NJT HOBOKEN TERMINAL ACCIDENT THREAD

Yes, the evening news tonight said the manufacturer found that the locomotive recorder was not working; period. How's that for a kick in the head? Let's hope they have better luck with the cab-car's recorder when they can finally access it.

They also said that NJT is getting zapped for multiple safety violations.

And re: the speed of the train entering the station, numerous passengers from the train told news reporters the day of the incident that the train came into the station at unusually higher than normal speed.

freightguy wrote:After a rash of stop signal violations in 2011 Metro North ordered a second person in the operating cab within the Grand Central Terminal area. It's actually worked out pretty well. I'm not sure if NJT would look into a similar operating practice. Big thread, I'm not sure if this was mentioned elsewhere.

Grand Central is quite a bit more complex of a terminal than Hoboken is, so I could see why it might make sense there. However, I do remember when I was working for Amtrak back in the '70s as a travelling electrician in the jump seat in the cab of an E-60. There was a Fireman in the cab back then, and I can remember more than once when he spotted some debris on the track that the Engineer didn't notice (neither did I, by the way), so I can see that in some cases it might improve safety.

Water on the tracks at the platform can't account for the train having enough speed to do what it did. Some wheel slip making it hit the bumper if you're not careful I can see. But to careen off the end like that, that's a lot more than some wet rails at the platform. Whatever went wrong, went wrong long before the train was at the platform.

Head-end View wrote:Yes, the evening news tonight said the manufacturer found that the locomotive recorder was not working; period. How's that for a kick in the head? Let's hope they have better luck with the cab-car's recorder when they can finally access it.

They also said that NJT is getting zapped for multiple safety violations.

And re: the speed of the train entering the station, numerous passengers from the train told news reporters the day of the incident that the train came into the station at unusually higher than normal speed.

The article quoted the Conductor as stating the he didn't detect anything unusual about the trains speed entering the station. Let's wait for the black box.

Wheel slip can be easily determined. The distances traveled after the brakes are applied will show any irregularities with the proper braking specifications of the equipment. The NTSB and FRA people are professionals. If you look at 49CFR236.1005, PTC was not designed to stop trains prior to striking a bumper. But will the CFR be modified to include bumpers? With our politicians, some new rule will be coming.

Head-end View wrote:Yes, the evening news tonight said the manufacturer found that the locomotive recorder was not working; period. How's that for a kick in the head? Let's hope they have better luck with the cab-car's recorder when they can finally access it.

On nj.com a NTSB guy was quoted saying that legally a recorder is only required in the lead car - the cab car in this case. But I assume then that when the engine was leading on recent trips there was no working leading event recorder -- another violation for NJT I suppose - I wonder how often they are supposed to check them?
They also said the recorder in the engine was from 1995, and the cab car recorder was a newer model from the 2000's.

Head-end View wrote:...And re: the speed of the train entering the station, numerous passengers from the train told news reporters the day of the incident that the train came into the station at unusually higher than normal speed.

Railway Age (a very reliable source of rail industry news) reported:

The fact that approximately half the length the 85-foot Comet V cab car breached the platform before coming to a stop indicates it was traveling no faster than the 20 mph MAS.

The cab car went about what, 40-45 feet past the bumper? It sounds like it entered the train shed at the allowable speed and then never slowed down any further. I too read passenger statements that they thought the train was moving unusually fast but they may have meant it was not slowing as it came down the platform track. One man said he was so certain something was wrong he braced himself (and thus avoided injury when the impact came). It must have been quite an impact. One NJ Transit employee I saw interviewed on TV said he was inside the terminal getting coffee and at first people inside thought there had been some kind of explosion in the platform area, that there was a very very loud boom!

Does anyone know the locomotive number? I read it -- it was a GP40P -- and they gave the number but I forgot to make a note of it. The 4104? If so that makes it one of the remaining ex-Jersey Central GP40Ps.

There was a telling photo some where that showed the green exterior lights on the train were still illuminated when passengers were exiting the train. That would indicate to me that the brakes were released and the train never went into emergency.

As expected, no service Monday:

On Monday, October 3 and continuing until further notice, all NJ TRANSIT rail service into and out of Hoboken Terminal remains suspended following the commuter train accident at Hoboken Terminal. Hudson-Bergen Light Rail service has been restored into and out of Hoboken and will continue to operate on a full weekday schedule.

Weekday schedules: http://www.njtransit.com/sa/sa_servlet. ... entId=9792

RearOfSignal wrote:There was a telling photo some where that showed the green exterior lights on the train were still illuminated when passengers were exiting the train. That would indicate to me that the brakes were released and the train never went into emergency.

That's sure an interesting observation. This tweeted picture looks like it shows that, although it's hard to tell since it's only a reflection on the side of the car, and theoretically it could be another green light somewhere. But definitely something to consider.

MCL1981 wrote:Water on the tracks at the platform can't account for the train having enough speed to do what it did. Some wheel slip making it hit the bumper if you're not careful I can see. But to careen off the end like that, that's a lot more than some wet rails at the platform. Whatever went wrong, went wrong long before the train was at the platform.

If you have never driven a train, you cannot determine how they drive. Period.


Rear of Signal, I remember seeing the photo you are talking about and that is certainly a head scratching note.

Tommy Meehan wrote:Does anyone know the locomotive number? I read it -- it was a GP40P -- and they gave the number but I forgot to make a note of it. The 4104? If so that makes it one of the remaining ex-Jersey Central GP40Ps.

I read elsewhere that it was a 42xx-series Geep, but I can't remember the exact number at the moment.

Thanks, someone else mentioned it was a 4200, too.

Btw the engineer, Tom Gallagher, spoke with NTSB investigators either Saturday or today. They're saying he told them he came into the platform track at 10 mph but he doesn't remember the moments before the crash.

Just before the crash, Gallagher looked at his watch and found the train was about six minutes late, NTSB vice chairman Bella Dinh-Zarr said. She said he blew the horn and looked at the speedometer. “The engineer says he has no memory of the accident. He remembers waking up on the floor of the cab,” Dinh-Zarr said. News link

Tommy Meehan wrote:

Head-end View wrote:...And re: the speed of the train entering the station, numerous passengers from the train told news reporters the day of the incident that the train came into the station at unusually higher than normal speed.

Railway Age (a very reliable source of rail industry news) reported:

The fact that approximately half the length the 85-foot Comet V cab car breached the platform before coming to a stop indicates it was traveling no faster than the 20 mph MAS.

The cab car went about what, 40-45 feet past the bumper? It sounds like it entered the train shed at the allowable speed and then never slowed down any further. I too read passenger statements that they thought the train was moving unusually fast but they may have meant it was not slowing as it came down the platform track. One man said he was so certain something was wrong he braced himself (and thus avoided injury when the impact came). It must have been quite an impact. One NJ Transit employee I saw interviewed on TV said he was inside the terminal getting coffee and at first people inside thought there had been some kind of explosion in the platform area, that there was a very very loud boom!

Does anyone know the locomotive number? I read it -- it was a GP40P -- and they gave the number but I forgot to make a note of it. The 4104? If so that makes it one of the remaining ex-Jersey Central GP40Ps.

I know we are not supposed to speculate on the cause, and I agree that we should wait to see what the event recorder tells us, but I can't help thinking that since this was push-pull in push mode, Is it possible that even with the brakes applied, could the locomotive malfunction and continue to provide power and continue to push the train on past the bumper post? I also noticed looking at a photo (see url below) of a bumper post at Hoboken Terminal that there are two steel beams that form a sort of "ramp" up the post. That would explain why some witnesses stated that they saw the cab car became "airborne". Just a thought...



http://i899.photobucket.com/albums/ac19 ... 8ca344.jpg

TM: On Page 12 #4214 is mentioned. The released video showing the 4 car train supports this.
The Comet Five cab car was #6036.

Everyone: There has been no mention so far as to how much of this train actually derailed...
In any case the debris from the concourse has to be cleared away and the structure declared
safe before the task can begin of pulling the equipment out of the trainshed.
The accident investigation on site will have to be completed...

I have been following the aftermath of this accident here on the Forum and I commend everybody for the informative coverage here...

I offer my condolences to everyone directly involved...MACTRAXX

justalurker66 wrote:

trainbrain wrote:That's crazy. Can't they just remove the damaged parts of the structure and make sure the rest is sound, then run trains on the higher numbered tracks while the ones near the accident remain closed? If this were a highway accident, the road would've been opened much sooner.

The train shed is not a road. If you must think of it as a road think of it as a bridge that has partially collapsed on a freeway. Cleaning up the collapse and making sure the rest of the structure will not collapse is not a simple job.

You have the right idea as far as steps to follow to reopen the station ... but the timetable is much longer than a few days. There is a lot of work to do.

JL66: You described the situation at Hoboken Terminal well and give a good idea what still needs to be accomplished before the train is removed and service gets restored...

I like this comparison thought...MACTRAXX

n2cbo wrote: I know we are not supposed to speculate on the cause, and I agree that we should wait to see what the event recorder tells us, but I can't help thinking that since this was push-pull in push mode, Is it possible that even with the brakes applied, could the locomotive malfunction and continue to provide power and continue to push the train on past the bumper post?

Unlikely cause. I mean you have at least 500 tons of moving steel, even at 10 mph you're going to need a lot of force to stop that, in this case a bumping post and some canopy supports.

Sort of on that subject, in operating from a control car, I was taught to keep the train notched while making a brakepipe reduction to keep the slack in on the train... Meanwhile in freight service the independent brake has a much greater retarding force than that of a railcar, so when making a trainline reduction, you generally bail off the independents. Yeah, passenger equipment runs at 110 psi vs 90 psi on freight, but do commuter car brakes have a more similar retarding force to that of the locomotive? And this blended braking stuff... does it automatically bail off the independents? Can you even control an independent from a control car, i think not? Some commuter engineer please explain this to a lowly freight service guy.