The latest info from the investigation into the Northridge Metrolink crash. Go here to read it:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-metrolink3-2008dec03,0,1876430.story?page=1
An excerpt (the subheadline from the story):
Red light Metrolink train ran before Chatsworth crash may not have been clearly visible
Jack
Assuming with a switch set against him, it would be a restricting signal, why would he keep going if the signals were apparently “dark?”
Very interesting - thanks !
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-metrolink3-2008dec03,0,1876430.story?page=1
To me its just a news paper trying to keep a dying story from dying. truth is the man ran a stop signal and crashed. killing many inocent people. The news must be slow on the left coast
Quote from the article:
“The question,” Higgins told reporters after the crash, "is did [Sanchez] see it red?
“Did he see it as something else?”
These final questions posed by the article seem to explore an entirely new condition on taking responsibility. There is normally a series of requirements placed on an engineer regarding signals as follows:
There is a story running on AP today that the conductor said he saw the final light, and it was green.
Sioux City Journal : Conductor: Light was green before deadly L.A. crash
I’m somewhat at a loss to explain how a conductor riding in a passenger car observed a signal ahead, except apparently the final signal was visible from the station stop, so perhaps he stepped off the train there and saw the signal.
Item 1 and item 3 are the same and item 2 is the same as item 1 and 3. item 4 is differant than the others but regaurdless what ever your trying to say dont mean nothing. I take your statement as any driver of a car and even passengers of cars as young as 5 can see traffic signals ans know what the aspects are. so nothing new with reading signals and as far as responding to them is a matter of fatigue. or if you are paying attention… Now this is the most important question. Did this engineer know what the signals mean? I say this because the FRA ( remeber these people) do not require a signal test to get a engineers liceins but if the carrier issues a test for signals they must get a 100% correct. so if the metro link does not issue a test then they just say we require a understanding of the signals. and the UP may not get involved as they lease the rail to these people. Now if they say the signals was flashing yellow ( i have no idea what that is out there) then a solid yellow. ( even me as a NS engineer know solid yellow means whoa) and Im not following a train then this means i am meeting a train so i am stopping for the next signal. then for them to say they can see a clear signal I dont buy it. and also those recorders in the box says the signal was red. I see the man guilty as charged.
A poor attempt to explain the unexplainable.
Items #1, 2, and 3 are not the same thing. By item #1, I am referring to the ability to pass a vision test and a color blindness test.
By item #2, I am referring to the need to observe a signal, as opposed to not observing it due to distraction or intentional failure to look at the signal.
By item #3, I am referring to the mental process of recognition whereby a person might see a red signal as green simply because they expected a green signal, for instance. This item # 3 is what the article is exploring.
So all three items, plus item #4, are different from each other. The lack of any one of them could result in a crash. You have actually added 5th item, which might be a subset of item #3. That is that the engineer must possess the knowledge of what the si
well if it makes you feel special then go ahead list all sorts of special things for something every body who drives already does.just because i run a engine does not make it any differant. you come to a intersection with traffic lights you react to the indication of the signal. nothing more or less, same as on a engine with only 1 differance i get advace notice of the next signal and track condition. so with all this being said you dont get 2 yellow aspects and go track speed thru a stop unless your pre-occupied or just plain stupid ( cleaned up alot) . and this guy from what been said was both. but it seems he made his stop correctly to discharge passengers and pick some others up. But i like your idea. and it might be cheeper to just think that my truck is green instead of red look at the money ill save in having it painted. and if i paint it in camoflage i cant go hunting as i wont be able to find it again.
Well,
Considering that the signal heads in the video are three light signal heads…then on the round signal head, the lower light is a stop indication, the right side light is a approach signal and the left light is a green or proceed, so no matter what color he might or might not have seen, the position of the lit signal should have clued him in…even the up and down three light signal head would have, depending on which lamp was lit, given him the proper aspect…
Plus he passes a flashing yellow (GCOR approach restricting, prepared to pass the next signal at restricted speed) before the station, so knowing his territory, and knowing the next signal was protecting a siding, he should have left the station at restricted speed, prepared to either pass that signal at restricted speed or stop, even if that next signal was green.
The approach restricted signal means just what is says…pass the next signal at restricted speed…it gives no exceptions.
He can not exceed restricted speed, in this case 20 mph, until he passes that signal, no matter what aspect that signal shows.
Even if that next signal changes to a green before he gets there, his still must maintain restricted speed until his leading wheels pass that signal.
Period.
So even if he saw a green, he knows his territory, knows that the only reason he got a flashing yellow before he reached the station is if he is following a train, and he would have know if he was, or he is meeting a train, which he had done several times before at that siding.
And if that other train is not visible in the siding as he approached that signal, then he should have know it was still out on the main ahead of him, headed his way…which means he should have gone looking…and the GCOR has a rule about signals not clearly understood or recognized…any wayside signal that is normally illuminated, but shows dark, or displays a aspect not understood by the crew, must be treated as
Ed Let us not forget 1 other thing not mentioned. Most all the rules given to us. even as dumb as they seem are because they are written from someones blood. These are rules because someone got hurt or killed, Only when someone sits down and modifies it for todays use is it believable and sometimes usable. And yes some rules are hard to believe it happen or why we have a rule. but even now if you take a signal rule bend it for you own use or perpose. death will occur. on my territory there is a rule being violated regularly it is a life threatniing rule and the train masters let it go and they teach the new hires to break it also. I am only 1 of about 12 engineers who will not violate this rule and have conductors whine when i make them get off the engine to do thier job. i wont run a stop signal until the rule book is satisfied.
With the exception of the cell phone involvement, this incident has the same signature as the MARC/Amtrak collision at Silver Spring, MD several years ago.
The MARC train passed an Approach signal indication prior to making at scheduled station stop. Upon departing the station stop the MARC train operated as if the train were operating on a Clear signal indication, coming around the curve at the control point Georgetown Jct. the MARC train viewed the STOP signal indication, the Amtrak train approaching and lined through the crossovers from #2 track to #1 track. MARC train did apply the brakes in emergency, however, the train did not have stopping distance at the speed it was traveling and ran into the 2nd unit of the Amtrak train. 8 MARC passengers and 3 MARC crew members were killed, including the engineer. Just like Chatsworth, we will never know what the engineer was thinking.
I am not in any way defending the engineer against blame for this wreck. I understand that there was more than one signal involved, and that their aspects consisted of position as well as color. However, I do find it interesting that the article linked to the first post seems to be exploring the idea of excusing the engineer for looking at a red light and seeing it as a green light. This could happen with color blindness, but I assume Sanchez was known to not be color blind according to a prior test. So seeing a color wrong, while not being color blind, would have to occur at a purely mental level of the recognition process. This is the area that, it seems to me, the article is exploring. I am only listing the breakdown steps of signal compliance in order to position the theory being offered by the article.
But aside from that theory of the engineer seeing the signal aspect, but failing to recognize it, there is a second, parallel theory that the signal was displaying a false clear. Witnesses at the station say the signal was green, and now the conductor is saying it was green. What is interesting is that this theory of a signal malfunction and the above theory of a signal misinterpretation are mutually exclusive. It
I agree that people sometimes see what they want to see.
During several investigations, I have had eyewitnesses swear events occurred in a pattern or a manner that, for lack of a better description, would be improbable or unbelievable.
Yet these people can, and have passed polygraph test, proving that they believe, completely, what they are sure they saw or “know”, when every bit of physical evidence says other wise.
I was not assuming you were defending the engineer…it would be a moot point anyway, considering the outcome of his actions.
I was simply pointing out he had already violated one rule by ignoring the first warning signal aspect…assuming he even saw that signal…for all we know, he was running on his own, internal and personal autopilot…every one of us has, at some point, driven to work, parked, got out of our car, and realized we don’t remember a thing about the drive in…simply because we have driven the same route so many times.
As for the competing theories…
I agree, each makes the other weaker…but I have a sneaky suspicion the media simply wants to downplay the cell phone involvement, and find any other acceptable reason for this wreck, because cell phone companies are big advertisers, both in print, radio and TV…I wonder who owns the LA times, and if they have any connections to a cell phone company or service provider.
Think about how much of a status symbol a cell phone is in our culture, and how much money it generates for all parties involved.
Personally, I think the guy simply got used to things being the same day after day, expected no changes in that routine, allowed himself to be distracted, then caught up in a text/conversation, and simply forgot or never saw the signal(s)…he was “driving to work” so to speak.
For some reason, the media in LAC–the print and talk radio segment–just won’t let this go. They need to quit hyping this, let it go and move on. More important issues, such as the state budget mess, should be the stories bing investigated.
Ed,
You bring up an interesting point about the engineer violating the approach signal. I know the details of the signals have been laid out by others in previous threads, and perhaps they were thoroughly explained and explored, but I do not completely understand a few issues. These are some of the points as I understand them.
The engineer passed a flashing yellow before entering the station. This would tell him that the he should proceed, expecting the next signal to be red. I did not know that once he passed the flashing yellow, he could not exceed 20mph between the flashing yellow signal and the next signal, regardless of what aspect the next signal displayed once it came into view.
Flashing yellow is a very useful signal for the dispatcher…it tells the engineer that no closer than two blocks away something is in the way or not lined up, be it a train he is following, one he is meeting or a MOW crew, miss aligned switch…you get the point.
If you have an approach restricting signal, flashing yellow, the next signal you see will never be a more permissive signal…it will always be either another flashing yellow, solid yellow or red, never green.
That is because an approach restricting is an advance warning signal, not intended to stop the train or prevent it from proceeding into the next block, but a way to simply slow the train down and hold it at restricted speed as it proceeds.
It tells you to proceed, passing the next signal, at restricted speed.
That next signal may be a solid yellow, an approach signal, telling you to be prepared to stop at the very next signal.
Approach does not mean you will stop, it tells you to be ready to…you may have a green or proceed signal when you get there, but you still have to proceed from the solid yellow to that next signal prepared to stop no matter what that next signal shows.
Or, if you are following a slower train, you may have a whole series of flashing yellow signals…which allows you to proceed past the next signal if that signal is not red, but be prepared to stop short of the following signal…the train ahead of you might have stopped, MOW may still be fouling track, switch may still be lined against you, so forth.
Flashing yellow is a way to progressively slow down a train and if needed, hold it at restricted speed until the track ahead is clear.
If you have a flashing yellow, you will have to pass at least one more restricting signal before you get a green or proceed signal.
This is a safety measure, supposed to prevent just this type of accident.
The full story was in the LA Times on Friday. The signal at the siding switch one mile north of the station is visible from the station platform. The statement by the conductor says that he saw the signal when he was about to close the doors and was checking for late passengers, and it was green.
Go here for the full story:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-metrolink5-2008dec05,0,3449298.story
Jack
A flashing yellow on the UP at least, is Advance Approach, proceed prepared to stop at the second signal, trains exceeding 40 mph must slow to 40mph. There is a passenger version marked with a “C” on a diamond plate that allows passenger trains a higher speed.
When you are delayed in the block, either because you stopped or your speed dropped below 10mph, you are to proceed in CTC prepared to stop at the next signal until the next signal is visable and is seen to display a proceed indication. In ABS, you are to proceed at restricted speed until the next signal is visable, the track is seen to be clear to the signal and it displays a proceed indication. In either case once the conditions are met speed may be increased. You don’t have to wait for the leading wheels to pass the signal.
Jeff