within a few feet of a yellow signal, than have it turn green. Bring the technology forward many decades; a radar system could clock speeds approaching curves, then apply some sort of restricting
code to the cab signal circuits in the rail if the train is going too fast. The engineer then has so many seconds to acknowledge, or the train goes into emergency. I don't think this is rocket science.

ryanov wrote:I wonder is this the first accident that would very likely have been prevented by a fireman?

What about this one, discussed elsewhere in this Group: http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 58&t=98728 Would it "very likely have been prevented by a fireman", in addition to the Conductor who was already in the cab with the Engineer?

Good article from the WSJ's NY section talking about the curve at Spuyten Duyvil:

For the railroad's engineers, it is one of the two diciest curves on the 384-mile rail network, and a constant reminder of the need for caution.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 2569997240

Interestingly, the article draws a connection between this and the Federal wreck on Jenkin's Curve:

The other worrisome stretch on the Metro-North system is Jenkins Curve, one railroad veteran said Tuesday, where the four-track New Haven Line makes a roughly 90-degree bend at the waterfront in Bridgeport, Conn. It was the site of a catastrophic derailment in 1955, records show.

Seems that at least one component of the "main stream media" has a grasp of both railroad operations and history.

Was the precise cause of the 1955 wreck ever determined? IIRC the engineer was killed when the locomotive went down the embankment.

Clean Cab wrote:

MACTRAXX wrote:

lirr42 wrote:

ryanov wrote:I wonder is this the first accident that would very likely have been prevented by a fireman?

It's probably not the first incident. Plus, like it was said a couple pages back, MN does not like extraneous crew members riding up front because they feel it would distract the crew.

42 and Everyone: From what has been released so far by the NTSB and discussed here
by our members it looks to be that Engineer Rockefeller had dozed off and reacted
too late to slow down his train with the Spuyten Duyvil curve looming ahead...

This accident may not have happened if another member of the crew and/or maybe
a deadheading fellow employee was up front in the cab keeping him company on
that morning run...I realize that the crew has their duties such as collecting fares
and the Conductor could have gone up front to ride if there was extra time...

If the other scenario of defective equipment is found to be the cause I feel that
it must have been the worst feeling in the world for that Engineer knowing that
something very bad was going to happen and that he was powerless to stop it...

As mentioned previously the NTSB will be thorough in this investigation and
many of us here are confident that they will find the exact cause of this
tragic accident...

MACTRAXX

But now we're getting into "what if" land. What if the Titanic was going slower? What if JFK had not gone to Dallas? What if Lincoln not gone to the theatre? MN rules do not require a conductor to constantly observe the engineer, except when operating into and out of GCT.

CC: I am in agreement with you-I was hoping to walk the fine line here and not speculate on anything
and I was just mentioning that if the Engineer had some company things might have been different...

I was not implying that the Conductor go and keep watch over the Engineer by any means but I was just
saying in context that if the Conductor had gone up front when he was through with his other duties if
even just to say "hello-see you at GCT" then who knows? With that thought I will leave any other "What Ifs"
out in any other correspondance about this accident that I respond to...

MACTRAXX

on my ride in this morning on NJT's Riverline a fellow passenger asked "Did you hear about the SEPTA train that fell over?".
I asked her if she meant the New York train, or if she meant there had been a different major accident on SEPTA, she of course had meant the New York accident but thought it was SEPTA.
She went on to say that it shows that trains are dangerous, I reminded her of the tens of thousands of automobile fatalities every year.

So if the train is in push mode, the cab car has a deadman pedal? And if it is in pull mode there is an alerter?

It seems odd that different systems are used depending on which direction the train is moving.

What are the federal requirements? Just that you have one type or the other?

JimBoylan wrote:

ryanov wrote:I wonder is this the first accident that would very likely have been prevented by a fireman?

What about this one, discussed elsewhere in this Group: http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 58&t=98728 Would it "very likely have been prevented by a fireman", in addition to the Conductor who was already in the cab with the Engineer?

Probably hard to play out all of the scenarios. I suppose you could say it's equally possible that another crew member would have been a distraction, though it probably would have made it less likely that Mr. Rockefeller fell asleep (if that's what happened) if the two were conversing. It would seem to me, though, that they're not exactly the same type of accident. It is often hard for me to tell at a distance whether a train is on the same or the adjacent track. I don't know how much easier it is for an engineer; maybe that's something you get better at. Or maybe seeing a headlight coming "at" you is less of an attention grabber for a train crew member as they experience it all the time (the train in the incident you're talking about, if I'm reading it correctly, should have been, what, six feet off the one side more or less?). In any case, I would think there is no way to misinterpret a major curve coming up. But is the sight distance enough to make an adjustment without having realized it was coming, at that speed or in that lighting? Maybe not.