 |
Re: LA Times story on Metrolink vs BNSF incident at Rialto [link]
Author: John Bruce
Date: 11-23-2008 - 07:50
OldPoleBurner said, "One thing that I do not understand: is the notion that calling signal aspects to a conductor not in the cab adds anything real to safety. This could so, only if the conductor wasn't distracted by his passenger related duties, each and every signal aspect was visible and verifiable to him, and he was physically near the emergency brake cord at the time an error occurred. Since he can't even tell for himself when a signal was passed, let alone see its aspect, and he is always busy with the passengers, and brake cords are sparse, he cannot realistically be expected to enforce signal compliance at all !"
As a lay railfan, here's my take. First, I've ridden Metrolink as a commuter and a railran, and as far as I can see, the conductor's duties are pretty light. They don't lift transportation -- they just check tickets, pretty much once per trip. Now and then they write a citation for non-payment. They answer questions like "are we on time?" now and then. They open and close doors. Maybe they count the pax. They announce station stops.
They travel their route daily, hundreds of times a year. If they're qualified on the route, I've got to assume they know the locations of the signals, especially the control points. The rules say the engineer's got to call the signal to the conductor over the radio. If this doesn't happen, there's a rule violation. Period. Rule 1.4 says this has to be reported. The conductor has got to know there was a CP passed half a minute ago, and there was no call. So we wing it, right? Heck, it's always green!
Now, even if the conductor right then was answering someone's dumb question about being on time and clean forgot about the CP, what about the next one down the line? What about tomorrow? After all, the cause of the Chatsworth accident couid have been averted by what would seem to be minimal observance of the rules. Didn't happen. Let's hope the Chatsworth conductor is drawing unemployment. For that matter, the Rialto conductor.
As a lay railfan, here's my take. First, I've ridden Metrolink as a commuter and a railran, and as far as I can see, the conductor's duties are pretty light. They don't lift transportation -- they just check tickets, pretty much once per trip. Now and then they write a citation for non-payment. They answer questions like "are we on time?" now and then. They open and close doors. Maybe they count the pax. They announce station stops.
They travel their route daily, hundreds of times a year. If they're qualified on the route, I've got to assume they know the locations of the signals, especially the control points. The rules say the engineer's got to call the signal to the conductor over the radio. If this doesn't happen, there's a rule violation. Period. Rule 1.4 says this has to be reported. The conductor has got to know there was a CP passed half a minute ago, and there was no call. So we wing it, right? Heck, it's always green!
Now, even if the conductor right then was answering someone's dumb question about being on time and clean forgot about the CP, what about the next one down the line? What about tomorrow? After all, the cause of the Chatsworth accident couid have been averted by what would seem to be minimal observance of the rules. Didn't happen. Let's hope the Chatsworth conductor is drawing unemployment. For that matter, the Rialto conductor.
