WASHINGTON, July 1, 2009

Signal Failure Cited in D.C. Train Crash

NTSB: Problems Began After Equipment Was Replaced 5 Days Before Deadly Metro Crash

  • Washington Transit Police work the site in Washington, June 24, 2009, where two metro trains collided on June 22.

    Washington Transit Police work the site in Washington, June 24, 2009, where two metro trains collided on June 22.  (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

  • Photo Essay D.C. Train Derailment

    A Metro transit train smashes into the rear of another at the height of rush hour.

(AP)  Investigators say equipment that is supposed to detect stopped trains in Washington, D.C., failed periodically in the days leading up to a deadly Metro transit train crash.

Nine people were killed and more than 70 injured June 22 when a train slammed into another train stopped on the tracks near the Maryland state line.

The National Transportation Safety Board said Wednesday that the signal system problems began occurring after a piece of equipment was replaced June 17, five days before the crash. The NTSB says the signaling system at the crash site also failed intermittently during tests after the crash.

Metro did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment.




© MMIX, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment
by dwright1now July 1, 2009 5:42 PM EDT
If there was problems with the line than who ever signed off to let those trains runs needs to be charged with manslaughter and thrown to the wolves. Probably a left over from the FEMA officials who were let go during Bush.
Reply to this comment
by bobnjersey July 1, 2009 5:31 PM EDT
[The National Transportation Safety Board said Wednesday that the signal system problems began occurring after a piece of equipment was replaced June 17, five days before the crash. The NTSB says the signaling system at the crash site also failed intermittently during tests after the crash. ]

ahh ... if the problems occurred 'after' the equip was replaced ... then the process of replacing it was a failure.

normally ... in the real world ... you replace something because 'it' is the problem ... and the replacing of it resolves the problem ... not introduces it.

those who signed off on this better start looking for the justification for doing this ... and they better hope they have the test procedure and documentation handy for this particular change ... cause they got some explain'n to do.
Reply to this comment
by darthcheney345 July 1, 2009 5:03 PM EDT
Those intermittent problems are the worst.

Somebody is going to get thrown to the wolves for this.
Reply to this comment
  • MOST POPULAR
Discussed
  1. Kennedy: Bishop Barred Me From Communion

    (337 recent comments)

Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Connect with CBS News

Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: