dehusman Paul of Covington It has been said that this area was CTC controlled. I was wondering: even with CTC, aren't there also track circuits that would prevent conflicting signals? If the signal system is functioning properly, correct. The CTC machine prevents the dispatcher from establishing a conflicting route and the ABS system in the field sets signals coverning entrance to a block to stop when a block is occupied and sets opposing intermediates to restricting/stop and proceed. If so, and if an engineer was given clearance and sees a red signal, wouldn't he double check with dispatcher? Kinda backwards, if an engineer sees a red signal, he would have to get a clearance from the dispatcher to pass it. In CTC the signal is the train's authority to proceed. If the train encounters a stop signal then they would have to stop and get verbal permission from the train dispatcher to pass the signal displaying stop.
Paul of Covington It has been said that this area was CTC controlled. I was wondering: even with CTC, aren't there also track circuits that would prevent conflicting signals?
It has been said that this area was CTC controlled. I was wondering: even with CTC, aren't there also track circuits that would prevent conflicting signals?
If the signal system is functioning properly, correct. The CTC machine prevents the dispatcher from establishing a conflicting route and the ABS system in the field sets signals coverning entrance to a block to stop when a block is occupied and sets opposing intermediates to restricting/stop and proceed.
If so, and if an engineer was given clearance and sees a red signal, wouldn't he double check with dispatcher?
Kinda backwards, if an engineer sees a red signal, he would have to get a clearance from the dispatcher to pass it.
In CTC the signal is the train's authority to proceed. If the train encounters a stop signal then they would have to stop and get verbal permission from the train dispatcher to pass the signal displaying stop.
Great answers. All the safety is in the field in CTC territory (just like the old manual interlocking machines). The dispatch can do nothing to set up a conflicting route or change signals that would be unsafe.
For something bad to happen in CTC territory, the equipment in the field would have to be defective or somebody would have to run a signal.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
jeffhergertOn another site, someone who works for BNSF posted the eastbound went past the signal that was, or should've been, red at 66 mph. It continued east for 3/4 of a mile before hitting the westbound train. The westbound, the one from which the engineer jumped, was going 39mph.
Interesting information that adds some general circumstances to the incident.
Based on the studies I have done, generally there are three types of outcomes when a train passes a signal displaying stop.
The train stops within about 500 feet past the signal. The engineer intended to stop the train but either the train didn't stop as fast as he thought or he was a bit late starting the braking or he was cutting it too close. He knew the signal was stop and intended to stop.
The train stops with a half mile or so past the signal. The engineer thought the signal would be something else or didn't see it until he was right on it, in any case he was "surprised" and didn't start braking until he was right on it. He didn't see the stop until it was too late, but he did see it and stopped.
The last case the trains go for long distances, miles, typically until somebody else stops them or they hit something. In these cases the crew either never saw the signal, misread the signal or read the wrong signal. The crew did not have an intention of stopping because in their mind they either didn't know they passed a stop or didn't think they had to stop.
If the train was 3/4 mile past the signal doing 60+ mph it falls into category 3.
I wonder about environmental factors. EWD train, signals on the south side of the ROW, early morning, sun to the east, low, slightly to the south of the tracks.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
cx500 Deggesty: Assuming the signal logic was correct (nearly a certainty), the crossover would have been lined for the proper movement of the other train. This would have been checked very early in the investigation to see if the switch had been run through. Most turnouts will allow a trailing point movement to continue with the only damage being to the switch rods. John
Deggesty:
Assuming the signal logic was correct (nearly a certainty), the crossover would have been lined for the proper movement of the other train. This would have been checked very early in the investigation to see if the switch had been run through. Most turnouts will allow a trailing point movement to continue with the only damage being to the switch rods.
John
May the crewman who jumped be able to tell what signals were seen.
Johnny
Thank you, Dave and Jeff. Had I thought more about the matter, I might have realized that it was a meet--and a crossover had not been, for some yet undiscovered reason, lined for the proper movement.
Now, we wait to see if that was the situation.
BuslistBecause as has been said before, a properly functioning CTC system's field logic would not allow a dispatcher to make such an error. So we would need a malfunctioning signal system and a malfunctioning dispatcher to satisfy you.
Looks like Dave Husman and Jeff Hergert have discussed other ways that the accident could occur. Perhaps you can turn your snarkiness on them?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Overmod It does occur to me though, from what I know of CTC, that a number of simultaneous failures over a reasonably extended period of time would be needed to cause this sort of thing accidentally.
dehusman Deggesty Another question: how is it that the various switches were so aligned as to put two opposing trains on the same track? Could it be that there were sufficient signals between the switches that put them on the same track that there would have been stop aspects in both directions? Once again with out confirmation, this is just informed speculation. Actually it is somewhat teh opposite of what you are suggesting. The appearance is that both trains were operating on the same main track in opposite directions. Panhandle, TX is the location of a "universal crossover", where a train in either direction could crossover to the other main track. The most likely scenario was that the dispatcher was intending to cross one of the trains over to the other main track. He would have had one of the crossovers lined for the crossover movement with a route established through that crossover. All the other routes into the control point would have been displaying stop indications (with approach and advance approach indications preceding). The appearance is that the train NOT being crossed over approached the control point and failed to stop at the stop indication, probably running through the switch and hitting the train that was going to crossover head on. Holding a train to cross an opposing train over in front of it is a common, normal move. Once the train that was going to hold, failed to stop and entered the control point it would have sounded an alarm in the dispatch office and dropped all the signals into the control point to stop. If the trains were close to the control point, by the time that happened there would not have been much time to react and not really enough time to avoid a collision. Does anybody know which main the trains were on and whether the collision occurred east or west of the crossover? That will tell you which train was supposed to be stopped and which train was supposed to have a proceed signal. If the the collision was east of the crossover then the eastward train was supposed to stop and vice versa.
Deggesty Another question: how is it that the various switches were so aligned as to put two opposing trains on the same track? Could it be that there were sufficient signals between the switches that put them on the same track that there would have been stop aspects in both directions?
Another question: how is it that the various switches were so aligned as to put two opposing trains on the same track? Could it be that there were sufficient signals between the switches that put them on the same track that there would have been stop aspects in both directions?
Once again with out confirmation, this is just informed speculation.
Actually it is somewhat teh opposite of what you are suggesting. The appearance is that both trains were operating on the same main track in opposite directions.
Panhandle, TX is the location of a "universal crossover", where a train in either direction could crossover to the other main track. The most likely scenario was that the dispatcher was intending to cross one of the trains over to the other main track. He would have had one of the crossovers lined for the crossover movement with a route established through that crossover. All the other routes into the control point would have been displaying stop indications (with approach and advance approach indications preceding).
The appearance is that the train NOT being crossed over approached the control point and failed to stop at the stop indication, probably running through the switch and hitting the train that was going to crossover head on.
Holding a train to cross an opposing train over in front of it is a common, normal move.
Once the train that was going to hold, failed to stop and entered the control point it would have sounded an alarm in the dispatch office and dropped all the signals into the control point to stop. If the trains were close to the control point, by the time that happened there would not have been much time to react and not really enough time to avoid a collision.
Does anybody know which main the trains were on and whether the collision occurred east or west of the crossover? That will tell you which train was supposed to be stopped and which train was supposed to have a proceed signal. If the the collision was east of the crossover then the eastward train was supposed to stop and vice versa.
On another site, someone who works for BNSF posted the eastbound went past the signal that was, or should've been, red at 66 mph. It continued east for 3/4 of a mile before hitting the westbound train. The westbound, the one from which the engineer jumped, was going 39mph. This person said the westbound was lined into a siding, but also used the designation of main track #1. In either case, the eastbound was to have been held until the westbound moved onto a different track. FWIW.
As Dave said, being held at a controlled crossover in CTC/2 main track territory for an opposing train to crossover is a routine move.
Jeff
schlimm What official "ruled out dispatcher error"? How do we know the signals were operating properly? Links? I ask because I see nothing in prior posts that establishes that definitively. Perhaps I overlooked a posted link?
I ask because I see nothing in prior posts that establishes that definitively. Perhaps I overlooked a posted link?
Because as has been said before, a properly functioning CTC system's field logic would not allow a dispatcher to make such an error. So we would need a malfunctioning signal system and a malfunctioning dispatcher to satisfy you.
Overmod Euclid The one part that I am interested in is the conclusion that no brakes were applied on one of the trains prior to impact. I can understand how a video could reinforce that conclusion, but I have not seen the video that is said to indicate that. And I can no longer find it to post a link for you, either. So my claim about 'little or no braking' has to be held in abeyance until I can produce proper evidence. (This is no great loss because I'm advocating that we wait for at least the preliminary NTSB investigation results before we fire up an actual discussion...) About that video, I also wonder how it just happened that anyone happened to video the scene so near the start of the collision. And I wonder exactly where the video begins in relation to the approach, locomotive impact, and continuation of the colliding trains. In the clip I saw, filming commenced several seconds after the actual impact, perhaps enough time for the person to react, start the camera up (on video), and commence recording. I don't remember if there was any shaking at the beginning that would indicate the camera first being pointed and focused on the scene. There was evidence of a very large initial shock as a rising smoke ball in white and gray smoke, roughly oval and rising faster than expanding, with additional smoke rising with a couple of seconds' delay. I would estimate the actual collision to have been a number of seconds earlier (and it would be possible to work backward from the rate of evolution shown in the video frames to extrapolate the moment of impact). I have seen no evidence that anyone was filming the approach of the trains, or captured the 'moment of impact'. I have not read any account by the New couple about what they were doing at the time, how they came to record the scene, or how they provided it to channel 7; my suspicion is that we will hear this principally through the NTSB and not from 'the media'. Not to be paranoid about this, but it seems that the clip I saw has been edited to show a very different, and later, view of the accident. This might have been the result of unintentional use of video from a different accident, so I'm not going to suggest that potentially sensitive or incriminating evidence is being held until after the investigators can assess it.
Euclid The one part that I am interested in is the conclusion that no brakes were applied on one of the trains prior to impact. I can understand how a video could reinforce that conclusion, but I have not seen the video that is said to indicate that.
And I can no longer find it to post a link for you, either. So my claim about 'little or no braking' has to be held in abeyance until I can produce proper evidence. (This is no great loss because I'm advocating that we wait for at least the preliminary NTSB investigation results before we fire up an actual discussion...)
About that video, I also wonder how it just happened that anyone happened to video the scene so near the start of the collision. And I wonder exactly where the video begins in relation to the approach, locomotive impact, and continuation of the colliding trains.
In the clip I saw, filming commenced several seconds after the actual impact, perhaps enough time for the person to react, start the camera up (on video), and commence recording. I don't remember if there was any shaking at the beginning that would indicate the camera first being pointed and focused on the scene.
There was evidence of a very large initial shock as a rising smoke ball in white and gray smoke, roughly oval and rising faster than expanding, with additional smoke rising with a couple of seconds' delay. I would estimate the actual collision to have been a number of seconds earlier (and it would be possible to work backward from the rate of evolution shown in the video frames to extrapolate the moment of impact).
I have seen no evidence that anyone was filming the approach of the trains, or captured the 'moment of impact'. I have not read any account by the New couple about what they were doing at the time, how they came to record the scene, or how they provided it to channel 7; my suspicion is that we will hear this principally through the NTSB and not from 'the media'.
Not to be paranoid about this, but it seems that the clip I saw has been edited to show a very different, and later, view of the accident. This might have been the result of unintentional use of video from a different accident, so I'm not going to suggest that potentially sensitive or incriminating evidence is being held until after the investigators can assess it.
Overmod,
I understand your points. Maybe the video was by someone who saw the actual crash and began to recorded it in just a few more seconds.
I understand you to be suggesting that this video showed fast moving rolling stock a short interval after the impact (maybe a few seconds). Then that suggests that there was no significant deceleration from track speed prior to the collision.
I would think that the two trains would see each other to be on a collision course while at least a mile apart, judging by the terrain shown at the site. So train at or near track speed at the point of impact seems unlikely.
schlimmWhat official "ruled out dispatcher error"? How do we know the signals were operating properly?
I see your point.
We should find out the definitive status in the preliminary NTSB report. Anything aside from hypotheticals before then would be just speculation.
It does occur to me though, from what I know of CTC, that a number of simultaneous failures over a reasonably extended period of time would be needed to cause this sort of thing accidentally. Buslist might want to comment on what would be involved, and perhaps rule out intentional or negligent 'dispatcher's action' as a likely source of error based on his knowledge of the technology.
Overmod schlimm Overmod Do we actually know that for a fact in this case? Sheesh, it's common sense. How many 'reasons' could there be for it to happen, especially since we've already ruled 'dispatcher error' out entirely? Suicide pact? Alleged terrorism? Sunlight in just the wrong place in a searchlight signal? It's not normal to run trains through red signals and into other trains at high speed. So it is at least appropriate to look at reasons that might produce such an observed result ... and to start ruling out those that couldn't.
schlimm Overmod Do we actually know that for a fact in this case?
Overmod
Do we actually know that for a fact in this case?
Sheesh, it's common sense. How many 'reasons' could there be for it to happen, especially since we've already ruled 'dispatcher error' out entirely? Suicide pact? Alleged terrorism? Sunlight in just the wrong place in a searchlight signal?
It's not normal to run trains through red signals and into other trains at high speed. So it is at least appropriate to look at reasons that might produce such an observed result ... and to start ruling out those that couldn't.
What official "ruled out dispatcher error"? How do we know the signals were operating properly? Links?
So far, no mention of the surviving crew member. I haven't heard anything regarding his condition or if he's been interviewed by NTSB.
Anyone suppose he could shed some light on the subject?
Norm
EuclidThe one part that I am interested in is the conclusion that no brakes were applied on one of the trains prior to impact. I can understand how a video could reinforce that conclusion, but I have not seen the video that is said to indicate that.
Euclid ".................................................. About that video, I also wonder how it just happened that anyone happened to video the scene so near the start of the collision. ............
"..................................................
About that video, I also wonder how it just happened that anyone happened to video the scene so near the start of the collision. ............
1)RR buff filming trains, or
2)Person sees 2 trains on one track closing on each other.
I see what you are saying. In my sentence containing "other wrecks", I was not referring to the inclusion of other wrecks into this discussion. Instead, what I meant was how some posts here are discussing the general effect of sleep problems as they might apply to all train wrecks. I agree that we should not confuse this thread with discussion of other wrecks unless it is made entirely clear which wreck is being referred to and what a relevant connection might be.
I definitely see your point about no brakes applying prior to impact on one of the trains seems to strongly indicate some form of unconsciousness on the part of the engineer and conductor. That could have been due to sleep. However, it could also indicate a medical condition on the part of the engineer, and sleep on the part of the conductor; or several other variations.
The one part that I am interested in is the conclusion that no brakes were applied on one of the trains prior to impact. I can understand how a video could reinforce that conclusion, but I have not seen the video that is said to indicate that.
OvermodThere are limited reasons for why a crew of two would run a red board and collide head-on with another train at high speed.
EuclidWhat is the basis for introducing the discussion of crewmembers falling asleep and causing this wreck...
There isn't any, other than a supposition. There are limited reasons for why a crew of two would run a red board and collide head-on with another train at high speed. Sleep historically has been blamed for a number of these, so there is a basis to use it as a hypothesis, even in a sense the starting hypothesis for doing the analysis phase of an investigation.
... or other wrecks?
This is where I start having a particular bone to pick with this and similar threads. Some of the 'other wrecks' have little or no bearing on the present situation, but that evidently doesn't stop some people from commenting as if they did.
The basis of item 1 is that no railroader runs a train straight through a CTC red board and into collision with another train without applying the brake. If that is in fact the case, it's a strong indication something kept the crew -- either member of the crew -- from acting. Not just 'with inadequate time', but at all.
"Sleep" is a logical cause of this sort of thing, as seen or at least alleged in the Metro North derailment at Spuyten Duyvil. It remains to be seen if there was any cumulative cause for or likelihood of that occurring, and we presently have none of that information (or any real way to obtain it). So, having duly raised the possibility, the topic now devolves rather quickly into horse-beating until more specific data come in.
One of the things that came to mind, rightly or wrongly, was a freak accident, I think with FTs on a Western road, where the locomotive was moving at just the same speed as atmospheric conditions were blowing the exhaust, and the head-end crew were overcome and died either from anoxia or carbon-monoxide poisoning. I don't remember in that case whether the train stopped via 'dead man pedal' or other safety device, but in the absence of functioning ATS it would have produced just this sort of collision if it had not. And it is the peculiar violence of this collision, in large part, that is behind #1.
Perhaps someone can clarify this point:
What is the basis for introducing the discussion of crewmembers falling asleep and causing this wreck or other wrecks? I can see the topical relationship, but is there any evidence that falling asleep caused this collision in Panhandle, TX?
As I understand it, there are only two points of evidence that sleep played a role in this wreck:
The observation that one train apparently did not apply any brakes before impact.
Besides the crew being asleep, there is no other evidence that supports a cause of the wreck.
I fail to understand the basis of item #1.
Human factors investigation questions. This route is "usually" right hand traffic running. Was the east bound on other track for some reason ? Could it have been that an overtaking eastbound 2nd train was lined to go on the usual eastbound track ? Could crew of collision train observed clear signals on usual eastbound track and called them out instead of the track they were on ?
As an aside why has the 4th crew member not been found ? Also was the surviving crewman on the westbound preparing to do an on ground rollby ?
n012944 Overmod I have to wonder if this is something darker than sleep. That is a very scary thought.
Overmod I have to wonder if this is something darker than sleep.
I have to wonder if this is something darker than sleep.
That is a very scary thought.
Currently, the line is now open and we are seeing traffic passing primarily, yesterday and today, pretty much all domestic can and some TOFC, which have been majority' reefers', TOFC, along with regular-route common carrier trailers. YRC, Ellis, etc.
The following link is from TV11 KCBD in Lubbock,Tx...It contains video and still shots of both side views and aerial shots of the collision scene, as well as the clean up and a side shot of BNSF#7909. Pluse footage of the News Conference held by the Lead NTSB Investigator.
http://www.kcbd.com/story/32338885/ntsb-begins-investigation-into-deadly-train-crash
tree68 Electroliner 1935 I'm with Overmod - under most circumstances, a second set of eyes is invaluable. Assuming the crew asleep angle has validity, one would normally expect that the awake crew member would waken the snoozing crew member. There are a variety of ways that "check and balance" might not work, but I'll not speculate here. There is also the possibility of distraction - f'rinstance a spirited discussion about sports teams or anything else might draw the crew's attention away from the tasks at hand. If they are "old hands" on that line, they might have gotten complacent - comfortable with their ability to run the line despite the distraction. Short of cab video or other "smoking guns," we will probably never know exactly what happened. The event recorders may tell a tale, but they won't tell the reasons for the crew's actions or inactions.
Electroliner 1935
I'm with Overmod - under most circumstances, a second set of eyes is invaluable.
Assuming the crew asleep angle has validity, one would normally expect that the awake crew member would waken the snoozing crew member. There are a variety of ways that "check and balance" might not work, but I'll not speculate here.
There is also the possibility of distraction - f'rinstance a spirited discussion about sports teams or anything else might draw the crew's attention away from the tasks at hand. If they are "old hands" on that line, they might have gotten complacent - comfortable with their ability to run the line despite the distraction.
Short of cab video or other "smoking guns," we will probably never know exactly what happened. The event recorders may tell a tale, but they won't tell the reasons for the crew's actions or inactions.
Can't speak for BNSF, most of the engines on my carrier have been fitted with the forward facing DVR - IF (and it is a BIG IF) the DVR and it's data as well as the event recorder data survived the fire they will be a a treasure trove of hard data as to what took place - they may not answer why, but they will answer what DID take place.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Electroliner 1935Also, doesn't this accident nulify the claim that a second crew person in the cab adds safety?
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
BaltACD Euclid Overmod The video begins several seconds after the actual collision; it would be possible to derive a time reference by reversing the evolution of the original 'fireball'. It looked to me as if the visible cars are moving faster than the stated '49mph' and I'm not seeing much if any visible decrease in their speed over the course of the first part of the video. Maybe, maybe not.
Euclid Overmod The video begins several seconds after the actual collision; it would be possible to derive a time reference by reversing the evolution of the original 'fireball'. It looked to me as if the visible cars are moving faster than the stated '49mph' and I'm not seeing much if any visible decrease in their speed over the course of the first part of the video.
Overmod The video begins several seconds after the actual collision; it would be possible to derive a time reference by reversing the evolution of the original 'fireball'. It looked to me as if the visible cars are moving faster than the stated '49mph' and I'm not seeing much if any visible decrease in their speed over the course of the first part of the video.
Maybe, maybe not.
That is not the video I was referring to, that I saw this morning. In the part I saw, the cars are moving 'right to left' at much higher speed, with the initial 'puff' of smoke which I concluded to be from the moment of impact still in a round ball rising at left center of the image, and very little fire or smoke visibly coming up yet. It now appears the cuts provided by Channel 7 are edited down just to show the left-hand train near the moment it stopped.
It is not likely I'm confusing this with a separate video clip by another poster, because I spent a considerable amount of time reading the Facebook posts on the right side of the 'view'.
Electroliner 1935Also, doesn't this accident nullify the claim that a second crew person in the cab adds safety?
Not at all. There are a great many situations -- including, for example, Amtrak 188 -- where an independent brain and pair of eyes are likely to add 'sufficient' safety to prevent accidents. This just happens to be a case ... for whatever reason ... where that didn't matter.
Someone has already commented sarcastically on how 'inward facing cameras' wouldn't have provided safety here. But I actually have to wonder whether a proper 'sleep monitoring' system using cameras (which need not tinhorn to the weed weasels when active, by the way) could have detected an incapacitated crew in enough time to prevent this kind of accident, or at least allow some attempt to mitigate the force of the eventual collision or allow the other crew to get clear.
Schimm:
I AM a retired professional railroader with 38 years of service on the NP-BN-BNSF, all at Northtown (Minneapolis). My service date was 4 7 1966 and my seniority date was 4 13 1966. I was a clerk working in the Operating, Engineering, and Material Departments. When I started we walked up and down tracks checking cars and writing up train lists.
Ed Burns (NP Eddie)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.