NJT HOBOKEN TERMINAL ACCIDENT THREAD

glennk419 wrote:

Limited-Clear wrote:Ptc can and does enforce under 15mph, it does not enforce a positive stop before a bumper, Jim why would you put a signal on a bumper and please tell me where this is actually in place, I'm not disputing what you say but I have never seen or heard of that, if you violate the end of the track you don't have a signal violation you have a crash/derailment.

I don't know what rules are in effect at Hoboken (not my territory), but most terminals are not classed as main tracks, does Hoboken have cab signals? If so reports of 30mph seem unlikely

Check out the picture on page 5 of this thread. There are fixed aspect red signals at end of track in Hoboken. Track 0 in Suburban Station Philadelphia also has red signals at EOT, I assume the other stub tracks do as well.

just a marker on where bumper block is, you still get taken out of service however

sean3f wrote: CNN had a former NJT Conductor on who explained the push-pull concept. He also gave some details about how the train would have approached the station (speeds, interlockings). HE speculated something happened in the cab just prior to the stop, such as a heart attack and safety system did not have enough time to react.

If that is true, then would it make sense to require the head conductor to ride in the cab when approaching a bumper block to stop the train if the engineer were to become disabled?

you are all still focusing on engineer causing this, there are other factors that second person in cab or any other measure won't solve.
brake failure?
oil or slippery substance on rail ?

I was walking by track 5 right before this accident occured... The tracks were filled with water due to high tide and quite strong winds. I am wondering if the water had anything to do with it.

Also, does anyone know if njtransit will be providing monthly pass refunds, as my pass is next to useless for my commute... Morristown -> Hob -> Essex St is my normal commute, now I would have to go to Secaucus to a bus to light rail, extending my commute probably by hours, better to just drive.

Really dude ? by Monday trains will probably run to Hoboken, meanwhile NJT is providing alternate transportation.

trainbrain wrote:

sean3f wrote: CNN had a former NJT Conductor on who explained the push-pull concept. He also gave some details about how the train would have approached the station (speeds, interlockings). HE speculated something happened in the cab just prior to the stop, such as a heart attack and safety system did not have enough time to react.

If that is true, then would it make sense to require the head conductor to ride in the cab when approaching a bumper block to stop the train if the engineer were to become disabled?

Then what if they both have simultaneous heart attacks. We should probably put three people in the cab. But the third guy could fall asleep. So maybe we need a 4th? To what end should every possible unlikely thing be mitigated with unreasonable measures? Eventually, we should just walk.

freemenot wrote:I was walking by track 5 right before this accident occured... The tracks were filled with water due to high tide and quite strong winds. I am wondering if the water had anything to do with it.

That's kind of interesting. I've never actually been to Hoboken station, but ride NJT pretty regularly and I think I've seen people on this board discussing the issue of water on the tracks at the terminal. I think I remember someone explaining that when the water is especially high, they will sometimes stop the train before the end of track due to the water being too deep. So obviously NJT is aware of the issue.

Does anyone with more knowledge have any idea of whether high enough water could impact a trains electronic-based safety/braking systems or in any way impede a trains ability to safely come to a stop?

I have heard in the news exaggerated speeds reported at 30 or 40 MPH!
I doubt that is possible without the train derailing before the platform area. The track work and slip switches at the terminal throat simply would not keep a train on the track at those speeds.

Why /wouldn't/ seat belts be helpful? People have been thrown from trains, etc. They might not work with reversible seats on NJT, but new seats are fixed.

swampoodle wrote:

BandA wrote:Seat belts are an excellent idea ...

Nope. Terrible idea... On what basis. Have you traveled by train?

Why are they such a terrible idea? I've wondered since I was a child just exactly why trains, at least long distance/commuter ones, don't have seat belts. I can understand why rapid transit can't have them, but there is no reason why a commuter coach could not be fitted them. It seems like they would eliminate a lot of the injuries caused by people being flung about...if people can put up with them on a plane, why not on a train? I'd happily wear one, and feel much more at ease at that.

People put up with them in a plane because except for a trip to the lavatory (and one has to be desperate to want to use the lavatory on a plane) there isn't much reason to get up, and because of the possibility of turbulence that can happen randomly at any time, passengers tend to leave their belts fastened. None of this applies to a train - people get up to go to the cafe car, etc.

One has to weigh the expense and inconvenience of seat belts vs. the fact that train accidents where people are thrown around are still pretty rare occurrences.

Probably for the same reason they're not on buses. Or on anything else like it. In fact, most states do not even require you to be wearing a seat belt in the back seats of a car if you're over 16. Will the seats belts on a train be required for people to wear? Are the conductors going to enforce it? Seatbelt lights? What about people standing on a crowded train? It's ridiculous and unnecessary.

Similarly, a major five-year study published by Britain's Rail Safety & Standards Board in 2007 came out against putting seat belts on passenger trains — for a few different reasons.

First, the study found that simple lap belts could prove more dangerous than nothing at all: when they were tried with crash-test dummies, the dummies could rotate with enough force during collisions to cause serious neck injuries.

Three-point belts were better at keeping people in their seats, but they also presented a hard choice for train designers. For these seat belts to work, the seats themselves had to be rigid enough to anchor them. Yet that increased the risk of injury for unrestrained passengers.

So seat belts don't seem to bolster safety unless everyone is wearing them. And that's considered impractical.

To see why, consider the contrast with airplanes. Everyone has to wear seat belts on planes, but that's confined to takeoff and landing and periods of heavy turbulence. (Arguably, seat belts in planes are most useful for preventing people from getting hurt during turbulence.) Those are discrete, somewhat predictable events.

Trains, by contrast, don't have takeoff or landing periods, and they don't have turbulence. And it would be a tough sell to get everyone to wear seat belts all the time. Most people like getting up and stretching or walking to the dining car. It's one of the appeals of passenger trains.
source http://www.vox.com/2015/5/13/8600511/am ... seat-belts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
see also http://www.citylab.com/work/2015/05/why ... ns/393542/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NJRAILNUT wrote:

freemenot wrote:I was walking by track 5 right before this accident occured... The tracks were filled with water due to high tide and quite strong winds. I am wondering if the water had anything to do with it.

That's kind of interesting. I've never actually been to Hoboken station, but ride NJT pretty regularly and I think I've seen people on this board discussing the issue of water on the tracks at the terminal. I think I remember someone explaining that when the water is especially high, they will sometimes stop the train before the end of track due to the water being too deep. So obviously NJT is aware of the issue.

Does anyone with more knowledge have any idea of whether high enough water could impact a trains electronic-based safety/braking systems or in any way impede a trains ability to safely come to a stop?

Yes, I had a post about it in February, see this picture from Feb (viewtopic.php?f=69&t=161825#p1370227" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). That is definitely a bunch of inches above the rail, and if I remember correctly, track 5 floods often. Always wondered why non of the crew took great attention to it.

With all the innovation around self driving cars, trains could be next. In some sense Trains may be easier to automate as they are on a fixed trajectory.