CHICAGO - The engineer involved in the fatal Metra Rock Island District Line derailment Sept. 17 that killed two passengers is receiving medical treatment for a failed suicide attempt – after going public with his story last week and claiming his innocence, officials said, according to a story in the Chicago Daily Southtown.
Mike Smith, in an e-mail message last Wednesday, alerted fellow Metra engineers and former co-workers at CSX – where he was previously employed - that he planned to take his life, officials said. His colleagues notified the Crest Hill (Ill.) police, who found Smith at his apartment in the southwest suburb. Smith, 41, was receiving care Friday for self-inflicted injuries. Authorities refused to divulge where he was staying.
The union representing Metra’s engineers is asking the commuter agency to indefinitely suspend disciplinary proceedings against Smith stemming from the deadly train incident.
“His health and well-being are everybody’s concern right now,” said Rick Radek, of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. “He is where he should be right now and is getting the care he needs.” Metra offered little comment but said it is considering the union’s request.
“We certainly hope he is getting the best care and treatment,” said Judy Pardonnet, spokeswoman for the commuter railroad.
Smith was at the controls of the Metra commuter train when it derailed near 47th Street and the Dan Ryan Expressway. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Metra determined the train was traveling 59 mph above the 10 mph speed limit. Both agencies concluded all equipment telling Smith to slow down the train was working correctly at the time of the accident.
Through his union, Smith maintained he did nothing wrong and declined requests for interviews with reporters. But he broke his silence Monday, inviting reporters to lunch to tell his version of events. He insisted trackside signals on the day of the cra***old him it
It is too bad what happened and what the engineer is going through.
But, his decision to “vent” through the media was just plain stupid, and asking for trouble.
I don’t know how many of you have had to deal with the mass media in conjunction with any event that lends itself to sensationalization,…but…they will tell the story that sells first, and worry about feelings a distant second
This is one of those instances where the union made their usual claim that the signals malfinctioned and the press jumped on it like they always do. Maybe one of you real railroaders could give an example or two of times the signals failed and displayed a green signal. My layman understanding is the failsafe position is red just like the brakes go on if the air bleeds off.
There are rare cases of “false clears” and other signal system malfunctions. On one of the lines I worked a train was given a signal to come out a siding right into the path of a mainline train that had a clear signal to proceed by the siding. Luckily the crews were alert and knew something was wrong so disaster was avoided. In response the signal system was suspened and tests and changed were made to prevent the same thing from happening. These instances are extremely rare, but they do happen.
I feel for the engineer and the victims. I can understand how the engineer would want to express his feelings on being innocent and try to justify himself. But, as “Gates” has said the media has a way of messing that up.
I express no opinion on this Metra accident.
But I do know that when cars get hit at crossings it is common for the survivors (or the lawyers for the family) to claim that the gates or lights or bell did not function properly.
Most of the time we railfans read that and say “yeah, right.” But from time to time I have seen it happen – fortunately with no bad results.
And I have also heard the dispatcher talk to crews saying he cannot get a signal to show this or that and suddenly it does and yet the crew reports no change from what they see.
I agree that as a rule the news media would have no possible way of rendering any kind of informed news about these issues. They do not care to be informed, and in the case of the NY Times they seem to blast something like Operation Lifesaver as an attempt to brainwa***hem.
Dave Nelson
I’ve known of two cases in which false clear signals were displayed. One was at an automatic interlocking, whereat a train on one line received a clear signal while a train on the other line was in the crossing. They train got stopped and there was no collision, but the signal folks went right out and duplicated the situation, and it was indeed a false clear. I don’t recall these many years later what they found to be the cause.
In the second case, two wires were swapped while some signal maintenance work was being done. The result was a distant signal displayed “approach” although the home signal was showing proceed, but when the home signal displayed “approach” or “proceed diverging”, the distant signal displayed “clear.”
Such events are extremely rare, but this is not to suggest that it was impossible in the Metra accident.
Is not the subject of this thread the attempted suicide? This poor tortured soul is having diffiuclt times and yet there are some who wi***o opine away about the supposed details of the accident.
The man is in dire need of help and support from those who care about him. Fortunately, my guess is he will spend no time dwelling here in the Ether with the experts who dwell in it.
I think the Clapham Junction crash in England in 1988 involved a defective signal, as did the Ladbroke cra***here in 1999. Britain seems to be having some signal problems lately.
But in this case, it seems like this engineer screwed up big time.
Head on collision at El Monte CA. around 1971-72. West bound Blue Streak Merchandise had a high green signal taking him up the main line. He was actually lined into the east end of the siding with an east bound opposing. Granted, it was human error, but nonetheless a head on with signals set properly.
Whether a false clear was displayed or not is going to be difficult to determine. Part of the problem is that the engineer’s credibility is automatically going to be questioned as part of the aftermath of the collision at Chase, MD. I remember that Ricky Gates, the engineer who ran past the absolute stop indication into the path of a Metroliner, claimed that the signal displayed an aspect (approach medium) that it couldn’t have possibly showed.
Also, the press and the public will tend to look at attempts to go public in matters like this as self-serving at the least.
Yesterday I heard a huge amount of radio chatter on my scanner between the BNSF East End Dispatcher and the Eola Yard Signal Maintainer about the CTC being down at the yard and the DS kept asking the maintainer to manually set the switches and signals for both eastbound and westbound trains and BOY WAS THE MAINTAINER BUSY DOING SO! Several times during these conversations the DS would ask for a specific positioning of switches between the three main lines and about ten to fifteen seconds later he would change his mind and alter his instructions to the maintainer. All I can say is with all this communication (about every minute or two on averge) I can sure see how the maintainer could mess things up…or the DS for that matter make a mistake. The DS repeatedly told the maintainer he could not see the position of signals or switches on his board in Ft. Worth so I can see where the possibility exists for a screw up to happen that would cause a problem like the one on Metra’s RI line last month.
Not to get of fthe original subject regarding the Metra engineer who I hope is in good hands and getting the proper medical attention he needs.
A CAD (computer aided dispatching) or TCS (traffiic control system) dispatching board like the ones used by UP, BNSF & CSX will show a track diagram for each dispatcher area on each individual dispatcher’s computer console. The basic look is a black background with a white track diagram. In addition, there is a larger wall mounted track diagram showing all dispatcher territories. The track diagram is for CTC (centralized traffic control) and ABS (automatic block signals), dark territory is usually not diagramed and handle by track warrants and yards/terminals are usually handled by the yardmasters. For the most part, only main control points (crossovers) and other main turnouts (power switches) are shown on a track diagram. The dispatching board (diagram) is broken up into blocks. The blocks can be anywhere from a @1000ft long to @6 miles. Usually, a dispatcher will select routing from one main control point to the next. Intermediate signals are automatic. Looking at the DS board, a red block with the trains tag above it indicates that the block is occupied, yellow is requested but not clear, green is requested block clear and blue blocks are for MOW. That’s the short story. If anybody wants to add to this, or expand on what I wrote, please do.
As for the CTC being down at Eola and the maintainer running around trying to set all of the switchers… Jim, are you sure that the maintainer could manually set the signals? I’ve never heard of that. Usually, with the signals down a train has to come to a complete stop and then gets permission to proceed past the read board at a restricted speed.
Again, I didn’t mean to get to far off the original subject,
CC
As for the CTC being down at Eola and the maintainer running around trying to set all of the switchers… Jim, are you sure that the maintainer could manually set the signals? I’ve never heard of that. Usually, with the signals down a train has to come to a complete stop and then gets permission to proceed past the read board at a restricted speed.
Chris, an example of a radio exchange between the DS and the signal maintainer would go something like this:
“Eas End Dispatcher (EED) to Signal Maintainer at Eola (SME), over”
“SME to EED, go ahead, over”
“Can you give me a main one to main two for a westbound, over”
“Main one to two, will do, over”
That is a typical example of what seemed to be happening for at least an hour or two yesterday and I assumed that during this the SME would line up the switches and signals manually, but perhaps I am wrong (although I don’t think so).
That type of radio conversation sounds normal for the situation. If the switches and signals were not working, then I’m assuming the maintainer was working the switches for the dispatcher and the trains were doing a stop and go.
If there are problems in the field as you have said, the DS will ask the Signal Maintainer to line the switches manually, BUT, the maintainer CANNOT set the signal. A train, after stopping at the signal,which would be red, would have to be authorized by the DS to proceed by that signal.
One thing I’m surprised people didn’t mention here was why was the guy going 60 freaking mph above the speed limit? Would you drive 80 mph down your own street (I’m talking reality here, not a wild dream ? I’d imagine it should have been common knowledge for engineers in that division that speeds were low in that certain area.
Well, I was listening to my scanner for over two hours and could clearly hear all DS to maintainer and train to DS radio exchanges and NOT ONCE did I hear a train ask for permission to pass a red signal, NOT ONCE…and I am certain they had plenty of time to make it from where I was sitting to the signals in the yard that were impacted…a distance of about three to four miles and well within scanner radio signal range.
If it’s like the UP setup, the control points (at least the newer ones) can be taken by the signal maintainer on sight into “local control.”
A few weeks ago I was told by a dispatcher not to go past a certain control point until the dispatcher verbally gave permission regardless of the absolute signal indication. The signal maintainer had the cp in local control at that time.
Jeff
The so-called 60 MPH over the speed limit is based on the speed restriction for a diverging move over the crossover. I believe that the track speed in that area is 60 MPH.
? I’d imagine it should have been common knowledge for engineers in that division that speeds were low in that certain area.