Jump to content

Derailment Near 125 Street (8th Avenue); Minor Injuries Reported


Future ENY OP

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Just heard from two of the stuck passengers on that train. They decided to get out because there was NO communication from the train crew (what a surprise); their car was filling with smoke with people throwing up and so on who couldn't breathe. The notion of staying put sounds great, but when your life may be at risk, you have to do what's best to protect yourself first and foremost. People were banging in the other car and eventually broke through because of the smoke issue, not knowing where they were, and the possibility of them being in imminent danger.

Get those cars replaced and soon and any other locked cars. They're death traps.

How are R46/68 cars "death traps" if people where able to self evacuate during this incident?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are R46/68 cars "death traps" if people where able to self evacuate during this incident?

As if they just walked off the train... You're either ignorant as to how they escaped or are blatantly overlooking the problem with having train cars that are locked. I already posted the article where passengers were locked inside a car with a deranged man wielding a knife, and how that went and now this, not to mention the (F) train incident with people trying to pry the doors open to get out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just going to throw my 2 cents in here:

 

I don't think there is any debate that during normal usage, those doors should be locked. The R46 curve picture tells the whole story. However, VG8 does have a point. I get that the MTA prefers orderly evacuations (for good reason), but there will be times where passengers won't have time to wait for help to arrive. I think the best solution would be installing a passenger intercom similar to what the 142s and 160s have. Pressing a button to talk to the conductor will establish communications between the crew and passengers and allow the crew to open the doors as fast as possible. I read somewhere on the Daily News that the train operator didn't even realize that the middle cars had derailed yesterday, so despite the fact that there is a button in the cab, the T/O would've never known to open the doors.

 

Perhaps with the R211, the MTA could ask for cameras to be installed so that the conductor can also see what's going on when the intercom button is pressed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As if they just walked off the train... You're either ignorant as to how they escaped or are blatantly overlooking the problem with having train cars that are locked. I already posted the article where passengers were locked inside a car with a deranged man wielding a knife, and how that went and now this, not to mention the (F) train incident with people trying to pry the doors open to get out.

I know how they got out, the windows of the end doors can be easily removed. Now let's say you get your way and they do leave the end doors unlocked on all 75' foot cars, what will you say when people start getting injured or killed when crossing between cars? Getting rid of all 75' cars isn't an option at this time as there are not enough cars to meet demands presently. Maybe better signage is needed so more people know that the end doors and be opened in the event of an emergency, but they are not the death traps you claim them to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are serious safety issues if the doors remain unlocked.

There are serious safety issues if the doors cannot be unlocked. 

There are solutions to this problem that are both low-tech and low-cost, and should be implemented on the older cars ASAP. Surely there's a way the doors can be unlocked in an emergency. Intercoms are a simple technology. 

 

There are also policy, management, and training issues that need to be addressed ASAP. In an emergency, the MTA is consistently poor at both communicating with passengers, and at evacuating passengers in a timely manner. The MTA needs to do 1000% better in this regard, or passengers will keep taking matters (AKA their life) into their own hands. There seems to be a culture at the MTA where safety = taking things as slowly as possible in all cases. But in situations like this, time is of the essence. If the MTA is serious about safety, all onboard and station personnel should train regularly for situations like this. That training should emphasize timely and productive communication with passengers, expedient decisions about whether and how to evacuate, and practicing those evacuations. I don't know what kind of training like this happens now, but if it happens at all, it's clearly inadequate or deeply flawed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are serious safety issues if the doors remain unlocked.

There are serious safety issues if the doors cannot be unlocked. 

There are solutions to this problem that are both low-tech and low-cost, and should be implemented on the older cars ASAP. 

 

There are also policy, management, and training issues that need to be addressed ASAP. In an emergency, the MTA is consistently poor at both communicating with passengers, and at evacuating passengers in a timely manner. The MTA needs to do 1000% better in this regard, or passengers will keep taking matters (AKA their life) into their own hands. There seems to be a culture at the MTA where safety = taking things as slowly as possible in all cases. But in situations like this, time is of the essence. If the MTA is serious about safety, all onboard and station personnel should train regularly for situations like this. That training should emphasize timely and productive communication with passengers, expedient decisions about when and how to evacuate, and practicing those evacuations. I don't know what kind of training like this happens now, but if it happens at all, it's clearly inadequate or deeply flawed.

 

So what is this low-tech and low-cost solution you speak of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I'm in favor of leaving those end doors unlocked at all times, and putting a big sign up that says "cross at your own risk, morons." If people are dumb enough to cross while the train is in motion, well, too bad for them. I'm sure the MTA lawyers can figure out how to best mitigate the risk of a successful lawsuit from the family of some moron that crosses while the train is in motion and falls under the train. T

 

he lawsuits from people claiming emotional damage from being trapped in the car during these events may cost just as much as lawsuits from people who fall under the train. 

 

I also have a hard time believing that no one falls between the NTT trains with the unlocked doors, even if the curves are not as sharp. I've seen enough drunk idiots peeing between those cars to know at least some of them must fall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what is this low-tech and low-cost solution you speak of?

 

He mentioned that:

 

It seems to me that a good and simple compromise might be to place end door keys in little break-glass-in-case-of-emergency boxes. Or boxes that blare an alarm if you open them, like fire alarm covers, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I'm in favor of leaving those end doors unlocked at all times, and putting a big sign up that says "cross at your own risk, morons." If people are dumb enough to cross while the train is in motion, well, too bad for them. I'm sure the MTA lawyers can figure out how to best mitigate the risk of a successful lawsuit from the family of some moron that crosses while the train is in motion and falls under the train. T

 

he lawsuits from people claiming emotional damage from being trapped in the car during these events may cost just as much as lawsuits from people who fall under the train. 

 

I also have a hard time believing that no one falls between the NTT trains with the unlocked doors, even if the curves are not as sharp. I've seen enough drunk idiots peeing between those cars to know at least some of them must fall.

 

I think in terms of risk, it comes down to what is more likely to happen during the average day. Will there be a large gap and a misalignment of the end doors every time the cars go around a curve of transverse a switch or will there be a person with a knife, a fire, or some other unusual occorance on a train with locked end doors? I think having the end doors locked because of a known dangerous condition is what the lawyers will go with.

 

Also, people have fallen between cars on New Tech trains, but it is less of an occurrence.

He mentioned that:

Did t see it when I first read through it.

 

Either way, vandals will steal the keys and something like a fire alarm does nothing especially if the crew is unable to respond or key open the end doors. At one time, the R44/46 cars did have a switch inside every car to allow the end doors to be opened. They were removed due to vandalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, vandals will steal the keys and something like a fire alarm does nothing especially if the crew is unable to respond or key open the end doors. At one time, the R44/46 cars did have a switch inside every car to allow the end doors to be opened. They were removed due to vandalism.

 

 

The alarm will goes on after someone opened the doors. Why do we still need keys for that?

I could imagine the setup would be similar to the emergency brake cover in some pre-NTT cara, where alarm will sound when someone lifted the cover. IMO this is a reasonable compromise where passengers could evacuate without the help from crew in case of emergency, and the end doors aren't available when they are not needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they choose to unlock the bulkhead doors, a sign can be added similar to WMATA's cars:

 

IMG_20170626_162729552.jpg

 

That takes care of the liability issues...

 

One thing people need to consider is the relative time frames for events like these. The train derails and fires start in a matter of seconds, but for the operator and conductor - who are unaware of the exact situation in their unaffected cars - it can take at least a minute to make the decision to exit the train and do a walking inspection, which can take much longer while the operator does a walking assessment on the roadway next to a train. All the while the operator is in communication with ROC, who have their own layer of decision making and assessment. Then there's the call to EMS and the mobilization of emergency resources, their trek to the disabled train, and the process of evacuating hundreds of passengers from most likely one to two doors in each of eight 75-foot cars whose floors are almost 4 feet off the ground. Mind you they need to be monitored while they walk the tunnel to the platform, so you need personnel for that, too. If I was at the back of that train, I would be astonished if I was evacuated within 20 minutes of the incident.

 

In this case, an intercom system could've been helpful, as long as there was power to operate the system. However, given the two anecdotes from people in opposite two locations of that train, it's clear that communication was affected by the derailment.

 

What they picked back up here in DC are quarterly drills with the local emergency agencies to simulate incidents on the system. It helps refine the procedures and keeps all parties sharp. They go as far as suspending/adjusting service depending on the drill. Thing is, even these drills take no less than 90 minutes and usually last at least two hours from the start to a complete evacuation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know how they got out, the windows of the end doors can be easily removed. Now let's say you get your way and they do leave the end doors unlocked on all 75' foot cars, what will you say when people start getting injured or killed when crossing between cars? Getting rid of all 75' cars isn't an option at this time as there are not enough cars to meet demands presently. Maybe better signage is needed so more people know that the end doors and be opened in the event of an emergency, but they are not the death traps you claim them to be.

Easily removed according to you. The passengers didn't know that and spent quite some time banging and trying to communicate to get out. The crew apparently didn't even know what was going on. The current cars should be retrofitted to allow for better communication. They ARE death traps seeing how people were on the verge of passing out on that (F) train or are you going to deny that occurred to show that you're in the know just because you're a staff member? I can point to the stabbing incident on the (D) train yet again with passengers locked in the car while this crazy guy went around stabbing innocent people, but sure they aren't death traps. You along with the (MTA) are in denial. The trains need to go sooner rather than later. That's the answer, and in the short term, find a way to retrofit the current cars for better communication.

 

I'm sure that the (MTA) wants this to just go away quietly so that they can go back to "business as usual".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I'm in favor of leaving those end doors unlocked at all times, and putting a big sign up that says "cross at your own risk, morons." If people are dumb enough to cross while the train is in motion, well, too bad for them. I'm sure the MTA lawyers can figure out how to best mitigate the risk of a successful lawsuit from the family of some moron that crosses while the train is in motion and falls under the train. T

 

he lawsuits from people claiming emotional damage from being trapped in the car during these events may cost just as much as lawsuits from people who fall under the train. 

 

I also have a hard time believing that no one falls between the NTT trains with the unlocked doors, even if the curves are not as sharp. I've seen enough drunk idiots peeing between those cars to know at least some of them must fall.

 

I work with lawyers regularly. They love to focus on mitigating risk more than anything, which may mean loves lost, just not as many according to them. They aren't the brightest kids on the block either, trust me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easily removed according to you. The passengers didn't know that and spent quite some time banging and trying to communicate to get out. The crew apparently didn't even know what was going on. The current cars should be retrofitted to allow for better communication. They ARE death traps seeing how people were on the verge of passing out on that (F) train or are you going to deny that occurred to show that you're in the know just because you're a staff member? I can point to the stabbing incident on the (D) train yet again with passengers locked in the car while this crazy guy went around stabbing innocent people, but sure they aren't death traps. You along with the (MTA) are in denial. The trains need to go sooner rather than later. That's the answer, and in the short term, find a way to retrofit the current cars for better communication.

 

I'm sure that the (MTA) wants this to just go away quietly so that they can go back to "business as usual".

I agree...It does raise the level of concern with these cars...Especially after witnessing the latest accidents that had occur..This something the  (MTA) should have realized before they made the 75 ft car order...That eventually the length of these cars was gonna one day be a safety issue regardless of how you view it and the order should have stop after the R44's in my opinion. ..60 ft cars should have always been the standard length for a B-Division subway car...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This something the  (MTA) should have realized before they made the 75 ft car order...That eventually the length of these cars was gonna one day be a safety issue regardless of how you view it and the order should have stop after the R44's in my opinion

Do remember when these cars were ordered and built. It was at a time when subway maintenance was at an all-time low with incredibly low reliability numbers across the fleet, but especially from the older cars the 44s and 46s would eventually replace. The idea behind the longer cars was that it would less maintenance without sacrificing train lengths. Early issues notwithstanding, the design proved to be beneficial as it would carry over to the 68 orders in the '80s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in terms of risk, it comes down to what is more likely to happen during the average day. Will there be a large gap and a misalignment of the end doors every time the cars go around a curve of transverse a switch or will there be a person with a knife, a fire, or some other unusual occorance on a train with locked end doors? I think having the end doors locked because of a known dangerous condition is what the lawyers will go with.

 

 

You are absolutely right that these emergency events are extremely unlikely, and I can see why the lawyers defer to that. That being said, it is interesting that when there was the push for OPTO, and the unions pointed out that evacuations are nearly impossible with only 1 crew member on board, the MTA didn't seem to care about that risk when there was the possibility of saving all that money on personnel cost. Seems like everything comes down to $$$

I work with lawyers regularly. They love to focus on mitigating risk more than anything, which may mean loves lost, just not as many according to them. They aren't the brightest kids on the block either, trust me.

 

HA! In my limited dealings with lawyers, I've had many of the same thoughts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do remember when these cars were ordered and built. It was at a time when subway maintenance was at an all-time low with incredibly low reliability numbers across the fleet, but especially from the older cars the 44s and 46s would eventually replace. The idea behind the longer cars was that it would less maintenance without sacrificing train lengths. Early issues notwithstanding, the design proved to be beneficial as it would carry over to the 68 orders in the '80s.

Exactly.  Part of that I believe was caused by the contracts that followed the 1966 transit strike (that led to the Taylor Law a year later and) that likely were behind why they went with 75-foot cars with first the R-44 order likely made around 1968-'69 or so that along with the R-46 order around 1972-'73 or so that for the most part replaced the R-1/9s.  That also was during the twin recessions of 1969-'70 and '73-75 that eventually would cripple New York.  The R-68/A order also as I remember came during a bad recession around 1982-'83 when the MTA was rebounding from an all-time low (I used to regularly ride when the MTA was in that bad of shape in the early '80s) and that again likely was why 75-footers.

 

Obviously, in retrospect, those should have been 60-footers, but like with tearing down many of the old ELs, a lot of moves in retrospect were short-sighted not realizing how things would change in later years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MTA derailment victim is already suing

 

By Julia Marsh

June 28, 2017 | 7:02pm

 

subway_evacuation1.jpg?quality=90&strip=
AP

 

A victim of Tuesday’s A train derailment has already filed a $5 million legal claim against the MTA over neck and back injuries.

 

Sheena Tucker, 31, of Harlem was on a Brooklyn-bound train near the 125th Street station at 9:45 a.m. when the car slammed up against a subway tunnel wall, according to her notice of claim.

 

She is planning to speak about her injuries at a press conference Thursday afternoon. Her claim, a precursor to a lawsuit, says that she’s suffering from “serious and severe personal injuries..including but not limited to injuries to the neck, back, right side and other physical injuries, psychological injuries, [and] emotional trauma.”

 

Tucker is blaming the MTA for “reckless, careless and negligent” maintenance of the subway system.

 

She is one of 39 people who were hurt during the morning commute. She is the first victim to file legal papers over the incident.

 

The MTA has blamed the accident on an unsecured piece of rail on the tracks.

 

An agency rep did not immediately return messages for comment.

 

Source: http://nypost.com/2017/06/28/mta-derailment-victim-is-already-suing/

 

---

Well now, I guess she didn't use the subway for this most recent trip...  :D This one must've went straight to the lawyer's office as soon as she left the hospital.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.