Home Metro-North Scenes from Metro-North’s tragic Sunday, and a Monday plan

Scenes from Metro-North’s tragic Sunday, and a Monday plan

by Benjamin Kabak

An aerial image shows the extent of Sunday’s eight-car derailment. (Photo via @NTSB)

As news about Sunday’s tragic Metro-North derailment spread throughout the day, I couldn’t help but think how worse it could have been. That’s small consolation to the families of Donna L. Smith, James G. Lovell, James M. Ferrari, and Ahn Kisook. They were the first four passenger fatalities in Metro-North history. For them, December 1 will be a day that long haunts them.

But for everyone else who could have been on an early morning train heading down the Hudson Line to Grand Central, the derailment was a hair’s breadth away from being much, much worse. Because it was early on a Sunday morning, only around 120 people were on board, a much smaller crowd than during a Monday. Furthermore, when the train jumped the tracks, the lead car stopped just short of the Harlem River. A few more feet would have sent that car plunging into the frigid, rough waters of the Spuyten Duyvil Creek.

Otherwise, for those people whose lives were taken earlier today, nothing about Sunday was lucky. For many, the accident will create the perception of a safety problem with rail travel, and for those on board, the event will be a life-defining day. Two New York Times reporters spoke with survivors, and the tales they tell are horrific. Trees tore through windows as the cars came to rest in marshy bogs near a rivera. Riders were trapped as rescue workers had to stabilize train cars and prevent further injuries. It was a nightmare.

Furthermore, a statement released by the Metro-North Railroad Commuters Council drives home the perception problems. Noting the three earlier incidents, the rider advocates called for a full accounting of Sunday’s accident. “The riders whom we represent must be assured they are safe when they travel on a Metro-North train, but their confidence in the Railroad has been shaken. Metro-North management must act decisively to ensure that incidents like those that the failures that have occurred this year do not occur again,” MNRCC Chair Randolph Glucksman said.

So what happened? Right now, National Transportation Safety Board inspectors have the train’s black box and are studying records, but from reports from the crash, a problem with the brakes seems the most likely explanation. A train that could have been going as high as 70 on a straight-away hit a steep curve prior to the Spuyten Duyvil station, and the brakes failed. Earlier in the day on Sunday, various reports suggested that the brakes failed, but evening stories hedged. The Times explains:

It was not clear how fast the Metro-North train was going. But an official from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority said the train operator had reported that the train was going into the turn too fast and that he had performed an emergency braking maneuver. The operator told the first rescuers to reach the scene that he had “dumped” the brakes, according to the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Railroad experts said that dumping the brakes is a last-resort move that has the effect of slamming on the emergency brakes on all the cars of a train at once. It is usually done to avert a collision with another train or a car at a grade-level crossing.

Officials opened an investigation but cautioned that it would take time to piece together the evidence and pinpoint a possible cause. The National Transportation Safety Board sent investigators to the site with instructions to inspect the overturned cars and interpret information from the train’s “event recorders,” devices that are somewhat similar to the flight recorders on airplanes. The Federal Railroad Administration also dispatched a team of investigators.

Earl F. Weener of the transportation safety board said at a news conference with Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo that investigators had yet to interview the operator of the train, who was among those injured. A spokeswoman for Metro-North said the engineer, identified as William Rockefeller, had about 14 years’ experience with the line. There were also three conductors on the train. “Our mission is to not just understand what happened but why it happened, with the intent of preventing it from happening again,” Mr. Weener said.

For Metro-North, this is another in a line of bad incidents this year. A derailment and a collision in Connecticut led to days of delays, and early draft of The Times report pointed a finger at brain drain. “The recent episodes have occurred at a particularly trying time for the railroad,” a draft of the story, since revised, said. “The agency, brought under the auspices of the transportation authority in 1983, has endured a spate of departures that have left several positions either vacant or filled by less experienced employees. Retirements of high-level employees have been common, officials said, because retirees can receive maximum pension payments after 30 years of service.”

We’ll know more in the coming days and weeks, but for now, the immediate concerns are logistics. Monday marks the first full day of work since prior to Thanksgiving, and the Hudson Line is out of commission for a few days. The MTA has received the go-ahead from the NTSB to clean up and repair, but service for Monday morning will be severely impacted.

Starting at 5 a.m. on Monday, the MTA will provide train service to Yonkers and a shuttle bus to the 242nd St. 1 train station. Transit will operate two additional peak-hour 1 trains, but those locals will be slow and crowded into Manhattan. Hudson Line tickets will be cross-honored on the subway, on Harlem Line trains and a the Port Jervis station. For 26,000 people, the ride into New York will be tough. For four people, that ride will never happen again, and the answers will soon be forthcoming.

You may also like

26 comments

Walt Gekko December 1, 2013 - 11:13 pm

Just absolutely horrible what happened, however, this could have been far, far worse were it not for the facts the train managed to stay out of the creek AND this happened when it did on a Sunday morning. Had it been later on Sunday (the single busiest travel day of the entire year) OR on Monday morning, this would have been far, far worse than it actually was (and as it is, it was big enough to even be a big story nationally).

Obviously thoughts go to the families in a time like this.

Reply
Berk32 December 1, 2013 - 11:20 pm

It’s too bad Metro North can’t run some of those Hudson line trains to Penn Station.

Amtrak is clear to run to Albany…

Reply
Clarke December 2, 2013 - 12:36 pm

This was my first thought as well. Is there an equipment issue that prevents this? Or just silly territoriality within the MTA’s commute rail services?

Reply
Roy December 2, 2013 - 12:47 pm

I’d imagine it would be equipment issues. Only electric traction is allowed into Penn, just like into GCT. Both Amtrak and Metro-North operate the same dual-mode GE Genesis locomotives on the Hudson line but the electric part is not compatible: different types of third-rail. Also I expect that Amtrak’s Genesises (Genisii?) will have in-cab signalling equipment for the Empire connection line that MNRR’s won’t have. I guess Amtrak could lend MNRR some of their locos but I doubt they have very many spare.

And then there’s the issue of no spare capacity at Penn. MNRR has aspirations to eventually run Hudson line trains into Penn, but that can’t happen unless capacity there becomes available. That is supposed to be possible after 2017 once some LIRR services move to GCT with the East Side Access – assuming the Long Island pols let them (see Second Avenue Sagas passim)

Reply
Lady Feliz December 1, 2013 - 11:41 pm

Why shuttle buses from Yonkers to the #1 Broadway Line instead of buses to Metro-North’ Woodlawn station and/or Woodlawn on the #4 train? Making riders take the extra-slow Broadway Local all the way to Times Square is silly when they would normally be heading to the East Side/Grand Central, which the Metro-North Harlem Line trains at Woodlawn and the IRT #4 already do, and much quicker than the #1 train.

Reply
Tower18 December 2, 2013 - 10:00 am

4 from Woodlawn to Grand Central is booked at 40 minutes.
1 from 242 to Times Square is booked at 36 minutes.

If you add a crosstown trip on the shuttle for those that desire it, it’s a wash, and the 1 is probably better equipped to handle the additional load. The 4 cannot.

Reply
MH December 2, 2013 - 10:08 am

That 4 train is a 1-seat ride to GCT. I think that’s what she was trying to get at.

Reply
Phantom December 2, 2013 - 12:05 pm

But very many people only go to GCT because that’s where the MN train goes.

Lots of passengers go to downtown or the West Side. I bet its a wash – and the stinkin’ Lex is so jam packed already that it can’t handle lots of new riders at rush hour.

Reply
Tower18 December 2, 2013 - 12:15 pm

I was responding to the “extra-slow Broadway local” part. Uptown, the 1 is actually quite fast, as the distance between stops above 125th is quite large.

As far as a one-seat ride goes, commuters who want that can switch to the Harlem Line. There’s no way the 4 could accommodate the crush of extra riders at Woodlawn. The 4 is packed as it is, and cannot add additional trains. The 1 has some extra room AND can add additional trains, as they’ve done.

Reply
Alon Levy December 2, 2013 - 7:52 pm

Because Van Cortlandt Park is a bit closer than Woodlawn, and as Tower18 and Phantom said, the 1 can absorb the extra riders and the 4 can’t. At any rate, I suspect most riders are driving to the Harlem Line instead of taking train-to-bus-to-subway. From Croton-Harmon, the busiest Hudson Line station, it’s a short trip to Mount Pleasant or Hawthorne.

Reply
Michael K December 2, 2013 - 12:34 am

It is looking like PTC would’ve prevented this. Automated railways, and an extreme reduction in payroll is in our future.

Reply
Walter December 2, 2013 - 3:43 am

How would PTC prevent this if the air brake system was not working correctly? PTC would automatically try to slow the train heading into the curve, but it couldn’t stop a train with defective brakes or a train sliding on leaves or ice.

PTC is pretty much only good for direct train-to-train collisions anyway (i.e. the Bridgeport derailment/collision would still have happened with PTC present, just as Amtraks can still derail with their ACSES active).

Reply
Alon Levy December 2, 2013 - 4:45 am

PTC is pretty much only good for direct train-to-train collisions anyway (i.e. the Bridgeport derailment/collision would still have happened with PTC present, just as Amtraks can still derail with their ACSES active).

Um, no? PTC also prevents overspeed.

Reply
Eric December 2, 2013 - 7:13 am

PTC would keep the train from speeding on a fast section. But if the brakes didn’t work, how could it force a train traveling at an acceptable speed for the fast section to decelerate before a slow section?

Reply
Alon Levy December 2, 2013 - 8:52 am

It wouldn’t. PTC doesn’t guard against mechanical failure; only rigorous rolling stock maintenance regimes do (e.g. the worst HSR accident to date, Eschede, was caused by mechanical failure causing a sudden derailment, and less proximately by DB’s low maintenance standards). But when the mechanical systems are working fine, train protection, which is called PTC in the US and other acronyms in other countries, prevents both collisions and speeding. Recent disasters involving speeding, including both Santiago de Compostela and Amagasaki, were on lines not equipped with automatic train protection.

Michael K December 2, 2013 - 4:22 pm

It looks like PTC would have prevented the train from going 82 MPH as it approached the 30 MPH zone (the prior zone being 75 MPH limit)

Reply
Roy December 2, 2013 - 2:43 am

I’m a regular Hudson line commuter, and my usual train is usually a Shoreliner set like this. Several times in the last few weeks I’ve experienced poor braking on them, with station overruns by nearly a full car, presumably caused by leaf fall. When this has happened I’ve noticed thst the engineers have been very careful to brake down to a low speed well before reaching the Spuyten Duyvil curve.

Reply
Vinny O'Hare December 2, 2013 - 4:18 am

Ben How old are these cars. I am not familiar with Metro North cars at all. If they are damaged enough they should just put them on a barge to 215th street yard and let them sit there until the next cars for the reefs are to be scraped

Reply
SEAN December 2, 2013 - 9:50 am

Here’s what I was able to find.

The Shoreliners I and II were built in 1983 and 1987, respectively. Based on the New Jersey Transit Comet II and nearly identical, their only difference is the type of lighting used for indicator lights. These cars have doors at each end vestibule. There is no center door. As of September 2009, both classes are undergoing rehabilitation.

Shoreliner I includes 39 cars. Shoreliner II includes 36 cars. Cars numbered in the 6200’s are owned by Connecticut DOT, while all other cars are owned by the MTA.

Four of the Shoreliner I cars were originally equipped with an underfloor head-end power generator, for use behind CDOT’s four rebuilt EMD F7 units which lacked HEP generators. The generators were removed when the F7s were replaced by CDOT’s rebuilt GP40-2H units. These cars are identified externally by twin square windows at the center of the cars, where the air intake ductwork (to the rooftop) for the generator was located. These cars may be confused with Amtrak’s Horizon fleet cars.
Shoreliner III’s date from 1991. 49 cars were built. This series is based on New Jersey Transit’s Comet III. The main differences between this series and previous ones are an added center door and the restroom is located at the center of the cars that are so equipped instead of the end.

The Shoreliner IV is much like the Shoreliner III but the engineers side door has been removed as a safety measure. Based on the NJ Transit Comet IV, they were built in two distinct groups between 1996 and 1998. The first order, from 1996-97, consisted of 50 cars. The second set, built for Connecticut DOT in 1998, consisted of 10 cars. This gives a total count for the order of 60 cars.

Reply
John-2 December 2, 2013 - 5:08 am

It will be interesting to see if they decide quickly whether or not this is an isolated incident only to this particular set of trains, or if there’s possibly a flaw which could be more widespread within Metro North’s Bombardier fleet. If that’s the case, riders could end up dealing with the commuter rail version of the R-46 of Flexble bus fiascoes of the late 1970s and early 80s.

Reply
JimD December 2, 2013 - 10:33 am

There is no comparison. The issues with the faulty Rockwell trucks on the R-46 cars and the cracked A-frame on the Grumman-Flxible buses were discovered shortly after those vehicles entered service. The Shoreliner coaches have been providing reliable service for three decades on Metro-North, NJ Transit, MBTA and elsewhere.

Reply
John-2 December 2, 2013 - 10:51 am

There could still be a flaw that emerges in the system due to age — remember the problems discovered in older Boeing 737s a few years ago? On the rail level, that’s also part of the reason those creaky R-42s are still in service, because an age-related flaw in the R-44s led the MTA to decide to retire those cars prior to their older R-42 or R-32 cousins.

Reply
Larry Littlefield December 2, 2013 - 9:40 am

It should be noted that you are pretty safe inside a rail car. I heard that three of the four people killed were ejected through the window.

Reply
SEAN December 2, 2013 - 11:47 am

Ironicly, Ben posted about a freight train derailing in nearly the exact same spot in May. Found the post last night. Hmmm.

Reply
lawhawk December 2, 2013 - 3:20 pm

Since one of the alternatives for Hudson line users is to use the Port Jervis line and Pascack Valley line (W of Hudson), this transit alert from just a few minutes ago (2:52PM) isn’t good news for commuters: Port Jervis Line train service is suspended in both directions due to a bridge condition. Bus service provided to passengers Harriman west only.

Reply
Rob December 2, 2013 - 3:21 pm

Very sad. But 1000 to 1, the brakes did not fail. Everybody should know better than to trust anything “The Times” says about anything.

Reply

Leave a Comment