Railroad Forums 

Discussion relating to the operations of MTA MetroNorth Railroad including west of Hudson operations and discussion of CtDOT sponsored rail operations such as Shore Line East and the Springfield to New Haven Hartford Line

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, FL9AC, Jeff Smith

 #1239733  by Trainer
 
Patrick Boylan wrote:Terrapin Station, I assume you and Dutch are talking about the recent Spuyten Duyvil wreck, which so far nobody has named in this thread. About all I can quibble about Dutch's statement is a bit of hyperbole, the push operation had very little to do with what transpired. Do you doubt that the wreck's immediate cause was engineer's inattention? Other than alerters and other locomotive noises, which might not have helped the engineer pay attention better, what is there about push vs pull that you feel contributed to that wreck?
The reason it keeps coming up is because early media stories reported that the cab alert system that would have been functioning in "pull" mode was not designed to function in "push" mode. I don't know if that is true, but I have not seen that claim refuted here or elsewhere.

If (?) that's true, then push/pull may well have made a difference. Safety systems that only function half the time are idiotic. The notion that an alerter system "might not have helped" if the train was pointed the other way is not a credible argument. It might have helped a lot.
 #1239740  by Patrick Boylan
 
I once again ask that we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of push pull in one of the existing threads, so if anybody wants to read my stimulating and entertaining reply to Trainer's post, please go to http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=67&t=153602" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Push Pull

I'm pretty sure we've had enough posts that say it is possible to turn trains/engines at GCT, but I'd sure love to see in this thread anybody's posts that might add some new about that subject.
 #1239747  by truck6018
 
Trainer wrote:
Patrick Boylan wrote:Terrapin Station, I assume you and Dutch are talking about the recent Spuyten Duyvil wreck, which so far nobody has named in this thread. About all I can quibble about Dutch's statement is a bit of hyperbole, the push operation had very little to do with what transpired. Do you doubt that the wreck's immediate cause was engineer's inattention? Other than alerters and other locomotive noises, which might not have helped the engineer pay attention better, what is there about push vs pull that you feel contributed to that wreck?
The reason it keeps coming up is because early media stories reported that the cab alert system that would have been functioning in "pull" mode was not designed to function in "push" mode. I don't know if that is true, but I have not seen that claim refuted here or elsewhere.

If (?) that's true, then push/pull may well have made a difference. Safety systems that only function half the time are idiotic. The notion that an alerter system "might not have helped" if the train was pointed the other way is not a credible argument. It might have helped a lot.
You're getting two different things confused with one another. Push-pull, and different types of of safety appliances. I speculating that if this accident happened with a consist of M-3's, the deadman vs alerter issue would never have been brought up.
 #1240450  by FL9AC
 
It was an accident....this can be speculated forever. Trains can't be looped at all outlying points so case closed. as far as alerters vs. Deadman devices there's still a margin for error with each form of protection so that argument is ridiculous as well.
 #1241000  by Silverliner II
 
Regarding the restrictions on turning trains on the loop at GCT: is it by chance FRA excepted track?

Last spring, I was on an Acela Express out of Philly to Newark that had cab signal issues coming into Philly. It was decided to run the train up the Harrisburg Line to clear the signals for Zoo just past the Belmont overpass, then the engineer could change ends and run via the "Pittsburgh-New York Subway" underneath Zoo, then out onto the NEC pointed towards New York, from the other power car, which had good cabs (though passengers would be riding backwards to Beantown).

The Subway is FRA excepted track. Yet we went through it, and a certain Amtrak Keystone train would have as well a couple months ago, had it not kept shoving when it should have stopped...
 #1241003  by DutchRailnut
 
no the loop is NOT FRA excepted track, but since no emergency exits exists it is normally not allowed to run passengers around loop.
unless permission is given by operations center.
 #1241024  by cobra30689
 
Silverliner II wrote:
The Subway is FRA excepted track. Yet we went through it, and a certain Amtrak Keystone train would have as well a couple months ago, had it not kept shoving when it should have stopped...
Definitely not in the timetable as such (as per Rule 99). 15mph with CSS in both directions.
 #1241223  by MattW
 
DutchRailnut wrote:no the loop is NOT FRA excepted track, but since no emergency exits exists it is normally not allowed to run passengers around loop.
unless permission is given by operations center.
Well that answers a question I posted elsewhere some time ago, why they couldn't use the loop to keep a current of traffic and thus not have to make as many conflicting moves across the entire plant? It's too bad that adding the emergency exits would probably cost too much.
 #1241354  by Penn Central
 
DutchRailnut wrote:no the loop is NOT FRA excepted track, but since no emergency exits exists it is normally not allowed to run passengers around loop.
unless permission is given by operations center.
MAS on the loop is 6 mph. That is real slow and by the time you make it to CP 1, you are 6-7 min late. Even if trains were looped in GCT, you would still need to turn engines and run around trains in POK ,Wassaic and Danbury. Danbury is the only place where that would be possible. They could also be turned at Devon and Brewster, which would not be a big help.
 #1241589  by lirr42
 
MattW wrote:Well that answers a question I posted elsewhere some time ago, why they couldn't use the loop to keep a current of traffic and thus not have to make as many conflicting moves across the entire plant? It's too bad that adding the emergency exits would probably cost too much.
The loop is only accessible from a small few platform tracks, so having to route all trains, or most trains, over to the limited amount of through tracks will cause even more headaches than the fumes inhaled while inching through the loop.
 #1241598  by MattW
 
lirr42 wrote:
MattW wrote:Well that answers a question I posted elsewhere some time ago, why they couldn't use the loop to keep a current of traffic and thus not have to make as many conflicting moves across the entire plant? It's too bad that adding the emergency exits would probably cost too much.
The loop is only accessible from a small few platform tracks, so having to route all trains, or most trains, over to the limited amount of through tracks will cause even more headaches than the fumes inhaled while inching through the loop.
My thinking was that with a current of traffic, with trains appearing on the correct side without having to cross over would actually open up a little bit of capacity. Of course, I wasn't envisioning all or even most trains looping, but with all the disadvantages and problems, it's a moot point anyways.
 #1241607  by truck6018
 
The main purpose of the loop is to yard trains. Inbound trains come into GCT, unload at the passenger loop tracks (38-42), then go around the loop into the yard. The opposite happens to take trains out of the yard.
 #1241679  by lirr42
 
I know the LIRR likes to keep all of their MU's facing the same way (every odd number facing west, every even number facing east) and strongly discourages looping or wyeing trains. Does Metro-North have a similar policy?