Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Delays weren't just on Rockport/Newburyport line
Because of how the MBCR schedules trains, and because they don't see fit to have some extra equipment and crews in reserve, both the 8:00 and 8:30 trains out of Reading were cancelled because the equipment for both trains was "stuck" north of Lynn.
Of course, the message sign at Melrose Highlands station was never updated to inform the customers of this cancellation (I figured it out while listening to the dispatcher's frequency on my scanner). Although the T did send out an alert time-stamped at 8:15, neither my e-mail nor my text-messaging picked it up until almost 9:00. And when I finally got the alerts, the cancellations were attributed to "residual delays".
I hate to say this but you
I hate to say this but you don't need to be so cranky. Someone died. I know they were trespassing and shouldn't have been on the tracks but your train was delayed and you were late to the city. I say count your blessings that you are still here because this poor other person isn't. I hope your day gets better. I know that being delayed isn't fun. -Mea www.hertrainstories.blogspot.com
With respect, I fully appreciate that somebody died
this morning. I also agree with you that this death is unfortunate (in spite of the fact the incident that caused that death - trespassing - was totally preventable). However, I think you missed the point of my posting.
To begin, I should remind you that my train (8:12 out of Highlands) wasn't just delayed because of this incident - it was cancelled, as was the following train (8:42 out of Highlands)as well. Had I not had other options available to me, and was forced to wait for the following train after the two that were cancelled, I would have been there until almost 10 am. That's really being "driven by customer service" - not!!
Given that the "accident" that caused the cancellations didn't even happen on the Haverhill/Reading line, this was a totally unnecessary and avoidable disruption for myself and many other passengers who were trying to get to work this morning.
The fact that MBCR management is so absorbed with minimizing costs that they can't be bothered to have ANY reserve equipment or crews on hand, or even a contingency plan in place for events like this one - after all, this isn't the first time a person has been struck by a train, is totally unacceptable for a company that is supposed to be providing a transportation service.
Lastly, there is no excuse whatsoever for the fact that the expensive "station notification" signboards that the MBTA installed for the specific purpose of keeping passengers informed of delays and cancellations wan't used for the purpose it was designed and built (with the taxpayer's money BTW)for. And, no the boards weren't broken, as the "advertisements" for the RailRadio system (another fine use of the taxpayer's money - not) and the arrival information regarding outbound trains were showing up just fine.
Pointing out obvious flaws that should not be allowed to ever occur isn't being cranky, it's stating facts that the MBTA and MBCR should address. That is, it they're truly comitted to their stated mission of improving customer service.
With respect, I really don't think you do
It's a tragic situation, and I'm rather appalled that you're leveraging it to complain about the T. There are times to just keep your comments to yourself, and this is one of them.
Accordingly, that's all I'll say on the matter.
Magic Emergencies
It is quite predictable that emergencies WILL happen that WILL close a line.
I'm with roadman here that it is NOT excusable that the MBTA seems to have no fricking clue how to manage them or deal with the backups and delays - whether they involve a fatality or just a big freaking branch on the tracks.
Sorry, but that is all part of actually managing a system. Just because SOMEONE DIED HERE or WE ARE HAVING AN EMERGENCY doesn't mean that you can't PLAN AHEAD to deal with a situation that WILL HAPPEN.
Hiding incompetence behind "respect for the dead blah blah" is far more reprehensible and disrespectful, IMHO.
When will this change?
When will train conductors be held responsible for not yielding to pedestrians? There is carnage all the time and none go to jail for it. Why can't trains be held to the same standards as motor vehicles constantly having to stop for pedestrians and cyclists also stealing the right of way? Its hundreds of thousands of pounds against a defenseless pedestrian, so the train should have to stop, just as its thousands of pounds for a motor vehicle stopping for a pedestrian or cyclist. :-)
Keep sucking that tailpipe
You might yet reach roadvana.
In the meantime, you are simply demonstrating the truth of "the more you drive, the stupider you get".
Seriously????
You had better be sarcastic....cause if not, you have to be one of the biggest morons of all time...for two reasons. The first being that Engineers drive trains, not conductors. And Second, it's criminal tresspassing to be on the rail-PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE RIGHT OF WAY ALONG TRACKS. Trains, and only trains have the right of way. There's no way in hell that a train is stopping in time if someone decides to put themselves in the path of the train.
If you are being sarcastic, your'e still an idiot, as those types of incidents are insanely traumatic to that Engineer who has to watch as they try to stop thousands of tons of steel quickly and can't, causing the end of a life. I've seen crew members on my trains in the immediate aftermath, and my heart goes out to them.
Do everyone a favor and crawl back under whatever rock you came from.
Yes, it was irony
Car hating bicycle zealots want to hold car drivers responsible for even accidents where they are at fault for violating right of way (read Mass House bill H.408, for example). I want to emphasize how absurd it is for large vehicles to always stop for cyclists breaking laws, even making drivers criminally responsible while never holding cyclists responsible.
Bringing the issue up with trains is to show the inconsistent and illogical double standards cyclists advocate. They point to SUVs as big dangerous vehicles that should yield to them, while not yet larger trains. On the other hand, cyclists don't stop at crosswalks very often to yield to pedestrians and pose a hazard to them, resulting in deaths and injuries.
I agree hitting someone is traumatic and am thankful I never have.
Ever drive a train?
I'm sure you are great at swerving the train off and onto the tracks ... um, wait ...
You just don't want to have to be responsible for learning how to drive, paying attention to your surroundings, and following basic rules.
Get this, too: most cyclists do have licenses and know how to drive. Questioning the role of cars in a city like Boston is reasonable, given that the standard answer to "we need more bike facilities" is "But Boston isn't one of those Western Cities with lots of room ...".
No, have you?
Seems road designers have never driven anything larger than a Prius and leave computer simulations to tell them how big trucks and MBTA double buses can fit on ever narrower streets.
If cyclists have licenses why doesn't breaking traffic laws result in insurance points? If I get a ticket riding a 125cc scooter, my car insurance goes up, so bicycle violations should too. Oh, no, like trains, that would again be consistent, while bicyclists consider themselves a "special case".
Yup, wide roads more than wide sidewalks would make cycling safer. The mistake made decades ago in many places was widening sidewalks when streetcars were taken out. Boston, not having been bombed in WWII missed out on the urban planning opportunities Europe had. In towns they kept centuries old traditions of feudal land use so cycling works better around compact centers.
Bill H.408 is about marked
Bill H.408 is about marked crosswalks. This is about someone trespassing. Huge difference. Additionally, right of way is defined by the law, so your statement is incorrect. The law just changes who has the right of way. Your bias is also emphasized by your belief that cars are harder to stop than bikes. This is incorrect. This is emphasized by the standards for braking where cars must be able to stop from 20 mph within 30 feet using the foot brake, while bikes must stop from 15mph within 30 feet using their brakes. Common law has always put the onus on the more maneuverable vehicle to prevent the accident which, in the case of car vs. bike, is the car.
Considering the guy was
Considering the guy was TRESPASSING, why should a train yield to him. In fact, I would argue that the train has the right of way, as it is more difficult for it to stop or alter its course (similar to USCG Navigation Rules).
(I can't believe I am actually responding to your idiotic comment.)
It Hurts the Living the Most
None of us can really know why this person tried to take on the train. Maybe he had insurmountable issues, maybe he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Whatever the case, this person can neither take responsibility nor explain the reason; he is dead.
Friends and family will suffer from this. To them I offer my condolences and wish them strength in moving on. The engineer, who will have less of a reason to know why, will probably be the one who has nightmares about this. To him I hope he understands that what he did was the only thing he could do and that if the safety of the train was never compromised during this crisis he did the right thing. This is not a car that can either stop or swerve; this is a massive, high-speed apparatus that is running along a fixed path with the notion it is clear ahead.
What baffles me is that we can land a car-sized robot on another planet yet we lack the technology to effectively barricade out trespassers from train tracks during regular, planned operation. Grade crossings and stations are manageable but there are spots in fences between stations that are compromised and ineffective. Routine maintenance on these (biweekly, monthly) could go a long way from preventing these accidents but will never completely stop them.
If someone truly wants to take his own life, he will succeed. If one mechanism is difficult enough, however, he will find another way. Make the train lines more secure, so it is no longer an option. That is the best way to deal with this going forward.
No thanks
OK, I'll bite.
Sorry, but I don't feel the need to have to put fences all along train tracks - total waste of money. Take a look at the tracks at the further reaches of the system and you'll see no fences at all. Even some stations don't have fences, while some do. That's fine with me. Yes, people will die, and I'm sorry about that. If that sounds callous, that's the sound of reality.
Really!?
WTF don't you get about the term "trespassing"? Human's have never been known to scale fences right? I watched a guy climb a 10 or 12 ft tall chain link fence so he could take a shortcut across the train tracks not too long ago on the line the Acela runs. People do stupid shit and sometimes pay the price. You suggest we spend millions to put up more fences that anyone can climb over. I suggest the T have contingency plans and clean up the mess quickly to get the non-suicidal and non-stupid on their way.