 |
Re: Metrolink derailment in Oxnard.
Author: SP5103
Date: 02-24-2015 - 12:41
There was just a press conference covered by CNN. Typical speeches of concern for victims and thanking responders. CNN and Fox both switched over to the VA Secretary that embellished his military experience and is now fixated on this. Didn't get anything new from what little of the Oxnard press conference was shown.
I texted a friend this morning who was working for Metrolink's contractor doing the acceptance of the Rotem cars. He suggested that the couplers/draft gear had compressed/collapsed as designed during the derailment as part of the CEM design. The news seems to be focusing on most of the cars being involved being the new design and that it saved lives because of it.
Here is the problem I have. This wasn't a semi truck and trailer, but a smaller truck with a trailer. Regardless of how or why it was on the tracks, in most (but not all) of these collisions these trains stay on the tracks (or at least upright near the rail) with minimal injuries to the train's occupants. This collision resulted in the lead three cars being on their sides, the second crosswise to the track, and the cab car turned 180 degrees. The LA Times photos show at least on car still coupled with a broken shank. The whole idea of tightlock couplers was to keep passenger trains together rather than letting them scatter or telescope. The cab cars' location suggests it was the first to derail, but if so then the collision was enough to damage/collapse the coupler/draft gear?
Of course this is all speculation at this point, but I am concerned that the cab car was not able to survive the collision and stay on the rail. Unless the vague reports of the truck turning onto the tracks are true (damaging the rail?), then I would have expected more than not the train to have stayed on the rail. In this case were the injuries as a result of the actual collision or subsequent derailment putting the cars on their side.
I would hope the focus would be on:
1. Verify that the train was operating within the rules - speed, headlight, horn, etc. and the xing signals were operating properly.
2. How and why the truck tangled with the train and what reasonable measures could be taken to prevent future occurrences?
3. What caused the train to actually derail, and did the pilot design and/or CEM play a part in contributing to the derailment? Have we created different issues with CEM that are a potentially greater hazard?
4. Out of necessity, revisit the whole cab car vs. locomotive issue again. Would survivability be better using a smaller locomotive on each end of commuter trains. Of course this doesn't do anything for EMU/DMU operations.
I am surprised no one has grabbed onto the "What if this had been an oil train?" storyline yet.
I texted a friend this morning who was working for Metrolink's contractor doing the acceptance of the Rotem cars. He suggested that the couplers/draft gear had compressed/collapsed as designed during the derailment as part of the CEM design. The news seems to be focusing on most of the cars being involved being the new design and that it saved lives because of it.
Here is the problem I have. This wasn't a semi truck and trailer, but a smaller truck with a trailer. Regardless of how or why it was on the tracks, in most (but not all) of these collisions these trains stay on the tracks (or at least upright near the rail) with minimal injuries to the train's occupants. This collision resulted in the lead three cars being on their sides, the second crosswise to the track, and the cab car turned 180 degrees. The LA Times photos show at least on car still coupled with a broken shank. The whole idea of tightlock couplers was to keep passenger trains together rather than letting them scatter or telescope. The cab cars' location suggests it was the first to derail, but if so then the collision was enough to damage/collapse the coupler/draft gear?
Of course this is all speculation at this point, but I am concerned that the cab car was not able to survive the collision and stay on the rail. Unless the vague reports of the truck turning onto the tracks are true (damaging the rail?), then I would have expected more than not the train to have stayed on the rail. In this case were the injuries as a result of the actual collision or subsequent derailment putting the cars on their side.
I would hope the focus would be on:
1. Verify that the train was operating within the rules - speed, headlight, horn, etc. and the xing signals were operating properly.
2. How and why the truck tangled with the train and what reasonable measures could be taken to prevent future occurrences?
3. What caused the train to actually derail, and did the pilot design and/or CEM play a part in contributing to the derailment? Have we created different issues with CEM that are a potentially greater hazard?
4. Out of necessity, revisit the whole cab car vs. locomotive issue again. Would survivability be better using a smaller locomotive on each end of commuter trains. Of course this doesn't do anything for EMU/DMU operations.
I am surprised no one has grabbed onto the "What if this had been an oil train?" storyline yet.
