At this link, you can see about 6-7 minutes of an actual NTSB person making a statement at 9pm PDT Monday Sept 15, where she describes some tests that had been done so far (through Monday Sept 15). The intro is by a newscaster, but the rest of the video is a statement from the NTSB person: cbs2.com - Video Library Near the end, she is discussing the crew members of the Metrolink train, and she only mentions the engineer and the conductor. This seems to reinforce that there were only these two crew members on the Metrolink train.
I don't have any sound on my 2000 Windows 98. Did she say anything about the Metrolink train "not" being placed into emergency? I had a friend tell me that he heard on the "News," the Metro Engineer never placed the train in emergency and they suspect "maybe" a heart attack. PM
First, unlike Amtrak trains, Metrolink trains only run with one conductor....second, the evidence that he plugged it, or at least tried, can be made a case for by this photo...
I think some folks on here may be jumping to conclusions about Rob the engineer. So maybe a little background on Rob is in order. Rob started his career with Amtrak up here, he hired out in Oakland, came from the midwest, St. Louis I recall. In any case, he trained up here, then went down to LA, and went over to Metrolink. In those days, Metrolink was staffed by Amtrak engineers, and when Amtrak lost the contract, the vast majority of Amtrak engineers working there opted to resign from Amtrak and be retained by Metrolinks new outside contractor. Rob was one of those. He was long gone from Oakland when I got up here, rather, I knew him from my UP days as I talked and laughed with him as he ran the UP line to Riverside. Nice guy, really, always had a good joke. I am posting in this in this thread to clarify a few things.., it is in no way meant to be offensive to the many innocent victoms of the crash, rather, to pay homage to a guy who, aside from one terrible, bad moment, was a steller, talented engineer. As good as they come. Obviously, a lot of changes are coming to my workplace as a result of this, and the stress is getting higher out there. The obvious, immediate ones obviously deal with cell phone use, as well as others in the works. Now the incident itself. Some of you guys are wondering what did happen?? Well, here is what we are hearing from sources we have. Metrolink 111 made a station stop at Chatsworth, we all know that. then three minutes later all hell broke loose. The scenario is this. Every train when they are going to be stopped, go through a process of being stopped. That process looks like this.... 1. Approach Medium=Flashing yellow= Proceed, do NOT pass next signal exceeding 40mph unless it can be seen that next signal is either clear or another Approach meduim...(this signal is a proceed signal, you can do track speed as long as you have this signal or BETTER, i.e. GREEN. 2. Approach=Solid Yellow=Proceed not exceedign 40 MPH to next signal prepared to stop BEFORE any part of engine or train passes signal. I.E. do 40 looking for and expecting a red at the next signal. 3. Red= STOP. Period. One last term, before we look at the scenario is a term called "Delayed in the block." Simply stated, it means if your train at ANY time, regardles of signal indication, stops or drops to a speed less than 10mph, upon resumption of speed, you are limited to 40mph until you can CLEARLY, and the operative word here is CLEARLY see the next signal, if a proceed signal, you may resume max speed. OKAY, now lets talk about 111. According to the tapes, and to clarify this, ALL conversations are recorded on the railroad. All of them. Metrolinks are recorded at their dispatch center in Montclair, UP and BNSF are recorded at the command center in San Bernadino. Back to the tapes. According to them, Rob called out all signals, including departure signals, i.e. "we are leaving the station working on a clear" except for the last two, of course the two most importand of the day. He did not call out the approach medium, or the approach, and he did not call out the departure signal. Hmmmm...why?? That is a sticking point in the investigation, the easy thing is to say he was texting, but it does not cover the large amount of lapsed time. And, where was the conductor??? --->> On a passenger train, the engineer AND the conductor are JOINTLY responsible for the safety of the train and it's passengers, with all ultimate control and authority given to the conductor, NOT the engineer. So where was he? Rule states that ANY signal less favorable than a clear block MUST be called out to the conductor over the radio, and the conductor must acknowledge the signal. I.E. ... "Metrolink 111, approach medium, milepost 235.6, over. " "Metrolink 111, approach medium, milepost 235.6, thank you, out. " For the last two signals, that conversation apparently did not happen, I think it did, but I could be wrong. And, this conversation did not get recorded either. "Metrolink 111, highball Chatsworth..." "Metrolink 111, highball Chatsworth, departure on an appraoch, over. " "On an approach, thank you sir, out" So where was the conductor?? Where was his situational awareness?? Why did he not call up to the engineer and ASK him the signal?? Or if he knew what it was, why did he not place the train in emergency?? It was his job to be aware of all of that, and he failed...he was uniquely able to stop the accident from happening, and he didn't. At this point, he is in the hospital with two broken legs, trying hard not to answer the hours of questions coming his way from the NTSB, FRA, Metrolink, and UP, and God knows who else. You know the rest. Now back to "delayed in the block." There has been a RAGING debate in rail circles over which rule governed thier departure out of Chatsworth, the Yellow Approach indication, or "delayed in the block." Because they stopped the train, delayed in the block DOES come into play, right? Wrong. Heres why. Had they had a previous signal of an approach medium or better, they could have taken off not exceeding 40 till they could plainly see the next signal. But they were not, they were on an approach, meaning the next signal WILL be red, do not pass it. Appoach, being the more restrictive rule, trumps delayed in the block, in this case. Both men should have known that. For sure the conductor should have. I will be eager to hear his story. Also, after discussing this with a couple of Amtrak rulies,and more than a few BNSF and Amtrak road Foreman, we have all come to the same conclusion, that the Delayed in the block rule is hybrid form of restricted speed, the operative word in the definition being "exceed". RS carries the same wording, though it is "exceeding"
On our Port Jervis line,we have 2 stations where D.I.B. rules are in effect. That's why I brought it up. The scenerio sounded like it. Even good engineers have brain freeze. He may have picked a real bad time to have his.
Newman posted... Also, after discussing this with a couple of Amtrak rulies,and more than a few BNSF and Amtrak road Foreman, we have all come to the same conclusion, that the Delayed in the block rule is hybrid form of restricted speed, the operative word in the definition being "exceed". RS carries the same wording, though it is "exceeding">>>>>>> Don't forget, when you are applying any rule, always ask yourself, what type of railroad are we working on, CTC, ABS, Dark Territory, etc. In this case, it is CTC. Delayed in the block rule is different in ABS Territory. That's where the Restricted Speed comes into play. I am totally confused on who is taking on the radio recording. Is it the Metro Engineering saying "High Ball Chatsworth..departing on an approach" ?? If that's the case, you know he was looking for the aspect of the next signal, west end of Chatsworth. Maybe he did have a heart attack. But, the red automatic brake valve handle is place in the emergency position....in your photo. After the SP Cajon Pass run away, back in 1989, I lost most respect for NTSB investigations. They basically told the FRA to step aside. The NTSB had their minds made up on what happened at "Duffy Street." They were totally off base. The NTSB was convinced the helper engineer was asleep. A moron could see the event recorder said differently. So, let's hope after all these years, they have improved. Or, we'll just get a Roswell here. Make the events/facts fit the story you're looking for. I still have all the paper work from that wreck and have studied it over and over. Also, had long talks with the SP helper engineer. PM PM
Paul, for all intents and purposes, lets talk in CTC terms, I understand the rules change for other types of territory, but he was running in CTC my friend...also, the conductor is in charge of the movement of the train, not the engineer, so it would have been the conductor telling the engineer to highball, with the engineer repeating that and then adding the departure signal, i.e. departure on an approach...etc. obviously they either never said it, or it was never recorded...also, look at the throttle bent all the way forward like that...youch....very telling of the violence of the collision.... Mike, word is coming out that Rob was a diabetic..that may have had something to do with it...here is a link to the story.... Metrolink 111 engineer led solitary life marred by tragedy - Los Angeles Times
According to this... cbs2.com - Video Library Each crew had about 4 seconds to react. That's about what I had figured based on the curvature and speeds. Of course, they also say the Metrolink Engineer did not place the train into emergency, unlike the photographic evidence shows... possibly caused by his body's reaction to the impact??? Still can not rule out a false signal indication as the NTSB has only reported on the mechanical tests performed on the signals. The computer downloads may show something that the mechanical tests did not.
Don't know Mark. I've heard about the food orders. Before Primo's changed ownership, they would deliver trackside, 24 hours a day! That was great, even though we had to pay... If you get a chance, swing by the GEHAMS club. Not sure if your on the layout tour, if not, we'll be there sat. from 9-12. The RMC issue should be in the club's library, in fact, I may have a copy of that issue.... H.U.A.... been there before, been pulled out of service because of it... Nearly got killed while working as a switchman once because of the Switch Foreman, in addition to the drugs he was on, was H.U.A... He requested permission to "go inbetween," I told him I would be inbetween as well... I was making air hoses in a block of loaded refers... he did not check to see if I was in the clear, and instructed the Engineer to pull ahead... Luckily the refer units were on the opposite ends of the cars I was between and heard the instruction over the radio... backed out just as the slack was running out... Oh my was I pissed:tb-mad: Had an issue tonight on a Hostling job. Not my doings, but still a "wake up call..." Can't say anymore than that as it may go to investigation...
Newman, in your post #104, I am confused about the "conversation transcripts" you posted, in the indented text: Are these actual quotes that were heard in the recordings of the radio conversation between the Metrolink engineer and conductor on Friday's fatal trip? Or instead are these intended to show what conversation *should have* taken place, but was not heard on the recording from last Friday's trip? Thanks!
If the engineer put the train into emergency, would there be a bunch of sand visible on the track/roadbed, at the point where the passenger locomotive was located at the time that the engineer put it into emergency? If this is correct, how reliable an indicator would the presence of such sand be, about whether or not the engineer put it into emergency, and when?
Paul, for all intents and purposes, lets talk in CTC terms, I understand the rules change for other types of territory, but he was running in CTC my friend... I know it's CTC...I just wanter to make it clear to the other 100's of readers that the rule change in ABS, DT, and 2-MT CTC, etc. PM
Posted by Newman..... For the last two signals, that conversation apparently did not happen, I think it did, but I could be wrong. And, this conversation did not get recorded either. "Metrolink 111, highball Chatsworth..." (conductor) "Metrolink 111, highball Chatsworth, departure on an appraoch, over. " (Engineer) "On an approach, thank you sir, out" (conductor) Newman, I am totally confused, and I think others are as well. Are you? Was the above conversation recorded? If not, where did you acquire it? In the photo, I can't see the throttle, but the Automatic Brake Valve handle is in full service or emergency, hard to tell. The Independent Brake handle looks to be in release position. PM
Carl and Paul, I'm sorry, those are the conversations that they SHOULD have had, but were either never spoken, or never recorded, a dramatization if you will
Posted By Newman.. Carl and Paul, I'm sorry, those are the conversations that they SHOULD have had, but were either never spoken, or never recorded, a dramatization if you will Oh..okay, I see where you're going.... that's a good idea for the readers here. I'll try and go you one better...that is with a radio dramatization. We, on the railroad, use to call it "The Big Picture." Here goes a radio conversation, that didn't happen, but if it had, it would have saved a lot of lives....as Metro 111 approached Chatsworth. "Metrolink Dispatcher to Metro One-Eleven.." "Metro One-eleven..over" ( Engineer) Metro One-Eleven.... you might want to stay back there at the depot...you're going to meet the UP Local there. He's been out of Moorpark now for ten minutes....he should be showing soon....over" (dispatcher) "Thanks for the heads up dispatcher....I'll stay back until I see him heading in..over" (engineer) Now....that's called "Railroading 101." How many of you railfans have heard something as this on your scanners? No rule says the dispatcher has to say "boo," all he/she has to do is line the switches and set the signals. But, I might say...the old SP encouraged this type of operating. There (SP) feeling was , when there's conversation , even humor, on the radio, between trains and trains to dispatcher....it at least meant people were awake. If this conversation would have happened, we wouldn't be here talking about what did happened. Now...understand, I'm not putting responsibility on the dispatcher for this mess. I am just trying to give all a little different scenario that would have changed things. It's actually amazing....how little things, in many cases, could have changed history or ones life. PM
Being less than a novice when it comes to actual RR operations I do find all that is being said very educational, I just wish it would have been under different circumstances. Let us not forget those that were impacted by this accident when making our post as some here might know them. :tb-sad: :tb-sad: :tb-sad: :tb-sad:
Let us not forget those that were impacted by this accident when making our post as some here might know them. Was there some disrespect, slander, in the posts? Could you be a little more specific? PM
As of tonight there are many news articles on the web which include this statement: "Higgins said the conductor confirmed that he and Sanchez did not call out and confirm the last two signals before the crash." (one of them is here: Federal News Radio - WFED: NTSB: Train engineer didn't brake before collision ) I believe they are citing a statement by the main NTSB spokeswoman for this investigation. I have not found the "primary source" for this quote, but since they are attributing the statement to an NTSB spokeswoman, I think it is likely that the statement is correct. I can't help but wonder if this has not happened on other days at that location, since on a train there will be so many distractions for the conductor, and requests for his or her assistance, from passengers at a location like this when they have just left a station. The Metrolink train had only one conductor on it. If the rules called for the conductor to be talking with the engineer at that location, and at that time, and he was the only other person on that train with whom the engineer could have this "exchange of signal info" as a safeguard, that really seems like a non-ideal situation. I don't know if this is part of the cause of this accident or not, but based on how busy the conductors seem on NJ Transit trains I have rode on, it really makes me wonder. (it usually seems to me there are multiple conductor "types" on NJ Transit trains),
None that I'm aware of, just a reminder to one and all (including me) that when we speculate about what might have happen in topics like this to remember who might read what is said; it's easier to misinterpret the written word compared to the verbal that has tone and facial expression. Nothing more was meant by my post but thanks for questioning the meaning of what I said so I could be more clear in what I was trying to say earlier. :sad2::sad2::sad2::sad2:
it's easier to misinterpret the written word compared to the verbal that has tone and facial expression. Boy! You are dead right about that. PM
