Metrolink Sideswipes BNSF Freight at Rialto Today - Minor Injuries

Here’s a link to ABC-30HD’s KFSN - Fresno website site with a short video clip - 1:11 mins. or so. Sure looks like the near (in shadow) side of the locomotive - No. 677 or 877 ? (hard to read) - is a little beat up at the frame level, consistent with a sideswipe:

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/state&id=6516968

Here’s the link to the Google News list of 275+ stories on it (caution - mostly same, just repetitive):

http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&ncl=1272656829&topic=h

Safe Prediction: Expect to see more about how Positive Train Control (PTC) could’ve/ should’ve/ would 've prevented this.

  • Paul North.

Looks like it could have been a lot worse.

Freight train going into the hole to meet commuter train, commuter train fails to stop at the end of the siding. Hmmmmm. Where have we heard this story before?

This is really bad. It appears the the Metrolink ran a red but had time to stop. If this was done on a blind curve, it might have rammed the frieght at 50mph. I find it odd that this isn’t very newsworthy because of few injuries. If it turns out that a red signal was passed, this will be a real stink for Metrolink.

Well, here we go. In the photo caption the Associated Press has the Metrolink train being “struck” by the BNSF train. Just how the BNSF “struck” Metrolink with the 96th car of a train is not reported. It appears the AP can’t get a story accurate and truthful for love nor money.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hSaw_D1M9L6mWRgglRYOX3XeZmggD94J1JCO0

In any event, this is serious. Despite the MSM’s disinterest because there is no blood. For the second time in two months a Metrolink passenger train has run into a freight train. This time they had two people in the Metrolink cab. Now either something is seriously wrong with Metrolink’s signals or they have some serious problems with their train operating people.

The caption is as you say, but to be fair, when I reviewed the story that the link connects to a few minutes ago, in the text of the story it says that the MetroLink train:

  • “sideswiped” (1st para., 1st line);

  • “collided” (2nd para., 2nd line); and,

  • “struck” (8th para., 2nd line) the BNSF train,

although MetroLink apparently said that the trains “came into contact” (9th para., 1st line).

“MSM” = “Main Stream Media”

Otherwise, I agree with your observations. More people in the cab doesn’t necessarily result in more safety. John G. Kneiling would have had a field day with this.

As to the signal system - a couple days ago I ran across an NTSB report from 2 - 3 years ago where a BNSF train likely saw a “false clear” due to reflection. I wouldn’t exonerate the train crew completely because that signal head then displayed both a green and a red, over a red on an offset signal below, which wasn’t a proper indication at that location anyway. But it did bring to mind the debate we had here about the Chatsworth wreck and possible malfunctions of the signal system. I’ll try to find that report again later today and post the link here.

Let’s see what today’s news reports add to this.

  • Paul North.

What I am finding interesting is that the LIRR had a sideswipe just west of Jamaica station Wednesday morning of two passenger trains: 5 minor injuries reported, and a several cars damaged and not one media mention in NYC area (outside the railfan internet)!!! But this second METROLINK passsenger-freight mishap got nationwide AP attention!

Here’s the link and citation, as mentioned previously (above). Note that I was mistaken - it was NS, not BNSF:

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2007/RAB0703.htm

Rear-end Collision of Norfolk Southern Trains near Lincoln, Alabama - January 18, 2006

Railroad Accident Brief - NTSB / RAB - 07 / 03



Accident No.:

We can’t ignore the time value of money. It’s real. This is like: “If we ignore reality, then…”

After last month accident, Metrolink add it another engineer to the cab. How come they miss the light?

La La land being La La land and the media being the media; it will be a long, long time before METROLINK is out of the media’s hot zone for highlighting any and every incident that METROLINK has. To have a second similar incident such a short time after the Chatsworth incident does not speak highly of METROLINK’s operations management and their emphasis on rules compliance. METROLINK cannot hide behind their contracting of the operations aspect of their service out to another party. The public sees the METROLINK name on the equipment and no other. If the contractor doesn’t demand rules compliance, then METROLINK must do it’s own testing and discipline the contractors employees and possibly take actions against the contractor for breach of contract.

If I were a Metrolink commuter, I would be very concerned, especially since both recent Metrolink collisions fairly scream “operator error.” - a. s.