(The following column by Alan Kandel appeared on the California Progress Report website on December 27.)
According to the Dec. 25, ’08 Los Angeles Times, there is mention of a move apparently to monitor the actions of Metrolink commuter train locomotive personnel via onboard video surveillance cameras. This proposal is pending, but considering the devastation caused from the Metrolink/Union Pacific head-on train collision in Chatsworth on Sept. 12, ’08, and the railroad’s effort to try to improve passenger and train crew safety, is installing engine crew monitoring cameras the best, or the right, answer? Not according to information in the LA Times entry in referencing railroad unions criticizing the plan as ineffective, costly and “an invasion of privacy.”
Even if every Metrolink locomotive crew is video monitored, bottom line, is this action going to prevent any and all train-on-train collisions?
” ‘We’re talking about the ability to look into a [locomotive] cab in real time and see what’s happening,’ said Metrolink board member Richard Katz, who Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa placed on the panel after the deadly Sept. 12 crash,” as cited in the LA Times story “Metrolink plans live video cameras to monitor train engineers.”
“Indeed, part of the thinking is that video cameras can eliminate the need for a second crew member in locomotives, a ‘second set of eyes’ precaution that Metrolink officials added to several lines after the Chatsworth accident.
“Some research has found that a second crew member can create distractions and actually contribute to accidents,” the article revealed. What’s more, the commuter agency could become the first such agency to use the surveillance equipment which could be in place in as few as six months, part of a series of steps aimed at reducing “the chances of another Chatsworth-like catastrophe.”
From where I sit, eliminating “extra” personnel in Metrolink locomotive cabs on at least some of its runs and routes and replacing with locomotive-based crew-monitoring video surveillance cameras seems contradictory and counterproductive.
This action also comes in the wake of a Nov. 20th sideswipe collision involving a Metrolink commuter train and a Burlington Northern Santa Fe freight train in Rialto east of Los Angeles after the Metrolink train allegedly ran past a red signal and struck with the 96th freight car of a 103-car freight train as the latter was pulling off the mainline and onto a siding, according to preliminary reports, a crash which occurred less than three months after the disastrous and widely publicized Chatsworth head-on happened. In this the second of the two mishaps, minor-to-moderate injuries were sustained by but five people aboard the Metrolink train. It was also reported that the Metrolink train, also operating with the locomotive at the front of the train (i.e., in the pull mode), apparently had two crew members in the locomotive cab at the time of the collision.
My answer would be to employ something on the order of what New Jersey Transit has either done or is in the process of doing on its rail commuter network. To learn what this is, check out NJT’s February 13, 2002 news release titled: “NJ TRANSIT BOARD ADVANCES FINAL PHASE OF RAIL SAFETY SYSTEM” or use this link.
Simply put, using a computer to monitor locomotive engineer performance (read: “action, inaction or inappropriate action”) with the onboard computer intervening only when warranted to do so such as in preventing an overspeed situation or in disallowing a train from moving beyond a restrictive control signal such as that of a red “stop” signal, when the engineer in question fails to respond or responds inappropriately as has been the case in certain mishaps where human error was determined to have had a contributing role, in my opinion, would go much, much farther and do much, much more to prevent overspeed situations and train-on-train collisions, than what the installation of crew-monitoring surveillance cameras placed inside locomotives alone could do.
*
(Alan Kandel is a concerned California resident advocating for new, improved and expanded freight (and passenger) rail service. He is a retired railroad signalman previously employed by the Union Pacific Railroad in Fremont, California.)