Metro-North Train Operators Running Red Lights

From CBS 2 News...

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — They are at the helm on your everyday train – engineers who are supposed to be guiding trains to safety.

But as CBS 2’s Jessica Schneider reported Wednesday night, disturbing statistics have shown the people you entrust might be breaking the rules. Data from the Metro-North Railroad reveals that some engineers are running the red lights at which they are supposed to be stopping — and potentially putting passengers’ lives at risk.

“If you’re in a locomotive cab, you really have to train your eye on the task,” said Robert “Buzz” Paaswell, of the University Transportation Research Center.

In all, Metro-North drivers have racked up 24 violations since 2010, including five already this year.

Two-thirds of the violations are happening on the miles of tracks at Grand Central Station.

Funny that someone ran a stop signal at Yonkers, seeing as there isn't even an interlocking with the city limits of Yonkers on the Hudson line, but hey commuters are never wrong.

The full story... http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/06/19/metro-north-train-operators-running-red-lights-at-alarming-rate/

MNR's luck seems to have changed, several bad accidents have the FRA going insane with each violation. Major changes are coming!

The news report is interesting but seems to be a typical media distortion. They appear to lump together all recent MN incidents that may have been caused by track problems in one case, or an inexperienced dispatcher in another. The report seemed to point to inexperienced engineers in particular.

For what it's worth I've never liked those small pedestal signals MN uses, though the report mentioned that many of the violations happened in the Grand Central complex. Still though, you wonder if outside of GCT, signals might be more visible if they were mounted higher as they are on most other railroads. Though it's possible that with cab-signals and ATC, the mounting height might not matter as much.

There is little truth in reporters comments since they know very little in regards to the subject they are reporting,they exaggerate the situation and use they're own interpretion to make a point.I got zapped with 11,000 volts many years ago.When I read the newspaper article about my injury,the only thing the reporter got correct was my name.The accident did not happen as reported.Since then,I try to read between the lines and figure out exactly what is being said.As to the height of the signals in GCT,when I became an enginner,I had to know aspects & indications of about 150 signals,regardless of height or type.In GCT proper,the signals displayed stop or resticting.For many decades and millions of train movements within the complex,there were very few incidents of engineers passing stop signals.Perhaps today,people in various occupations in the working world are either improperly trained in their professions or just not capable of performing service as expected.

RearOfSignal wrote: Funny that someone ran a stop signal at Yonkers, seeing as there isn't even an interlocking with the city limits of Yonkers on the Hudson line, but hey commuters are never wrong.

A brief fair use quote reveals my favorite part of this puff piece:

:

Julio Rojas said the Metro-North train blew the red light at his Yonkers station just the other day.

“The Metro-North train was just coming so quick down the track that it just blew our stop — like half the train, like three-fourths of the train,” Rojas said.

Classic. They mix details they don't understand, throw in buzzwords like "staggering" and "alarming' and foist the article upon the unsuspecting public.

Off course we want zero red light violations, but 5 in 2013 ?? not greatest record but consider we got over 1000 trains a day passing hundreds of signals.
we just doubled amount of trains to Half hour service so now we get twice amount of .....................................................................

The number of stop signal violations (the correct term) is alarmingly high. It would seem that the screening and training process for would be engineers needs to be more selective and possibly the probation period should lengthened.

Just to be fair, engineers are claiming that they get signals thrown in their face in the terminal more frequently than before, even some of the recent stop signal violations have stated this. As we already know there are new engineers, conductors and RTC's.

RearOfSignal wrote:Just to be fair, engineers are claiming that they get signals thrown in their face in the terminal more frequently than before, even some of the recent stop signal violations have stated this. As we already know there are new engineers, conductors and RTC's.

That can be determined by reviewing the dispatching computer playback. I'm sure some of these incidents could be from RTC's pulling signals to cancel a train's route, but I'd love to see the breakdown of just how many stop signal violations are engineer or RTC error.

Clean Cab wrote:The number of stop signal violations (the correct term) is alarmingly high. It would seem that the screening and training process for would be engineers needs to be more selective and possibly the probation period should lengthened.

I'm not sure how MN works but if you come from another craft then there is no probation period. Once you go through initial probation when you first join the r.r that's it for the most part. Either way that's not going to stop someone from running a red.

AEM7AC920 wrote:
I'm not sure how MN works but if you come from another craft then there is no probation period. Once you go through initial probation when you first join the r.r that's it for the most part. Either way that's not going to stop someone from running a red.

Even employees transferring from another craft have to go through probation. I'm not sure what it is for engineers but for conductors it's the approximately 1 year (the 10-11 months of the training program + 60 days working).

Head-end View wrote:For what it's worth I've never liked those small pedestal signals MN uses, though the report mentioned that many of the violations happened in the Grand Central complex. Still though, you wonder if outside of GCT, signals might be more visible if they were mounted higher as they are on most other railroads.

I've got to imagine, though, that the folks maintaining the signals are pretty happy that they no longer have to work in close proximity to the 11.5kV New Haven catenary.

Some have said that MN having so few signals, that they are so de-emphasized that engineers aren't always on the lookout for them.

I would buy that. LIRR having automatic speed control with wayside signals was always a nice added layer of protection. I'm
guessing the automatic block signals before ATC the most restrictive aspect was stop and proceed? What type of signaling was on the Hudson, Harlem, and NH prior to CTC/ ATC? The LIRR wayside system is a bit more primitive but it seems to work.

I wish most of the MN interlocking signals were higher or overhead like they are at certain station platforms. They mimic a traffic light with their indications at the ground level paralleling a street. Maybe they should display more than the basic go/ no go. This may all be a moot point as indicated most violations occur within the GCT complex.

The so called "playback" as stated by Clean Cab does not show you signal aspects, only the route if given. In my opinion, I think playback should include any and all activity of what signals were displayed. I don't think the system is entirely fool proof.

freightguy wrote:
I wish most of the MN interlocking signals were higher or overhead like they are at certain station platforms. They mimic a traffic light with their indications at the ground level paralleling a street.

If they were higher then they would more likely to be at the level of a traffic light. Regardless, it's not hard to distinguish a proceed cab indication (flashing green) as opposed to a steady green traffic light. It's also up to the engineer to know exactly where all the interlocking signals are in the event of a dark signal (no indication displayed) or a signal that missing all together.

An engineer passing a dark signal or missing is just as bad as passing a stop signal as you are required to take it at it's most restrictive indication.