Rail Safety Megathread. Updated July 23, 2024

[mahatmakanejeeves]

52. 50 years later, lifesaving technology that could have saved over 300 lives inches toward completion.

I might have some disagreements with the article. I haven't gone through it yet.

Hat tip, Greater Greater Washington:

This lifesaving train tech is a long time coming
Positive Train Control, or PTC, keeps trains from running into each other and guarantees they go around curves at a safe speed. Fifty years after a Connecticut train wreck that could have been prevented with the tech, PTC could finally be installed in many systems around the US by the end of 2020. (Ashley Halsey III / Post)

Transportation
Fifty years later, a lifesaving technology that could have saved over 300 lives inches toward completion

By Ashley Halsey III
April 17 at 7:04 PM

On an August evening in 1969, a Connecticut train wreck made history. A pair of passenger trains in Darien collided head-on, killing five people and injuring 35.

It was the first train wreck on record that could have been prevented by what now is known as positive train control, or PTC. Almost 50 years later, the system that might have saved the five people from death — and more than 300 people who have died in train wrecks since then — is in full operation by just four of the nation’s 41 railroads.

“In the course of 50 years we have investigated 150 PTC preventable accidents that have caused 303 fatalities and 6,800 injuries,” said Jennifer Homendy, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board. “I would have liked to have seen more progress, but at least we’re moving in the right direction.”

Complex in its design, PTC is simple in its intent. It keeps trains from running into each other. And it guarantees they round curves at a safe speed. ... Fifty years ago, PTC was a concept in search of a name, and after the Darien wreck the NTSB suggested that the Federal Railroad Administration “study the feasibility of requiring a form of automatic train control.”

In more recent years, the list of PTC-preventable train wrecks includes:

• 2013: The Metro-North crash in the Bronx killed four people and injured 61.

• 2015: An Amtrak wreck in Philadelphia left eight passengers dead and injured 185.

• 2017: An Amtrak derailment near Dupont, Wash., killed three people and injured 62.

• 2018: Another Amtrak train rammed a stationary freight train in Cayce, S.C., killed two crew members and injured 116 others.

....

Read more:

Untangling the train wrecks: Congress holds yet another hearing on its mandate to end what’s causing most of them

House plans hearing on progress of train safety device that could prevent hundreds of deaths

NTSB says train that wrecked was going 80 mph in a 30 mph zone
....

Ashley Halsey reports on national transportation, including infrastructure, aviation, autonomous cars and shipping. Follow https://twitter.com/ashleyhalsey3rd

This was the first comment (of four) as I posted:

Former College DJ 2 hours ago

Let me preface my comments by saying implementing PTC on the rail network is better than not having it. But PTC or PTC-like technologies, in addition to being very expensive to implement, are themselves are not a panacea; the technology can fail. Look at the June 2009 WMATA Red Line crash that killed nine people - a PTC-like technology was used on the rail line, yet that technology didn't work at a critical time. To this day, nearly 10 years later, WMATA is reluctant to operate trains in automatic mode because of their fears the automated train control technology will fail again. What if PTC fails at some point in the system? Are rail system operators or more accurately governments going to be reluctant to rely on PTC?

In addition to the above, it should be noted 300 fatalities over 50 years is not a large number of fatalities. Many, MANY more people have been killed by cars while crossing the street, or by being involved in motor vehicle accidents on U.S. roadways between two or more motor vehicles, or by intentional or accidental gun deaths. The benefits of implementing PTC have to be weighed against the costs, and the number of lives saved by implementing other accident prevention or reduction measures.

{edited to add this comment}

kurt topel 19 hours ago

Agreed. Under ANY reasonable cost-benefit analysis PTC is not justified, and yet the 2008 Chatsworth crash referred to above spurred Congress to pass the Rail Safety Improvement Act, which included the mandating of PTC. The 25 lost lives were a terrible loss, especially to those 25 families. However, 25 people die EVERY TWO WEEKS trespassing on rights-of-way.
The fatalities which PTC is designed to save amount to only 4% of total rail fatalities (employees and passengers). The OVERWHELMING number of rail fatalities happen to people trespassing on the right of way (72%). One cannot find how much either government or industry spends keeping people off the tracks, but it is very little. Of course, trespassers shouldn’t be on the rights-of-way, but neither should drivers and pedestrians who race the train, or stop on the tracks, or any other risky behavior at highway-rail crossings. Still, both Congress and the industry spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year making crossings safer for the remaining 16% of fatalities.
If one analyzes the effectiveness of railroad safety spending (especially at crossings) it is obvious that investment can reduce fatalities significantly. Yes, derailments are spectacular as well as tragic, but they are thankfully very rare. Let’s start focusing our attention and money where we can make a significant improvement in fatalities by targeting the installation of fencing, investing in detection technology, and subsidizing local law enforcement to prevent deaths to people on the railroad rights of way.