• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

New Jersey: Train crashes into station

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
What is it with trains in America leaving the tracks and running up in to station buildings? Is it the low platforms?
 

N228PF

Member
Joined
3 Jun 2016
Messages
40
It looks like more damage was done to the station than the train. Hopefully no major injuries.

It does strike me as odd that in all of the photos and videos posted to Twitter people are just milling around. If the roof is partially collapsed, I'd expect everyone to be evacuated from the station as soon as possible!
 

talltim

Established Member
Joined
17 Jan 2010
Messages
2,454
Hoboken is a terminus, it doesn't seem to say that anywhere in the BBC article
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It looks like more damage was done to the station than the train. Hopefully no major injuries.

It does strike me as odd that in all of the photos and videos posted to Twitter people are just milling around. If the roof is partially collapsed, I'd expect everyone to be evacuated from the station as soon as possible!

I suspect those were taking very shortly after the incident while people were still detraining.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
Hoboken is a terminus, it doesn't seem to say that anywhere in the BBC article

One dead reported now, many injured. Definitely a bufferstop collision at this terminal station, and reported to have crossed the concourse demolishing a wall and roof supports.
 

DasLunatic

Member
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
696
I haven't seen the death on the BBC yet... what source are you using?

The images appear to show the crash as cab-car first - would it have been any worse with the locomotive at the front...?
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
As I suspected, low platforms and rather antiquated buffers insufficent for the weight of US commuter trains.

2f8ca344.jpg


Significant corrosion and cracks evident.
 
Last edited:

theageofthetra

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2012
Messages
3,504
What is creating an interest on social media is the number of media outlets trying to get hold of free footage from passengers involved.
 

Saint66

Member
Joined
15 Dec 2013
Messages
807
Location
Herts
What is creating an interest on social media is the number of media outlets trying to get hold of free footage from passengers involved.

That's been common since the the social media age began really. Almost any level of incident will see media outlets ask to use footage and pictures... Last year I tweeted a picture of an evacuated Kings Cross (Fire alarm), and I had at least five outlets asking for permission to use an image I posted.
 

shakey1961

Member
Joined
21 Dec 2014
Messages
155
Obviously this is in no-way confirmed, but I have a friend in the US, and he's hearing that the brakes failed.

Also the BBC have just said the drivers cab was at the rear? I can't see that being correct.
 
Last edited:

w0033944

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2011
Messages
552
Location
Norfolk
As I suspected, low platforms and rather antiquated buffers insufficent for the weight of US commuter trains.

2f8ca344.jpg


Significant corrosion and cracks evident.

In addition to the poor state of the stops, it appears that the stock used cannot have buffers and buffer heads (or at least cannot have the standard layout), as the 'stop' is aligned with the centre of the four foot. Presumably, it must act upon the centre of the bufferbeam?

RIP to the deceased, and thoughts for those who have been injured.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Don't know the line but maybe the locomotive was at the rear with a driving cab in front.

From what I've seen online, many US commuter formations are as you describe, but it doesn't answer the question of why the driver was reported to be in the rear cab (loco rather than DVT?) at the time of the crash. Irrespective of the train formation, he's still reportedly at the wrong end of it!
 
Last edited:

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
As I suspected, low platforms and rather antiquated buffers insufficent for the weight of US commuter trains.

Also no friction slides, nor hydraulic cylinders to absorb any energy, just a big immovable stop. A quick google image search suggests that may be common at US terminals.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
From what I've seen online, many US commuter formations are as you describe, but it doesn't answer the question of why the driver was reported to be in the rear cab (loco rather than DVT?) at the time of the crash. Irrespective of the train formation, he's still reportedly at the wrong end of it!

Perhaps he knew there was a problem so put the brake into emergency and moved back? Once you've done what you can do there's no point getting killed...
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
. . . it doesn't answer the question of why the driver was reported to be in the rear cab (loco rather than DVT?) at the time of the crash. Irrespective of the train formation, he's still reportedly at the wrong end of it!

At first I wondered if it could it have been an empty stock train being propelled backwards into the station from the sidings nearby by the driver who was to take it out again in service, but that doesn't make sense as it later became clear it was a loaded inbound train. I think it's just clueless journalists being confused by the locomotive being at the back. Here's a fairly detailed article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap...hits-New-Jersey-station-no-word-injuries.html
(sorry it's from the DM)
 
Joined
5 Feb 2009
Messages
1,012
Location
Milton Keynes
In addition to the poor state of the stops, it appears that the stock used cannot have buffers and buffer heads (or at least cannot have the standard layout), as the 'stop' is aligned with the centre of the four foot. Presumably, it must act upon the centre of the bufferbeam?
In North America (I.E US, Canada, Mexico etc) they use a coupling similar to a buckeye. It handles all the buffering forces itself so additional buffers are not required. This is standard over there and used on all rolling stock (from small narrow gauge stuff, right up to the acela express). It's actually much safer than the hodgepodge of several systems we have in europe.
 

w0033944

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2011
Messages
552
Location
Norfolk
Perhaps he knew there was a problem so put the brake into emergency and moved back? Once you've done what you can do there's no point getting killed...

Possibly. Surely a total brake failure must be considered to be one of the worst "wrong side" failures possible?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In North America (I.E US, Canada, Mexico etc) they use a coupling similar to a buckeye. It handles all the buffering forces itself so additional buffers are not required. This is standard over there and used on all rolling stock (from small narrow gauge stuff, right up to the acela express). It's actually much safer than the hodgepodge of several systems we have in europe.

Thanks. I was aware that the US uses knuckle couplers on a universal basis, but I didn't know that they dispense with buffers. Safer it may be, but when such inadequate stop blocks are used, I'd argue the increased safety is utterly outweighed by the vulnerability of termini (and presumably bay platforms) to this kind of crash.
 
Joined
5 Feb 2009
Messages
1,012
Location
Milton Keynes
Thanks. I was aware that the US uses knuckle couplers on a universal basis, but I didn't know that they dispense with buffers. Safer it may be, but when such inadequate stop blocks are used, I'd argue the increased safety is utterly outweighed by the vulnerability of termini (and presumably bay platforms) to this kind of crash.
I agree, one would have thought that they would have learned from past incidents where this sort of thing has happened and done something to mitigate the effects. I suspect a lot of the issues the US are facing are down to "not invented here syndrome".

My condolences and sympathies to all involved though.
 

N228PF

Member
Joined
3 Jun 2016
Messages
40
I agree, one would have thought that they would have learned from past incidents where this sort of thing has happened and done something to mitigate the effects. I suspect a lot of the issues the US are facing are down to "not invented here syndrome".

My condolences and sympathies to all involved though.

Keep in mind that a very large number of overall commuter rail lines in the U.S., including a brand new one in Florida opening soon, still use loco-hauled stock and are very brazen trains.

the reports have dropped from 4 back down to one deceased. Thoughts are with that family
 

w0033944

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2011
Messages
552
Location
Norfolk
Keep in mind that a very large number of overall commuter rail lines in the U.S., including a brand new one in Florida opening soon, still use loco-hauled stock and are very brazen trains.

May I ask how a train can be brazen?
 

notadriver

Established Member
Joined
1 Oct 2010
Messages
3,653
Do they not have TPWS equivalent to slow the train down if it's overspeeding ?
 

AndyPJG

Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
420
Do they not have TPWS equivalent to slow the train down if it's overspeeding ?


From the current BBC News item:-

US rail safety
In 2008 the US Congress passed a law requiring all trains to install Positive Train Control (PTC) systems by the end of 2015.
But most rail companies were unable to meet the deadline as the system is expensive and complex to install. Some rail lines - including New Jersey Transit - threatened to shut down completely if it was enforced. In response, Congress extended the deadline to install PTC systems to 2018.
Rail lines can then apply for an additional two-year extension to finalise updates and test the system. But safety targets for New Jersey's commuter trains say PTC installation should be completed by 2018.
According New Jersey Transit's most recent PTC progress report, none of the 440 trains on the New Jersey Transit rail line are equipped with PTC, nor have any employees been trained on the equipment.
 

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,489
Location
Norwich
Do they not have TPWS equivalent to slow the train down if it's overspeeding ?

The safety culture of the US railways and their lack of TPWS/AWS etc esque systems is rather shocking when compared to European railways.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
The safety culture of the US railways and their lack of TPWS/AWS etc esque systems is rather shocking when compared to European railways.

A lot of the US East Coast commuter railways do have safety systems in the form of pulse coded track circuits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_code_cab_signaling
These date back in principle to the 1920s and were pioneered by the Pennsylvania RR. They transmit speed codes based on signal aspects, including a '0' code, i.e no signal which means 'restricting' a speed limit of 20 MPH, so not a trainstop as such. Some but not all RRs also use the same system to encode and protect fixed speed restrictions as well. It was the lack of the latter that contributed to a series of 'speeding on curve' incidents in the last few years and Amtrack and Metro North were forced to retrofit a number sites with this old tech just when the're also gearing up for the big PTC changeover as well. To be fair signal engineers were able to do this within days so it begs the question why authorities were so adamantly opposed to doing the same at high risk sites before. Perhaps it was the 'planning blight' of an all new all singing and dancing system 'just around the corner'?

Anyway I know nothing concrete about buffer stop protection here, only that even a fairly low speed collision with typically heavy US rolling stock will have to dissipate an awful lot of energy. I believe there are coded tracks in the area as NJ transit services are mostly over former PRR trackage that I know was widely fitted from the early days and the WIki page linked above states the entire NJ system is fitted. I suspect there will be no code in the platform, corresponding to a 'restricted' 20 MPH limit, but there will be no further check as the train approaches the bumper, unlike our '5 MPH' buffer stop TPWS loops. If the brake system itself failed in some unexplained wrong side manner however, then even higher approach speeds may have been possible, but even at up to 20MPH the energy involved would have been significant. We shall have to wait and see what investigators reveal.
 

w0033944

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2011
Messages
552
Location
Norfolk
I suspect there will be no code in the platform, corresponding to a 'restricted' 20 MPH limit, but there will be no further check as the train approaches the bumper, unlike our '5 MPH' buffer stop TPWS loops. If the brake system itself failed in some unexplained wrong side manner however, then even higher approach speeds may have been possible, but even at up to 20MPH the energy involved would have been significant. We shall have to wait and see what investigators reveal.


I do wonder if a brake failure may have been responsible, as a fairly articulate commuter whose eyewitness account was included on the BBC live news page earlier said (when asked how quickly he thought the train was travelling at the moment of impact) that it seemed to be moving at a speed of at least 80 mph. He did acknowledge that this was probably a substantial overestimation due to the relatively enclosed surroundings and the shock of what happened, but I doubt that someone would perceive 20 mph as 80, even in such circumstances.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
BBC News at 21.00 reported that none of the injuries were life-threatening, as surprising perhaps as it is welcoming. I did see an earlier American news report that the 'engineer' had collapsed prior to the accident, but no idea whether that's correct.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I do wonder if a brake failure may have been responsible, as a fairly articulate commuter whose eyewitness account was included on the BBC live news page earlier said (when asked how quickly he thought the train was travelling at the moment of impact) that it seemed to be moving at a speed of at least 80 mph. He did acknowledge that this was probably a substantial overestimation due to the relatively enclosed surroundings and the shock of what happened, but I doubt that someone would perceive 20 mph as 80, even in such circumstances.

If that was so, bearing in mind my comments above, it could be a Moorgate type accident i.e. no braking took place beforehand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top