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.
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.
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.
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
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?
I ask because I see nothing in prior posts that establishes that definitively. Perhaps I overlooked a posted link?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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?
Johnny
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.
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.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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
May the crewman who jumped be able to tell what signals were seen.
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.
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/)
10 pm Eastern time - I am becoming concerned about the fourth crew member - has his/her remains been found with the media having turned their attention elsewhere? :( I've been on site after a few tractor-trailer disasters, but unstacking a train wreck is in a completely different universe.
Here's the information I have.
"The eastbound train approx an hour out of Amarillo blew by a flashing yellow and thru the red at 67 mph and hit at that speed. Doesn't look like he ever took any action. The westbound moving at 44 mph got a red signal, plugged it and was down to 37 mph at impact. The westbound engineer jumped and survived, the female conductor did not jump and is presumed deceased. They have now stopped recovery efforts believing she was basically vaporized. The remains of the eastbound crew were recovered.The pile of containers included 18 well cars on the westbound train piled up and on fire.So, it appears the impact was at a combined speed of 104 mph! Counted as destroyed are 3 lives, 8 locomotives and a lot of cars, containers and lading."
From the West Coast
A visit to Summit in Cajon Pass (Southern California) was made Saturday morning, July 2, 2016, with the expectation of seeing possibly a bunch of BNSF westbounds. But, the only westbound at Summit was a Los Angeles & Salt Lake (UP).
A return to Summit was made in early evening, but the situation was even worse. So, the conclusion was reached that the Texas log jam made it to the West Coast in record time, or hadn’t gotten here yet. There did seem to be a bit more eastbounds than usual in Cajon Pass.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
Buslist"The eastbound train approx an hour out of Amarillo blew by a flashing yellow and thru the red at 67 mph and hit at that speed. Doesn't look like he ever took any action.
I don't think that there is a rule requiring dispatchers to notify crews of train meets, but, maybe there ought to be. If nothing else, it should be an unwritten rule. The more information a train crew has, the better they can adapt to changing conditions.
.
Overmod 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.
I don't understand this point from your last paragraph above:
"it seems that the clip I saw has been edited to show a very different, and later, view of the accident."
In relation to what is it "different and later"?
The only video that I have seen that shows one train still in motion is the one available that shows what appears to be the last couple seconds of movement of one of the colliding trains. Just to clarify, I assume that you are not referring to that video.
This must be the video that you refer to where one of the trains is moving fast. It is the second video down in this linked story:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Several-videos-capture-moments-after-trains-8331885.php
From the link. The word "videos" is a direct link to the video showing that train in motion:
“In one of the videos, two girls caught the derailment and collision as it happened. In the video, the carts are seen traveling at a moderate rate of speed before slamming into carts further ahead in the track.
The carts piled until the trains stopped moving and the cloud of black smoke, initially small at the beginning of the video, grows.”
Also, in this same link, there is a video with the live link reference: Same moment, from other side
That is the other video we have talked about that shows just the last few seconds of movement of the colliding train. Apparently someone else on the opposite side of the tracks shot this video.
BigJim Buslist "The eastbound train approx an hour out of Amarillo blew by a flashing yellow and thru the red at 67 mph and hit at that speed. Doesn't look like he ever took any action. I wonder if the dispatcher had notified both trains that they would be meeting at this point? (It doesn't appear that he did.) Correct me if I am wrong, but, I seem to remember that BNSF does not require its crews to call all signals over the radio as NS does. If both trains had known there was to be a meet at this point, then, the absense of signal calling could be a sign that something wasn't right. I don't think that there is a rule requiring dispatchers to notify crews of train meets, but, maybe there ought to be. If nothing else, it should be an unwritten rule. The more information a train crew has, the better they can adapt to changing conditions.
Buslist "The eastbound train approx an hour out of Amarillo blew by a flashing yellow and thru the red at 67 mph and hit at that speed. Doesn't look like he ever took any action.
I wonder if the dispatcher had notified both trains that they would be meeting at this point? (It doesn't appear that he did.) Correct me if I am wrong, but, I seem to remember that BNSF does not require its crews to call all signals over the radio as NS does. If both trains had known there was to be a meet at this point, then, the absense of signal calling could be a sign that something wasn't right.
BigJimI don't think that there is a rule requiring dispatchers to notify crews of train meets, but, maybe there ought to be. If nothing else, it should be an unwritten rule. The more information a train crew has, the better they can adapt to changing conditions.
But then you run the risk of crews getting too dependent on a dispatcher. I know most of our dispatchers always try to give a heads up of when you may be stopping, but they're in an office far away. We're the ones staring at the pretty lights along the tracks. Responsibility is all ours.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
BigJim I don't think that there is a rule requiring dispatchers to notify crews of train meets, but, maybe there ought to be. If nothing else, it should be an unwritten rule. The more information a train crew has, the better they can adapt to changing conditions.
Bad idea. That leads to dependency. Especially on a two main track CTC railroad. Telling the crew about unusual situations? Absolutely. Using the radio to supplement the signal system? No.
An "expensive model collector"
Oh, my, YES! For a whole lot of reasons.....
Why not just give the train crew the dispatcher's track line view of the railroad...
If this collision was caused as speculated here, how would have more advanced information presented to the crew prevented the collision? What would they have done different if they had more information?
oltmanndWhy not just give the train crew the dispatcher's track line view of the railroad...
No more room for another screen in these engines.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.