Metro North derailment

Well everyone can voice their thoughts on the matter as that's their privilege.  All I will say is that the folks who are investigating this will come to a conclusion as to the events and how they played out.  As such seeing as none of us were there then it would be wise for us all to withhold judgment.  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...know what I mean?  

That is pretty much the real story. The bridge was on fire already when the conductor went back to make the cut. With no way for local fire crews to get to the bridge, it burned to the ground. The crew didn't even know the bridge was on fire until the conductor went back to check out the problem.

Even if he had known, nothing the conductor could of done anyway. Yes engines are equipped with fire extinguishers, but we (at least at BNSF) are not allowed to use them. If an engine catches fire, we are required stop and get off. At no time are we to try to put out the fire with the extinguisher. Let it burn... that's the rule! 

The only difference I heard in the story was that after the train stopped the crew contacted the dispatcher and requested permission to move the train off the trestle and were denied.

Regardless of all the he said-she said about the dispatcher and train crew, ever think that a burning trestle might no longer support a moving train and even more damage would occur?

Rusty

It may not have anything to do with this incident, but I've read about sleep-deprivation issues on the railroads and one thing stuck out that railroaders have a name for, but escapes my memory...

There is a set period of time that operating crews must have for rest between assignments (it becomes x smount of time longer if you run right up against the hours-of-service limit of 11:59) , but there's a loophole in that mandatory rest period did not (and may still not) include time to travel to where you can get that rest/sleep, not to mention the time needed to travel back to your next assignment. The words "slack time" come to mind, but I don't trust the memory enough to call it that with any confidence.

---PCJ

This wreck has brought the "fix it with more rules and laws" crowd out. Automobiles are being steadily loaded with devices to take away the human factor and planes and trains are being ushered along to minimal human input. Along this path we went from two crew members in a train cab to one. Human input down - risk up. Instead of billions of dollars spent on research studies and equipment - hence raising taxes without income, why not add a second person (like it used to be) to the cab? Spend the money on a salary and give someone a job. If there were two crew members in that cab this particular wreck would not have happened.

We rely on those who ride us or fly us around to be better equipped to do this safely. There are no amount of rules or mechanical devices that replace good judgment on the part of an engineer or pilot. We can only hope that that good judgement is present when we board the plane or train.

When that judgment is not present and injuries or death results, well then we have lawyers and courts to compensate the victims of the poor judgment. 

My daddy always told me, "Son, it is better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Obviously, some on this forum have removed all doubt. 

Larry

There has never been a two man crew in the cab of an MU car. There is no room. The cab fits between the train doorway and the step well for the side door. The best way to prevent this type of accident is to go to automatic train operation. The engineer handles yard moves, monitors the train operation, blows the horn at crossings, and deals with unexpected situations.  

Feds mandate changes in Metro-North operations.

Since they are germane to this discussion, I will add these shots I took the evening of the Metro North December 1 derailment.

I have never shot photos like this before. I am still sorting out how I feel about them.

The plane crash in San Francisco last July had 4 pilots on board plus the "devices".... there are no guarantees. 

As long as there are humans, there will be human error.

Of course they would react. They have to show that they are awake AFTER the fact. I ride that line. Maybe I'll have to take my shoes off soon and go through a metal detector.

Gerry

None of whom figured out the auto pilot was wrong and actually tried to fly the plane until too late.

I would prefer to trust the judgement of the crew with eyes on the scene and the circumstances rather than a remote person with a rule book in front of them.

But then, mea culpa, one of the things I really do enjoy doing is making people eat their rules.

That's OK with me.  There are laws requiring rendering aid and assistance in those types of situations if you are able and having a nice deep pockets employer to sue works fine for me. 

Well, a few hours ago, I posted a link to an article about Mr. William Rockefeller, the train's Engineer, in the New York Times. For some reason, my post has vanished. Perhaps the fact the man isn't portrayed as a reckless maniac bothered somebody? Anyway, let's try it again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/07/nyregion/engineer-in-metro-north-crash-is-called-responsible-and-kind.html?hp&_r=1&

Bob

The new FRA rule regarding two crew members in the cab raises an interesting challenge for Metro-North regarding the operation of consists in "pull" mode. This is caused by the lack of a door at the rear of the carbody of the P32, thus preventing access to the locomotive while the train is in motion. The locomotives have doors at the rear but they are located on the sides, not much use for crewmen wanting to get to the engine without stopping trains. Without being able to walk between the first head car and locomotive as dictated by track speeds, that second crewman will be spending the majority of the trip on the engine.

Bob