M8 Collision in Bridgeport

http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nation/ ... -1.5342438
Towards the bottom of the article this caught my eye:

The 2006 contract with Kawasaki Rail Car was for $713 million but could grow as high as $883 million, according to Kawasaki.

That's a difference of $170M and divided by 68 that works out to $2.5M, the price of a single car. So unless those increased costs are due to inflation/cost of materials/bug fixes, etc. (which does sound like a lot for factors such as those) it sounds as if MNR/ConnDOT has been in some kind of talk with Kawasaki about buying even more cars.

There have been a few rumors of CDOT buying more M8's than the 405 already planned for. The number of additional cars to be ordered range from 30 to 60, but I've not heard or read of any official number of cars, if any. I guess the feeling is strike while the iron is hot. Keep cranking them out as long as the money's available.

Kawasaki has every reason to play ball on an add-on order; other than the R188 order for the NYCT Flushing Line, they don't have anything else on their plate, nor are they expected to in the immediate term. (Is there a major rolling stock order expected in the next five years that hasn't been awarded yet, other than the M9s?) As long as CDOT has money to buy more M8s and riders to fill them, Kawasaki has no reason not to keep making them.

With the MTA looking into east Bronx service, it should be MTA looking into buying more M-8's
Currently the split is 30% MTA and 70% CDOT due to added SLE Mileage, but with MTA adding about 18 miles of service it is MTA that needs to step up to plate.
The split is based on total Mileage in each state

This is not a topic about buying more M8s - Make a new thread if you want to discuss that - lets get back on course here

I'm not kidding - either start a new thread or drop it already. I WILL delete the next off topic post as well as the last one i just did.

I think one fact has been missing in all the talk about this incident being caused by a "borken rail". There could have been no broken rail as most people would comprehend. If that were the case, the cab signal system would not have given the engineer of the eastbound train an aspect that would let him do more than 15 MPH. Cab signal codes travel within the rails and any break in the rail would caused a circuit problem that not only would have limited the speed of the train, but the RTC would have been aware of it as well. When the investigators say this incident was caused by a broken rail, they are referring to a hairline crack that was most likely not visible to the naked eye.

Clean Cab wrote:I think one fact has been missing in all the talk about this incident being caused by a "borken rail". There could have been no broken rail as most people would comprehend. If that were the case, the cab signal system would not have given the engineer of the eastbound train an aspect that would let him do more than 15 MPH. Cab signal codes travel within the rails and any break in the rail would caused a circuit problem that not only would have limited the speed of the train, but the RTC would have been aware of it as well. When the investigators say this incident was caused by a broken rail, they are referring to a hairline crack that was most likely not visible to the naked eye.

Mr. CleanCab, could the break in the rail have happened at an insulator joint in the rail? (just like the LIRR train that derailed in March). In that regard, the cab signal system wouldn't detect the break because it happened at an insulator joint and cab signals don't transmit through those anyways.

Broke rails may or may not throw a track indication. If both halves of the break sits on a tie plate, track current can continue to move thru. Break to plate to break. Seen it. I thought
they were looking hard at a broke joint bar as the initial cause and the reason for all the joint bar inspections.

My experience running trains on MN is that even a small crack in a rail can cause a cab signal circuit to go down. This is one of what may be hundreds of factors that will be investigated. I was not there in Bridgeport inspecting the rail either before or after the derailment, and neither was anyone on this forum. Let's heed the moderator's warning and not speculate on the cause. Let the NTSB and FRA do their research into this incident. My previous post was an attempt to clarify terminology, not afix blame or pinpoint the exact cause.

I ain't speculating. NTSB told them the other day to do an inspection and inventory of all their joint bars. It was in a press release. Now with my limited brain power that tells me a broke
joint bar/bars was involved in some way. There was even the picture of them standing and looking at a center broke joint bar.

They found a cracked rail joint at the scene. They don't know yet if it was a cause of the derailment or a result of the derailment.

Previously Metro-North found and fixed a cracked rail joint in the same area.

[NTSB Earl Weener] was quick to add that he would not speculate on what role the fractured rail joint may or may not have played in the accident.

Link

Tommy Meehan wrote:They found a cracked rail joint at the scene. They don't know yet if it was a cause of the derailment or a result of the derailment.

Previously Metro-North found and fixed a cracked rail joint in the same area.

[NTSB Earl Weener] was quick to add that he would not speculate on what role the fractured rail joint may or may not have played in the accident.

Link

Thanks Tommy!!

Clean Cab wrote:Thanks Tommy!!

See how rumors get started?

No problem!

Sen. Blumenthal and Sen. Murphy call for a railroad trust fund to help prevent future infrastructure-related accidents (if this is deemed off-topic I'll move it elsewhere)
[EDIT: Moved to a separate thread]
http://online.wsj.com/article/APf5bab49 ... lenews_wsj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;