Metrolink peer review report - Ventura County Star

More documents

Recommendations

Info

METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL SAFETY PEER REVIEW PANEL Final Report – January 5, 2009 Issue Papers • Deterrence. The mere presence of a camera in the cab discourages willful rule violations. This effect would be short-lived unless engineers continue to expect consequences when violations occur, which means someone would need to review a sample of the recorded trips and act on issues that are seen. While potentially a very effective deterrent, this application also risks creating a “gotcha” culture that might undermine trust between contractor employees and SCRRA. A great deal of research exists showing that mistrust and resentment reduce organizational and safety performance. The following is a discussion of the relationship of video surveillance and Efficiency Testing and what factors should be considered in the implementation of this technology. Efficiency Testing. Some would say that the above application for deterrence is a viable form of efficiency-testing. The Panel disagrees on the basis that efficiency testing should be more than a retrospective data-collection and discipline process: To be effective at improving safety, Efficiency Testing should be used as a real-time coaching tool aimed at reinforcing desired practices and increasing competence. We are not recommending substituting video cameras for Efficiency Testing. Implementation Considerations: Depending on the specific goal of using the video technology, there are a number of questions that need to be answered, including, but not limited to: • How will individuals’ rights to privacy be protected? • How will co-management issues be avoided? • Who will review the video? When and where will this occur? • What will the monitor be looking for and how will they recognize it? • What will be done with the information gathered? • What will be communicated to employees? What steps will be taken to prevent negative impacts on the organizational culture? • Will the FRA consider the video-equipment safety apparatus that must be operable at all times while the locomotive is in operation? • What will be done to prevent vandalism? 50
METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL SAFETY PEER REVIEW PANEL Final Report – January 5, 2009 Issue Papers b. Automatic Train Stop (ATS) and Positive Train Control (PTC) Technologies to Prevent Collisions Observations Shortly after the tragic incident at Chatsworth on September 12, 2008, the SCRRA Board received a proposal to install an ATS system throughout the Metrolink territory. The Panel examined SCRRA’s interest in installing ATS in key areas of its Metrolink system in advance of installing PTC, which is a more advanced technology. The Panel did not look at locations where ATS and PTC should be installed, only the issue of whether or not ATS should be installed as a temporary measure while the PTC technology is being pursued. Congress has mandated implementation of PTC by 2015 in the recently signed Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008; large amounts of funding have been authorized as part of this legislation, and significant appropriations are likely to be made. The goal for implementation, however, is 2012. PTC has long been in a state of becoming rather than being. This has been due to the varied operational requirements of shared use corridors and trackage combined with the poor interoperability of the various railroad systems. However, the current outlook for PTC technology development and deployment has never been better. Recommendations The Panel recommends that: a. SCRRA accelerate the implementation of PTC over the entire Metrolink System and work with BNSF, UPRR, Amtrak, and FRA on cost-effective design and deployment. i. The implementation of ATS should not be a priority over or take resources away from the implementation of a PTC system. Background The Panel recommends that SCRRA accelerate the implementation of PTC . The Panel also recommends that SCRRA review its procurement regulations to allow SCRRA to enter into a partnership with either UP or BNSF or both for the design, acquisition, and implementation of PTC and replacement of the dispatching system for the Los Angeles region. In addition, the procurement process should be reviewed to allow for the procurement of specialized technology, such as PTC, as the need arises. The Panel can not make a statement that ATS will not enhance the safety of Metrolink train operations. Under certain circumstances and conditions, ATS can potentially prevent an accident or reduce the impact of the accident. Because those circumstances and conditions are limited, the installation of ATS should not be seen as a remedy for all circumstances that may result in a collision. The Panel does agree that SCRRA’s plan to limit the expansion of ATS to those areas of the infrastructure that have the greatest potential of reducing risk has merit, provided that the resources necessary to implement ATS do not impede the implementation of PTC on the SCRRA right-of-way. The Panel does believe that PTC will have a much greater impact on preventing accidents or reducing their severity and therefore recommends that SCRRA pursue an accelerated program for the system-wide implementation of PTC by the end of 2012. Most collisions of two trains occur when one or both trains violate the basic principle of safe operation – only one train is permitted to occupy a section of track at a time; deliberate coupling at slow speed is an exception. 51
Page 1 and 2:
METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL SAFETY PEER
Page 3 and 4: METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL SAFETY PEER
Page 53: METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL SAFETY PEER
Page 85: METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL SAFETY PEER
show all

Metrolink peer review report - Ventura County Star

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?