Last night (09-12-06) National Geographic channel broadcast a documentary concerning the head on collision of the Super Continental VIA passenger train, and a freight train, near Hinton, Canada in 1986. 23 passengers and crew died.
The conclusion was that the freight crew was at fault, and seemed to focus on continuing medical problems the engineer had. The judge in the case, leading an investigation, apparently "discovered" that the engineer was a diabetic, an alcoholic, had pancreatic problems, and had even had a colostomy. For reasons not clear to me, or anyone else, the freight crew ignored signals, and hit the passenger train at speed. The conductor, being the sole survivor of the freight crew, was in the caboose of the train and failed to hit the emergency brake system when he lost contact with the front end.
It seemed to be a balanced program, except for the following: 1) the engineer was labeled as an alcoholic, despite the findings of the court that there were no drugs or alcohol found in his body, 2) the engineer and head end crew of the Super Continental were not profiled in any way, and 3) the conductor of the freight train appeared to be a liar at worst and confused at best. The entire freight crew was also labeled as "possibly being asleep" on board the train up to the impact point.
My question has to do with the Hinton area and the actions of the passenger train. It would seem to me that the engineer of the Super Continental would have seen some kind of signal when the freight train entered the main line from the passing track it had been on. What actions could the passenger engineer have taken? I find it hard to believe that a competent engineer would approach a meet at speed if he doesn't know where or what the other train is doing.
Is there any discussion on these forums I should be looking at? Any references on line concerning the accident I could look at, besides Wikipedia?
Thanks,
Erik
There is an amazing photograph of the scene on page 14 of the June 1986 Trains.
David Morgan wrote "The Railroad Culture" about this accident on pages 3 to 6 of the June 1987 Trains.
The first paragraph-
"As you read these lines, trains all over the world, from Albainia to Zimbabwe, are converging upon and meeting one another in single-track territory. In each such confrontation, one train is superior through authority granted by timetable, train order, tablet, or signal indication and holds the main line; and the inferior opposing train is directed by such authority into a passing track or siding. And in most such confrontations, a safe meet depends to an overriding extent upon the engineer of the inferior train clearing the main track for the opposing train."
erikthered wrote: ...It seemed to be a balanced program, except for the following: 1) the engineer was labeled as an alcoholic, despite the findings of the court that there were no drugs or alcohol found in his body, 2) the engineer and head end crew of the Super Continental were not profiled in any way... Erik
...It seemed to be a balanced program, except for the following: 1) the engineer was labeled as an alcoholic, despite the findings of the court that there were no drugs or alcohol found in his body, 2) the engineer and head end crew of the Super Continental were not profiled in any way...
Erik, I don't know enough to be able to respond to your other observations and questions, but I do know that if the freight engineer had been a true alcoholic, and if the autopsy had been correct about the absence of alcohol in his system, that would explain a great deal to me. For an alcoholic to operate a train when he had not consumed the substance that makes him feel "right", he would have been in the same state as someone with a migraine or feeling distinctly ill. In other words, he was actually impaired! It would have been better for him to have had a single belt in the hour or two previous to the accident...he would have been more alert and more focused. As odd as it sounds, this is true.
-Crandell
1. The VIA crew was already beyond the last intermediate signal. Their first indication was the headlight of the opposing freight train.
2. Positive train stop (or ATS, or PTC) such as you see in Japan to prevent authority violations is installed only in limited locations and systems in North America. Some rapid-transit systems have it, but the vast majority of the freight railway system, on which Amtrak and VIA are tenants, is not equipped.
S. Hadid
METRO wrote:I caught the last twenty minutes of it (including the conductor's testimony) and the whole thing seemed really sketchy to me. There are still just too many questions in my mind:
METRO wrote: Also I missed the begining, what locomotives were on the CN freight? At the end when it showed them catching the train on the fly and weighting the dead man's button it looked like a GP9.
413 had GP38-2 5586, SD40 5104, SD40 5062, 114 loads, 1 caboose, 6124', 12,804 tons.
Via 4 had FP7 6566, F9B 6633, 5 cars, FP9R 6300, 5 cars.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
I didn't see the show. Hinton does not like it being referred to as " the Hinton train wreck" although everyone does. It happened at Dalehurst, 11.6 miles from Hinton. A siding was not involved. Freight train #413 was on an 11.2 mile section of two tracks so it was running at track speed of 50 MPH. The passenger train would have had a clear signal for the north track and not have had any indication there was anything wrong. The collision was just past the end of double track.
This was at a time when there was only a deadman pedal in the cab and could easily be bypassed by putting something on it to hold it down. This accident had alot to do with railways installing RSC's (reset safety control) or "alerters" which cannot be bypassed ( at least on the CN in Canada for sure) and the crews liked these alot better than deadman pedals.
The conductor on #413 was in the caboose over a mile away. The train was running "normally". It was not very common for a conductor to pull the air on an engineer unless he had good reason to and he must not have thought so.
I can't remember where they found the engineer, whether at the control stand or in the washroom. I think CN management was found partly to blame for letting the engineer back to work. I haven't got an official report which would be good to have because it would have all the facts. A terrible accident. Another few seconds and the passenger would have been on the other track. The passenger train was completely innocent, just at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Barry
Thanks Dale,
I knew I was saving all these magazines for a reason. I would say David Morgan's "the Railroad Culture" is right on. It also reminded me of alot of the facts in the accident.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.