Dew??? That's a new one on me...

New slogan, instead of "Metro Opens Doors":

"Heat, dew, snow, sleet, leaves... all keep Metro from normal speeds."

Pathetic. Maybe with the proposed fare increase Metro can purchase some rakes. NTSB would presumably have a field day with a derailment caused by leaves.

Leaves cause derailments - it's not that freakish. Here's a local wet-leaf-related accident, just a few weeks ago:
http://www.examiner.com/a-1020472~Regulator_finds_no_fault_in_Western_Md__Scenic_RR_accident.html
So, as a daily above-ground metro commuter, I'm very pleased that metro takes precautions when there are wet leaves on the track.

Far better to be safe than sorry. Steel train wheels have no grip at all on slick stuff like wet leaves and ice.

It's a no-win situation for WMATA, just as it is for the school systems on the snow days. Take the cautious route and people complain that they're being paranoid. Take the opposite route and watch everyone go berserk if there's an accident and someone gets hurt.

How do the rails/cars react differently between dew or rain?

The people who make fun of leaves on the tracks are the same ones who speed in the rain (on leaves) and through the snow. Too bad they don't get into a one-car accident bad enough to teach them a lesson. But it'll never be their fault, it was always something else and not their unsafe driving.

Too bad they don't get into a one-car accident bad enough to teach them a lesson. But it'll never be their fault, it was always something else and not their unsafe driving.

You want other people to get into accidents to "teach them a lesson"? Nice.

I was suggesting that perhaps, like other train systems (LIRR and Metro North come to mind, and last I checked they are in the North East) they look into REMOVING the leaves from the tracks. They do have equipment that does this. But Metro would of course have to invent their own equipment to do it, which would take decades.

And Jarrod, who said anything about driving in rain or snow, and how is that related to leaves on train tracks?

I'm assuming something happened this morning to prompt this (I have never heard of slowing for leaves, but it makes sense to me. Better safe than sorry). So while yes, nocando, they could remove the leaves, I'm guessing it's not usually a big enough problem to warrent the cost of leaf removal. Arrive alive people.

And Jarrod was saying that the people who are complaining about the slow down of the trains are probably also people who speed while driving in the rain or snow (rather than being safe and slowing down)

is the metro maintenance staff completely unaware that they have tracks above ground? they always seem surprised by weather

I understand that safe is better than sorry, but in the way that Metro is designed, collisions like that on the Western Maryland Scenic Railroad aren't going to happen, especially not on the weekend when service is as infrequent as it is. The worst that slippery rails could cause is problems stopping at stations which simply requires more time and effort to stop and a bit more wheel wear depending on breaking conditions. There's no worries of trains colliding as they're never that close above ground in the system especially on the weekends. A train would have to go skidding through about four or five stations to have an accident with another. However, it shouldn't require cutting speeds in half everywhere above ground, especially when the 75 MPH-capable Metro cars are restricted to 55 MPH. In this case, Metro is being ridiculous with an overly cautious measure. Furthermore, the higher-ups are displaying their failure to think and plan as such a situation could be easily solved by proper maintenance, inspecting and clearing the rails before starting up the day's trains. Most railroads in the northeast have equipment that deals with slippery rail problems. Why Metro doesn't have or use anything with this function, I don't know. Also, however this is the first time in thirty years that Metro has had a leaf problem at a time like this, I cannot fathom. Admittingly, I can't prove my suspicion regarding Metro's leaf problem excuse, but hearing that this problem has just come up thirty years into Metro's existence strikes me as B.S.

By the way, when I used to drive, I behaved quite well in adverse weather as I had a skid-prone rear-wheel drive truck, so please don't accuse me of being in an unnecessary rush to get to places. I just believe that the people over at Metro need to keep their system in decent, working order as they're supposedly paid to do, so that the people of the D.C. Metro area can use it without as many breakdowns and speed restrictions as have happened over the last few years.

I understand that safe is better than sorry, but in the way that Metro is designed, collisions like that on the Western Maryland Scenic Railroad aren't going to happen, especially not on the weekend when service is as infrequent as it is. The worst that slippery rails could cause is problems stopping at stations which simply requires more time and effort to stop and a bit more wheel wear depending on breaking conditions. There's no worries of trains colliding as they're never that close above ground in the system especially on the weekends. A train would have to go skidding through about four or five stations to have an accident with another. However, it shouldn't require cutting speeds in half everywhere above ground, especially when the 75 MPH-capable Metro cars are restricted to 55 MPH. In this case, Metro is being ridiculous with an overly cautious measure. Furthermore, the higher-ups are displaying their failure to think and plan as such a situation could be easily solved by proper maintenance, inspecting and clearing the rails before starting up the day's trains. Most railroads in the northeast have equipment that deals with slippery rail problems. Why Metro doesn't have or use anything with this function, I don't know. Also, however this is the first time in thirty years that Metro has had a leaf problem at a time like this, I cannot fathom. Admittingly, I can't prove my suspicion regarding Metro's leaf problem excuse, but hearing that this problem has just come up thirty years into Metro's existence strikes me as B.S.

By the way, when I used to drive, I behaved quite well in adverse weather as I had a skid-prone rear-wheel drive truck, so please don't accuse me of being in an unnecessary rush to get to places. I just believe that the people over at Metro need to keep their system in decent, working order as they're supposedly paid to do, so that the people of the D.C. Metro area can use it without as many breakdowns and speed restrictions as have happened over the last few years.

give metro a break, this is the first autumn that they've had above ground tracks

"give metro a break, this is the first autumn that they've had above ground tracks"

And by "first," you mean "thirty-first," lol.

And that jogged my memory; I forgot this is the first autumn that they've had that fool Catoe and his cronies around to foul things up, mismanage priorities, and fiddle while the Metro burns. I say sweep the lot of them out and bring back Tangherlini or at least someone with an inkling of competence in successfully running a public transportation system.