Latest Metro crash not such a surprise

Transit

by Dave Stroup • December 2, 2009 1:03 pm

It's still early in the investigation, but there are a few important issues to note regarding Sunday's crash on the Orange Line.

Some 1000-series cars. Photo by palkynebtab.

First off, the facts: we don't know much. A collision occurred at the West Falls Church railyard, three employees were injured, and several railcars were extensively damaged. The price tag for the crash could reach upwards of $36 million.

So far, no one is talking. Metro isn't releasing very much information. This all comes, of course, amid discussion of how to improve transit safety oversight. This also comes along with the NTSB's continued investigation of the June 22 crash on the Red Line.

In Sunday's incident, there is speculation that a power surge caused the striking train to speed up, causing the collision. There are a number of documented problems with the series 5000 cars, including power surges.

The striking train consisted of series 5000 and series 1000 cars. The series 1000 cars were in the middle of the train, as part of Metro's safety public relations campaign. It appears as though these cars suffered extensive damage, despite being "protected" by stronger cars on each end.

This suggests that moving the series 1000 cars to the center of the train may have made little difference. On the other hand, that change was specifically designed to prevent "telescoping," where one car crushes the passenger space of the other. While the cars were severely damaged, we don't know how the crash affected the passenger space in the cars. Hopefully the NTSB's investigation will look at this, and provide some scientific analysis.

The operator of the striking train was also finishing up a 10½ hour shift. I have personally heard from Metro employees who are concerned about Metro's work schedules not allowing for enough time for rest. Thankfully the operator did not suffer serious injury. It will be important to determine if fatigue played a role in this crash.

The New York Times ran an editorial Monday, "Commuters Beware," calling for more federal oversight. Federal oversight is an important subject to discuss, and stronger oversight may have prevented some accidents. However, at this point this is beyond the question of federal oversight. The NTSB has repeatedly identified problems with safety at Metro. These flaws have been discussed at length. Between insufficient funding and organizational weakness, Metro is headed down a path that could very well lead to more tragedy.

The time for accountability is now. Since the June 22 crash, there have been multiple more incidents involving Metro employees. Time and again we hear of Metro's commitment to safety. Time and again managers who have failed the public and their fellow employees continue to serve in their roles, and Metro doesn't reveal what, if anything, they are doing to change their culture or their management to address the organizational causes of these incidents. It is time for the Metro board to demand more transparency and more action. It's clear the status quo is not working, and staying the course no longer appears to be an acceptable option.

8 comments — Share	— tags: Metro safety, WMATA

How has Metro responded to NTSB recommendations? (Oct 22, 2009)
The Price of Safety, part 2: Recent derailments expose problems (Oct 14, 2009)
The Price of Safety (Sep 29, 2009)
Are Metro's 1000 Series cars safe? Can Metro do anything about it? (Jun 25, 2009)
Metro crash roundup (Jun 23, 2009)

Comments

"The price tag for the crash could reach upwards of $36 million."

I would hope that Metro has an insurance policy that would cover this type of event.

by E on Dec 2, 2009 1:12 pm

Catoe: Go!

by JTS on Dec 2, 2009 1:35 pm

Since most of the damage was to 1000 series rail cars, is this actually going to cost anything (other than decreased fleet size) since those cars were due to be replaced anyway? It's not as if they are going to go out and buy new rolling stock to replace these cars right now.

by Steven on Dec 2, 2009 3:12 pm

Dave, I don't think your theatrics about 'extensive' damage is helping here.

No one I know really thinks that moving the 1000 series to the middle is actually safer. But I doubt it's unsafe, either. Likewise, knowing that those cars suffered enough damage to be a total loss doesn't tell you anything about the nature of that damage. As Michael Perkins noted earlier, put a 1989 Toyota Tercel and a 2009 Lexus in indentical car crashes with identical damage, and the newer car is going to be worth repairing, while the older one will be 'totaled.'

The case for more transparency and better safety is strong enough without this kind of half-truth political rhetoric.

by Alex B. on Dec 2, 2009 6:51 pm

I'll be more interested in seeing what kind of damage happened to the 3000-series car. Those cars were fully rehabilitated within the last six years, and were extensively restructured during their rehabilitation.

by Ben Schumin on Dec 2, 2009 7:16 pm

Alex B.

After the June 22nd crash it seemed most people I knew felt putting the cars inside would make them safer. They were even upset at Metro for not moving faster. In an attempt to quell popular fears Metro did this with little study. If I remember correctly it seemed the Post was the ringleader in this until, they suddenly realized the extra cost of moving the cars came at little or no safety advantage. Then it seemed everyone remembered their basic physics.

As for telescoping, speeds in the railyard are much slower then on the main line, so this might not be a good illustration of if the telescoping problem has been resolved.

by Joshua Davis on Dec 2, 2009 7:44 pm

@Ben

One of the press releases stated that one of the 3000 series cars was seriously damaged.

by Joshua Davis on Dec 2, 2009 7:46 pm

I, at least, have seen no information about:

(1) collision speed, or,

(2) nature of the damage.

Do you really think that it's possible to arrive at meaningful conclusions about car placement, given these yawning gulfs in the public record?

Except, Metro did tell the Post this:

The older cars have been criticized for a tendency to crumple inward, like a telescope, in a crash, but Metro officials said Monday that the cars in Sunday's incident did not telescope.

I did suspect that placing the most vulnerable cars in the middle of trains would reduce risks, because in the accident reports that I've read, in crashes of trains with uniform consists, the end cars invariably suffer the most damage. Vehicles closest to the collision absorb energy, either through structural deformation or with their buffer gear. I don't see how "basic physics" could suggest otherwise; we're not talking about the transfer of energy between billiard balls.

by David Ramos on Dec 2, 2009 8:26 pm