Trains.com

RIO Tinto unmanned train collides with stopped train.

6533 views
46 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
RIO Tinto unmanned train collides with stopped train.
Posted by blue streak 1 on Monday, May 13, 2024 11:35 AM

Loaded no crew train runs into stopped broken down empty.  Have to wonder if  communications was lost to loaded train?  Could it be that the Aurora Borelis messed up coms to train or maybe the GPS signals were compromised?  

Automated Rio Tinto iron ore train derails in WA - ABC News

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, May 13, 2024 11:45 AM

22 cars and 3 locomotives damaged; pictures show a pretty good pileup.

The plot thickens: the out-of-control train was apparently the empty, dispatched as a 'recovery train' for a stalled loaded consist.  Precisely how the empty train was going to assist the loaded one in the absence of human workers is not yet clear.  In my opinion a complete consist was dispatched in order to have rapid response without human tinkering, ECP brake testing, etc. associated with cutting power off a standing empty train.  Again, this is something I expect to see clarified within a reasonably short time.

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, May 14, 2024 3:34 PM

Sending additional POWER to assist the stalled train I understand.  Sending a full size empty train to assist the stalled one I look in askance.

Obviously whatever technological mechanisms Rio Tinto thought they had in place to pull off the coupling and then moving of the stalled loaded train FAILED and not by a little bit.  The stalled train, being loaded, would have been the immovable object.

What is not stated was the coupling to have been done under autonomous 'control' or was some form of remote control to have been used in bringing the two TRAINS together in a safe manner in order for the combined trains to begin their move toward the destination of the stalled loaded train.

Would the Sun Spots storm that brought the Northern Lights to the many 'unusual' locations over the weekend have disrupted what ever control technology that Rio Tinto has been using for their autonomous operations?

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Tuesday, May 14, 2024 7:17 PM

On another site, it was said there were employees working on the disabled train. They were warned in advance to evacuate the area.

Our PTC will provide a 2 minute warning if the GPS signal is lost. If the engineer does not acknowledge the warning and take action, after the time out the system will initiate penalty braking to stop the train. At least that's what's supposed to happen. 

I would expect their automated train should do the same if it lost communication or GPS.

I've heard a few instances where our EMS auto throttle would not release auto control when manual control was requested by the engineer. They had to bring the train to a stop to disengage the auto throttle control. It's rare, it's not supposed to happen, but it has.

Jeff

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, May 15, 2024 12:03 PM
My guess is that only the stalled train was set up for; and had been running with autonomous operation.  But there would be no program for autonomously operating the slowly approaching rescue train. So that train was being operated by remote control. 
 
For some reason, the remote control operator lost control. 
  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Wednesday, May 15, 2024 5:18 PM

Euclid
My guess is that only the stalled train was set up for; and had been running with autonomous operation.  But there would be no program for autonomously operating the slowly approaching rescue train. So that train was being operated by remote control. 
 
For some reason, the remote control operator lost control. 
 

I don't believe that they are set up for over the road remote control operation, except for initiating a command to stop.  Even if it is, loss of communication should cause a remotely operated train to stop.

The LEADER energy management system used in the US makes up part of the automation package that Rio Tinto uses.

Jeff

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, May 15, 2024 5:37 PM

jeffhergert
 
Euclid
My guess is that only the stalled train was set up for; and had been running with autonomous operation.  But there would be no program for autonomously operating the slowly approaching rescue train. So that train was being operated by remote control. 
 
For some reason, the remote control operator lost control.  

I don't believe that they are set up for over the road remote control operation, except for initiating a command to stop.  Even if it is, loss of communication should cause a remotely operated train to stop.

The LEADER energy management system used in the US makes up part of the automation package that Rio Tinto uses.

Jeff

I heard, and don't know for a fact, that DPU's operate at their last commanded setting for some period of time after communications with the head end is lost.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, May 15, 2024 5:59 PM

jeffhergert

 

 
Euclid
My guess is that only the stalled train was set up for; and had been running with autonomous operation.  But there would be no program for autonomously operating the slowly approaching rescue train. So that train was being operated by remote control. 
 
For some reason, the remote control operator lost control. 
 

 

 

I don't believe that they are set up for over the road remote control operation, except for initiating a command to stop.  Even if it is, loss of communication should cause a remotely operated train to stop.

The LEADER energy management system used in the US makes up part of the automation package that Rio Tinto uses.

Jeff

 

Were both trains originally operating in autonomous mode, and then were stopped when the leading train had a failure of some sort?  If so, at that point, both trains would be stopped. I assume the second train was stopped some distance short of the first train by detecting the fouling first train ahead. Then they decided to move the trailing train ahead to tie onto the leading train to pull (or push) it into a siding to clear the mainline.
 
So in that process, once the two trains were initially stopped, they had to move the following train ahead to couple with the leading train.  How would they control the following train when moving it up to the leading train?  If they don’t have the ability to move the second train by remote control, how could they move it other than by sending another crew out to handle the second train?
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, May 15, 2024 6:02 PM

On CSX when I was working - it was against the Train Handling Rules for power WITH TRAIN to assist another train.  The power had to be cut off from its own train in order to assist a stalled train  - head end or rear end assist - it didn't matter.  Only the power was to do the assisting.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, May 15, 2024 6:20 PM

Euclid

 

 
jeffhergert

 

 
Euclid
My guess is that only the stalled train was set up for; and had been running with autonomous operation.  But there would be no program for autonomously operating the slowly approaching rescue train. So that train was being operated by remote control. 
 
For some reason, the remote control operator lost control. 
 

 

 

I don't believe that they are set up for over the road remote control operation, except for initiating a command to stop.  Even if it is, loss of communication should cause a remotely operated train to stop.

The LEADER energy management system used in the US makes up part of the automation package that Rio Tinto uses.

Jeff

 

 

 

Were both trains originally operating in autonomous mode, and then were stopped when the leading train had a failure of some sort?  If so, at that point, both trains would be stopped. I assume the second train was stopped some distance short of the first train by detecting the fouling first train ahead. Then they decided to move the trailing train ahead to tie onto the leading train to pull (or push) it into a siding to clear the mainline.
 
So in that process, once the two trains were initially stopped, they had to move the following train ahead to couple with the leading train.  How would they control the following train when moving it up to the leading train?  If they don’t have the ability to move the second train by remote control, how could they move it other than by sending another crew out to handle the second train?
 

Jeff, 

Continuing my thoughts from previous post:

I understand what you are saying about loss of communication should have caused the remotely operated train to stop.
 
However, if it was possible to use remote control to move the second train forward and tie onto the first train, and if this was being done; my thought was that the remote operator handling the remote control might have lost control of the train, by some type of mistake like misjudging the location of the stalled train.  Then when the operator realized he was lost, it was too late to get the train stopped.  And since there would have been no loss of communication, the train would not automatically stop. 

 

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,728 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Wednesday, May 15, 2024 7:16 PM

Autonomous operation?  What could go worng?  Whistling

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Wednesday, May 15, 2024 7:41 PM

On Rio Tinto's website, automation section, it appears the only remote control objects are some land rovers and drones.  Trains and heavy trucks are automated in use, with some override capability, probably to stop a vehicle/train that has alarmed for certain malfunctions.  Although their info is limited and simplistic, other than local remote control (assumed) for loading/unloading and switching cars and locomotives in/out for maintenance, there appears no remote operation of trains. 

They stress that their automation across all spectrums of their operation is for the "safety" of their people.  Uh huh.

Not all of their rail operations are automated (yet) the last I knew.  They have some routes that still have manned trains.  I don't know if the route that has autonomous trains is also used by regular manned trains outside of terminal areas.

Here's a video about setting up the auto haul (autonomous) system.  Read some of the comments, including some by the poster who made the video - one of which you have to click on the unseen replys.

Jeff

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • 1,690 posts
Posted by Erik_Mag on Wednesday, May 15, 2024 10:11 PM

BaltACD

On CSX when I was working - it was against the Train Handling Rules for power WITH TRAIN to assist another train.  The power had to be cut off from its own train in order to assist a stalled train  - head end or rear end assist - it didn't matter.  Only the power was to do the assisting.

 

I had an experience of being on an Amtrak train where the locomotive was used to push a disabled NCTD Coaster train out of the way with the train I was riding on still coupled. I had another experience where the Amtrak train I was riding on was coupled to another Amtrak train beacuse the ditch light on my drain had failed.

Having said that, I can see the logic behind the CSX rule.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, May 15, 2024 11:35 PM

Erik_Mag
 
BaltACD

On CSX when I was working - it was against the Train Handling Rules for power WITH TRAIN to assist another train.  The power had to be cut off from its own train in order to assist a stalled train  - head end or rear end assist - it didn't matter.  Only the power was to do the assisting. 

I had an experience of being on an Amtrak train where the locomotive was used to push a disabled NCTD Coaster train out of the way with the train I was riding on still coupled. I had another experience where the Amtrak train I was riding on was coupled to another Amtrak train beacuse the ditch light on my drain had failed.

Having said that, I can see the logic behind the CSX rule.

Passenger oprators have different requirements than do freight operators.  Passengers would not respond favorably if the locomotive supplying HEP (lights & heat/cooling) to the cars was cut away and the occupied cars were left without HEP.

The engines of freight carriers ARE NOT HEP equipped.  When Amtrak has an engine failure and freight power is brought to the 'rescue' - the Amtrak engine will stay couple to the train to supply HEP even if the engine is not able to supply traction power.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • 1,690 posts
Posted by Erik_Mag on Thursday, May 16, 2024 1:25 AM

Understood, doesn't surprise me that freight and passenger trains would have different rules.

Passenger train locomotives typically have a lot of tractive effort to spare in comparison with what's needed to get the train moving. Freight train locomotives may have very little tractive effort to spare and thus would be of little help in assisting another freight train if still coupled to their train.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, May 16, 2024 9:16 AM

Erik_Mag
Understood, doesn't surprise me that freight and passenger trains would have different rules.

Passenger train locomotives typically have a lot of tractive effort to spare in comparison with what's needed to get the train moving. Freight train locomotives may have very little tractive effort to spare and thus would be of little help in assisting another freight train if still coupled to their train.

Passenger service locomotives are geared much differently than are freight locomotives.  Passenger engines are geared for speed, freight engines are geared for pulling power.  Today's AC traction freight engines no longer have the 'Short Time' ratings that their DC traction predecessors.

In the days of railroad operated passenger service - the B&O would use manned helpers to assist the large passenger train consists over the mountains West of Cumberland.  The E type passenger engines the B&O operated had minimum continuous speeds in the neighborhood of 25 MPH - if the train on the grade was moving at less than MCS the power would be navigating the Short Time ratings.  The grades of Sand Patch, 17 Mile and Cranberry would have the E units operting in the Short Time area when being opeated in the 8th notch attacking the grades.  Helpers both steam and diesel, over the years would allow the E units to be operated at lower throttle settings and thus stay out of Short Time rating.

The Short Time ratings are based on the amperes the traction motors are consuming - the more they are stressed, the more amperes they consume.  At MCS and above the traction motors can dissipate the heat generated by the amperes being used 'forever'.  Once the traction motors drop below MCS, the increased amperes being handled generate more heat in the traction motors than the cooling system can dissipate and damage the traction motors.

21st Century Amtrak train sizes are only a fraction of the size of the trains the B&O was operating in the days of railroad passenger service.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Thursday, May 16, 2024 11:08 AM
Regarding the Rio Tinto wreck:
 
Actually, in reading all of the few news reports of this mishap, I am left with no clear idea of what occurred. 
 
The only thing I can deduce is that there were two trains.  One was loaded with ore, and the other was empty.  Apparently the empty train had a power malfunction, and was stopped and unable to move on its own.
 
Somehow, the following train collided with the stopped leading train, which caused a derailment.  During the collision, the empty (leading) train was stopped, and it was struck by the loaded (following) train.  Prior to this event, both trains had been operating autonomously at some distance apart. There is an indication that the malfunctioning train was intended to be moved by the loaded train. 
 
At the time of the collision, the loaded train was not being operated manually by an onboard crew.  I don’t know if it was being operated by its autonomous mode.  In any case, if it was approaching the malfunctioning stopped train ahead, the following loaded train would have approached the stopped empty train slowly with the intent to couple to it. 
 
If the only remote command possible in the autonomous mode was to stop; successfully approaching the leading train with the intent of tying onto it seems like a high wire act.  It also seems impossible that the autonomous system would allow the following train to be moved forward after automatically stopping the following train due to the presence of the stopped and fouling leading train ahead.
 

The apparent fault for the collision is that the loaded train did not stop in time as it approached the malfunctioning train, which was stopped.  If there was a plan, it failed.  But if there was a plan, what could it have been?  

  • Member since
    January 2012
  • 36 posts
Posted by Greasemonkey on Friday, May 17, 2024 12:07 AM

You seem to have it backwards.  The loaded train was disabled by a mechanical failure according to the articles I have seen.  An empty rescue train was sent to push the loaded train to get it where they wanted it.

You wouldn't see loaded and empty trains travelling in the same direction on these tracks, as the loadout for the empties feeds loaded trains to the dump at the port.  There is no reason for an empty train to be travelling to the port.  The empty rescue train was sent specifically to assist the stalled loaded train.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Friday, May 17, 2024 10:14 AM

The loaded train that was following the empty train was intended to rescue the empty train which was standing still. The loaded train was in autonomous mode when it struck the stationary empty train. 

 
News reports that because the loaded train was in autonomous mode, there was nobody onboard to see the collision course with the empty, stationary train. 
 
So the plan was for the loaded train to approach the stationary, empty train while reducing speed to the point of being able to successfully couple with the stationary train. 
 
Here is my question:
 
Was it possible for this slowing approach of the loaded train to be controlled by the autonomous mode?
 
If not, why would they attempt such a move?  If they intended to make this move for slowing and coupling to the empty train, how could they have operated the loaded train during that move? 
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, May 17, 2024 11:14 AM

If the empty train was the 'stalled' train - it would have been on an ascending grade area - otherwise it could have used gravity to drift down a descending grade.

The Rio Tinto loaded trains are normally 30K, 40K or 50K tons?  If the stalled empty train is on a ascending grade - that means the loaded train coming to rescue it is thereby on a DESCENDING grade with the load of its train making it even harder to control.

DUMB DUMB DUMB

My experience (pre PSR, pre DPU) has no relation to Rio Tinto.  In the territories I have worked - loaded and empty coal trains normally had the same power complement.  Two units for each train.  Normally engine failures happened on LOADED trains and the fix was to have an empty train give up one of their units at a meeting point.  If a empty train had an issue with one engine, then other engine would be sufficient to take the train to destination.

I have no idea how Rio Tinto operates their autonomous operations.  I do know that trying to safely handle tonnage moving downgrade is a difficult undertaking.

Grades are pesky things - both up and down.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Friday, May 17, 2024 12:53 PM
Here is what I think happened:
 
The loaded train was some considerable distance from the empty train when the empty train malfunctioned and stopped.  They had workers onsite after the empty train malfunction. 
 
So, intending to use the loaded train to move the empty train, they allowed the loaded train to approach at track speed because there was no reason to slow it down until it got close. 
 
I assume they have some type of block system that either includes wayside signals or at least keeps trains properly separated for the autonomous operation.
 
So the plan was to let the loaded train move in to the area and be stopped by the block system due to the presence of the stationary malfunctioning train.  Then to move it ahead to couple to the stopped train, they would have put a human operator onto the loaded train to bring it ahead and make the joint.
 
For some reason, the automatic block system failed to perform its function, so the train headed right into the stalled train at track speed.
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, May 17, 2024 3:58 PM

Euclid
Here is what I think happened: 
The loaded train was some considerable distance from the empty train when the empty train malfunctioned and stopped.  They had workers onsite after the empty train malfunction. 
 
So, intending to use the loaded train to move the empty train, they allowed the loaded train to approach at track speed because there was no reason to slow it down until it got close. 
 
I assume they have some type of block system that either includes wayside signals or at least keeps trains properly separated for the autonomous operation.
 
So the plan was to let the loaded train move in to the area and be stopped by the block system due to the presence of the stationary malfunctioning train.  Then to move it ahead to couple to the stopped train, they would have put a human operator onto the loaded train to bring it ahead and make the joint.
 
For some reason, the automatic block system failed to perform its function, so the train headed right into the stalled train at track speed.

This accident is why you don't have complete trains assist each other - no matter if the trains are manned or autonomous.  Two COMPLETE trains are difficult to handle in the confined quarters necessitated by their coupling.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,310 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Friday, May 17, 2024 4:33 PM

      I think we need to go back to the story in the original post:

 

"The Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator (ONRSR) said it received a report about a collision between a loaded ore train and a recovery train.

"The recovery train is reported to have collided with the ore train it was sent to recover after it was disabled by a mechanical failure," a spokesman said in a statement."

 

       "loaded ore train"   and   "recovery train"

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,310 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Friday, May 17, 2024 4:54 PM

   Actually, if I understand what they intended to do, it might have worked.  They just made the coupling a little too fast.

   I assume they don't use EOT devices.

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 4,269 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Friday, May 17, 2024 5:05 PM

BaltACD

This accident is why you don't have complete trains assist each other - no matter if the trains are manned or autonomous.  Two COMPLETE trains are difficult to handle in the confined quarters necessitated by their coupling.

I beg to differ, provided that you have a good engineer and the combined power is enough to move both trains. 

This happens sometimes on one of our hills in the mountains west of Jasper.  Why make the conductor tie down your train and clog things up for even longer when you can keep it and still push the stalled guy ahead of you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuOl5kvxZxs&t=384s

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Friday, May 17, 2024 5:25 PM

BaltACD
  Two COMPLETE trains are difficult to handle in the confined quarters necessitated by their coupling.

I mean, we do it in yards all the time.   

This soudns like a failure of the automation system at first glance?  If it was, it will be buried quickly. 

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

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Friday, May 17, 2024 7:37 PM
Actually even though the news says the plan was use the loaded train to move the empty train, they may not have meant that they intended to use the whole loaded train with engines and cars  The intention may have been to just use the power from the loaded train to move the whole empty train. It would not be a leap to say that the loaded train was going to rescue the stranded train even though they meant that they would cut off the cars and only use the power of the loaded train. It is just that it was the “loaded train” that was coming to the rescue.
 
But they also said that the loaded train was operating in autonomous mode, which would offer no means of slowing the train down to tie onto the stalled train. But here again, they may not have meant there was an intention to stay in autonomous mode when taking on the role of helper power. 
 
So they would either stop the approaching loaded train short of the stalled train by remote control, or let the automatic block system stop the train.  Next they would have had one or more of those 5-7 workers at the stalled train board the loaded train after it was stopped and taken out the autonomous mode.  Then the human operator would come ahead with the loaded train and tie onto the stalled train.  So there was a failure to stop the loaded train that was operating in the autonomous mode.  The failure may have been in the autonomous system, or it may have been in the block signal system----or it may have been human error in failing to initiate a remote control stop command soon enough to get the loaded train stopped in time. 
 
But even if such a human error occurred, I would think the automatic block system would a have stopped the loaded train short of the fouling empty train ahead.  The news does sound like a failure of the block system is where they are focusing to find the cause of the collision. 
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, May 17, 2024 10:07 PM

zugmann
 
BaltACD
  Two COMPLETE trains are difficult to handle in the confined quarters necessitated by their coupling. 

I mean, we do it in yards all the time.   

This soudns like a failure of the automation system at first glance?  If it was, it will be buried quickly. 

I haven't seen any yards where you are handling 30K, 40K tons or more downgrade to a coupling.

Suspect it was a failure of automation caused by incompetence of design and implemention of failed logic.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Saturday, May 18, 2024 1:09 AM

Suspect that no  matter who hit whom that procedures for this kind of problem will be changed significantly.  Surely this is not the first instance and what failed this time?

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, May 18, 2024 6:56 AM

I've been boycotting this thread (and will probably go back to boycotting this thread) to help keep my blood pressure in a sensible range.

For the last time: the empty train hit the loaded one, not the other way around.  Is that a clear enough statement for Ron to finally, finally get it?  THE EMPTY TRAIN IS THE ONE THAT WAS DISPATCHED.  THE LOADED TRAIN WAS THE ONE THAT STALLED AND NEEDED HELP.  THE EMPTY TRAIN HIT IT.

It seems that multiple people have told him this, and he keeps bouncing back 'confirming' what they said by repeating the same inanity about the loaded train hitting an empty one.  

We need to wait for the report to hear precisely how the system failed.  (Or whether there were 'employees working on the stalled train' that got early radio warning that a collision was coming...)

It was not a simple failure: the speed of impact was obviously substantial, locomotives first, so any sensors or any systems that consider a point on the locomotive to be the 'front' of a train were obviously not doing their collective job.  I have seen no evidence at all that the empty train was under RCO guidance of the 'usual' kind (which is I believe technically limited to short range in the United States by specific intent) and it might be well to review what the response of a RCO system to any loss of connectivity is (as it specifically has been designed to relate to what may be a very heavy consist being moved at the time). 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy