Metro-North passenger train derails in NYC

[lirr42]

The engineer said he applied the brake but it didn't engage. I also learned he was "pushing" his load instead of "pulling" it. Is there a significant difference in braking when the engine is in front or behind?

 

Nope, there is no difference.  If push-pull configurations were unsafe, how come everyday over 35,000 trains operate that way around the world without incident?

[lirr42]

Question, are MN trains equipped with systems to stop the train (throw it into emergency) if its going too fast for a period of time? Not sure how much of a difference it would have made, but here Metra trains have that system. Audiable warning of overspeed, then automatic braking after being over speed too long. Happened to me on the BNSF line one day, very quick stop for a trainSent from my iPhone 5c using TapatalkEdit- seems like MN is in the process of installig the equipment?

This. I believe this 100%. and it isnt only the MTA... I would say most transit agencies in the USA are operating like this right now. I know the RTA/CTA/METRA are. We had Metras CEO ousted because he wouldnt take an appointee that was backed by Someone influential in Springfield. Or so i believeSent from my iPhone 5c using Tapatalk

 

This is a quote from the 1010wins article on the story. Is this correct, and was this system in place at the curve where the accident happened?

 

Metro-North is in the process of installing the technology [in reference to PTC]. It now has what’s called an “automatic train control” signal system, which automatically applies the brakes if an engineer fails to respond to an alert that indicates excessive speed.

 

MNCR does in fact have a cab signalling system in place (ATC/CSS) that will take action if an engineer does not respond to an alert.  The system does not take into account permanent or temporary speed restrictions (but in this case I believe 30 is the MAS, not a speed restriction).

 

But, and I'm not trying to speculate here, if the engineer was going overspeed and that resulted in a penalty brake application...but the brakes did not respond...it's not going to do much for us, now is it?

 

There are systems in place to increase the safety of trains, and there are more coming, however ATC/CSS have, just like PTC will, little holes and exceptions because you simply can't figure out a way to prevent every possible situation.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I notice the train was an older train... All the more reason to replace them with newer technology.  

[lirr42]

I notice the train was an older train... All the more reason to replace them with newer technology.  

 

Do you have any further way to substantiate that claim?  A newer train was involved in a derailment back in May in Bridgeport, shouldn't we replace those with older trains??

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Do you have any further way to substantiate that claim?  A newer train was involved in a derailment back in May in Bridgeport, shouldn't we replace those with older trains??

Older equipment is more likely to have more problems....  Not always the case but it's usually the case.  Look at the fleet in most systems and the older fleet has more breakdowns, less reliability and so on.  We saw it with some of the subway cars which had to be removed due to structural problems.

 

----

Anywho, as for the commute, it wasn't too bad this morning. Left about 30 minutes or so earlier. I avoided the BxM1 altogether and will stick with the BxM18 or BxM2 for the foreseeable future.  More walking involved but I'll live.

[realizm]

Older equipment is more likely to have more problems....  Not always the case but it's usually the case.  Look at the fleet in most systems and the older fleet has more breakdowns, less reliability and so on.  We saw it with some of the subway cars which had to be removed due to structural problems.

 

----

Anywho, as for the commute, it wasn't too bad this morning. Left about 30 minutes or so earlier. I avoided the BxM1 altogether and will stick with the BxM18 or BxM2 for the foreseeable future.  More walking involved but I'll live.

 

In the case of older cars and NYC Transit, what I have heard many times after the fact, was this: The maintainance shops responsible for the GOHs of the R44's screwed up on the renumbering of the roster. Because of this, they could not keep track of the R44 rolling stock and thoroughly inspect each car when the structural defects started to become apparent, that being only on a few 8 car sets. They decided to scrap everything as a result imagining that the R160 order will cover for it and slash costs. Now we have a car shortage on the B division as a result.

 

But that is another story....

[46Dover]

You know something, as I was on my way up to Albany doing the Adirondack Trailways run yesterday morning, I had to go by way of Madison Ave, Triboro Br, and the Deegan cause I couldn't get into the Lincoln Tunnel. I got onto the Thruway and saw 4 Artics heading north after exit 6. I thought nothing of it at the time

Do you have any further way to substantiate that claim? A newer train was involved in a derailment back in May in Bridgeport, shouldn't we replace those with older trains??

Didn't that involve faulty track?

[narig]

This was one of the items in the news.

 

http://thebea.st/1cU7fOo

 

Amazing Grace in the Bronx: Inside the Metro-North Train-Wreck Rescue

 

Four were dead and dozens injured in an early-morning New York City train derailment, and firefighters needed help extricating the wounded. What followed was remarkable.

 

Rgds IGN

[QM1to6Ave]

MNCR does in fact have a cab signalling system in place (ATC/CSS) that will take action if an engineer does not respond to an alert.  The system does not take into account permanent or temporary speed restrictions (but in this case I believe 30 is the MAS, not a speed restriction).

 

But, and I'm not trying to speculate here, if the engineer was going overspeed and that resulted in a penalty brake application...but the brakes did not respond...it's not going to do much for us, now is it?

 

There are systems in place to increase the safety of trains, and there are more coming, however ATC/CSS have, just like PTC will, little holes and exceptions because you simply can't figure out a way to prevent every possible situation.

So that would seem to indicate to me that this was a mechanical problem, not human error, since the system should have slowed down the train regardless of the engineer's actions, no?

[realizm]

MNCR does in fact have a cab signalling system in place (ATC/CSS) that will take action if an engineer does not respond to an alert.  The system does not take into account permanent or temporary speed restrictions (but in this case I believe 30 is the MAS, not a speed restriction).

 

But, and I'm not trying to speculate here, if the engineer was going overspeed and that resulted in a penalty brake application...but the brakes did not respond...it's not going to do much for us, now is it?

 

There are systems in place to increase the safety of trains, and there are more coming, however ATC/CSS have, just like PTC will, little holes and exceptions because you simply can't figure out a way to prevent every possible situation.

I'm a bit perplexed here with this situation. There are many things wrong here with this deadly spur as it relates to the recent accidents with the layman knowledge that I have:

 

1) Both Bronx derailments (the other involving CSX as the operator) occurred within a 1800 foot perimeter of each other on Spuyten Duyvil.

 

2) The tracks were underwater during Hurricane Sandy. The area may be undergoing soil erosion as a result. 

 

3) The section of ROW consists of two tight turns in close proximity with menacing landscape adjacent to the tracks.

 

Something is not right here, infrastructure-wise. However I am still a bit lost here because the governor is suspecting that the speed was exceeded in the slow zone while the engineer on the other hand is saying that the brakes failed. Possibly even if he was speeding in the slow zone (if that is the case, I do not know....) the penalty brake should have kicked in, no? But that apparently failed even.

[nostalgia]

I'm a bit perplexed here with this situation. There are many things wrong here with this deadly spur as it relates to the recent accidents with the layman knowledge that I have:

 

Something is not right here, infrastructure-wise. However I am still a bit lost here because the governor is suspecting that the speed was exceeded in the slow zone while the engineer on the other hand is saying that the brakes failed. Possibly even if he was speeding in the slow zone (if that is the case, I do not know....) the penalty brake should have kicked in, no? But that apparently failed even.

The penalty brake application SHOULD NOT have kicked in. The penalty brake application kicks in IF the engineer doesn't acknowledge a signal that is less favorable than clear or doesn't respond to the alerter. Neither is applicable in this situation. IF the train had ACSES, the penalty brake application would have kicked in if the train was rolling too fast. BUT MN doesn't have ACSES on the Hudson Line.

[Tokkemon]

What if one of the wheels got skewed enough to derail? Assuming the train was going so fast, in combination with perhaps a loose bolt or slightly deformed wheel, enough shear on the metal component would cause the excessive speed around a curve to strain the wheel until it broke and/or sheared enough so that it left the rain causing a chain reaction down the train. Given all the inertia of the train at a curve one wheel could be all it took to send the cars flying.

[realizm]

The penalty brake application SHOULD NOT have kicked in. The penalty brake application kicks in IF the engineer doesn't acknowledge a signal that is less favorable than clear or doesn't respond to the alerter. Neither is applicable in this situation. IF the train had ACSES, the penalty brake application would have kicked in if the train was rolling too fast. BUT MN doesn't have ACSES on the Hudson Line.

Point noted. But again think about it.... two derailments in a 1800 foot block? The super-storm causing erosion damage to the landscape as the ROW was covered over by 11 feet of water as the hurricane passed through? The steep nature of the curves to begin with? I mean look at what happened to the Rockaways.

 

These are all dead ringers that must be considered.

[lirr42]

Didn't that involve faulty track?

 

Yes it did, but how do we know this one didn't involve faulty track??  We're jumping to conclusions using information we don't have............

[46Dover]

Yes it did, but how do we know this one didn't involve faulty track?? We're jumping to conclusions using information we don't have............

We don't know

[Fan Railer]

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal the engineer had 20 years experience.

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303670804579231830633455674

 

Someone with that would know about speed.

 

Rgds IGN

 

 

Teelow no difference in braking ability. With railroad airbrakes they respond to changes in air pressure in the line. The main difference is in an accident the heavier locomotive has more ability to push bigger things out of the way. And provides for better crew protection.

Last comment I am not sure if MetroNorth's locomotives have dynamic braking. It would have been the margin in this if the train had suffered an air brake system failure. Dynamic brakes turn the traction motors (the electric motors in a diesel electric locomotive) into generators to provide braking.

 

Rgds IGN

On dynamic braking, on most commuter trains nowadays, it is blended in with the air brakes. In the locomotive, there are notches on the combined throttle / brake controller that allow the engineer to use the dynamics independently of the air, but from what I understand, the general rule is that you cannot access the dynamic brakes independently of the air brakes if you are operating from the cab car. We don't know enough information regarding what happened immediately prior to the train entering the curve yet, so it's hard to say if use of the dynamic brake in the apparent absence of air in this case would have helped the situation.

[lirr42]

To briefly respond to many previous gentle forum members:

 

There is still a large air of mystery hovering over this incident.  We can speculate all we want, but the bottom line is it is getting us absolutely nowhere.  We can discuss the technical aspects of an incident like this until the cows come home (and that's fine with me), but bear in mind that every mechanical system has loopholes and things that sometimes don't work.

 

We don't know if the train's air brakes worked or not, if they didn't it would certainly explain a lot, since any attempt to reduce speed to meet the 30mph MAS speed would not have been successful, as well with any other emergency or preventive actions.  If the brakes did fail they could have done so for any number of reasons.  It could have been anything from poor maintenance, old age, rotten luck, or sabatoge.  We don't know, and we won't know until roughly one year from now when the NTSB is finished doing their thing.

 

This entire event is very sad.  It was the first incident that involved a passenger fatality Metro-North's 31 year history.  I certainly don't envy the position of the families of those involved.  At this point, it is best for everyone, the surviving victims, the families of those less fortunate, the train crew, and the investigators if we knock off our speculation hats and let the professionals do their jobs.  They will formulate a reason and then Metro-North will take corrective action to make sure this doesn't happen again.

We don't know

 

Exactly.   Mr. Garibaldi on the previous page presumably looked at a random photo, noticed the equipment involved was of the older Bombardier rolling stock variety, and was then spurred to make the comment that because the old equipment was involved, it should be replaced with newer versions.  I then asked him to substantiate that claim that the 'old' equipment played a role in the incident (to which he didn't).  This is precisely how rumors and inaccurate information get started. 

[Vistausss]

@VG8: "most systems" It depends. We've had 2 problematic train fleets (SLT and V250) here that were bought resp. between 2006-2009 and 2011-2012. The first one got adjusted and it now operates correctly. The second one is OOS as instated by the DOT because it failed the inspection after several breakdowns.

 

So lirr42 is right: older trains are just as good, sometimes better, as newer trains All the more in this case because we don't know who or what caused the problem.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

To briefly respond to many previous gentle forum members:

 

There is still a large air of mystery hovering over this incident.  We can speculate all we want, but the bottom line is it is getting us absolutely nowhere.  We can discuss the technical aspects of an incident like this until the cows come home (and that's fine with me), but bear in mind that every mechanical system has loopholes and things that sometimes don't work.

 

We don't know if the train's air brakes worked or not, if they didn't it would certainly explain a lot, since any attempt to reduce speed to meet the 30mph MAS speed would not have been successful, as well with any other emergency or preventive actions.  If the brakes did fail they could have done so for any number of reasons.  It could have been anything from poor maintenance, old age, rotten luck, or sabatoge.  We don't know, and we won't know until roughly one year from now when the NTSB is finished doing their thing.

 

This entire event is very sad.  It was the first incident that involved a passenger fatality Metro-North's 31 year history.  I certainly don't envy the position of the families of those involved.  At this point, it is best for everyone, the surviving victims, the families of those less fortunate, the train crew, and the investigators if we knock off our speculation hats and let the professionals do their jobs.  They will formulate a reason and then Metro-North will take corrective action to make sure this doesn't happen again.

 

 

Exactly.   Mr. Garibaldi on the previous page presumably looked at a random photo, noticed the equipment involved was of the older Bombardier rolling stock variety, and was then spurred to make the comment that because the old equipment was involved, it should be replaced with newer versions.  I then asked him to substantiate that claim that the 'old' equipment played a role in the incident (to which he didn't).  This is precisely how rumors and inaccurate information get started. 

I didn't speculate that it was old equipment, but my point was in general in that as a customer on the Hudson Line, I'd like to see those trains replaced. I had the "pleasure" of taking a trip on one of those cars once last year and was not at all pleased.  For what we pay for service, we should new cars that are from the 21st century.

 

@VG8: "most systems" It depends. We've had 2 problematic train fleets (SLT and V250) here that were bought resp. between 2006-2009 and 2011-2012. The first one got adjusted and it now operates correctly. The second one is OOS as instated by the DOT because it failed the inspection after several breakdowns.

 

So lirr42 is right: older trains are just as good, sometimes better, as newer trains All the more in this case because we don't know who or what caused the problem.

All depends on who builds the trains and how... Not everything new is great but usually newer cars provide a greater level of comfort and a better sense of safety.  

[Turbo19]

I think someone is letting this get a little out of hand, it it doesn't seem to be the passengers.

 

Sure, cover your bases, but this is getting outrageous.

[realizm]

NTSB officials should provide later details as the investigation continues throughout today according to a report from Reuters.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

For anyone who uses Metro-North in Riverdale, the Hudson Rail Link buses are running.  I saw several of them this morning running along the Henry Hudson Parkway.  

[itmaybeokay]

I didn't speculate that it was old equipment, but my point was in general in that as a customer on the Hudson Line, I'd like to see those trains replaced. I had the "pleasure" of taking a trip on one of those cars once last year and was not at all pleased.  For what we pay for service, we should new cars that are from the 21st century.

 

I'm curious what your gripe about those cars is. I rode one this summer and it was perfectly fine. Are you expecting porter service? I'm not trying to be rude but like, from a passenger perspective there's nothing wrong with those cars. Honestly I find the seats to be more comfortable, and the lighting to be more pleasant than the M7s

 

All depends on who builds the trains and how... Not everything new is great but usually newer cars provide a greater level of comfort and a better sense of safety.  

 

I'm not going to speculate about malfunctions, because the jury is decidedly out on that point for the time being - but in terms of how safe the cars are, we're talking about a severe derailment here and almost 2/3 of the passengers were not seriously injured. I in no way mean to minimize the lives lost, as that remains a serious tragedy, but from a crash-supression standpoint we're talking about cars that are pretty safe - because if they weren't we'd be dealing with an even greater tragedy. 

[Truckie]

but my point was in general in that as a customer on the Hudson Line, I'd like to see those trains replaced. I had the "pleasure" of taking a trip on one of those cars once last year and was not at all pleased. 

 

You may not like them and I know numerous passengers that prefer them.  To each their own.  Now back the the topic at hand.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I'm curious what your gripe about those cars is. I rode one this summer and it was perfectly fine. Are you expecting porter service? I'm not trying to be rude but like, from a passenger perspective there's nothing wrong with those cars. Honestly I find the seats to be more comfortable, and the lighting to be more pleasant than the M7s

 

 

I'm not going to speculate about malfunctions, because the jury is decidedly out on that point for the time being - but in terms of how safe the cars are, we're talking about a severe derailment here and almost 2/3 of the passengers were not seriously injured. I in no way mean to minimize the lives lost, as that remains a serious tragedy, but from a crash-supression standpoint we're talking about cars that are pretty safe - because if they weren't we'd be dealing with an even greater tragedy. 

I'm not a fan of the seating in either car, but especially the older ones and I also feel as if they're not as safe as the M7s.  Those old cars are dark and dreary, and certainly not worth paying over $10.00 for during peak periods. We should be getting some of the new cars being put on the New Haven line, as some of the M7s need to be overhauled.  Perhaps this incident will employ Metro-North to rethink its strategy about using these antiquated cars and replacing them accordingly.  I certainly intend to mention it whenever there's another Metro-North meeting here in Riverdale.  I was outspoken about the drab shuttle buses we have during the last meeting here.

 

You may not like them and I know numerous passengers that prefer them.  To each their own.  Now back the the topic at hand.

LOL... That's interesting to say the least... They must be on something to actually like those outdated 18th century bohemians. Nevertheless, I'm of the opinion that new cars may have been able to prevent this tragedy. Old equipment usually means more breakdowns, faulty equipment and the like.