Texas Tragedy: Safety Standards and Equipment.

[Allen Jenkins]

O.K, you can run locomotives, or program them to run, PBS will have a feature on them one day, and the remote's are ready, long been here, and as far as I'm concerned, for the bullshit I faced to operate a Diesel-electric locomotive, for a living, (I'm a "railfan", I know more than the people who run them) and for the stuff people are put through, to make a living for their family, I couldn't care less. As Long as trains run with people, people will be hurt, however, I love to watch the technology as what's happening to locomotives today, happens to other forms of transportation next, cause loco's are bigger! Jeff Gordon Knows who is boss!acj.

[Anonymous]

The accident of which you are talking about I assume was the headon crash, in North Texas... That track was the old Frisco Main Line from Irving,Tx to Tulsa,Ok. The line from Tulsa to Sherman, Tx is CTC, from Sherman to Irving,Tx it is TWC. Dark Territory. One of the train was out of there TWC limits... They hit both traveling around 49 mph.

[UPTRAIN]

I thought the engineer of one train couldn't see the signal?

[mudchicken]

rgemd:

Your unit 5305 spent most of its chopnosed second life on the hump at Grand Junction. 5305 was many times the only first generation road unit running (other than switchers) while all the other 567 stuff was stored servicable. The Grande people at Burnham took good care of their toys, but rarely improved them. Assume your SD9 is pretty much plain stock issue (Except for the chop job and extra MU pin connections) but should be in good shape and easy to maintain.

[wallyworld]

That was a great idea to post the petition. I signed it. I hope others do as well.

[Anonymous]

I wonder how much, if any, worker fatigue contributed to this incident...

A Regulatory Solution to Railroad Worker Fatigue:
http://www.petitiononline.com/railwork/petition.html

[wallyworld]

Unfortunately, I don't have the engine number off the DRG&W unit. The Kennecott engine numbers were 901 and 902 for the Baldwin and Alco respectively. The head on occurred in the Magna Yard in Utah. It was sold to Kennecott after it's use as a demonstrator ended in 1948. Interestingly, the Baldwin, at the age of 35, it was donated to the NRHS Promotory Chapter. As of 1984, it was parked along with the rest of their equipment by the Salt Lake Airport on the SLG&W. I don't know it's current location.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rgemd

Do you happen to know the number of the SD-9. I work for a railroad that just purchased former D&RGW SD-9 5305, which was involved in a head on collision in the Pueblo, CO yard. It was the only SD-9 to recieve a chopped nose, but was definatley not scrapped. I'm not sure if this is the same unit you described above, but any other info would be appreciated

Wrong side of the mountains. Don't know the number of either locomotive, but for a new frame to come from Baldwin, it would have to have been in the late 1950's.

Cast frames are hard to make (try making a single casting the size of a locomotive!) and even Baldwin was making welded frames in the early 50's.

The EMD involved had everything bent, cracked or otherwise busted. The original SD-pretzel. Saw a picture of it many years ago.

[Anonymous]

Do you happen to know the number of the SD-9. I work for a railroad that just purchased former D&RGW SD-9 5305, which was involved in a head on collision in the Pueblo, CO yard. It was the only SD-9 to recieve a chopped nose, but was definatley not scrapped. I'm not sure if this is the same unit you described above, but any other info would be appreciated

[wallyworld]

What about the underframes? I was reading about a head on collison that occurred on a thoroughfare track in a yard between a Rio Grande SD9 and a Kennecott Baldwin which had a cast steel underframe.The end result was that the SD9 was so demolished it could not be moved on it's own wheels. The Baldwin absorbed the impact collison and broke free to roll down the embankment and came to rest pretty much intact. The frame had been cracked in half but all the internal components were fine. A new frame was ordered and all the former parts put on a new frame. I think you see where I am heading with this...are cast steel underframes still being used?

[mvlandsw]

In most collisions staying inside the vehicle is safer than bouncing around on the ground with lots of heavy metal things.

[kenneo]

In head-ons, the units are seldom repaired. Usually (but not always) this is due to the frame being twisted or damage to the frame due to a fire.

If you see pictures of the locomotives involved in such an event, they often look like they could be simply put back on the track and taken to the Roundhouse for repairs. What you don't see is that little bit of bending caused by the initial stop (the locomotive units will actually stop several times and restart again as the train jams in behind). And, as CSXengineer says above, when the train starts to pile up around the units, they can get stripped to the frame.

[M636C]

Guys,

Just a comment on the forces in an accident.

There was an accident at Beresfield, NSW several years ago, where in fog, a loaded coal train hauled by three JT42Cs (a sort of SD59, but with two cabs) hit a standing coal train hauled by three GT46Cs (basically SD60s). The moving train had 42, 100 ton cars and the standing train had 63, 100 ton cars.

The driver of the moving train had misread (in the fog during an early morning, about 3:30 AM) a yellow signal as flashing yellow, which would have indicated that he had an additional block to stop behind the train ahead.

The crash occurred next to a commuter station, fortunately empty at that time of day. The trailing unit on the moving train (132 tonnes) was found upside down at 90 degrees to the track on the roof of the passenger station building.

And the train was not moving very fast, since the driver was expecting to stop one block further ahead. None of the units was ever repaired.

Nobody was killed!

Peter

[csxengineer98]

if you look at the tonnage of the equimpment involved... even with a great front impact portection...you still have the risk of the general pileup of the equipment..... 2 trains moving at 25 mph have a head on...you have a compined impact speed of 50mph... so the 2 head ends come to a stop...but the rest of the mass of the train is moving towreds the stopping point....and you have a pileup ontop of..and around the locomoitves involved...so even if the locomotives might be able to servive the actual inpact.... the overall colamity of the cars being crushed into the power can and has striped cabs...prime movers...and evey other hunk of equipment right off the frame of the engin...... so what i am saying is.... thier are no 100% safe locomotives in a head on....
the head on cra***ests and safty improvments made to locomotives are more for train/ trailer truck and train/automobile colistions.... as well as slower speed crashes with locomotives and other trains...
but the biggest risk in a locomotive crash is.......FIRE!!!..
csx engineer

[edblysard]

Keep in mind it isnt just the locomotive thats being hit, you still have thousands of trailing tons, the second impact of all that weight does damage also.
Bailing out can be a option, it all depends on the situation, but if you ever see the collision post in the nose of a SD70, or a Dash 9, they are pretty stout, but faced with the mass and forces involved, not much can stop a moving train from pretty much destroying anything it hits, including another locomotive.

Jaime had it right, you depend on the built in failsafes in the system.
Trust me, a automoible wreck last a few seconds, but a train wreck goes on for quite a while, it takes a bit of time for everything to stop running into each other.
The fact that, rare as it is, the crew members who ride out a head on collision seem to have a higher survivor rate than those who bail out attest to the strength of the locomotives.
Bailing out is dangerous, it isnt the wreck that kills you, jumping out of anything moving 45 to 60 mph will pretty much do enough damage all by itself.

Ed

[wallyworld]

Jamie,

Thanks for the information. I thought there must be some amount of standards as well as testing, etc but I am surprised there's not more auxillary equipment.

[StillGrande]

The reports say the employee who was killed was found off the equipment, while the injured were still in the equipment during the crash. That has to say something for the safety features of the cabs.

[jchnhtfd]

There are quite explicit standards for the impact resistance at the front and rear of locomotives; there are structural members referred to as collision posts which are required to withstand a certain amount of energy under various conditions. The standards are quite rigorous, but they are upgraded from time to time. In addition, passenger cars have standards regarding resistance to damage from compression in buff, and end damage. I don't know of standards for rollovers -- which are astoundingly rare (almost all rollovers in motor vehicles are due to driver error (stupidity)). Automobiles have certain standards for side impact collisions (not sideswipes, for which there are no standards at all); so far as I know, engines and cars do not; again, side impact collisions with other trains are astoundingly rare (those involving motor vehicles are, again, 99.999% attributable to driver stupidity).

One must keep in mind that the forces and energies involved in train/train collisions are astoundingly large. To protect against such energies would require very long crush distances and -- in my humble opinion -- is probably impractical; better to depend on the fail safe characteristics of the system, and the overall very high level of skill and caring of the employees.

It is quite likely, however, that better occupant protection might be considered. The new diesel cabs are much less user-hostile than, for instance, steam engines were, but I expect improvements could be made. Still and all, in general, I'd rather have options (such as hitting the floor, heading for the engine compartment, or the good old fashioned bail out!) than be strapped in!

[wallyworld]

Are present day locomotives tested for impact damage upon collisions, roll-overs or side swiping as in the automotive industry? Does the FRA set standards for this? I know that passenger cars are, but one would think there would be for head end. And this brings a further question, Are there any safety items on board that have been studied like deployable helmets, cushioned suits, even air bags. These items are all off the top of my head, but one would think something similar would make sense.