Trains.com

UPRR Collision in McPherson(County) Kansas

2323 views
11 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
UPRR Collision in McPherson(County) Kansas
Posted by samfp1943 on Friday, September 26, 2014 7:53 AM

On 09/25/2014, on the UP's line between Canton and Galva Kansas.  An Eastbound and West bound pair of container trains collided. According to reports this line see about 20 trains a day.

   Apparently, one was going into a siding and the other was passing it.  Derailed were two locomotive on one train and about 15 cars, while the other train had five cars and 1 locomotive derailed. Both trains were en route from Chicago to Los Angeles/Los Angeles to Chicago.

Linke to a story with photos and a video @ http://kansasfirstnews.com/2014/09/25/2-freight-trains-collide-in-kansas-no-injuries/

NOTE: Added link to Google Map of location @ Galva, Ks.:

https://www.google.com/maps/dir//38.3844969,-97.4805319/@38.3839,-97.480838,1610m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m3!4m2!1m0!1m0?hl=en-US

 

 


 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, September 26, 2014 8:19 AM

Rear end collision.  Restricted speed means just that!

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Friday, September 26, 2014 8:35 AM

You are right, Balt:  Restricted Speed was not adhered to.   Must...restrain...myself...from going further on this.

Carl

Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)

CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,621 posts
Posted by dehusman on Friday, September 26, 2014 9:55 AM

Actually both wrong.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, September 26, 2014 10:11 AM

dehusman

Actually both wrong.

So the trailing train had a better signal indication that permitted more than restricted speed with a train immediately ahead?

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Denver / La Junta
  • 10,820 posts
Posted by mudchicken on Friday, September 26, 2014 10:13 AM

This is on the "Cotton Rock " former CRIP / SSW/ SP Golden State transcon south of Salina, KS (UP KP line)  and SW of Herrington KS where there has been considerable relocation of sidings from Galva & Canton into one location plus construction of a new Ag loop track for corn and oil loading.

(Diningcar and I know this place as where the Rock and the Santa Fe McPherson District (now gone) ran side by side)

Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,621 posts
Posted by dehusman on Friday, September 26, 2014 11:08 AM

BaltACD

dehusman

Actually both wrong.

So the trailing train had a better signal indication that permitted more than restricted speed with a train immediately ahead?


 
No trailing train.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, September 26, 2014 11:37 AM

dehusman

BaltACD

dehusman

Actually both wrong.

So the trailing train had a better signal indication that permitted more than restricted speed with a train immediately ahead?


 
No trailing train.

I think the confusion comes from people not having read a poorly-worded story carefully enough.  The story said that "Union Pacific spokesman Mark Davis says an eastbound train hit the back of a westbound train that was moving onto a side track to let the other train pass."  You will note that even an engineer who used to drive for Swift would have trouble accomplishing this as a rear-end collision, no matter what the signal indication...
I read this as the eastbound running into the last few cars of a westbound that hadn't cleared, with the 'westbound' derailed locomotive being DPU.
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, September 26, 2014 12:25 PM

Overmod

dehusman

BaltACD

dehusman

Actually both wrong.

So the trailing train had a better signal indication that permitted more than restricted speed with a train immediately ahead?


 
No trailing train.

I think the confusion comes from people not having read a poorly-worded story carefully enough.  The story said that "Union Pacific spokesman Mark Davis says an eastbound train hit the back of a westbound train that was moving onto a side track to let the other train pass."  You will note that even an engineer who used to drive for Swift would have trouble accomplishing this as a rear-end collision, no matter what the signal indication...
I read this as the eastbound running into the last few cars of a westbound that hadn't cleared, with the 'westbound' derailed locomotive being DPU.

So it was simply running a STOP signal.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    February 2012
  • 487 posts
Posted by rfpjohn on Friday, September 26, 2014 12:38 PM

Does UP employ that mind numbing "trip-optimizer"? The question always comes to mind when I hear of a signal violation. In my experience, when using this system, it is very easy to get distracted/lose focus/get sleepy.

  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Friday, September 26, 2014 3:57 PM

I had been going on the premise of a rear-end collision.

People will warn me of jumping to conclusions too soon, but if the facts are as stated, it was almost certainly a question of fatigue.  As I said in the last one, no railroader would consciously disobey one or more signals in the course of his (or her) run.  So if it wasn't done consciously, it must have been done...

It's fortunate for the crew of the train on the main that they survived.  May they become living, breathing examples of why employee fatigue needs to be addressed!

(It will be interesting to note whether the crew of the train taking siding noted any speed issues with the train on the main.) 

Carl

Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)

CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Friday, September 26, 2014 6:23 PM

CShaveRR


(It will be interesting to note whether the crew of the train taking siding noted any speed issues with the train on the main.) 

 
Smile, Wink & Grin

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy