Join the discussion on the following article:
Canadian regulators call for “fundamental changes” following fatal derailment
I guess Americans aren’t the only ones who overreact to accidents like this afterall. I’m wondering how many VIA trains will be cancelled though, considering how many cuts they’re making, if a new law there requires all passenger trains to have PTC?
Please note the following rules (not mentioned in the report but applicable in this case). The General Code of Operating Rules provision is 1st, and the Canadian Rail Operating Rules provision is 2nd. It concerns trains delayed in the block in signalled territory, which is what happened in this instance. A similar condition was present in the Metrolink accident which resulted in a head-on collision. The rule is what is termed an administrative defence which requires compliance by the crew to be effective. In both instances, for varying reasons, the rule was ignored. It is IMHO a cardinal rule violation (in my time in the industry they fired you for violating it).
TRAIN DELAYED IN THE BLOCK
GCOR
9.9 Train Delayed Within a Block
If a train has entered a block on a proceed indication that does not require restricted speed, and the train stops or its speed is reduced below 10 MPH, the train must:
A. ABS
Proceed at restricted speed. The train must maintain this speed until the next signal is visible, that signal displays a proceed indication, and the track to that signal is clear.
B. CTC or Manual Interlocking Limits
Proceed prepared to stop at the next signal until the next signal is visible and that signal displays a proceed indication.
C. ACS
Operate according to cab signal indication.
CROR
515. DELAYED IN THE BLOCK
When a movement, which has entered a block on signal indication permitting operation at other than RESTRICTED speed, is stopped or otherwise delayed in the block, it must move at RESTRICTED speed to the next signal:
(i) unless or until the track is seen to be clear to the next signal and the indication of such signal permits operation at other than RESTRICTED speed;or
(ii) unless there are no track switches between such movement and the next signal. In such case the movement may proceed preparing to stop at the next signal, unless or until the track is seen to be clear to the next signal and such signal displays
Dodds: Overreact? I guess lives aren’t worth much to you.
The video cameras are used to see who is to blame, mostly for courtroom purposes. They have little to do with anyone’s safety.
Don’t forget that the mandate of the TSB and the legal mandate of the US NTSB are different. US law requires that the NTSB assign responsibility in investigation findings. NTSB reports are routinely used in court cases.
In Canada, the no-fault finding is part of the mandate, and no TSB report or finding is admissible as evidence in open court in either criminal or civil cases. This is not a small difference. I have nothing but the greatest respect for the NTSB staff and board. Same for the TSB, as I worked their for 10 years and am well aware of the high level of professionalism in both agencies.
With regards to inboard and outboard cameras and cab voice recordings, I know from personal experience that in many instances knowing what actually happened inside the cab is critical to understanding the accident dynamics, especilly when the crews are no longer there to tell us what they experienced.
The locomotive events recorder data, if it survives the accident, may not tell the investigation team all they need to know to determine the causation chain. I have been doing LER and other railway systems data analysis for more than 30 years, to the point where I do multiple recorded source event sequence overlays to better understand the sequence of events in railroad accidents. Having some type of communications voice data from other than in-cab recorders has permitted me make sound professional analysis on safety-critical events which occur during an accident. I believe that the systems should be mandatory, for accident investigation purposes only.
Experience with aircraft and cockpit voice and ship bridge voice recordings, mandated by international agreement, are critical to understanding accidents in those transportation modes when accidents occur. These recording technologies, when used in the rail mode, do not have the same protections as air and marine.
While there may be constitutional arguments in both countries with regards to privacy rights and freedo
So they want to do three things. Require PTC, add cameras, and make the crew safer in the event of a crash.
Now, assuming that funds are not unlimited, wouldn’t it be better to figure out where to get the best benefit from the dollar ?
I think it is interesting that in Europe PTC seems to be everywhere but their locomotives and trains don’t meet US crash standards.
My money, for preference, would go on avoiding crashes, not being able to survive them.
Gee, ATS and ATC would be nice. 1920’s technolgy that worked for YEARS and now gone. It was relativly simple and low cost…maybe thats why it went by the wayside??? Acknowledge the restricive signal by pressing a button…or get a brake application.
COME ON! Go back to the past for your answers here. PTC will cost undreds of millions and even the rail companies cannot agree to the method of operations…c’est la vie.
Retiring in two years two months…its just gonna get worse.
THE MORE ,gadgets…YOU ADD TO YOUR INSTRUMENT PANEL,THE MORE DISTRACTION YOU ARE GOING TO GET FROM CAB CREW,THE SAME IS HAPPENING TO AUTOMOBILES…DO NOT FAULT A TRAIN CREW FOR ALL MISHAPS, THINK ABOUT THIS EVERY TIME YOU DRIVE YOUR VEHICLE.
Know your damn territory, 3 guy’s and not a one notices that a 15 mph X-over is coming up, really.
Canada or Canadian RRs seem to have frequent accidents- some of them terrible. When are they gonna get their act together and use important and available safety and operating procedures. I throw up my hands at this type of repeated tragedy-- look at what just happened in Quebec…disgusting and never should have happened.