 |
Witnesses say light was green just before Metrolink train crashed – Los Angeles Times — A couple of these guys were those nerdy train nutballs/enthusiasts who are into extreme details. They say the light was green and you can be sure they noticed it. If true this means there may be a cover-up and all that “text messaging” crap was a smokescreen to blame the dead engineer who cannot testify for himself. You have to assume that the train stopped there before and the engineer would always be on the lookout for that signal unless this was his first ride. A signaling foul-up is more logical than the text messaging excuse. But then you couldn’t blame a dead man, could you?
Three observers who say they were at the Chatsworth Metrolink station before last month’s deadly train crash have asserted in interviews that a final, crucial railroad signal was green as the commuter line’s engineer headed toward the collision point.
Experts say it is common for investigators to get sharply differing witnesses’ accounts during inquiries into catastrophic accidents. But the three witnesses were insistent.
“I saw the light was green. Everything seemed all right,” said Chris Watson, 20, the station security guard. Watson said he was standing midway down the platform on Sept. 12 as Metrolink 111 pulled out of the station.
Found by Tracy Taylor.
From what I have read the texting issue is BS because the Dead Engineer is not the only one who would have to miss the signals. I forget what the story called the other person (Conductor maybe). But after missing the first signal he/she would have called up to the Engineer to ask what was going on. The point of the article I read was that from both of them to miss all the signal they would both have to incapacitated. They also raise the issue of the signals but this is the first time I heard it being green. The more I read about the issue the fishier it gets. Like John says I think the “texting” is a smoke screen for some large issue.
If there are three witnesses who don’t know each other, have no discernible agenda, and are not on crack, then this should be thoroughly investigated.
Just because an investigation finds the system working properly after the crash, that doesn’t rule out whether the system was working properly at the time of the crash.
This is why eye witness accounts are so important!
BTW, this reminds me of when an Amtrack derailed a few years back because some kids put change on the track. A few pennies and a quarter…
People died. For weeks Amtrack denied that the change could have anything to do with the crash, until it was proven that the tracks were not properly maintained and flexed due to the change creating a sideways force on the track when the wheel ran over it, causing the track to warp and derail the train.
Cover Your Ass seems to be the name of the game here.
What is most disturbing about the accident is imagining the consequences if this had been a terrorist attack instead of an accident. The country would have gone apeshit, running around with their hands flapping in the air. “Homeland Security” would have come close to imposing martial law because of an attack resulting in these many deaths.
Yes, in today’s Amerika we are that close to total surrender to the powers that “protect us.”
Truthers!
@#1: This accident may help to mandate such a system as you mention. However, as is now, the conductor is not really obligated to check. Nor to call the signal on his own. It is like looking over your shoulder when turning the car: good suggested but not enforced practice.
@#2: Unfortunately nowadays there are so many people attempting to insert themselves into the news that witnesses are hard to be trusted without physical evidence…
Finally, what is the proven fact is text messaging within seconds of the accident… Enough for fair minded skeptic to say “plausible”.
All I know is I’m not EVER going to go Metro…
dusan maletic, granted I am a number of years removed from the railroad industry after spending the better part of my youth in rail yards (my father worked for CNW). The conductor has always been the back up for orders rendered via signal or radio. And d*mn those eyewitnesses trying to interject themselves into a corporate CYA action. Let’s release every criminal put in jail due to “eyewitnesses”, clearly they can’t be trusted. Wow, I thought I was cynical.
Everyone knows Hal Jordan is a Republican.
My first reaction to this was that the “Central Dispatcher” did not align the switch for one of the trains to go into a siding! That is how most modern trains pass each other!
Aaorn-“That is how most modern trains pass each other!”
H*ll that’s how trains have passed each other since the beginning of railroad history.
#6- 22 seconds is more than enough time for him to look back up and see what was going on, unless he was texting as he passed the signal.
The important question is was he texting when he passed the signal. He left the station around 4:15 PM and presumably passed the signal soon after, the wreck occurred at 4:22 PM.
I don’t see why they’re making a big deal about him texting 20 seconds before the wreck. He thought he was all clear, and even if he had hit the brakes it would have made no difference at that point. Trains take a long time to stop.
They have his text message records but they haven’t made it clear if he was texting around the time he passed the signal, which makes a signal failure sound plausible.
#11
I guess I should have explained that “Central Dispatch” is a remote operation. While it is true that trains have always used a siding to pass each other, the switch used to be thrown by the train crew. Now it is done, on many railroads, from a computer and by a manager of traffic.
Eye witnesses SUCK
Aaorn, and your point is??? Evidently the light was green. Go figure! Train crew, computer? Either way, it wasn’t performed properly. Green means go, red means stop. Damn those “eye witnesses”!
It was a late afternoon in September. The train was heading north with the sun low and behind the train, not unlike conditions present during this accident:
http://danger-ahead.railfan.net/features/paddington/green_for_danger.html
Draw your own conclusion.
R.O.P.
My point is the same as the thread’s- It’s not the text messaging that’s at fault, and the blame shouldn’t placed on the dead Engineer!
I am doing a paper for school on the coverage of the Metrolink accident. What I am wondering is WHY hardly any newspapers reported these new eye-witness accounts? (The LA Times did, but I couldn’t find many other national or local stories on these new witnesses.) It seems to me that the “texting to teen boys” stories were much more effective in riling up the public, and that this new, possibly contradicting evidence would do little to fan the flames of public outrage that the media perhaps thrives on and needs for its ‘success’.