>> I've never seen any data that shows collisions are more frequent in "lonesome cab" situations,
>> but if you have something to that effect I'd be pleased to read it.

Why bother reading anything from such an obviously biased source. How would you know what was truth, or what was mere ax grinding? For example, the claim that the conductor at the Chatsworth accident saw that the signal was green, is patently and obviously bogus - as he was not at any time ever in position where he could have seen the signal, after departure from Chatworth - about a mile away. No conductor is ever in such position while the train is moving, unless he is in the cab or other place with a forward view. And no such forward view existed on that train - except to the cab's sole occupant.

This conductor's supposed report also contradicts another "nice try" claim, that the signal was too dim. That was in fact one of the very first thing the investigators checked out - it wasn't so. And it still wasn't so when the NTSB conducted their formal signal sighting tests a few days later. I question whether the conductor ever even made such an obviously bogus claim.

A more reliable source would be the F.R.A., which regularly compiles all sorts of statistics about accidents and their causes, as proven by FRA, NTSB, and other investigations. And yes, they have statistical reports on "false clears" - even those where no accident resulted. You could probably purchase their most recent five year statistical report - but it is dry reading.

BTW - "it was a false clear" is probably the oldest dodge in the book. It has been claimed in nearly every single incident since the signal was invented. But as an actual cause of accident - it is extremely rare, less than a dozen times in the last sixty years. If you want to believe in wild conspiracy theories, be my guest. But to avoid coming off like a desperate fool, at least try to account for some motivation as to why a dis-interested third party, such as the NTSB or the FRA, would care to join in such a cover-up. What skin is it off their noses who did it!

But I don't see why we continue to argue this. That it in fact was not a false clear in this case has already been satisfactorily proven. The only open question is why did the engineer run the red. What human error or frailty led to that happening? That is all that really matters now.

Answering that question to the best of our ability is critical to the prevention of similar accidents in the future. And whatever can be done to prevent inevitable human error and frailty of any sort, from causing injury and death, is certainly of more worth than worrying about who's fault it was.

That MetroLink is reportedly doing something about it without regard to who's fault is was, is good - if they really are.

OPB