I was away in France, working on my current occupation as a flaneur-- the lounger, stroller, wanderer--the keen-eyed, sharp-witted, slightly dissipated but still attractive elderly gentleman I can only pretend to be. And since pretending is the whole point, the life's work of the flaneur... well clearly I've made it. The artifice is the real. I pretend to be, therefore I am, says our faux Descartes. What could be more French? Citizenship guaranteed. Beats the hell out of a 5 year hitch in the Foreign Legion.
How about some bad news? as Lambert said to Dallas in Alien. "Thrill me," Dallas replied.
There's the sudden realization that Penn Station operates above capacity and that continuous operation above capacity makes it difficult to perform maintenance properly and not performing maintenance leads to failure, and failure leads to shutdown events. Who would ever have thought that?
There are solutions. They all cost money, and none of them works in the short term without reducing the service in order to accommodate the necessary maintenance to the existing structure.
None of them works without checking proposed/desired/mandated increases in service against the additional maintenance time such service will impose.
We can build a new station, with new tracks and ladders and tunnels and traction systems, and train control systems and when all that is done, we can divert service from Penn Station. But that's how many years out? Hint: three little words: East Side Access-- originally figured at less than $5 billion and scheduled to begin service in 2008.
Today? Might as well guess, because all previous revisions to schedule and costs have been shown to be overly-optimistic.
Hand over control of Penn Station operations and maintenance to a 3rd party? Not hardly. It takes a bit of expertise, expertise being nothing but institutional knowledge accumulated over time that can then be made the common platform for assessing operating needs.
Third parties don't have that. They can get that, certainly. It takes a great deal of time, however; and it takes consistency of personnel.
Handing over the terminal operation to some third party isn't going to resolve the problem. It's going to make it worse.
I'd say, stick with Amtrak and build a bigger boat, I mean terminal. Remember, every financial decision is an operating decision. You don't want to spend the money? Then kiss your operating performance good-bye, and don't blame anybody else.
A week ago, I was on the Cote d'Azur escorting Monica Bellucci to and from the multitude of events that make the Cannes Film Festival so unique...
Wait, dropping names like that is so brut, so anti-flaneur. Let's start over. I bid bonne nuit to the mistress of ceremonies at the 70th annual Cannes Film Festival, taking a rain check on her invitation to share that nightcap in her suite.
I lit another Gauloises, strode through the Hotel Eden Roc in Antibes like a man who could afford to own his own summer weight dinner jacket, and drove back along the N98 to Nice in my vintage Nash Rambler.
I was thinking to myself as the soft night air washed in through the wing window and the floor vents, what a nice woman M****a is, and easy on the eyes, too.
The Nash Rambler had turned out to be the perfect choice. M****a was so impressed when I showed her how the front seat reclined to the fully flat position. She was even more impressed when I drove the 15 km from Cannes to Antibe in that position. Nash Rambler, the only auto for the flaneur.
Metro-North Railroad derailed a passenger train, this time near Rye, New York. Actually, it wasn't the railroad that put the train on the ground, it was the locomotive engineer and train conductor who failed to comply with a ten mph speed restriction due to a heat kink in the track that put train 1373 on the ground.
Apparently, the locomotive engineer forgot the temporary speed restriction in effect...until it was too late, putting the train into emergency braking at about 50 mph when he saw the heat kink ahead.
Don't know if anyone is blaming sleep apnea, yet, or distraction due to radio communications, yet, but it's early, and the NTSB hasn't gone full bore into the investigation, so stand-by.
This is called an overspeed derailment, the type of derailment that has become so familiar to us all (including my friends in Spain, and France). Santiago de Compostela was an overspeed derailment. Eckwersheim was an overspeed derailment. Sputen Duyvil was an overspeed derailment. Frankford Jct. was an overspeed derailment.
The MTA/Metro-North spokesperson made a big mistake by initially describing the incident as a "slow speed minor derailment." That's not as big a mistake as blowing the 10 mph speed restriction, but it's still big. It shows a certain lack of familiarity with what constitutes serious on the railroad; what conditions distinguish "minor" from "major" in our business.
Just to clarify, there's no such thing as a minor main line passenger train derailment. FRA requires railroads to provide immediate notification through the US National Response Center of any derailment of any train on any main line used for scheduled passenger service. That's major, not minor.
FRA also requires post-accident toxicological tesing for the train crew involved in a passenger train accident that results in a reportable injury to any person. That's major, not minor.
FRA stipulates that a locomotive engineer exceeding the authorized speed for a section of track by more than 10 mph will have his/her operating certification suspended pending the outcome of a formal hearing. That's major, not minor.
This being a major, not a minor incident, it wasn't long before the Connecticut half of Senate tag-team Schumenthal, weighed in with an open letter to the president of Metro-North, Joe Giulietti, asking for answers to three questions: 1) what steps will MNR take to minimize the risk of heat kinks 2) what steps will MNR take to ensure that trains do not exceed speed restrictions 3) will MNR meet the December 31, 2018 date for implentation of PTC?
Well, since the letter was open and could be read by anyone, I thought I'd offer some tentative answers representing purely my own opinions. It's not like I'm an official spokesperson for MTA/Metro-North. Thankfully.
Answer (1): MNR increases the frequency of track inspections during all adverse weather conditions or events that might represent a risk to safe train opertions. Those inspections have identified heat kinks sufficiently in advance of train movements, reducing the risk of accident. MNR will continue to deploy its inspection forces at times and locations in order to reduce the risk of a heat kink going undetected.
Answer (2): MNR will "adapt" a provision of FRA's EO 29, an Emergency Order fulfilled by Metro-North years ago, and will require that whenever a temporary speed restriction is issued requiring to a train to reduce speed by 20 mph or more from the speed approaching the restricted area, a qualified member of the train crew must be stationed adjacent to the locomotive engineer to ensure compliance with the speed restriction. If the equipment configuration of the train does not permit that member of the train crew, or another qualified employee to be situated adjacent to the locomotive engineer, the train dispatcher will display a "stop" signal at the interlocking to the rear of the restricted area. The signal will not be changed to proceed until the train dispatcher has communicated with both the train engineer and conductor, confirming their receipt and understanding of the speed restriction.
Answer (3): Sorry, Joe, you're on your own.
Blumenthal isn't the only one picking up the pen in response to this derailment. It seems the general chairman of the organization representing locomotive engineers on Metro-North was moved to compose a letter to MNR advising that:
The locomotive engineers of ACRE Local Division 9 have determined that due to the dangerous and life threatening track conditions and working conditions, we must act in the best interest for the safety of the crews and the riding public. We are forced to take the following action due to the lack of mainentance of the tracks, the number of incidents, working limits stop signs, speed restrictions (33 on the New Haven line alone), ACRE Local Division 9 will not allow anyone in the head end of the train, this includes all apprentice engineers, conductor students, and any foreign engineers or conductors. Only a qualified Metro North conductor will be allowed so as to convey the signals. Effective today we will not be allowing any distractions on the front end of trains until the safety of the tracks are addressed and repairs are completed.
Nice, huh? So let's consider this-- nobody on the head end except the MNR conductor, other individuals representing a deadly distraction. Hmmh....Spuyten Duyvil, that was a fatal accident. Was the engineer distracted by anybody on the head end? No. Nobody was on the head end. The locomotive engineer failed to control the speed of the train.
Fatal accident with a train striking an MOW supervisor near West Haven, Ct? Anybody on the head end distracting the locomotive engineer. No. A student train dispatcher improperly removed a blocking device and allowed the train to enter the track where work was being performed.
This incident with 1373? Was anybody on the head end distracting the locomotive engineer? No.
In my time at Metro-North, investigating derailments, stop signal violations, and overspeed events there wasn't one that included another person being on the head of the train and distracting the locomotive engineer. Not the low speed wheel climb derailments in GCT. Not the stop signal violations at CP 25, or CP 5, or CP1, or CP 106. Not the overspeeds. Not a one.
While I would never question any labor organization's commitment to safety, I would question if ACRE has ever participated in any of FRA's Rail Safety Advisory Committees which give labor an equal voice with management in fashioning regulations governing safe train operations.
I might question how ACRE can assert that MNR is riddled with "life threatening track conditions" due to "lack of maintenance of the tracks, working limit stop signs, speed restrictions" when in fact working limit stop signs are used precisely to protect those maintaining the tracks; when temporary speed restrictions are used in conjunction with track maintenance procedures?
May 30, 2017
Elderly gentleman, 50+ (actually 50++++++++++++++++++n),young at heart, modest, active, modest, accomplished, modest, financially secure, modest, attentive to details, modest, fun-loving, modest, seeking like minded railroad for companionship. LTR possible but not likely. Contact: Ten90 Solutions LLC
Copyright 2012 Ten90 Solutions LLC. All rights reserved.