Collision question

[gabe]

Limitedclear's post regarding CSX's collision fatality raises a question I have long thought about but never got around to asking.

You often hear of head-on collisions. But, do trains ever manage to stop in time before the collision? I realize the answer to this is yes, if two trains are traveling at 5 miles per hour and see one another coming for miles away, they will be able to stop.

But, is it common that they are able to stop in time? On straight track in good weather, is stopping in time the rule rather than the exception or vice versa?

Also, when such collisions happen, is it usually the fault of the dispatcher or is the fault of many other factors?

Finally, when the crew jump off the train does it do them much good? I mean, I would think cars and what not would go flying, and they would probably not be able to run after jumping due to injury, seems as though they would have a car land on them.

I wish collisions were not a reality of railroading.

Gabe

[Randy Stahl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

Limitedclear's post regarding CSX's collision fatality raises a question I have long thought about but never got around to asking.

You often hear of head-on collisions. But, do trains ever manage to stop in time before the collision? I realize the answer to this is yes, if two trains are traveling at 5 miles per hour and see one another coming for miles away, they will be able to stop.

But, is it common that they are able to stop in time? On straight track in good weather, is stopping in time the rule rather than the exception or vice versa?

Also, when such collisions happen, is it usually the fault of the dispatcher or is the fault of many other factors?

Finally, when the crew jump off the train does it do them much good? I mean, I would think cars and what not would go flying, and they would probably not be able to run after jumping due to injury, seems as though they would have a car land on them.

I wish collisions were not a reality of railroading.

Gabe

I hit the ballast face first at 30 mph once, very unpleasant. I was pleased that nothing fell on me.
Randy

[gabe]

My goodness Randy, glad to see you are ok. I gather the front of your train was not so fortunate.

Gabe

[gabe]

The fact that it is so rare as to make quantification meaningless may be the best news I have heard all day.

Gabe

[ValleyX]

In the one head-on that I know specific details of, everyone on both crews jumped with the exception of one engineer. He was the only one killed. Without going into specifics, this is one I'm always going to believe was signal failure, although it wasn't ruled as such.

[Anonymous]

I've been lucky. The only collisions I have been involved in have been at grade crossings or trespassers. I will say this, whether you are waiting for a meet or just out on the road heading for an interlocking or other junction you are always on the lookout for the headlight of an oncoming train. Given the long stopping distances required by mainline trains by the time you see the opposing headlight of a train on your track chances of a collision are pretty high. Places where trains stop short of a collision are usually locations with low speed limits or places where restricted speed rules are in effect. Again, to reiterate what Mark said above these circumstances are quite rare.

Again take for example the recent near collision in Syracuse, NY between an Amtrak train and a CSX freight. At the time the CSX train was travelling at fairly low speed as it pulled out of Dewitt Yard. Luckily the two trains were on a long straight stretch when the crew of the CSX 105 car eastbound freight saw the oncoming headlight of the Amtrak train and placed their train in emergency. As their train slowed the crew jumped to safety. The Amtrak engineer, reportedly asleep, awakened and put his train into emergency. The trains stopped approximately 400 feet apart according to the FRA. As you can see this was everyone's VERY lucky day. The combination of luck, lower speed and the vigilance of the CSX crew saved what might have been a gruesome collision. The Amtrak Engineer was fired after it was determined he passed through 3 stop signals.

LC

[Anonymous]

LC's last statement is a big part of the ammunition to my argument why one-man crew's should not be allowed!!!!! I read about the unfortuante incident in Florida today and I ask myself the same question.....do i ride it out or do I bail off??? My answer would be... Supposedly the new widebodies have a safety cab that is supposed to detatch from the locomotive in a head-on collision and "pop" off. I'll put it this way.... I hope I never have to make that decison.

[Anonymous]

If something simple but effective could be implemented to release the cars from the locomotives with almost 100 percent certainty a planned derailment would leave the freight lagging behind or stopped, the two sets of locomotives could decelerate and be brought under control more quickly within the remaining closing distance. There would be a mess either way but this way is a miniature disaster in comparison with a cataclysmic head on collision involving hundreds of cars.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Rail Science

If something simple but effective could be implemented to release the cars from the locomotives with almost 100 percent certainty a planned derailment would leave the freight lagging behind or stopped, the two sets of locomotives could decelerate and be brought under control more quickly within the remaining closing distance. There would be a mess either way but this way is a miniature disaster in comparison with a cataclysmic head on collision involving hundreds of cars.

That would never work. You need to think about the physics. Think of the momentum of even one carload of freight. The average car these days is at least 263,000 lbs. Even if you cut the train loose from the locomotives all that will happen is the train will continue moving forward and slam into the rear of the decelerating locomotives causing a major derailment. There are a number of other reasons your idea won't work, but even if it did the above scenario would be the result...

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Rail Science

If something simple but effective could be implemented to release the cars from the locomotives with almost 100 percent certainty a planned derailment would leave the freight lagging behind or stopped, the two sets of locomotives could decelerate and be brought under control more quickly within the remaining closing distance. There would be a mess either way but this way is a miniature disaster in comparison with a cataclysmic head on collision involving hundreds of cars.

That would never work. You need to think about the physics. Think of the momentum of even one carload of freight. The average car these days is at least 263,000 lbs. Even if you cut the train loose from the locomotives all that will happen is the train will continue moving forward and slam into the rear of the decelerating locomotives causing a major derailment. There are a number of other reasons your idea won't work, but even if it did the above scenario would be the result...

LC

Chances are the train would stop faster with locomotives attached anyway, that many more brakes and more retarding force, as well as DB.

[Anonymous]

The last train collision I went to was when a Southbound UP rearended a stopped UP November,(can't remeber year, maybe 1998? South of Alton, IA .
The conductor jumped (and died of his injuries), The engineer laid on the floor and rode it out (and survived) and a driver of a UP crew pickup van had a derailed tanker car roll over his van like a rolling pin. Needless to say the van was 18" high when accident ended.

I may be wrong on this, but I believe the southbound travelling UP failed to take a siding if I remeber correctly.[xx(][V]

[kenneo]

The simplest way to have solved that problem was not available. It is called the train order. Here is the order the dispatcher would have put out ....

Engine 1234 run extra Alpha to Zulu
Take siding
Pass
Extra 9876 at Blockhead Siding.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Rail Science

If something simple but effective could be implemented to release the cars from the locomotives with almost 100 percent certainty a planned derailment would leave the freight lagging behind or stopped, the two sets of locomotives could decelerate and be brought under control more quickly within the remaining closing distance. There would be a mess either way but this way is a miniature disaster in comparison with a cataclysmic head on collision involving hundreds of cars.

That would never work. You need to think about the physics. Think of the momentum of even one carload of freight. The average car these days is at least 263,000 lbs. Even if you cut the train loose from the locomotives all that will happen is the train will continue moving forward and slam into the rear of the decelerating locomotives causing a major derailment. There are a number of other reasons your idea won't work, but even if it did the above scenario would be the result...

LC

Are you looking at the separtion from locomtives from cars as the cars still moving true to the rails? I meant to reiterate this so called planned derailment and furter it by saying something relatively inexpensive and simple could be used to derail the freight cars once uncoupled from the locomotives. All anyone has to do is focus on the wheels. Some sort of drop and slightly ramped swing under chock device stretching the track gauge could bring a fast end to even the heaviest of loads.

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n_stephenson

Supposedly the new widebodies have a safety cab that is supposed to detatch from the locomotive in a head-on collision and "pop" off.

Can someone elaborate on this? I am not too sure that is the answer, either, but curious how it would work.

[MP173]

There was a head on a few years ago in Knox, Indiana on the NS (NKP Chicago - Ft Wayne line). I dont remember when, but it was probably around 1995.

I think either 3 or 4 crew members died. It occurred around 6am, I believe and a crew fell asleep. One crew contained a student, who was operating a train.

As a result, the NS soon after began having the crews begin calling signals.

A couple of questions...how would I find the investigation results of the accident?

Does the calling of signals help? As many of you know, I listen to my scanners (plural, stratically located in the house) constantly. Even when not paying 100% attention, I seem to know where the trains are. My girlfriend is amazed that I know where NS 177 is, but cant remember the anniversary of our first date, but that is a topic for another web forum. Seriously, do you crewmen find the calling of signals help?

I am amazed at how often I hear a crew call a wrong location, then quickly come back with the corrected location. That clues me in they are approaching that dangerous state of fatigue.

Mark, are you scheduled to be at DePaul next month? Might take that seminar in.

ed

[Anonymous]

M.W,
Thank you for pointing out the UP wreck. I knew I was unclear on all of the surrounding events. I'll never forget that night. I was working on patrol shift that night. At the moment of collision I was parked talking to another deputy near a small town about 8 miles west. Not only could I hear the collision which sounded like dynanmite being detonated, a ball of fire was visible for about 3 seconds. I have about 5 rolls of photos. I should try find them, scan them, and send them to you sometime.

Something a guy never forgets[:(!]

And by the way, What does TWC and DTC stand for? I have heard the terms used but don't really know the differences. And how does one tell one type from another. Reason why I ask is I wonder which type the BNSF line between Sioux City, iA and Minnesota is.

[Anonymous]

Dbl post, sorry

[zardoz]

When the CNW went to radio-authorized track authorizations, they used DTC. There were six blocks between KO (near Lake Forest, Il) and St. Francis, WI.

The nice thing about DTC was the signs that Mark mentioned; just in case you spaced out a bit, seeing the block sign reminded you about your authority (or lack thereof). The bad thing about DTC was the lack of flexibility.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Rail Science

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Rail Science

If something simple but effective could be implemented to release the cars from the locomotives with almost 100 percent certainty a planned derailment would leave the freight lagging behind or stopped, the two sets of locomotives could decelerate and be brought under control more quickly within the remaining closing distance. There would be a mess either way but this way is a miniature disaster in comparison with a cataclysmic head on collision involving hundreds of cars.

That would never work. You need to think about the physics. Think of the momentum of even one carload of freight. The average car these days is at least 263,000 lbs. Even if you cut the train loose from the locomotives all that will happen is the train will continue moving forward and slam into the rear of the decelerating locomotives causing a major derailment. There are a number of other reasons your idea won't work, but even if it did the above scenario would be the result...

LC

Are you looking at the separtion from locomtives from cars as the cars still moving true to the rails? I meant to reiterate this so called planned derailment and furter it by saying something relatively inexpensive and simple could be used to derail the freight cars once uncoupled from the locomotives. All anyone has to do is focus on the wheels. Some sort of drop and slightly ramped swing under chock device stretching the track gauge could bring a fast end to even the heaviest of loads.

Trains don't stop on a dime, even if you could invent a device that would derail them. Your idea simply won't work. Think about the force vectors in a 10,000 ton freight train moving 50 miles per hour in a straight line. The basic physics is against you.

LC

[Anonymous]

Thanks Jim and Mark for the info.

[Anonymous]

To answer a previous question, I do indeed find calling signals to be beneficial; granted that everyone does it, but there are some who do not. I just listen to the radio for any clues I can find as to where all the other trains near me are at. I listen for defect detectors, radio chatter of crews working, signal calling, and the dispatcher calling trains or vice versa.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Rail Science

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Rail Science

If something simple but effective could be implemented to release the cars from the locomotives with almost 100 percent certainty a planned derailment would leave the freight lagging behind or stopped, the two sets of locomotives could decelerate and be brought under control more quickly within the remaining closing distance. There would be a mess either way but this way is a miniature disaster in comparison with a cataclysmic head on collision involving hundreds of cars.

That would never work. You need to think about the physics. Think of the momentum of even one carload of freight. The average car these days is at least 263,000 lbs. Even if you cut the train loose from the locomotives all that will happen is the train will continue moving forward and slam into the rear of the decelerating locomotives causing a major derailment. There are a number of other reasons your idea won't work, but even if it did the above scenario would be the result...

LC

Are you looking at the separtion from locomtives from cars as the cars still moving true to the rails? I meant to reiterate this so called planned derailment and furter it by saying something relatively inexpensive and simple could be used to derail the freight cars once uncoupled from the locomotives. All anyone has to do is focus on the wheels. Some sort of drop and slightly ramped swing under chock device stretching the track gauge could bring a fast end to even the heaviest of loads.

A MUCH simpler solution - equip trains with ECP with empty/load sensing. That will drop the avg stopping distances by more than half.

Car braking systems are designed so that when empty, the car's wheels don't slide. You get the same brake shoe force on the wheels regardless if the car is empty or loaded, so a loaded car will decelerate much less quickly than an empty for a give brake pipe reduction. If a typical empty car is 30,000# and a loaded one 150,000#, you could theoretically reduce the stopping distance 5 fold on a train that is 100% loads. If you designed for 20% adhesion, you could decelerate at 4 mph/second which would stop a train going 60 mph in 15 seconds and 725 feet!

[Anonymous]

Speaking of head on's one just happened on the CSX, here's the link

http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=12102

[mloik]

Found at the end of the article in Macguy's link...

"Included on the southbound train was a car filled with beer. Sease, the CSX spokesman, said he couldn't divulge the brand. But Pasco County deputies said it was Coors."

This seems to be a rather unusual way to end a story on this event.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mloik

Found at the end of the article in Macguy's link...

"Included on the southbound train was a car filled with beer. Sease, the CSX spokesman, said he couldn't divulge the brand. But Pasco County deputies said it was Coors."

This seems to be a rather unusual way to end a story on this event.

Well since it was Coors, they could treat it as a water spill instead of a beer spill requiring truckloads of pretzels

[jeffhergert]

Regarding the Carnes, Iowa collision.
What we were told was that the train had two warrants, both of which were box 4, work between. At the time, in dark territory the track warrant using a box 2 proceed from/to in one direction also had to have the box relieving the train of flag protection if that was desired. From what I understand, at the time you could in dark territory have two warrants in the same direction for two trains as long as the first one wasn't instructed to not provide flag protection. Since then the rules have been changed. No longer can this be done. In dark territory warrants for one direction can no longer overlap. If a second train in the same direction is to be run, the first train must have it's limits changed, freeing up track behind it before the second one can receive it's warrant.
A practice had developed to just use a box 4 (work between that also relieved the need for flagging) for thru movements in one direction, when no other opposing moves were expected. Using that, they still only had authority up to the siding switches at either end, not the main track between the switches where the one train was tied down. With the box 4 you don't get the clear main track box. The crew spaced off on this and thought they had the main track. Didn't realize there was a train there until too late.
The safety alerts said from now on said box 4 should only be used when there is an actual need to move in either direction between points. They didn't say this was dispatcher error because the use of warrants in this manner were legal. Just could be confusing and easier to overlook.
I don't know if I still have the alerts they handed out. I usually try to save things like that, but don't know if I did. It seems like I've heard Mark's version before elsewhere. I'm sure the change in use of box 4 on warrants was because of this collision. I can't think of any other situation that would fit. It wouldn't surprise me if there weren't a couple of "official" versions floating around.
The conductor that was killed was not only new, he was also working on a new territory. He was from my seniority district, a couple of classes behind me. He was one of those who were set up as a conductor and then almost in the same phone call, furloughed. I didn't know him. I'm not even sure if he actually worked his home district other than as a student. He had borrowed out to this other district to keep working.
Jeff

[jeffhergert]

On page 58 in the book, The Miwaukee Road in Color, Vol 4: Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota & the Dakotas, there is a picture of an almost head on collision. It shows a GP-40 heading towards a train with F units. The caption says they got stopped. Unfortunately it doesn't give details of why two trains were trying to occupy one track.
Jeff

[kolechovski]

If you have collision pics, share them with all of us...I certainly wanna see....please, please,please!