Why was the CA accident so deadly?

[Roadtrp]

I thought that collisions between trains and automobiles were usually similar to an automobile running into a dog.

The train might be dented, but would suffer no real damage. The automobile would be smashed to smithereens. Why was this accident so different??

[%-)]

[Anonymous]

My guess is that it has to do with the fact that the train that hit the SUV was derailed, which did relatively little damage, then was struck by another Metrolink. A train hitting another train obviously is MUCH worse than just hitting a car...

[Roadtrp]

Thanks for a very logical and reasonable explanation.
I hadn't thought of that.

[Anonymous]

The train was travelling in a "pusher" configuration in that the locomotive was behind the train pushing it, rather than being in the lead pulling it. In this arrangement, the engineer sits in the "Cab Car" which is on the opposite end of the train from the locomotive. This car has been designed so that the locomotive can be remotely controlled from the cab car by the engineer. Since the weight of the locomotive was so much greater than the weight of the cars ahead of it, the cars were basically sandwiched between two locomotives after the lead car (cab car) became derailed. I believe this is the primary factor contributing to the seriousness of the accident.

[TurboOne]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Roadtrp

I thought that collisions between trains and automobiles were usually similar to an automobile running into a dog.

The train might be dented, but would suffer no real damage. The automobile would be smashed to smithereens. Why was this accident so different??
[%-)]

It might have been a different result, but the engine was pushing not pulling the train, so the passenger cars hit the vehicle, not the engine. A second train then hit the train, that is where a lot of the damage occured.

Tim

[ericsp]

If I seem aggravated, it is because I am. Frankly, it is premature to speculate on why the wreck happened in the manner in which it did. No one here knows all of the facts. No one here can say with any type of certainty of authority that the locomotive pushing, instead of pull, lead to any more or less casualities than if it was pulling the train. Wait until you know the facts before you say what happened.

[ericsp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TurboOne

QUOTE: Originally posted by Roadtrp

I thought that collisions between trains and automobiles were usually similar to an automobile running into a dog.

The train might be dented, but would suffer no real damage. The automobile would be smashed to smithereens. Why was this accident so different??
[%-)]

It might have been a different result, but the engine was pushing not pulling the train, so the passenger cars hit the vehicle, not the engine. A second train then hit the train, that is where a lot of the damage occured.

Tim

The same result may have occured even if the locomotive was pulling. If part of the Jeep had gotten wedged underneath the locomotive, the derailment would have been much the same as the way it did happen.

[Anonymous]

I won't speculate as the cause of the specific recent accident, but I do want to share a few general ideas. I have seen video of several real and staged train/car and train/truck collisions. In all these cases, the train was headed by a freight locomotive, and no real damage came to the train, in spite of the crushing and crinching of the cars and trucks. Obviously the weight of the locomotive helps to keep it in place on the rails. compared to a lightweight railcar. Something I just learned last week watching a video on the construction of a modern locomotive.... Passenger locos are made much lighter than freight locos. The main steel plate on which the loco is built, may be only a bit more than an inch thick and use thinner side frames if it is to be a passenger loco. A similar length loco for freaight will be built on a plate almost 4 inches thick, and have much more massive side frames. Total weight can double on the freight loco! One can easily conclude that running all passenger trains loco first would be a good idea, and that heavier 'freight weight' locos would more likely stay on the tracks in a collision

Jennifer

[ericsp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jennifer RR

I won't speculate as the cause of the specific recent accident, but I do want to share a few general ideas. I have seen video of several real and staged train/car and train/truck collisions. In all these cases, the train was headed by a freight locomotive, and no real damage came to the train, in spite of the crushing and crinching of the cars and trucks. Obviously the weight of the locomotive helps to keep it in place on the rails. compared to a lightweight railcar. Something I just learned last week watching a video on the construction of a modern locomotive.... Passenger locos are made much lighter than freight locos. The main steel plate on which the loco is built, may be only a bit more than an inch thick and use thinner side frames if it is to be a passenger loco. A similar length loco for freaight will be built on a plate almost 4 inches thick, and have much more massive side frames. Total weight can double on the freight loco! One can easily conclude that running all passenger trains loco first would be a good idea, and that heavier 'freight weight' locos would more likely stay on the tracks in a collision

Jennifer

No two wrecks are the same. Just because the video showed that the locomotive stayed on the tracks on that accident does not mean that if the train was being pushed it would have derailed nor does it mean that if the Metrolink train was being pulled it would have not derailed. You can put an SD90MAC, DD40, or F59PHI on the lead, if the object the train hits gets wedged underneath the locomotive it will derail. I have seen the aftermath of an Amtrak San Joaquin hitting a vehicle while in push mode. Guess what, it did not derail.

[Virginian]

Well, this is just my opinion, but first the train was going relatively fast, and then the train did not "just" derail, after it began to derail and the cars accordioned/jacknifed, it then collided with the parked ballast train (knocked that heavy freight engine right off the tracks), and as the cars accordioned/jacknifed, also hit another Metrolink train going the other way. I would speculate that if it had derailed in open country, damage would have been significantly less. Hitting that freight produced some hellacious forces that probably/possibly would not have been encountered had the train been able to slide to a stop.

[M636C]

There have been two very similar accidents in England, one late last year that was a successful suicide (killing many other innocent passengers).

In those two incidents, a train (one in push mode, one loco leading) hit a motor vehicle, derailed, but remained in line until the derailed axle hit a switch, deflecting the train in the direction of the switch.

In the Glendale accident, the switch deflected the cab car into the ballast train, standing with its hand brakes applied. This was a close approximation to an immovable object, although the sideways impact rolled the SD70M onto its side.

The really bad luck was that the opposing train was opposite at the time of impact with the ballast train, derailing the trailing car and the second car which hit the signal bridge.

It would be hard to arrange an accident with two trains to cause this much damage. It is a true example of "Murphy's Law" something going wrong at the worst possible time.

Peter

[davekelly]

It will be interesting to see the results of the investigation (I am assuming there will be). If it turns out that having the locomotive in push mode was a major factor I think we'll see some changes throughout the industry. I've always wondered about the safety aspect of the push-pull concept. When I was a kid I loved to race my trains around the circle of track I had - engine first, or engine pushing. Yes, I know our models don't exhibit the physics of real trains, but the derailments of my old Lionel stuff always seemed worse in push mode. Besides - Engine first always looks more cool.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jdavid93225

The train was travelling in a "pusher" configuration in that the locomotive was behind the train pushing it, rather than being in the lead pulling it. In this arrangement, the engineer sits in the "Cab Car" which is on the opposite end of the train from the locomotive. This car has been designed so that the locomotive can be remotely controlled from the cab car by the engineer. Since the weight of the locomotive was so much greater than the weight of the cars ahead of it, the cars were basically sandwiched between two locomotives after the lead car (cab car) became derailed. I believe this is the primary factor contributing to the seriousness of the accident.

I am in total agreement with this, though some experts will argue that pusher mode had nothing to do with it. The cab car does not offer the same protection as the locomotive would. Without any kind of pilot or plow on the front, debris from the automobile was easily swept under the truck. Some people say that this, combined with the fact that the train struck a switch, is what derailed the train.

I am of the opinion that the cab car was on the ground well in advance of the switch, as a direct result of the debris. Once on the ground, all bets are off, and the train is at the mercy of friction. I'm not sure that the mass of the engine at the rear of the train increased the severity. It may have actually helped slightly, by continuing to provide some amount of brakeing. The sandwich effect is not as great a factor as the loss of protection without the engine in the lead.

Had the engine been on the front, it is possible that the fatalities would have been limited to 2 or 3, most likely crew, and passenger injuries may have been reduced by 50%. The second commuter train might not even have been involved.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Roadtrp

I thought that collisions between trains and automobiles were usually similar to an automobile running into a dog.

The train might be dented, but would suffer no real damage. The automobile would be smashed to smithereens. Why was this accident so different??

[%-)]

This FRA # 20 order information is from Trainorders, but it shows the FRA has investigated the push pull mode in light of accidents, and no conclusion has been determined. It is interesting to note the leading cars weight much less than a diesel and it would stand to reason they might derail or ride up over the object easier in comparison to a much heavier diesel.
We will wait for the FRA report in about six months.

I know that this has been mentioned here before but here a few points of interest contained in the FRA Emergency Order 20....

There is no evidence that push/pull or EMU operations are in any way over represented in passenger train accidents. All rail passenger operations, like other forms of transportation, involve some risk of injury due to collision with other vehicles or fixed structures. In certain accident scenarios (e.g. , where the passenger consist in question is impacted from the rear), push-pull operations with the cab car forward actually offer greater protection. However, in collisions involving the front of the passenger train, cab car forward and MU operations do present an increased risk of severe personal injury or death when compared with locomotive-hauled service. This risk is of particular concern where operations are conducted at relatively higher speeds, where there is a mix of various types of trains, and where there are numerous highway-rail crossings over which large motor vehicles are operated.

Highway-rail crossings . Cab-forward and MU operations pose a somewhat heightened risk of severe injury for passengers should an accident occur, in comparison to locomotive-hauled passenger coaches. Operators should give consideration to closer interface with private crossing holders that use the crossings for truck access, give greater attention to liaison with law enforcement authorities, and explore other means that may reduce risk at both public and private crossings. Accelerated application of locomotive alerting lights (already authorized by regulation and required by statute) may offer another opportunity for risk reduction. This order requires that each railroad's interim safety plan address these grade crossing issues in the context of cab-forward and MU operations. FRA is very concerned about the safety of such operations in absence of a plan to address grade crossing hazards.

[n2mopac]

We can cry "don't speculate" all we want, but the laws of physics cannot be changed. If the heavier locomotive is in the rear of a train when it hits an object the momentum of that heavy locomotive WILL put much greater stresses on the cars and their trucks that it is pushing causing a greater probability that they will "jack knife" and "accordian." With the locomotive in the lead it is certainly less likely to derail than a lighter cab car is and the following cars have a lesser total inertial to overcome in the rapid hault of a crash. The pushing locomotive was NOT the cause of this crash and the train certainly could have derailed and accordianed with a leading locomotive, but a trailing or pushin locomitive makes this outcome more likely in the event of a crash.

Ron

[Anonymous]

the engien block from the jeep got caught under the wheel which lifted and derailed the train... even in pull mode this would have derailed the train because iof the type of SUV it was... JEEP's are known for having a bullet proof engien... so a stronger more dense engien would have derailed any train with the engien under the wheel of the train.

oh yeah... the brakes were never applied even after hitting the jeep because the engineer died possibly on impact with the jeep

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by brclem

the engien block from the jeep got caught under the wheel which lifted and derailed the train... even in pull mode this would have derailed the train because iof the type of SUV it was... JEEP's are known for having a bullet proof engien... so a stronger more dense engien would have derailed any train with the engien under the wheel of the train.

oh yeah... the brakes were never applied even after hitting the jeep because the engineer died possibly on impact with the jeep

Actually a locomotive usually has better pilot / plow protection, which may have kept the engine block from the Jeep from ever reaching the wheels of the train.

Where did you hear that the brakes were never applied?

[METRO]

The Bombardier Bi-Level coaches and CCUs used on Metrolink are a copy of a design originally developed for GO Transit in Toronto, as such they are designed for colder weather operations and, in Toronto, have plows. These however were not opted for use by Metrolink as LA really doesn't get all that much snow.

Also because of their efficent design, the trucks on Bi-Levels are very close to the ends of the cars. The lack of a plow and the adjoining reinforcement on the front of the CCU leaves the truck rather exposed when running in push mode.

Take a look at this picture here:
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/misc-m/metl-c628abr.jpg
as you can see the the front pilot is not that large, and angles up at the corners rather dramatically, not offering the truck much protection.

If a Jeep's engine block were to be thrown at a locomotive in pull mode however, the result probably would have been very different. Modern commuter locomotives are designed to absorb the impact of a road vehicle with as little destruction to the train as possible. The F40s, F59s and F59PHIs used by Metrolink follow a standard GM design for dealing with crashes. They have strong pilots with large plows, their wheels are protected by skirting on the front sides, and their noses, which are made out of carbon fiber or steel, are slightly pointed to channel the force of a crash off to the sides and away from the main body of the locomotive. Most passenger locomotives have had features such as these since the GG1 and it's famous "battering ram" nose design.

See this Metrolink F59PHI:
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/misc-m/metl875adt.jpg
Note the features listed above, that coupled with the massive weight of the unit would have probably kept the inital train on the tracks.

~METRO

[jsoderq]

First this is a mopdel railroad forum and this terrible tragedy has nothing to do with model railroading. Secondly, you are all posting speculation when you have no knowledge of the facts. Please refrain from this practice.

[METRO]

I'd actually argue that this does have something to do with model railroading, as my understanding of commuter equipment I've learned to build my layout has helped me to better understand the accident.

Also, we are all railfans and humans, people have died and it is natural to want to know how it happened and why. So while what we write may be conjecture, it is informed theory based upon what we have learned from our hobby. We may not be federal transportation investigators but between all of us we do have a good working knowledge of trains and how they are designed.

~Metro

[Anonymous]

my end is not speculation.... I live in the Greater Los Angeles area and have watched all of the media coverage... so I know what I am talking about.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jsoderq

First this is a mopdel railroad forum and this terrible tragedy has nothing to do with model railroading.

There was an article in my newspaper about one of the people who died. He was a model railroader. Therefore, this does have to do with us...

[retsignalmtr]

i do believe that the push
-pull setup there contributed to the severity of the accident and had the locomotive been leading it wouldn't have been so severe. i wonder if the perpetraitor of this crime might use this as a defense argument in his trial and could possibly get off or get a reduced charge of just abandoning a vehicle out of it. lawyers will try anything including blaming the victim.

[davekelly]

Please don't blame lawyers. If lawyers do not "try anything" for their clients they are liable to be sued for legal malpractice. Bottom line, if a lawyer does "try anything including blaming the victim", and the defendant in this case "gets off" then blame it on the jury. You know the thing that people brag about getting out of.

[Anonymous]

the preliminary case is set to be hear in a couple weeks... Mr. Alvarex's lawyer is asking for a psyciatric evaluation be done before he is formally charged in the hearing.

[Anonymous]

I disagree. The footage of the accident I saw showed that an F59 was on the lead end, not a cab car.

[Anonymous]

you may have just seen the nothbound Metrolink... the southbound one is the one that was in push mode and where the cab-car struck the jeep

[Anonymous]

I beleive that if the loco was in the pull mode, the severity of the accident would have been much less. I saw a few pictures in the paper and it showed the markings that the rescuers painted on the side of the cars. It showed that a good portion of the fatalities were from the lead car that hit jeep. There was alot of force moving there to knock over the UP loco. I think in 6 months we will see the results of the investigation.

Bob

[TurboOne]

While we all should stay civil during any discussion, we all are speculating. Logic does suggest, like many have said, that a heavy engine might have made a difference. For those that disagree that is fine, just remember we all are train fans. We don't want anything to happen to our railroads, nor th the real ones. Here in CA all the news has been the train wreck, so we have a lot of knowledge of what has been reported. For the first two days, I saw Train wreck and a little Iraq on the news. Hours of coverage, interviews, speculation from "experts". These experts that I have seen, have said they believe a engine would have faired better. Most won't define better.

Anyways like Brian said we have seen much local coverage, and have quite a bit of infomation. We are sharing that, and , of course our opinion.

Stay cool all, and have a geat day [8D] [8D] [8D] [8D] [8D] [8D]

Tim [8D] [:)]

[Anonymous]

In the Chicago area (I think Northwestern Indiana) several years ago, a semi-truck carrying loads of steel coils (read - really heavy and dense) went around the gates, and the commuter train cab-car struck the trailer. One of the steel rolls essentially rolled through the car, killing the engineer and several passengers...

My point - besides the fact that a loco is heavier, and better "armored", is that if the coil had hit the loco, there would have been more dense "stuff" (turbine, frame, etc.) to slow and/or stop the steel coil. There are also no passengers in the loco - fewer people in harm's way.

Also - at least in Chicago - there is logic behind cab-first and engine-first running. The commuter trains are run loco facing away from Chicago. That way, when they come into the stub-end siding in Chicago Union Station, the loco (producing all the exhaust and smoke ) is farthest away from the staion - for better air quality in the station and on the platforms (and it STILL gets pretty bad in there sometimes).

Not speculating on what happened in CA, Just adding some opinions from someone with a mech eng degree.

Rob