First shows the actual wreck:
This shows the curve of the train I was speaking of:
Trust these will help.
Posted on 09/13/2008 6:49:23 PM PDT by BenLurkin
CHATSWORTH, Calif. (CBS) ― Metrolink officials Saturday put the blame squarely on the engineer of the train for the deadly crash that has claimed at least 25 lives. They say he ran a red light.
But a group of local teens, train enthusiasts, who know the engineer well doubt that he was to blame.
They called their friend professional and caring and said he helped them learn about trains and being an engineer. To a man, they said he would "never" have been reckless or unprofessional or run a red light.
But one minute before the deadliest crash in Metrolink history, one teen -- Nick Williams -- said he received a text message on his cell phone from the engineer, whom the teens identified as Robert Sanchez.
Williams' received text was brief, "Just two lines", reported KCAL 9 and CBS 2 reporter Kristine Lazar, exclusively.
The text apparently told Williams and his friends where Sanchez would be meeting another passenger train.
The teens posted a tribute to their friend on YouTube.
A Metrolink spokeswoman earlier stated that the train's engineer, who has not officially been named, ran a red signal.
Another one of the teens, Evan Morrison, told Lazar that Sanchez " was not the kind of guy who would run a red light."
None of them believe he was at fault.
Saturday, Sanchez's teen friends all went to the crash site. Mark Speer, choking back tears said, "this is absolutely devastating."
Denise Tyrell, a spokesperson for Metrolink commented on the report that Sanchez might have been texting immediately before the crash.
She said, "I can't believe someone could be texting while driving a train."
FORGET what I said- if he missed the signal, and because a train takes so long to stop, and other train would have had little to no warning about issue, it appears circumstances show he’s culpable. Of course, especially in an area with a light, he shouldn’t have been doing what he was doing.
Two minutes prior to the collision the train was stopped in Chatsworth picking up passengers. If the conductor waited until the train was fully stopped and only then sent a short quick message prior to leaving the station, it would be hard to prove that sending that message caused him to be inattentive. In the same vein, if he sent it at impact it wouldn’t have made a difference since he wouldn’t have seen the freight train until seconds before impact anyway as they hit on a blind curve and at that point there was nothing he could have done.
“Just last week it became illegal here in Alaska to drive while sending a text message. I thought the stupidest thing about the law was that it was actually thought to be necessary but I guess there is always that 1% of people that don’t don’t think there is anything wrong with driving and texting.”
So true, but your “1%” estimate is off by an order of magnitude at least. I can’t speak for Alaska. I live in No CA and before any restrictions came into law wrt cel phoning while driving, I’d have to say that no less than 10% to 15% of the driving populace had a cel phone to their ear at any given instant. I myself don’t use text, but it seems pretty obvious that texting demands a lot more attention than talking on a phone.
Where I live, there happens to be an “odd” combination of seriously older folks at the tail end of being competent to drive by ANY measure; and soccer moms and many male whale-hugger drivers who think that the most prudent thing to do is to pull up right behind you in a neighboring lane so that they are right in your blind spot, won’t pass, won’t slow down. Three feet from your bumper, totally invisible, and they think they’re being smart. It is truly the liberal form of driving, LOL. Actually, it isn’t funny, it drives me batty. And in this area, I swear it must be illegal to use directional signals, no more than 20% of lane changes I see are signaled. By any class of driver, talking Mercedes and Lexus down to ‘71 Nissan pickup. The one thing about this area I rarely see is the type of driver dominant in Los Angeles, (which is how I categorize myself) very used to being on the fwys at high speed, courteous but I can’t read your frickin mind, conscious, but yeah, they mean to get where they’re going.
We probably have 10% of drivers drivers using their cell phones too and you can see them doing all kinds of stupid stuff but they didn’t make that illegal, only texting. People who need a law to tell them not to do something that stupid probably shouldn’t be driving in the first place.
This story smells. Look at what the spokesperson says then look at the headline the media made. There are many safety's on trains. A spokespersons first instinct is damage control. I'd almost bet it comes down to a communications glitch in the operations center telling the dispatchers just exactly where the trains are at a given time. If the system switching is automated that system as well would not see the train if there was a glitch. The switching system would also control the red or go ahead light.
As for texting? The only accurate way to tell when he was texting was by actually looking at his phone. The received time of the person receiving it is meaningless due to networking issues which vary second to second and can delay text transmissions through the system for minutes at a time. Also I have a guess too that the train system itself uses text technology in part for communication to the engineer.
Then tell me how a train either doesn’t get routed to the siding , or gets back on the main track, without the switches being changed.
“If the system switching is automated that system as well would not see the train if there was a glitch. The switching system would also control the red or go ahead light.”
That’s what I’ve been saying. The METROLINK is trying to cover their ass. There is no way two oncoming trains should be on the same track. The ‘engineer’ cannot ‘move’ to another track, without the track switching equipment, which is set up and controlled by METROLINK.
Everyone who is taking up the issue of ‘text messaging’ is being suckered in by the media, who seem to be protecting METROLINK for some reason. (because they are idiots, is my guess)
I still think someone, maybe a terrorist, messed with the switches and lights, allowing both trains on the same track, heading at each other.
Or the equipment just malfunctioned. We will see.
1. Call to Order
CLOSED SESSION
2. Closed Session
(a) THREAT TO PUBLIC PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACIILITIES – Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957) - (Consultation with Metrolink’s Chief Safety Officer)
(b) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: (Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9 : ( multiple potential cases) - Anticipated litigation arising out of the September 12, 2008 collision between a Metrolink train and a Union Pacific freight train on the Ventura County Line, near the city of Chatsworth, CA.
“It would help to know what he was doing in the minute up to and including the exact time of crash.”
Yeah. If he’d just of hit the brakes, he could have stopped and pulled off the road, preventing the crash. (/sarc)
My guess is like everything else too much faith is being placed in not so fail proof systems such as computerized dispatching. If one sector is not giving accurate data bad things gonna happen.
As for his texting or even cell use or for that matter drivers? I would not text driving. But texting from a train may be safe enough to do. Police now use Computerized Aided Dispatch as well In other words they get a call and dispatch is typing in information they receive to a screen in the officers car. Also officers themselves use cells while driving. About half the cops I see one in vehicles one is talking on one. Cell phones while driving are safe but common sense is needed. I mount my cell up at windshield level on the dash. I can see the road and see the keypad or answer key without taking an eye off the road. I also use a boom mike to talk. If I'm in a place that needs my 100% concentration I tell who I'm talking to hold on a second.
It looks like CBS jumped on a Metrolink spokespersons careless comments and came to some conclusions that usually take weeks of professional investigation to determine cause. Many things will have to be checked out.
More information. Read down about two thirds http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080914/ap_on_re_us/train_collision Seems they think two switches on a siding were open and one should have been closed. The NTSB also playing town METROLINKS spokepersons report. And rightfully so.
Hope this helps. I know it can get confusing and hard to explain but switch tampering would have had no effect in this accident.
“It looks like CBS jumped on a Metrolink spokespersons careless comments and came to some conclusions that usually take weeks of professional investigation to determine cause.”
EXACTLY.
“Seems they think two switches on a siding were open and one should have been closed.”
Again, EXACTLY. Equipment malfunction, or intentional malicious act.
“Hope this helps.”
Of course it helps. Thank you for contributing further details and experienced knowledge to the discussion.
It is why I find F.R. so great. No matter what the subject, at least one poster, if not many, has the actual experience and knowledge.
It seems from post 90 that they might.
“The UP Local was lined for the siding, the commuter train, instead of stopping at the signal protecting that switch went by it and ran into the UP train.”
Finally someone gives a description of the overall layout that one can make sense of. Thanks again.
All media descriptions said the trains hit ‘head on’.
So, true, or did they just jump the gun, and misinform the public (as usual)?
But, is there just one red light for the Commuter Train Engineer to see, or is there a long line of lights?
If they were GREEN, is that the engineer’s fault?
Could they have been green, due to equipment malfunction?
How long a time does it take the UP Local to clear the caboose onto the siding?
If they were GREEN, is that the engineer’s fault?
Could they have been green, due to equipment malfunction?
How long a time does it take the UP Local to clear the caboose onto the siding?
#1. The block signal system is a series of light, much like traffic lights and are spaced anywhere from several yards apart to 5 miles apart depending on the location. In this case the signal he passed to go to the station had to "yellow"..indication that the next signal may be red. This area is on a horseshoe track, and his view of the next signal was blocked. By rule he should have departed the station going no more than 20mph prepared to stop short of the next signal.
#2 If he entered on a green signal he still should have left the station prepared to stop at the next signal until he could see it and see that the track ahead is clear. Yes there could be a problem with the signal but doubtful and I can assure you the feds and state are checking them out.
#3. As far as to how long it takes for the UP local to enter the siding it depends on size of the train and the track speed.
I did misstate, based on news photos that I though the commuter may have ran into the side of the UP, it didn't it was a head on. I have some photos taken by a friend with the California PUC and I will try to post them to you.
First shows the actual wreck:
This shows the curve of the train I was speaking of:
Trust these will help.
Where’s the siding?
P.S. Thank you for the photos.
Thank you for responding to my questions.
So, who was supposed to be stopped on a siding, and who was going straight through?
Did one of the trains actually ever go onto the siding?
(since they both appear to have been on the main track and had a head on)
Could the engineer have left the siding, and gotten back onto the main track without noticing a whole sequence of lights, and wouldn’t crossing the ‘switch’ have at least have generated something similar to going over a speed bump?
Are ‘lights’ the only thing the engineer depends on before leaving a siding?
“The president of the California Public Utilities Commission said he will also call on the Federal Railroad Administration to require additional train control safety measures and that the agency is also looking into the resignation of a Metrolink spokeswoman, who quit today after her superiors said she spoke prematurely in saying the crash was caused by an engineer’s mistake.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-traincrash16-2008sep16,0,5233752.story
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.