The devastating Metrolink train derailments in Glendale, California raise a number of old and new questions – questions that pose serious concerns in terms of public safety and homeland security.
Metrolink service was first implemented 12 years ago on existing freight train rights of way in a well-intentioned attempt to improve the mobility of Los Angeles commuters. But it hasn’t lived up to the billing – Metrolink’s ridership is too small to produce measurable improvements on the road network. It also has a hidden cost – the risk inherent in putting frequent passenger trains on such an open, accessible right of way.
The Glendale crash makes this cost tangible in the most tragic way.
Operating commuter trains and freight trains on the same tracks is not unusual in cities in the West and Southwest, where local leaders have attempted to provide new transit options by grafting commuter rail service onto freight networks. But it presents a set of problems less prevalent in the Midwest and East, where commuter rail systems have been in place for decades. In cities like Chicago and New York, commuter rail transit has former freight and intercity passenger train rights of way mostly to itself, and has few at-grade crossings with public roads, except in very outlying areas. These older, more established, systems were built up more incrementally than Metrolink, and involve fewer engineering compromises.
And the compromises inherent in the Metrolink system involve great risks.
Up until Jan. 26, the Metrolink system had more than a decade of good luck. But given the relatively high frequency of Metrolink collisions with vehicles, it was statistically inevitable that Metrolink would eventually experience a serious, collision-related derailment. Metrolink trains have derailed before, but on those occasions our luck held – speeds were low and there were
Has Prof. Moore ever heard of the track circuit? Invented 110 years ago? Applied to hundreds of thousands of miles of railroad around the world? I guess not.
Oh dear. I do wish folks would do their research, particularly in the media…
First, Metrolink does have a significant effect on highways; the problem is, traffic has grown in the LA area faster than either Metrolink or the highways could absorb it.
Second, rails have sensors to detect breaks or shorts – that’s inherent in the signalling systems.
But the cost of 100% video surveillance? Please, Professor Moore II, define affordable cost…
I love professors, they sit there and think all the time and lose touch with reality. I’ll drag the good professor through some of the fiber, copper, RF and satellite trenches I go through on a daily basis. After the trip we’ll then see if he can still breath the words “bearable costs” if he can breath at all.
that is basicly the way I looked at it as well, but I thought I would put it out there before I would comment on it. I also like the fact that he says that the rest of the nation should pay for his 24 hour security programs, as it is a benifit to the rest of the US. And yes I knew of the electric circut that is in the rails right now as well, It isn’t surprising that a professor wouldn’t know that though.
Brad
the cost of video surveillance is not in the equipment, or even in the installation - it is the cost of the eyeballs to monitor it. 24- hour monitoring of the proposed network would take a staff of several hundred to maintain, monitor, and respond. Each of those would need to maintain a current security clearance - after all this is a matter of national security.
(1) We apparently don’t know a thing about PMD detectors in gate circuits or wheel Impact Detectors.
(2) Freight train parked in the hole did not cause the incident.
(3) accidents on segregated R/W’s happen too.
Would the institution that granted Moore a degree and the one who admitted him to it’s faculty, please explain why this grandstanding clown is allowed to further his own warped little existance?
Ok, lets say you have video monitoring - how would that stop someone who remains out of the field of view of the camera and waits until a train is almost to the crossing? You’d have a tragic video to replay later, but, it didn’t prevent the intent of someone who was willing to place their vehicle in the path of a train. Then, there’s also the point where it doesn’t have to be planned at a crossing - anywhere along the track would work for a person who plans to place their vehicle up onto the rails.
The professor says every foot of track should be covered by video not just the grade crossings. Your point about staying out of view of the camera until the last moment is well taken.
Or would the media kindly explain why they listen?[:D]
At the risk of shooting myself in the foot – something I’ve been known to do – it’s worth remembering that the possession of initials trailing along after one’s name does not indicate that one has any common sense at all! Often quite the contrary – particularly if the individual in question has spent all their life in academia (often the case) and is pontificating well outside his or her little narrow field – also often the case. I find it rather annoying…[banghead]
Has this guy ever even been to Chicago? They have the lines to themselves? That’s news to me… I grew up between the CNW and BN race track, and I certainly wouldn’t say they had those lines to themselves by any means. There’s also plenty of rail crossings.
I think having video in the cab can be helpful. At least that can shoot down any claims made that the gates didn’t work or something. But as far as relieving the burden of liability in situations like the Metrolink crash… I don’t see how anything will do that, short of changing the whole legal system. If somebody really wants to do something like what that guy did, there’s no way to stop them. And we seem to live in a country where people now think there’s no such thing as an accident, without some sort of monetary payoff. Of course they don’t realize they’re just screwing themselves in the long run by raising insurance premiums and taxes. But try to tell them that.
Professors have to live with “publish or perish” and notoriety contributes to acceptance in publications. However, some of this “out-of-the-box” thinking is the foundation for improvements that may be years away. Listen and file accordingly.
I’m with Jamie. Just because it comes from a university doesn’t mean it’s good thinking. Doesn’t mean it’s dumb, either. I’ve worked with plenty of Ph.Ds who were brilliant and sensible, and more than a few who were breathtakingly stupid, too. Labels just aren’t any good for dividing people into “smart” and “stupid.” (Shh – don’t tell the HR department!)
Again, one person can monitor 500 grade crossings. Two TV monitors, one is standby and for simultaneous events. The normal one scrolls for a 10 second snapshot of each crossing, or 5000 seconds or 85 minutes to go through the complete cycle. But there is computer monitoring with pattern recognition of the TV signal continuously from all 500 cameras. A fixed object not moving on the crossing for more than second or movement in the road on the wrong side of the road (going around crossing gates) sets off the alarm, the red light, and the monitor sits on that camera until released by the supervisor to return scrolling. The supervisor is in direct raido phone contact with all dispatchers and operating crews in the district.
Fine. But I’m baffled how this would accomplish anything except set fire to large piles of money that could be used to buy a lot more safety and health somewhere else. How many lives do you think your video-monitoring system will save every year, and how much will it cost to save each life? The cost-benefit isn’t even remotely obvious to me. Do you have any numbers?
I’m with OS on this. There was recently a very high profile wreck in California involving a stationary vehicle – which, I might point out, was not on a grade crossing, but further down the tracks. Fine. But the vast majority (like 99+%) of grade crossing accidents involve vehicles in motion – someone doesn’t stop; someone tries to beat the train; whatever – and they are over in seconds. I completely fail to see how any form of ‘monitoring’ of grade crossings will prevent this group of ‘accidents’. For years in the Boston area most railroads had real live human crossing guards at most of the crossings. Dedicated folks (you try sitting in a crossing shanty when it’s 10 below and snowing). Even that didn’t help.
Much better to put the money (what money? Where is it to come from?) into improving grade crossing protection…
I feel that when this person put his life on the line and then backed out , it was not to kill himself but to see what would happen to the train to get a thrill, that to says burn him, because if you are going to kill yourself you use a gun rope jump off a building, but to put your SUV on the tracks and on bear tracks at that. knowing that commuter trains run on this section as well as freight trains the risks are very high that you will get hit by a commuter train before a freight train. all in all he did not take his life but others … P. S. I hope they give him what he wanted life to suffer