Suppose the second signal had been a couple hundred feet north of the station platform. One wonders if that might have prevented the accident.
As Ed noted above, the train should not have resumed track speed upon leaving the station, regardless of what the light down the track was indicating. An additional clue that something was wrong was that the siding switch was set against the commuter as it was found broken by the investigators (from a newspaper article not referenced in this forum).
Ed,
Thanks for that explanation of the constant yellow (approach) versus flashing yellow (approach restricting) aspect. I knew what approach meant, but I did not know what approach restricting was. I want to understand what role these two preceding signals played if the final signal were green. I am still not sure if I quite understand your explanation of the scenario. For instance, you say that even if the final signal were green, the engineer would have to approach it at restricted speed because of being delayed in block. Yet I thought the delayed in block meant that he had to approach the next signal prepared to stop in case it was red. That is what the Trains article said. Since he could see the green signal from the station (if it were green) he would have known it were green, so why would he have to approach it prepared to stop in case it were red?
This is how I understand it:
Sanchez may not have violated either the flashing yellow or the following constant yellow as he approached the station and stopped, taking into account a slowing as he prepared to stop. So, the only issues of signal compliance came after he left the station.
Unless he received the yellow signals as he was approaching the station, and during his station stop, the dispatcher lined his route, which would then give him the ‘clear’ indication.
[quote user=“edblysard”]
By rule, he should have left the station and proceeded at restricted speed no matter what the siding signal aspect was…and I doubt it was green, unless there was a major malfunction of the signal system…remember, he already had a flashing yellow 2 signals before the siding, so it was working then…based on the “he saw what he wanted to” theory, he willfully miss interpreted two restricting signals before he passed the siding signal…I don’t quite buy that…one signal maybe, but two, one of which was flashing?
With a full stop at the station thrown in.
As you pointed out, he was “delayed in block”, and even if the siding signal was green, by rule he should have approached it at restricted speed anyway…if it was green, he could have gone to track speed only after his leading wheels passed that green signal.
No matter what spin the news folks want to put on this, and I dislike saying this about a fellow railroader not here to defend himself, he blew past at least two signals, more than likely three, all of them telling him to be ready to, or to stop at the siding signal.
Like I said, I doubt there is a single current or former engineer here on the forum who would have left that station at anything other than
That would be my take on it.
If the final light were red, Sanchez violated it by passing it, and he also violated the preceding solid yellow by exceeding “approach” speed after leaving the station. But if the final light were green, I don’t see where Sanchez violated any signal.
In either case, I don’t know of any evidence that he violated the flashing yellow, which was the first of the three signals.
I think it was significant that railfans and/or bystanders at the station said they saw the final light as green. However, it seems very significant that the conductor of the train has now stated that he saw the final signal as green. Possible ulterior motive notwithstanding, he would have high credibility as the conductor of the train, to not have mistakenly interpreted the signal aspect.
CSX, in response to the Silver Spring MARC/Amtrak collision changed their rule to make a scheduled station stop be considered delayed in the block and requires restricted speed until the next signal. I don’t know if this was in response to an FRA mandate or if it was a unilateral decision by CSX for it’s own property.
My sister-in-law’s brother is a conductor for NS, and at my brother’s wedding reception in October, I asked him his views on the crash. He agrees with me in that if the engineer was paying attention, he would have realized that the switch was lined against him, no matter if the signal was displaying stop or clear. If he had been paying attention, he would have noticed the switch and should have immediately stopped the train and contacted the dispatcher.
Kevin
It may have been an FRA mandate. I ride Metra’s Southwest Service twice daily. The Ashburn station is within the interlocking limits for Ashburn crossing and signs have been posted trackside for inbound trains advising the engineer of appropriate speed restrictions since he had passed the prior signal. Similar signs are posted at Wrightwood (Landers) for outbound runs.
I don’t know what the current U.P. rule for a signal displaying a solid yellow or approach aspect is, but in reviewing an older rulebook, here is how the approach aspect is defined for several railroads, including U.P.:
Proceed prepared to stop at next signal. Train exceeding 30 miles per hour must immediately reduce to that speed.
But here is the question I have: What if, after passing a solid yellow, the next signal is seen to be green or change to green as it is being approached? The rule for approach does not address that. The only thing that addresses that is the rule for a green or clear aspect, which is:
Proceed on main route.
So, I conclude that after passing a solid yellow signal, if the next signal is green or changes to green after passing a previous solid yellow signal, the rule for approach ends and the engineer can then resume track speed even thoug
That’s easy to say, but with all due respect, it is also total BS.
If you’re running on a clear indication, you MIGHT glance at a set of switch points as you approach them; however, you might also be glancing at your orders; you might be looking at your watch to see how fast you need to go to ensure that you arrive at the next station on time; you might be reaching into your grip; you might be taking a sip of your beverage; you might be looking at the cute girls or a cool sports car; you might be doing any number of things at the instant you pass the switch points, because since you are proceeding on a clear signal there is no compelling operating nor legal reason to be looking at the points.
Yes, in an idea world an engineer would notice the switch points as he approached them. Of course, the world we are in is far from ideal, and when you run 200+ miles a day, day after day, over the same piece of railroad, your ability to pay attention to minute details tends to diminish.
Questions: During your last drive home from work, at every intersection that you went through on a green light, did you ascertain that there was no traffic approaching from any direction before proceeding through the intersection? Did you notice with certainty that the light for intersecting traffic was red before you proceeded? Of course not: you put some faith in th
That is correct. Out.
[quote user=“zardoz”]
That’s easy to say, but with all due respect, it is also total BS.
If you’re running on a clear indication, you MIGHT glance at a set of switch points as you approach them; however, you might also be glancing at your orders; you might be looking at your watch to see how fast you need to go to ensure that you arrive at the next station on time; you might be reaching into your grip; you might be taking a sip of your beverage; you might be looking at the cute girls or a cool sports car; you might be doing any number of things at the instant you pass the switch points, because since you are proceeding on a clear signal there is no compelling operating nor legal reason to be looking at the points.
Yes, in an idea world an engineer would notice the switch points as he approached them. Of course, the world we are in is far from ideal, and when you run 200+ miles a day, day after day, over the same piece of railroad, your ability to pay attention to minute details tends to diminish.
Questions: During your last drive home from work, at every intersection that you went through on a green light, did you ascertain that there was no traffic approaching from any direction before proceeding through the intersection? Did you notice with certainty that the light for intersecting traffic was red before you proceeded? Of course no
If you have a approach signal and can see the next signal is green and not by the approach signal yet you better stop your train before the next signal as it is displaying a improper aspect. there is no reason to have a yellow if the next one is green. and you can say if the engineer was paying attention he would have seen the bad switch. and for a conductor with nothing else to do yes he is right that he would have seen the switch points but a engineer i might be looking at the rear of my train making sure no wheels are smoking i might glance out the window at track side for pictures with rail buffs or i might be text messaging. or even talking on the phone. either way i might not see the switch points and i dont think you would feel the switch points as you go thru them. the key is anyone who says they would have seen the switch being bad still at that speed would not stop in time and by the time you got the dispatcher the other train would already have hit you anyways.
Yes even if he did feel the switch split or see it misaligned, it’s still too late to get stopped if the other train is right around the corner.
But I have a question for you. You say that a yellow means the next signal is red. So if you see a yellow, and at the same time, see the next signal is green, something is wrong. I understand.
It has been reported that SoCal Metrolink accidents account for 2/3 of ALL the recent commuter rail fatalities in the USA. In light of that, I rather think that continued media attention is well justified. And the LA Times has assigned the task to a pair of reporters who are doing an excellent job, in my opinion. The maps that appear in the Times are particularly good.
Jack
If the next signal is red then changes to green there is no reason to stop. but if you here the other train is comming after he calls the signal and then the light turns green i still would not pass it. the key is he knew( from reports i have read that he was meeting a train there) he was to meet a train so unless the dispatcher said your not meeting a train there i would question the signal. 2nd from what every source said that he passed his approach and then they could see the clear. not buying it.and i would say to limit his liability the conductor is saying the signal was green.
Perhaps it is the ‘approach’ signal that is malfunctioning. A lot depends on the situation.
If I can see that the signal beyond the clear signal in question is also clear, then I would conclude that the approach is the bad-order signal, especially if I know I am the only train on the segment of track. I doubt I would proceed throught the block in question at full-tilt speed (I’d probably make a reduction, get the slack and speed under control, just in case…), but I doubt I would treat the “clear-following-an-approach” signal as red. Again, a lot depends on the situation and the location.
In my 20 years of running, I have seen quite a few signals displaying “approach (with the next signal clear)” signals, but only one time did I observe a genuine false-clear.
Wabash, you posted this as I was composing my previous post.
You describe exactly what I was refering in my post, that a lot depends on the situation and the awareness of the engineer.
If the Metrolink engineer had been paying attention, he would have known something wasn’t right.
But also isn’t the rule that you are governed for the entire block by the signal you recieve upon entering? Just because you see a better aspect for the next block you still must proceed under the aspect of the block you are in until reaching and passing the next signal? An engineer must not only know his aspects, but also his track, his train, and his railroad. Yes, there may be times and places he can glance to the side or over to read orders or timetable, but also there are times he should know he can’t.
No. GCOR Rule 9.8 allows you to take the more favorable signal as long as you weren’t operating on restricted speed.
GCOR Rule 9.9 delayed in block, says if you enter the block on a proceed indication, and stop in the block, you have to proceed prepared to stop at the next signal until it can be seen and it displays a proceed indication…
I still don’t get it. It seems there is confusion on what the last signal displayed. If it was red, I doubt any engineer would have left the station at any significant speed. Also, from what I understand, it seems that it had been red while he was at the station, then became green, which I assume is when he took off at full speed. It wouldn’t have gone from red to green under normal conditions, but I don’t know what all he might have been busy with at the station. But I take it that when he eventually checked it again, it looked green. Could the red have failed at that point, making it seem like the red had gone to green? Could other lighting of some type have falsely illuminated the signal (like you get when the sun hits a traffic light)? I still don’t get exactly how that was set up. I just know the basics of green, flashing yellow, solid yellow, and red.
Even if he was screwing around on his phone, something had to make him think he was able to leave the station at full speed when he departed, and teh red wasn’t fully lit. We may never know what exactly had happened, or it may still take some time. But could anyone at least clear thsi up for me a bit? Thanks.