UHH....The track signal lights were functioning and red (as in stop)...although any kind of crash video is usually worth watching, even if just to say "thank god it wasn't me"....what does this have to do with any kind of electrical knowledge/experience/code?
The train that was stoped and waiting to proceed pulled too far forward on the switch track and presented a side swipe hazard to the oncoming moving train....not exactly a "head-on".....
I did see that veido before and what the curpit was the other train did not make a full stop it was creeping along and somehow the enigineer did make a miscaluaction on this one.
Merci, Marc
You can see the signal change to stop as the train approaches, probably due to the oncoming train passing its signal. You can also see someone jump from the oncoming train shortly before the collision.
Just saw the video of the collision, and have a few things to mention.
1st, the Automatic Block Signal that is protecting the distant signal (the ABS is the signal at the grade crossing - shown at the beginning of the video), appeared to indicate "Red over Yellow", which would be the correct signal aspect for that Train, if it was to enter the approaching siding.
It is allowed to pass that signal at at restricted speed (typically reduce to 30 MPH).
The ABS appears to change to "Red over Red" as the Train enters the fouling point.
Nevertheless, the Train with the Camera in it (looks like the cab of an SD 70M), was to reduce speed, ready to enter the diverging route at the next signal.
From the sounds of things, the crew was bringing the speed down - as the sounds of Air Brake Applications are heard intermittantly.
2: As the Train approaches the curve, braking was applied normally, and the Train appears to be slowing as it would typically do to enter the diverging route.
3: When the crew rounded the curve, they placed the Air Brakes into "Full Application", so to enter the turnout within prescribed speed (looks like a 30 MPH turnout).
4: As the BNSF Freight rolls past the Block signal on its side, the "Pull-In" Block signal for the Train with the Camera in it changed from "Red over Green" (a normal indication for clear to enter diverging route), to "Red over Red" (absolute stop).
The switchpoint were already aligned for the "Camera Train" to enter the siding, and all signal aspects were corresponding to that action.
It was only after the BNSF Train fouled the block limits that the entrance signal went full restricive (Red-Red).
The BNSF Train was supposed to stop clear of its block signal, but rolled past it for some reason - which will be found out by Event Recorder data analysis.
The crew of the BNSF train had it slow enough to bail out - that's why you see someone jumping off the train.
Standard procedure is to set the Air Brakes into "Emergency Application", and place the Dynamic Brake throttle to position 8, then once the Locomotives are in emergency, the crew jumps out (enjoying a face full of Ballast as they hit the ground!).
Now, the question is:
Why the BNSF train rolled through the block?
May be one of three things:
A- Braking malfunction (not enough air, trainline malfunction, automatic / independent brakes not lapping, etc.),
B- Malfunctioning Block Signal on the BNSF side:
Entrance Block signal may have indicated green (or yellow) over red, and the end of block absolute signal may had indicated yellow over red, or even a clear block aspect.
The signal facing the oncoming BNSF Train at the end of that block (end of the siding) should have been "Red-Red" ONLY!!!
The Entrance Block signal should had been Solid Yellow over Red ONLY!!!
C- The BNSF crew judged the stop incorrectly, and rolled it through the block.
The sad thing is, the crew in the Train with the camera had no idea of the fouled block until it was too late!
If they did, their Train would have been set into full emergency too, possibly stopping short of the turnout.
I hope they got out, or at least hit the floor before the collision!
It could have been much worse - a head on situation would have killed the crews of either Train, if they were unable to bail out.
At least with the low speed side-swipe, you can walk away from it!
Scott
That reminds me of a terrible crash on the old Vienna subway system.
In the late 1970s the signalling system was ancient (1924-25) and malfunctions (mainly permanent red i.e. "STOP") were nothing unusual. So, the ingenious management devised a way to circumvent that... after stopping for a defined time at the red signal, the motorman was allowed to enter the next block at 15km/h (given the extremely dim headlights of the cars built in the 1950s that was pretty hefty inside a tunnel or open cut).
After a soccer match, "fans" started to wreak havoc on one train, unscrewing the light bulbs. Supposedly the tail light was on the same series as the inside light... (those old cars had 95V incandescent bulbs wired in series to the 750V DC traction power). So, the rear of the train was dark. Before descending at the Meidling Hauptstraße stop they pulled the passenger emergency brake handle. In spite of this, the train pulled out of the station, coming to a halt on the open tracks.
The motorman of the next train waited at the red signal, then continued at 15km/h (roughly 10 mph). Suddenly he noticed the block signal ahead of him being green and accelerated to the full speed of 40km/h. However, he failed to notice the unlit train between himself and the green signal, crashing into it at full speed... luckily no one died, the second motorman only had a broken arm (pretty miraculous for such a crash).
Brake failures were pretty common back then too - the trains had only pneumatic brakes operating by cast iron pads. Those pads had to be readjusted frequently (several times per day I guess) due to abrasion and the pneumatic system was old and undersized - the cars had been built in 1954- 1961 using most of the pneumatic parts of the older 1924-1929 cars but adding a second brake system, pneumatic doors and some other systems to the old compressors.
Just bumping this back to life again!
BTW, what was the verdict? did the other Freight Train roll past the CP, or was there signal failure?
(or was this TWC territory?).
I gotta know!!!
Scott
Scott, I am in no way an expert, ..and this is just a minor observation.....
but those engines look like GE -7, 8, or 9
I don't know the physical differences enough between those three,
they just don't look like they are EMD.
both dash8 and dash 9 later models with widecab the dash 9 have winged radaitor housing while the newest one are vee format sorta wide vee arrangement the reason why they went that route due intercooler circuit.
the new generation are V-12 engine they can dish out 4400 hp but they have v-16 verison it can crank out serious amout of HP much as 6,000 hp but allready have some issue with it and have to derated it some.
Merci, Marc
Thanks Marc, I went looking for pictures and ZI see what you mean . the Dash 7 could in no way be confused with the later styles
Supposedly the tail light was on the same series as the inside light... (those old cars had 95V incandescent bulbs wired in series to the 750V DC traction power). So, the rear of the train was dark.
That sounds like a very bad design when a blown interior light can take out an important tail light. In fact the whole series wiring business for interior lighting raises issues, such as the first few lamps in the chain being at such high voltages.
London Underground (subway system) had a horrendous accident in 1975 when a train smashed into a dead-end tunnel at Moorgate station. There never was a definite conclusion drawn as to the cause:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/28/newsid_2515000/2515033.stmExtra safeguards were put into place at terminal stations though. They added standard tripcocks (used to emergency brake a train going through a red light) ahead of and part way along the platforms of dead-end lines, and had them operated by an approaching train with a time delay. The delay was set so that if the train was exceeding 10 mph it would reach the midway point before the tripcock was lowered and be stopped short of the tunnel end.
Indeed, those old cars did have a few serious design faults or rather were just plain outdated.
The original design was from 1924 and during the 1950s new cars were built reusing some old parts as well as parts of the design. Since the new cars had more lights I assume the circuit design of the cars in question dated from 1953 and still showed post-wartime shortages.
The pneumatic brake system was reused too, and that caused severe trouble in the last few years too, though I suppose that was mainly due to severe maintenance issues. Aside of that, compared to modern brake systems those old cars were scary anyway!
In general, the series wiring never caused problems and is still in use in older cars (up to 1976 new cars did not have inverters for the lights and several hundred of those are still in service, I guess around 250 motorcars and a similar number of trailers). All later cars had 24V DC battery operated tail lights though as well as interior emergency lights.
In the late 1960s the city decided to convert the old subway system to high platforms (95cm instead of 35), third rail instead of catenary, electronic signalling instead of light signals and the possibility of autopilot. During the transition period the old system deteriorated more and more, the electromechanic signalling system dated from 1925 after all and had only seen minor upgrades in 1965 when the system changed from mechanical tripcocks to magnets. Maintenance of the old cars was more or less cut until severe accidents required immediate action. Then cars were pretty much rebuilt, sometimes only months prior to being scrapped. The last of the legendary red 2-axle cars was in service in 1983.
Does anyone know about when this collision occured
(Nearest month, year at least)?
It is possible to view NTSB reports and investigation
data on-line.
Also, Trains Magazine's "Newswire" reports some collisions
and results of investigations.
Scott, I'm like you - I gotta know.
and I'm betting it's CTC territory. Maybe we should ask
Al Krug for an expert opinion? (alkrug.vcn.com/home.html)
Energy7
(At least it wasn't SP !!)
Here it is, everyone:
June 14, 2006 - at Madera, CA
on the BNSF Stockton Sub: BNSF 4059 vs. BNSF 4479
Conflicting reports regarding injuries.
If anyone finds the NTSB report,
I'd like to know, thanks.
Energy7