Transit
Are Metro's 1000 Series cars safe? Can Metro do anything about it?
With the tragic crash Monday of two Metro trains, WMATA has come under fire for the crashworthiness of its oldest railcars, the 1000 Series. These cars began arriving on site in 1975, and have been carrying passengers since opening day, more than 33 years ago. Metro plans to retire all 1000 Series cars by 2014.
In the last three decades, the 1000 Series cars have been involved in two collisions, one in 2004 at Woodley Park and one earlier this week near Fort Totten. In both of these crashes, telescoping occurred, severely compromising the passenger compartments. After the 2004 crash the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued a number of recommendations. One of these recommendations was that WMATA take steps to retrofit or retire these railcars.
Unfortunately, it's been impossible for WMATA to implement this recommendation. There are just under 300 cars remaining in the 1000 Series, comprising approximately a quarter of Metro's rail fleet. With ridership reaching all-time highs and money as tight as ever, Metro cannot remove these cars without substantially cutting back service.
Earlier collisions
In 1996 during a January snowstorm, a train running in the automatic mode was unable to stop at Shady Grove due to icy rails. Parked approximately 400 feet north of Shady Grove on the outbound track was a gap train. The outbound Red Line train was carrying only two passengers, both in the fourth (last) car. Because of the ice, the train blew through the station at about 36 mph, hitting the parked gap train a few seconds later. The collision of the train telescoped the front car by 21 feet and killed the operator. No passengers were on board the first car and no one at all was aboard the parked gap train.
An NTSB analysis of the factors leading up to and subsequent to the crash included an examination of the wreckage. The collision took place while the train was travelling between 22 and 29 mph. The forces involved in this collision caused a structural failure, which the NTSB report describes in detail:
When [the lead car of T-111] struck the gap train, the attachments and fasteners securing its end underframe assembly to the side sills failed, and the side sills moved outward. On [the lead car of the gap train], the end underframe assembly remained attached (at least partially) to the side sills, which allowed the structure of [the lead car of the gap train] to transmit inertial forces to the end underframe of [the leading car of T-111] that were greater than it received. As a result, the body and some detached sections of the underframe of [the lead car of T-111] continued forward after the initial impact. This forward motion, combined with the outward movement of the side sills, allowed the body shell of [the lead car of T-111] to telescope outside the body of [the gap train]. As the collision progressed, the end underframe of [the lead car of T-111] began to act as a steel bumper for [the gap train], buckling the floor of [the lead car on T-111] and causing the remaining components of the car's underframe to fail. (NTSB Report on Shady Grove Collision, Page 65)Based on this description, photos from the crash in 1996 at Shady Grove and the crash Monday near Fort Totten, it sounds like a similar structural failure occurred. Despite the similarities and despite NTSB's warnings about the 1000 Series, however, all cars involved in the 1996 Shady Grove Collision were in the 3000 Series, not the 1000.
Another incident with similar consequences for Metro's rollingstock occurred in November 2004. In this collision, a non-revenue train (Train 703) proceeding northbound toward Shday Grove was stopped in the tunnel between Woodley Park and Cleveland Park awaiting the train at Cleveland Park to depart. It appears that the operator's inattentiveness allowed the train to roll backwards toward Woodley Park, where Train 105 was servicing the platform. The last car of Train 703, struck Train 105 at about 36 mph, and telescoped 20 feet over the lead car of Train 105.
The wreckage at Woodley Park bears a striking resemblance to both the Shady Grove and Fort Totten collisions. Due to the similarities, the NTSB report on the Woodley Park Incident makes many references to the Shady Grove Collision.
NTSB recommendations
In their post-accident report for the Shady Grove Collision, the NTSB made several recommendations to WMATA and other agencies. One of the recommendations was that WMATA undertake a "comprehensive evaluation of the design and design specifications of all series of Metrorail cars with respect to resisting carbody telescoping and providing better passenger protection, and make the necessary modifications..." (emphasis mine).
The WMATA study concluded that it would be infeasible to retrofit the existing fleet. For the 1000 Series, it was considered impractical because they were (and are) due to be scrapped. The report also noted that modifications to the 2000, 3000, and 4000 Series would be cost prohibitive to undertake. In 2002, as a result of these findings, NTSB classified the above cited recommendation (R-96-37) as closed with an acceptable action. NTSB determined that WMATA's study met the "intent" of the recommendation.
Two years after WMATA's study and action were validated by NTSB, Train 703 crashed into and overran Train 105 at Woodley Park. This crash involved the oldest railcars in the WMATA fleet, the 1000 Series. The NTSB report on the Woodley Park Crash focused on the structural deficiency of the 1000 Series. The Board feared that the 1000 cars were susceptible to telescoping, which could lead to "a catastrophic compromise of occupant survival space."
The NTSB, with recommendation R-06-2, encouraged WMATA to "either accelerate retirement of Rohr-built [1000 Series] railcars, or if those railcars are not retired but instead rehabilitated, then the Rohr-built passenger railcars should incorporate a retrofit of crashworthiness collision protection that is comparable to the 6000-series railcars."
Criticism of crashworthiness
It is clear that the "catastrophic" loss of survival space feared by the NTSB occurred Monday. This has led many in the media to criticize Metro for leaving the 1000 Series in service. And while these cars are clearly at the end of their life, Metro has little choice but to leave them in service, at least for the next 5 years.
Only with the addition of the 184 cars that make up the 6000 Series, was WMATA able to eliminate four-car trains and add several eight-car trains to ease overcrowding. An immediate retiring of the 1000 Series (without replacement) would take 290 cars out of service, meaning a return to four-car trains on some lines, and perhaps a reduction in train headways.
Anything more substantive, such as a program of retrofitting or replacement takes time and money. In fact, Metro is already on the path to such a program. Currently they have an RFP out on the 7000 Series, Metro's largest car order ever, 648 new cars and the rehabilitation of the 100 cars in the 4000 Series. Once the 7000 Series cars are delivered, Metro will retire the 1000 Series.
Railcars take time to build. Metro can't just walk down to the nearest railcar dealership and test drive one. They're all custom built and are manufactured on demand. As a result, factories have to start producing cars, and even the process of assembling them takes quite a bit of time.
Some have accused Metro of ignoring NTSB and by so doing, contributing to the deaths and injuries sustained on Monday. But the truth is there were really no acceptable alternatives for Metro. Even if Metro had ordered the new 7000 Series railcars the day of the Woodley Park Accident in November 2004, it is unlikely that any would have entered revenue service before the middle of 2009. And because of the time it takes to process new railcars, it would take two to three years for all cars to arrive in Washington.
And although the Woodley Park Crash happened in 2004, the NTSB report was not released until March 2006. According to Metro's report on the 7000 Series cars, due in in 2012, the development of specifications started in the third quarter of FY2007 (early calendar year 2007), less than 12 months after NTSB's report.
Metro has not dragged its feet on this issue. It absolutely cannot afford to retire the 1000 Series before the arrival of at least 300 of the new 7000 Series cars because so doing would reduce service to unacceptably low levels. It could not have accelerated the acquisition of the 7000 Series due to financial woes, and is even now working its way through the more-than-five year process to get new cars.
Service versus safety
Some have suggested that in the wake of Monday's crash, Metro should sideline (sidetrack?) its 1000 Series trains. This is not a realistic proposal, but public pressure could still force it to be considered.
Based on ridership, the spare ratio, and certain service standards, Metro can calculate how many railcars it needs to operate. According to WMATA's Fleet Management Plan (2006), Metro expected to need 1120 railcars to operate on a given day in FY2009, which ends next week. Right now, WMATA has 1128 railcars. However, in FY2010, which starts July 1, Metro will need an estimated 1144 railcars to operate satisfactory service. Since the actual number of available cars is lower, this means more crowded trains. Essentially, we already have fewer cars than we need, and we will continue to be until the 7000 Series cars start to arrive in 2012.
Removing the 1000 Series would take Metro's fleet size down to 838, meeting only 72.3% of the demand for railcars. Without the 1000 Series, four-car trains would reappear on the Blue and Yellow Lines, and eight-car trains might just disappear from the Red, Orange, and Green Lines.
But there are other concerns. The 1996 NTSB report encouraged WMATA to look at all railcars. Also note that WMATA's study concluded that it couldn't retrofit the 2000, 3000, or 4000 Series to improve their crashworthiness.
Remember, that only two 1000 Series cars have ever telescoped. The first time was in 2004. 1996's Shady Grove Crash involved two trains comprised of 3000 Series cars. Plus, the 2000 and 3000 Series cars were manufactured by the same company consecutively. Any fault that the 3000 Series has in structural design, the 2000 Series likely has as well. Does this mean that the 2000 and 3000 Series cars are as dangerous as the 1000 Series?
That is unclear from the NTSB reports. However, the similarities of the three crashes involving two different series of railcars is a bit unnerving.
If the 1000, 2000, and 3000 Series cars are unsafe, that would be a major problem for Metro, because together they make up over 56% of the fleet. We can't take all of them out of service, and the 7000 Series won't be able to replace all of them.
And since the 4000 Series have not yet been overhauled, they might not fare as well as we'd like. They're due for rehabilitation in FY2014, which might bring them up to satisfactory standards. But until that work can be undertaken, might Metro consider pulling those cars? The 4000 Series is made up of 100 cars, almost 10% of Metro's fleet.
One piece of vital information can be gleaned from NTSB's 2006 report (on the 2004 Woodley Park Crash): They only consider the 5000 and 6000 cars to be good enough.
Any replacement car should be designed with crashworthiness components for absorbing maximum energy in a collision and to transmit minimum acceleration to passengers without override or telescoping, as found in the current 5000- series railcars and specified for the 6000-series cars. (NTSB Report on the Woodley Park Collision, Page 49)If we removed all of the cars likely to telescope in a collision, we'd only have the 374 cars making up the 5000 and 6000 Series. The last time Metro had that few cars, was in the early 1980s, when the Red Line stretched from Silver Spring to Van Ness, the Orange from Ballston to New Carrollton, and the Blue Line from National Airport to Addison Road.
Conclusions
Both the 1000 and 3000 Series have been involved in eerily similar telescoping incidents. NTSB has recommended that Metro reinforce the 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Series. It is unclear if any of these vehicles is safer than the 1000 series car lost in Monday's crash. It is clear, that NTSB is not happy with their sturdiness.
Without even one of these series, Metro would have to cut back service. Without any of them, Metro would be virtually crippled. The 5000s and 6000s are not a large enough part of the fleet to operate a 106-mile system with 86 stations and more than 700,ooo daily riders.
Criticism toward Metro for continuing to use the 1000 Series is frequent these days, but it does not consider that there would have been no way to design, order, build, test, and put into service 300 new railcars between March 2006 (when the NTSB suggested it) and June 2009, when the first fatal crash involving a 1000 Series car occurred.
Metro is between a rock and a hard place on this one. So is the riding public. Unfortunately, there are no right or absolute answers, although you can be sure that the NTSB report following this accident will make recommendations as if there are. We should be prepared to hear them suggest we retire all but the 5000 and 6000 Series. If we hear that, we can be sure that the cars won't be retired. It could take close to a decade to replace that many cars in the fleet. Reduced service for that long on the Metro would cripple Washington.
We're all upset that this crash happened. The sturdiness of the lead car did not cause the crash, but it contributed to its severity. Metro should take whatever steps are necessary to ensure passenger safety, but the 1000 Series is here to stay – at least until 2014. In the meantime, riders should remember that Metro is still the safest way to travel in the Washington area.
See also:
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future








One question that needs an answer:
Why are the 1000 series cars used as lead or tailing cars (Cars 1 and 2, 5 or 6 or 7 and 8)? If they are structurally unsafe in a crash it would be better to place them in the middle of the train (car 3 and 4) which would increase the likely hood of survival for the occupants in the 1000 series cars in a collision. I think this answer will shed a lot of light on MetroÂ’s due diligence to the 1000 series safety issues and NTSB finding. If there is no technical or safety reason why the 1000 series cars can not be used as the middle cars, then Metro was purely negligent.
by RJ on Jun 25, 2009 10:49 am • link • report
by Alex B. on Jun 25, 2009 10:55 am • link • report
by Alex B. on Jun 25, 2009 10:59 am • link • report
It may be technically feasible to place the 1000 Series cars in the middle of trains. I'm not entirely sure about the logistics, but because they make up 25% of the fleet, there should be an ample supply of other cars to surround them.
But, as a key part of my argument, I pointed out that criticsim of Metro has ignored that NTSB warned Metro about the 2000, 3000, and 4000 Series as well.
In 1996, a 3000 Series car telescoped in an approximately 25 mph crash at Shady Grove. If Metro had had a 3000 Series traincar leading Train 112, we might have had the exact same result.
And there aren't enough 5000 and 6000 Series cars to lead and follow every train in the system.
by Matt Johnson on Jun 25, 2009 11:01 am • link • report
one other question, because no one can seem to answer it. "There are just under 300 cars remaining in the 1000 Series, comprising approximately a quarter of Metro's rail fleet."
how many 1000 series cars were originally in service?
by AJ on Jun 25, 2009 11:04 am • link • report
by RichardatCourthouse on Jun 25, 2009 11:06 am • link • report
Let's stick to the facts and not worry about the whatifs of the MSM who have too much space to fill with too little information. A MSM that has forgotten that the public cares little about the questions and more about the answers.
The beauty of internet is that you have no space limits. But that can also mean that you can not post....
[@ Matt: Don't take it personally. It's more a general observation.]
by Jasper on Jun 25, 2009 11:07 am • link • report
Metro's fleet operates in "Married Pairs." This means that two cars are semi-permenantly coupled together.
Therefore on a 6-car train, you could theoretically have the configuration: 6002-6003-1002-1003-5002-5003.
On an 8-car train, you could have something similar:
6002-6003-1002-1003-1004-1005-5002-5003.
But you can't do 50% with 6-car trains. They don't come in sets of three. The best you can do with 6-car trains, which comprise the majority of trains in the system, is 33%.
by Matt Johnson on Jun 25, 2009 11:11 am • link • report
I don't see any speculating at all. I think Matt provided an excellent summary of the NTSB documents - exactly what was recommended and why - and what actions were taken and why. If anything, this post has served to add facts to the information stream that helps stem some of the rampant speculation.
I still stand by my original comment, however - there are two distinct issues here - one is the crashworthiness of the cars. The other, however, is the reasons for the crash in the first place. That's far more important to me. I'll gladly ride around in a rail car that might fail catastrophically in a crash if I know the odds of getting in a crash are infinitesimal. The other previous crashes with telescoping cars had obvious causes - an asleep operator in the Woodley Park crash, bad weather and an ATC system not designed to handle in in the 1996 Shady Grove crash.
by Alex B. on Jun 25, 2009 11:27 am • link • report
The 2000-4000 series were manufactured by Breda of Italy.
and Alstrom rebuilt the 2000 & 3000 series. Whether the structure is any safer is unknown.
The 5000 series were manufactured by CAF
The 6000 series were manufactured by Alstrom
Metro currently owns 1,126 cars. If we subtract the 292 1000 series that would leave us with 824 cars, just 16 cars less than the 850 Metro currently has in service
by Davin Peterson on Jun 25, 2009 11:39 am • link • report
The hostility and lack of communication to its riders is coming to haunt WMATA now...anyone who has ridden Metro knows that 80% of what they say is not true.
by charlie on Jun 25, 2009 11:53 am • link • report
http://dcist.com/2009/06/1000-series_rail_cars_will_be_moved.php
Now why wasn't this done ealier?
by RJ on Jun 25, 2009 11:54 am • link • report
For your 6 & 8 car configurations, do they even need to include two 5000 or 6000 cars at the front & end of each train? Could it not just have one 6000 car at the front, one 5000 car at the back, and six 1000-4000 cars in the middle? (replace six with four 1000-4000 cars for the six car trains)
by Aaron on Jun 25, 2009 11:55 am • link • report
No. Trains come in married pairs. If you have one 6000 series car in front, it will be immediately followed by its mate, either one digit higher or lower.
The married pairs cannot operate individually. Each car only has half the systems required.
by Matt Johnson on Jun 25, 2009 12:00 pm • link • report
one other question, because no one can seem to answer it. "There are just under 300 cars remaining in the 1000 Series, comprising approximately a quarter of Metro's rail fleet."
how many 1000 series cars were originally in service?
The original 1000 series order was for 300 cars. Of those taken out of service include:
1 car destroyed in the 1982 Federal Triangle crash
1 car (the pair of the 82 crash) now serving as the feeler car in tunnels
4 cars used as money trains
1 car destroyed in the Woodley Park crash
1 car (the pair of that crash) survived, but is out of service
1 car destroyed as the lead car in this weeks crash
1 car (the pair of this crash)
290 cars of the 1000 series remain.
by Mainland on Jun 25, 2009 12:03 pm • link • report
by shy on Jun 25, 2009 12:09 pm • link • report
by JMS on Jun 25, 2009 1:37 pm • link • report
by mymagritte on Jun 25, 2009 1:56 pm • link • report
by Kelvin Medina on Jun 25, 2009 4:13 pm • link • report
Seriously, it's just not as easy as "take them off".
by BeyondDC on Jun 25, 2009 4:15 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on Jun 25, 2009 4:17 pm • link • report
by Erik G. on Jun 25, 2009 7:50 pm • link • report
The guts are 13 to 16 years old, the primary reason for the rehabilitations was to upgraded the propulsion system from DC traction to AC traction. The car body structure and under frames were basically left unchanged.
The 1k cars are a rapid transit equivalent of a rust bucket. They have stress cracks in the car bodies at the lower corners of the door openings.
by Sand Box John on Jun 26, 2009 9:16 am • link • report
@ David Alpert, well not, but at least if that was a MUST they may require to add that to your existence car. In the same way they require a catalytic to protect the environment. Safe and security is important as you can see (at least for me), so whatever be a MUST to protect people and save their life, I'm with it.
by Kelvin Medina on Jun 26, 2009 10:06 am • link • report
The investigation is already focused on two things:
(1) The brakes apparently were overdue for inspection. Inexcusable, though they still wouldn't have prevented the crash.
(2) The track circuit failed, and failed *unsafe* -- it reported an empty block where there was an occupied block. This should *NEVER EVER HAPPEN*. Track circuits are the basis of railway safety. They have been designed for over 100 years to fail reporting "occupied".
What could have caused the track circuit to fail? This is critical.
There is a third implied thing going on:
(3) WMATA does not have a "safety culture" according to the 1997 NTSB report. This probably accounts for the failure of the safety systems -- nobody was bothering to make sure they were working. :-P
Putting the more-easily-telescoping cars in the center of the trains would not have been hard to do; although it would only have been of marginal benefit, the fact that they didn't bother is indicative of the culture.
by Nathanael on Jun 26, 2009 1:11 pm • link • report
by Kelvin Medina on Jun 26, 2009 3:23 pm • link • report
If these system log lines had been carefully reviewed for anomalies programatically in real time, their goofy-looking contents would have caused recognition that these two circuits were untrustworthy: circuits/blocks don't switch from vacant to occupied and back in the abrupt manner these circuits were indicating. An alert would have been triggered. Apparently circuit failures that falsely report "vacant" have been so rare that up until now it has not been considered necessary to sanity-check the stream of signals from these circuits.
by Civis on Jun 27, 2009 2:23 pm • link • report
Fortunately, Metro (and any other form of mass transit) is many times safer than driving a car, and the nine deaths incurred in this one accident are comparatively small. Unfortunately, it seems that the accident could have just as easily happened between two fully-loaded trains and in a tunnel, for that matter. Certainly, more money for new equipment will help, but that leaves a set of questions that still would need to be answered:
If computers are unreliable, should all trains be operated manually? And what safeguards would need to be in place against human error? Furthermore, what parts of the budget must be cut to accommodate increased maintenance expenditures?
by The 28th Amendment on Jun 27, 2009 5:13 pm • link • report
Operators are focused and look out ahead. This monitoring device can send an alarm at a certain footage and taested. This is the same principal for operating motor vehicals. If you see a vehical ahead you stop.
I believe if Ms McMillian had seen the train in front of her with a safety warning alarm system and monitor she would have stopped her train manually avoiding a collision.
Dana
by Dana on Oct 23, 2009 12:17 am • link • report
There are frequent places in the rail system where operators cannot see around curves, subway tunnels being the most common.
Having ridden in the front of a train since the Red Line reopened (and since this post was written), I believe that the operator would have been able to see the stopped train, but as noted by the NTSB in their report on the striking of wayside workers near Eisenhower Avenue, may not have been able to know that it was on track 2 (Shady Grove-bound).
However, the problem was NOT that the operator could not see the train ahead and needed some kind of audible device. The problem was that the track circuit failed to detect the presence of a train and send a visual AND audio alarm to the operators' console. It also failed to automatically stop the train.
The visual and audio alamrs already exist. But in order for them to be activated, they have to be able to detect the presence of a train. All the bells and whistles in the world don't matter if they don't go off at the right time.
Also, you are right. If you're driving and see a car ahead of you, you stop.
Trains take a lot longer to stop. Sometimes longer than sight-distance.
Despite this fact, on average 42,000 Americans die in car accidents each year. Since 1976, only 11 WMATA customers have been killed in rail crashes.
Since metro trains are a
by Matt Johnson on Oct 26, 2009 9:30 am • link • report
Dana
by Dana on Oct 27, 2009 12:11 am • link • report
Add a Comment