1 Train Collision 1/4/24

BR&P wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:08 am 5. The "Gothamist" report quoted (which is what I'm basing my discussion on) states the train passed 3 signals designed to stop trains when they didn't have clearance. I presume this means the automatic trips - but do each of those have a visual aspect as well - a red light for example? How far apart are they? From that article, it suggests the supervisor just kept shoving blindly despite having no communication from the op, for a considerable distance. If that is the case, there's your cause.

Any trip-arms would of thrown on track M instead of track 4 while the disabled section of the train was in the interlock.

You'll have to translate that for this above-ground guy. I've been to NYC a few times, have ridden the subway as a passenger but really am not familiar with how the systems work.

If they went with "stop that northbound traffic to let the disabled train get out of the way", the train (on 4 track) would of had a clear move all the up past that track switch they derailed on and be switched to track "M" at 103rd street (a spare track between 1 and 4). There, any stop signal would of been picked up on the shoving 5 car section in a stretch where the disabled 5 car section wouldn't fowl any switch.

As for shutting down traffic - hey, no doubt that would have avoided the incident. When you are in your car, do you stop at each green light, in case somebody runs through the red? Obviously your car doesn't have 200 people on board but at what point do you rely on people to do their job right? At what point do you say "What if...." and shut down additional operations? How rare is a disabled train? My guess is it happens frequently. Do they shut everything down every time?

Like I said it's a different type of action and totally foreign to me. I'm willing to let others decide what degree of redundant precaution should be taken. But it seems - again basing my opinion on what we read - there was some terribly sloppy "railroading" in the operation of the disabled train which caused the collision.

To be clear, I'm not saying "shut down the entire 1/2/3 line" but "shut down the relevant tracks that would interfere with a disabled train move". Southbound 1/2/3 trains would still be running. Something must of really went sideways if we were at "section the line off" or "shut it all down!" levels.

It sounds like control gave the disabled train the track all the way to 96th St and expected the train to stop there while the in service train passed through. 20-20 hindsight they could have stopped all northbound moves at 96th St "just in case" the disabled train ran the signals. It is a lot easier to make such a plan days later knowing that the disabled train would fail to stop.

The NTSB will sort out the details ... where the communication failed and hopefully why.

BR&P wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:56 pm So I don't know whether this is strictly a rank-and-file issue or if it goes beyond that. How high up the food chain was the "supervisor"? Was he/she represented, or not? Was THAT supervisor perhaps acting under orders or misinformation from even higher?

Sometimes these things can be very simple and very complicated at the same time.

Train Service Supervisors are represented. Even management is represented. The TSS isn't high on the totem pole. Many factors are to blame here, not just the TSS or the train operator.

justalurker66 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 9:07 pm It sounds like control gave the disabled train the track all the way to 96th St and expected the train to stop there while the in service train passed through. 20-20 hindsight they could have stopped all northbound moves at 96th St "just in case" the disabled train ran the signals. It is a lot easier to make such a plan days later knowing that the disabled train would fail to stop.

The NTSB will sort out the details ... where the communication failed and hopefully why.

I think the point is that you should hope for the best and plan for the worst.

Upthread the hypothetical was posed on whether you stop at green lights in case someone runs a red. The simple answer is no. But the full answer is more nuanced. For example, if I'm waiting at a red light and it turns green, do I just go? Absolutely not, I'm scanning the cross road constantly, and if some idiot decides to blow through a red because they are beating it, you can bet I've avoided a collision there. Even if I'm passing through an intersection, I am still constantly scanning cross traffic to avoid this kind of situation. Sure, if an accident happens, I wouldn't be the one at fault. But if I'm getting t-boned by someone running a red light and become disabled for life, no amount of "this person should have followed the rules" is going to make that right.

When you're talking about not just yourself but a vehicle with hundreds of people on board? There's no discussion there. I don't care what the rulebook says. That train could have been held for a grand total of one minute and it would have saved everyone a lot of time and headache in the long run.

So, according to the rules, the operator at the front of the train is supposed to control the brakes. But that was not possible due to them being disabled. The rear operator obviously was unaware that the radio was out. Even though he should have been aware, I don't think the rear operator was negligent or if so only a little. This whole thing was supposed to be under supervision; Was the front operator in touch with central dispatch/supervisor, who should have been listening to the conversation.

BandA wrote:So, according to the rules, the operator at the front of the train is supposed to control the brakes. But that was not possible due to them being disabled. The rear operator obviously was unaware that the radio was out. Even though he should have been aware, I don't think the rear operator was negligent or if so only a little.

Asked and answered. I assume that radio reception is bad down in the hole. I know with a 5 watt handheld GMRS you can have not great reception less than a quarter mile away. I bet that the radios were handhelds, too, but without radio contact...everything stops.

I was a dispatcher for some time for a railroad, so I'm aware of a couple of things. But only a couple.

Number one job of the NTSB is to determine the facts. Not assumptions. Not claims made to the media. If it can be proven that the radio was actually out of service or unusable due to the environment that will be a factor in the incident. Were the operating rules sufficient to prevent the collision or were the rules violated?

A rule requiring constant contact between the operator in the front cab and the operator (in this case a supervisor) in the pushing cab sounds like a good idea. If the train moves more than X feet without the back cab hearing from the front cab stop the train. Does that rule exist? The lack of a rule that was sufficient to avoid a collision could be a factor.

Was the operator of the in service train aware of the location of the out of service train? What was the condition of the cars being pushed? Expecting that operator to stop and stay at a green light (clear signal) without an instruction from control or an obvious visual threat is asking the operator to have a premonition. Not that I have never had one, but mine are visually triggered (seeing a car approach and guessing that they are not going to stop).

The day after an incident is second guessing. Having good rules in place before an incident and ensuring those rules are known and followed is planning.

BandA wrote:So, according to the rules, the operator at the front of the train is supposed to control the brakes. But that was not possible due to them being disabled. The rear operator obviously was unaware that the radio was out. Even though he should have been aware, I don't think the rear operator was negligent or if so only a little. This whole thing was supposed to be under supervision; Was the front operator in touch with central dispatch/supervisor, who should have been listening to the conversation.

No, no, NO! The person at the throttle has NO business moving an inch, nor continuing to move if he/she is not CERTAIN they have communication. This forum does not number the posts, sadly, but read farther above and I have explained at least twice that there are specific rules to ENSURE safe operation and to PREVENT this sort of thing. It may well be that halting other traffic would have been prudent but the failure to stop within authorized limits is 100% on the person controlling the move. Can't see hand signals? STOP! Can't raise your point man on the radio? STOP! Have not heard from that person in a given distance? STOP!

The point about some central dispatch should have been listening is totally lacking in reality. If the person at the controls did not stop for his own crew, if he reportedly shoved by 3 stop signals, what would some person at a desk far from the scene DO? The train crew are trained, tested and expected to be able to make such a move on their own, apparently with a "Train Service Supervisor" involved which reportedly was the case - the supervisor is said to be the one making the move.

Even though he should have been aware, I don't think the rear operator was negligent or if so only a little.

Is that like being a little bit pregnant? None of us are in a position to state negligence in legal terms. But the person at the controls - who reportedly WAS A SUPERVISOR - according to the report we have above shoved a considerable distance without communication, past stop signals and was still shoving when the collision occurred.

Again, halting traffic in hindsight would have been a good thing. But every day, on many railroads all over the country, a train on one track is halted at a red signal while another train is crossed over to or from that track ahead of it. It's not unusual, it's not unsafe, but it is incumbent on everyone doing their job properly. If the Gothamist report is accurate, the fault seems to be with the operation of the disabled train. If actual facts are different from that report, let's see where that takes us.

Look, I don't know it all and never claimed I did. But I DID have over 40 years in railroading, I have operated trains, have taken more rulebook tests than I can remember, have helped write rulebooks and have worked under NORAC, GCOR, and various other rules on both large and small railroads. And to repeat, we don't KNOW what happened to the last detail but have been provided with a published report which we are basing our discussion on.

I can't imagine the transit system does not have specific rules about shoving trains. "justalurker66" posted part of it above. For what it is worth, here are 3 excerpts from railroad rulebooks. They are not necessarily the entire applicable rule in that company's book but should give you an idea. This isn't anything new or different, it's railroading 101.

Read Rule 411, which specifies instructions when shoving by radio and provides protection against radio failure: Another. Note the sentence "If signals from the crewmember cannot be received by the engineer, the movement must be stopped immediately" And a third example Note Rule 716 at lower left.

Here is a question. The operator of the movement passed at least 2 signals that he would have seen as red since the dead front would have caused the signals to go red. If the outlook in front did not tell supervisor passing signal XXX displaying whatever (?) then when the supervisor saw the red signal XXX he should have stopped as outlook did not transmit passing it? Supervisor had time as rule stated shove had to be restricted speed (10 MPH or less).

From what our RR posters have said here is what outlook should have said.
"Train 101 next signal clear" ". train 101 passing green signal XXX".
{Supervisor would be watching for the signal which would be red. }

"train 101 next signal yellow" "Passing yellow signal YYY" next signal red stop" Supervisor watches for signal but slows train to a stop even before lookout says stop since he cannot judge accurately where dead front is.

"Next signal still stop"
Now if supervisor saw either of first two signals without either first being noted by lookout he should have stopped train.

BR&P wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 10:32 pm The point about some central dispatch should have been listening is totally lacking in reality. If the person at the controls did not stop for his own crew, if he reportedly shoved by 3 stop signals, what would some person at a desk far from the scene DO? The train crew are trained, tested and expected to be able to make such a move on their own, apparently with a "Train Service Supervisor" involved which reportedly was the case - the supervisor is said to be the one making the move.

I think the point about involving dispatch was to make sure they had things set up properly. Actual movement is by the on-train crew.

I also think we're on the same page. That train should of stopped early in this case. But the supervisor (at the movement controls 5 cars back) didn't. We need to know why.

hxa wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 9:18 pm Someone did actually:

http://thehasbeen.org:9090/?p=71704

Mr. HXA's posting is most interesting in that he submitted an NYCTA Rule Book in its entirety.

But after reviewing what I believed to be pertinent Rules, I cannot find any authority to operate a train from anywhere other than the head car.

Now I admit; I have not been aboard an NYCTA train since '15 (many times of course when I resided in NY '62 and 63 and I only knew the #6 as the IRT Lexington Ave Local) when I made like Duke Ellington to get from Bay Ridge area of Brooklyn where my Niece resided at the time, to JFK (as well as "rip off" Air Train), but the operator in other than the head car, if such was the case on my ride, would have been "disturbing".

Finally, I will excuse this Has Been site for its comingling of reporting with editorial content. As a Times reader of some 75 years standing, I know how religiously The Times (now we know the likes of Sean and Tucker disagree with that statement, but let's not address that here) is ensuring that Opinion is located on the Opinion pages.

My apologies to member "hxa", who DID post a rulebook in its entirely. I missed that, looks like we're over 70 replies so far. Therein, Rule 51 on Page 43 does allow for pushing a disabled train, as quoted here by "justalurker66".

I have some demands on my time approaching and I think we have pretty much worked this over to the extent that information to the public so far allows. I'll still keep an eye on this thread, I hope that if there are any further reports or details released by the authorities, someone will post them or a link here. It will be interesting to hear how the official findings agree or disagree with the opinions we have expressed here.

Stay warm, stay safe!

Thank you very much, Mr. BR&P, but if your railroad's requirements of service is calling you back IN THIS weather, you are a braver man than I.

Of course, to "inactive" member, Mr. Railnut, I was just an "office boy" (how about, though, when I had some "laying in the weeds" to do in Savanna @ 3AM for possible payroll "ghosts").

Be around here when you can; a PM to you is on its way.