Runaway MBTA Train

[Pace831]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/12/10/red-line-train-leaves-station-without-operator/L5NzTcDEX8dMQCQLvC7UBN/story.html

An MBTA train left a terminal with 50 passengers on board and traveled several miles before it was stopped by cutting off power to the third rail. The report says  that "the controls were tampered with", but of course doesn't give any details. The incident is still under investigation.

[Busjack]

30 minutes ago, Pace831 said:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/12/10/red-line-train-leaves-station-without-operator/L5NzTcDEX8dMQCQLvC7UBN/story.html

An MBTA train left a terminal with 50 passengers on board and traveled several miles before it was stopped by cutting off power to the third rail. The report says  that "the controls were tampered with", but of course doesn't give any details. The incident is still under investigation.

Unlike The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3, MBTA figured out to turn off the power.

On the other hand, this sounds like the Forest Park CTA wreck, except passengers were aboard in Quincy, but again that raises the question whether CTA could have shut off the power in time.

[Pace831]

57 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Unlike The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3, MBTA figured out to turn off the power.

On the other hand, this sounds like the Forest Park CTA wreck, except passengers were aboard in Quincy, but again that raises the question whether CTA could have shut off the power in time.

In the MBTA case, it sounds like the operator got off the train, saw it roll away, and called whoever shut the power off. There would have been 1-2 minutes between the train starting to move and the power shutoff. The train then coasted most of the distance before it stopped because there is very little friction between the wheels and rails. The same physics principle applies to the Forest Park accident, and  that train covered less distance on a slight downgrade, so I'd say the CTA train could still have rolled as far as it did even if the power was shut off thirty seconds after the train started moving.

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, Pace831 said:

and  that train covered less distance on a slight downgrade, so I'd say the CTA train could still have rolled as far as it did even if the power was shut off thirty seconds after the train started moving.

Except in the CTA case, they said that the train stopped at each red cab signal, and then started again on its own, and the cars took off even though the brakes were on on the back cars. Thus, while other reports also were that the Boston cars coasted, that doesn't explain why a deadman didn't slam on the brakes (unless it didn't have one).

[Pace831]

40 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Except in the CTA case, they said that the train stopped at each red cab signal, and then started again on its own, and the cars took off even though the brakes were on on the back cars. Thus, while other reports also were that the Boston cars coasted, that doesn't explain why a deadman didn't slam on the brakes (unless it didn't have one).

I said the CTA train could have covered that distance if the power was shut off. Of course it wouldn't have been able to continue after a penalty brake application with no power, but factoring that in makes it not really comparable to the Boston incident.

[MTRSP1900-CTA3200]

3 hours ago, Busjack said:

...Thus, while other reports also were that the Boston cars coasted, that doesn't explain why a deadman didn't slam on the brakes (unless it didn't have one).

The idea I heard was that the train was tampered with. The article I read (Boston Globe) said the involved type of train has a Cineston controller, which should have a form of deadman system in place, at least according to the person quoted. Maybe that was the affected system.

They're the classic Red Line fleet, so they're basically enlarged DC L cars.

[Pace831]

17 hours ago, MTRSP1900-CTA3200 said:

The idea I heard was that the train was tampered with. The article I read (Boston Globe) said the involved type of train has a Cineston controller, which should have a form of deadman system in place, at least according to the person quoted. Maybe that was the affected system.

They're the classic Red Line fleet, so they're basically enlarged DC L cars.

Now they're saying the controls were "manipulated" by the operator, who "tied a cord to the throttle and did not set at least one of the brakes before exiting the train". He was placed on administrative leave pending an investigation.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/boston-runaway-train-operator-set-brakes-source/story?id=35716733

I don't know the specifics of the train controls, and that's not something the news would describe (they can't even say "operator" instead of "conductor"). But it sounds to me like he tried a "shortcut" instead of the proper procedure: Keep the train on low power while he got off, not enough to overcome the brakes. (Not sure what advantage this has) Except he forgot to set  the brake. The cord allegedly tied to the throttle actually was used to override the deadman. Someone on here with more knowledge can probably judge the accuracy of this.

[Busjack]

40 minutes ago, Pace831 said:

they can't even say "operator" instead of "conductor"

If it is the person who is supposed to be in the cab and work the controller and the brake it is an operator. CTA got rid of conductors ~18 years ago. But since it is not run by a gasoline engine, it doesn't have a throttle (which is the air intake) either. Other sources with jumbled syntax, but referring to the Cineston, seem to support that the cord was used to defeat the deadman, so that conclusion seems correct.

[Pace831]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/12/11/operator-used-rope-didn-set-brakes/livTW6F86vVdZ04tzTE2sK/story.html

Here's an article with mostly accurate terminology. He had the Cineston lever tied down so he wouldn't have to hold it constantly. When he activated the bypass mode, the train started moving because of it.

[Busjack]

17 hours ago, Pace831 said:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/12/11/operator-used-rope-didn-set-brakes/livTW6F86vVdZ04tzTE2sK/story.html

Here's an article with mostly accurate terminology. He had the Cineston lever tied down so he wouldn't have to hold it constantly. When he activated the bypass mode, the train started moving because of it.

The picture on the top looks like a CTA 2000, which I guess is not surprising since both are Pullman cars.

What doesn't sound similar is the "signal bypass" on the front of the train. This article indicates that MBTA still uses a block signal system. Maybe it is similar to disabling the track trip, something that didn't stop the O'Hare crash (they said the trip was too close to the station).

[MTRSP1900-CTA3200]

11 hours ago, Busjack said:

The picture on the top looks like a CTA 2000, which I guess is not surprising since both are Pullman cars.

What doesn't sound similar is the "signal bypass" on the front of the train. This article indicates that MBTA still uses a block signal system. Maybe it is similar to disabling the track trip, something that didn't stop the O'Hare crash (they said the trip was too close to the station).

Another article by the Boston Globe had a little diagram that showed the setup and how the operator supposedly got the train moving. They also said the MBTA had people run out and throw down portable track trips once they discovered the train had run away.

[Pace831]

17 minutes ago, MTRSP1900-CTA3200 said:

Another article by the Boston Globe had a little diagram that showed the setup and how the operator supposedly got the train moving. They also said the MBTA had people run out and throw down portable track trips once they discovered the train had run away.

Here's the link to it. 

The Boston Globe seems pretty concerned about accuracy compared to other papers, if these articles are representative.

[MTRSP1900-CTA3200]

1 hour ago, Pace831 said:

Here's the link to it. 

The Boston Globe seems pretty concerned about accuracy compared to other papers, if these articles are representative.

Thanks! I was on my phone when I was replying, so it was a bit harder to bring up the info at that moment. And yes, I do appreciate how the Boston Globe is good with accuracy for these articles.

[chicagopcclcar]

So the operator tied the Cineston so it would always in power and lowered to the "dead man" position, he would only hold the handle to brake.  He used the coiled telephone cable from an old telephone to tie the operating handle.  How lazy could a person be?

DH 

[andrethebusman]

This is truly a frightening case. Basically, this was something that it is said streetcar men used to do on one-man cars so they could collect fares while rolling. You tied the controller handle down so that you could let go of it and the car stayed in power. In this case the motivation is probably so that the operator does not have to hold down the controller handle between stops, which on the Red Line are in some cases quite far apart. MBTA is quite a strict outfit from all I have heard, so it is hard to imagine how something like this would not have been discovered and stamped out if it is something more than one operator was doing.

Now the specifics also need some explaining. Sounds like he ran the red signal and got tripped. For some reason, the dump valve (which is an air valve in Boston) does not reset.. So he gets off to manually push it closed, but forgets he has the controller plugged and leaves it still in power, as he had tried to reset from the cab. So when he resets the dump valve, off she goes. This is the only plausible explanation.

[chicagopcclcar]

2 hours ago, andrethebusman said:

Now the specifics also need some explaining. Sounds like he ran the red signal and got tripped. For some reason, the dump valve (which is an air valve in Boston) does not reset.. So he gets off to manually push it closed, but forgets he has the controller plugged and leaves it still in power, as he had tried to reset from the cab. So when he resets the dump valve, off she goes. This is the only plausible explanation.

Several articles have said signals have been out frequently......there was no train running trips. 

[strictures]

2 hours ago, andrethebusman said:

This is truly a frightening case. Basically, this was something that it is said streetcar men used to do on one-man cars so they could collect fares while rolling. You tied the controller handle down so that you could let go of it and the car stayed in power. In this case the motivation is probably so that the operator does not have to hold down the controller handle between stops, which on the Red Line are in some cases quite far apart. MBTA is quite a strict outfit from all I have heard, so it is hard to imagine how something like this would not have been discovered and stamped out if it is something more than one operator was doing.

Now the specifics also need some explaining. Sounds like he ran the red signal and got tripped. For some reason, the dump valve (which is an air valve in Boston) does not reset.. So he gets off to manually push it closed, but forgets he has the controller plugged and leaves it still in power, as he had tried to reset from the cab. So when he resets the dump valve, off she goes. This is the only plausible explanation.

Isn't there an interlock with the door controls to prevent the train from moving if even one door is open?

[BusHunter]

27 minutes ago, strictures said:

Isn't there an interlock with the door controls to prevent the train from moving if even one door is open?

What is the emergency door procedure, here it's easy just pull a cherry, but some TA's make emergency door opening more difficult. I remember when the Pace high floor Orions were new, you had to break a glass and pull on a handle that wasn't really marked. All someone would have to do is put the train in emergency, situation solved. Why you would have people just riding to their doom is unknown? 5 minutes is a long time to just sit there. I'd be pulling on something to stop the train. It may be their train but it's my life.

[chicagopcclcar]

1 hour ago, strictures said:

Isn't there an interlock with the door controls to prevent the train from moving if even one door is open?

The TA operator did not use the side door.  He used the front door so any interlock feature didn't count.

[strictures]

14 hours ago, chicagopcclcar said:

The TA operator did not use the side door.  He used the front door so any interlock feature didn't count.

So that pinhead climbed over the chains & then walked on the anti-climbers to get to the platform?

That's way more effort than holding down the Cineston handle!

[Pace831]

4 hours ago, strictures said:

So that pinhead climbed over the chains & then walked on the anti-climbers to get to the platform?

That's way more effort than holding down the Cineston handle!

From the news pictures, those cars don't appear to have any chains. It would have been more effort to open the cab door into passenger compartment, lock it, open passenger side door, go to front of train and back, close passenger door, and unlock the cab. Plus, the device he needed to access was much closer to the front door.

[chicagopcclcar]

 

Note the lack of chains.  Photo:  S. L. Peters

[chicagopcclcar]

MTA wasted no time.....the operator was fired.  Boston Globe...WHO EXPECTED LESS?

BOSTON — Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority fired the operator of a subway train that ran away and passed through as many as four stations with no one in the cab. On Dec. 10 the MBTA Red Line train departed the Braintree station about 6:08 a.m., and failed to stop as it moved north toward Boston – blowing through Quincy Adams, Quincy Center, and Wollaston stations. MBTA workers cut power to the line’s third rail stopping it just beyond North Quincy Station. As many as 50 passengers were on the train while it was out of control.

MBTA fired the operator two days after he was put on a 30-day unpaid leave. He got off the inbound train just after 6 a.m. in Braintree to check a signal problem when the train began to move.

Investigators say it appears the operator tied a cord around the controls of the train and forgot to set emergency brakes, an allegation the operator denies, according to the Boston Globe.

The operator's attorney says he will check with the operators' union to see if the grievance process followed collective bargaining agreement, looking at the results of the investigation, the forensics of the cab, and what facts went into the firing decision.

DH