Major derailment @ Spuyten Duyvil

Clean Cab wrote:I do not agree. A sleepy engineer could be alert enough to acknowledge an alerter system, yet still not reduce the speed of their train. Yes, an alerter and the dead man could have worked, but we will never know for sure.

You're right. It might not have saved the day. But then again it might have. Like you say, we'll never know for sure.

Clean Cab wrote:It is not a matter of MN "defending" it's use of a dead man pedal versus an alerter. This was never an issue until this incident happened.

Sorry - what I meant to say was if one of the recommendations coming from the investigation was to install alerters, how could MN defend against that? I would think they'd have to.

Clean Cab wrote:There is no FRA or NTSB requirement specifying alerters over dead man pedals.

Thanks. I had asked this earlier, but nobody jumped in. I kinda figured there was no regulation, since the different systems seem to be all over the map.

lirr42 wrote:The two pieces of equipment were designed and built years apart. Dead man's pedals were the best they could do in the 80's, and by time the P32's came along, alerters were "in".

Ok that makes sense.

Tommy Meehan wrote:

RearOfSignal wrote:It's amazing how the MTA has kept its failures of PTC/CBTC out of the media in years past. The media is misinforming people that this is a simple plug and play installation, which it is not.

I agree and I think the FRA (and Congress) are equally guilty of misleading the public. They make it sound like the hardware is on-the-shelf and ready-to-install if only the railroads would spend the cash. My impression is, there is no proven system yet.

My previous post about PTC got kind of lost on Page 26 due to the way posts get approved and backdate:

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... &start=375" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But,

In November and December 2000, Amtrak placed in service its Advanced Civil Speed
Enforcement System (ACSES) on a section of the Northeast corridor between New Haven and
Boston. This system, supplied by ALSTOM Transport Information Solutions, provides
enforcement of civil speeds and interlocking stop signals. The commissioning of this section
allowed Amtrak to initiate 150 MPH revenue service operation for its new “Acela Express” high
speed train service.

Source:

http://www.arema.org/files/library/2001 ... /00022.pdf

I think part of the problem is, none of the carriers want to go first. They want to see it installed and working someplace else before they sign on the dotted line. I can't say as I blame them.

Tell that to the Acela riders who have been using it everyday (of whom 99% surely have no clue what it is or what it does, they just know it's faster and more comfortable than driving on I-95). It's installed on the NEC in parts of New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland to allow 135mph operation (eventually 165 through PJ with CT cat), MARC has it on their locomotives and cab cars, NJT has a compatible ASES system on theirs, and it's also used north of New Haven by the various commuter and freight operators up there, including Boston's MBTA. Between those lines, there is a veritable plethora of electric and diesel equipment that uses it.

Metroliners had a kind of alerter by 1969. The Engineer had to touch some metal part in the cab frequently to prevent a warning and a brake application.

What is so hard to design about PTC? Is it that all other systems have dealt with signal aspects, which are not numerous enough to describe all of the various speeds and locations? It seems that all of the various parts exist and I think ACSES actually can do all of these things and works well enough. Am I mistaken?

The Amtrak ACSES system works via transponders that are imbedded in the tracks. The PTC system that is being discussed uses a radio system that requires many radio towers to be installed. But the FCC has not yet set aside certain frequencies or OK'd the building of the radio towers needed. So it's not just a matter of the need for such a system, it's the logistics and politics that are holding up the process.

There's some dispute if Amtrak's ACSES has all the bells and whistles of PTC. It may not be able to prevent as many accidents with track workers, for instance.

ACSES is an early version of PTC, but it's worked fine on the Shoreline for 15 years.

JimBoylan wrote:There's some dispute if Amtrak's ACSES has all the bells and whistles of PTC. It may not be able to prevent as many accidents with track workers, for instance.

You're not going to be able to prevent every accident with track workers or people with PTC involved. You're always going to have that one guy who isn't paying attention who walks onto the wrong track at the perfectly wrong moment, PTC wont help you there.. If he does it right in front of you youre going to hit him PTC regardless.

Clean Cab wrote:...But the FCC has not yet set aside certain frequencies or OK'd the building of the radio towers needed. So it's not just a matter of the need for such a system, it's the logistics and politics that are holding up the process.

In defense of the FCC, I saw a website the other night for people in the communications business. The demand on the FCC to provide frequencies has grown enormously. So they have problems too. Some of the people were saying that assigning frequencies to PTC is not a simple matter. The quote below is from a similar site.

The radio frequency spectrum is a finite and increasingly precious world resource, and needs to be managed effectively. In particular, dependence on radio communications in one form or another has grown dramatically in recent years, and the growth in the number and variety of applications - many of them bandwidth hungry - and the huge expansion in user expectations place ever-increasing demands on the radio spectrum.

Fixed and mobile communications, sound and television broadcasting, aviation, railway and maritime transport, defense, medical electronics, emergency services, remote control and monitoring, radio astronomy and space research, as well as many other applications, all make extensive use of the radio spectrum. Link

MN and LIRR are converting slowly to ACSES type PTC,which is not as cell tower dependent as ITCS type PTC,
however,the increasing use of smartphones and tablets requires the building of cell towers to support
the bandwith they need to fuction.

map193 wrote:I'm not sure if anyone has heard this on the news yet, but Mr. Rockefeller has been suspended without pay. My thoughts go out to him and everyone who has been affected by this accident during this Holiday season.

That is the railroad culture. It takes a heck of a lot less than an incident of this magnatude to get 30 days on the street.

Assuming he was doing 75mph when he started to zone out, what would cause he rise to 82mph? Is that part of the line on a downgrade? If the throttle weren't increased, how long would it take the train to go from 75mph to 82mph?

Any employee facing a disciplinary hearing is removed from service without pay pending the outcome of the investigation.

Is there any precedent to what will happen to Rockefeller? Is firing him on the table? I'm sure he's not going to be working as a locomotive engineer again but will he remained employed? Forty-six is kind of old to be starting all over. And it's not like he took out a gun and started shooting people. He made a mistake. A spectacular mistake but still just a mistake.