For this accident to have happened, both the conductor and engineer on the offending train would have had to miss slowing for an approach signal (usually yellow) and then stopping for the red signal. Also, the train dispatchers usually communicate with their trains to let them know them know when they are taking a siding or holding the mainline to meet an oncoming train (or let a higher priority train overtake them from behind) I don't know which track the Metrolink train was on, but even if a switch is lined against your track, most trains go through them without derailing.
This is a terrible tragedy
On Metrolink the engineer calls out the signal, and the conductor repeats it via packset. I believe he also has to write it down. The conductor was in the last car and broke two legs.
The UP trains are supposed to call out indications also, for awareness of other trains and within the cab.
Amtrak also calls out the signals and the conductor repeats them. I hear the Coast Starlight every night crossing the Valley just hearing them calling out the signals on 29/29
“I am not familiar with Metrolink’s operations, but most freight, passenger, and commuter rail train locomotives operate with at least two crew members: an engineer and a conductor. The engineer is responsible for running the train, and the conductor is responsible for calling the signals. Usually the conductor says something like “Metrolink train #5 has a clear signal at MP 155.2.” It is usually customary for the engineer to repeat this back and sometimes even crew conductors riding in the passenger cars repeat it as well.”
Your error is that in today’s passenger operations, most (not all) passenger trains operate with ONLY ONE person “on the head end” - the engineman running the locomotive.
Freight trains usually DO have “two in the cab”, that being both engineman and conductor, because there are no tickets to collect in freight.
But it DOESN’T work that way in passenger service. In most cases (including virtually ALL commuter operations), the engineman is alone on the locomotive (or on the leading end of a cab car in push-pull service). The conductor and assistant conductors are back in the body of the train with the passengers, and in many cases, can’t even get up to the engine.
That means, there’s only one pair of eyes actually observing conditions ahead. And that’s why all the responsibilty rests upon the shoulders of the guy running the train.
I hired out as a fireman nearly thirty years ago in 1979. Back then the fireman was that second pair of eyes in the engine cab.
But, but .... this is FreeRepublic, right? Where unions get the short end of the stick? Aren’t you familiar with the term “featherbedding”, about make-work jobs on the railroads that serve no purpose? Well, that’s what they said about having the second guy up there.
The railroads pretty much have gotten their way, insofar as passenger operations are concerned. They’ve taken the “second pair of eyes” OFF the engines in passenger service (this happened back around 1983, I remember it well), and now the guy running the train works alone. It’s all up to him (or her) up there by himself.
I’m guessing that when all the facts come out, it will point to a case of getting distracted, missing something important, and then fiding oneself in a very bad position.
This is going to be a difficult one for the F.R.A. (Federal Railroad Administration). Most railroads already have rules in place regarding the use of electronic devices and cell phones while operating a locomotive (that is to say, their use is prohibited while at the controls of a moving train).
But - after as bad a wreck as this - the bureaucrats will feel that they “have to do something” - write a new rule or regulation that will “address” the problem, hopefullly to prevent future accidents of a similar nature. How can they write a rule, when that rule already exists?
My guess is that they might ban the possession of cell phones outright while on the locomotive (the implication being that there is too great a tempation to use them), making it a “decertifiable” offense (loss of the engineman’s “certificate” that authorizes him to operate the engine).
Just a guess....
- John