Massachusetts Commuter Rail Incidents
John S.
quickly reverse to get off the wrong track to avoid an oncoming commuter
train heading back to Boston. No injuries were reported but it was a
scare to have two commuter trains rushing toward each other on the same
track. The MBTA is saying this is a CSX dispatcher error. Yikes!!!
Not sure how the message was sent to the trains, via signals or radio,
but kudos to the engineers for responding *immediately*.
Today, a Worcester - Boston commuter train impacted South Station. The
train had slowed, but not enough to avoid hitting the station's bumper
at the end of the track. Newton's Third Law of Motion kicked in and the
sudden reversing of the train bouncing off the bumper caused at least a
dozen injuries by falling people as they were already leaving their
seats to disembark.
One more reason to stay in your seat until your vehicle comes to a
complete stop, assuming you were sitting in the first place.
Two major incidents on the commuter trains, and it's only Tuesday!
(Fire Graubaskas! Oh wait...)
Jimmy
> Yesterday, a Boston - Worcester commuter train had to stop urgently and
> quickly reverse to get off the wrong track to avoid an oncoming commuter
> train heading back to Boston. No injuries were reported but it was a
> scare to have two commuter trains rushing toward each other on the same
> track. The MBTA is saying this is a CSX dispatcher error. Yikes!!!
> Not sure how the message was sent to the trains, via signals or radio,
> but kudos to the engineers for responding *immediately*.
This one bugs me. It shouldn't be physically possible for a signal
system to give such instructions, and dispatchers should never be
permitted to give radio instructions to ignore a signal.
If federal regulators focused on redundant signal enforcement systems,
rather than making trains ever heavier and non-deformable (and
therefore less able to absorb energy in a crash), train-train
collisions would be virtually unheard of in this country.
> One more reason to stay in your seat until your vehicle comes to a
> complete stop, assuming you were sitting in the first place.
So people should never stand on moving trains, just in case they
crash? That's rather ridiculous.
Jimmy
John S.
> "John S." <joh...@no.spam> wrote:
>> Yesterday, a Boston - Worcester commuter train had to stop urgently and
>> quickly reverse to get off the wrong track to avoid an oncoming commuter
>> train heading back to Boston. No injuries were reported but it was a
>> scare to have two commuter trains rushing toward each other on the same
>> track. The MBTA is saying this is a CSX dispatcher error. Yikes!!!
>> Not sure how the message was sent to the trains, via signals or radio,
>> but kudos to the engineers for responding *immediately*.
>
> This one bugs me. It shouldn't be physically possible for a signal
> system to give such instructions, and dispatchers should never be
> permitted to give radio instructions to ignore a signal.
Even if the signal is known to be wrong and following it will cause a
collision? I'd prefer that the dispatcher be permitted to instruct
otherwise.
>
> If federal regulators focused on redundant signal enforcement systems,
> rather than making trains ever heavier and non-deformable (and
> therefore less able to absorb energy in a crash), train-train
> collisions would be virtually unheard of in this country.
>
>> One more reason to stay in your seat until your vehicle comes to a
>> complete stop, assuming you were sitting in the first place.
>
> So people should never stand on moving trains, just in case they
> crash? That's rather ridiculous.
I don't believe I asserted anything about "never." Rather, I will
continue to choose to remain seated until the train/bus/whatever comes
to a complete stop, whenever possible. The bulk of the injuries were
suffered by persons standing.
Jimmy
> Jimmy wrote:
> > This one bugs me. It shouldn't be physically possible for a signal
> > system to give such instructions, and dispatchers should never be
> > permitted to give radio instructions to ignore a signal.
>
> Even if the signal is known to be wrong and following it will cause a
> collision? I'd prefer that the dispatcher be permitted to instruct
> otherwise.
Ok, I'll revise my statement: dispatchers shouldn't be allowed to give
radio instructions to ignore a stop signal. In other words, they
should only be able to give *more* restrictive instructions. But they
could tell an engineer to stop even if the signal said to proceed, in
extremely rare instances where the signal was wrong. So trains
couldn't be on a collision course because of dispatcher error.
But signals shouldn't be wrong in the first place.
Jimmy
John F. Carr
John S. <joh...@no.spam> wrote:
>> This one bugs me. It shouldn't be physically possible for a signal
>> system to give such instructions, and dispatchers should never be
>> permitted to give radio instructions to ignore a signal.
>
>Even if the signal is known to be wrong and following it will cause a
>collision? I'd prefer that the dispatcher be permitted to instruct
>otherwise.
"All trains near South Station are directed to stop and wait
while we sort the signal system out."
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
John S
Day 3: (Wednesday)
The Red Line is smoldering at Downtown Crossing near the end of rush
hour. Electricity is shut off, including the third rail while
firefighters put out the fire(s). Red Line is shut down, and the Orange
Line too for good measure. Cause of problem: Electric cables and third
rail caught fire (for unknown reasons) near South Station.
Today's MBTA incident did not result in any injuries.
Marc Dashevsky
> Day 3: (Wednesday)
>
> The Red Line is smoldering at Downtown Crossing near the end of rush
> hour. Electricity is shut off, including the third rail while
> firefighters put out the fire(s). Red Line is shut down, and the Orange
> Line too for good measure. Cause of problem: Electric cables and third
> rail caught fire (for unknown reasons) near South Station.
>
> Today's MBTA incident did not result in any injuries.
From Boston.com:
These things happen from time to time. The trains pass through
the tunnels that get dirty and filled with debris,=3F said Boston
Fire Department District 7 Chief Erik Pettaway.
I find the acceptance of fires happening from time to time unbelievable.
Should he not be saying that the T has a responsibility to keep their
equipment in a state of repair such that fires are not expected?
--
Go to http://MarcDashevsky.com to send me e-mail.
Pete
> In article <h8rt66$dc...@news.eternal-september.org>, joh...@no.spam says...
I think what they're saying is that as people's discarded Metros and
what-have-you pile up in the tunnels, the periodic sparks that happen,
well, periodically ignite the trash.
Why can't the T be better about cleaning up after us?
Marc Dashevsky
mass...@my-deja.com says...
I have read that the cause was old wiring.
> Why can't the T be better about cleaning up after us?
Even if what you said were true, the T is responsible for the condition
of its facilities. Are you really saying that periodic preventable fires
are acceptable?
Jimmy
> I think what they're saying is that as people's discarded Metros and
> what-have-you pile up in the tunnels, the periodic sparks that happen,
> well, periodically ignite the trash.
>
> Why can't the T be better about cleaning up after us?
Did I ever mention the T conductor who would pick up newspapers from
the train at its terminal, and stuff them into the gap between the
train and the platform, when a trash can was about 20 feet away?
If I ever see that happening again, I'm certainly going to make an
issue out of it.
In the 1980s, the NYC subway installed signs explaining that litter
causes track fires. Maybe the T should do something similar.
Jimmy
Jimmy
> In the 1980s, the NYC subway installed signs explaining that litter
> causes track fires. Maybe the T should do something similar.
Well, last week they added a nag announcement in stations telling
people that litter causes track fires. It's the longest of the T's
announcements, and recently it's been part of a string of 3 contiguous
announcements, along with the please-don't-enter-without-paying and
take-the-painfully-slow-train-to-Foxboro announcements.
How much nagging will it take before the public nags the T to stop
with the announcements already?
Jimmy