Metrolink Refuses to Admit Failure of Rotem Anti-Derailment Blade
Recently, both Ventura County Star and
L.A. Times articles reported on Metrolink’s unexpected decision to place
newly leased Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) freight engines at
the head-end of all Metrolink trains. Both articles omit important
safety related information. In the Star article, Moorpark City
Councilman Keith Millhouse, a member of the railroad's board of
directors said, “… since we don’t know what role, if any, the cab cars
played, we won’t speculate on it. The only way to run the railroad and
take away a potential risk, if any, until we know the answer, is to put
locomotives up front.”
In February 2015, a Metrolink passenger train with a Hyundai-Rotem
cab car in front derailed after hitting a Ford F-450 utility truck and
trailer. Predawn, that rig became high-centered on to the tracks near
the 5th St. and Rice Ave. grade crossing outside of Oxnard. After the collision, Metrolink officials were quick to declare
that the state-of-the-art cars with energy absorbing crush zones,
heavier construction and anti-derailing features appeared to reduce
deaths and injuries in the accident.
The direct quote, at that time was: "We can safely say that the
technology worked," Metrolink spokesman Jeff Lustgarten told reporters.
"It minimized the impact of what (could have been) a very serious
collision. It would have been much worse without it." Now, almost six
months after the deadly Oxnard collision, Metrolink spokesman Jeff
Lustgarten, or is it now Scott Johnson should retract those erroneous
and self-serving statements. It was a "very serious collision". As a result,
Sr. Engineer Glenn Steele died. There were twenty-seven injured,
including some with life-changing consequences. What could be worse; if
everybody died?
In the recent L.A. Times article, Keith
Millhouse said, “This is an interim measure until the plow can be
evaluated and beefed up if necessary. This is going to be costly for
the railroad, but you can't put a price on safety.” Further, the
article read, “Millhouse stressed that the temporary restrictions on the Rotem vehicles relate specifically to how the plow performed in the crash, not the larger debate over the safety of cab cars”.
With the Hyundai-Rotem anti-derailment plow, there is no “performance”
issue. It is a clear-cut case of structural failure. As demonstrated by
news photos taken soon after the collision, the plow, which was
formerly attached to Hyundai-Rotem cab car No. 645 is nowhere in sight.
As the most important piece of forensic evidence from that deadly collision,
what happened to that anti-derailment plow? Is it in the custody of
the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)? Did contractors who
cleaned up the crash site discard it along with other assorted debris?
If no one saved that blade, how can Metrolink or the NTSB determine the
circumstances of its detachment from the cab car?
To
add insult to injury, Metrolink announced just days ago, that it will
purchase up to forty-nine state-of-the-art Electro-Motive Tier 4
locomotives. The new locomotives will be replacements for its aging,
unreliable and admittedly un-maintained fleet of 1990’s diesel
locomotives. With not so much as a prototype of the new Electro-Motive
Tier 4 locomotive available for inspection or testing, an artist’s
rendering is all that we have to go on.
In the 2015 Oxnard collision, when it impinged upon a Ford F-450 utility truck
and trailer, the lightweight Hyundai-Rotem anti-derailment plow
experienced a catastrophic failure. Already, Electro-Motive is touting
their new Tier 4 locomotive as the
lightest weight (280,000 lb.) locomotive available on the market today.
If lighter is better, why is Metrolink leasing up to fifty-eight of the
heaviest BNSF locomotives available to head up its commuter trains?
Without a prototype to test, how do we know if the anti-derailment plow
installed on Metrolink’s new Tier 4 locomotives will pass the “F-450
Truck & Trailer Crash Test”?
The
Electro-Motive website shows a futuristic picture of a cab-forward
locomotive “design” with an anti-derailment plow attached. With its
slightly bulbous nose, it looks like a bullet train from one of
Governor Gerry Brown’s high-speed rail dreams. If not for the
thirty-plus grade crossings on the Metrolink Ventura County Line alone, this lightweight locomotive might be a good idea.
Until necessary grade-crossing safety improvements are completed, I will
expect the "heavy iron" of a BNSF freight locomotive up front on my
next Metrolink Ventura County Line ride. In block letters, Metrolink
should emblazon each BNSF locomotive with the words, "BNSF MEANS
TONNAGE". Still we will have the uninformed or unsuspecting, such as Mr.
Jose Sanchez Ramirez who's F-450 debacle led to all of this
controversy. Most local commuters will slow to a stop when they see the
Great BNSF Behemoth approaching their grade crossing. Suicide is still a
potential factor, but with BNSF tonnage up front, most Metrolink
commuters involved in a collision will probably survive and prosper,
even after such an encounter.
For decades, airlines have told us what aircraft will service our
flight. So too should Metrolink tell us, what is the consort of any
given train. If there is a cab car up front or an obsolete, Bombardier bi-level coach anywhere in the mix, I will not board or ride that train. It is simply too dangerous.
Safety
related information released by Metrolink, or its parent organization,
the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) is so rare and nuanced,
that it fosters conspiracy theories within me. Helping to cheer me up,
a source close to the Metrolink investigation recently told me, “I
believe the NTSB has the plow and there is no conspiracy to steal it or
to foil the investigation. Metrolink will not give details, but I
believe that the NTSB informed the railroad about the failure. It is
amazing that they are replacing the Rotem cab cars with engines, using
an ‘emergency provision’ related to safety. More to come.”
Being closed-mouthed and
tight-lipped, SCRRA and Metrolink do little to create or enhance a
positive image for passenger rail service in Southern California. It is
time for someone or some organization to break through the “cloak of
invisibility” that the SCRRA has thrown over its own proceedings. In
violation of the California Open Meeting Law (Brown Act), the meeting
in which the SCRRA board decided to lease the fifty-eight freight locomotives was closed to both the press and the public. The public has the right to know details regarding the lease of fifty-eight BNSF locomotives, as well as the cost, including who will be footing that bill.
Are the two interlocking passenger rail agencies (SCRRA & Metrolink)
serious about competing in the Southern California commuter
marketplace? If so, they should reformulate the SCRRA board to include
railroad operating and safety experts, not more politicians and
political appointees. Until they do, you can expect Metrolink’s
operational and legal costs to skyrocket, while ridership continues its
long, slow decline. SCRRA and Metrolink, it is time for transparency
and reform.
By James McGillis at 11:29 PM | | Comments (0) | Link
No comments:
Post a Comment