 |
Re: Metrolink derailment in Oxnard.
Author: SP5103
Date: 02-24-2015 - 09:39
Just saw the CNN report. It looks like it might have been something like a 1 ton service truck pulling some kind of trailer? The train actually got stopped fairly fast looking like the trailing engine stopped just a few car lengths past the crossing.
One reporter said the "conductor" saw the truck and put the train in emergency. Another reporter correctly reported that the NTSB and FRA would want to talk to the engineer as part of the investigation.
Then they brought on Mary Schiavo who CNN brings on as their transportation accident "expert". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Schiavo She did mention two things - one interesting and one that as far as I know is absurd. Mary stated that the Feds and railroads would be interested in the crash energy management built into the new cars. I really don't think that had anything to do with what happened here unless leaving the rail, turning 180 degrees on its side was "Crash Energy Management". There was either an issue where the debris were sufficient to cause the train to derail, or there is also a possibility that the truck hit the side of the train with enough force to cause it to derail (which does happen but seems unlikely in this particular case based on the survival of the truck driver and debris field). I think the issue here won't be whether the new cars' crash energy management worked but why the cab car did not stay on the track and if an engine was leading if it would have.
The absurd comment by the expert, which was actually mentioned by her first, was P-T-C!!!! IIRC she said that Metrolink had already installed PTC (is it up and functioning?) and that it should have prevented this accident by slowing the train down if the tracks were blocked. I wasn't aware that PTC was supposed to be integrated into the grade crossing systems, though I could see that it might be wise in whistle free zones.
They mentioned that there were 51 on board of which 28 were injured, some very seriously.
With the other recent commuter train vs. vehicle accident it will be interesting to see what safety (or politically) motivated changes will be proposed. The crossing did look to have gates already.
One reporter said the "conductor" saw the truck and put the train in emergency. Another reporter correctly reported that the NTSB and FRA would want to talk to the engineer as part of the investigation.
Then they brought on Mary Schiavo who CNN brings on as their transportation accident "expert". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Schiavo She did mention two things - one interesting and one that as far as I know is absurd. Mary stated that the Feds and railroads would be interested in the crash energy management built into the new cars. I really don't think that had anything to do with what happened here unless leaving the rail, turning 180 degrees on its side was "Crash Energy Management". There was either an issue where the debris were sufficient to cause the train to derail, or there is also a possibility that the truck hit the side of the train with enough force to cause it to derail (which does happen but seems unlikely in this particular case based on the survival of the truck driver and debris field). I think the issue here won't be whether the new cars' crash energy management worked but why the cab car did not stay on the track and if an engine was leading if it would have.
The absurd comment by the expert, which was actually mentioned by her first, was P-T-C!!!! IIRC she said that Metrolink had already installed PTC (is it up and functioning?) and that it should have prevented this accident by slowing the train down if the tracks were blocked. I wasn't aware that PTC was supposed to be integrated into the grade crossing systems, though I could see that it might be wise in whistle free zones.
They mentioned that there were 51 on board of which 28 were injured, some very seriously.
With the other recent commuter train vs. vehicle accident it will be interesting to see what safety (or politically) motivated changes will be proposed. The crossing did look to have gates already.
