Drunk Girl falls on tracks at North Station(11/6/09)

3rdrail wrote:

Arborway wrote: I don't think you paid attention to that episode because the myth was busted.

Hmmm...I wouldn't test that theory. Jellinek shows it twice in his collection, and supposedly it's documented in cases where victims peed on the third rail, one in Wales or somewhere, and the other in NYC. Snopes.com says it's possible.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... third-rail

Didn't it also happen in Chicago some years ago, on one of CTA's ground-level routes on the West Side? I recall hearing that the guy's relatives sued CTA and won, on the grounds that CTA had not properly posted warning signs against peeing on the third rail; this led to much jocular speculation at the time about what a pictogram might look like -- what exactly would you put in the red circle with the diagonal bar?

3rdrail wrote:I know that I see MBTA employees routinely stepping on the third rail without harm. At first I thought that it was just carelessness, but I wonder if walking on it is safer than trying to manoever around the third rail, risking falling into it and exposing touching it with a hand, head, etc, as opposed to an insulated shoe ?

Perhaps the power was shut off? Assuming the shoe would insulate in the first place, if the person's ankle brushes the 3rd rail then there's just a sock between them and the power...

TrainManTy wrote:

3rdrail wrote:I know that I see MBTA employees routinely stepping on the third rail without harm. At first I thought that it was just carelessness, but I wonder if walking on it is safer than trying to manoever around the third rail, risking falling into it and exposing touching it with a hand, head, etc, as opposed to an insulated shoe ?

Perhaps the power was shut off? Assuming the shoe would insulate in the first place, if the person's ankle brushes the 3rd rail then there's just a sock between them and the power...

I saw an inspector at Downtown Crossing cross between platforms in the pit, and IIRC he stepped directly on the third rail. Even if he didn't, I wouldn't even step over it for fear of slipping and grounding it...but the power definitely wasn't off at the time - it was just between trains arriving.

As for whether its possible to get electocuted by urinating on it - apparently there is mostly anecdotal evidence but little concrete evidence. There was one case in New York where the injuries may have been consistent, but he was also struck by a train. The Chicago incident I read about only said that he came in contact with the third rail while on the tracks with the intention of urinating - not whether that was how he was electrocuted.

Anyone who has been to the Museum Of Science in the past when they had the fluids display know that a "stream" of liquid is really a rapid sequence of droplets. So there isn't a direct connection. However, it is possible that the electrical potential could arc repeatedly through the droplets. But even if that did happen, the grounding would likely terminate instantly - the shock alone would make it impossible to maintain a connection. The question is - is the initial shock enough to kill?

As for the Mythbusters "Busted" rating - sometimes I have problems with the parameters of their test.

caduceus wrote:As for the Mythbusters "Busted" rating - sometimes I have problems with the parameters of their test.

True, but in this case they did a very good job playing around with distance, fluid velocity and going out of their way to ground the test subject.

600 or 650V is more than enough to do the job - very quickly. You can be electrocuted by your 12V car battery or your 120V house circuit. I understand that defibilrillation machines cap voltage at 60V to prevent damaging tissue. In the case of the T employee stepping onto the 3rd rail above, it was definitely live as a train had just left and another came into the station a moment later. The case in New York supposedly was verified by autopsy which found that the victim was deceased prior to the train striking him. He had burnt tissue on his penis and finger tips. Our girl was just lucky (again) that she fell the right way. In her condition, she had no concept of avoiding the 3rd rail, I'm sure. If she had touched the 3rd rail and was grounded (easily by a leg, other hand, arm, etc.), she would have gone up in smoke. If there had been a puddle between the rails where she wound up, as there often is, she very possibly would have been charged as well. She's just a lucky, lucky girl. I think that I'll try to get her phone number and buy a few lottery tickets with her.

*Edit ~ I just did a little math and figured that she had about a 6 % chance of survival considering a 5% chance of dying from the fall and 50% each for Electrocution, Crowd Wavers being present, Operator Observing Wavers when she did, and Train's Ability to Stop prior to striking victim. My survivability percentages may be generous.

The third rail doesn't conduce through the top of the rail, at least not on most of the trains in Boston. That's how it's possible for the workers to pass across the top of he third rail without being electrocuted. I believe it's a side contact system on the trains up here. Early systems used to use top contact but they've updated most of them for safety of workers. I believe some Phillie area tracks still use a top contact third rail. So for her or any worker to be electrocuted by contact, they'd need to have come in from the side of the rail and made contact with it. I've stepped from the running track over a third rail with no problems. Not sure if I'd want to try actually stepping on the rail even after knowing it's not top contact.

I'm not a subway fan like that but I'm pretty sure the pickup for power is on the top of the 3rd rail seeing that the shoes glide along the top of the 3rd rail.

They do contact through the top of the rail. Indeed the only places in the US where the third rail shoe doesn't contact on top are Metro-North and the Philly's Market-Frankford Line, where the shoe runs along the bottom.

Either way, though, the entire third rail is energized to the same electric potential difference (voltage). The thing to remember about voltage, though, is the number is a comparison between one point in space and another point. For a 9V battery, it's the difference between the two terminals. For a third rail it's between the third rail and the running rail that's wired as the return path for the circuit, or to "ground", the universal electrical sink that is the earth itself.

And that's why, concievably, someone could walk on the third rail. As long as they walk as though it were a balance beam, and didn't contact anything else, they wouldn't ground themself, and therefore would be at the same potential as the third rail (current doesn't flow between two things at the same potential).

How they would get on there without grounding themself I have no idea. Chances are, the juice was simply off.

I am surprised that the girl was alone, drunk on the platform. She should have had some friends help her get home. Reminds me of an incident when I was still in my late teens. This woman got pie-eyed in our favorite pub. These fellas offered to take her home, which they did by way of the nearest park. In the park, they all had their way with her, then cleaned her up a bit, and took her home. Not exactly the gentlemanly thing to do, and how come the girl was alone ?

TehDude wrote:The third rail doesn't conduce through the top of the rail, at least not on most of the trains in Boston. That's how it's possible for the workers to pass across the top of he third rail without being electrocuted. I believe it's a side contact system on the trains up here. Early systems used to use top contact but they've updated most of them for safety of workers. I believe some Phillie area tracks still use a top contact third rail. So for her or any worker to be electrocuted by contact, they'd need to have come in from the side of the rail and made contact with it. I've stepped from the running track over a third rail with no problems. Not sure if I'd want to try actually stepping on the rail even after knowing it's not top contact.

That's a pretty dangerous, reckless, and incorrect assumption to make. There is no insulation between the top and sides of Boston's third rail system, and all of our cars use shoes which run along the top surface of the third rail. The reason that workers step onto the top of the rail with shoes without consequences is that they are not grounded. If one were to fall, such as our friend here did, and touch both a running rail and the third rail (top, side, underneath) uninsulated at the same time, it would be sizzle city.

Just out of curiosity, if a worker steps onto the third rail, how can they be sure that their other foot will not be grounded? Obviously they don't touch the running rail, but could you become grounded if there was snow or a puddle on the ballast, concrete, etc.?

Basically what I am asking is how large is the risk, if any, of stepping onto the third rail the "correct" way, and what is the "correct" way?
It seems like it would be a little tedious to have to jump with both feet at once onto a 650 volt balance beam. Don't slip!

One of the first things I learned in the business, was " don't walk on the rail (any rail), step over it"
All rails are slippery, the shine on the rail is an indication of how smooth it is,
there are lubricants around and other factors, if not on the railhead, on your shoes etc.
Add to that, the difference in electrical potential between the rails, possibilities of
leakage to subway framing etc., the third rail would be no place to play tightrope.
LS

When was the last time someone was electrocuted from the 3rd rail in boston?

Triker wrote:When was the last time someone was electrocuted from the 3rd rail in boston?

I believe this incident in August 2007 was the most recent one. Just a matter of feet from where the 11/6/09 one played out.

Bostonist wrote:At about 10:30 p.m. Friday, a man walked along the Orange Line tracks toward an oncoming train. When the train stopped short without killing him, the man, unharmed, but determined to die in a painful, grotesque manner that would inconvenience a lot of people, deliberately crawled under the train and was electrocuted by the third rail.

I feel especially bad for the operator of that train. You stop six cars in time to save a man's life, breathe a sigh of relief, and moments later he crawls under your train and dies anyway.

Here's a related incident. February 15th? I'm sure the kid's lawyer has already filed a massive lawsuit.

Published: Monday, February 15, 2010
NEW YORK — A 16-year-old boy on his way to paint graffiti onto subway cars in Brooklyn lost his leg when he was run over by a train, the New York Times has reported. Jose Juarez of Brooklyn was walking through a subway tunnel when a train hit him; he was reported to be in critical but stable condition last night.

Juarez and two friends were walking on the tracks of the northbound N line about 10:10 p.m. about 75 feet north of the Kings Highway station platform when the train struck Juarez. It's unclear whether Juarez's leg was in the path of the train, if his clothes got caught, or if there was some other cause. The three were standing in boxes where maintenance workers stand to let trains pass.

PBM