Why was the CA accident so deadly?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Roadtrp]

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

[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]

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??

[%-)]