Urban D Kaye wrote:wdobner -
Thanks for the info on the track being out of gauge. I just used wet leaves as an example that factors beside driver error can contribute to trolley accidents. But thanks for confirming that they were not a factor in this case.
-Urban
I think you misunderstood me. I said that the track which 9001 derailed off of was not changed and AFAIK has never been changed since the accident. Thus I am assuming SEPTA's crews found it was properly in gauge following the accident. It was the 40th-Market St bound (northbound, turning right off 42nd onto Spruce) track which was rebuilt following the accident. The crews checked both, and I guess they found one was properly in-gauge, that the other one was out of gauge and replaced the offending track.
The low coefficient of friction of a steel wheel on a steel rail is an asset to rail transit when you take it on a purely economic basis, there's less rolling resistance when you get going and SEPTA's PECO bill likely would reflect that. But when it comes time to start or stop, that asset becomes either an annoyance or a dangerous foe. The track brakes are the great equalizer for SEPTA's Subway Surface fleet when measured against the bus fleet, without them they'd have to maintain slower speeds and on-time ratings would likely suffer even more. It's also apparantly a matter of some debate as to how much damage a track brake actually does to the track. I've talked to several SEPTA LRO employees, and gotten nearly every concievable answer, from an operator who was convinced every track brake application shaves a 16th of an inch off the top of the railhead to a trackworker who insisted the wheels themselves do more damage than the track brakes.
Thus I disagree with the statement that SEPTA's LRO T/Os use the track brake too often. On level or uphill track they hardly use it at all, and I can see their use of it on downslopes (the only real place I've ever encountered "excessive" track brake usage). If I was trying to stop a 40-50 ton LRV on a downhill slope with all it's weight conspiring to keep it moving, I'd want to use a braking mechanism that wasn't tied to the weight of the LRV too.
I am a bit confused by Mrs Munford's assertion that, ""The wheels grind the rails down too far." It's obvious that SEPTA measured all rails in the vicinity of the accident scene (for one, I stood and watched them do it that morning), that they found some were indeed out of alignment and replaced those. So if the tracks were worn down enough for a trolley to derail, then how come SEPTA didn't replace them when they did the northbound track? They may be SEPTA, but even they wouldn't tolerate a repeat performance a week, month, year or even years down the road. And how come no other trolley has since derailed there? If it was a matter of SEPTA placing an employee with an injury on the job who possibly should not have been there, resulting in the employee being unable to control her LRV, then that's certainly a matter for SEPTA, Mrs Munford, and their collective lawyers to work out. However, it seems she's barking up the wrong tree by blaming the track for the accident.
