General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

So I watched the MBTA presser at 4 PM. The RL this morning was having signal problems (like usual) and the trains had to operate in emergency bypass mode to override the ATC. The OCC had given permission for bypass mode to be activated and they were aware the train was in bypass mode. The operator for some reason stepped out of the cab to check something on the platform related to the signal issue. The train then somehow took off, possibly with the throttle rigged to be active. Upon taking off, the train struck the operator (who had just stepped out on the platform) who alerted station personnel who contacted the OCC. The OCC knew the train was rogue within 60 seconds of it happening and were tracking it live on the big board. They could not immediately kill power to the 3rd rail because they had to rush & clear trains in front of the rogue train to a safe location before the power could be cut.

Steph Pollack made it clear that they know more and they were withholding information due to the on-going investigation. Despite the fishy situation, the MBTA is calling this "driver error" over malicious behavior at this time.

Also, I reaaaaaaally wish that it was Bev giving that presser. I miss her.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

datadyne007 said:
The operator for some reason stepped out of the cab to check something on the platform related to the signal issue. The train then somehow took off, possibly with the throttle rigged to be active. Upon taking off, the train struck the operator (who had just stepped out on the platform) who alerted station personnel who contacted the OCC.
Click to expand...

The manual emergency ATO by pass toggle is located on the exterior of the car. Because of a bad signal code, the motorperson was authorized to leave the cab to activate-that switch (trackside) and was knocked down and injured when the train took off after he activated the external by-pass. Once the by-pass is activated the train will no longer respond to signal codes but is limited to 25 m.p.h. Since they are strongly suggesting employee error and "tampering", that would suggest the control handle was tied down in some way to disengage the deadman feature, also may mean that the reverser handle was not removed and hand brakes were not set. Since they have not yet formally announced that conclusion, they presumably are still checking the equipment to see if any catastrophic component failure could otherwise explain what happened.
Globe has a diagram of the by-pass switch location in their story on the incident.
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

Can explain the deadman switch a bit more? How sensitive is it. If the moterperson tossed their coat on it when they got out of the cab would that be enough to disable it or would it have to be deliberately disabled? If so, can you think of any reason why he may of done it?(Got the train underway sooner, etc..)
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

statler said:
Can explain the deadman switch a bit more? How sensitive is it. If the moterperson tossed their coat on it when they got out of the cab would that be enough to disable it or would it have to be deliberately disabled? If so, can you think of any reason why he may of done it?(Got the train underway sooner, etc..)
Click to expand...

It's not hair-trigger, that's for sure. A deadman's switch isn't a deadman's switch if it can be triggered through unconscious pressure. One thing to keep in mind: even though they are functionally identical cars, the Red 01500, 01600, and 01700 series all have slightly different deadman switch configurations. Although they all run as permanently-married pairs, only the 16's were born that way from the factory; 15's and 17's are capable of single-ended operation, so there are minor differences in the overrides that the operator has to have instant recall of. The unit in question was 01506. I don't know if it's possible to fuck up that badly, but if he thought he was doing a bypass procedure on an 01600 and forgot that he was controlling the train from an 01500 there is leeway for confusion to make things go awry. All of those makes can trainline with each other, so on his last run before reversing direction he may well have been sitting in the cab of a '16 and plain forgot that the opposite cab was a '15.


The way they're coming down on him, naming names and flat-out saying it's an administrative suspension...it doesn't sound like simple confusion was the issue. He clearly took some lazy shortcut that was a big no-no in the rulebook, and has driven the last train of his career. The good thing is...you can't fool dispatch. They knew, per Pollack, "within 60 seconds +/- 10" that something was very very wrong. The only reason the train was allowed to run as long as it did was the emergency S.O.P. of clearing out all tracks ahead so they could find a circuit break for cutting the power (since the signal read wouldn't have stopped it, and cutting the power immediately might've endangered the next train ahead).

Some of the knee-jerk reaction was "OMG! THEY LET IT RUN FOR HOW MANY STATIONS WITHOUT KNOWING?!?!", but Pollack was very good at explaining why that was precisely the perfectly-executed emergency procedure. And, explaining that of course the passengers on-board had to find out for themselves what was going on because they can't patch in an onboard PA announcement from the outside.
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

On a happier note. . .

The new locomotive order is finished. Per a CR employee on the RR.net tracker thread, the 39th and 40th units both entered revenue service this morning.
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

New thread title is awesome :)
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

meddlepal said:
New thread title is awesome :)
Click to expand...
I suggest using this as occasion to separate the "incidents" thread from the "policies" thread.

MBTA incidents & delays discussion
MBTA Policy & Planning
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

Arlington said:
I suggest using this as occasion to separate the "incidents" thread from the "policies" thread.

MBTA incidents & delays discussion
MBTA Policy & Planning
Click to expand...

What about the "Incidents and Delays with Policy and Planning" MBTA thread? That's the one that'll reach 100 pages the fastest.
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

Great Globe image:
12321292_10205369823425176_8889098019851189892_n.jpg


Via: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...ut-operator/L5NzTcDEX8dMQCQLvC7UBN/story.html

--

Also, The ‪‎MBTA‬'s abysmal state of repair led passengers on the runaway train to believe yesterday morning was just "another day on the Red Line," even after grinding to a halt with no power, as trains frequently just die in the middle of the tracks.

From the Globe: “We were actually joking about wishing we had coffee,” she said. “It just seemed like a normal Red Line problem. Luckily, no one in my car panicked, because I’m a panicker.”
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

datadyne007 said:
Great Globe image:
12321292_10205369823425176_8889098019851189892_n.jpg


Via: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...ut-operator/L5NzTcDEX8dMQCQLvC7UBN/story.html

--

Also, The ‪‎MBTA‬'s abysmal state of repair led passengers on the runaway train to believe yesterday morning was just "another day on the Red Line," even after grinding to a halt with no power, as trains frequently just die in the middle of the tracks.

From the Globe: “We were actually joking about wishing we had coffee,” she said. “It just seemed like a normal Red Line problem. Luckily, no one in my car panicked, because I’m a panicker.”
Click to expand...

Sheesh....Assuming that diagram is accurate, I would say the operator should consider himself lucky to only escape with minor injuries after the train began moving after step 4.
 
Last edited:
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

Just posted to the Globe:

The operator of the Red Line train that took off from Braintree Station without him Thursday and barreled more than five miles down the line unattended apparently “tied a cord around the throttle” and also failed to set the brake before climbing out of the cab, according to a source familiar with the investigation’s preliminary findings.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the benefit to tying off the throttle. It sounds like the equivalent of putting a brick on a gas pedal of a car and after forgetting to set the e-brake.
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

statler said:
Just posted to the Globe:



I don't understand the benefit to tying off the throttle. It sounds like the equivalent of putting a brick on a gas pedal of a car and after forgetting to set the e-brake.
Click to expand...

Unless they meant "deadman's switch" and not "throttle"?


The only scenario that makes a lick of sense for "throttle" is that this clown thought he had a makeshift cruise control contraption to free up one hand to do...whatever it is he thought he could be doing hands-free in the cab during a revenue run. Signal system sets the speed limit, so as long as the rope isn't tied so tight around the throttle that it's flooring it all the way into an overspeed penalty stop it could plausibly get through the run below the speed limit indistinguishable from a operator with a soft touch on the throttle. Starts and stops would be controlled by working brake-only in lieu of changing speed. Which makes very little sense because it would be herky-jerky as all hell to not ease up and slow into a coast before final brake application at a station stop.


:confused:

Doesn't sound from the official coverage like we're talking a real genius amongst man who thought this cunning plan through. Pretty much every individual action made a total mockery of Procedure 101.

wile_e_coyote___vector_by_thoomas.jpg




EDIT: Nevermind. It's one throttle control spun around to control acceleration, cruising, and regular braking by position on the dial. The only other mechanism is the emergency brake...which as a driver's brake substitute would be a rough-riding, rougher-stopping, burnt-rubber smelling mess that would get the shop guys doing a total "WTF?" when they saw the end result under the hood. Or he blows a $50,000 traction motor up in smoke in the process and gets beaten behind Cabot shop with socket wrenches by the mechanics.
 
Last edited:
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

statler said:
Just posted to the Globe:



I don't understand the benefit to tying off the throttle. It sounds like the equivalent of putting a brick on a gas pedal of a car and after forgetting to set the e-brake.
Click to expand...

With a Cineston controller, the deadman is built into the "throttle" by keeping pressure on it.

from the wikipedia article linked previously:
"The controller often also incorporates a fail-safe device (or dead man's switch) that requires constant downward pressure once the lever is rotated forward from the neutral position. Releasing the lever causes it to pop up on a spring, activating emergency braking."

So "tying the throttle" applies enough pressure so you don't have to constantly hold it down for the "deadman", but provides enough give that the controller can be moved as required
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

Ahh.. Thank you. So was there a secondary brake system that he also failed to engage or was the deadman it?
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

statler said:
Ahh.. Thank you. So was there a secondary brake system that he also failed to engage or was the deadman it?
Click to expand...

There's the deadman, and there's the emergency brake that has to be set to tie down the train completely while the operator exits the cabin. This was the equivalent of putting your car in park on a hill and not setting the emergency brake...not the safest thing or all that wonderful for your car's longevity, but people do it all the time because the car won't move in park.

Only...this time you tied your seatbelt around the shift for some head-explodingly inexplicable reason, and tied it so tight it slipped into neutral. And you're at a loss for words when it goes careening backwards past the police station at the bottom of the hill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfVqIiwgous
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

statler said:
Ahh.. Thank you. So was there a secondary brake system that he also failed to engage or was the deadman it?
Click to expand...

The controller was still set in the power mode, if he had moved it to the brake position, even with the deadman deactivated, the train would not have released the brakes and accelerated when the by-pass was cut in. He also could have removed the reverser from the control stand (essentially a forward, neutral, reverse key for a subway car), which would have deactivated the controls before he left the cab. Finally, he could have set the hand brake.
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

Wow.

Thanks guys.
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

Can I wonder aloud if his practice was to work his whole shift with the cord (seatbelt?) slackly tied and "available" for use when his arm got tired?

I just don't see how a thought process would ever say "let me set up this deadman-defeat cord before stepping off" but I can see how he might forget it was there if he'd decided long ago that it was too tiring to hold the deadman all the time and habitually rigged a cheat cord that he could slacken/tighten as needed (and then didn't slacken it this time)
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

Arlington said:
Can I wonder aloud if his practice was to work his whole shift with the cord (seatbelt?) slackly tied and "available" for use when his arm got tired?

I just don't see how a thought process would ever say "let me set up this deadman-defeat cord before stepping off" but I can see how he might forget it was there if he'd decided long ago that it was too tiring to hold the deadman all the time and habitually rigged a cheat cord that he could slacken/tighten as needed (and then didn't slacken it this time)
Click to expand...

This was a 25-year veteran operator and not some newbie. So...wow. It's almost unfathomable somebody with that level of experience could fuck up this badly. If he were habitually that reckless he would've washed out years ago because they don't tolerate slip-ups, and if this was even an occasional habit of his there are way too many eyes on the operators on a daily basis for a supervising inspector to not immediately gain notice and ring him up for something as blatantly against the rules as a frickin' cord tied around the throttle. Competition for rapid transit operator jobs within the agency is stiff...they get bumped to assignment Siberia in favor of somebody young and hungry if they're lackadaisical on the job.

This guy must've developed sudden-onset laziness or really learned to hate his job to have that much experience but go down for something this moronic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top