Major derailment @ Spuyten Duyvil

alewifebp wrote:
Another thing about PTC, is that like any system, nothing is foolproof. Take the WMATA accident a few years ago, where the fully automatic train operation failed and resulted in a collision.

The pedant in me must nitpick this. There actually was no failure with the ATO (automatic train operator) system; in fact it performed exactly as it was designed.

The system that should have prevented the collision was ATP (automatic train protection). There really was no single point of failure that caused the accident. It was a combination of a WMATA manager blatantly disregarding Alstom's instruction not to mix their equipment with vintage GRS hardware, WMATA ignoring the warning signs of a bobbing track circuit, the track circuit transmitter power being turned up beyond normal operating levels, a low seniority operator fearing discipline for running through the trouble spot in manual mode, and a comprised insulator that allowed AF oscillations to be transmitted through an equipment rack.

Not to disagree with your point that no system is perfect, but the WMATA accident is a bad example as it took a whole lot of human factors to cause that wreck.

I accept the promptings that a deadman control is not necessarily foolproof. Obviously, an alerter isn't either. Perhaps the railroad should install, at key locations, speed sensors that would lead to the emergency being tripped if the speed to excessive.

BandA wrote:

ryanov wrote:I don't know why people keep writing stuff like this. Isn't it obvious that the $99 consumer electronics version of this is not going to be certifiable on a train, and that something that is/the process for all of that is going to be much more expensive?

A Rand McNally trucker's gps starts at $225, and has features such as curve warnings. Of course a gps unit for a train will cost more as it has to be custom programmed, but once that cost is sunk the actual hardware is the same. Railroads can't pay 10x what everyone else pays for similar gear and still be competitive. How is a gps certified for cars and trucks?

Railroads are not competitive financially for a whole host of reasons. But you're comparing apples and oranges. I don't know what certifications they require, but they are not mandatory safety equipment. Engineers likely could have a GPS that included that info as an off-the-shelf way to improve the information available. There are a lot of analogies to air travel. You can't just go out and pick up consumer equipment for a transport jet or say "how come they don't just put in a $50 part to do that?"

BandA wrote:

ryanov wrote:

BandA wrote:Another solution: cc: all train alerts to the conductor's cell phone/radio.

After cell phones have been found as the cause in accidents and are strictly prohibited? Don't think so.

Excuse my ingorance, but don't the train crews have radios to communicate? How about pagers? Whatever the device it should be able to receive automated emergency alerts from the cab.

I'd actually misread the original comment and assumed you were talking about the engineer.

DutchRailnut wrote:The Idea of TomTom or Garmin as extra info is actually a good Idea, and I have discussed it with some supervisors, it would identify track no, speed, restriction and voice warning on changes to speed or upcoming curves.
It would also help track cars and crews identify where speed signs are to be located and provide location info.
but how could you keep all those navigation units updated everyday ??

Consumer GPS units aren't nearly accurate enough to be of use here. If you are in your car for example, they can't tell what lane you are in, but on a highway it usually doesn't matter that much.

There are several ways to augment GPS to improve the resolution, some of these rely upon receiving radio signals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_enhancement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On the subject of GPS devices used for railroad safety, the Quebec, North Shore, & Labrador uses GPS-driven Proximity Detection Devices as a "heads-up"-type warning to the engineer that they're close to another train. Obviously, cab signals and ATC are far more effective at collision avoidance, but this shows that GPS use in safety warning devices is not totally unprecedented.

I don't know if tying a GPS into the train control system is allowed here in the US as it is in Canada (the PDDs require acknowledgement by the engineers or cause a penalty brake application) but they could be used to beep loudly when a train is traveling above authorized speed to jolt a "zoned-out" engineer back to reality.

LIRR SW1001, MP15AC, GP38-2, and DE/DM30AC locomotives have deadman pedals as well as the diesel hauled cab cars. M3s have a Cineston controller, which requires constant downward pressure, acting as a deadman. The only equipment we have equipped with alerters are the M7s.

Fishrrman wrote:[[ What does Metro-North usually do with it's engineers who can no longer safely operate trains anymore due to medical reasons? (one the street?)(disability?)(desk job?) ]]

Most enginemen who are involved in serious accidents (particularly where deaths are involved) don't work again -- not for the railroad. At least where direct negligence or serious mistakes were the cause.

Sounds harsh, but that's the way it is.

There are exceptions. I know of several...

That's not what I was asking about...I was asking in regard to what would happen if just an ordinary engineer with a clean service record all of a sudden got diagnosed with some medical condition during his or her yearly physical that would prohibit him from remaining in engine service. What do they do with those people?

Fishrrman wrote: The railroads -- ESPECIALLY the passenger railroads -- fought for years to get rid of that second man in the cab.

They won't be coming back.
...
You ARE NOT going to see "two men in the cab" again in commuter rail service.

Do you care to reconsider? The FRA takes action after Spuyten Duvyil accident http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=67&t=153695" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rockingham Racer wrote:Metro-North is ordered to identify appropriate modifications to its existing automatic train control system or other signal systems to enable adequate advance warning of and adherence to such speed restrictions...
In the meantime, Metro-North is ordered to operate trains with two qualified train crew members in the controlling locomotive cab or passenger car control compartment at the locations where speed limits change by 20 mph or more until the signal work at these locations is complete

lirr42 wrote:This is the whole FRA order here: http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04879" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Patrick Boylan wrote:...Do you care to reconsider?

Pat this sounds like another one of your "Gotcha!" posts. But it is interesting, even if only temporary. (I think the other post was referring to permanent.)

I knew there must have been a technical term for when I ask somebody to explain their words in the face of other info. Ok, I'll call them "Gotcha!" posts from now on. It remains to be seen how temporary the extra front end crew member will be, or how successful Metro North will be in delaying the FRA's order, assuming they would try.

I'm still curious as to how other operations are able to escape a similar requirement, and if I was Metro North and willing to appeal the requirement, I might try to argue it's unfair discrimination not to impose the same type of order on other passenger rail operations.

Patrick Boylan wrote:I knew there must have been a technical term for when I ask somebody to explain their words in the face of other info...

Can you at least give us the exact time the FRA edict was released in order to be able prove the other poster could've known they had done so when he wrote his message at 1:50 PM? That seems only sporting!

Well, to be fair, the comment was a prediction that such a thing would never happen. So it didn't matter if it was posted or not.

It may be "only temporary," but it happens until the signal system is modified (however long that might be). What speed would that section have to call for? I'm guessing lower than the speed of the curve, yes?

Tommy Meehan wrote:Can you at least give us the exact time the FRA edict was released in order to be able prove the other poster could've known they had done so when he wrote his message at 1:50 PM? That seems only sporting!

The timestamp inside the .pdf is 12:08:34pm on Dec 16th, 2013

litz wrote:

Tommy Meehan wrote:Can you at least give us the exact time the FRA edict was released in order to be able prove the other poster could've known they had done so when he wrote his message at 1:50 PM? That seems only sporting!

The timestamp inside the .pdf is 12:08:34pm on Dec 16th, 2013

Emergency Order Establishing Requirements for Controlling Passenger Train Speeds and Staffing Locomotive Cabs at Certain Locations on the Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company

06
Dec
2013

EO NUMBER: Emergency Order 29, Notice No. 1
KEYWORDS: Metro-North, Emergency Order, passenger train speeds, locomotive cab staffing

► http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04880 ◄

There's a way to avoid 2 people in the cab. Reduce the speed for a couple miles before the curve to 50. That way there are 2 reductions of 20 mph each, not one of 40. It should not affect things operationally much, if at all, since trains should be slowing in this stretch anyway.