2008 Chatsworth train collision was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result September 23, 2008 Peer review Reviewed November 23, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on September 13, 2008. A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on September 12, 2018. Current status: Former good article nominee

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: Operations Low‑importance Trains Portal Sel week 9, 2009 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by the Operations task force. It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article. Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. California: Los Angeles Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as High-importance).

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:2008 Chatsworth train collision map.

Although I agree this collision was probably accidental, nobody knows yet whether this was, in fact, an accident. Matt Fitzpatrick ( talk) 04:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Done. – Zntrip 05:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Some articles I've read say there were a confirmed 220 passengers, + 2 workers on board. Can I change it in the article? 69.239.113.102 ( talk) 06:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

You can if you cite the source. To do that, fill this out and add it after the new information: <ref>{{cite news |author= |url= |title= date= |accessdate= |publisher=}}</ref> – Zntrip 06:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I hiked back to the collision and took quite a few photographs that are available for use in this article if someone more experienced in the ways of Wikipedia feels they're appropriate: http://midnight.caltech.edu/craig/gallery/v/craig/lapasadena/traincollision/ dcraig ( talk) 11:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Done. Dhaluza ( talk) 15:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The following message appeared at the bottom of the Emergency Alert page on the Metrolink web site the morning afte the incident. I do not know when it was first posted.

TELECONFERENCE MEETING NOTICE - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS 10:00 A.M., SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 13, 2008

An emergency meeting/closed session of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority Board of Directors by teleconference call to discuss a threat to public services and facilities will be held at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday September 13, 2008 pursuant to California Government Code Sections 54956.5 and 54957.

This notice is suggestive of a terrorist threat. Workers were already investigating the signal equipment while the rescue operation was still underway. Is it possible that there some connection between this notice and the collision the day before? I do not know if this action is unusual for Metrolink since I do not follow its board notices. I do not recall seeing anything like this in the past for MTA, which I do closely follow. Marty -- 76.173.176.162 ( talk) 16:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The Government Code sections above relate to special meetings in emergency situations and the authority to have closed meetings with law enforcement personnel Einbierbitte ( talk) 18:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Basically, they want to know what the status is of the situation in private and take action as appropriate to coordinate with law enforcement when necessary. The next day they talked about it in closed session under the heading of liability, which is probably a better section to use. Calwatch ( talk) 04:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

New York Daily News [1] and at least one cable news outlet is saying the cause was due to engineer error on the part of the commuter train; the engineer failed to stop at a red signal. -- 24.11.104.84 ( talk) 21:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The governor and mayor had a press conference a few hours ago and said the same thing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The Los Angles Times quoted Metrolink spokesperson Denise Tyrell that the engineer was "a subcontractor with Veolia Transportation and a former Amtrak employee," but the NTSB emphasized that the incident remains under investigation. - Mark Dixon ( talk) 23:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Currently the article states "the railway signal system is designed to ensure that trains wait on the double track section while a train is proceeding in the other direction on the single track." This may in fact be accurate, which is why I didn't just go ahead and change it, but I'm wondering if it might be clearer to say "...ensure that trains wait on the secondary track while a train is proceeding in the other direction on the main track." My thought here is that "the double track section" refers to both tracks, not just to the secondary track. - Mark Dixon ( talk) 23:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

You are assuming that there is a primary and secondary track, (e.g. a main and a siding) which is possible, but not necessarily true. Dhaluza ( talk) 03:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Looking at aerials, it appears to be a largely single-track line in the area. [2] says it's single-track with passing sidings, but isn't a reliable source. A Metrolink employee timetable would show this (the "type of operation" column would say 2MT if there are two main tracks). -- NE2 05:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

If you look at satellite photos from either TerraServer or Google Maps, the double track is south of the crash site maybe 1/4 mile. To the west of the crash, past the tunnels, it's double track again. It's single track through the tunnels. Einbierbitte ( talk) 17:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually it's mostly single-track in that area; the continuous double track is closer to LA. -- NE2 21:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, but if the signal system in the double track section is not bi-directional, then the tracks are directional, not subordinate. Looking at the aerial photos, the west side track is on the diverging route of both switches, which suggests it probably is a secondary track. Also both tracks appear to have signals at each end, which suggests they are reverse signalled for bi-directional running. But as the previous commenter said, the determining factor is the designation of the tracks in the operating rules. Dhaluza ( talk) 00:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, I agree that it's probably one main track with passing sidings in the crash area. It's probably two main tracks east of Van Nuys. -- NE2 01:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

What was wrong with 2008 Chatsworth train collision? The current name makes it sound like only one train crashed. – Zntrip 03:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Nothing in my opiniion, but someone added unnecessary specifity by adding a comma and "California" on the basis that there is more than one town with that name. I doubt any of them will also have a train collision in 2008, so this is not an ambiguity issue. So I have no objection to returning to "2008 Chatsworth train collision". Dhaluza ( talk) 04:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I would like to return to 2008 Chatsworth train collision too, but only an admin can do so. – Zntrip 05:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

You can tag that redirect with {{ db-move}}. -- NE2 05:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Change it to Chatsworth train crash so it's like Glendale train crash, fools. Nutmegger ( talk) 19:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

It looks like someone moved that to Glendale, California train crash, which introduces a comma in the title again. I would rather see the year used instead of the state for clarification (if it's even necessary). Dhaluza ( talk) 23:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I've moved it back to 2008 Chatsworth train collision because there is a naming style guide for this kind of a disaster (at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management), which says "It has been decided that all articles concerning individual disasters should be <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>." and we should follow such guidelines unless there's a compelling reason not to. AKRadecki ^Speaketh 00:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

OK, but since this is a made-up name, should it appear in bold in the lede? It has been going back and forth. The MoS at WP:LS says it should not. I think it looks better this way. Dhaluza ( talk) 10:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

(deindent) The following discussion took place on my talk page, but it is more properly put here, so I'm moving the relevent parts. AKRadecki ^Speaketh 16:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC) You moved Chatsworth train crash to 2008 Chatsworth train collision with the edit summary "This is the preferred method of naming per the Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management". Am I missing something? I can't find any mention of using "collision" at that project. -- NE2 00:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The name 2008 Chatsworth train collision is more accurate than Chatsworth train crash because the word "collision" implies multiple trains, not just one. The word "collision" does not need to be explicitly mentioned on the project page for it to appear in article names. – Zntrip 04:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Merriam-Webster doesn't say anything about a "crash" only involving one object: [3] Is there another dictionary you're using that distinguishes in that way, something I've never heard of before? -- NE2 04:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

First, the main object was to return it to the original format, with the year, the place, the event; the issue I had with the renaming wasn't "collision" vs "crash", it was the overall format. However, now that you mention it, collision is more specific and "precise", if you will, than crash. For instance, we have particle colliders, not particle crashers. In journalism styling, with even automobiles, it is more proper to say "traffic collision" than "traffic crash". A crash can be any thing smashing, a collision implies vehicles hitting each other. If you want a reference, I'd direct you to the Associated Press Stylebook (my copy is the 20th edition, FWIW), which says "Two objects must be in motion before they can collide; an automobile cannot collide with a utility pole, for example." Conversely, "crash" is not even addressed as an acceptable term in the stylebook. AKRadecki ^Speaketh 04:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management#Naming convention, on the other hand, does show that "crash" is an acceptable term. News reports use crash, collision, accident (possibly non-NPOV), and wreck. I don't see any reason to avoid the word "crash" here. -- NE2 06:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

With all due respect, this is most akin to a midair collision with aircraft...and you wouldn't say "midair crash". AKRadecki ^Speaketh 17:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Incidentally, this is not the first Chatsworth train accident - on 10-11 August 1887, the Great Chatsworth train wreck took place at Chatsworth, Illinois... Mark Sublette ( talk) 18:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Can anyone explain how the engineer of the passenger train could "run a red light" unless the switch connecting the siding to the main track was thrown in the direction to allow such passage. Who threw the switch? Roesser ( talk) 03:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Unless the switch points are blocked and spiked or have some type of locking mechanism, a train can usually run through the trailing points without derailing. The wheel flange creates a flangeway by bending the switch mechanism to push the switch point out of the way (a train coming in the other direction after the point is opened will derail however). The NTSB said they found this type of damage in the switch mechanism, but the news reports of this were comically distorted (some reports made it sound like they were talking about a light switch, rather than a track switch). The operating rules should specify that the engineer is responsible for observing not just the signal indication, but the switch position as well. So, assuming the NTSB statement is correct, even if the signal was displaying a permissive aspect in a clear failure, the engineer should have noticed the switch was aligned against his movement and stopped. If the signal system included cab signaling with automatic train stop, even if there was a clear failure, both trains would have lost signal indication after the Metrolink train entered the single track, and both would have had to apply the brakes, which would have at least reduced the severity of the accident. But since it sounds like that did not happen since both trains were reportedly traveling at the 40mph speed limit for the curve, it seems this line does not have that basic safety system. Dhaluza ( talk) 10:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Trains can trail through trailable switches without damage (as in low speed yard).

Trains trail through non-trailable switches probably with damage (as on main lines).

Was the switch at Chtsworth trailable or non-trailable?

Engineers cannot see the position of switches more than say 200m away ignoring curves, and since it may take 500m to stop cannot possibly stop in time if the switch position is wrong. This applies to interlocked switches and signals where train speeds are high. Expecting engineers at speed to "observe ... switch positions as well" is absurd.

Since a non-faulty green signal is inconsistant with the switch lying reverse where it was damaged by the trail through, this sounds like strong evidence that the signal was passed at red. See wrong side failure. Tabletop ( talk) 06:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I know it is a controversial subject with many feeling that the rescuers should have waited (and probably more liking the moment of silence mid-rescue) to have their moment of silence and bringing out the white sheet until after the rescue was finished, but I think it is pertinent to get recognized in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.192.141 ( talk) 19:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

source - new york times article.

"it would be like if a doctor came in to the ER dead and all the doctors stopped what they were doing" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.192.141 ( talk) 19:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

What are you talking about? – Zntrip 22:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The article mentions that one victim was a cop, that seems adequate. It's not like the cop died saving people, she was on her way home and was in the wrong place at the wrong time, like the other 23 who died. The firefighters making a 9/11 moment out of it just because she happened to be a cop really didn't make much sense, and the article doesn't need to dwell on it any further. - Mark Dixon ( talk) 20:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Death toll rose to 26 today from CNN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.93.31 ( talk) 20:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

There has not been so far any mention of safety devices that would have enforced a stop at the red signal, such as:

• Automatic Train Protection
• Train stops
• AWS and TPWS - UK systems
• European Train Control System
• Cab signalling
• Catch points
• Overlap and two signal red protection
• List of rail accidents

While it may be a violation of the rules to conduct a distracting text message with an enthusiast, the driver might have legitimately been responding to a message from the Train Controller to say look out for stone-throwers and been distracted that way, as happened in the Seven Hills railway incident. Tabletop ( talk) 00:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, it would be highly relevant to know whether the line's safety equipment was malfunctioning, or even completely absent. -- 77.222.191.80 ( talk) 10:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

At the time of the collision, none of the safety devices listed above were installed in this segment of track. Highspeed ( talk) 16:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I know this is a sad thought, but hasn't the number of injuries decreased since some of the injured have died (I believe it is two)? – Zntrip 03:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Metrolink left fliers scattered on the seats of its trains this morning for passengers (a common occurrence). This particular one addresses the 9/12 collision. I have scanned and uploaded a copy into PDF here:[ [4]]. This document could be used in the main article or referenced from it if anyone feels it is worth mentioning. Before we do that, however, I need a little help figuring out how to address the copyright issue. Essentially, this is akin to a press release but technically I'm the author as the one who scanned it. My interest is making sure that the usage is correctly described/attributed to Metrolink and that their rights are respected. Any help on this is appreciated.-- CheMechanical ( talk) 19:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

While a nice, and probably necessary communication, I don't think it really says anything encyclopedic about the event. Dhaluza ( talk) 23:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The Los Angeles Times [5] is also mentioning that he may have been distraught over the February loss of his HIV positive lover/housemate from last February. Although not even close to appropriate for a wiki article, if the story develops with evidence it could be worth mention/reference. B4Ctom1 ( talk) 23:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Sounds to me like the conspiracy theorists are already hard at work. -- Root Beers ( talk) 20:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The engineers name was Robert M. Sanchez. He was 46 at the time of his death.

• http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-engineer17-2008sep17,0,6452601.story
• http://projects.latimes.com/metrolink-crash/name/robert-m-sanchez/

-- Root Beers ( talk) 13:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Changing article from a generic Robert Sanchez to either Robert M. Sanchez or Robert Martin Sanchez. This is for two reasons, all reports from major news organizations Refer to him with the M or Martin in his name. Two, Robert Sanchez with out the middle name or initial is generic and can point to a large group of people, both dead and alive; keeping the M keeps the article specific and detail oriented. -- Root Beers ( talk) 04:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I think this should be incorporated somehow, " Freight brakeman in deadly LA train collision sues". – Zntrip 05:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Done Dhaluza ( talk) 23:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I think there be a new section to describe the safety reforms that have been implemented because of the accident. The California Public Utilities Commission emergency order to temporarily ban the use of cell phones and the Senate bill ( [6]) can be added. – Zntrip 22:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Just spotted this off Wikinews: Witnesses: Doomed train had green light. Sources listed include LA Times, KCBS and IronWood Tech. I had heard rumors to this effect, but haven't had a chance to research them yet. Slambo (Speak) 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Tests by the NTSB showed that the starting signals located 5000 feet (1524m) away are too far away to distinguish their color reliably. So a red could look like a green!? This would be a good reason to have an extra signal at the departure end of the Chatsworth platform that would be unambiguously showing Red or Yellow. These signals are approach lit, so it makes it difficult for non-railway observers to check what the signals look like. Tabletop ( talk) 12:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Presumably once the train gets close enough (what does NTSB say) the true colour of the signals become apparent. PaperBarking ( talk) 06:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC) ^[1] reply

The following link discusses the reliability of the eye to perceive distant coloured lights correctly. This would reconcile the signal showing red, and the witnesses identifying it as green. The NTSB does not appear to recommend any changes to reconcile this contradiction, which has a "Asking for Trouble" quality. ^[2] Tabletop ( talk) 02:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

A map of the turnout/switch/points is Here. The box outlining the switch is a bit low - the small white rectangle on the left hand side of the track would be the switch-machine/points-motor which changes the switch from normal (straight) to reverse (curved). The cross-hair is on the opposite side of the track to the switch-machine. Tabletop ( talk) 05:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Does anyone have a picture (or description) of the two signal(s) at the end of the double track?

Were these signals LED or incandescent?

Similarly with the previous signals on the double track be? Tabletop ( talk) 04:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I found this. – Zntrip 04:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Just at this point of time I have yet to load the right add-in to view this item. Tabletop ( talk) 05:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I also posted a photo request at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Los_Angeles#Request_for_photo_of_railroad_signal_in_Chatsworth but no help so far. I saw a posting on a railfan board that these were 3-lamp Safetran colored light signals. Dhaluza ( talk) 08:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

"3-lamp" presumably means not a "searchlight"!

LED or incandescent - as yet unanswered.

See North American railroad signals for some sample signals.

Tabletop ( talk) 11:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Flashing Red ?

There is a garbled report from one of the lawyers participating the the case that the signal that the passenger train passed was displaying a "flashing red". This sounds strange. What is going on? By and large, railroad signals do not flash red, except for level crossings which are another matter. [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabletop ( talk • contribs) 02:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Your assumption is wrong. Railroad signals can display a flashing red aspect; such a signal is called " Restricting". However, in this situation a restricting signal would not have be displayed in CTC territory when the switch ahead was lined against the train's movement. Highspeed ( talk) 16:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

So none of the signals at Chatsworth show flashing red. Tabletop ( talk) 11:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:2008 Chatsworth train collision/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be preforming the review of this article to see if it meets the good article criteria. This process may take up to seven days. if you have any questions during the review process, for example about any edits I may make, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Million_Moments ( talk) 15:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

GA On Hold

This article has been placed on hold, as a few changes and clarifications need to be made before it can pass GA: -

• {{ fact}} tags have been placed where the source of the information is not clear, or a reference needs to be placed directly after a quote.
  • I believe these have all been addressed. Dhaluza ( talk) 15:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• The railway charecteristics and location subsections would work better if intergrated into one subsection instead of two.

• In it's present form, the timeline is not particulary useful and should be intergrated as prose into the collision section. This is because the timeline mentions things not yet discussed in detail in the article which could be confusing for the reader.
  • All new material needs to introduced at some point throughout the article (by definition). Introducing it in a chronology is a perfectly valid way of organizing the material, and this is not necessarily confusing (or a more confusing way of introducing new items). I disagree that the timeline would be better integrated as prose--a timeline is a good example of where a table is useful. Timelines are also a critical element of accident reconstructions. I have moved the timeline to a sepatate section to avoid breaking the flow of the Collision section. Dhaluza ( talk) 15:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• The image of the text message does not meet WP:NFC guidelines as it does not significantly improve the readers understanding on the subject, and should thus be removed.

• The responce of the other railways section is quite long for something not overly related to the article. It should be cut down, and perhaps merged into the Positive train control section.
  • I've expanded the introductory sentence to explicitly state the relevance of this material. This section discusses alternatives to PTC, so it is does not lend itself to merging as you suggest. Dhaluza ( talk) 16:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

But my point is this article is not about alternatives to PTC, it is abput a railway crash. Million_Moments ( talk) 16:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

This article will be watched for seven days, and if no improvement is made in that time maybe failed without warning. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to leave messages and comments here which I will respond to as quickly as possible. Good luck! Million_Moments ( talk) 16:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I notice that apart from the refs no further work has been done on this article. Is there nobody actively working on it? Million_Moments ( talk) 09:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I've been busy @ work. I'll try to respond to the comments this weekend. Dhaluza ( talk) 14:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't know how I missed the changes that had been made to this article, they did not appear in my watchlist. I will go over the article very soon and re-assess it. Million_Moments ( talk) 16:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC) reply

There are still sections of my review that have not been addressed. I am not willing to pass the article with the non-free image in it, but when I removed this image it was placed back. Also the railway charecteristics and location subsections have not yet been mereged. There is also still a {{ fact}}. If there is a problem addressing these issues please leave comments here. Million_Moments ( talk) 16:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Please respond to my comments or I will have to fail the article. I will give you 48 hours since there seems to be very little movement. Million_Moments ( talk) 16:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply

GA Fail

Unfortunatly this article has failed GA due to lack of responce whilst the article has been on hold. Comments above still stand and when have been addressed the article can be renominated. If you feel this review is in error the article can be listed at WP:GAR. Thanks for all your work so far and good luck! Million_Moments ( talk) 16:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Is Chatsworth station on a crossing loop, in which case there is single line on both sides?

Or is Chatsworth station at the end of the double line? Tabletop ( talk) 00:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Can we include this accident in crossing loop#Accidents at crossing loops? Tabletop ( talk) 00:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Chatswood has a long crossing loop with an intermediate signal in each direction. Thus could also be regarded as a section of bi-directional double line. Tabletop ( talk) 02:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

December 2008

Trains magazine of December 2008 has a diagram showing the site of the accident. It is not very helpful as it shows just one red light, and not the arrangement of the several signals that would be involved. The question mentioned above of whether the starting signal has one, two or three lenses is totally unclear. Pictures in that issue of other what appear to be starting signals do seem to show signals with two and three lenses. Tabletop ( talk) 11:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply

February 2008

Trains magazine on p13 says that the red signal at the end of the double line may have been dimmer than normal.

It repeats the point that the conductor and three witnesses on the depot platform said that the signal was in fact green, a wrong side failure of some kind. The NTSB disputes this.

Tabletop ( talk) 22:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I have reinstated my edit. Will reference the map on the article talk page, but the truth of my statement was self evident. If interlocking trap points had been in place no collision would have occurred. We would be talking of a derailment.-- Wickifrank ( talk) 13:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Though there would have been a derailment through the catchpoints, and the freight train may still have collided with this wreckage albeit at slower speed. Tabletop ( talk) 22:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Has anyone else noted this LA Times article: Experts say sequence of signals may have contributed to Metrolink crash, by Robert Lopez and Rich Connell, Los Angeles Times? Summary extracts as follows:

“Several hundred yards and a few seconds before arriving at the Chatsworth station, Metrolink engineer Robert M. Sanchez passed a critical solid yellow signal that should have warned him to stop at the next light about a mile after the depot, according to federal safety investigators.

Placing the yellow light before a station, experts say, creates an opportunity for distractions for engineers -- who must bring the train to a halt, communicate with conductors and focus on passengers getting on or off. This is especially critical in places like the Chatsworth station, where the signal after the depot is near a point where the main line merges with another track.

Signal locations have been determined largely by factors such as curves, double track switches and the stopping and movement requirements of longer, heavier freight carriers that share track with Metrolink trains, according to the commuter service.

But ideally, key warning signals -- or, at the very least, reminder signs -- should be positioned right after the depot at stations such as Chatsworth, according to the experts.

So-called approach lights -- yellow warnings of a stop signal ahead -- should never be placed before stations such as Chatsworth, said Ron Kaminkow, a veteran engineer and official with Railroad Workers United, a coalition of eight rail employee unions. A 1996 head-on collision in Maryland was blamed largely on distractions caused by a station stop that a commuter train made after it passed an approach signal, records show. Federal investigators concluded that the engineer forgot about the warning, sped away from the station and then was unable to stop at a junction where an approaching Amtrak train had the right of way.

"The physical and mental tasks associated with stopping the train at [the] station provided the primary source of interference," the NTSB concluded in its investigation of the crash. These "attention-demanding tasks" included reducing the throttle, applying the brakes and positioning the train properly in the station, investigators found.

After that accident, the rail company that operated the commuter train and signal system, CSX Transportation, added reminder signs before and at the station where the crash occurred. Safety experts note that research shows human error is reduced when an uninterrupted sequence of warnings or events precedes a crucial task -- such as stopping a train at a red light to let another train pass. The normal sequence of railroad signal lights is intended to alert and remind the engineer and crew of the potential danger ahead, said USC professor Najmedin Meshkati, who studies human behavior related to safety. A station stop between signals increases chances of mistakes, he said."

Should any of this be added (yet) to the article?

Martinevans123 ( talk) 17:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The expert is quite right in saying that the Approach (yellow) signal should be located between the platform and the starting (red) signal, just in case the driver forgets. However, GoogleMap or whatever, seems to show that the track between the platform and the starting signal is dead straight (though it does not show any hills and dales) which may mean that the driver could perhaps see the red starting signal from the platform. Witnesses (at the platform) seem to say that they could indeed see the starting signal. Tabletop ( talk) 01:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

One might also add that the starting signal had no overlap, which is a safety margin. If the approach signal had been on the north side of the platform, and made into a stop signal showing red, so that two signals in a row showed red, then that would have greatly reduced the chance of an accident. Tabletop ( talk) 01:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Maybe the approach signal was installed where it is long ago and the station platform build later, without any thought given to relocation of that signal on the better side of the station?

The suggestion in the article seems to be that the first signal, before the station, was sited that far back to accommodate the longer stopping distances of the larger freight trains which also use the track. In my experience Googlemaps cannot be relied upon to show locations with a greater accuracy than 150 metres or even more. There were also questions about the comparative brightness (as well as the colour) of the second signal. Martinevans123 ( talk) 07:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

If the braking distance from the better (and shorter) position of the approach signal is now too short, then a second "preliminary approach" signal with adequate braking distance could be provided. Tabletop ( talk) 00:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

At Stroud Road, the red starting signal cannot be seen round a curve, so a repeater signal is installed at the end of the platform. Tabletop ( talk) 09:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Should provide link to article to the far more famous 1887 Chatsworth, IL train wreck that killed 85. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1887_Great_Chatsworth_train_wreck

bobroberts248 ( talk) 08:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Agree. Have added note at start of article. Martinevans123 ( talk) 12:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I added this to the article, but someone else took it out. I won't edit war. But I would like to hear other people's opinions on it being in the article or not. How does someone with a prison record get hired for such an important government job?

Sanchez had a prison record - six years prior to the crash, he had spent 90 days in jail for shoplifting. See: Feds to interview railroad brakeman and conductor in Metrolink crash, Los Angeles Daily News, September 30, 2008. Metrolink 111 engineer led solitary life marred by tragedy, Los Angeles Times, September 17, 2008</ref>

Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Regardless, I don't see how it has anything to do with the crash. If this was a bus accident and he was a bus driver that was convicted of a DUI I think that should be mentioned. But shoplifting and operating a train are two different things entirely. We haven't mentioned other things about his personal life that has nothing to do with the accident, so why should we mention his criminal record? – Zntrip 23:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I just thought that people with prison records weren't supposed to be hired for important government jobs. Grundle2600 ( talk) 15:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Both sources also say he had received a traffic citation for speeding. Perhaps that's more relevant to his job. Grundle2600 ( talk) 15:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Traffic citations for speeding have no impact on a locomotive engineer's job. DUI does; see comments below. Highspeed ( talk) 16:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree that this conviction has nothing to do with the crash. It may be an indicator for some deeper psychological issues, or not; but such a conclusion shouldn't be implied in an encyclopedic entry. In regards to your indignation that someone convicted of a misdemeanor could have been trusted with such a responsibility, I don't see the connection. The shoplifting conviction came after he had been hired by Amtrak in 1998. If an employee is convicted of a misdemeanor, their employer might not even find out, and I doubt it would automatically disqualify you. In the U.S., locomotive engineers are only required to report convictions of DUI's to their employer. When Amtrak lost the contract to operate the Metrolink system in 2005, any Amtrak employee who wanted to go to the new provider ( Connex) was automatically hired. And Connex was not going to look beyond an engineer's railroad safety record because they were short of engineers willing to stay with the new operator of the Metrolink operation. Highspeed ( talk) 16:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

OK. Thanks for explaining that. You people have convinced me that it's not relevant. Thanks. Grundle2600 ( talk) 01:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

In 2003, a US federal agency gathered hundreds of pages or research and warnings about the hazards of drivers using mobile phones, but withheld the in part because of fear of angering congress, reports said yesterday. (22 July 2009).

The former head of the National Highway Traffic Safety to the New York Times he was urged not to publish the findings to avoid antagonising members of congress, who warned the agency against lobbying states. He said transit officials had told him he could lose billions in funding if congress thought that the agency had crossed the line into lobbying.

Critics said the failure of the Transportation Department to pursue the role of driving distractions in car crashes has resulted in traffic deaths and allowed the habit of multitasking while driving to grow.

The research findings were obtained by the Centre for Auto Safety and Public Citizen through Freedom of Information. They showed that mobile phone usage by drivers in the US increased from 4 percent in 2000 to 6 percent in 2002. The research said that driver distraction contributed to 25 percent of police-reported traffic crashes.

Presumably what applies to car drivers also applies to train drivers. See The Australian newspaper, 22 July 2009, p9.

Tabletop ( talk) 03:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Can you give us a source on this??? Thanks! Highspeed ( talk) 04:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

See above. Do you want more of the quote quoted? Tabletop ( talk) 02:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Well this has been well publicized recently, see ABC, MSNBC, CBC, etc. However, the study was conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration with regards to operating automobiles, so I don't see how this is relevant to this particular article or even trains in general. – Zntrip 05:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The train driver in this accident was communicating on his mobile phone and quite easily could have been distracted from the the task of observing the signals. The newspaper article is all about getting distracted and is extremely relevant. Tabletop ( talk) 02:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

A recent airplane crash was partly caused by the pilots talking too much about non flying matters, especially while trying to land. Tabletop ( talk) 02:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I see how there is a connection, but to make an assumption based on a study conducted with automobiles would constitute original research. – Zntrip 03:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

This might be made into a list.

• Pilots overshoot airport by 240km. [8] Tabletop ( talk) 05:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply

It could be, although most accidents involving human error are caused by distraction, if not incompetence. – Zntrip 08:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply

The list would be for all forms of transport, since the number of documented examples is possibly small, and examples from one mode may lend light on examples in other modes. Tabletop ( talk) 09:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I've just nominated two of the article's three images - File:Chatsworth train collision 20080913-022716.jpg and File:Chatsworth Train Collision 20080913-022324.jpg - for deletion on Commons as copyright violations. Several images from the NTSB report may be useful as replacements. As a report by an office of the US federal government, the images inside are in the public domain. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 22:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply

I took the images you removed because of a supposed copyright violation. When I upgraded my gallery software, the CC-BY-SA license link at the bottom of the pages was inadvertently removed. I've restored the license link. You can feel free to continue using the images if you want. Note that the URL of the gallery has changed: https://www.wiggenhorn.org/gallery/v/craig/lapasadena/traincollision/. Thanks! dcraig ( talk) 22:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 Chatsworth train collision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080919150946/http://blogs.usatoday.com:80/ondeadline/2008/09/calif-temporari.html to http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/09/calif-temporari.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 Chatsworth train collision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090114214627/http://www.philly.com:80/inquirer/world_us/20080916_Crash_called_preventable.html to http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20080916_Crash_called_preventable.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 2008 Chatsworth train collision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110520022554/http://www.pe.com/ap_news/California/CA_Train_Collision_Cause_358681C.shtml to http://www.pe.com/ap_news/California/CA_Train_Collision_Cause_358681C.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110520093358/http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10499850 to http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10499850
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110520094350/http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10641133 to http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10641133
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110520093234/http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10477154 to http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10477154

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2008 Chatsworth train collision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.labusinessjournal.com/article.asp?aID=759699502.7805576.1681407.5054153.8224803.833&aID2=129330
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cbs2.com/local/Metrolink.Engineer.Deadly.2.817045.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2008 Chatsworth train collision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080919211602/http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=5819947 to http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=5819947
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080919045107/http://www.knx1070.com:80/METROLINK-ENGINEER-REPORTED-TO-BE-TEXTING-BEFORE-C/2959296 to http://www.knx1070.com/METROLINK-ENGINEER-REPORTED-TO-BE-TEXTING-BEFORE-C/2959296

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on 2008 Chatsworth train collision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917222324/http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_10459251 to http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_10459251
• Added {{ dead link}} tag to http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/15/feds-hope-conductor-can-shed-light-deadly-crash
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080922095443/http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/sep/21/talk-of-rails-future-follows-deadly-crash/ to http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/sep/21/talk-of-rails-future-follows-deadly-crash/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_10520015
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-rescue14-2008sep14%2C0%2C7989801.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.laindependent.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=1&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=4134&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1014&hn=laindependent&he=.com
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-schools16-2008sep16%2C0%2C7050274.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-train_tuesep16%2C0%2C3604846.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211122908/http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_10503991 to http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_10503991
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-traincrash13-2008sep13%2C0%2C2874450.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-traincrash14-2008sep14%2C0%2C3660884.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080916084836/http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/sep/14/Na1fcTrainCrash14/ to http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/sep/14/Na1fcTrainCrash14/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-traincrash14-2008sep14%2C0%2C3660884.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080916101218/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080913-1204-ca-traincollision.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080913-1204-ca-traincollision.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920031231/http://www.ocregister.com/articles/metrolink-tyrrell-today-2157752-facts-early to http://www.ocregister.com/articles/metrolink-tyrrell-today-2157752-facts-early
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-tyrrell16-2008sep16%2C0%2C3466670%2Cfull.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-morrison18-2008sep18%2C0%2C3736930.column
• Added {{ dead link}} tag to http://www.ktla.com/pages/content_landing_page/?Metrolink-Engineer-May-Have-Sent-Text-Me=1&blockID=56225&feedID=1198
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-crash2-2008oct02%2C0%2C4888640.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-me-arnold25-2008sep25%2C1%2C3722911.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081028210416/http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/PubAffairs/EmergencyOrder26.pdf to http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/PubAffairs/EmergencyOrder26.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C504127%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080919165519/http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/sep/16/tragedy-of-metrolink-train-111-looking-ahead-to/ to http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/sep/16/tragedy-of-metrolink-train-111-looking-ahead-to/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_10572215
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsday.com/news/local/suffolk/ny-lilirr0917b%2C0%2C3408000.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090923202205/http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/sep/13/solemn-ceremony-dedicates-simi-valley-memorial/ to http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/sep/13/solemn-ceremony-dedicates-simi-valley-memorial/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.knx1070.com/METROLINK-ENGINEER-REPORTED-TO-BE-TEXTING-BEFORE-C/2959296

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Should the reference to "lawyers" in the lede be changed to ambulance chasers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.137.184.131 ( talk) 06:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC) reply

This edit request to Chatsworth train crash has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I believe that this page should instead redirect to Chatsworth train accident, which disambiguates two similarly named train accidents. That would make this redirect consist with the redirect for Chatsworth train collision. Also, it's probably worth considering removing protection here since it's been about 13 years since this was protected, and this doesn't seem to be particularly contentious, looking at this now. Upjav ( talk) 20:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply

 Note: I have unprotected. Please update as appropriate. — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 21:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Upjav ( talk) 00:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply