LIRR to Install Inward- and Outward-Facing Cameras

The MTA announced today that they will be moving to install inward- and outward-facing cameras on 1,769 pieces of Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North equipment.  The decision came following a recommendation of the National Transportation Safety Board investigating the December 1st derailment of a Hudson Line train north of Spuyten Duyvil.  Initial findings from the incident, which is still under investigation, gave officials the impression that installing cameras in railroad cabs would be a good move on the part of the MTA.

Now, it is worth noting that cameras themselves don't actually prevent accidents, they just make finding out what happened afterwards a little easier.  Chances are, Metro-North and the LIRR aren't going to hire massive amounts of people to sit in front of computer monitors and babysit each train's operations, as that would be pretty impractical.

It is also worth noting that the Federal Railroad Administration, the main governing body for railroads in the United States, does not require that railroads install either inward- or outward-facing cameras.  The FRA does not include cameras in their "saftey devices" category, meaning that cameras both aren't mandatory to be installed in locomotives and tampering with the devices is not a decertifiable offense. 

These excepts from a May 2010 letter to Metrolink in California by the FRA give some useful information about locomotive cameras and the FRA's stance on them:

"...Section 218.53(c) defines safety devices as 'any locomotive-mounted equipment that is used either to assure that the locomotive operator is alert, not physically incapacitated, aware of and complying with the indications of a signal system or other operational control system or to record data concerning the operation of that locomotive or the train it is powering.' The definition was directed toward the prohibition on tampering with safety critical devices such as alerters, 'dead man' controls, and various cab signal systems (54 Fed. Reg. 5485 (Feb. 3,1989)). Although equipment to record data is mentioned, the equipment referred to is instrumentation that records locomotive performance data not video records of locomotive operation by a locomotive engineer. In fact, FRA did not address locomotive cameras when issuing the final rule creating subpart D...

"...The policy also provides a list of devices that are not included in the definition. Specifically excluded from the definition are, 'locomotive performance monitoring devices, unless they record data such as train speed and air brake operations.' Inward-facing locomotive video camera recorders fall into this category, as they are monitoring devices that do not provide the type of data listed. Data regarding train speed, air brake operations, and other locomotive operating systems is generated by calibrated instrumentation and recorded on a locomotive's event recorder, not via video records of the locomotive engineer. Further, video recorders are not safety critical devices that have an immediate impact on the safe operation of trains, such as the alerters and cab signal systems mentioned above, whose functions are to ensure railroad employees appropriately respond to more restrictive signal indications, are not incapacitated, and are alert to changing operating conditions.

"While not considered safety devices that have real-time effects on safe train operations with the meaning of the subpart D definition, FRA is aware that cameras can be a valuable tool in conducting post-accident investigations. As such, FRA has instituted a regulation found at 49  C.F.R. § 229. 135(e) which by its terms would apply to in-cab video cameras. That section addresses procedures for the preservation of accident data captured on event recorders and 'any other locomotive-mounted recording device or devices designed to record information concerning the functioning of a locomotive or train.' FRA considers in-cab locomotive cameras to be 'other locomotive-mounted recording devices' within the meaning of that section, which requires that railroads preserve recording device data for one year after the date of a reportable accident as defined in 49 C.F.R. part 225. In instances where a camera has been tampered with railroads retain the authority to discipline employees for violating railroad rules regardless of whether the rules have any parallel federal requirement..."

So, in the FRA's view, in-cab locomotive cameras are not necessarily saftey devices, as they can't realistically be expected to prevent accidents before they happen.  Railroads are not required to install them, and tampering with them is not criminal (though the individual railroads do have the right to discipline employees in-house).  They do note that they do make finding out what happened after the fact a little easier, considering they can visualize the conditions immediately leading up to the derailment in a level of accuracy that witnesses cannot provide.

In January, a number of lawmakers asked the FRA to consider requiring railroads to install in-cab cameras.  In the May 2010 letter above, the FRA gives the impression that they think that in-cab cameras are nice, but not necessary.  Weather the FRA's stance on this issue has changed the the two or so years since that letter was sent is yet to be seen, but, as of this writing, in-cab cameras are still optional for railroads.

The actual operation of in-cab cameras is pretty simple.  Basically there is a camera either pointed out at the right-of-way ahead (outward-facing cameras) or a camera pointed at the locomotive engineer (inward-facing).  The outward-facing cameras capture the condition of the right-of-way ahead of the train.  These are usually good for figuring out what went wrong in derailments that might have been caused by track issues, or getting to the bottom of smaller incidents like grade crossing or trespasser collisions. Inward-facing cameras observe the actions of the engineer as they operate the train.

The in-cab cameras are typically simple cameras that continuously record wherever they are pointed at.  The video is recorded and stored.  FRA regulations require that the railroads keep the video for a minimum of one year, however, they are free to keep in longer if they would like.  These are not fancy high-definition cameras, and the video recorded is not all that great of quality (which is a shame, since it'd probably be nice to have some clear HD-video of a couple grade-crossing and/or trespasser incidents for an advertising campaign--the number of those incidents on Long Island is only growing more and more, but that's a topic for another day.)

Retrofitting locomotives to include cameras is fairly easy since most locomotive cabs have enough space to add something in.  Working in a camera to a smaller M7, M8, or cab car might take a bit more maneuvering (and thus a more expensive design), but it is not impossible.

(Photo credit: Flickr User CaliforniaRailfan101 Photography)

(Photo Credit: National Transportation Safety Board)

When I went to go search Google for some images of in-cab cameras to include in this post, photos of the region's foremost railroad expert and news camera-lover, Senator Charles Schumer, littered the first page of the search results, so I had to close the tab immediately.  Refining my search results to look for photos of the cabs of Amtrak's P42 fleet, which have rectangular, white outward-facing cameras very visible in the fireman's window on most photos turned up several results.  You can see the small white cameras in both Amtrak cabs in the photo included at the right.

Also included at the right is a frame shot from an outward-facing camera on an Amtrak Northeast Regional train.  You can see the picture is not that high-definition, but the frame clearly shows the track defect which caused the May 17th Collision of two New Haven Line trains near Bridgeport.  Over the past several years, Amtrak has retrofitted nearly all of their locomotives with outward-facing cabs.

This shot from a camera on the head-end of an Amtrak locomotive was ultimately able to help investigators find the cause of the incident, but it was not able to prevent the actual incident itself from occurring.

At Monday's LIRR and Metro-North Committee meetings, the railroads will ask the MTA Board to approve a Request for Proposal procurement, which will allow the railroads to issue a RFP, solicit bids, then choose a qualified bidder based on a number of different circumstances (not a simple low-bid contract, which obligates the railroads to go with the lowest bidder).  This type of procurement takes slightly more time, but the railroads would like to be able to evaluate vendors on technical capabilities, past performance, organizational resources, experience of team members and cost.

And speaking of cost, the cost as yet to be determined.

An announcement on the MTA's website said that the bidders will provide enough cameras to "cover the newest cars in the railroads’ fleets, Metro-North’s M-8s, both railroads’ M-7s and cab cars, as well as all locomotives. This includes 843 rail car cabs for Metro-North and 926 cars for LIRR."  That listing conspicuously excludes the Metropolitans and the Cosmopolitans (the LIRR M3's and Metro-North's M3A's, M2's, M4's, and M6's).  This is still a sizable portion of the railroads fleets (especially for Metro-North), but perhaps the agency views that it won't be worth the trouble to install them on the older cars because it would be either too difficult to do so, or the Metropolitans and Cosmopolitans' days are numbered.

And speaking of numbered days, pretty much as soon as these cameras are installed, in a way, they will already be on their way to becoming obsolete.  As the railroads rush to install Positive Train Control, in-cab cameras will become essentially obsolete.  Positive Train Control will be able to proactively prevent practically all of the incidents that in-cab cameras will be able to solve.  PTC will essentially prevent incidents that involve operator error before they happen, so having a video of the engineer won't really make any difference, since there would have been no accident in the first place.

In my opinion, I think the railroads should concentrate their efforts on PTC.  I tend agree with the impressions of the above quoted FRA letter in thinking that in-cab cameras are nice but not necessary.  Hurrying along PTC and getting that implemented as soon as possible will likely be a much smarter move than installing cameras.  If they're going to take working railcars out of service, I would rather see them install PTC transponders than cameras.  "Hindsight is 20/20," and these cameras will help make looking back at events clearer, but I would rather have "foresight is 20/20" in concentrating the efforts in implementing PTC, a system that will be able to prevent most accidents before they happen.

That being said, I am not opposed to the installation of cameras.  I think this is more of a move by the MTA to show off to the [easily misled] passengers that they working to be safe[r then they currently are].  Cameras aren't the solution to the problem, most experts have agreed that PTC is.  Concentrating our efforts on PTC instead of orchestrating saftey charades for the riding public would be time better spent, but it is a good move nonetheless.