...it wouldn't be possible for the driver to operate at that speed in a restricted speed zone.

but it seems that the train should not have been going so fast approaching a dangerous curve...If you know the route, you slow down. It ain't rocket science. You slow down. He did not slow down. Why? We will find out, I guess. Maybe the engine did not work correctly, or the brakes. Or something human..

Here is another crash in a train that killed people. It is a long read, but maybe we can see how someone driving a train might get distracted. Now, I do not know about this accident that killed 4 people in New York. The train was going too fast for the curve on Sunday. Why?

Here is the other crash. It killed 25. This engineer missed a red light. Red light means stop. The asshole engineer was texting and not paying attention. It is a clear conclusion of the investigators . He was killed I think. This fellow who drove the train in New York is still alive. The truth will come out, and some of it already has. Again, I draw no conclusions about this crash, and know nothing more than this article. Very sad story. If it was some mechanical failure, it shouldn't have ever happened. If it was some human failure, that should never have happened either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chatsworth_train_collision

It can depend on a number of factors, including the signal, the territory and the type of authority granted to operate on the track.

Some of the newer signal systems have much brighter lights and the yellow signals take on more of an amber color than their predecessors. When one of the newer signals is placed on the same signal mast as an older signal, both can be yellow but there is a clear difference between the two and the newer signal can easily be confused for red.

The content of the text messages sent and received by the Metrolink engineer was not disclosed, if I understand correctly. I've heard that the text messages were communication between the dispatcher and the engineer. The Metrolink engineer wasn't a model engineer from what I've read, but if he was taking instructions or mandatory directives from the dispatcher via cellphone, that could certainly have contributed to the Chatsworth collision.

I'm not defending either the Chatsworth engineer or the Metro North engineer since I'm not privy to all the details of either case. I'm just asking folks to reserve judgement until the facts become clear. Unless you've gone through the process of becoming a qualified engineer, you cannot imagine what we deal with handling trains. Some of us aren't worth a damn, but the vast majority of us are professionals who take our jobs and our responsibilities very seriously.

Air brake systems fail or don't work properly from time to time, especially in colder weather. It could be that a planned application of the brakes did not function and the engineer had to take a different course of action. At high speeds such as the speed this train was operating, there is unfortunately little time for error.

Some things that cause accidents are almost beyond belief. It is very sad. I didn't mean to make a judgment on this New York accident and I am sorry if that what was what people think.

... so whether or not the brakes failed is irrelevant at that point, because you cannot physically slow a train traveling at 82 mph to 30 mph in six seconds now matter how good your brakes are. And understand: this particular curve is 90 degrees, as it snakes against a rock cliff and the confluence of the Hudson and Harlem rivers.

(I take Metro North's Harlem line every work day) that while the engineer claims his tried the brakes and they didn't work, it was pointed out the brakes didn't have a problem the during 9 stops it made between Poughkeepsie and where the accident occurred. When I heard how fast the train was going I thanked the Goddess more people weren't killed and the train didn't wind up in the water.

I ran the Boston Marathon several years ago and my wife and I took a Boston area commuter train out to Gloucester the day after the marathon. On straight track I doubt that thing reached 65. I wonder if some passengers knew the NY train was out of control (my conclusion) before it crashed. Awful.

is waaaaaaay too fast.
I know the route, as I have traveled it many times. Generally, trains slow down quite a bit before that curve. Following that curve is the station, then an s turn, and another not quite as sharp curve.
Personally, I think that 30 mph is a bit too fast for that curve.

Question: Don't these trains have some sort of regenerative dynamic braking, as many other trains? These trains are diesel electrics, as they can only travel on diesel from Poughkeepsie to Croton. From Croton south they are supposed to be electric. You can see the third rail couplers on them. Being that they are in electric mode that far south, the regenerative dynamic braking could be more reliable than friction braking, and even, if properly done, put power back into the lines.

They're non-powered cars being driven by the locomotive all the way in to GCT (the engine can switch to 3rd rail in the tunnels so as to not spew exhaust down there). The trains from Croton in are electric but not all the Poughkeepsie trips involve a transfer, some are direct which this one was. Only air brakes on those cars.

Automatic train control ... if equipped and fitted and working, I guess it would mean the train wouldn't go faster than the speed limit... automatic braking... stops the train from running a proper stop signal... the train had data recorders (a good thing) but what other controls did it have and what failed?

82 in a 30... road or rails... not good.

Those trains had a rule. No faster than 55 anytime anywhere. Occasionally, they had a long stretch and you know they were going about as fast as they could go. 55..that is it. How do I know? Cause parts of the system are next to an expressway. As the trains approached the limit, all the cars, on a clear day, were passing the train because they were going much faster. As pointed out above, it is clearly doable thing. The technology is already there.

I don't doubt that most subway trains have a limit around 55mph, but this track is also used for long distance Amtracks, so the limit is - as said above - higher and it stands to reason that this train was able to go faster in order not to block fast moving long distance trains.

Wiki doesn't mention the top speed, but with a search for the Tokyo M4 (the train type) mentions 120 km/h = 75 mph and going downhill could have made it 82, so it's more like a "normal" train.

Metro-North is a commuter line, not a subway/mass transit in any sense of the word. The cars are all full-sized, full-blown train cars, with proper seats and restrooms, conductors and engineers - akin to European intercity rail.

The electric Metro North trains that run the Hudson line are Bombardier M7s with a top end of 100mph; the Poughkeepsie trains are pulled by GE P32AC-DMs that top out at 110.

It existed in the days of British Rail - before privatization, and is in service on all trains in the UK. There would be a few reasons why a train in the UK would do a similar thing... 1) system malfunction, or 2) driver pressing override repeatedly. The train would come to a stop (provided systems are working) if the driver fell asleep at the controls and not on the override button.

...of this incident was entrusting a vital public service to a private company.

As already mentioned in this thread there are some obvious public safety 'devices' that were not employed such as speed controls and shutdown systems. It is apparently more 'cost effective' to give the worker just enough rope to hang hisself and then if anything goes wrong, it's the workers fault.

PUBLIC INTEREST

-a safe and dependable, energy efficient transportation system.

PRIVATE INTEREST

-buying customer loyalty with unsustainable vanity perks; allow unsafe operation to compensate for systemic failures; make a profit.

The government had no trouble making the trucking industry slow down. Of course they DID own the roads.

.

could you educate me?

It's a public-benefit corporation, which can be chartered only by the Legislature and

It's a good thing insomuch as the State itself couldn't directly afford a lot of what they do (and the howls from Upstate when the subway needs another billion would be unimaginable), but they have a lot of legal wiggle room. I don't know about safety regs though...it's been a horrible year, but up until now the MTA has been pretty safe, if not reliable.

Thank you for your time but I was looking for CabSocDem to explain his message. I'm a Sales Manager for a small mfg. company that builds custom electronics for OEMs, among them the transit industry. Metro-North is one of my customers, I have been on site at several of their repair facilities over the years. Nothing like being in a pit with a live train car inches above your head! I know how Metro North is set up and I have a little bit of knowledge on how it is run. Good day my friend.

I appreciate how you might take my "message" personally. Of course one should always wait until all the 'facts' are in before making bold pronouncements. When I posted this morning I was upset that the mainstream media were making a big deal out "82 MPH", previous success with the brakes and the revelations from the 'black box'....

All pointing to operator error. My point was that with private ownership of the track and private ownership of the 'train', they shouldn't have given the operator so much power to mess up unless they wanted (wagered) that the operator would use that same power to bail out their poor management.

Like speeding. The companies give the operator the ability to "speed"??? For what...??? And the train builders (companies like yours??) who build in this speed capability without a failsafe shutdown system. From what I know about American companies, I would bet that the track owners and the train builders don't even talk to each other.

.